[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 154 (Wednesday, August 9, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 48799-48820]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-19916]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[FMCSA Docket No. FMCSA-98-3611]


Guidelines for Development of Functional Specifications for 
Performance-Based Brake Testers Used to Inspect Commercial Motor 
Vehicles

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of final determination.

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

SUMMARY: The FMCSA is announcing its final determination establishing 
functional specifications for performance-based brake testing machines 
purchased with Federal funds from the agency's Motor Carrier Safety 
Assistance Program (MCSAP). The FMCSA is nearing the completion of a 
multi-year research program to evaluate prototype performance-based 
brake testing technologies, including roller dynamometers, flat-plate 
testers, breakaway torque testers, an on-board electronic 
decelerometer, and an infrared brake temperature measurement system. To 
date, the FMCSA has determined that certain performance-based brake 
testing machines are eligible for funding under MCSAP, but only as 
screening and sorting devices in commercial vehicle inspections. The 
FMCSA is establishing generic functional specifications that will be 
applicable to a range of brake testing technologies. The States may use 
the functional specifications as guidelines to determine whether the 
purchase of a specific brake tester would be an eligible expense item 
under the MCSAP.

DATES: The effective date for this determination is September 8, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Gary Woodford, Office of Bus and 
Truck

[[Page 48800]]

Standards and Operations, FMCSA, (202) 366-4009, or Charles Medalen, 
Office of the Chief Counsel, HCC-20, (202) 366-1354, Federal Highway 
Administration, Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., 
Washington, D.C. 20590. Office hours are from 7:45 a.m. to 4:15 p.m., 
e.t., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

Electronic Access
Background
Field Test Evaluations
Round Robin Tests
MCSAP Funding Eligibility
PBBT Functional Specifications
Discussions of Comments
Paperwork Reduction Act
Appendix: Functional Performance Specifications

Electronic Access

    Internet users may access all comments received by the U.S. DOT 
Dockets, Room PL-401, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590-
0001, in response to the previous notice on this subject, by using the 
universal resource locator, (URL): http://dms.dot.gov, and referencing 
the docket number at the beginning of this notice. The URL is available 
24 hours each day, 365 days each year. Please follow the instructions 
online for more information and help.
    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded using a modem 
and suitable communications software from the Government Printing 
Office's Electronic Bulletin Board Service at (202) 512-1661. Internet 
users may reach the Office of the Federal Register's home page at: 
http://www.nara.gov/fedreg and the Government Printing Office's 
database at: http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara.

Background

    Assessment of large truck and bus braking capability in the United 
States has traditionally been done using visual- and sensory-based 
inspection methods. These include visual examination of components, 
measurement of push-rod travel on air braked vehicles, and listening 
for air brake system leaks. Truck and bus fleets, repair and 
maintenance facilities, and the enforcement community all generally use 
these methods to look for defective brakes. While these methods have 
been successful, they do have limitations. These include: (1) Falsely 
identifying adequately braked vehicles as unsafe and placing them out-
of-service (OOS), (2) failure to detect brake force-related 
deficiencies that cause no visually apparent defects, and (3) inability 
to inspect the brake systems on more than a small portion of the 
commercial vehicle population due to the time involved. With regard to 
roadside inspections conducted by Federal and State officials, 
guidelines developed by the Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance (CVSA) 
are used to determine when violations of the Federal Motor Carrier 
Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) are severe enough to warrant placing the 
vehicle OOS. These guidelines are known as the North American Uniform 
Vehicle Out-of-Service Criteria, used by officials in the United 
States, Canada, and Mexico.
    In the early 1990s, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) \1\ 
initiated research to evaluate various types of performance-based brake 
testing technologies for application to commercial motor vehicle 
inspections. The purpose of the research was to determine, through 
laboratory investigation, if performance-based brake testers (PBBTs) 
could be used to evaluate commercial vehicle braking capability. A PBBT 
is a device that can assess vehicle braking capability through 
quantitative measure of individual wheel brake forces or overall 
vehicle brake performance in a controlled test. The PBBTs cannot 
replace an inspector in finding brake defects unrelated to immediate 
brake performance, such as air leaks, chafed brake hose, or thin brake 
pads. However, they can provide an objective and consistent measure of 
vehicle braking performance, irrespective of brake type, energy supply, 
or actuation method, and without having to crawl underneath the vehicle 
as with the current inspection method. PBBTs are widely used for brake 
inspection in Europe and Australia, and are beginning to emerge in the 
United States as both an enforcement tool and diagnostic aid for 
private sector maintenance and repair shops.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ On December 9, 1999, the President signed the Motor Carrier 
Safety Improvement Act of 1999 (Public Law 106-159, 113 Stat. 1748), 
which established the FMCSA in the Department of Transportation. 
Prior to that time, the functions that are now carried out by the 
FMCSA were carried out within the FHWA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Field Test Evaluations

    After analyzing various PBBT technologies during the above 
referenced research, the FHWA selected several types for further 
evaluation in roadside field-test inspections. The types selected were 
the: (1) Roller dynamometer, (2) flat-plate tester, (3) breakaway 
torque tester, (4) infrared system, and (5) decelerometer. During the 
field testing, joint roadside inspections with State officials were 
conducted on almost 3,000 commercial vehicles. The joint inspections 
consisted of a CVSA Level 4 inspection \2\ and a PBBT test. Ten States 
and several commercial fleets participated in the program with each 
evaluating a specific type of PBBT. The ten States which volunteered to 
participate in the evaluation were Colorado, Connecticut, Indiana, 
Maryland, Minnesota, Nevada, Ohio, Oregon, West Virginia, and 
Wisconsin. The roller dynamometer, flat-plate, and breakaway torque 
testers were evaluated for at least one year by CVSA Certified State 
Inspectors. The infrared system and decelerometer were also 
investigated in the field, though less extensively than the three other 
types of PBBTs. The PBBTs used in this program were first-and second-
generation prototype machines to which improvements have since been 
made by the PBBT manufacturers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Level 4 inspection is the CVSA designation for a Special 
Inspection, which typically includes a one time examination of a 
particular item in support of a study or to verify or refute a 
suspected trend. In this study the CVSA Level 4 inspection comprised 
the brake and tire portions of a full Level 1 inspection. Level 1 is 
the most thorough inspection, including the tires, brake system, 
driver documents, and a variety of other vehicle safety systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    During the field evaluation testing, data were collected from both 
the CVSA Level 4 inspections and the PBBT measurements. The degree of 
correlation between the two methods was identified. Data on the 
operational characteristics of each PBBT were also collected and 
evaluated, including set-up and tear down times, maintenance 
requirements, calibration, operator skill level needed, user interface, 
and vehicle inspection times. These data on operational characteristics 
were gathered to help in the development of PBBT functional 
specifications, which are the subject of this notice and are discussed 
below in more detail.
    Agreement on individual weak or defective brakes identified by the 
CVSA inspection method versus those identified by a PBBT ranged from 53 
to 88 percent, depending on the type of PBBT. This was considered 
reasonable since the two methodologies assess different brake system 
characteristics. The PBBTs used in the field tests were not necessarily 
faster than the brake-only portion of the CVSA inspection, considering 
time for data entry, driver instruction, and printing of test results. 
However, the times were generally considered comparable. It was 
apparent that 30 to 80 five-axle vehicles per eight-hour workday could 
be screened for further CVSA inspection using one of

[[Page 48801]]

the PBBT technologies. Accurate screening is important since only 
approximately 8 to 12 vehicles per eight-hour workday per inspector can 
be checked using a CVSA Level 1 inspection. \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ A Level 1 inspection usually takes approximately 20 to 30 
minutes if there are no violations of applicable regulations, and 
includes both the driver and the vehicle. The inspector reviews the 
driver's license, medical certificate, record of duty status (or log 
book) and any readily available supporting documents. The inspection 
of the vehicle includes an examination of the brake system, coupling 
devices, exhaust system, frame, fuel system, cargo securement, 
steering system, suspension system, tires, trailer body, wheels, 
rims and hub assemblies, windshield wipers, lights, and horn.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The overall results of the field test evaluations indicated there 
were no insurmountable performance or operational limitations with the 
roller dynamometer, flat-plate, or breakaway torque testers that would 
prevent them from being used for screening purposes or enforcement. 
However, the infrared and decelerometer technologies did present some 
difficulties. In the case of the onboard decelerometer, which measures 
deceleration rate during a vehicle stop, finding a convenient and large 
enough space to perform a panic stop with a commercial motor vehicle 
was at times difficult. Moreover, it is likely that few commercial 
vehicle drivers would be willing to perform a panic stop in other than 
an emergency situation because of the potential damage to onboard 
cargo. Results using the decelerometer were also found to be strongly 
dependent on driver skill. In the case of the infrared system, 
applicability of this technology was found to be limited to the 
detection of inoperative brakes or brakes with push rod stroke 
measurements in excess of 12.7 millimeters (mm) (0.5 inch) beyond the 
recommended adjustment limit. The FMCSA is continuing its research into 
use of the infrared technology as a possible brake screening device for 
vehicles.
    A final report describing in greater detail the results of these 
field test evaluations has been placed in the docket referenced above. 
The report is titled, ``Development, Evaluation, and Application of 
Performance-Based Brake Testing Technologies,'' February 1999, Report 
No. FHWA-MC-98-048. Copies of the report may be purchased from the 
National Technical Information Service (NTIS), Springfield, VA 22161, 
telephone (703) 605-6000. The NTIS accession number for this 
publication is PB99-134454.

Round Robin Tests

    In July 1998, the FHWA conducted a series of round robin tests to 
assess the suitability of PBBTs for use in enforcement. These tests 
were conducted at the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's 
(NHTSA) Vehicle Research and Test Center. The purpose of the tests was 
to evaluate the ability of current generation PBBTs to accurately and 
consistently: (1) Measure the brake forces and wheel loads of 
commercial motor vehicles, and (2) predict the vehicle's deceleration 
capability from a 32.2 kilometers/hour (km/hr) (20 miles per hour 
(mph)) on-road stop.
    The test program involved PBBT tests and 32.2 km/hr (20 mph) stops 
using two different vehicles, which were tested fully laden and 
unladen, with weak brakes on selected wheels. The vehicles were (1) a 
two-axle flatbed straight truck, and (2) a three-axle tractor, two-axle 
flatbed semi-trailer combination. These vehicles were selected for the 
tests because they were considered representative of a majority of the 
commercial vehicle axle configurations on the road. There were eight 
PBBTs used in the testing: five roller dynamometers (two in-ground and 
three portable), two flat-plate testers, and one breakaway torque 
tester.
    The tests indicated that, under most conditions, the accuracy and 
repeatability of most of the PBBT results, regardless of the principle 
of operation, were acceptable for meeting the functional specifications 
(discussed below). Therefore, they were considered suitable for use in 
enforcement in the event the FMCSA amends 49 CFR 393.52, Brake 
performance, to allow the use of these devices to determine compliance 
with certain provisions of the rule. Nearly all of the PBBTs were able 
to accurately measure the vehicle brake forces. In contrast, several of 
the PBBTs had difficulty reporting accurate vehicle weights. For the 
most part, however, this was related to test procedures. Calibration 
checks of the PBBT weighing mechanisms indicated that all of them could 
meet the functional specifications. In those instances where PBBT 
accuracy did not achieve acceptable performance, the problems were 
identified and conveyed to the PBBT manufacturers as recommendations 
for improvement. Most of the recommendations were consistent with the 
requirements of the PBBT functional specifications.
    Copies of the report, further describing the round robin tests, are 
available in the docket referenced above. The report is titled, ``PBBT 
Round-Robin Testing,'' February 2000.

MCSAP Funding Eligibility

    During the period 1996-98, the FHWA issued four policy memoranda 
advising that specific PBBTs are eligible for funding under the MCSAP. 
Copies of the memoranda are available in the docket referenced above 
and are dated April 1, 1996, October 8, 1996, March 13, 1997, and 
November 3, 1998. The MCSAP is a Federal program, administered by 
FMCSA, providing funds to States and U.S. territories in support of 
commercial motor vehicle safety. This means that States or territories 
may use MCSAP funding to purchase one of the approved PBBTs for use in 
commercial motor vehicle brake inspections. To date, however, these 
prototype devices have been used only for screening or sorting 
purposes, and not enforcement, since PBBT pass/fail criteria have not 
yet been established within the FMCSRs. Specific pass/fail criteria for 
use with PBBTs are being proposed and published elsewhere in today's 
Federal Register. The proposed criteria would enable enforcement 
officials to issue citations based upon PBBT test results.
    The PBBTs which have been approved to date for MCSAP funding are:

     Hunter B400T Flat Plate Tester (in-ground)
     Nepean \4\ Mark III Roller Dynamometer (portable)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Nepean is now called Vehicle Inspection Systems (VIS).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Nepean Mark IV Roller Dynamometer (portable)
     Hicklin RBD Roller Dynamometer (portable)
     Radlinski RAI 12200 Roller Dynamometer (in-ground)
     Radlinski RAI 20200 Roller Dynamometer (portable)

    The above referenced policy memoranda set forth requirements and 
suggested procedures for States to follow in using the PBBTs to help in 
gathering field evaluation data and information relative to the PBBT 
functional specifications. As the memoranda were issued, they reflected 
the evolving progress made in the development of functional 
specifications for PBBTs.

PBBT Functional Specifications

    On December 8, 1997, the FHWA held a public meeting at the NHTSA's 
Vehicle Research and Test Center to discuss the development of 
functional specifications for PBBTs. A notice announcing the meeting 
was published in the Federal Register on November 13,

[[Page 48802]]

1997 (62 FR 60817). Data gathered during the PBBT field evaluation 
tests, referenced above, served as background information for draft 
functional specifications, which were discussed at the meeting. In 
addition to the NHTSA and the FHWA, the following companies were 
represented at the meeting: Battelle, B&B Automotive, B&G Technologies, 
Inc., Dennis National Lease, Hicklin Engineering, Hunter Engineering 
Company, Gooch Brake, MGM Brakes, Motion Control Industries, Inc., 
Nepean Engineering Pty. Ltd., Radlinski & Associates, Inc., and 
Truckalyser Canada, Inc. Most of the participants were either 
manufacturers of PBBTs or distributors of such devices.
    On June 5, 1998, the FHWA published a Federal Register notice (63 
FR 30678) requesting public comments on the proposed functional 
specifications, which incorporated comments received during the public 
meeting. The agency requested further public comment through this 
notice to ensure that all interested persons who were unable to attend 
the meeting would have an opportunity to comment on this subject. The 
functional specifications are intended to be generic and, therefore, 
applicable to a range of PBBT technologies. They include requirements 
for: (1) Functional performance, such as measurement accuracy with 
tolerances, calibration, and operator interface, (2) physical 
characteristics including portability, (3) environmental resistance, 
(4) operator safety, (5) documentation, including operator and 
maintenance manuals, and (5) skill level and number of operator 
personnel required. The specifications also include quality assurance 
provisions or methodologies for verifying PBBT compliance with each of 
the functional specification requirements. The intent is for the 
functional specifications to serve as a guideline for States in 
determining whether a particular PBBT would be eligible for funding 
under MCSAP, and to ensure a certain level of PBBT accuracy and 
performance.
    In this Federal Register notice, the FMCSA is announcing its final 
determination establishing functional specifications for performance-
based brake testing machines purchased with Federal funds through the 
agency's MCSAP. The final specifications reflect revisions to the draft 
functional specifications, based on comments received in response to 
the June 5, 1998, Federal Register notice referenced above. Those 
comments and revisions are discussed below.

Discussion of Comments

    The FMCSA received submissions from six commenters in response to 
the June 5, 1998, Federal Register notice. The submissions are from: B 
& G Technologies, Inc. (B&G); Cantlon Computer Consulting (Cantlon); 
Hicklin Engineering (Hicklin); McKay Security Supplies; Radlinski & 
Associates, Inc. (Radlinski); and an individual, Mr. John Fobian. The 
submission from McKay Security Supplies was not responsive to the 
notice, and therefore will not be discussed further. It consisted of a 
copy of functional specifications for a brake system screening device 
using infrared technology, IRISystems, which is outside the scope of 
the functional specifications being addressed here. The specific issues 
raised by the remaining commenters are discussed below, along with our 
response.

Determining Braking Capability at Full Vehicle Load

    The draft functional performance specifications require PBBTs to 
measure braking force at current vehicle load.\5\ There is no 
requirement for PBBTs to predict stopping capability at full vehicle 
load.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Current vehicle load is the weight of the vehicle and its 
load at the time of inspection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    B&G stated that testing and certifying the braking performance of 
vehicles at their current weight is a step back in safety, since it 
provides no assurance the vehicle will stop adequately when fully 
loaded. It argued that the current method of measuring allowable, brake 
push rod travel \6\ is a predictive test, since the limits of travel 
were established to ensure stopping capability within the full range of 
the vehicle's weight capacity. B&G believes the draft functional 
specifications should be changed so that if a vehicle is not fully 
loaded when tested, then the PBBT should be capable of predicting 
stopping performance at full load (gross vehicle weight rating). 
Similarly, Cantlon expressed concern that the specifications not be 
limited to determining whether a vehicle can stop at its current load, 
but also allow for determining stopping capability when fully loaded. 
As with B&G, Cantlon stated that without this specification there is no 
assurance that a vehicle with adequate braking at current load would 
necessarily stop safely at full load.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Allowable brake push rod travel is an indicator of brake 
adjustment as well as lining wear. It is one criteria used by State 
and local enforcement personnel in determining whether a vehicle 
should be placed out of service, and is contained in the North 
American Uniform Out-of-Service Criteria established by the CVSA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FMCSA does not agree that the draft functional performance 
specifications represent a step back in safety. Overall, the agency 
believes that the current method of measuring allowable brake push rod 
travel, or brake adjustment, is no more predictive of vehicle braking 
performance, over a full range of operating conditions, than are some 
PBBT tests. For example, the table of push rod readjustment limits used 
by enforcement officials does not take into account brake temperature. 
Moreover, visual- and sensory-based inspection methods have 
limitations, as indicated earlier. These include: (1) Falsely \7\ 
identifying adequately braked vehicles as unsafe and placing them OOS, 
(2) having brake force-related deficiencies, but no visually apparent 
defects, and (3) the inability to thoroughly inspect the brake systems 
on more than a small portion of the commercial vehicle population due 
to the time involved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ In a February 1995 FHWA study, ``Evaluation of Brake 
Adjustment Criteria for Heavy Trucks,'' Report No. FHWA-MC-94-016, 
it was found that 936 of 2,146 vehicles with S-cam brakes were 
placed out-of-service for their brake adjustment. Among the 936 
vehicles, it was found that 480 had braking capability that was 
greater than 80 percent of what the braking capability would have 
been if the brakes were fully adjusted. Thus, these vehicles were 
incorrectly placed out-of-service. (Under current CVSA guidelines, a 
vehicle is placed out-of-service if 20 percent or more of its brakes 
are found defective, which includes improper adjustment.) This 
report is available in the docket referenced above and through the 
National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA 22161.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the ability to check brake adjustment on some vehicles 
can be hindered because brake push rods are not always readily 
accessible for measurement. Brake push rod travel, or brake 
misadjustment, is only one factor which can contribute to poor braking 
performance. In contrast, PBBTs objectively measure the actual braking 
performance of the vehicle, regardless of the factors which may 
contribute to weak brakes.
    The functional performance specifications do not require PBBTs to 
be capable of predicting brake performance at full load on a vehicle 
that is not fully loaded. At the same time, however, the specifications 
do not preclude a PBBT manufacturer from incorporating this capability 
into its brake tester. At the time of the field evaluation tests 
referenced above, there were only three PBBTs which had this 
capability.\8\ The FMCSA is hopeful that more PBBT manufacturers will 
enhance the design of their brake testers to

[[Page 48803]]

predict braking performance at full load on a vehicle that is not fully 
loaded. However, the agency does not believe this should currently be 
required, since that would eliminate a majority of brake testers, 
thereby precluding use of this new technology for enhancing heavy 
vehicle safety. For these reasons, the FMCSA believes that the use of 
PBBTs to measure braking performance at current load will not degrade 
heavy vehicle safety, and has, therefore, decided not to revise the 
functional specifications with respect to this issue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ As with the method of measuring brake push rod travel, these 
PBBTs do not take into account future brake performance at higher 
brake temperatures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The remaining comments are presented in the same order as the items 
to which they relate in the draft functional specifications, published 
with the June 5, 1998, Federal Register notice, as follows:

Item 2. Abbreviations/Definitions

    Mr. John Fobian commented on the abbreviation/definition for 
kgf, which reads ``Kilograms force (common metric unit used 
for weight).'' He stated that the correct term for weight is mass, and 
that the common metric unit for mass is kilogram (kg), or kilogram mass 
(kgm). The FMCSA disagrees with this assertion. Although 
weight and mass are related, they are not the same. Weight is the 
measured heaviness of a particular object, equal to the product of the 
object's mass and the value of gravitational acceleration [weight = 
(mass)  x  (acceleration of gravity)]. In other words, the weight of an 
object is the force due to the acceleration of gravity acting upon its 
mass. So, the mass of an object is different from, but proportional to, 
its weight. Therefore, the FMCSA is retaining the term ``weight'' in 
the definition, since that is the intended measurement.
    In addition, Mr. Fobian states that the newton, rather than 
kilograms force, is the common metric unit for force. The FMCSA agrees 
that this is generally true for most force measurements. However, with 
respect to weight (gravitational force), the agency believes that 
``kilogram'' rather than ``newton'' is more commonly used. Therefore, 
the agency has decided to retain the term ``kilograms force 
(kgf)'' and the definition remains unchanged.

3.1.2 Determining Braking Capability

    Hicklin and Radlinski requested clarification of the last sentence 
in this requirement, which states ``The road/tire friction coefficient 
should be considered to be at least 0.6.'' They both asked whether this 
refers to the friction coefficient between tire and brake tester, or 
tire and typical road surfaces. Further, they asked how this should be 
used, if it refers to typical road surfaces.
    This sentence refers to the friction coefficient between the tire 
and a typical road surface. The intent of the requirement, Determining 
Braking Capability, is to assure that braking force measurements are 
representative of, or can be related to, the braking forces the tires 
would impart to the ground. Thus, by stating that road/tire friction 
coefficient should be considered to be at least 0.6, the sentence means 
that manufacturers should maintain a coefficient of friction between 
the test surface and the tire of at least 0.6. This is confirmed in a 
subsequent requirement, 3.1.4, Coefficient of Friction, which specifies 
that friction coefficient between test surface and a standard tire must 
be at least 0.6 under dry conditions.

3.1.3 Brake Force Determination

    This requirement states in part that ``Independent determination of 
maximum brake forces on each side of an axle is required [of brake 
testers].'' The purpose of this requirement is to assure that brake 
testers are capable of measuring braking forces at each wheel.
    Radlinski stated that in using independent determination of maximum 
braking force, it should be specified that brake force imbalance across 
an axle is to be measured at first wheel lockup, rather than at lockup 
of each wheel. Similarly, Hicklin requested clarification of the 
statement, ``Independent determination of * * * brake forces * * * ,'' 
and asked whether it referred to a specific method of testing.
    The purpose of this particular requirement is to simply assure that 
brake testers are capable of measuring braking forces at each wheel. 
The requirement does not refer to a methodology, nor is that the 
intent. The subject of test methodology is being addressed in another 
notice on pass/fail criteria for vehicles tested with a PBBT. That 
notice is being published elsewhere in today's Federal Register. The 
particular section of that notice addressing this issue is Braking 
Stability, and PBBT manufacturers and users are encouraged to provide 
comments in response to that notice.

3.1.4 Coefficient of Friction

    This item requires that the coefficient of friction (COF) between 
the PBBT test surface and a standard tire (e.g., 295/75R22.5) be 
reported for a range of loads. The COF must be at least 0.6 under dry 
conditions.
    Radlinski and Hicklin both stated that the standard tire needs to 
be better defined to assure that the COF for all brake testers is 
measured the same way. Hicklin suggested that the tread design of the 
standard tire be specified, since it has found that different tread 
designs can yield different results. It also stated the tire compound 
may be a consideration, which may require a specific tire brand or 
material. Hicklin also stated, however, that the specification should 
not require expensive testing methods, thereby eliminating some PBBT 
manufacturers due to cost. Radlinski requested that at least the size 
and tread type of the standard tire be specified, and suggested a tire 
size of 11R24.5 with rib type tread design be used, since this is a 
tire commonly used on heavy trucks. Neither commenter provided 
supporting data.
    After analyzing this matter, the FMCSA concurs with Radlinski and 
Hicklin on the need for a more specific definition of the standard 
tire. As indicated earlier, the goal of this specification is to assure 
that brake testers have a COF of at least 0.6, although it may be 
higher than 0.6. The agency agrees with Radlinski that a tire size of 
11R24.5 with a rib type tread design is a commonly used heavy truck 
tire. The FMCSA has, therefore, revised the final functional 
specification to reflect this as the standard tire. Specifying such a 
commonly used truck tire as the standard will make it more accessible 
for PBBT manufacturers when certifying the COF of their brake testers. 
In addition, specifying a particular tread design will assure greater 
consistency in results, since tread design can affect tire-to-test 
surface friction.
    For the same reason the FMCSA has decided to specify limits for the 
inflation pressure of the standard tire, as well as vehicle load, when 
certifying brake tester COF. Both of these factors have a direct 
bearing on the amount of friction that exists between the tire and test 
surface. The agency has decided to require that the inflation pressure 
of the standard tire be within (plus or minus) 2 pounds per square inch 
(psi) of the tire manufacturer's recommended cold inflation pressure 
for a given load on the tire. This is consistent with the tolerances 
used by the NHTSA in testing passenger car tires under its Uniform Tire 
Quality Grading Program.\9\ It is also consistent with the accuracy of 
readily available tire pressure measuring equipment (tire gauges). For 
vehicle load during the PBBT certification test, the agency is 
specifying that COF be at

[[Page 48804]]

least 0.6 for wheel loads ranging from 2,500 through 7,000 \10\ pounds 
per tire, since this is the expected range of wheel loads on vehicles 
that will be commonly tested by PBBTs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ In this program, the NHTSA rates the performance of new 
passenger car tires for tread life, temperature, and traction, based 
on actual testing, and requires tire manufacturers to provide this 
information to consumers.
    \10\ The Tire and Rim Association 1999 Yearbook specifies 7,160 
pounds as the maximum load limit at 120 psi cold inflation pressure 
for 11R24.5 radial ply tires mounted on 15 degree drop center rims 
and used on trucks, buses, and trailers in normal highway service. 
The Yearbook for 1999 is available for purchase ($50) from the 
Association at 175 Montrose Ave. West, Copley, OH 44321.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the FMCSA has decided not to specify tire material 
compound for the standard tire. Although this was suggested by Hicklin, 
it provided no supporting data to justify such a requirement. The tire 
compound could influence COF results, however, the agency believes that 
the degree of influence would be minimal for purposes of this test. 
Moreover, the agency anticipates that PBBT manufacturers will assure 
that the COFs of their PBBTs will be sufficiently above 0.6 for the 
range of truck tire compounds available on the market. This is because 
it is advantageous for PBBT manufacturers to have adequate COF on their 
PBBTs. Inadequate COF could result in false PBBT brake force 
measurements.

3.1.5  Weighing Capability

    The functional specification, Weighing Capability, states that many 
of the criteria to be used for identifying weak brakes require 
determination of gross axle weight (GAW) or gross vehicle weight (GVW). 
For brake testers which use this criteria, the capability of measuring 
GAW or GVW is preferred, but not required. For those brake testers 
which have no weighing capability, the necessary weight measurements 
can be obtained independently. However, those testers must still be 
capable of having independent weight measurements entered into their 
operating and analysis software, so that comparisons of such data can 
be made in conjunction with the measured brake forces.
    In commenting on this requirement, Radlinski expressed concern over 
placing vehicles OOS using weights measured on certain machines. It 
stated that brake testers which require vehicles to use ramps are known 
to give false weight measurements for individual axles. Therefore, any 
OOS criteria using such measurements could be challenged.
    Since Radlinski provides no specific recommendations for revising 
the Weighing Capability requirement, the FMCSA is leaving the 
requirement unchanged. The agency notes that weighing capability is not 
a required machine specification, but rather preferred. Among those 
machines for which accurate weight measurements are in question, 
accurate weight data could still be obtained independently. Through 
ongoing research, the FMCSA plans to work with the PBBT Manufacturers 
Association to help manufacturers overcome the kind of problem cited by 
Radlinski. Also, the functional specifications require PBBT 
manufacturers to certify their machines to a specific level of 
accuracy.

3.1.7.1  Initial Calibration Certification

    This requirement states that brake testers shall be supplied with 
calibration certificates guaranteeing system measurement accuracy ''. . 
. traceable to NIST [National Institute of Standards and Technology] 
standards.'' Radlinski commented that since brake testers may be 
manufactured outside the United States, calibration certifications 
should be allowed based on recognized organizations in other countries 
that are similar in function to NIST.
    The FMCSA agrees, however, PBBTs manufactured to these functional 
specifications could be used for enforcement of FMCSRs on braking 
performance. Therefore, the agency believes it is important, for 
purposes of traceability, to allow only calibration certifications from 
those standards organizations that meet certain qualifications.
    On October 14, 1999, the national metrology institutes of 38 member 
States of the Metre Convention, and two international organizations, 
including NIST, signed a Mutual Recognition Arrangement (MRA). As 
signatories to the MRA, they agreed to a number of issues, including 
establishing a degree of equivalence of national measurement standards 
and providing for the mutual recognition of calibration and measurement 
certificates. Further information on the MRA is available at the world 
wide web site, http://www.bipm.fr/enus/8_Key_Comparisons/mra.html. To 
assure a minimum level of equivalence, the FMCSA believes that only 
those organizations that signed the MRA along with NIST should be 
recognized for the purpose of the functional specifications. Therefore, 
the requirement, 3.1.7.1, Initial Calibration Certification, has been 
revised accordingly. The 38 Member States of the Metre Convention that 
signed the MRA are: South Africa, Germany, Argentina, Australia, 
Austria, Bulgaria, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, China, Republic of Korea, 
Denmark, Spain, United States, Finland, France, Hungary, India, 
Ireland, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Norway, New Zealand, The Netherlands, 
Poland, Portugal, Romania, United Kingdom, Russian Federation, 
Singapore, Slovakia, Sweden, Switzerland, Czech Republic, Thailand, 
Turkey, and Uruguay. The two international organizations are: (1) 
International Atomic Energy Agency and (2) European Commission 
Directorate General, Joint Research Centre.

3.1.7.4  Calibration History

    This requirement states that ''. . . sufficient calibration 
histories . . . shall be maintained with the tester in hard copy form 
and in a software file that can be accessed upon request by the user.'' 
Radlinski and Hicklin both asked for clarification of the phrase, 
``software file.'' They asked whether the term means: (1) A computer 
generated file created as part of a computer based calibration routine, 
or (2) a computer file generated by manually entering pertinent 
calibration data into a computer file on the machine.
    The intent of the term ``software file'' was to allow either one of 
the interpretations set forth by Radlinski and Hicklin. The FMCSA 
agrees that ``software'' is confusing, since it tends to imply a 
specific calibration related software that generates the necessary 
data. Therefore, the agency has replaced ``software file'' with the 
more generic phrase, ``computer file.''

3.1.10  Identification of Faulty Tests

    This requirement states that the machine shall be able to identify 
an improperly run test or one that was otherwise invalid, and the 
reason for the invalid test shall be indicated to the machine operator. 
It further states that examples include low coefficient of friction 
between the test surface and tires, insufficient data for computations, 
premature test termination, unreasonable or out of range values, and 
malfunctioning or improperly connected transducers. Radlinski and 
Hicklin both asked that this requirement be clarified to refer to the 
identification of faulty individual tests, and not long term machine 
self diagnostics, such as monitoring changes in surface coefficient of 
friction.
    The FMCSA believes that no clarification of this requirement is 
necessary, since it refers to a single ``test.'' The requirement does 
not refer to long term machine self diagnostics, nor is that its 
intent. However, to the extent that a particular feature, such as 
machine surface coefficient of friction, deteriorates over time and 
improperly affects a particular test, the machine must be capable of 
identifying this

[[Page 48805]]

invalid test, along with the reason, to the machine operator.

3.1.11  Inspection Time

    The purpose of this requirement for brake testers is to assure that 
the amount of time required to conduct a full vehicle braking 
capability assessment is minimal. The requirement states that it shall 
take skilled operators no longer than 15 minutes to perform a brake 
test on a five-axle tractor-trailer combination. In addition, the range 
of actual inspection times, including paperwork, for various truck 
configurations shall be included in the brake tester Operation Manual.
    Radlinski and Hicklin both suggested that the amount of time 
required per axle be required, rather than specifying the time involved 
for all vehicle configurations. They stated that the amount of time per 
axle would be sufficient to determine the amount of time involved for 
any vehicle combination.
    The FMCSA has decided not to incorporate these comments. While it 
would be feasible to specify brake tester time per axle, such an 
approach would not take into account the amount of time involved 
between axle tests on a given vehicle. This cumulative amount of 
vehicle time could vary significantly, depending upon the brake tester 
design. However, the agency notes that wording in the draft requirement 
was somewhat vague in stating ''. . . inspection times for various 
[emphasis added] truck configurations . . . shall be listed.'' 
Therefore, in order to provide more specificity to this requirement, 
the FMCSA has revised the second sentence to require that inspection 
times on three different vehicle configurations be listed in the 
Operation Manual. These are: (1) A two-axle straight truck or bus, (2) 
a five-axle tractor-trailer combination, and (3) a five-axle tractor-
double trailer combination, e.g., a two-axle tractor pulling a one-axle 
semi-trailer coupled to a converter dolly and semi-trailer. The agency 
has specified these because it believes they are representative of the 
range of heavy vehicle configurations most likely to be encountered by 
brake testers.

3.3.3  Water Resistance

    This requirement states that all PBBT electrical systems shall be 
sealed against water intrusion from wind driven rain, and that towed 
brake testers shall meet water intrusion requirements when being towed 
in the rain at typical towing speeds.
    Radlinski and Hicklin both asked for clarification of the phrase, 
``water intrusion requirements.'' Radlinski asked whether this was a 
specific requirement published by a recognized organization. If so, it 
asked that the requirement reference be identified. Similarly, Hicklin 
asked whether this referred to a specification that needs to be 
identified, and suggested that perhaps a measurable requirement should 
be stated.
    The phrase ``water intrusion requirements'' does not refer to a 
specific requirement limiting a measurable amount of water. The agency 
notes that this requirement is consistent with the other environmental 
requirements in the functional specifications, including temperature, 
humidity, sunlight, and ultraviolet radiation. None of the 
environmental requirements specify measurable performance limits. This 
is because their intent is to serve as design guidelines for PBBT 
manufacturers. The agency believes that free market competition will 
encourage PBBT manufacturers, through design and warranties, to provide 
an acceptable level of protection against environmental degradation. 
Further, the FMCSA notes that functional specification 4.1, Compliance, 
states that failure to perform adequately in the field could result in 
manufacturer penalties.

3.5.1  Operation Manual

    This requirement states that the Operation Manual shall explain how 
to properly and safely operate the brake tester, including setting it 
up, conducting tests, and interpreting and printing out results. It 
must be written for a first time user, which is described as one 
unfamiliar with the equipment, at the skill level described in 
functional specification 3.6.2. The skill level attributes described 
there include ''. . . familiarity with using personal computers and 
common operating systems.''
    Radlinski and Hicklin both commented that a manual for an 
``untrained'' user is impractical. Radlinski cited the level of 
complexity of the brake testers. Both commenters stated that this 
specification should address an operation manual for trained users.
    The FMCSA believes that PBBT manufacturers can write the Operation 
Manual for persons with some training and level of familiarity with 
brake testers in general. However, the agency believes that no change 
to the functional specifications are necessary. Specification 3.6.2, 
Skill Level, refers to personnel having ''. . . familiarity with using 
personal computers and common operating systems.'' Moreover, the 
specifications for Skill Level and Operation Manual do not use the word 
``untrained'' personnel, as referenced by Radlinski and Hicklin. 
However, the specification on Operation Manual refers to personnel ''. 
. . unfamiliar with the equipment . . . .'' This refers to someone 
unfamiliar with a particular manufacturer's PBBT, but not PBBTs in 
general. The agency anticipates working with the CVSA, PBBT 
manufacturers, and others, as appropriate, to develop PBBT operator 
training. This subject is further discussed elsewhere in today's 
Federal Register in the proposal setting brake performance pass/fail 
criteria for use with PBBTs. PBBT manufacturers and users are 
encouraged to submit comments on this subject, as discussed in that 
notice.

4.1.  Compliance

    The draft functional specifications, Section 4.1, Compliance, 
stated that compliance with the performance requirements in Section 3, 
be accomplished by one or more methods of verification. These included 
analysis, test, demonstration, inspection, and certified vendor data. 
The draft further stated that ``Self-certification is acceptable, 
although failure to adequately perform in the field could result in 
[brake] tester decertification.'' This wording implied that there was 
an alternative method to self-certification, such as certification 
through an outside entity. However, no such entity was named in the 
draft with the exception of a reference to FHWA (now FMCSA) under the 
Test method of verification, Section 4.1.2. There it stated that 
``Self-certification of compliance is permissible provided that the 
Test Plan is pre-approved by the FHWA and the Test Report is submitted 
to the FHWA for approval.''
    Radlinski and Hicklin both commented, requesting that compliance be 
achieved solely through self-certification by PBBT manufacturers with 
appropriate penalties for non-compliance. Radlinski likened this to the 
way the NHTSA imposes penalties on vehicle manufacturers, which self-
certify to Federal safety standards, but may fail to comply. Hicklin 
stated that self-certification should be allowed rather than requiring 
oversight by an entity that is not named in the specifications.
    After considering these comments, the FMCSA has concluded that 
self-certification by PBBT manufacturers should be the sole method of 
certifying PBBTs to the functional specifications. The alternative is 
to have an oversight entity, which would be the FMCSA or its 
representative, certify each PBBT

[[Page 48806]]

design through a documented type-approval process. The agency believes 
that this approach would be too costly, burdensome, and time consuming 
for FMCSA technical staff. Self-certification is much more appropriate, 
since it places responsibility for compliance with the PBBT 
manufacturer, which is the most knowledgeable about its design.
    Self-certification means that a PBBT manufacturer certifies its 
PBBT to meet the functional specifications at the time of manufacture, 
and clearly states which specifications, if any, its PBBT does not 
meet. PBBTs which are certified to meet the functional specifications 
are eligible for funding under the MCSAP. This means that States or 
territories may use MCSAP funding to purchase certified PBBTs for use 
in commercial motor vehicle brake inspections.
    The agency agrees with Radlinski and Hicklin that penalties should 
be imposed for flagrant non-compliance. The FMCSA has no regulatory 
authority over PBBT manufacturers and therefore cannot impose civil 
penalties. However, the agency will require each manufacturer to sign a 
declaration, under penalty of perjury, that its PBBT meets the 
functional specifications at the time of manufacture. States will be 
allowed to spend MCSAP funds for a PBBT only if the manufacturer has 
signed such a declaration and presented it to the State. This does not 
mean that every minor flaw or service interruption will make the PBBT 
manufacturer liable to prosecution for perjury. The warranty 
requirement included in the functional specifications is intended to 
address routine repairs or service that may be necessary. The FMCSA 
will consider referring a matter to the Department of Justice for 
prosecution only if a State experiences pervasive problems with a PBBT 
which could reasonably be explained only by significant non-compliance 
with the functional specifications.
    Accordingly, the FMCSA has revised Section 4.1, Compliance, to 
reflect this in the final functional specifications.

4.4.  Extended Verification Duration

    The draft functional specifications stated that any item requiring 
an extended period of time for evaluation of compliance shall be 
warranted by the manufacturer, and failure to comply may result in 
decertification of the tester. The items so designated were: (1) 
Accuracy between calibrations, (2) re-calibration interval, (3) 
ruggedness, (4) appearance, (5) temperature, (6) humidity, (7) water 
resistance, and (8) UV radiation. The methods for verifying compliance 
of these include demonstration, inspection, or certified vendor data, 
depending on the requirement involved.
    Radlinski and Hicklin both requested that any method for verifying 
compliance with these items be replaced by manufacturer warranty. 
Radlinski further stated that the results of long-term demonstrations 
are meaningless unless a very specific and uniform test procedure can 
be developed and followed by all suppliers. This would be a costly and 
complicated process, according to Radlinski, and one that is not 
practical in light of all the possible weather scenarios. Radlinski 
stated that the desired result--a machine durable in all weather--can 
be achieved if manufacturers are required to warrant these items for a 
period of one year.
    After reviewing this matter, the FMCSA sees no need to change the 
wording in this requirement, since it states that a manufacturer's 
warranty must be provided for those items referred to by Radlinski and 
Hicklin. The agency does not concur with their suggestion that the 
method of verification be replaced by the word, ``warranty.'' Even 
though a warranty is provided, there must still be a method for 
determining compliance. The FMCSA anticipates that PBBT manufacturers 
will clarify the method for determining compliance through their 
specific warranty. In addition, the agency concurs with Radlinski in 
specifying a one year warranty. This is discussed below in more detail.

Warranties

    No comments were submitted regarding the subject of warranties. 
However, the agency has added a new Section 4.5, Warranty, for the 
purpose of clarification. Under this specification, a manufacturer 
shall be required to warrant the functional performance of its PBBT for 
a period of at least one year from the date of purchase. The FMCSA 
believes that such a warranty is necessary to ensure that PBBTs are 
designed and built with a satisfactory level of quality, particularly 
since they will be used for enforcement. The agency also believes that 
such a warranty is appropriate, since relatively large amounts of MCSAP 
funds will be used to purchase certified PBBTs, each of which can cost 
several hundred thousand dollars. Therefore, the FMCSA has specified 
one year as the warranty period to assure a minimum level of brake 
tester reliability. However, PBBT manufacturers may, if they wish, 
provide a warranty period that is longer than one year, and the FMCSA 
is hopeful that PBBT manufacturers will take the initiative to provide 
longer warranty periods consistent with the useful life of PBBTs. 
Accordingly, Section 4.5, Warranty, is added to the final functional 
specifications.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    The FMCSA has determined that this action is exempt from the 
information collection provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 
1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). There is a certification 
requirement that is imposed on six PBBT manufacturers, as discussed 
above in 4.1, Compliance. However, OMB clearance is not required 
because there are less than 10 public entities affected by this 
certification requirement. See 49 CFR 1320.(3)(c). In addition, there 
is no new paperwork requirement on the part of the States, because they 
would only be required to complete the same paperwork they currently 
prepare, when requesting funds for the purchase of PBBTs from the 
FMCSA. Accordingly, the agency has determined that the certification 
requirement does not constitute a ``collection of information'' covered 
by the PRA.

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 31102, 31136, 31502; and 49 CFR 1.73.


    Issued on: July 24, 2000.
Clyde J. Hart, Jr.,
Acting Deputy Administrator.
BILLING CODE 4910-22-P

[[Page 48807]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN09AU00.003


[[Page 48808]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN09AU00.004


[[Page 48809]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN09AU00.005


[[Page 48810]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN09AU00.006


[[Page 48811]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN09AU00.007


[[Page 48812]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN09AU00.008


[[Page 48813]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN09AU00.009


[[Page 48814]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN09AU00.010


[[Page 48815]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN09AU00.011


[[Page 48816]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN09AU00.012


[[Page 48817]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN09AU00.013


[[Page 48818]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN09AU00.014


[[Page 48819]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN09AU00.015


[[Page 48820]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN09AU00.016

[FR Doc. 00-19916 Filed 8-8-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-22-C