[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 69 (Tuesday, April 10, 2001)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 18581-18584]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-8738]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 571

[Docket NHTSA-99-5119, Notice 1]
RIN 2127-AH57


Denial of Petition for Rulemaking; Federal Motor Vehicle Safety 
Standards Hydraulic and Electric Brake Systems, Air Brake Systems

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

ACTION: Denial of petition for rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: Schmitty and Sons School Buses (Schmitty) submitted a petition 
for rulemaking requesting the agency amend the Federal Motor Vehicle 
Safety Standards on brake systems to require that school buses with 
automatic transmissions that do not have a ``park'' position 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. Based on its concern that these 
school buses could begin to roll while unattended if the parking brake 
were not engaged, the petitioner argued that such a warning system 
could reduce or eliminate this hazard.
    We are denying the petition. Information available to the agency 
indicates that unattended school bus rollaways are very rare. Further, 
the agency believes that a warning would not likely be effective and 
that any risks of such incidents can best be reduced or controlled 
through driver training.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The following persons at the National 
Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW, 
Washington, DC, 20590:
    For non-legal issues: 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, e-mail: [email protected].
    For legal issues: Mr. Otto G. Matheke, III, Office of the Chief 
Counsel (NCC-20), NHTSA, 400 Seventh St., SW, Washington, DC, 20590. 
Mr. Matheke's phone number is (202-366-5263), e-mail: 
[email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background of Petition

    On June 23, 1998, Schmitty and Sons School Buses, a company that 
operates school buses, submitted a petition requesting that NHTSA 
initiate rulemaking to require that automatic transmission-equipped 
school buses whose transmissions do not have a park position be 
equipped with a warning device to alert the driver when the parking 
brake is not activated, the bus is stopped with its engine off, and the 
transmission is in neutral. Citing several crashes in Minnesota 
involving school buses, two of which occurred in that company's fleet, 
and one of which occurred in another bus company's fleet, Schmitty 
contended that the risk of unintended rollaways in buses without a park 
position warranted the mandatory installation of warning devices to 
alert an operator when the parking brake is not engaged.
    Prior to filing its petition, the petitioner contacted Blue Bird 
Body Company, a school bus manufacturer, to determine if such a system 
could be made available. A copy of a response from Blue Bird was 
enclosed with the petition. Blue Bird indicated that the warning system 
concept appeared to have merit.
    However, that manufacturer cited several concerns with the concept. 
Its primary concern was that incorporation of the warning system on 
(new) vehicles would result in inconsistencies in the fleet; i.e., 
newer vehicles would prompt the driver to apply the parking brake, 
while older ones would not. Blue Bird suggested that if a driver became 
accustomed to being prompted to apply the parking brake in a vehicle 
equipped with the warning system, the driver might forget to apply the 
parking brake when operating a vehicle not equipped with the warning 
system. Blue Bird's reply also mentioned other potential problems, 
including the increasing proliferation of warning devices, which could 
result in driver dependence and/or confusion; difficulties with 
integrating the proposed system with other warning devices; and the 
need to deactivate the system after some preset time to prevent battery 
drain. In addition, Blue Bird indicated that 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 and study could be conducted, and public 
comment could be obtained prior to such a system's being introduced.

II. Existing Federal Brake Requirements

    A number of Federal motor vehicle safety standards establish 
requirements for brakes, parking brakes, and brake controls and warning 
systems. Standard 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 rely on the parking mechanism in meeting the 30 
percent grade holding requirement for the vehicle, if the parking 
mechanism must 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

[[Page 18582]]

20 percent grade (S5.2.3). This grade holding requirement also applies 
to trucks, multipurpose passenger vehicles, and buses, other than 
school buses, with a GVWR of 10,000 lbs. or less.
    There is a supplemental requirement in Standard 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. Standard No. 135, Light Vehicle Brake Systems, which is 
currently optional and will be mandatory for all 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.
    Standard 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 Standard Nos. 105 and 135 
for visual warning indicators (brake light) to indicate that the 
parking brake is engaged. Both standards include requirements for 
maximum force levels in applying the parking brake mechanism for the 
grade holding tests. Standard No. 121 includes requirements for parking 
brake application controls that are 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.
    Standard 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.

III. Request For Comments

    To assist in evaluating the Schmitty petition, NHTSA published a 
Request for Comments in the Federal Register on March 1, 1999 (64 FR 
9961) (DOT docket #99-5119) indicating that the agency wished to obtain 
further information on the magnitude of the safety problem and the 
potential effectiveness of a warning system. The Notice outlined the 
parking brake and related requirements in Standard No. 105, Standard 
No. 121, Standard No. 114, and Standard No. 135, and included an 
analysis of data available to NHTSA regarding the frequency and safety 
consequences of rollaways. Questions seeking responses on the frequency 
of rollaway incidents, the increased use of automatic transmissions, 
the availability of park gears or automatic parking brakes, driver 
training, and the efficacy and design of warning systems were 
incorporated in the notice.

IV. Comments

    Eight comments were submitted in response to the March 1, 1999 
notice. These comments were submitted by: two school bus operators, 
Katy Independent School District (Katy) and Rochester City School 
District (Rochester); three vehicle manufacturers, Thomas Built Buses 
(Thomas), Navistar International Corp. (Navistar) and General Motors 
(GM); two trade associations, the Truck Manufacturers Association (TMA) 
and the American Trucking Association (ATA); and one brake system 
manufacturer, AlliedSignal Truck Brake Systems Co. (AlliedSignal).
    The majority of the commenters said that no real safety need for 
such a warning system presently exists. In addition, the commenters 
were concerned that the addition of an another warning system would not 
necessarily be beneficial or effective and could lead to driver 
confusion. The commenters indicated that the number of school buses 
equipped with automatic transmissions that do not have the ``park'' 
position found in automobiles, light trucks and MPVs, would continue to 
increase. Most commenters believed, however, that the risk of rollaway 
incidents would better be met through increased driver training.
    Four of the commenters provided information on the frequency and 
consequences of roll aways. Katy indicated that one school bus roll 
away occurred in 1989. In that case, a parked and empty bus rolled down 
a grade and crashed into a guard shack. There were no injuries. Thomas 
reported that it was aware of two crashes involving school buses 
rolling due to their parking brakes not being set. In one case, it was 
reported that a passenger released the parking brake. In the other 
case, no additional information was provided. Navistar stated that it 
has no knowledge of vehicles, either school buses or medium trucks, 
rolling away due to the driver neglecting to set the parking brake 
after shutting off the engine. No other commenters reported any roll 
away incidents.
    Other comments were related to the increasing use of automatic 
transmissions in school buses and the potential consequences of this 
trend. Rochester indicated that its school bus fleet is entirely 
equipped with automatic transmissions and it has not had any roll away 
incidents. Thomas indicates that over the last five years, 95 percent 
of their its school bus production has been equipped with automatic 
transmissions without a park feature. Thomas believes that the trend 
away from manual transmissions has not increased roll away incidents. 
Navistar stated that it appears the use of automatic transmissions has 
not spurred a trend toward roll away incidents. ATA stated that 
although they do not address school bus operations, many of the 
vehicles used in general trucking have engines, transmissions, and 
brakes similar to those used for school buses. The organization opined 
that the very fact that motor carriers have no statistics on this type 
of crash is an indication that there are very few such crashes, and 
that their members say that such problems are very rare. ATA also 
argued that the trend toward automatic transmissions will not 
significantly affect the likelihood of roll away incidents, as drivers 
that switch from manual to automatic transmissions would be required to 
learn the new system including how to properly park the vehicle.
    All of the commenters indicated that the installation of automatic 
transmissions is likely to continue to the point at which manual 
transmission equipped buses will become a rarity. Rochester indicated 
that all of its buses are equipped with automatic transmissions. In 
addition to the comments noted above, GM reported that for its B7 bus 
chassis, which is produced with a GVWR range of 23,100 to 29,000 lbs., 
approximately 80 percent of the vehicles produced in the last three 
years have been equipped with automatic transmissions without parking 
pawls. GM expects this number to hold fairly steady in the foreseeable 
future. Navistar stated that

[[Page 18583]]

approximately 91 percent of its school bus chassis are equipped with 
automatic transmissions. The commenters indicated that while the number 
of school buses equipped with automatic transmissions was increasing, 
it was not likely that these transmissions would incorporate a park 
position. Rochester said it believed that the addition of a parking 
pawl in heavy-duty transmissions would be extremely difficult. The 
heavy vehicle weight would require a large pawl, and there is no room 
inside existing transmissions for such a pawl. Thomas indicated that 
one automatic transmission manufacturer, Allison, is developing heavy-
duty transmissions with parking pawls. However, Thomas does not 
currently use any in production. Thomas further stated that it 
manufactured over 200 buses with a system that automatically shifted 
the transmission into neutral and applied the parking brake when the 
gear selector was placed in the ``park'' position; however, this system 
had many service problems and was removed from the marketplace.
    GM stated that it will begin offering, as an option, an automatic 
transmission which incorporates a parking pawl on some chassis with a 
GVWR of up to 26,000 lbs. However, GM submitted that the majority of 
chassis used in completing buses are over 26,000 lbs. GVWR. Thus, a 
relatively small percentage of its buses will be equipped with parking 
pawls in the foreseeable future. GM does not have any plans to offer 
automatic parking brake application systems in school buses. Navistar 
indicated that it is not considering incorporating parking pawls in 
large automatic transmissions. It also stated that automatic parking 
brake systems are currently available with a dual neutral automatic 
transmission design; however, this option is rarely used. Other 
variations on these types of systems are being considered.
    ATA indicated that a park feature will be incorporated in larger, 
torque converter equipped automatic transmissions, but not for 
automatic transmissions used in the heaviest trucks. According to ATA, 
parking pawls are not practical for heavy truck use since they would be 
required to resist ``tens of thousands of pounds'' of force when a 
truck is parked on a grade, which also would make them difficult to 
release. ATA provided other reasons why parking pawls cannot or should 
not be relied upon for parking trucks including combination vehicles 
(tractor-trailers).
    A large number of the commenters also considered the effectiveness 
and potential consequences of a parking brake application warning 
signal. Katy stated that a visual or auditory signal would be just one 
more addition to a bus environment that has too many distractions.
    Thomas also indicated a concern that an additional warning device 
could cause driver confusion due to the multiple warning devices 
already present in school buses. In addition, Thomas was concerned that 
this confusion would be magnified when drivers switch between vehicles 
having a warning system and vehicles lacking one. In its comments, GM 
voiced doubts that drivers would rely on the warning system. However, 
GM stated that proliferation of warning devices is not an issue and 
further indicated if an identified safety justification for the parking 
brake warning system exists, then a warning device would be suitable 
for school buses equipped with either automatic or manual 
transmissions. Unlike GM, Navistar stated that there is the possibility 
of confusion if a vehicle contains several warning systems. Also, 
Navistar warned that even if a vehicle equipped with the parking brake 
warning system were not shifted into neutral, the warning system would 
not activate, allowing rollaway to occur. The company stated that the 
potential to forget to apply the parking brake is probably equal for 
either a manual or automatic transmission. AlliedSignal indicated that 
warning systems can confuse drivers because of the variants in warning 
systems of different vehicles and noted that many vehicles with 
hydraulic brakes are already equipped with a visual indication that the 
parking brake has been applied. Therefore, an additional warning for 
the parking brake warning system would need to be both visual and 
audible. ATA argued that the proposed warning system would not always 
be effective, such as when the vehicle is parked with the engine 
running, and stated that if a driver becomes accustomed to the warning 
system, then there is the possibility that it will lose effectiveness.
    The commenters were nearly unanimous in their view that driver 
training is an effective means for addressing unintended roll aways. 
Rochester stated that driver training is the area that needs attention. 
Thomas indicated that unless there is a large population of roll away 
cases that can be used to define the issue in detail, driver training 
would be an important countermeasure. Navistar submitted that greater 
emphasis on the driver training aspects of parking brake application 
could have some unmeasured benefit. AlliedSignal suggested that an 
informational campaign could help vehicle operators understand that the 
park position on an automatic transmission is not the parking brake. 
ATA stated that training is important regardless of whether there is a 
parking-brake-off warning system or not.
    However, GM indicated that it did not believe that training would 
be a useful countermeasure. In GM's view, school bus drivers in the 
U.S. receive extensive training including annual training updates and 
capability assessments. Therefore, GM suspects that drivers who neglect 
to apply the parking brake do so through forgetfulness instead of lack 
of knowledge.
    A number of commenters voiced their opposition to augmenting or 
replacing a warning system with a system that automatically applies the 
parking brake on school buses whenever the ignition is turned to 
``lock'' or the key is removed. Thomas stated that such a system would 
not be a fail safe system, and a system that would be activated when 
the key is removed would be difficult to design and build. Thomas was 
concerned that an automatic parking brake system could malfunction at 
the worst time, for example, on a railroad crossing. Also, if such a 
vehicle were equipped with an override system, that feature could 
defeat the purpose of the automatic system. GM indicated that it would 
not support a requirement for an automatic parking brake system. GM 
believes that there are practicality, durability, performance and cost 
reasons for not adopting any requirement for automatic parking brakes 
on school buses. Navistar was concerned that an automatic parking brake 
system could accidentally activate while the vehicle is in motion, 
resulting in a loss of vehicle control. AlliedSignal stated that an 
automatic parking brake system would be acceptable, provided that the 
system could not activate while the vehicle was in motion. ATA 
indicated that an automatic parking brake system would not be 
acceptable. In the case of hydraulic-braked vehicles, a series of 
wires, switches, linkage, and a motor would be needed to activate the 
mechanical parking brake, which would add to vehicle complexity and 
reduce reliability. Also, an automatic parking brake system would not 
permit the driver to park intentionally without applying the parking 
brake, as is sometimes done in freezing weather when brake components 
are wet to prevent parking brake freeze-up. An override switch would be 
needed with an automatic parking brake system to prevent the freeze-up 
problem, to permit towing, and to perform brake system maintenance.

[[Page 18584]]

    In response to an agency inquiry regarding expanding the 
application of a warning system requirement to include vehicles other 
than school buses, Thomas stated that the roll away problem is so small 
that it was difficult to determine if such an expansion could be 
justified. TMA believed that sufficient data do not exist to justify a 
warning system requirement for either school buses or medium and heavy-
duty trucks. GM submitted that NHTSA's regulatory decision-making 
should be driven by objective data and any warning system requirement 
should be instituted only if data show a safety need and the warning 
system is demonstrated to be an effective countermeasure. ATA stated 
that parking-brake-off warning system should not be mandated for medium 
and heavy-duty commercial vehicles.

V. Analysis

    Examination of agency data and the comments submitted in response 
to the March 1, 1999 notice indicate that school bus roll away 
incidents are very rare. The petitioner submitted evidence of two roll 
aways in its petition. Comments received in response to the March 1999 
notice refer to two additional roll away incidents, with no specific 
details on whether the involved school buses were equipped with air or 
hydraulic brakes, or manual or automatic transmissions. The coding 
schemes for the General Estimates System (GES) and Fatality Analysis 
Reporting System (FARS) databases of property damage and injury-or 
fatality-producing crashes are not suitable for identifying roll away 
crashes due to failure to apply the parking brakes. However, a search 
of the NHTSA's defects investigation complaint database revealed one 
complaint involving a roll away that may have been related to a failure 
to engage the parking brake. Therefore, there are five reported roll 
away incidents dating back to 1989. One of these incidents resulted in 
unspecified injuries to students.
    The small number of reported incidents over the past decade 
indicates that the safety risk posed by school bus roll aways stemming 
from failure to use the parking brake is very small. The agency 
believes that there is not a safety need sufficient to justify adopting 
a requirement that all school buses be equipped with a parking brake 
warning system. Moreover, the effectiveness of a parking brake warning 
system has not been demonstrated. As indicated by several commenters, 
there is a potential for the system not to be effective in certain 
situations, such as when parking when the engine is running. The 
petitioner did not provide any information regarding data or studies 
that show such a warning system would be effective, and the agency is 
not aware of any research on this issue.
    The agency is also concerned that requiring either an audible or 
visual warning or both would not be the most effective countermeasure. 
As one of the commenters indicated, the effectiveness of any warning is 
affected by operator training. The commenters suggested that driver 
training would be a more effective countermeasure than warnings. In the 
absence of training, warnings may simply be disregarded or 
unconsciously ignored.
    In 1999, NHTSA's Office of Traffic Safety Programs released an 
extensive school bus driver training program to assist school bus 
operators in training their drivers. The program was developed with the 
expertise and support of fifteen groups including federal agencies, 
pupil transportation providers, and school districts. There are seven 
training modules in the program, including Driver Attitude, Student 
Management, Highway-Rail Grade Crossing Safety, Vehicle Training, 
Knowing Your Route, Loading and Unloading, and Transporting Infants and 
Toddlers. In the Vehicle Training module, there is an entry entitled 
``Manual versus Automatic,'' which, in a properly-administered training 
program, would include a thorough discussion of the lack of a parking 
position on large school bus automatic transmissions. Part 5 of the 
module, or If no lookout is available, includes the sequence of actions 
to be taken by the driver before backing up a bus: first, set the 
parking brake; second, turn off the motor and take the keys with you; 
and third, walk to the rear of the bus to determine whether the way is 
clear. The agency believes that administration of such a training 
program would provide adequate information to the driver to learn how 
to properly use the parking brake.
    The agency notes that GM provides such a warning system for 
customers who rent trucks to the general public. This feature was 
provided in response to many of its customers desiring this feature. 
However, NHTSA notes that the rental vehicles in question are below the 
26,001 lbs. GVWR limit above which a commercial drivers license (CDL) 
is required. Thus, the operators of these vehicles, the general public, 
have not received the extensive training that a CDL vehicle operator 
must undergo. In addition, drivers of school buses that have a seating 
capacity of more than 16 passengers are required to have not only a 
CDL, but also a passenger vehicle endorsement. Further, those drivers 
of school buses equipped with air brakes are also required to have an 
air brake endorsement on their license. Because of these substantial 
differences, the agency believes the benefits of a parking brake 
warning system would be higher for rental vehicles operated on an 
occasional basis by the general public than for school buses that are 
operated only by trained and specially-licensed school bus drivers.

VI. Conclusion

    For the reasons given above, we conclude that Schmitty and Sons has 
not justified the need for rulemaking. The safety risk posed by the 
failure to use the parking brakes on school buses, which may result in 
unintended movement of the vehicle, is very small. The risk does not 
justify requiring that all school buses have a warning system to remind 
drivers to use the brake.
    This completes the agency's review of the petition, in accordance 
with 49 CFR part 552. Based on the available information, we believe 
that there is no reasonable possibility that the actions requested by 
Schmitty would be taken at the conclusion of a rulemaking proceeding 
and that the problem alleged by Schmitty does not warrant the 
expenditure of agency resources to conduct a rulemaking proceeding. 
Accordingly, we deny Schmitty's petition.

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30103, 30162; delegation of authority at 49 
CFR 1.50 and 501.8.

    Issued on: April 4, 2001.
Stephen R. Kratzke,
Associate Administrator for Safety Performance Standards.
[FR Doc. 01-8738 Filed 4-9-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P