[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 210 (Wednesday, October 30, 2002)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 66098-66102]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-27526]



[[Page 66098]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 571

[Docket No. NHTSA-2002-11652]
RIN 2127-AI47


Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Hydraulic and Electric 
Brake Systems

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

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: This document proposes to amend the Federal motor vehicle 
safety standard on hydraulic and electric brake systems to extend the 
current minimum performance requirements and associated test procedures 
for parking brake systems to all vehicles with a gross vehicle weight 
rating (GVWR) greater than 10,000 pounds (4,536 kilograms). Currently, 
the only vehicles with a GVWR greater than 10,000 pounds to which the 
standard's parking brake requirements apply are school buses. The 
agency tentatively concludes that it is in the interest of safety to 
require all vehicles with a GVWR over 10,000 pounds to have parking 
brakes that meet the performance requirements currently applicable to 
heavy school buses. This document also proposes to change the 
application language of the standard and grants a petition for 
rulemaking requesting that the agency update a reference to an industry 
standard for assessing the performance of parking brakes in moving 
barrier collision tests so that the most recent version of the standard 
is referenced.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before December 30, 2002.

ADDRESSES: Comments should refer to the docket number above and be 
submitted to: Docket Section, National Highway Traffic Safety 
Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590. 
Alternatively, you may submit your comments electronically by logging 
onto the Docket Management System (DMS) Web site at http://dms.dot.gov. 
Click on ``Help & Information'' or ``Help/Info'' to view instructions 
for filing your comments electronically. Regardless of how you submit 
your comments, you should mention the docket number of this document.
    You may call the Docket at 202-366-9324. Docket hours are 9:30 a.m. 
to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For non-legal issues, Mr. Samuel 
Daniel, Vehicle Dynamics Division, Office of Vehicle Safety Standards 
(Telephone: 202-366-4921) (Fax: 202-366-4929).
    For legal issues, Mr. Edward Glancy, Office of the Chief Counsel 
(Telephone: 202-366-2992) (Fax: 202-366-3820).
    Both can be reached by mail at the National Highway Traffic Safety 
Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 105, Hydraulic and 
electric brake systems, sets forth minimum performance requirements for 
a vehicle's service and parking brake systems. Originally, the standard 
applied exclusively to passenger cars with hydraulic brake systems.\1\ 
On September 2, 1972, the agency published a final rule extending the 
standard to multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses with 
hydraulic service brake systems (37 FR 17970). Later, however, the 
agency withdrew its final rule prior to its effective date because data 
indicated that the costs of extending the standard to such vehicles at 
that time outweighed the anticipated benefits (40 FR 18411, Apr. 28, 
1975).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The agency extended Standard No. 105 to vehicles with 
electric braking systems on September 5, 1997 (62 FR 46907).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On January 16, 1976, the agency extended the standard's service and 
parking brake requirements to school buses with hydraulic service brake 
systems (41 FR 2391). Then, on October 18, 1979, the agency again 
published a proposal to extend the standard to multipurpose passenger 
vehicles, trucks, and all types of buses with hydraulic service brake 
systems (44 FR 60113). While the agency proposed extending the 
standard's service brake requirements to all multipurpose passenger 
vehicles, trucks, and buses, regardless of the vehicle's GVWR, the 
agency proposed a more limited extension of the standard's parking 
brake requirements. The agency's proposal excluded all vehicles with a 
GVWR greater than 10,000 pounds (4,536 kilograms), other than school 
buses, from the application of Standard No. 105's parking brake 
requirements.
    Although NHTSA did not propose extending the standard's parking 
brake requirements to multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and 
buses (other than school buses) with a GVWR greater than 10,000 pounds 
at that time, the agency did indicate, in the notice of proposed 
rulemaking, that it intended to establish additional performance 
requirements for such vehicles in future rulemaking. The final rule 
extending Standard No. 105's parking brake requirements to multipurpose 
passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or 
less was published on January 2, 1981 (46 FR 55). Among other things, 
it required parking brakes on multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, 
and buses with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less to hold the vehicle 
stationary, in both forward and reverse directions, for five minutes on 
a 30 percent grade. In response to three petitions for reconsideration, 
the agency decided to change the gradient requirement for parking 
brakes on these vehicles from 30 percent to 20 percent (46 FR 61887, 
Dec. 21, 1981).

The Safety Need

    The agency believes that parking brakes are an important 
operational safety feature and tentatively concludes that it is in the 
interest of safety to require that all vehicles be equipped with 
parking brakes that comply with Federal requirements. When properly 
engaged, parking brakes can prevent driverless roll-away events, which 
can result in collisions, injuries, and fatalities. A review of the 
agency's Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) database indicates 
that a total of three to five fatal vehicle roll-away events involving 
large, hydraulically-braked, non-school bus vehicles occurred between 
1991 and 1999. Additionally, during that same period, there were 
annually about 574 crashes with 82 injured people resulting from roll-
away, heavy duty trucks, according to data from the General Estimates 
System (GES). The GES data are not sufficiently detailed to determine 
which of the vehicles were hydraulically-braked and which were air-
braked, nor can the data be used to determine if the vehicles were 
parked prior to the roll-away incident. Therefore, these figures likely 
represent the upper bound of the number of crashes and injuries caused 
by the rolling away, due to parking brake problems, of parked, heavy 
duty, heavy trucks and buses equipped with hydraulic brakes.
    Many of the driverless roll-away events may be caused by 
misapplication or non-use of the parking brake. Requiring all heavy 
vehicles to meet the same parking brake performance requirements would 
not affect the non-use problem; however, it might increase the 
likelihood that operators of these vehicles (particularly fleet drivers 
who must operate a large number of different heavy vehicles) would be 
better able to

[[Page 66099]]

engage their vehicle's parking brake fully because the force required 
to apply the parking brake would be standardized. This might reduce the 
incidence of parking brake misapplication. In addition, requiring that 
all heavy vehicles remain stationary with the parking brake fully 
engaged, in both forward and reverse directions, when parked on a 20 
percent grade, should prevent the occurrence of driverless roll-away 
events due to parking brake failure on most roads in the United States 
because most U.S. roads have less than a 20 percent grade. Accordingly, 
requiring all vehicles to which Standard No. 105 applies to have 
parking brakes meeting the standard's effort limit and gradient 
requirements should decrease the likelihood of driverless roll-away 
events and, therefore, lead to modest collision, injury, and fatality 
reduction benefits.
    As explained more fully below, it is likely that most, if not all, 
heavy vehicles are already manufactured with parking brakes designed to 
meet Standard No. 105's requirements. Even if this is true, however, we 
do not know whether those parking brakes would actually perform 
successfully when tested under the conditions and according to the test 
procedures outlined in paragraphs S6 and S7 of the standard because 
manufacturers are currently not required to certify compliance. 
Requiring manufacturers to certify the performance of the parking 
brakes on these heavy vehicles would provide added assurance that they 
actually meet the standard's requirements. It would also guard against 
the possibility of a decrease in performance of these parking brakes 
due to future truck chassis design changes.
    Paragraph S5.2 of the standard currently requires that all heavy 
school buses be manufactured with a parking brake of a friction type 
with a solely mechanical means to retain engagement. Such parking 
brakes are required to meet the standard's effort limit and gradient 
requirements, found in paragraphs S5.2(b) and S5.2.3, respectively. 
Paragraph S5.2(b) requires that the parking brake be capable of being 
engaged fully with a force applied to the control of not more than 150 
pounds for a foot-operated system and not more than 125 pounds for a 
hand-operated system. Paragraph S5.2.3 requires that the parking brake 
system be capable of holding the vehicle stationary for five minutes, 
in both forward and reverse directions, on a 20 percent grade.
    NHTSA believes that it is reasonable to assume that operators of 
heavy school buses and other heavy vehicles are of similar size and 
strength. In addition, the agency believes heavy school buses and other 
heavy vehicles are parked in similar environments. Therefore, the 
agency tentatively concludes that it is appropriate to apply the same 
effort limit and gradient requirements (and associated test procedures) 
to these vehicles as are currently applied to heavy school buses. 
Nevertheless, the agency requests comments on the appropriateness of 
applying the heavy school bus effort limit and gradient requirements to 
other heavy vehicles.

Costs and Benefits

    During October and November of 2000, several heavy vehicle 
manufacturers, including General Motors, Ford Motor Company, and 
International Truck and Bus Corporation, indicated that they are not 
aware of any vehicles for sale in the United States that are not 
equipped with a parking brake system. These manufacturers also 
expressed the belief that parking brake systems for trucks and buses 
with a GVWR greater than 10,000 pounds are already designed to meet the 
requirements specified in Standard No. 105 for heavy school buses. With 
respect to those trucks and buses with a GVWR greater than 10,000 
pounds that are built on the same chassis used to build heavy school 
buses, it is likely that they are equipped with the same parking brake 
systems found in heavy school buses.
    If this is true, then the agency estimates that the cost of 
requiring all manufacturers of non-school bus vehicles with a GVWR 
greater than 10,000 pounds to meet the standard's parking brake 
requirements would be minimal (less than $10 per vehicle) because few, 
if any, modifications to the already existing parking brakes would be 
necessary to bring those brakes into compliance with the standard. The 
cost of conducting the parking brake compliance test should not be 
significant when compared to the total cost of FMVSS No. 105 compliance 
testing. The agency believes that most test facilities already have the 
20 percent grade slope we are proposing. The proposed test procedure is 
straightforward and not time consuming. Accordingly, the agency does 
not anticipate that the cost of certifying compliance to the proposed 
requirements would be significant. Nevertheless, the agency is 
interested in receiving estimates from heavy vehicle manufacturers 
regarding the anticipated costs of conducting the parking brake 
certification tests as well as the costs of meeting the proposed 
requirements. Any cost estimates submitted should include a detailed 
description of the modifications the commenter considers necessary to 
bring these vehicles' parking brakes into compliance with the standard 
and/or a detailed estimate of certification test costs.
    Given the likelihood that most vehicles with a GVWR over 10,000 
pounds are already equipped with a parking brake system that meets the 
performance requirements of S5.2 and S5.2.3, NHTSA anticipates only 
marginal safety benefits from formally extending these requirements. 
Nevertheless, to the extent that any vehicles with a GVWR over 10,000 
pounds do not already comply with these requirements, the agency does 
expect that the extension of the parking brake effort limit and 
gradient requirements to such vehicles would reduce the number of 
collisions, injuries, and fatalities due to driverless roll-away 
events.
    As stated above, NHTSA believes that many roll-away events occur 
when the parking brake is either not used or misapplied. It is also 
possible that some roll-away events are caused by parking brake 
failure, which occurs when the parking brake is properly applied but 
fails to hold the vehicle stationary, due to catastrophic failure, 
wear-and-tear, or other factors. While the proposed changes are not 
likely to have any effect on the non-use problem, the standardization 
of parking brake effort limit requirements for all heavy vehicles may 
reduce the incidence of misapplication by making it easier for 
operators of these vehicles to fully engage the parking brake. In 
addition, requiring all hydraulically-braked heavy vehicles to have 
parking brakes that meet the gradient requirement should decrease the 
likelihood of parking brake failure on most U.S. roads. For these 
reasons, the agency anticipates modest collision, injury, and fatality 
reduction benefits from extending Standard No. 105's parking brake 
requirements to all hydraulically-braked vehicles with a GVWR greater 
than 10,000 pounds.

Additional Rulemaking

    The agency is using this rulemaking proposal to address several 
other Standard No. 105 issues that have been recently brought to our 
attention. In addition to the substantive changes outlined above, the 
agency also proposes to change the language in the application 
paragraph of the standard (S3. Application) to reflect the 
inapplicability of the standard's requirements to hydraulically-braked 
vehicles with a GVWR of 3,500 kilograms (7,716 pounds) or less. 
Standard No. 105 used to apply to these

[[Page 66100]]

vehicles. However, Standard No. 135 now applies instead.
    In addition, on June 10, 2002, the agency received a petition for 
rulemaking from Mr. James E. Stocke of Ann Arbor, Michigan, requesting 
that NHTSA update a reference to the Society of Automotive Engineers' 
(SAE) Recommended Practice for Moving Barrier Collision Tests, J972 
(SAE J972). A portion of an older (November 1966) version of SAE J972 
is referenced in Standard No. 105, paragraph S7.19, as part of the 
parking brake test procedures for passenger cars and school buses with 
a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less. Although there are no changes to the 
description of the rigid moving barrier in the more recent (May 2000) 
version of the document, the ``Barrier'' paragraph has been re-
designated as paragraph 4.3 instead of paragraph 3.3, its designation 
in the November 1966 version of the document.
    The agency does not necessarily update references to SAE or other 
industry standards every time those standards are amended, especially 
when the standard referenced by the agency is properly identified (and 
therefore easy to locate) through publication dates or other 
appropriate information, such as title. However, in this case, Standard 
No. 105 references a version of the SAE document that is more than 35 
years old and may be difficult to locate. Furthermore, the information 
in the updated reference is substantively identical to the information 
in the original reference. Accordingly, NHTSA has decided to grant Mr. 
Stocke's petition and proposes to amend paragraph S7.19 to update the 
reference to the May 2000 version of SAE J972.

Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures

    Executive Order 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and Review'' (58 FR 
51735, October 4, 1993), provides for making determinations whether a 
regulatory action is ``significant'' and therefore subject to Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) review and to the requirements of the 
Executive Order. The Order defines a ``significant regulatory action'' 
as one that is likely to result in a rule that may:
    (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or 
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the 
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public 
health or safety, or State, local, or Tribal governments or 
communities;
    (2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an 
action taken or planned by another agency;
    (3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, 
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations or recipients 
thereof; or
    (4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal 
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in 
the Executive Order.
    This notice was not reviewed under Executive Order 12866. Further, 
this notice was determined not to be significant within the meaning of 
the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures.
    In this document, NHTSA is proposing to extend the applicability of 
already existing parking brake requirements to cover vehicles 
previously excluded. As explained above, anecdotal evidence from heavy 
vehicle manufacturers suggests that most, if not all, of these vehicles 
are already manufactured with parking brakes designed to meet the 
minimum performance requirements that the agency is proposing to apply. 
For the remaining vehicles, the agency estimates the cost of complying 
with these requirements to be less than $10 per vehicle. Considering 
that the total number of such vehicles that would be subject to the 
proposed requirements is estimated to be about 212,000 annually, the 
agency estimates that the total annual effect of this proposed rule 
would be less than $2,120,000. Accordingly, the agency does not believe 
that this proposal would have any significant economic effects.
    The DOT's regulatory policies and procedures require the 
preparation of a full regulatory evaluation, unless the agency finds 
that the impacts of a rulemaking are so minimal as not to warrant the 
preparation of a full regulatory evaluation. Since anecdotal evidence 
suggests that most, if not all, of these vehicles are already 
manufactured with parking brakes designed to meet the minimum 
performance requirements that the agency is proposing to apply, the 
agency believes that the impacts of this rulemaking would be minimal. 
Thus, it has not prepared a full regulatory evaluation.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., 
as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act 
(SBREFA) of 1996), whenever an agency is required to publish a notice 
of rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must prepare and make 
available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis that 
describes the effect of the rule on small entities (i.e., small 
businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions). 
The Small Business Administration's regulations at 13 CFR Part 121 
define a small business, in part, as a business entity ``which operates 
primarily within the United States.'' (13 CFR Sec.  121.105(a)). No 
regulatory flexibility analysis is required if the head of an agency 
certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on 
a substantial number of small entities. The SBREFA amended the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act to require Federal agencies to provide a 
statement of the factual basis for certifying that a rule will not have 
a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities.
    NHTSA has considered the effects of this rulemaking action under 
the Regulatory Flexibility Act. As explained above, anecdotal evidence 
from heavy vehicle manufacturers suggests that most, if not all, of 
these vehicles are already manufactured with parking brakes designed to 
meet the minimum performance requirements that the agency is proposing 
to apply. For the remaining vehicles, the agency estimates the cost of 
complying with these requirements to be less than $10 per vehicle. 
Considering that the total number of such vehicles that would be 
subject to the proposed requirements is estimated to be about 212,000 
vehicles annually, the agency estimates that the total annual effect of 
this proposed rule would be less than $2,120,000. Accordingly, I hereby 
certify that it would not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities.

National Environmental Policy Act

    NHTSA has analyzed this rulemaking action for the purposes of the 
National Environmental Policy Act. The agency has determined that 
implementation of this action would not have any significant impact on 
the quality of the human environment.

Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

    Executive Order 13132 requires NHTSA to develop an accountable 
process to ensure ``meaningful and timely input by State and local 
officials in the development of regulatory policies that have 
federalism implications.'' The Executive Order defines ``policies that 
have federalism implications'' to include regulations that have 
``substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between 
the national government and the States,

[[Page 66101]]

or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various 
levels of government.'' Under Executive Order 13132, NHTSA may not 
issue a regulation with Federalism implications, that imposes 
substantial direct compliance costs, and that is not required by 
statute, unless the Federal government provides the funds necessary to 
pay the direct compliance costs incurred by State and local 
governments, the agency consults with State and local governments, or 
the agency consults with State and local officials early in the process 
of developing the proposed regulation. NHTSA also may not issue a 
regulation with Federalism implications and that preempts State law 
unless the agency consults with State and local officials early in the 
process of developing the proposed regulation.
    NHTSA has analyzed this rulemaking action in accordance with the 
principles and criteria set forth in Executive Order 13132. The agency 
has determined that this proposed rule would not have sufficient 
federalism implications to warrant consultation with State and local 
officials or the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement. 
The proposal would not have any substantial effects on the States, or 
on the current Federal-State relationship, or on the current 
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various local 
officials.

Civil Justice Reform

    This proposed amendment would not have any retroactive effect. 
Under 49 U.S.C. 30103, whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard 
is in effect, a State may not adopt or maintain a safety standard 
applicable to the same aspect of performance which is not identical to 
the Federal standard, except to the extent that the state requirement 
imposes a higher level of performance and applies only to vehicles 
procured for the State's use. 49 U.S.C. 30161 sets forth a procedure 
for judicial review of final rules establishing, amending, or revoking 
Federal motor vehicle safety standards. That section does not require 
submission of a petition for reconsideration or other administrative 
proceedings before parties may file suit in court.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, a person is not required 
to respond to a collection of information by a Federal agency unless 
the collection displays a valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) 
control number. This proposed rule would not require any collections of 
information as defined by the OMB in 5 CFR Part 1320.

National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272) 
directs NHTSA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory 
activities unless doing so would be inconsistent with applicable law or 
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical 
standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling 
procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by 
voluntary consensus standards bodies, such as the Society of Automotive 
Engineers (SAE). The NTTAA directs the agency to provide Congress, 
through the OMB, explanations when we decide not to use available and 
applicable voluntary consensus standards.
    There are no voluntary consensus standards available at this time. 
However, NHTSA will consider any such standards if they become 
available.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) 
requires Federal agencies to prepare a written assessment of the costs, 
benefits, and other effects of proposed or final rules that include a 
Federal mandate likely to result in the expenditure by State, local or 
tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of more 
than $100 million in any one year (adjusted for inflation with base 
year of 1995). Before promulgating a rule for which a written statement 
is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires NHTSA to identify 
and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt 
the least costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative 
that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205 
do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, 
section 205 allows NHTSA to adopt an alternative other than the least 
costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative if the 
agency publishes with the final rule an explanation why that 
alternative was not adopted.
    This proposed rule would not result in the expenditure by State, 
local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private 
sector of more than $100 million annually. The estimated cost of 
complying with the proposed requirements is less than $10 per vehicle. 
Considering that the total number of vehicles to which these 
requirements would apply is estimated to be about 212,000 vehicles 
annually, the estimated aggregate cost of this proposed rule would be 
less than $2,120,000. Accordingly, the agency has not prepared an 
Unfunded Mandates assessment.

Plain Language

    Executive Order 12866 requires each agency to write all rules in 
plain language. Application of the principles of plain language 
includes consideration of the following questions:

--Have we organized the material to suit the public's needs?
--Are the requirements in the rule clearly stated?
--Does the rule contain technical language or jargon that is not clear?
--Would a different format (grouping and order of sections, use of 
headings, paragraphing) make the rule easier to understand?
--Would more (but shorter) sections be better?
--Could we improve clarity by adding tables, lists, or diagrams?
--What else could we do to make this rulemaking easier to understand?

    If you have any responses to these questions, please include them 
in your comments on this NPRM.

Regulation Identifier Number (RIN)

    The Department of Transportation assigns a regulation identifier 
number (RIN) to each regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of 
Federal Regulations. The Regulatory Information Service Center 
publishes the Unified Agenda in April and October of each year. You may 
use the RIN contained in the heading at the beginning of this document 
to find this action in the Unified Agenda.

Comments

How Do I Prepare and Submit Comments?

    Your comments must be written and in English. To ensure that your 
comments are correctly filed in the Docket, please include the docket 
number of this document in your comments.
    Your comments must not be more than 15 pages long. (49 CFR 553.21). 
We established this limit to encourage you to write your primary 
comments in a concise fashion. However, you may attach necessary 
additional documents to your comments. There is no limit on the length 
of the attachments.
    Please submit two copies of your comments, including the 
attachments, to Docket Management at the address given above under 
ADDRESSES.

[[Page 66102]]

    You may also submit your comments to the docket electronically by 
logging onto the Dockets Management System website at http://dms.dot.gov. Click on ``Help & Information'' or ``Help/Info'' to obtain 
instructions for filing the document electronically.

How Can I Be Sure That My Comments Were Received?

    If you wish Docket Management to notify you upon its receipt of 
your comments, enclose a self-addressed, stamped postcard in the 
envelope containing your comments. Upon receiving your comments, Docket 
Management will return the postcard by mail.

How Do I Submit Confidential Business Information?

    If you wish to submit any information under a claim of 
confidentiality, you should submit three copies of your complete 
submission, including the information you claim to be confidential 
business information, to the Chief Counsel, NHTSA, at the address given 
above under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. In addition, you should 
submit two copies, from which you have deleted the claimed confidential 
business information, to Docket Management at the address given above 
under ADDRESSES.When you send a comment containing information claimed 
to be confidential business information, you should include a cover 
letter setting forth the information specified in our confidential 
business information regulation. (49 CFR Part 512.)

Will the Agency Consider Late Comments?

    We will consider all comments that Docket Management receives 
before the close of business on the comment closing date indicated 
above under DATES. To the extent possible, we will also consider 
comments that Docket Management receives after that date. If Docket 
Management receives a comment too late for us to consider it in 
developing a final rule (assuming that one is issued), we will consider 
that comment as an informal suggestion for future rulemaking action.

How Can I Read the Comments Submitted by Other People?

    You may read the comments received by Docket Management at the 
address given above under ADDRESSES. The hours of the Docket are 
indicated above in the same location.
    You may also see the comments on the Internet. To read the comments 
on the Internet, take the following steps:
    1. Go to the Docket Management System (DMS) Web page of the 
Department of Transportation (http://dms.dot.gov/).
    2. On that page, click on ``search.''
    3. On the next page (http://dms.dot.gov/search/), type in the four-
digit docket number shown at the beginning of this document. Example: 
If the docket number were ``NHTSA-1998-1234'', you would type ``1234''. 
After typing the docket number, click on ``search''.
    4. On the next page, which contains docket summary information for 
the docket you selected, click on the desired comments. You may 
download the comments. Although the comments are imaged documents, 
instead of word processing documents, the ``pdf'' versions of the 
documents are word searchable.
    Please note that even after the comment closing date, we will 
continue to file relevant information in the Docket as it becomes 
available. Further, some people may submit late comments. Accordingly, 
we recommend that you periodically check the Docket for new material.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 571

    Imports, Motor vehicle safety, Motor vehicles, Rubber and rubber 
products, and Tires.

    In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA proposes to amend 49 CFR 
part 571 as follows:

PART 571--FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS

    1. The authority citation for part 571 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30166, and 30177; 
delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.

    2. Section 571.105 is amended by revising S3, S5.2, S5.2.3, S7.7.1, 
paragraph (b) of S7.7.1.3, and S7.19 as follows:


Sec.  571.105  Standard No. 105; Hydraulic and electric brake systems.

* * * * *
    S3. Application. This standard applies to vehicles with a GVWR 
greater than 3,500 kilograms (7,716 pounds) that are equipped with 
hydraulic or electric brake systems.
* * * * *
    S5.2 Parking brake system. Each vehicle shall be manufactured with 
a parking brake system of a friction type with a solely mechanical 
means to retain engagement, which shall under the conditions of S6, 
when tested according to the procedures specified in S7, meet the 
requirements specified in S5.2.1, S5.2.2, or S5.2.3 as appropriate, 
with the system engaged--
    (a) In the case of a vehicle with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less, 
with a force applied to the control not to exceed 125 pounds for a 
foot-operated system and 90 pounds for a hand-operated system; and
    (b) In the case of a vehicle with a GVWR greater than 10,000 
pounds, with a force applied to the control not to exceed 150 pounds 
for a foot-operated system and 125 pounds for a hand-operated system.
* * * * *
    S5.2.3 (a) The parking brake system on a multipurpose passenger 
vehicle, truck and bus (other than a school bus) with a GVWR of 10,000 
pounds or less shall be capable of holding the vehicle stationary for 5 
minutes, in both forward and reverse directions, on a 20 percent grade.
    (b) The parking brake system on a vehicle with a GVWR greater than 
10,000 pounds shall be capable of holding the vehicle stationary for 5 
minutes, in both forward and reverse directions, on a 20 percent grade.
* * * * *
    S7.7.1 Test procedure for requirements of S5.2.1 and S5.2.3.
* * * * *
    S7.7.1.3
* * * * *
    (b) In the case of a vehicle with a GVWR greater than 10,000 pounds 
not more than 150 pounds for a foot-operated system, and not more than 
125 pounds for a hand-operated system.
* * * * *
    S7.19 Moving barrier test. (Only for vehicles that have been tested 
according to S7.7.2.) Load the vehicle to GVWR, release parking brake, 
and place the transmission selector control to engage the parking 
mechanism. With a moving barrier as described in paragraph 4.3 of SAE 
recommended practice J972 ``Moving Barrier Collision Tests,'' May 2000, 
impact the vehicle from the front at 2\1/2\ mph. Keep the longitudinal 
axis of the barrier parallel with the longitudinal axis of the vehicle. 
Repeat the test, impacting the vehicle from the rear.

    Note: The vehicle used for this test need not be the same 
vehicle that has been used for the braking tests.

* * * * *

    Issued: October 23, 2002.
Stephen R. Kratzke,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 02-27526 Filed 10-29-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P