Home Page About Us Contribute

K&N Automotive Air Intakes

LuckyBug LifeStyle



Tweets by @CrittendenAuto










Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Stability and Control of Medium and Heavy Vehicles During Braking

American Government Special Collections Reference Desk

American Government Trucking Topics:  National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Stability and Control of Medium and Heavy Vehicles During Braking

Barry Felrice
Federal Register
April 12, 1994

[Federal Register: April 12, 1994]


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


DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
49 CFR Part 571

[Docket No. 92-29; Notice 4]
RIN 2127-AA00

 
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Stability and Control of 
Medium and Heavy Vehicles During Braking

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

ACTION: Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This notice proposes to modify the implementation schedule for 
and certain requirements in the agency's September 1993 notice 
proposing to improve the stability and control of medium and heavy 
vehicles during braking. In response to the Intermodal Surface 
Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) of 1991, the agency proposed in 
the September notice that medium and heavy vehicles be equipped with an 
antilock brake system (ABS) and be able to comply with a 30 mph 
braking-in-a-curve test on a low coefficient of friction surface using 
a full brake application.
    In this supplemental notice, NHTSA is proposing to amend the 
implementation schedule for the rule and to require independent wheel 
control on at least one axle. The agency's decision to issue this 
notice was prompted by comments on the NPRM favoring such changes.

DATES: Comments on this notice must be received on or before May 12, 
1994.

ADDRESSES: All comments on this notice should refer to the docket and 
notice number and be submitted to the following: Docket Section, Room 
5109, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh 
Street SW., Washington, DC 20590 (Docket hours 9:30 a.m. to 4 p.m.).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. George Soodoo, Office of Crash 
Avoidance, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh 
Street SW., Washington, DC 20590 (202) 366-5892.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On September 28, 1993, NHTSA published a 
notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) in which the agency proposed 
amending Standard No. 105, Hydraulic Brake Systems and Standard No. 
121, Air Brake Systems, to require medium and heavy vehicles1 to 
be equipped with an antilock brake system (ABS) to improve the lateral 
stability and control of these vehicles during braking. (58 FR 50739). 
The NPRM proposed supplementing the ABS requirement by including a 30 
mph braking-in-a-curve test on a low coefficient of friction surface 
using a full brake application. The agency believed that the proposed 
requirements would improve heavy vehicle stability and control during 
braking and thus significantly reduce the deaths and injuries caused 
when these vehicles jackknife or otherwise lose control. The notice 
also proposed requiring an in-cab ABS malfunction lamp and, during a 
transition period of eight years, an external trailer lamp to warn 
drivers of non-ABS tractors of trailer ABS malfunction. The agency 
believed that the proposed malfunction indicators would provide 
valuable information about ABS malfunctioning to the driver and to 
maintenance and inspection personnel. The proposal was based on 
comments received in response to an advance notice of proposed 
rulemaking (ANPRM) published on June 8, 1992 and other available 
information (57 FR 24212).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Such vehicles will be referred to as ``heavy vehicles'' 
throughout the remainder of this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NHTSA received over 50 comments in response to the NPRM. These 
commenters included heavy vehicle manufacturers, brake manufacturers, 
safety advocacy groups, heavy vehicle users, trade associations, State 
entities, and other individuals. The majority of commenters agreed that 
the agency should take measures to improve the stability and control of 
heavy vehicles during braking to reduce the number of loss-of-control 
crashes. Commenters addressed specific issues raised in the NPRM, 
including the decision proposing to require vehicles to be equipped 
with ABS, the type of ABS, the braking-in-a-curve test procedure, the 
implementation schedule for the requirements, the malfunction indicator 
requirement, the power requirement, and the rulemaking's cost.
    This SNPRM focuses on two issues raised in the NPRM and addressed 
by the commenters: (1) The implementation schedule and (2) the wheels 
to be controlled by an antilock brake system.

Implementation Schedule

    In the NPRM, NHTSA stated that its goal is to achieve significant 
improvements in braking performance at a reasonable cost to 
manufacturers and consumers. Based on the available information, NHTSA 
decided to propose the following implementation schedule:

Truck Tractors
2 years after final rule (1996)
Trailers, including converter dollies
3 years after final rule (1997)
Single unit trucks
4 years after final rule (1998)
Buses
5 years after final rule (1999)

    NHTSA believed that this implementation schedule is appropriate 
given the current state of ABS technology. The agency believed that it 
would provide the industry, ABS manufacturers, and maintenance 
personnel sufficient leadtime to prepare for the changes that will be 
required to accommodate the new technology.
    With respect to truck tractors, NHTSA stated that it was confident 
that ABS for this type of vehicle would be fully developed, performance 
tested, and field tested within two years after the final rule since 
ABS manufacturers have focused their initial efforts on developing ABS 
for truck tractors. The agency noted that ABS for truck tractors is 
currently available on a commercial basis in this country and 
throughout Europe. Nevertheless, a two year leadtime appeared to be 
necessary to ensure a smooth transition before the agency mandated this 
technology given the technical complexities and costs associated with 
ABS.
    With respect to trailers, NHTSA noted that ABS manufacturers are 
currently marketing ABS for these vehicles. NHTSA stated that it 
expected its fleet evaluation on 50 ABS-equipped trailers to be 
completed in 1993. (This evaluation, titled ``An In-Service Evaluation 
of the Performance, Reliability, Maintainability, and Durability of 
Antilock Braking Systems (ABSs) for Semitrailers'' has been completed 
and is available for review in the agency's public docket room. The 
agency welcomes comments about the report.)
    With respect to single-unit trucks and buses, NHTSA proposed 
leadtime of four years and five years, respectively, after the final 
rule's publication, resulting in an effective date in 1998 and 1999. 
NHTSA proposed effective dates that it believed would give the industry 
sufficient leadtime to develop, field test, and performance test ABS on 
straight trucks and buses. The agency also explained that ABS for such 
vehicles is still being developed, so these leadtimes appeared to be 
necessary to ensure that the technology would be reliable when it is 
required.
    The American Automobile Manufacturers Association (AAMA), which 
represents the eight major domestic truck manufacturers,2 
recommended that the effective dates for the proposed heavy vehicle 
stability and control requirements and the previously proposed stopping 
distance requirements be ``synchronized for the various vehicle 
types.'' (58 FR 11009, February 23, 1993).3
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Chrysler, Ford, Freightliner, General Motors, Mack, 
Navistar, PACCAR, and Volvo-GM.
    \3\ The February NPRM proposed that the stopping distance 
requirements take effect two years after the final rule for all 
applicable vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    AAMA recommended that the agency adopt the following effective 
dates for both the stability and control requirements and the stopping 
distance requirements, assuming that the two rules are issued before 
September 1994:

Truck tractors
2 years after final rule (1996)
Trailers, including converter dollies
3 years after final rule (1997)
Air-braked single unit trucks and buses
3 years after final rule (1997)
Hydraulic-braked single unit trucks and buses
4 years after final rule (1998)

    Similarly, manufacturers of brake components and antilock brake 
systems recommended that the implementation schedule for the lateral 
stability and control requirements be accelerated. Rockwell requested 
that the leadtime for air-braked single unit trucks and buses be 
shortened to three years after the final rule. The Heavy Duty Brake 
Manufacturers Council requested that the effective dates of the 
stopping distance rulemaking and the stability rulemaking be ``made 
coincident to allow the industry to maximize its efforts by effectively 
utilizing its limited resources.''
    The American Trucking Association (ATA) recommended effective dates 
of December 31, 1999 for tractors and December 31, 2001 for trailers, 
claiming that this schedule would permit each fleet, through its own 
tests, to determine which ABS is best suited to its operations and to 
phase ABS in accordingly. In contrast, Advocates for Highway Safety 
(Advocates) favored the proposed implementation schedule and opposed 
any schedule that moved the compliance calendar to the next century. It 
believed that a delayed schedule would unreasonably postpone safety 
benefits for the public because ABS technology is both reliable and 
available.
    After reviewing the comments, NHTSA has tentatively determined that 
it may be appropriate to make the effective dates for the heavy vehicle 
stability and control requirements concurrent with the stopping 
distance requirements. This could facilitate a more orderly 
implementation process, avoid the need for manufacturers to redesign 
the brakes on individual vehicles twice, and reduce the development and 
compliance costs that manufacturers would face as a result of these 
regulations. Specifically, the agency is considering to adopt the 
following implementation schedule for both sets of requirements:

Truck tractors
2 years after final rule (1996)
Trailers
3 years after final rule (1997)
Air-braked single unit trucks and buses
3 years after final rule (1997)
Hydraulic-braked single unit trucks and buses
4 years after final rule (1998)

    This proposed implementation schedule, which would accelerate 
compliance for air-braked single unit trucks and buses and hydraulic-
braked buses, is consistent with the recommendation of the heavy 
vehicle manufacturers, brake manufacturers, and the safety advocacy 
groups. The agency agrees with the manufacturers that reliable antilock 
systems can be developed within this time-frame. NHTSA tentatively 
concludes that the implementation schedule recommended by ATA is too 
protracted, especially in light of the widespread use of ABS in Europe, 
increased use of ABS in this country, and the comments by the brake and 
vehicle manufacturers.
    NHTSA requests comments about the implementation schedule being 
proposed in this supplemental notice. Specifically, commenters should 
respond to the following questions:
    1. Is it appropriate to make the effective dates concurrent for the 
stopping distance and stability requirements for heavy vehicles?
    2. Is it appropriate to accelerate the stability and control 
effective dates for air braked trucks and buses and hydraulic braked 
buses, and to delay the effective date for the proposed stopping 
distance requirements for some classes of vehicles?
    3. Since hydraulic braked trucks and buses would have to be 
equipped with ABS one year later than air braked trucks and buses, 
would truck and bus fleets specify hydraulic brake systems for their 
new vehicles for that one year to avoid the additional cost of ABS on 
air braked trucks and buses?
    4. The agency received comments to the stability and control NPRM 
from only one bus manufacturer. Do bus manufacturers have any specific 
concerns about the revised implementation dates proposed in this 
notice?
    5. Do the heavy vehicle ABS suppliers have the manufacturing 
capacity to meet the demand for air braked antilock systems in 1996 and 
1997?

Antilock Brake System Wheel Control

    In the NPRM, NHTSA proposed to require that the antilock brake 
system monitor and control the wheels of the front axle and of at least 
one rear axle. NHTSA believed that this would ensure that the wheels on 
the steering axle are directly controlled by the antilock braking 
device. By ``directly controlled,'' the agency meant that the signal 
provided at the wheel or on the axle of the wheel directly modulates 
the braking forces of that wheel. The agency tentatively concluded that 
it is necessary to specify that the ABS directly control the steering 
axle because some ABS control only a vehicle's drive-axle, a situation 
which could result in the loss of steering control if the front wheels 
locked during braking.
    Several commenters addressed the need for front wheel control. ATA 
strongly opposed mandating ABS for the steering axle of single-unit 
trucks and suggested the agency reconsider mandating them on all 
tractors. In contrast, Rockwell, WABCO, Freightliner, AAMA, Advocates, 
and the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) favored requiring 
that ABS be equipped on front axles. AAMA favored equipping each 
vehicle with ABS that has at least one independent channel of control 
for the wheels on a front axle and at least one independent channel of 
control for the wheels on a rear axle, but objected to mandating more 
than two independent channels of control. Because Rockwell, 
Freightliner, Advocates, and the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety 
(IIHS) were concerned that the current proposal would allow ``select 
low''4 antilock systems on any axle, they recommended that the 
equipment requirement include language that would require ``independent 
control of each wheel'' of the axles that are required to be ABS-
controlled. They believed such a requirement would prevent significant 
degradation in the stopping performance, particularly on a split mu 
surface.5 Rockwell WABCO recommended a minimum standard of at 
least one rear axle having independent wheel brake control. It opposed 
allowing select low ABS which it believed would experience 
significantly longer stopping distances on split mu surfaces. Allied 
Signal recommended requiring independent control of the brakes on the 
steering axle. Bosch recommended a minimum requirement of a 4S/3M ABS. 
Freightliner favored requiring at least four independent channels of 
control, two for each axle, allowing independent control of each wheel 
on the forward and rear axle. Similarly, IIHS favored requiring that 
the brakes/wheels of the front axle be independently controlled by an 
antilock system and that the brakes/wheels of at least one rear axle 
have similar independent antilock control. Advocates recommended that 
ABS be functional on all axles, not just one axle in each multiple axle 
set on a heavy vehicle. Because commenters differed on which axle the 
antilock system should provide independent wheel control, NHTSA has 
decided to propose requiring that the wheels on at least one axle be 
independently controlled, without specifying the axle on which it 
should be installed. This would allow manufacturers the flexibility to 
determine on which axle the wheels would be independently controlled by 
the antilock system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\While some ABS are equipped with modulators that 
independently control each wheel, a select low ABS controls both 
wheels on each axle with one modulator while having a wheel speed 
sensor at each wheel location. As such, both brakes on the 
controlled axle are applied and released simultaneously by the ABS. 
Such a system affords vehicle and directional stability, and shorter 
stopping distances on surfaces with uniform friction, but increases 
stopping distances if road-surface friction on one side of the 
vehicle differs from that on the other.
    \5\With such a surface, the road is split along its length so 
that the wheels on one side of the vehicle are on a high friction 
surface and the wheels on the other side are on a low friction 
surface; the term ``mu'' concerns the surface's coefficient of 
friction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After reviewing the comments, NHTSA has decided to propose 
modifications to the proposal to require heavy vehicles to be equipped 
with systems that independently control each wheel on at least one axle 
of a truck, a truck tractor, or a bus. Based on the comments and other 
available information, the agency believes that a minimum requirement 
that includes an antilock braking system that controls the wheels on at 
least one front and one rear axle where the wheels on at least one of 
these axles are independently controlled would provide an acceptable 
level of stopping distance performance on low mu and split mu surfaces. 
In addition to the data provided by Freightliner and Rockwell WABCO, 
the agency's ABS heavy vehicle testing showed that independent wheel 
control by an ABS enables a vehicle to stop in a shorter distance 
compared with either a vehicle equipped with an axle-by-axle control 
antilock system, or with a non-ABS equipped vehicle using a driver 
best-effort brake application. (``Improved Brake Systems for Commercial 
Vehicles,'' DOT HS 807 706, Final Report, April 1991)
    NHTSA is also proposing to prohibit tandem control by an antilock 
system, by requiring that no more than two wheels be controlled by one 
modulator valve. As part of its performance test program, the agency 
tested four different ABS configurations: individual wheel control, 
side-by-side control, axle-by-axle control, and tandem control. The 
agency found that the tandem control system produced stopping distances 
that were significantly longer than those of axle-by-axle control or 
side-by-side control, particularly on split coefficient of friction 
surfaces. These test results are documented in the report, ``Improved 
Brake Systems for Commercial Vehicles.'' The agency is aware that the 
proposed requirements would allow a 6 x 4 truck or truck tractor to be 
equipped with a 4S/3M antilock system, i.e., independent control of 
each front wheel, select low control on one rear axle, and no ABS 
control on the other rear axle. The agency's testing has found that 
vehicle stability is not significantly degraded if two wheels on a 
tandem are locked during braking. Accordingly, the agency has used this 
concept in developing the limited lockup requirements for the stopping 
distance rulemaking where one wheel per axle or two wheels per tandem 
are allowed to lock above 20 mph during the stopping distance test.
    The agency requests comments to the following questions about 
independent control of each wheel on at least one axle and about 
prohibiting tandem control by an antilock system:
    1. Is it appropriate to require independent control of each wheel 
on at least one axle?
    2. Would it be appropriate to adopt the alternative recommendations 
presented by Rockwell, Freightliner, or Advocates? Would these 
alternative recommendations provide significantly greater benefits? 
Would they prevent unreasonably long stopping distances on split mu 
surfaces?
    3. Compared to the original proposal that would allow select low 
systems, what would be the additional marginal benefits and cost of the 
requirement proposed in this SNPRM? Of the requirements recommended by 
Rockwell, Freightliner, or Advocates?
    4. Is it appropriate to prohibit tandem control by an antilock 
system?
    5. How much stability degradation has testing showed with a vehicle 
where one axle of a tandem was not controlled by ABS? Are there other 
concerns (e.g., tire flat spotting) about an uncontrolled axle on a 
tandem?
    6. Would fleet operators be willing to spend an additional $300 per 
vehicle to upgrade a 4S/3M system to a 4S/4M system with side-by-side 
control or axle-by-axle control with in-axle sensors?
    Comments on this notice must be received no later than 30 days 
after its publication in the Federal Register. While NHTSA typically 
provides a comment period of 60 days, the agency has determined that it 
is in the public interest to limit the comment period to 30 days since 
the agency is statutorily required to finish rulemaking in mid-1994. In 
addition, the agency previously provided an opportunity in the 
September 1993 NPRM to comment on these and other issues in this 
rulemaking. This notice proposes relatively limited modifications in 
the agency's tentative position regarding two of those issues.

Rulemaking Analyses

A. Executive Order 12866 (Federal Regulation) and DOT Regulatory 
Policies and Procedures

    This notice is ``significant'' within the meaning of Executive 
Order 12866. Further, NHTSA has analyzed this supplemental proposal and 
determined that it is also significant within the meaning of the 
Department of Transportation regulatory policies and procedures. The 
agency believes that the proposal to make the lateral stability and 
control requirements concurrent with the stopping distance requirements 
would reduce the rulemaking's costs, based on comments by the 
manufacturers. The agency further believes that the proposal related to 
wheel control would reduce cost. The agency's expectations upon issuing 
the NPRM were that the ABS on trucks, truck tractors, and buses would 
provide individual wheel control on at least one axle. As such, the 
safety benefits and cost analyses documented in the Preliminary 
Regulatory Impact Analysis were performed assuming that to be the case. 
Therefore, the agency believes that no additional impact would result 
from the changes proposed in this notice.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    NHTSA has also considered the effects of this rulemaking action 
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act. Based upon the discussion in the 
immediately preceding paragraph, I certify that this proposed rule 
would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of 
small entities.

C. Executive Order 12612 (Federalism)

    NHTSA has analyzed this rulemaking action in accordance with the 
principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 12612. NHTSA has 
determined that the proposed rule would not have sufficient Federalism 
implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.

D. National Environmental Policy Act

    In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 
NHTSA has considered the environmental impacts of this proposed rule. 
The agency has determined that this proposed rule, if adopted as a 
final rule, would not have any adverse impact on the quality of the 
human environment.

VII. Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit comments on the proposal. 
It is requested but not required that 10 copies be submitted.
    All comments must not exceed 15 pages in length. (49 CFR 553.21). 
Necessary attachments may be appended to these submissions without 
regard to the 15-page limit. This limitation is intended to encourage 
commenters to detail their primary arguments in a concise fashion.
    If a commenter wishes to submit certain information under a claim 
of confidentiality, three copies of the complete submission, including 
purportedly confidential business information, should be submitted to 
the Chief Counsel, NHTSA, at the street address given above, and seven 
copies from which the purportedly confidential information has been 
deleted should be submitted to the Docket Section. A request for 
confidentiality should be accompanied by a cover letter setting forth 
the information specified in the agency's confidential business 
information regulation. 49 CFR part 512.
    All comments received before the close of business on the comment 
closing date indicated above for the proposal will be considered. To 
the extent possible, comments filed after the closing date will also be 
considered. Comments received too late for consideration in regard to 
the final rule will be considered as suggestions for further rulemaking 
action. Comments on the proposal will be available for inspection in 
the docket at the above address. NHTSA will continue to file relevant 
information as it becomes available in the docket after the closing 
date, and NHTSA recommends that interested persons continue to examine 
the docket for new material.
    Those persons desiring to be notified upon receipt of their 
comments in the docket should enclose a self-addressed, stamped 
postcard in the envelope with their comments. Upon receiving the 
comments, the docket supervisor will return the postcard by mail.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 571

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

    In consideration of the foregoing, the agency proposes to amend 
Standard No. 105, Hydraulic Brake Systems and Standard No. 121, Air 
Brake Systems, in title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations at part 
571 as follows:

PART 571--[AMENDED]

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

    Authority: 15 U.S.C. 1392, 1401, 1403, 1407; delegation of 
authority at 49 CFR 1.50.

    2. Section 571.105 would be amended by amending S4 by adding the 
following definitions, revising S5.5, and by adding S5.5.1 and S5.5.2. 
The revised and amended paragraphs would read as follows:


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

* * * * *
S4  Definitions
* * * * *
    Directly controlled wheel means the wheel at which the degree of 
rotational wheel slip is sensed and corresponding signals are 
transmitted to a controlling device that adjusts the brake actuating 
forces at that wheel. The control device may also adjust the brake 
actuating forces at other wheels in response to those signals.
* * * * *
    Independently controlled wheel means a wheel at which the degree of 
rotational wheel slip is sensed and corresponding signals are 
transmitted to one controlling device that adjusts the brake actuating 
forces only at that wheel in response to those signals.
* * * * *
    S5.5.  Antilock and variable proportioning brake systems.
    S5.5.1  Each vehicle with a GVWR greater than 10,000 pounds, except 
for any vehicle that has a speed attainable in 2 miles of not more than 
33 mph, shall be equipped with an antilock braking system that directly 
controls the wheels of at least one front axle and the wheels of at 
least one rear axle of the vehicle, with no more than two wheels being 
controlled by one controlling output device. The wheels of at least one 
axle shall be independently controlled.
    S5.5.2  In the event of any failure (structural or functional) in 
an antilock or variable proportioning brake system, the vehicle shall 
be capable of meeting the stopping distance requirements specified in 
S5.1.2 for service brake system partial failure.
* * * * *
    3. Section 571.121 would be amended by amending S4 to add the 
following definitions, revising S5.1.6, and by adding S5.1.6.1, S5.2.3. 
and S5.2.3.1. The revised and added paragraphs would read as follows:


Sec. 571.121  Standard No. 121; Air brake systems.

* * * * *
    S4.  Definitions.
* * * * *
    Directly controlled wheel means the wheel at which the degree of 
rotational wheel slip is sensed and corresponding signals are 
transmitted to a controlling device that adjusts the brake actuating 
forces at that wheel. The control device may also adjust the brake 
actuating forces at other wheels in response to those signals.
* * * * *
    Full trailer means a trailer, except a pole trailer, that is 
equipped with two or more axles that support the entire weight of the 
trailers.
* * * * *
    Independently controlled wheel means a wheel at which the degree of 
rotational wheel slip is sensed and corresponding signals are 
transmitted to one controlling device that adjusts the brake actuating 
forces only at that wheel in response to those signals.
* * * * *
    S5.1.6  Antilock brake system.
    S5.1.6.1  Each vehicle shall be equipped with an antilock braking 
system that directly controls the wheels of at least one front axle and 
the wheels of at least one rear axle of the vehicle, with no more than 
two wheels being controlled by one controlling output device. The 
wheels of at least one axle shall be independently controlled.
* * * * *
    S5.2.3  Antilock brake system.
    S5.2.3.1(a)  Each single axle trailer (including a trailer 
converter dolly) shall be equipped with an antilock braking system that 
directly controls the wheels of the axle of the vehicle.
    (b) Each trailer with two or more rear axles (including a trailer 
converter dolly) shall be equipped with an antilock braking system that 
directly controls the wheels on at least 50 percent of the axles of the 
vehicle, with no more than two wheels being controlled by one 
controlling output device.
    (c) Each full trailer shall be equipped with an antilock braking 
system that directly controls the wheels of at least one front axle of 
the vehicle and at least 50 percent of the rear axles of the vehicle, 
with no more than two wheels being controlled by one controlling output 
device.

    Issued on April 7, 1994.
Barry Felrice,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 94-8753 Filed 4-11-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P






The Crittenden Automotive Library

Home - About Us - Advertising





Any trademarks or service marks appear here in nominative use and are property of their respective owners, who are not affiliated with or in any way endorse The Crittenden Automotive Library.  View our Legal Information:  Disclaimers & Terms of Use

Due to the enormous volume of information available most of the lists on the site are works in progress.  They are great for seeing what information or products are available or what events have happened but the absence of information or a line item on a list should not be interpreted that something did not exist or did not happen.  It probably just means we haven't gotten around to adding it yet.

Unless otherwise noted, photo captions are from the photographer or source, and not from The Crittenden Automotive Library.

To notify The Crittenden Automotive Library of errors, suggest topics, contribute information or to ask a question e-mail us.