This site displays a prototype of a “Web 2.0” version of the daily
Federal Register. It is not an official legal edition of the Federal
Register, and does not replace the official print version or the official
electronic version on GPO’s govinfo.gov.
The documents posted on this site are XML renditions of published Federal
Register documents. Each document posted on the site includes a link to the
corresponding official PDF file on govinfo.gov. This prototype edition of the
daily Federal Register on FederalRegister.gov will remain an unofficial
informational resource until the Administrative Committee of the Federal
Register (ACFR) issues a regulation granting it official legal status.
For complete information about, and access to, our official publications
and services, go to
About the Federal Register
on NARA's archives.gov.
The OFR/GPO partnership is committed to presenting accurate and reliable
regulatory information on FederalRegister.gov with the objective of
establishing the XML-based Federal Register as an ACFR-sanctioned
publication in the future. While every effort has been made to ensure that
the material on FederalRegister.gov is accurately displayed, consistent with
the official SGML-based PDF version on govinfo.gov, those relying on it for
legal research should verify their results against an official edition of
the Federal Register. Until the ACFR grants it official status, the XML
rendition of the daily Federal Register on FederalRegister.gov does not
provide legal notice to the public or judicial notice to the courts.
Notice
Enter a search term or FR citation e.g.
88 FR 38230 FR 78782024-13208USDA09/05/24RULE0503-AA39SORN
Choosing an item from
full text search results
will bring you to those results. Pressing enter in the search box
will also bring you to search results.
Choosing an item from
suggestions
will bring you directly to the content.
This table of contents is a navigational tool, processed from the
headings within the legal text of Federal Register documents.
This repetition of headings to form internal navigation links
has no substantive legal effect.
There is no table of contents available for this document.
Related Documents
Enhanced Content - Related Documents
FederalRegister.gov uses the agency dockets published with the document to display related documents.
Document page views are updated periodically throughout the day and are
cumulative counts for this document. Counts are subject to sampling,
reprocessing and revision (up or down) throughout the day.
Page views
370
as of
09/10/2026 at 10:15 pm EDT
Other Formats
Enhanced Content - Other Formats
This document is also available in the following formats:
This document has been published in the Federal Register. Use the PDF linked in the document sidebar for the official electronic format.
Athey Products Corporation (Athey) determined that certain Mobil model Street Sweepers it produced are not in full compliance with 49 CFR 571.105, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 105, “Hydraulic and Electric Brake Systems,” and filed an appropriate report pursuant to 49 CFR Part 573, “Defect and Noncompliance Reports.” Athey also applied to be exempted from the notification and remedy requirements of 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301—“Motor Vehicle Safety” on the basis that the noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.
Notice of receipt of an application was published, with a 30-day comment period, on October 21, 1999 in the
Federal Register
(64 FR 56835). NHTSA received no comments on this application during the comment period.
Paragraph S5.5 of FMVSS No. 105 requires each vehicle with a gross vehicle weight rating greater than 10,000 pounds, except for a vehicle with a speed attainable in 2 miles of not more than 33 mph, to be equipped with an antilock brake system (ABS) that directly controls the wheels of at least one front axle and the wheels of at least one rear axle of the vehicle. Vehicles that do not comply with the requirements of a FMVSS are subject to the notification and remedy requirements of Chapter 301, unless exempted pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h) on the basis that the noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. The effective date of the requirement for ABS on medium and heavy duty hydraulically-braked trucks was March 1, 1999.
Between March 1, 1999 and July 31, 1999 Athey manufactured, sold and/or distributed 21 Athey Mobil M8A model street sweepers and 56 Mobil M9D model street sweepers which were not equipped with ABS as required by FMVSS No. 105. To the best of Athey's knowledge, there were no other vehicles manufactured by the company that are noncompliant with the ABS requirements.
Athey supported its application by stating that the agency recognized that vehicle stopping distances and stability would not be substantially improved with ABS during maximum braking at speeds below 33 mph. According to Athey, the noncompliant vehicles are capable of speeds in excess of 33 mph, but spend the majority of their operating time at speeds below 33 mph. A review of information from its customers indicated that these street sweepers spend 80% to 90% of their operation time at speeds that are most effective at removal of road debris, speeds in the 3 to 7 mph range. In Athey's opinion, due to the low speed operation of these vehicles and the type of road use of street sweepers, maximum brake application does not normally cause lockup and the subsequent loss of vehicle control or jack knifing. Athey also stated that these street sweeper models are seldom operated in inclement weather thereby reducing the need for ABS.
Athey further stated that the hydraulic service brake system with which the noncompliant street sweepers are equipped is capable of providing substantially more brake torque than necessary to meet the 30 mph and 60 mph stopping performance requirements in FMVSS No. 105.
In addition to information supporting its arguments that the noncompliance with FMVSS No. 105 is inconsequential, Athey cited several other developments and circumstances that it considered relevant to its application. Athey stated that it attempted to secure the necessary ABS equipment from suppliers in order to meet the March 1, 1999 effective date for ABS installation, but experienced delays in receiving ABS equipment from suppliers due to a backlog of orders for ABS components. Further, immediately upon becoming aware of the consequences of the noncompliance, Athey halted all further sales and/or distribution of the Mobil model M8A and M9D street sweepers until compliance with the ABS requirements was achieved.
According to Athey, the importance of the service provided by street sweepers on public and private roadways should not be overlooked. The removal of waste material such as broken glass and other sharp, potentially dangerous objects from the roadway is a health and safety benefit.
Athey also noted that the agency granted a temporary exemption to the Johnson Sweeper Company (JSC) under 49 CFR part 555 from the ABS requirements of FMVSS No. 105. The agency cited the low speed operation of the JSC street sweepers and a reduction in the number of sweepers to fill the need of municipalities if JSC sweepers were not available, as important factors in its decision.
Upon its review of this petition, the agency believes that the true measure of inconsequentiality to motor vehicle safety is the effect of the noncompliance on the operation of the vehicles. Athey has described the effect of the absence of ABS on the operational characteristics, the braking capacity, and the braking stability of these specialized vehicles. The street sweepers spend the majority of their operating time at speeds in the 3 to 7 mph range for maximum debris removal effectiveness, speeds well below the vehicle speed capability for which ABS
( printed page 45424)
installation is required or effective. During low speed operation, maximum braking does not generally result in wheel lockup and the subsequent potential for loss of vehicle control. These street sweepers are seldom operated in inclement weather, which further reduces the need for ABS.
Athey stated that the company has reviewed its manufacturing process, determined the cause of the noncompliance with the ABS requirements of FMVSS No. 105, and taken corrective measures to eliminate this type of noncompliance in the future.
In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA has decided that the applicant has met its burden of persuasion that the noncompliance it describes is inconsequential to safety. Accordingly, its application is granted, and the applicant is exempted from providing the notification of the noncompliance that is required by 49 U.S.C. 30118, and from remedying the noncompliance, as required by 49 U.S.C. 30120.