Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Air Brake Systems--Control Line Pressure Balance |
|---|
Topics: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards
|
Barry Felrice
Federal Register
January 19, 1994
[Federal Register: January 19, 1994]
BILLING CODE 6718-21-P
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
49 CFR Part 571
[Docket No. 85-07; Notice 8]
RIN 2127-AD27
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Air Brake Systems--
Control Line Pressure Balance
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation.
ACTION: Denial of petition for reconsideration.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This notice denies a petition submitted by Mr. Robert Crail
requesting the agency to reconsider a final rule that added control
line pressure balance requirements to the pneumatic timing requirements
applicable to air brake systems. Mr. Crail's petition was based on his
allegations that NHTSA had not adequately considered the added costs to
trailer manufacturers imposed by the rulemaking, including the hardware
costs to achieve compliance with the new control line pressure balance
requirements and the costs associated with certifying compliance with
those requirements. In response to this petition, the agency has
reexamined the final rule's evaluation of additional costs for this
requirement and again concludes that those additional costs are not
excessive or unreasonable. Therefore, Mr. Crail's petition is denied.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mr. Richard C. Carter, Office of Vehicle Safety Standards, National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20590 (202-366-5274).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On August 21, 1992, NHTSA published a final
rule amending the pneumatic timing requirements of Standard No. 121,
Air Brake Systems, with respect to the control line pressure balance
for tractor trailer combinations (57 FR 37902). In that notice, the
agency adopted a dynamic test procedure for determining the control
signal pressure differential.
In comments to the notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) that
preceded this final rule, Mr. Crail and the Truck Trailer Manufacturers
Association (TTMA) stated that they believed that measuring control
line pressure balance in a dynamic test instead of in a static test
would result in excessive costs. Mr. Crail, who is employed by a
trailer manufacturer, stated that the total cost of a dynamic test
would be approximately $6,000, as compared to his estimated cost of
$900 for a static test. Similarly, TTMA believed that a dynamic test
procedure would require trailer manufacturers to purchase expensive
equipment, such as transducers and recording equipment, costing as much
as $6,000. TTMA estimated that the static test apparatus would cost
about $300 per manufacturer.
Notwithstanding these comments, NHTSA adopted a dynamic test
procedure to evaluate control line pressure differential in the August
1992 final rule. The agency concluded that the static control line
pressure differential test advocated by Mr. Crail and TTMA would not
adequately evaluate the pressure differential problem. The agency also
determined that the costs associated with the new dynamic test were
reasonable and would be well below the levels estimated by Mr. Crail
and TTMA. The agency explained this determination as follows:
The agency notes that most trailer manufacturers already own the
most expensive portion of this test equipment for conducting timing
tests (i.e., the data recorder/power supply/signal conditioning
apparatus), and that the mini-tractor test rigs that are currently
used in compliance testing with Standard No. 121 could be readily
upgraded to check for pressure differentials for an additional cost
of $300. Of this cost figure, $100 would cover the hose, gladhands,
and air flow restrictor and $200 would cover the cost of upgrading
the software of the test rig. NHTSA notes that the practical effects
of these requirements are limited to only those trailer
manufacturers who build towing trailers (i.e., trailers used in
doubles or triples operations). Such towing trailers currently
constitute a very small percentage of the trailer market. 57 FR
37904.
In short, the agency concluded that most trailers would not be
subject to the new dynamic test for control line pressure balance and
those that were would face added costs of about $300.
Mr. Robert Crail filed the lone petition for reconsideration of
this rule. Mr. Crail stated that the agency did not adequately consider
the cost impact that would be imposed on trailer manufacturers to equip
trailers with new hardware necessary to achieve compliance with the new
requirements. The petitioner also believed that NHTSA did not
adequately consider the cost impact on manufacturers to obtain or adapt
test equipment to test trailers for compliance with the new
requirements. The agency will address each of these assertions in turn.
Relay Booster Valves
In his petition for reconsideration, Mr. Crail contends that NHTSA
seriously underestimated the cost impact per trailer of adding
additional equipment to comply with the final rule. According to Mr.
Crail, trailer manufacturers could comply with Standard 121 prior to
this amendment without incorporating a relay booster valve on their
trailers. However, again according to Mr. Crail, the August 1992 final
rule in effect requires the use of relay booster valves on trailers.
Mr. Crail estimates that the cost to the trailer manufacturer to add
these valves would range from $26 to $54.
NHTSA believes that Mr. Crail's initial assertion about a trailer's
ability to comply with Standard 121 without incorporating a relay
booster valve on trailers is incorrect. The agency notes that the
majority of trailers required a relay booster valve to comply with the
requirements adopted on May 3, 1989 (54 FR 13890, 85-07, Notice 3).
However, the control line pressure requirements of the August 1992
notice did not have the effect of requiring that an additional valve be
added to the system. The August 1992 requirements only required that
valves used to comply with the May 1989 requirements did not induce
unwanted pressure differentials. Therefore, NHTSA believes that the
amendment in question did not have the effect of requiring a relay
booster valve where none was required before.
Other Hardware Costs
NHTSA further believes that Mr. Crail's assertions about the
rulemaking's hardware costs are incorrect.
The agency considered these same assertions about hardware costs
when it was developing the August 1992 rule. In that rule, NHTSA
indicated that some manufacturers might have to use higher quality
relay valves than they presently use to meet the requirements, but that
these higher quality valves are not significantly more expensive. In
addition, the agency acknowledged that manufacturers may have to modify
existing valve designs to control pressure differential. However, the
agency estimated that such modified valves would cost only a few
dollars more per trailer. Moreover, the final rule also indicated that
these upgraded valves would only be needed on towing trailers. The
total annual production of towing trailers is roughly 21,400.
Therefore, the agency concluded that the aggregate costs for additional
equipment on all trailers to comply with the control line pressure
balance requirements would be relatively small.
In its review of Mr. Crail's petition for reconsideration, NHTSA
once again reviewed the hardware costs associated with the control line
pressure balance requirements. The agency concludes that valves that
would be needed to meet the August 1992 rule are not significantly more
expensive that those used prior to the rule. To illustrate, Bendix, a
valve manufacturer, has designed a new valve that it advertises as
complying with these new requirements. These valves actually cost less
than valves previously used in trailers to control for pressure
balance. Accordingly, NHTSA continues to believe that its initial
determination that the hardware costs associated with the rulemaking
are not unreasonable is correct.
Testing Costs
Mr. Crail also asserted that the agency seriously underestimated
the costs to trailer manufacturers for testing compliance with the new
dynamic test procedure. As noted above, NHTSA stated in the final rule
that the mini-tractor test rights that are currently used to test
compliance with other requirements in Standard No. 121 could be readily
upgraded to check for pressure differentials at an added cost of about
$300. Mr. Crail asserted that, on top of the $300 costs estimated by
NHTSA, there would be nearly $5900 of additional costs to record the
pressure data collected during the prescribed test. The $5900 estimate
consisted of two sets of pressure transducers and cables, at a cost of
$600 per set, a strip chart recorder, at a cost of about $4000, and
approximately $700 in labor costs.
Mr. Crail also stated that trailer test rigs commonly used by
trailer manufacturers cannot be simply adapted to the additional tasks
of recording pressure tracers simultaneously at both the trailer's
input and delivery gladhands, as the agency suggested in the preamble
to the final rule. Instead, Mr. Crail asserted that manufacturers would
have to equip the test rig with at least three additional pressure
transducers and a recording device capable of three channel input.
NHTSA disagrees. Through tests conducted at the Vehicle Research
and Test Center (VRTC) and conversations with a Gooch Brake and
Equipment Company, a manufacturer of mini-tractor test rigs, NHTSA
concludes that trailer manufacturers need not equip their test rigs
with additional pressure transducers and a recording device costing
approximately $5900. As explained in the final rule, most trailer
manufacturers use test rigs, known as ``variables'' test equipment, for
a variety of timing and pressure testing of vehicles in certifying
compliance with Standard No. 121. Therefore, a manufacturer typically
will not have to procure test equipment solely to comply with the new
rule. Rather, most manufacturers can easily upgrade their current test
rig to evaluate the pressure differential through the following
modifications at a cost of about $300: Adding a hose, gladhands, and an
air flow restrictor, for approximately $100; and upgrading the test
rig's software, for $200. While it is true that the total cost of
``variables'' test equipment would be approximately $6000 to $7000, a
trailer manufacturer that already owns the test rig would incur an
incremental cost of $300 to comply with this amendment.
NHTSA further notes that the petitioner's assertions appear to be
based on a belief that a trailer manufacturer must use the test
procedure and testing equipment described in Standard No. 121. Such a
belief is incorrect. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act
(Safety Act) requires each manufacturer to certify that its vehicles
meet Standard No. 121. Accordingly, the vehicle must meet the
applicable requirements of Standard No. 121 when tested by NHTSA
according to the test procedure specified in the standard. However, the
Safety Act does not require a manufacturer to use the standard's test
procedure or specified test equipment. A manufacturer may use a variety
of means to certify compliance, including, among other things,
engineering analyses, actual testing, and computer simulations,
provided that due care is exercised in making its certification. If the
manufacturer exercised due care, it would not be subject to civil
penalties for manufacturing and selling a noncomplying vehicle.
Moreover, a manufacturer need not conduct these operations itself.
Manufacturers can utilize the services of independent engineers and
testing laboratories. The can also join together through trade
associations to sponsor testing or analysis. Another alternative is for
manufacturers, such as trailer manufacturers, to rely on testing and
analysis performed by other parties, such as the valve manufacturers.
Valve manufacturers perform extensive analyses and tests of their
products and, because they seek to sell those products, have a strong
incentive to provide their customers (the trailer manufacturers) with
information that the trailer manufacturer can use to certify the
vehicle to the applicable standards. For example, Bendix currently
provides this type of information to vehicle manufacturers regarding
Bendix's new valve for the new pressure control requirements. Based on
the above considerations, NHTSA believes that a trailer manufacturer
can certify compliance with the control pressure differential
amendments without facing an unreasonable cost burden.
After reexamining this matter in response to Mr. Crail's petition,
NHTSA reaffirms its conclusion that the new control line pressure
balance requirements will result in relatively small costs for trailer
manufacturers. The agency also believes that its conclusions in the
final rule are appropriate. Accordingly, the petitioner's request to
reconsider the amendment to Standard No. 121 is denied.
Issued on January 12, 1994.
Barry Felrice,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 94-1176 Filed 1-18-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-M