Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Air Brake Systems Control Line Pressure Balance

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