InterModal Technologies, Inc.; Denial of Petition for a Temporary Exemption From Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 121, 7614-7619 [E6-2001]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
7614
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 29 / Monday, February 13, 2006 / Notices
Amendment
approved date
Amendment No. city, state
* 03–03–C–01–SDF Louisville, KY ..........................
Original approved
net PFC revenue
12/14/05
Amended approved net PFC
revenue
5,666,800
5,666,800
Original estimated charge
exp. date
Amended estimated charge
exp. date.
06/01/18
09/01/13
NOTE: The amendment denoted by an asterisk (*) includes a change to the PFC level charged from $3.00 per enplaned passenger to $4.50
per enplaned passenger. For Louisville, KY, this change is effective on March 1, 2006.
Issued in Washington, DC, on February 8,
2006.
Joe Hebert,
Manager, Financial Analysis and Passenger
Facility Charge Branch.
[FR Doc. 06–1314 Filed 2–10–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–13–M
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Maritime Administration
[Docket No. MARAD–2006–23894]
Information Collection Available for
Public Comments and
Recommendations
Notice and request for
comments.
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
ACTION:
SUMMARY: In accordance with the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this
notice announces the Maritime
Administration’s (MARAD’s) intention
to request extension of approval for
three years of a currently approved
information collection.
DATES: Comments should be submitted
on or before April 14, 2006.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Taylor E. Jones II, Maritime
Administration (MAR–630), 400
Seventh St., SW., Washington, DC
20590. Telephone: 202–366–2323; Fax:
202–493–2180, or e-mail:
taylor.jones@dot.gov. Copies of this
collection also can be obtained from that
office.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Title of Collection: Voluntary
Intermodal Sealift Agreement (VISA).
Type of Request: Extension of
currently approved information
collection.
OMB Control Number: 2133–0532.
Form Numbers: MA–1020.
Expiration Date of Approval: Three
years after date of approval by the Office
of Management and Budget.
Summary of Collection of
Information. This information collection
is in accordance with Section 708,
Defense Production Act, 1950, as
amended, under which participants
agree to provide commercial sealift
capacity and intermodal shipping
services and systems necessary to meet
national defense requirements. In order
to meet national defense requirements,
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:38 Feb 10, 2006
Jkt 208001
the government must assure the
continued availability of commercial
sealift resources.
Need and Use of the Information: The
information collection is needed by
MARAD and the Department of Defense
(DOD), including representatives from
the U.S. Transportation Command and
its components, to evaluate and assess
the applicants’ eligibility for
participation in the VISA program. The
information will be used by MARAD
and the U.S. Transportation Command,
and its components, to assure the
continued availability of commercial
sealift resources to meet the DOD’s
military requirements.
Description of Respondents:
Operators of qualified dry cargo vessels.
Annual Responses: 40.
Annual Burden: 200 hours.
Comments: Comments should refer to
the docket number that appears at the
top of this document. Written comments
may be submitted to the Docket Clerk,
U.S. DOT Dockets, Room PL–401, 400
Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC
20590. Comments may also be
submitted by electronic means via the
Internet at https://dmses.dot.gov/submit.
Specifically address whether this
information collection is necessary for
proper performance of the functions of
the agency and will have practical
utility, accuracy of the burden
estimates, ways to minimize this
burden, and ways to enhance the
quality, utility, and clarity of the
information to be collected. All
comments received will be available for
examination at the above address
between 10 a.m. and 5 p.m. EDT (or
EST), Monday through Friday, except
Federal holidays. An electronic version
of this document is available on the
World Wide Web at https://dms.dot.gov.
(Authority: 49 CFR 1.66)
By order of the Maritime Administrator.
Dated: February 8, 2006.
Joel C. Richard,
Secretary, Maritime Administration.
[FR Doc. E6–2004 Filed 2–10–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–81–P
PO 00000
Frm 00112
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA–2004–18640, Notice 2]
InterModal Technologies, Inc.; Denial
of Petition for a Temporary Exemption
From Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
Standard No. 121
SUMMARY: This notice denies a petition
from InterModal Technologies, Inc., for
a temporary exemption from certain
requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle
Safety Standard No. 121, Air brake
systems. The denial is based on the
petitioner’s failure to persuade the
agency that the safety device in question
provides a safety level at least equal to
that of the applicable Federal standard.
Further, it failed to articulate how the
exemption would make easier the
development or field evaluation of the
safety device for which the exemption is
being sought.
The National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration (NHTSA) published a
notice of receipt of the application on
July 19, 2004, and afforded an
opportunity for comment.1
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
George Feygin in the Office of Chief
Counsel, NCC–112, National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration, 400
Seventh St., SW., Washington, DC
20590 (Phone: 202–366–2992; Fax 202–
366–3820; E-Mail:
George.Feygin@nhtsa.dot.gov).
I. Background and Summary of the
Petition
InterModal Technologies, Inc.
(‘‘InterModal’’) is a manufacturer of
semi-trailers and is incorporated in the
State of Colorado. InterModal would
like to manufacture semi-trailers
equipped with a device, which it refers
to as ‘‘MSQR–5000 pneumatic antilock
braking system’’ (‘‘MSQR–5000’’).2 The
MSQR–5000 does not incorporate
electrical circuits to transmit or receive
electrical signals.3
1 See
69 FR 43052.
additional information on this petition,
please see Docket No. NHTSA–2004–18640 at
https://dms.dot.gov/search/search/FormSimple.cfm.
3 We note that the President of InterModal
Technologies, William Washington, is also the
President of ABS, Inc., manufacturer of the MSQR–
2 For
E:\FR\FM\13FEN1.SGM
13FEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 29 / Monday, February 13, 2006 / Notices
In its petition, InterModal contends
that the MSQR–5000 device operates as
an Antilock Braking System (ABS).
InterModal acknowledged that a trailer
equipped with the MSQR–5000 does not
comply with the malfunction indicator
(warning light) requirements of S5.2.3.2
and S5.2.3.3 in Federal Motor Vehicle
Safety Standard (‘‘FMVSS’’) No. 121, Air
brake systems.4
FMVSS No. 121 establishes
requirements for braking systems on
vehicles equipped with air brake
systems. In order to address the safety
consequences of braking-related
instability, FMVSS No. 121 requires
ABS.5 FMVSS No. 121 also includes
warning light requirements established
to inform operators of an ABS
malfunction and both to facilitate and to
encourage repairs of faulty ABS
systems.
S5.2.3.2 Antilock Malfunction Signal
requires that:
‘‘* * * each trailer * * * manufactured on
or after March 1, 2001, that is equipped with
an antilock brake system shall be equipped
with an electrical circuit that is capable of
signaling a malfunction in the trailer’s
antilock brake system, and shall have the
means for connection of this antilock brake
system malfunction signal circuit to the
towing vehicle * * * Each message about the
existence of such a malfunction shall be
stored in the antilock brake system whenever
power is no longer supplied to the system,
and the malfunction signal shall be
automatically reactivated whenever power is
again supplied to the trailer’s antilock brake
system. In addition, each trailer
manufactured on or after March 1, 2001, that
is designed to tow other air-brake equipped
trailers shall be capable of transmitting a
malfunction signal from the antilock brake
systems of additional trailers it tows to the
vehicle towing it.’’
S5.2.3.3 Antilock Malfunction
Indicator requires that:
‘‘In addition to the requirements of
S5.2.3.2, each trailer * * * manufactured on
or after March 1, 1998, and before March 1,
2009, shall be equipped with an external
antilock malfunction indicator lamp * * *’’
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
The trailers in question are incapable
of meeting these requirements. Trailers
equipped with only the MSQR–5000
5000. ABS, Inc. claims on its website that the
MSQR–5000 is ‘‘exempt’’ from warning light
requirements incorporated into FMVSS No. 121,
https://www.absbrakes.com/exemption.htm.
Nevertheless, InterModal now seeks an exemption
from the same warning light requirement. For more
information on MSQR–5000, see https://
www.absbrakes.com/.
4 The supporting information attached to the
petition contained several affidavits arguing that
MSQR–5000 meets other requirements of FMVSS
No. 121 and performs better than conventional ABS
systems; a copy of the patent application; and two
test reports.
5 The issue of whether MSQR–5000 is an ABS is
addressed later in this document.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:38 Feb 10, 2006
Jkt 208001
would not be equipped with an
electrical circuit capable of signaling a
malfunction in the ABS or storing any
information that indicated a
malfunction had occurred. Further,
these trailers would not be equipped
with an external antilock malfunction
indicator lamp.
Because the trailers equipped with
MSQR–5000 do not comply with the
requirements of S5.2.3.2 and S5.2.3.3 of
FMVSS No. 121, pursuant to the
procedures of 49 CFR 555.6(b),
InterModal petitioned NHTSA for a
Temporary Exemption from these
requirements. The stated basis for the
petition was that an exemption would
facilitate the development or field
evaluation of the MSQR–5000, which
petitioner contends offers a safety level
at least equal to that of systems that
comply with FMVSS No. 121. The
petitioner argued that without an
exemption, it is unable to sell a vehicle
whose overall level of safety is at least
equal to that of vehicles that meet the
requirements of the standard.
InterModal did not elaborate on how
an exemption from the requirements of
S5.2.3.2 and S5.2.3.3 would facilitate
development or field evaluation of a
new motor vehicle safety feature. The
petitioner indicated that MSQR–5000
has already been developed by Air
Brake Systems, Inc.6 Accordingly,
development of a new motor vehicle
safety feature was not at issue because
InterModal seeks an exemption for a
product that has already been
developed. InterModal stated that more
than 7,000 MSQR–5000 units are
already in operation.
InterModal offered several reasons
why it believes the overall level of
safety of semi-trailers equipped with
MSQR–5000 is at least equal to that of
non-exempted semi-trailers.
First, InterModal argued that based on
laboratory test data and field-test data,
MSQR–5000 operates as a conventional
ABS. Further, InterModal stated that
MSQR–5000 met or exceeded all the
performance requirements in FMVSS
No. 121.7 Petitioner also cited several
6 We note that Air Brake Systems, Inc., advertises
the MSQR–5000 as complying with ‘‘IN-CAB
warning light regulation 49 CFR 571.121’’ see
https://www.absbrakes.com/home.htm. That
statement is misleading because FMVSS No. 121
applies to vehicles and not items of equipment. An
item of equipment such as the MSQR–5000 cannot
‘‘comply’’ with FMVSS No. 121.
7 We note that Air Brake Systems, Inc. apparently
sponsored testing of an MSQR–5000 equipped
tractor-trailer combination by the Southwest
Research Institute in 2002. The test report for this
testing, which was submitted with the petition, and
available on the Air Brake Systems, Inc. Web site,
states in pertinent part: ‘‘For the wetted curve test,
the vehicle is required by FMVSS 121 to stop from
30 mph on a wetted surface while negotiating a 500-
PO 00000
Frm 00113
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
7615
affidavits in support of its contention
that trailers equipped with MSQR–5000
are at least as safe as trailers equipped
with conventional ABS.8
Second, InterModal argued that
MSQR–5000 is a ‘‘fully closed-loop’’
system, as opposed to a conventional
electronic ABS that utilizes modulators
to vent air during the braking cycle.
According to petitioner, an electronic
ABS is subject to contamination and
wear due to venting. Further, in its
view, venting may extend the stopping
distance. In contrast, the MSQR–5000
modulates air internally and does not
vent during braking.
In regard to the electronic
malfunction indicator requirement,
InterModal stated that tractor-trailer
combinations resulting from use of its
trailers with a standard tractor would
already be equipped with a pneumatic
‘‘low pressure’’ malfunction indicator
located in the cabin. Petitioner asserts
that this design alerts the driver if the
system malfunctions. Further, in the
event of a severe air pressure loss, an
emergency brake chamber releases to
engage the emergency brake, stopping
the vehicle until repairs can be made.
Finally, the petitioner presented
several arguments of why it believes a
semi-trailer equipped with a MSQR–
5000 device is superior to a semi-trailer
equipped with a conventional ABS
system that complies with the
requirements of FMVSS No. 121.
Specifically, petitioner argues that
MSQR–5000: (1) Is less expensive; (2) is
less expensive to install; (3) is easier to
operate; (4) has a better safety record
than ABS products that comply with the
requirements of FMVSS No. 121; 9 (5)
causes less wear on brake linings; (6)
has fewer parts that are susceptible to
damage or wear.
Other than what may be implied from
the foregoing, the petitioner did not
specifically set forth the reasons why
granting this exemption would be in the
public interest, as required by 49 CFR
555.5(b) (7).
For additional information on
InterModal, please go to: https://
www.intermodaltechnologies.com.
foot radius curve and maintaining itself within in
a 12-foot wide lane. When using full treadle brake
application per FMVSS 121, the vehicle did not
stay in the 12-foot lane. This occurred for the
vehicle with and without the MSQR–5000 brake
valve at both vehicle weights.’’ https://
www.absbrakes.com/ABS%20Final%20ReportRevision%20A.pdf at Executive Summary and page
9.
8 For laboratory test data, field-test data, and
affidavits, see Docket No. NHTSA–2004–18640.
9 In support of this statement, petitioner indicates
that in September 2000, 300,000 electronic ABS
units were subject to a voluntary recall because of
delays in brake application.
E:\FR\FM\13FEN1.SGM
13FEN1
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
7616
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 29 / Monday, February 13, 2006 / Notices
II. Comments on the Petition
We published a notice of receipt of
the application in accordance with the
requirements of 49 U.S.C. 30113(b)(2).
The notice made no judgment on the
merits of the application. In response,
we received five comments, three
supporting granting the petition and two
supporting denial.
Andrew W. Mouk stated that he
‘‘handled the products liability coverage
for the MSQR–5000 for many years and
ha[s] never had a liability claim arise
out of the use of this product.’’ He
added that some insurance companies
have even offered a discount in rates to
truckers who install this device on their
heavy trucks, and that drivers have been
impressed with the increased braking
capabilities after the installation of
MSQR–5000. He argued that the
trucking industry would be a safer
industry ‘‘if this valve was in more
widespread use.’’ 10 No data to support
Mr. Mouk’s comments was included.
An anonymous commenter stated that
s/he ‘‘witnessed testing of the MSQR–
5000 valve at Bandimere Speedway in
Colorado and observed firsthand a 40%
reduction in stopping distance and
almost 50% reduction in braking time
using this system.’’ The commenter also
asserted that s/he knows of drivers who
report dramatically improved safety and
reduced maintenance costs. The
commenter also asserted knowledge of
‘‘many reports of accidents avoided and
lives saved due to the shorter stopping
distance and braking reliability.’’ 11 The
commenter argued that the Antilock
Malfunction Indicator required by
S5.2.3.3 of FMVSS No. 121 is
inconsequential to safety. As with the
previous comment, this commenter did
not provide any supporting data.
Tracy White of Farm Master, Inc.,
stated that the company uses and likes
MSQR–5000 because the system is easy
to install and maintain. The comment
also indicated that Farm Master’s
customers preferred the system because
of its reliability and that Farm Master
has not received any complaints.12
Robert J. Crail opposed granting the
petition. He stated that a failure of the
‘‘diaphragm’’ in the MSQR–5000 would
render inoperable the ‘‘alleged antilock
feature.’’ Mr. Crail also stated that air
brake systems equipped with the
MSQR–5000 valve have no means of
automatically controlling the degree of
rotational wheel slip during braking and
no means of sensing the rate of angular
rotation of the wheels. Further, he stated
that the MSQR–5000 valve has no
10 See
Docket No. NHTSA–2004–18640–3.
Docket No. NHTSA–2004–18640–6.
12 See Docket No. NHTSA–2004–18640–7.
11 See
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:38 Feb 10, 2006
Jkt 208001
means of relieving excess pressure from
the brake chambers, which means a
locked wheel would remain locked until
the driver reduced the braking pressure,
which Mr. Crail stated is not antilock
braking. Mr. Crail concluded by arguing
that trailers containing the MSQR–5000
would ‘‘certainly degrade highway
safety.’’
Advocates for Highway and Auto
Safety (Advocates) argued that NHTSA
should reject the requested exemption
because the petition filed by InterModal
has substantive and procedural defects.
Specifically, Advocates stated that
InterModal acknowledged the
manufacture and sale of trailers
equipped with seemingly noncompliant
braking systems, and argued that
granting an ex post facto exemption
would be inappropriate. Advocates also
stated that InterModal made no
arguments explaining why a grant of the
petition would be in the public interest.
Advocates argued that MSQR–5000
does not notify vehicle operators of ABS
malfunction with otherwise operable
brakes. In the case of ABS systems
complying with FMVSS No. 121, a
malfunction notification alerts an
operator who can drive the vehicle to a
safe location, including repair facilities,
in order to accomplish restoration of full
ABS operation. By contrast, Advocates
states that MSQR–5000 overrides
operator control of the vehicle and
brings it to an immediate stop in what
could be dangerous operating
circumstances. Finally, Advocates
argued that InterModal provided no
reliable safety data on the consequences
of emergency brake application if ABS
malfunctions occur.
III. The Agency Decision
After careful consideration of the
petition, NHTSA is denying the
InterModal petition for a temporary
exemption because the petitioner failed
to meet the criteria specified in 49 CFR
555.6(b). Specifically, InterModal did
not persuade the agency that MSQR–
5000 provides a safety level at least
equal to that of the applicable Federal
safety standard. InterModal also failed
to articulate how granting the
exemption would be in the public
interest or how the exemption would
facilitate development or field
evaluation of the MSQR–5000.
Background
When heavy vehicle brakes are
applied with increasing amounts of
force, braking generally improves.
However, at some point, the forces in
the brakes exceed the grip of the tire on
the road. The tire then begins to slide
and the wheel rapidly goes into full
PO 00000
Frm 00114
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
lockup. A sliding tire loses its grip in all
directions. Thus, locked wheels make a
vehicle unstable and lead to loss of
control.
FMVSS No. 121 requires antilock
braking systems (ABS) on vehicles
equipped with air brakes. The ABS
controls the degree of rotational wheel
slip in order to minimize wheel lockup,
maximize braking force and preserve
directional control. In doing so, the ABS
reduces, holds and reapplies, i.e.,
modulates, brake pressure to each
controlled wheel. More specifically, the
ABS automatically reduces the amount
of brake application pressure by venting
air in the brake chambers into the
atmosphere. The brake pressure must
then be increased again to ensure that
there is sufficient brake force. Through
these cycles, which require reducing or
applying air pressure by as much as 60
pounds per square inch, the degree of
wheel slip is controlled.
The ABS system must have the ability
to determine if and when a braked
wheel becomes locked due to changes in
traction conditions. To accomplish this,
any ABS must be a ‘‘closed loop’’
system; i.e., a system that continuously
monitors the rate of wheel rotation,
adjusts wheel rotation when needed,
and reacts to ongoing changes in
rotation caused by the operation of the
system, by changed road surfaces, or
both.13 For example, a braking vehicle
may move from a high friction surface,
like dry pavement, to a very low friction
surface such as an icy road. In such an
instance, an ABS must sense the
different frictional properties of the road
surface through changes in the rate of
wheel rotation and reduce brake air line
pressure on the low friction surface, and
then restore it when a high friction
surface is reached.
Definition of ABS
The definition of ABS included in
FMVSS No. 121 incorporates the terms
set forth in Society of Automotive
Engineers (SAE) publications and
European regulations to reflect the
attributes of antilock systems as
commonly understood by the
automotive industry.14
13 See 60 FR 13217. We note that in the petition,
InterModal argues that MSQR–5000 is closed loop
because it is incapable of venting air during the
braking cycle. As explained below, this argument is
erroneous because MSQR–5000 is incapable of
continuously monitoring the rate of wheel rotation
and therefore is not closed loop.
14 See Sec. 7.3, 7.4.4, 7.4.5 of ‘‘Antilock Brake
System Review’’ SAE J2246 (June 1992). ‘‘ABS is a
feedback control system that attempts to maintain
controlled braking under all operating conditions.
This is accomplished by controlling the slip at each
wheel so as to obtain optimum forces within the
limits of the tire-road combination.’’
E:\FR\FM\13FEN1.SGM
13FEN1
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 29 / Monday, February 13, 2006 / Notices
An antilock brake system is defined in
S4 of FMVSS No. 121 as follows:
Antilock brake system or ABS means
a portion of a service brake system that
automatically controls the degree of
rotational wheel slip during braking by:
(1) Sensing the rate of angular rotation
of the wheels;
(2) Transmitting signals regarding the
rate of wheel angular rotation to one or
more controlling devices which
interpret those signals and generate
responsive controlling output signals;
and
(3) Transmitting those controlling
signals to one or more modulators
which adjust brake actuating forces in
response to those signals. [emphasis
added]
We interpret this definition as
follows:
‘‘Automatically controls’’ means that
the ABS, rather than the driver,
regulates the degree of rotational wheel
slip during braking. Automatic control
is necessary since drivers frequently
cannot control lockup in emergency
situations or on slippery surfaces.
‘‘Wheel slip’’ refers to the
proportional amount of wheel/tire
skidding relative to the forward motion
(velocity) of the vehicle. As defined in
S4 of FMVSS No. 121, wheel lockup
means 100 percent wheel slip.
‘‘During braking’’ means during all
phases of braking when antilock braking
would be called upon, including
incipient wheel lock and subsequent
wheel lockup. In order to meet this
portion of the definition, an ABS must
therefore act when wheels are about to
lock, when they have locked and after
they have locked.
In short, the introductory clause of the
definition of ABS in FMVSS No. 121
means that during braking an ABS
system must act without any action on
the part of the driver. When functioning
on its own, the system must exercise
control over the degree of rotational
wheel slip, including full lockup.
Finally, a qualifying system must act at
all times during braking, including
those periods where lock up is about to
occur, and where full lockup has
occurred. The definition also sets forth
the means by which these conditions
are to be met.
‘‘Sensing the rate of angular rotation
of the wheels’’ means that the ABS must
be able to sense the rate of angular
wheel rotation, not simply whether the
wheel is rotating or not. The
information about the rate of wheel
rotation, relative to the forward motion
of the vehicle, enables an ABS to
determine if a wheel is about to lockup
or has locked up. It also enables the
ABS to then control (release/hold/
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:38 Feb 10, 2006
Jkt 208001
reapply) brake pressure to enable the
wheel to begin rotating again, at an
appropriate level of rotational wheel
slip.
‘‘Transmitting signals regarding the
rate of wheel angular rotation to one or
more controlling devices which
interpret those signals and generate
responsive controlling output signals’’
means that ABS must use the rate of
wheel rotation and not a substitute or
surrogate factor to control wheel slip
and prevent lockup.
‘‘Transmitting those controlling
signals to one or more modulators
which adjust brake actuating forces in
response to those signals’’ means that
the ABS must modulate brake pressure
in response to the rate of angular
rotation of the wheels relative to the
vehicle’s forward motion. During
automatic brake control, wheel speed
has to be constantly monitored so that
the maximum braking force for the
conditions can be achieved by a
succession of pressure reduction,
pressure-holding and pressurereapplication.
Meeting all of the elements of this
definition is necessary to ensure that an
ABS system provides the minimum
level of performance necessary for safe
braking. Thus, an antilock system must
be capable of reducing, holding and
reapplying brake pressure to each
controlled wheel. The wheel speed
sensor must monitor the rotational
speed of the wheel. When a monitored
wheel approaches a lockup condition,
there is a sharp deceleration of the
wheel and rise in wheel slip. If this
exceeds threshold levels, the control
unit must send a signal to the modulator
device to hold or reduce the build-up of
wheel brake pressure until the danger of
wheel lockup has passed. The brake
pressure must then be increased again to
ensure that the wheel is not
underbraked for the road surface
conditions.
Warning Light
An ABS malfunction warning light is
required by Sections 5.1.6.2 and 5.1.6.3
of Standard 121. The warning light
requirements are important for reducing
crashes, deaths and injuries. These
warning light requirements are
necessary to ensure that operators are
informed of an ABS malfunction,
including those that have previously
occurred in a trailer, and both facilitate
and encourage repairs of faulty ABS
systems.15
15 See
PO 00000
60 FR 13244.
Frm 00115
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
7617
Analysis
One threshold question that must be
examined is whether the petitioner’s
vehicles are equipped with an ABS
system that functions as an ABS within
the meaning of FMVSS No. 121. This is
relevant to InterModal’s petition
because paragraph S5.2.3.1 of FMVSS
No. 121 of FMVSS No. 121 requires
trailers to be equipped with ABS, as
defined in the Standard. If the MSQR–
5000 is not an ABS, within the meaning
of FMVSS No. 121, an exemption from
the warning light requirements of the
Standard, as requested by InterModal,
would still not permit the petitioner to
use the MSQR–5000 in lieu of an ABS
system either complying with Standard
121 or, if InterModal had requested an
exemption from the ABS requirement,
providing an equivalent level of
performance to vehicles meeting that
requirement.
Many of the arguments raised by the
petitioner as to whether MSQR–5000
meets the Federal requirements
applicable to anti-lock braking systems
have previously been examined by
NHTSA in a June 4, 2001 interpretation
letter to MAC Trailer and the
subsequent litigation arising out of
issuance of that letter.16 (Air Brake
Systems, Inc. v. Mineta, 357 F.3d 632
(6th Cir. 2004); Air Brake Systems, Inc.
v. Mineta, 202 F.Supp.2d 705
(E.D.Mich. 2002)).
Why MSQR–5000 Does Not Meet the
Definition of ABS
InterModal submitted a series of
affidavits stating that MSQR–5000 is an
ABS system within the meaning of S4
of FMVSS No. 121. As explained below,
we disagree and note that the
supporting affidavits, as well as the
arguments contained in the petition do
not address the entire definition as set
forth in S4 of FMVSS No. 121.
The MSQR–5000 is essentially a
diaphragm, backed by a piston and
dampened by a rubber spring, which is
acted on by the air pressure in the brake
lines to the brake cylinders.17 According
to the materials submitted by the
petitioner, the MSQR–5000 operates on
the theory that wheel lockup occurs
because of pressure spikes and pressure
differentials inside the braking system.
The MSQR–5000 purportedly prevents
wheel lockup by reacting to, and
16 During the course of the litigation both ABS,
Inc. and NHTSA submitted affidavits and
declarations to the District Court. Many of these
affidavits and declarations were submitted by
InterModal in support of its petition. The agency
has placed these in the docket along with
declarations and affidavits submitted to the District
Court by NHTSA.
17 See patent # 5,078,455.
E:\FR\FM\13FEN1.SGM
13FEN1
7618
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 29 / Monday, February 13, 2006 / Notices
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
negating the impact of, these pressure
waves and pressure differentials.
InterModal also provided the agency
with several affidavits from private
individuals purporting to state that a
vehicle equipped with MSQR–5000
would conform to the requirements of
FMVSS No. 121, and that based on
mathematical calculations, vehicles
equipped with MSQR–5000 would
exhibit shorter stopping distances
compared to conventional ABS systems
that comply with the requirements of
FMVSS No. 121.18 Because these
affidavits did not explain how the
MSQR–5000 compensates for its
apparent inability to detect and combat
wheel slip, we find the affidavits
irrelevant to vehicle performance on
road conditions where ABS is needed.
Similarly, comments submitted in
support of the petition stating that use
of the MSQR–5000 shortened stopping
distance, had not generated any product
liability claims, or was cheap and
simple to maintain, are irrelevant to
whether it functions as an ABS.
Stopping performance alone is no
indicator that a vehicle has ABS. While
the petitioner provided some data, these
data did not demonstrate performance
which meets or exceeds the
requirements of FMVSS No. 121, as
required by § 555.6(b)(2)(ii). In fact, one
item provided by InterModal, a Final
Report on testing conducted by
Southwest Research Institute (SWRI),
indicates that the MSQR–5000 allowed
wheel lockup resulting in a tractortrailer combination experiencing the
equivalent of an FMVSS No. 121 test
failure. Specifically, the vehicle did not,
under a full-treadle brake application,
stop within a 12-foot wide lane from 30
mph on wet surface while negotiating a
500-foot radius curve.19 The conclusion
of the Final Report reads as follows:
‘‘Based on the test results and
discussions with the manufacturer,
SwRI found that the MSQR–5000
system does not function in the same
manner as an electronic anti-lock brake
system (ABS). With full treadle
application, it is possible to cause wheel
18 In addition to the affidavit, petitioner also
provided the agency with a copy of the patent
application which described the operation of
MSQR–5000. Further, a one-page summary of a test
‘‘* * * conducted to approximate the requirements
of the 1 March 1997 revision of FMVSS 121 antilock brake system regulation’’ by Perazzola, Inc.,
purported to show that vehicles equipped with
MSQR–5000 exhibited superior stopping
performance.
19 See the Executive Summary and page 9 of the
SWRI Final Report at Docket No. NHTSA–2004–
18640.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:38 Feb 10, 2006
Jkt 208001
lockup that results in the vehicle not
staying within the 12-foot lane.’’ 20
The agency has considerable
experience examining devices such as
the MSQR–5000 and claims that this
device and similar pressure dampening
mechanisms function as an ABS. In
1992, NHTSA received a petition to
require installation of devices like the
MSQR–5000 on air-braked vehicles. In
response, the agency reviewed tests
performed by the Southwest Research
Institute, and the U.S. Army’s Aberdeen
Proving Ground, which showed that the
MSQR–5000, and a similar device called
the BX–100, did not prevent wheel
lockup. NHTSA also tested a similar
device for hydraulic brake systems,
called the Brake Guard, which showed
that the Brake Guard did not, as
claimed, prevent wheel lockup.21 The
agency denied the petition on July 2,
1992 explaining:
‘‘* * * Independent tests of the
petitioner’s device or products similar to his
device indicate that it would not be in the
interest of safety to adopt his requested
amendment. For instance, tests at the
Aberdeen Proving Ground indicated that a
similar product, the BX–100 brake equalizer,
was not approved for use on military vehicles
* * * Similarly, tests at Southwest Research
Institute indicated that vehicles equipped
with the petitioner’s device needed an
average of approximately 0.5 seconds longer
to stop because additional time was needed
to fill the expansion chamber. These vehicles
exhibited a slower stopping time which
ranged from 0.4 to 1.0 seconds at 40 miles
per hour which would add from 24 to 59 feet
to the stopping distance * * * Tests also
indicate that the petitioner’s device does not
smooth out pressure spikes as claimed. In
fact, it typically would only cause small
changes in the pressure curves because of the
added volume in the brake system that must
be filled with air * * * Historically,
measurements at VRTC concerning pressure
in air brake systems have not revealed peaks
in brake pressure. In contrast, to the agency’s
knowledge, axle-to-axle pressure differentials
in combination units are the only type of air
pressure differential that contributes to safety
problems such as jackknifing and unbalanced
braking.’’ 22
20 The vehicle tested was a tractor-trailer
combination. Standard No. 121 contains a
requirement that non-articulated air braked
vehicles; i.e., ‘‘straight trucks’’ stay within a 12 foot
lane while braking on a wetted curve. This test
requirement does not apply to articulated vehicle
such as a tractor-trailer combination. However, the
testing performed by Southwest is indicative of the
inability of the MSQR–5000 to function as an ABS
in a panic stop on a low friction surface. See Id.
at 10.
21 Based on NHTSA’s testing, and other evidence,
the Federal Trade Commission concluded that the
Brake Guard was not an antilock brake system, and
that there were ‘‘no competent and reliable
scientific data’’ to support the manufacturer’s
claims to the contrary (See Docket No. NHTSA–
2004–18640).
22 See 57 FR 29459.
PO 00000
Frm 00116
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
In regard to the theory of the MSQR–
5000’s operation, NHTSA also
conducted two-year road tests of the
antilock brake systems on 200 trucks,
and 50 trailers, accumulating 44 million
miles’ worth of data,23 which revealed
no evidence of the pressure pulses that
are the linchpin of the device’s
operation. In the course of the litigation
in Air Brake Systems, Inc. v. Mineta,
ABS Inc. offered no data purporting to
demonstrate that these pressure pulses
exist and InterModal’s petition offers
nothing further.
As in the current InterModal petition,
in the case of Air Brake Systems, Inc. v.
Mineta, ABS Inc. and its affiants
asserted that the MSQR–5000 operates
on the basis of differential pressure
waves generated during braking by
brake shoes contacting high and low
spots and other irregularities in rotating
brake drums. In response to these
pressure differentials, the MSQR–5000
allegedly generates responsive waves
that dampen pressure increases.24
NHTSA research and testing have never
revealed the existence of the pressure
waves described by the petitioner and,
after conferring with agency experts and
outside consultants having as much as
45 years experience in the field of
developing, designing, and testing brake
systems, the agency believes that such
waves do not exist.25 However, even
assuming that the pressure differentials
posited by the petitioner in fact exist,
the MSQR–5000 depends on wheel
rotation to generate the pressure pulses
to which it allegedly reacts. As a locked
wheel does not rotate, the MSQR–5000
cannot sense wheel lockup when it
occurs and would cease completely to
function under the very conditions of
maximum braking instability when it
most needs to act.26 Therefore, the
agency concludes that MSQR–5000 does
not ‘‘automatically control * * * the
degree of rotational wheel slip during
braking’’ under all conditions, as
FMVSS No. 121 requires.
In addition to the inability to control
rotational wheel slip during braking,
even if the claimed pressure pulses do
exist, they are not signals from which
‘‘the rate of angular rotation of the
wheels,’’ or, therefore, wheel slip, can
be determined, as FMVSS No. 121
requires. Because the MSQR–5000 has
no way of knowing how many
‘‘irregularities’’ there are in the shape of
23 See affidavits of Duane Perrin and Jeffrey
Woods at Docket No. NHTSA–2004–18640.
24 See affidavits by Cepican, Corn, Foss, and
Perazzola at Docket No. NHTSA–2004–18640.
25 See affidavits of Beier, Ervin, Perrin, and
Buckman at Id.
26 See affidavits of Beier, Perrin, and Milligan at
Id.
E:\FR\FM\13FEN1.SGM
13FEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 29 / Monday, February 13, 2006 / Notices
any given brake drum, it cannot
measure the angular velocity of a wheel
based solely on the propagation of the
assumed pressure pulses.27 For
example, the device has no means of
distinguishing between the pulses
generated by a brake drum with six
irregularities turning at 10 miles per
hour, and a drum with a single
irregularity turning at 60 miles per
hour.28 Further, because it cannot
determine the forward velocity of the
vehicle, it would in any event lack
critical information needed in order to
determine wheel slip. The MSQR–5000
also lacks any means of processing
information about the angular rotation
of the wheels, and the forward velocity
of the vehicle, in order to calculate the
wheel slip. Finally, the theoretical
claims of petitioner fail to account for
the fact that the brake drums on new
vehicles are round and have minimal
irregularities, if any, from which any
pressure pulses would spring.29
The petitioner argues that the MSQR–
5000 controls wheel slip and prevents
lockup by reducing pressure spikes that
its expert assumes to be on the order of
2 psi.30 However, during a sudden stop,
a vehicle operator may apply as much
as 60–100 psi of brake pressure, thus
requiring that pressure be reduced by
anywhere from 20 to 80 psi to prevent
wheels from locking, or to free wheels
that have already locked.31 Under these
conditions, modulating pressure pulses
in the range of 2 psi will not prevent
sustained wheel lockup.32 The MSQR–
5000 does not vent air from the brake
chambers in order to reduce brake
pressure, a process that is basic to
controlling slip and preventing lockup
in air-braked vehicles.33 For this reason,
NHTSA concludes that the MSQR–5000
does not ‘‘control wheel slip during
braking’’ within the meaning of FMVSS
No. 121.
The petitioner’s analysis of fluid
dynamics within an air brake system
assumes a plane, one dimensional
27 See
the affidavit of Duane Perrin at Id.
id. See also the affidavits of Milligan and
Beier at Docket No. NHTSA–2004–18640.
29 See affidavits of Ervin and Perrin at Id. Even
a used drum seldom becomes ‘‘out of round’’ by
more than thirty to sixty thousandths (0.030–0.060)
of an inch, in one or two places. Petitioner did not
address how far ‘‘out of round’’ a brake drum must
be to send a detectable ‘‘signal’’ to the MSQR–5000.
See affidavit of Beier at Id.
30 See affidavit of John F. Foss (page 6) at Id.
31 For example, in one test of the BX–100, which
has a dampener essentially identical to the MSQR–
5000, the required air brake pressure for meeting
the test stopping criteria was 46 psi, whereas wheel
lockup occurred at 15 psi, a difference of more than
30 psi.
32 See affidavits of Ervin and Perrin at Id.
33 See the affidavits of Duane Perrin and Leonard
Buckman at Id.
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
28 See
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:38 Feb 10, 2006
Jkt 208001
system and fails to account for the
reflection and diffraction of the assumed
pressure waves within the multidimensional geometry of a real brake
line system.34 It also fails to account for
the effects of the incoming ‘‘data’’ waves
and outgoing ‘‘control’’ waves on one
another as they travel in opposite
directions within the same brake lines.
Instead it assumes, that the pressure
waves generated by the rotation of the
brake drums travel in ‘‘still air’’ within
the brake line.
Malfunction Indicator
The MSQR–5000 is not equipped with
an electrical circuit capable of signaling
an ABS malfunction or storing
information that such a malfunction had
occurred. Consequently, InterModal’s
trailers are not equipped with an
external antilock malfunction indicator
lamp. The agency believes that an
antilock malfunction indicator is a
critical safety feature necessary to alert
vehicle operators that the ABS system is
not functioning and wheel lockup could
occur. While the petitioner and one
commenter stated that a warning system
isn’t necessary because MSQR–5000
does not use electricity and a low air
pressure warning device would suffice,
it fails to explain the potential
consequences of mechanical failures of
the MSQR–5000 system.
We note that a low air pressure
warning device can warn a driver of a
significant loss in the brake system air
pressure. However, Robert J. Crail and
Advocates both noted that a low air
pressure alarm would not warn a driver
that MSQR–5000 is not operating. The
MSQR–5000 can fail without significant
loss in system air pressure. If this
occurred, ABS systems meeting the
requirements of FMVSS No. 121 would
warn the vehicle operator in the absence
of any pressure loss. Conversely, the
MSQR–5000 would not.
NHTSA adopted the warning light
requirement after concluding ‘‘that it is
essential that a driver be notified about
an ABS malfunction, so that the
problem can be corrected.’’ This
conclusion applies equally to electronic
and mechanical ABSs, and NHTSA
explained that ‘‘mechanical ABSs will
have to comply with the malfunction
indicator requirements.’’ 35 Any
mechanical device, including the
MSQR–5000, can wear out, break, or
otherwise malfunction.36 Indeed, we
have previously concluded, and
continue to believe, that the MSQR–
5000 is susceptible to any number of
34 See
affidavit of Milligan at Id.
60 FR at 13220, 13244, 13246.
36 See Id.
7619
possible malfunctions that would not be
detected by the vehicle’s low-pressure
warning system.37
InterModal Did Not Articulate How a
Temporary Exemption Would Facilitate
the Development or Field Evaluation of
Vehicles Equipped With MSQR–5000
The petitioner did not articulate how
a temporary exemption would facilitate
the development or field evaluation of
vehicles equipped with MSQR–5000, as
required by § 555.6(b)(3). Specifically,
the petitioner did not provide a research
plan or any other information that
would explain how an exemption
would be helpful in further
development of MSQR–5000 or trailers
equipped with that device. For example,
InterModal did not indicate that it
intends to collect any data from vehicles
equipped with MSQR–5000. We
therefore concur in the comments
offered by Advocates indicating that
InterModal did not address how
granting an exemption would serve the
public interest.
In sum, the petitioner failed to meet
the criteria of § 555.6(b)(3) and
§ 555.6(b)(2)(ii) because the petitioner
did not persuade the agency that the
safety device in question provides a
safety level at least equal to that of the
applicable Federal standard, and
because it failed to articulate how the
exemption would make easier the
development or field evaluation of the
safety device for which the exemption is
being sought. In addition, because the
agency believes that MSQR–5000 cannot
sense the rate of angular wheel rotation
on a vehicle with new brake drums that
do not have wear-related irregularities;
is incapable of quantifying the actual
rate of angular wheel rotation or wheel
slip; cannot control rotational wheel
slip during full lockup; and cannot
release excess pressure and therefore is
incapable of preventing incipient
lockup, we conclude that a grant of an
exemption is not in the public interest.
In consideration of the foregoing, the
agency is denying the InterModal
petition for a temporary exemption from
the requirements of Federal Motor
Vehicle Safety Standard (‘‘FMVSS’’) No.
121, Air brake systems.
(49 U.S.C. 30113; delegations of authority at
49 CFR 1.50. and 501.8)
Issued on: February 8, 2006.
Jacqueline Glassman,
Deputy Administrator.
[FR Doc. E6–2001 Filed 2–10–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–59–P
35 See
PO 00000
Frm 00117
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
37 See
E:\FR\FM\13FEN1.SGM
the affidavit of Beier at Id, giving examples.
13FEN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 29 (Monday, February 13, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 7614-7619]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-2001]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA-2004-18640, Notice 2]
InterModal Technologies, Inc.; Denial of Petition for a Temporary
Exemption From Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 121
SUMMARY: This notice denies a petition from InterModal Technologies,
Inc., for a temporary exemption from certain requirements of Federal
Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 121, Air brake systems. The denial is
based on the petitioner's failure to persuade the agency that the
safety device in question provides a safety level at least equal to
that of the applicable Federal standard. Further, it failed to
articulate how the exemption would make easier the development or field
evaluation of the safety device for which the exemption is being
sought.
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)
published a notice of receipt of the application on July 19, 2004, and
afforded an opportunity for comment.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See 69 FR 43052.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: George Feygin in the Office of Chief
Counsel, NCC-112, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400
Seventh St., SW., Washington, DC 20590 (Phone: 202-366-2992; Fax 202-
366-3820; E-Mail: George.Feygin@nhtsa.dot.gov).
I. Background and Summary of the Petition
InterModal Technologies, Inc. (``InterModal'') is a manufacturer of
semi-trailers and is incorporated in the State of Colorado. InterModal
would like to manufacture semi-trailers equipped with a device, which
it refers to as ``MSQR-5000 pneumatic antilock braking system''
(``MSQR-5000'').\2\ The MSQR-5000 does not incorporate electrical
circuits to transmit or receive electrical signals.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ For additional information on this petition, please see
Docket No. NHTSA-2004-18640 at https://dms.dot.gov/search/search/
FormSimple.cfm.
\3\ We note that the President of InterModal Technologies,
William Washington, is also the President of ABS, Inc., manufacturer
of the MSQR-5000. ABS, Inc. claims on its website that the MSQR-5000
is ``exempt'' from warning light requirements incorporated into
FMVSS No. 121, https://www.absbrakes.com/exemption.htm. Nevertheless,
InterModal now seeks an exemption from the same warning light
requirement. For more information on MSQR-5000, see https://
www.absbrakes.com/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 7615]]
In its petition, InterModal contends that the MSQR-5000 device
operates as an Antilock Braking System (ABS). InterModal acknowledged
that a trailer equipped with the MSQR-5000 does not comply with the
malfunction indicator (warning light) requirements of S5.2.3.2 and
S5.2.3.3 in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (``FMVSS'') No. 121,
Air brake systems.\4\
FMVSS No. 121 establishes requirements for braking systems on
vehicles equipped with air brake systems. In order to address the
safety consequences of braking-related instability, FMVSS No. 121
requires ABS.\5\ FMVSS No. 121 also includes warning light requirements
established to inform operators of an ABS malfunction and both to
facilitate and to encourage repairs of faulty ABS systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ The supporting information attached to the petition
contained several affidavits arguing that MSQR-5000 meets other
requirements of FMVSS No. 121 and performs better than conventional
ABS systems; a copy of the patent application; and two test reports.
\5\ The issue of whether MSQR-5000 is an ABS is addressed later
in this document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
S5.2.3.2 Antilock Malfunction Signal requires that:
``* * * each trailer * * * manufactured on or after March 1,
2001, that is equipped with an antilock brake system shall be
equipped with an electrical circuit that is capable of signaling a
malfunction in the trailer's antilock brake system, and shall have
the means for connection of this antilock brake system malfunction
signal circuit to the towing vehicle * * * Each message about the
existence of such a malfunction shall be stored in the antilock
brake system whenever power is no longer supplied to the system, and
the malfunction signal shall be automatically reactivated whenever
power is again supplied to the trailer's antilock brake system. In
addition, each trailer manufactured on or after March 1, 2001, that
is designed to tow other air-brake equipped trailers shall be
capable of transmitting a malfunction signal from the antilock brake
systems of additional trailers it tows to the vehicle towing it.''
S5.2.3.3 Antilock Malfunction Indicator requires that:
``In addition to the requirements of S5.2.3.2, each trailer * *
* manufactured on or after March 1, 1998, and before March 1, 2009,
shall be equipped with an external antilock malfunction indicator
lamp * * *''
The trailers in question are incapable of meeting these
requirements. Trailers equipped with only the MSQR-5000 would not be
equipped with an electrical circuit capable of signaling a malfunction
in the ABS or storing any information that indicated a malfunction had
occurred. Further, these trailers would not be equipped with an
external antilock malfunction indicator lamp.
Because the trailers equipped with MSQR-5000 do not comply with the
requirements of S5.2.3.2 and S5.2.3.3 of FMVSS No. 121, pursuant to the
procedures of 49 CFR 555.6(b), InterModal petitioned NHTSA for a
Temporary Exemption from these requirements. The stated basis for the
petition was that an exemption would facilitate the development or
field evaluation of the MSQR-5000, which petitioner contends offers a
safety level at least equal to that of systems that comply with FMVSS
No. 121. The petitioner argued that without an exemption, it is unable
to sell a vehicle whose overall level of safety is at least equal to
that of vehicles that meet the requirements of the standard.
InterModal did not elaborate on how an exemption from the
requirements of S5.2.3.2 and S5.2.3.3 would facilitate development or
field evaluation of a new motor vehicle safety feature. The petitioner
indicated that MSQR-5000 has already been developed by Air Brake
Systems, Inc.\6\ Accordingly, development of a new motor vehicle safety
feature was not at issue because InterModal seeks an exemption for a
product that has already been developed. InterModal stated that more
than 7,000 MSQR-5000 units are already in operation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ We note that Air Brake Systems, Inc., advertises the MSQR-
5000 as complying with ``IN-CAB warning light regulation 49 CFR
571.121'' see https://www.absbrakes.com/home.htm. That statement is
misleading because FMVSS No. 121 applies to vehicles and not items
of equipment. An item of equipment such as the MSQR-5000 cannot
``comply'' with FMVSS No. 121.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
InterModal offered several reasons why it believes the overall
level of safety of semi-trailers equipped with MSQR-5000 is at least
equal to that of non-exempted semi-trailers.
First, InterModal argued that based on laboratory test data and
field-test data, MSQR-5000 operates as a conventional ABS. Further,
InterModal stated that MSQR-5000 met or exceeded all the performance
requirements in FMVSS No. 121.\7\ Petitioner also cited several
affidavits in support of its contention that trailers equipped with
MSQR-5000 are at least as safe as trailers equipped with conventional
ABS.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ We note that Air Brake Systems, Inc. apparently sponsored
testing of an MSQR-5000 equipped tractor-trailer combination by the
Southwest Research Institute in 2002. The test report for this
testing, which was submitted with the petition, and available on the
Air Brake Systems, Inc. Web site, states in pertinent part: ``For
the wetted curve test, the vehicle is required by FMVSS 121 to stop
from 30 mph on a wetted surface while negotiating a 500-foot radius
curve and maintaining itself within in a 12-foot wide lane. When
using full treadle brake application per FMVSS 121, the vehicle did
not stay in the 12-foot lane. This occurred for the vehicle with and
without the MSQR-5000 brake valve at both vehicle weights.'' https://
www.absbrakes.com/ABS%20Final%20Report-Revision%20A.pdf at Executive
Summary and page 9.
\8\ For laboratory test data, field-test data, and affidavits,
see Docket No. NHTSA-2004-18640.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Second, InterModal argued that MSQR-5000 is a ``fully closed-loop''
system, as opposed to a conventional electronic ABS that utilizes
modulators to vent air during the braking cycle. According to
petitioner, an electronic ABS is subject to contamination and wear due
to venting. Further, in its view, venting may extend the stopping
distance. In contrast, the MSQR-5000 modulates air internally and does
not vent during braking.
In regard to the electronic malfunction indicator requirement,
InterModal stated that tractor-trailer combinations resulting from use
of its trailers with a standard tractor would already be equipped with
a pneumatic ``low pressure'' malfunction indicator located in the
cabin. Petitioner asserts that this design alerts the driver if the
system malfunctions. Further, in the event of a severe air pressure
loss, an emergency brake chamber releases to engage the emergency
brake, stopping the vehicle until repairs can be made.
Finally, the petitioner presented several arguments of why it
believes a semi-trailer equipped with a MSQR-5000 device is superior to
a semi-trailer equipped with a conventional ABS system that complies
with the requirements of FMVSS No. 121. Specifically, petitioner argues
that MSQR-5000: (1) Is less expensive; (2) is less expensive to
install; (3) is easier to operate; (4) has a better safety record than
ABS products that comply with the requirements of FMVSS No. 121; \9\
(5) causes less wear on brake linings; (6) has fewer parts that are
susceptible to damage or wear.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ In support of this statement, petitioner indicates that in
September 2000, 300,000 electronic ABS units were subject to a
voluntary recall because of delays in brake application.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other than what may be implied from the foregoing, the petitioner
did not specifically set forth the reasons why granting this exemption
would be in the public interest, as required by 49 CFR 555.5(b) (7).
For additional information on InterModal, please go to: https://
www.intermodaltechnologies.com.
[[Page 7616]]
II. Comments on the Petition
We published a notice of receipt of the application in accordance
with the requirements of 49 U.S.C. 30113(b)(2). The notice made no
judgment on the merits of the application. In response, we received
five comments, three supporting granting the petition and two
supporting denial.
Andrew W. Mouk stated that he ``handled the products liability
coverage for the MSQR-5000 for many years and ha[s] never had a
liability claim arise out of the use of this product.'' He added that
some insurance companies have even offered a discount in rates to
truckers who install this device on their heavy trucks, and that
drivers have been impressed with the increased braking capabilities
after the installation of MSQR-5000. He argued that the trucking
industry would be a safer industry ``if this valve was in more
widespread use.'' \10\ No data to support Mr. Mouk's comments was
included.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ See Docket No. NHTSA-2004-18640-3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
An anonymous commenter stated that s/he ``witnessed testing of the
MSQR-5000 valve at Bandimere Speedway in Colorado and observed
firsthand a 40% reduction in stopping distance and almost 50% reduction
in braking time using this system.'' The commenter also asserted that
s/he knows of drivers who report dramatically improved safety and
reduced maintenance costs. The commenter also asserted knowledge of
``many reports of accidents avoided and lives saved due to the shorter
stopping distance and braking reliability.'' \11\ The commenter argued
that the Antilock Malfunction Indicator required by S5.2.3.3 of FMVSS
No. 121 is inconsequential to safety. As with the previous comment,
this commenter did not provide any supporting data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ See Docket No. NHTSA-2004-18640-6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tracy White of Farm Master, Inc., stated that the company uses and
likes MSQR-5000 because the system is easy to install and maintain. The
comment also indicated that Farm Master's customers preferred the
system because of its reliability and that Farm Master has not received
any complaints.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ See Docket No. NHTSA-2004-18640-7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert J. Crail opposed granting the petition. He stated that a
failure of the ``diaphragm'' in the MSQR-5000 would render inoperable
the ``alleged antilock feature.'' Mr. Crail also stated that air brake
systems equipped with the MSQR-5000 valve have no means of
automatically controlling the degree of rotational wheel slip during
braking and no means of sensing the rate of angular rotation of the
wheels. Further, he stated that the MSQR-5000 valve has no means of
relieving excess pressure from the brake chambers, which means a locked
wheel would remain locked until the driver reduced the braking
pressure, which Mr. Crail stated is not antilock braking. Mr. Crail
concluded by arguing that trailers containing the MSQR-5000 would
``certainly degrade highway safety.''
Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety (Advocates) argued that NHTSA
should reject the requested exemption because the petition filed by
InterModal has substantive and procedural defects. Specifically,
Advocates stated that InterModal acknowledged the manufacture and sale
of trailers equipped with seemingly noncompliant braking systems, and
argued that granting an ex post facto exemption would be inappropriate.
Advocates also stated that InterModal made no arguments explaining why
a grant of the petition would be in the public interest.
Advocates argued that MSQR-5000 does not notify vehicle operators
of ABS malfunction with otherwise operable brakes. In the case of ABS
systems complying with FMVSS No. 121, a malfunction notification alerts
an operator who can drive the vehicle to a safe location, including
repair facilities, in order to accomplish restoration of full ABS
operation. By contrast, Advocates states that MSQR-5000 overrides
operator control of the vehicle and brings it to an immediate stop in
what could be dangerous operating circumstances. Finally, Advocates
argued that InterModal provided no reliable safety data on the
consequences of emergency brake application if ABS malfunctions occur.
III. The Agency Decision
After careful consideration of the petition, NHTSA is denying the
InterModal petition for a temporary exemption because the petitioner
failed to meet the criteria specified in 49 CFR 555.6(b). Specifically,
InterModal did not persuade the agency that MSQR-5000 provides a safety
level at least equal to that of the applicable Federal safety standard.
InterModal also failed to articulate how granting the exemption would
be in the public interest or how the exemption would facilitate
development or field evaluation of the MSQR-5000.
Background
When heavy vehicle brakes are applied with increasing amounts of
force, braking generally improves. However, at some point, the forces
in the brakes exceed the grip of the tire on the road. The tire then
begins to slide and the wheel rapidly goes into full lockup. A sliding
tire loses its grip in all directions. Thus, locked wheels make a
vehicle unstable and lead to loss of control.
FMVSS No. 121 requires antilock braking systems (ABS) on vehicles
equipped with air brakes. The ABS controls the degree of rotational
wheel slip in order to minimize wheel lockup, maximize braking force
and preserve directional control. In doing so, the ABS reduces, holds
and reapplies, i.e., modulates, brake pressure to each controlled
wheel. More specifically, the ABS automatically reduces the amount of
brake application pressure by venting air in the brake chambers into
the atmosphere. The brake pressure must then be increased again to
ensure that there is sufficient brake force. Through these cycles,
which require reducing or applying air pressure by as much as 60 pounds
per square inch, the degree of wheel slip is controlled.
The ABS system must have the ability to determine if and when a
braked wheel becomes locked due to changes in traction conditions. To
accomplish this, any ABS must be a ``closed loop'' system; i.e., a
system that continuously monitors the rate of wheel rotation, adjusts
wheel rotation when needed, and reacts to ongoing changes in rotation
caused by the operation of the system, by changed road surfaces, or
both.\13\ For example, a braking vehicle may move from a high friction
surface, like dry pavement, to a very low friction surface such as an
icy road. In such an instance, an ABS must sense the different
frictional properties of the road surface through changes in the rate
of wheel rotation and reduce brake air line pressure on the low
friction surface, and then restore it when a high friction surface is
reached.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ See 60 FR 13217. We note that in the petition, InterModal
argues that MSQR-5000 is closed loop because it is incapable of
venting air during the braking cycle. As explained below, this
argument is erroneous because MSQR-5000 is incapable of continuously
monitoring the rate of wheel rotation and therefore is not closed
loop.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Definition of ABS
The definition of ABS included in FMVSS No. 121 incorporates the
terms set forth in Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) publications
and European regulations to reflect the attributes of antilock systems
as commonly understood by the automotive industry.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ See Sec. 7.3, 7.4.4, 7.4.5 of ``Antilock Brake System
Review'' SAE J2246 (June 1992). ``ABS is a feedback control system
that attempts to maintain controlled braking under all operating
conditions. This is accomplished by controlling the slip at each
wheel so as to obtain optimum forces within the limits of the tire-
road combination.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 7617]]
An antilock brake system is defined in S4 of FMVSS No. 121 as
follows:
Antilock brake system or ABS means a portion of a service brake
system that automatically controls the degree of rotational wheel slip
during braking by:
(1) Sensing the rate of angular rotation of the wheels;
(2) Transmitting signals regarding the rate of wheel angular
rotation to one or more controlling devices which interpret those
signals and generate responsive controlling output signals; and
(3) Transmitting those controlling signals to one or more
modulators which adjust brake actuating forces in response to those
signals. [emphasis added]
We interpret this definition as follows:
``Automatically controls'' means that the ABS, rather than the
driver, regulates the degree of rotational wheel slip during braking.
Automatic control is necessary since drivers frequently cannot control
lockup in emergency situations or on slippery surfaces.
``Wheel slip'' refers to the proportional amount of wheel/tire
skidding relative to the forward motion (velocity) of the vehicle. As
defined in S4 of FMVSS No. 121, wheel lockup means 100 percent wheel
slip.
``During braking'' means during all phases of braking when antilock
braking would be called upon, including incipient wheel lock and
subsequent wheel lockup. In order to meet this portion of the
definition, an ABS must therefore act when wheels are about to lock,
when they have locked and after they have locked.
In short, the introductory clause of the definition of ABS in FMVSS
No. 121 means that during braking an ABS system must act without any
action on the part of the driver. When functioning on its own, the
system must exercise control over the degree of rotational wheel slip,
including full lockup. Finally, a qualifying system must act at all
times during braking, including those periods where lock up is about to
occur, and where full lockup has occurred. The definition also sets
forth the means by which these conditions are to be met.
``Sensing the rate of angular rotation of the wheels'' means that
the ABS must be able to sense the rate of angular wheel rotation, not
simply whether the wheel is rotating or not. The information about the
rate of wheel rotation, relative to the forward motion of the vehicle,
enables an ABS to determine if a wheel is about to lockup or has locked
up. It also enables the ABS to then control (release/hold/reapply)
brake pressure to enable the wheel to begin rotating again, at an
appropriate level of rotational wheel slip.
``Transmitting signals regarding the rate of wheel angular rotation
to one or more controlling devices which interpret those signals and
generate responsive controlling output signals'' means that ABS must
use the rate of wheel rotation and not a substitute or surrogate factor
to control wheel slip and prevent lockup.
``Transmitting those controlling signals to one or more modulators
which adjust brake actuating forces in response to those signals''
means that the ABS must modulate brake pressure in response to the rate
of angular rotation of the wheels relative to the vehicle's forward
motion. During automatic brake control, wheel speed has to be
constantly monitored so that the maximum braking force for the
conditions can be achieved by a succession of pressure reduction,
pressure-holding and pressure-reapplication.
Meeting all of the elements of this definition is necessary to
ensure that an ABS system provides the minimum level of performance
necessary for safe braking. Thus, an antilock system must be capable of
reducing, holding and reapplying brake pressure to each controlled
wheel. The wheel speed sensor must monitor the rotational speed of the
wheel. When a monitored wheel approaches a lockup condition, there is a
sharp deceleration of the wheel and rise in wheel slip. If this exceeds
threshold levels, the control unit must send a signal to the modulator
device to hold or reduce the build-up of wheel brake pressure until the
danger of wheel lockup has passed. The brake pressure must then be
increased again to ensure that the wheel is not underbraked for the
road surface conditions.
Warning Light
An ABS malfunction warning light is required by Sections 5.1.6.2
and 5.1.6.3 of Standard 121. The warning light requirements are
important for reducing crashes, deaths and injuries. These warning
light requirements are necessary to ensure that operators are informed
of an ABS malfunction, including those that have previously occurred in
a trailer, and both facilitate and encourage repairs of faulty ABS
systems.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ See 60 FR 13244.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Analysis
One threshold question that must be examined is whether the
petitioner's vehicles are equipped with an ABS system that functions as
an ABS within the meaning of FMVSS No. 121. This is relevant to
InterModal's petition because paragraph S5.2.3.1 of FMVSS No. 121 of
FMVSS No. 121 requires trailers to be equipped with ABS, as defined in
the Standard. If the MSQR-5000 is not an ABS, within the meaning of
FMVSS No. 121, an exemption from the warning light requirements of the
Standard, as requested by InterModal, would still not permit the
petitioner to use the MSQR-5000 in lieu of an ABS system either
complying with Standard 121 or, if InterModal had requested an
exemption from the ABS requirement, providing an equivalent level of
performance to vehicles meeting that requirement.
Many of the arguments raised by the petitioner as to whether MSQR-
5000 meets the Federal requirements applicable to anti-lock braking
systems have previously been examined by NHTSA in a June 4, 2001
interpretation letter to MAC Trailer and the subsequent litigation
arising out of issuance of that letter.\16\ (Air Brake Systems, Inc. v.
Mineta, 357 F.3d 632 (6th Cir. 2004); Air Brake Systems, Inc. v.
Mineta, 202 F.Supp.2d 705 (E.D.Mich. 2002)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ During the course of the litigation both ABS, Inc. and
NHTSA submitted affidavits and declarations to the District Court.
Many of these affidavits and declarations were submitted by
InterModal in support of its petition. The agency has placed these
in the docket along with declarations and affidavits submitted to
the District Court by NHTSA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why MSQR-5000 Does Not Meet the Definition of ABS
InterModal submitted a series of affidavits stating that MSQR-5000
is an ABS system within the meaning of S4 of FMVSS No. 121. As
explained below, we disagree and note that the supporting affidavits,
as well as the arguments contained in the petition do not address the
entire definition as set forth in S4 of FMVSS No. 121.
The MSQR-5000 is essentially a diaphragm, backed by a piston and
dampened by a rubber spring, which is acted on by the air pressure in
the brake lines to the brake cylinders.\17\ According to the materials
submitted by the petitioner, the MSQR-5000 operates on the theory that
wheel lockup occurs because of pressure spikes and pressure
differentials inside the braking system. The MSQR-5000 purportedly
prevents wheel lockup by reacting to, and
[[Page 7618]]
negating the impact of, these pressure waves and pressure
differentials.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ See patent 5,078,455.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
InterModal also provided the agency with several affidavits from
private individuals purporting to state that a vehicle equipped with
MSQR-5000 would conform to the requirements of FMVSS No. 121, and that
based on mathematical calculations, vehicles equipped with MSQR-5000
would exhibit shorter stopping distances compared to conventional ABS
systems that comply with the requirements of FMVSS No. 121.\18\ Because
these affidavits did not explain how the MSQR-5000 compensates for its
apparent inability to detect and combat wheel slip, we find the
affidavits irrelevant to vehicle performance on road conditions where
ABS is needed. Similarly, comments submitted in support of the petition
stating that use of the MSQR-5000 shortened stopping distance, had not
generated any product liability claims, or was cheap and simple to
maintain, are irrelevant to whether it functions as an ABS. Stopping
performance alone is no indicator that a vehicle has ABS. While the
petitioner provided some data, these data did not demonstrate
performance which meets or exceeds the requirements of FMVSS No. 121,
as required by Sec. 555.6(b)(2)(ii). In fact, one item provided by
InterModal, a Final Report on testing conducted by Southwest Research
Institute (SWRI), indicates that the MSQR-5000 allowed wheel lockup
resulting in a tractor-trailer combination experiencing the equivalent
of an FMVSS No. 121 test failure. Specifically, the vehicle did not,
under a full-treadle brake application, stop within a 12-foot wide lane
from 30 mph on wet surface while negotiating a 500-foot radius
curve.\19\ The conclusion of the Final Report reads as follows: ``Based
on the test results and discussions with the manufacturer, SwRI found
that the MSQR-5000 system does not function in the same manner as an
electronic anti-lock brake system (ABS). With full treadle application,
it is possible to cause wheel lockup that results in the vehicle not
staying within the 12-foot lane.'' \20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ In addition to the affidavit, petitioner also provided the
agency with a copy of the patent application which described the
operation of MSQR-5000. Further, a one-page summary of a test ``* *
* conducted to approximate the requirements of the 1 March 1997
revision of FMVSS 121 anti-lock brake system regulation'' by
Perazzola, Inc., purported to show that vehicles equipped with MSQR-
5000 exhibited superior stopping performance.
\19\ See the Executive Summary and page 9 of the SWRI Final
Report at Docket No. NHTSA-2004-18640.
\20\ The vehicle tested was a tractor-trailer combination.
Standard No. 121 contains a requirement that non-articulated air
braked vehicles; i.e., ``straight trucks'' stay within a 12 foot
lane while braking on a wetted curve. This test requirement does not
apply to articulated vehicle such as a tractor-trailer combination.
However, the testing performed by Southwest is indicative of the
inability of the MSQR-5000 to function as an ABS in a panic stop on
a low friction surface. See Id. at 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The agency has considerable experience examining devices such as
the MSQR-5000 and claims that this device and similar pressure
dampening mechanisms function as an ABS. In 1992, NHTSA received a
petition to require installation of devices like the MSQR-5000 on air-
braked vehicles. In response, the agency reviewed tests performed by
the Southwest Research Institute, and the U.S. Army's Aberdeen Proving
Ground, which showed that the MSQR-5000, and a similar device called
the BX-100, did not prevent wheel lockup. NHTSA also tested a similar
device for hydraulic brake systems, called the Brake Guard, which
showed that the Brake Guard did not, as claimed, prevent wheel
lockup.\21\ The agency denied the petition on July 2, 1992 explaining:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ Based on NHTSA's testing, and other evidence, the Federal
Trade Commission concluded that the Brake Guard was not an antilock
brake system, and that there were ``no competent and reliable
scientific data'' to support the manufacturer's claims to the
contrary (See Docket No. NHTSA-2004-18640).
``* * * Independent tests of the petitioner's device or products
similar to his device indicate that it would not be in the interest
of safety to adopt his requested amendment. For instance, tests at
the Aberdeen Proving Ground indicated that a similar product, the
BX-100 brake equalizer, was not approved for use on military
vehicles * * * Similarly, tests at Southwest Research Institute
indicated that vehicles equipped with the petitioner's device needed
an average of approximately 0.5 seconds longer to stop because
additional time was needed to fill the expansion chamber. These
vehicles exhibited a slower stopping time which ranged from 0.4 to
1.0 seconds at 40 miles per hour which would add from 24 to 59 feet
to the stopping distance * * * Tests also indicate that the
petitioner's device does not smooth out pressure spikes as claimed.
In fact, it typically would only cause small changes in the pressure
curves because of the added volume in the brake system that must be
filled with air * * * Historically, measurements at VRTC concerning
pressure in air brake systems have not revealed peaks in brake
pressure. In contrast, to the agency's knowledge, axle-to-axle
pressure differentials in combination units are the only type of air
pressure differential that contributes to safety problems such as
jackknifing and unbalanced braking.'' \22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ See 57 FR 29459.
In regard to the theory of the MSQR-5000's operation, NHTSA also
conducted two-year road tests of the antilock brake systems on 200
trucks, and 50 trailers, accumulating 44 million miles' worth of
data,\23\ which revealed no evidence of the pressure pulses that are
the linchpin of the device's operation. In the course of the litigation
in Air Brake Systems, Inc. v. Mineta, ABS Inc. offered no data
purporting to demonstrate that these pressure pulses exist and
InterModal's petition offers nothing further.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ See affidavits of Duane Perrin and Jeffrey Woods at Docket
No. NHTSA-2004-18640.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As in the current InterModal petition, in the case of Air Brake
Systems, Inc. v. Mineta, ABS Inc. and its affiants asserted that the
MSQR-5000 operates on the basis of differential pressure waves
generated during braking by brake shoes contacting high and low spots
and other irregularities in rotating brake drums. In response to these
pressure differentials, the MSQR-5000 allegedly generates responsive
waves that dampen pressure increases.\24\ NHTSA research and testing
have never revealed the existence of the pressure waves described by
the petitioner and, after conferring with agency experts and outside
consultants having as much as 45 years experience in the field of
developing, designing, and testing brake systems, the agency believes
that such waves do not exist.\25\ However, even assuming that the
pressure differentials posited by the petitioner in fact exist, the
MSQR-5000 depends on wheel rotation to generate the pressure pulses to
which it allegedly reacts. As a locked wheel does not rotate, the MSQR-
5000 cannot sense wheel lockup when it occurs and would cease
completely to function under the very conditions of maximum braking
instability when it most needs to act.\26\ Therefore, the agency
concludes that MSQR-5000 does not ``automatically control * * * the
degree of rotational wheel slip during braking'' under all conditions,
as FMVSS No. 121 requires.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ See affidavits by Cepican, Corn, Foss, and Perazzola at
Docket No. NHTSA-2004-18640.
\25\ See affidavits of Beier, Ervin, Perrin, and Buckman at Id.
\26\ See affidavits of Beier, Perrin, and Milligan at Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to the inability to control rotational wheel slip
during braking, even if the claimed pressure pulses do exist, they are
not signals from which ``the rate of angular rotation of the wheels,''
or, therefore, wheel slip, can be determined, as FMVSS No. 121
requires. Because the MSQR-5000 has no way of knowing how many
``irregularities'' there are in the shape of
[[Page 7619]]
any given brake drum, it cannot measure the angular velocity of a wheel
based solely on the propagation of the assumed pressure pulses.\27\ For
example, the device has no means of distinguishing between the pulses
generated by a brake drum with six irregularities turning at 10 miles
per hour, and a drum with a single irregularity turning at 60 miles per
hour.\28\ Further, because it cannot determine the forward velocity of
the vehicle, it would in any event lack critical information needed in
order to determine wheel slip. The MSQR-5000 also lacks any means of
processing information about the angular rotation of the wheels, and
the forward velocity of the vehicle, in order to calculate the wheel
slip. Finally, the theoretical claims of petitioner fail to account for
the fact that the brake drums on new vehicles are round and have
minimal irregularities, if any, from which any pressure pulses would
spring.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ See the affidavit of Duane Perrin at Id.
\28\ See id. See also the affidavits of Milligan and Beier at
Docket No. NHTSA-2004-18640.
\29\ See affidavits of Ervin and Perrin at Id. Even a used drum
seldom becomes ``out of round'' by more than thirty to sixty
thousandths (0.030-0.060) of an inch, in one or two places.
Petitioner did not address how far ``out of round'' a brake drum
must be to send a detectable ``signal'' to the MSQR-5000. See
affidavit of Beier at Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The petitioner argues that the MSQR-5000 controls wheel slip and
prevents lockup by reducing pressure spikes that its expert assumes to
be on the order of 2 psi.\30\ However, during a sudden stop, a vehicle
operator may apply as much as 60-100 psi of brake pressure, thus
requiring that pressure be reduced by anywhere from 20 to 80 psi to
prevent wheels from locking, or to free wheels that have already
locked.\31\ Under these conditions, modulating pressure pulses in the
range of 2 psi will not prevent sustained wheel lockup.\32\ The MSQR-
5000 does not vent air from the brake chambers in order to reduce brake
pressure, a process that is basic to controlling slip and preventing
lockup in air-braked vehicles.\33\ For this reason, NHTSA concludes
that the MSQR-5000 does not ``control wheel slip during braking''
within the meaning of FMVSS No. 121.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ See affidavit of John F. Foss (page 6) at Id.
\31\ For example, in one test of the BX-100, which has a
dampener essentially identical to the MSQR-5000, the required air
brake pressure for meeting the test stopping criteria was 46 psi,
whereas wheel lockup occurred at 15 psi, a difference of more than
30 psi.
\32\ See affidavits of Ervin and Perrin at Id.
\33\ See the affidavits of Duane Perrin and Leonard Buckman at
Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The petitioner's analysis of fluid dynamics within an air brake
system assumes a plane, one dimensional system and fails to account for
the reflection and diffraction of the assumed pressure waves within the
multi-dimensional geometry of a real brake line system.\34\ It also
fails to account for the effects of the incoming ``data'' waves and
outgoing ``control'' waves on one another as they travel in opposite
directions within the same brake lines. Instead it assumes, that the
pressure waves generated by the rotation of the brake drums travel in
``still air'' within the brake line.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ See affidavit of Milligan at Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Malfunction Indicator
The MSQR-5000 is not equipped with an electrical circuit capable of
signaling an ABS malfunction or storing information that such a
malfunction had occurred. Consequently, InterModal's trailers are not
equipped with an external antilock malfunction indicator lamp. The
agency believes that an antilock malfunction indicator is a critical
safety feature necessary to alert vehicle operators that the ABS system
is not functioning and wheel lockup could occur. While the petitioner
and one commenter stated that a warning system isn't necessary because
MSQR-5000 does not use electricity and a low air pressure warning
device would suffice, it fails to explain the potential consequences of
mechanical failures of the MSQR-5000 system.
We note that a low air pressure warning device can warn a driver of
a significant loss in the brake system air pressure. However, Robert J.
Crail and Advocates both noted that a low air pressure alarm would not
warn a driver that MSQR-5000 is not operating. The MSQR-5000 can fail
without significant loss in system air pressure. If this occurred, ABS
systems meeting the requirements of FMVSS No. 121 would warn the
vehicle operator in the absence of any pressure loss. Conversely, the
MSQR-5000 would not.
NHTSA adopted the warning light requirement after concluding ``that
it is essential that a driver be notified about an ABS malfunction, so
that the problem can be corrected.'' This conclusion applies equally to
electronic and mechanical ABSs, and NHTSA explained that ``mechanical
ABSs will have to comply with the malfunction indicator requirements.''
\35\ Any mechanical device, including the MSQR-5000, can wear out,
break, or otherwise malfunction.\36\ Indeed, we have previously
concluded, and continue to believe, that the MSQR-5000 is susceptible
to any number of possible malfunctions that would not be detected by
the vehicle's low-pressure warning system.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ See 60 FR at 13220, 13244, 13246.
\36\ See Id.
\37\ See the affidavit of Beier at Id, giving examples.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
InterModal Did Not Articulate How a Temporary Exemption Would
Facilitate the Development or Field Evaluation of Vehicles Equipped
With MSQR-5000
The petitioner did not articulate how a temporary exemption would
facilitate the development or field evaluation of vehicles equipped
with MSQR-5000, as required by Sec. 555.6(b)(3). Specifically, the
petitioner did not provide a research plan or any other information
that would explain how an exemption would be helpful in further
development of MSQR-5000 or trailers equipped with that device. For
example, InterModal did not indicate that it intends to collect any
data from vehicles equipped with MSQR-5000. We therefore concur in the
comments offered by Advocates indicating that InterModal did not
address how granting an exemption would serve the public interest.
In sum, the petitioner failed to meet the criteria of Sec.
555.6(b)(3) and Sec. 555.6(b)(2)(ii) because the petitioner did not
persuade the agency that the safety device in question provides a
safety level at least equal to that of the applicable Federal standard,
and because it failed to articulate how the exemption would make easier
the development or field evaluation of the safety device for which the
exemption is being sought. In addition, because the agency believes
that MSQR-5000 cannot sense the rate of angular wheel rotation on a
vehicle with new brake drums that do not have wear-related
irregularities; is incapable of quantifying the actual rate of angular
wheel rotation or wheel slip; cannot control rotational wheel slip
during full lockup; and cannot release excess pressure and therefore is
incapable of preventing incipient lockup, we conclude that a grant of
an exemption is not in the public interest.
In consideration of the foregoing, the agency is denying the
InterModal petition for a temporary exemption from the requirements of
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (``FMVSS'') No. 121, Air brake
systems.
(49 U.S.C. 30113; delegations of authority at 49 CFR 1.50. and
501.8)
Issued on: February 8, 2006.
Jacqueline Glassman,
Deputy Administrator.
[FR Doc. E6-2001 Filed 2-10-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
