[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 137 (Monday, July 19, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Pages 43052-43054]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-16383]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA-2004-18640, Notice 1]
InterModal Technologies, Inc.; Receipt of Application for a
Temporary Exemption From Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 121
Pursuant to the procedures of 49 CFR part 555, InterModal
Technologies, Inc. (``InterModal'') has applied for a Temporary
Exemption from the requirements of S5.2.3.2 Antilock Malfunction
Signal, and S5.2.3.3 Antilock Malfunction Indicator in Federal Motor
Vehicle Safety Standard (``FMVSS'') No. 121, Air brake systems. The
basis of the application is that the exemption would facilitate the
development or field evaluation of a new motor vehicle safety feature
providing a safety level at least equal to that of the standard, and
that the applicant is otherwise unable to sell a vehicle whose overall
level of safety is at least equal to that of a non-exempted vehicle.
We are publishing this notice of receipt of the application in
accordance with the requirements of 49 U.S.C. 30113(b)(2). This notice
makes no judgment on the merits of the application. Similarly, this
notice does not address the merits of InterModal's statements that the
MSQR-5000 is an antilock braking system. The merits may be addressed in
comments and in the agency's resolution of this matter.
I. Background
InterModal is a manufacturer of semi-trailers incorporated in the
State of Colorado. InterModal intends to manufacture semi-trailers
equipped with a device, which it refers to as ``MSQR-5000 pneumatic
antilock braking system'' (``MSQR-5000'').\1\ The MSQR-5000 does not
incorporate electrical circuits to transmit or receive electrical
signals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ For additional information on this peittion, please see
Docket No. NHTSA-2004-18640 at http://dms.dot.gov/search/searchFormSimple.cfm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The trailers equipped with MSQR-5000 would not comply with the
requirements of S5.2.3.2 and S5.2.3.3 of FMVSS No. 121. Petitioner
seeks a temporary exemption from the requirements of S5.2.3.2 and
S5.2.3.3 because an exemption would facilitate the development or field
evaluation of MSQR-5000, which petitioner contends offers a safety
level at least equal to that of antilock brake systems (``ABS'') that
comply with FMVSS No. 121. Further, petitioner contends that it is
otherwise unable to sell a vehicle whose overall level of safety is at
least equal to that of non-exempted vehicles. If the petition is
granted, InterModal intends to produce not more than 2,500 trailers
annually. For additional information on InterModal, please go to http://www.intermodaltechnologies.com.
II. Why InterModal Needs a Temporary Exemption
Petitioner contends that the MSQR-5000 device, installed on
trailers manufactured by InterModal, operates as a conventional ABS.
However, a trailer equipped with the MSQR-5000 does not comply with the
requirements of S5.2.3.2 and S5.2.3.3 of FMVSS No. 121.
S5.2.3.2 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
[[Page 43053]]
antilock brake system, and shall have the means for connection of
this antilock brake system malfunction signal circuit to the towing
vehicle * * *''
S5.2.3.3 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 either
requirement. Trailers equipped with only the MSQR-5000 would not be
equipped with an electrical circuit capable of signaling a malfunction
in the ABS. Further, these trailers would not be equipped with an
external antilock malfunction indicator lamp.
InterModal has not specified the length for the requested
exemption. However, under 49 CFR Sec. 555.8(b) a temporary exemption
from a standard granted on a basis other than substantial economic
hardship terminates according to its terms not later than 2 years after
the date of issuance. Accordingly, the agency assumes that InterModal
is seeking a two-year exemption.
III. Why the Exemption Would Make It Easier To Develop or Perform Field
Evaluation of a New Motor Vehicle Safety Feature; and Why the Applicant
Is Otherwise Unable To Sell a Vehicle Whose Overall Level of Safety or
Impact Protection Is at Least Equal to That of a Non-Exempted Vehicle
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 petition
indicates that MSQR-5000 has already been developed by Air Brake
Systems, Inc. Accordingly, development of a new motor vehicle safety
feature is not at issue. While InterModal might be of the view that the
grant of the petition would allow InterModal to conduct field
evaluations of semi-trailers equipped with MSQR-5000, we note that the
petition states that there are more than 7,000 MSQR-5000 units already
in operation.
As previously discussed, an InterModal trailer equipped with MSQR-
5000 would not comply with the requirements of S5.2.3.2 and S5.2.3.3 of
FMVSS No. 121. Petitioner asserts that because MSQR-5000 does not use
electricity, modifications to bring the vehicle into compliance with
FMVSS No. 121 are impossible. Unless an exemption is granted,
petitioners would not be able to sell semi-trailers equipped with the
MSQR-5000.
IV. Why the Overall Level of Safety of Trailers Equipped With MSQR-5000
Is at Least Equal to That of Non-Exempted Semi-Trailers
Petitioner offers 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 argues that based on laboratory test data and
field-test data, MSQR-5000 operates as a conventional ABS. Further,
InterModal states that MSQR-5000 met or exceeded all the performance
requirements in FMVSS No. 121. Petitioner also cites to several
affidavits in support of its contention that trailers equipped with
MSQR-5000 are at least as safe as trailers equipped with conventional
ABS.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ For laboratory test data, field-test data, and affidavits,
see Docket No. NHTS-2004-18640.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Second, petitioner contends that MSQR-5000 is a ``fully closed-
loop'' system as opposed to conventional electronic ABS that utilizes
modulators to vent air during the braking cycle. According to
petitioner, electronic ABS is subject to contamination and wear due to
venting. Further, in its view, venting may extend the stopping
distance. By contrast, MSQR-5000 modulates air internally and does not
vent during braking.
Third, instead of an electronic malfunction indicator, semi-
trailers equipped with MSQR-5000 feature a pneumatic malfunction
indicator located in the cabin. Petitioner asserts that this design
alerts the driver if the system malfunctions. 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, petitioner asserts that MSQR-5000 is easier to install and
maintain; causes less wear on the brake linings; has fewer parts that
are susceptible to damage or wear; and has a better a safety record.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ In support of the last statement, petitioner indicates that
in September 2000, 300,000 electronic ABS units were subject to a
voluntary recall because of delays in brake application.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
V. Why an Exemption Would Be in the Public Interest and Consistent With
the Objectives of Motor Vehicle Safety
Petitioner has not set forth the reasons why granting this
exemption would be in the public interest, as required by 49 CFR Sec.
555.5(b)(7). However, petitioner presented several arguments of why it
believes that a semi-trailer equipped with a MSQR-5000 device is
superior to a semi-trailer equipped with 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; (5) causes less wear on brake linings; (6) has fewer parts that
are susceptible to damage or wear.
VI. How You May Comment on Inter Modal Application
We invite you to submit comments on the application described
above. You may submit comments [identified by DOT Docket Number NHTSA-
2004-18640] by any of the following methods:
Web site: http://dms.dot.gov. Follow the instructions for
submitting comments on the DOT electronic docket site by clicking on
``Help and Information'' or ``Help/Info.''
Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
Mail: Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 400 7th Street, SW., Nassif Building, Room PL-401,
Washington, DC 20590.
Hand Delivery: Room PL-401 on the plaza level of the
Nassif Building, 400 7th Street, SW., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m.
and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays.
Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
Instructions: All submissions must include the agency name and
docket number or Regulatory Identification Number (RIN) for this
rulemaking. Note that all comments received will be posted without
change to http://dms.dot.gov, including any personal information
provided.
Docket: For access to the docket in order to read background
documents or comments received, go to http://dms.dot.gov at any time or
to Room PL-401 on the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh
Street, SW., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except Federal Holidays.
Privacy Act: Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all
comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf
of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's
complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on
April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages 19477-78) or you may visit
http://dms.dot.gov.
We shall consider all comments received before the close of
business on
[[Page 43054]]
the comment closing date indicated below. To the extent possible, we
shall also consider comments filed after the closing date. We shall
publish a notice of final action on the application in the Federal
Register pursuant to the authority indicated below.
Comment closing date: August 18, 2004.(49 U.S.C. 30113; delegations
of authority at 49 CFR 1.50. and 501.8).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: George Feygin in the Office of Chief
Counsel, NCC-112, (Phone: 202-366-2992; Fax 202-366-3820; E-mail:
[email protected]).
Issued on: July 14, 2004.
Stephen R. Kratzke,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 04-16383 Filed 7-16-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P