[Federal Register: July 27, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 143)]
[Notices]
[Page 43507-43508]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr27jy05-180]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA-2005-21192; Notice 2]
ArvinMeritor, Inc., Denial of Petition for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance
ArvinMeritor Inc. (ArvinMeritor) has determined that certain
automatic slack
[[Page 43508]]
adjusters assembled by the petitioner in 2004 do not comply with
S5.1.8(a) and S5.2.2(a) of 49 CFR 571.121, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
Standard (FMVSS) No. 121, ``Air brake systems.'' Pursuant to 49 U.S.C.
30118(d) and 30120(h), ArvinMeritor has petitioned for a determination
that this noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety and
has filed an appropriate report pursuant to 49 CFR part 573, ``Defect
and Noncompliance Reports.'' Notice of receipt of the petition was
published, with a 30 day comment period, on May 17, 2005 in the Federal
Register (70 FR 28352). NHTSA received two comments.
Affected are a total of approximately 187 automatic slack adjusters
assembled between October 13, 2004 and December 20, 2004. S5.1.8(a) is
applicable to trucks and buses, and S5.2.2(a) is applicable to
trailers. Both sections are titled ``Brake adjuster,'' and both require
that:
Wear of the service brakes shall be compensated for by means of
a system of automatic adjustment. When inspected pursuant to S5.9,
the adjustment of the service brakes shall be within the limits
recommended by the vehicle manufacturer.
ArvinMeritor states that the noncompliant automatic slack adjusters
were assembled with housings supplied by TaeJoo Ind. Co., Ltd., and
these housings were below the dimensional specifications. The
petitioner states that as a result, there is interference between the
automatic slack adjuster pawl and the housing cavity in which the pawl
is positioned, preventing the pawl from properly engaging the actuator,
which can result in a reduction or elimination of the automatic
adjustment function as required by S5.1.8(a) and S5.2.2(a).
ArvinMeritor believes that the noncompliance is inconsequential to
motor vehicle safety and that no corrective action is warranted.
ArvinMeritor states that it has conducted dynamic testing of vehicles
simulating the affected automatic slack adjusters and based on the
results of this testing, ArvinMeritor is satisfied that the braking
systems will still halt a vehicle within the stopping distances
required by FMVSS No. 121.
NHTSA has reviewed the petition and has determined that the
noncompliance is not inconsequential to motor vehicle safety for the
following reasons.
First, we believe that out-of-adjustment brakes present a
significant safety concern. As indicated in NHTSA's October 20, 1992
final rule establishing automatic brake adjuster requirements, ``When
brakes are under-adjusted, stopping ability is reduced and the
probability of a crash is increased. When brakes are over-adjusted,* *
*the possibility of a crash [is] increased as a result of excessive
lining wear, wheel lock, or brake drum cracking. Such improper brake
adjustment contributes to a significant number of crashes, including
those in which vehicles are unable to stop in time and those in which
there are `runaways' on steep mountain grades'' (57 FR 47793 at 47794).
Second, ArvinMeritor's testing showed no major degradation in
stopping distance of trucks with temporarily disabled slack adjusters.
However, their data did not address long-term effects of non-
functioning slack adjusters on braking performance. Because automatic
slack adjusters are designed to address degradation of braking
performance over time, we believe that the petitioner's test results
are not persuasive.
The agency received two public comments. The first commenter,
Freightliner LLC (Freightliner), supports the petitioner's belief that
the noncompliance is inconsequential to safety based on three points.
First, Freightliner says that the potential failure rate for these
automatic slack adjusters is below Freightliner's warranty rate for
this type of component.
NHTSA cannot determine that a noncompliance is inconsequential to
motor vehicle safety because a potentially serious safety failure
occurs relatively infrequently.
Second, Freightliner states that it instructs drivers of the
vehicles to conduct a visual inspection of the slack adjuster, brake
free stroke, and brake adjustment on all axles daily; thus any failure
of the slack adjuster would be identified through this daily
inspection.
NHTSA cannot determine that a noncompliance is inconsequential to
safety because of recommended maintenance procedures or instructions
established in response to a potential safety hazard. Among other
things, we have no assurances that drivers would in fact follow
Freightliner's visual inspection instructions.
Third, Freightliner states that it agrees with ArvinMeritor's
contention that the affected vehicles will continue to meet the
stopping distance requirements of FMVSS No. 121 even in the out-of-
adjustment condition.
As explained above, we cannot accept Freightliner's argument
because the tests conducted by the petitioner did not show that the
noncompliance would not negatively affect braking performance over
time.
The second comment suggested that the agency deny the petition but
did not elaborate.
In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA has decided that the
petitioner has not met its burden of persuasion that the noncompliance
described is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. Accordingly,
ArvinMeritor's petition is hereby denied.
Authority: (49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120; delegations of authority at
CFR 1.50 and 501.8)
Issued on: July 21, 2005.
Ronald L. Medford,
Senior Associate Administrator for Vehicle Safety.
[FR Doc. 05-14863 Filed 7-26-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P