20480 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 65 / Wednesday, April 4, 2012 / Notices 

1 Volvo Trucks North America and Mack Trucks, 

Inc., are both United States corporations that import 

and manufacture motor vehicles. 

necessitate maintaining the database 

with current information. The data will 

continue to be useful only if maintained 

and updated as inventory changes 

occur. FRA previously cleared the 

reporting and recordkeeping burden for 

this form under Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) Clearance Number 

2130–0017. OMB approved the burden 

for this form through July 31, 2006. FRA 

is requesting a new three year approval 

from OMB for this information 

collection. 

Respondent Universe: 754 Railroads. 

Frequency of Submission: On 

occasion; monthly. 

Reporting Burden: 

CFR section Respondent universe Total annual responses Average time per 

response 

Total annual 

burden hours 

Crossing Inventory—Forms ................................. 754 railroads ................ 3,820 forms .................. 30 minutes ................... 1,910 

Crossing Inventory—Mass Update Printouts ...... 754 railroads ................ 269 printouts (4,625 updated records).30 minutes ................... 135 

Crossing Inventory—Disc/Tape (non-GX) ........... 754 railroads ................ 650 discs/tapes (95,666 

records updated).

30 minutes ................... 325 

Crossing Inventory—GX 32 Electronic Updates 754 railroads ................ 12,848 records updated 6 minutes ..................... 1,285 

Special Mass Changes ........................................ 754 railroads ................ 36,679 records updated Automatic ..................... 0 

Total Responses: 153,638. 

Estimated Total Annual Burden: 

3,655 hours. 

Status: Regular Review. 

Pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 3507(a) and 5 

CFR 1320.5(b), 1320.8(b)(3)(vi), FRA 

informs all interested parties that it may 

not conduct or sponsor, and a 

respondent is not required to respond 

to, a collection of information unless it 

displays a currently valid OMB control 

number. 

Authority: 44 U.S.C. 3501–3520. 

Dated: Issued in Washington, DC, on 

March 29, 2012. 

Rebecca Pennington, 

Director, Office of Financial Management, 

Federal Railroad Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2012–8007 Filed 4–3–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–06–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

[Docket No. NHTSA–2010–0160; Notice 2] 

Volvo Trucks North America and Mack 

Trucks, Inc., Grant of Petition for 

Decision of Inconsequential 

Noncompliance 

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration, DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of Petition Grant. 

SUMMARY: North American Trucks 

(NAT) on behalf of Volvo Trucks North 

America (VTN) and Mack Trucks, Inc. 

(MTI) 1 has determined that certain 2008 

through 2010 Volvo VHD model, 2008 

and 2009 Volvo VHL model, 2008 and 

2009 Volvo VNL model, 2008 Volvo VT 

model, and 2008 through 2010 Mack 

CHU, CXU and GU model trucks that 

were built with certain Meritor WABCO 

Vehicle Control Systems (Meritor 

WABCO) ABS Modulator valves fail to 

meet the requirements of paragraph 

S5.3.4.1(a) of Federal Motor Vehicle 

Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 121, Air 

Brake Systems. VTN and MTI filed 

appropriate reports pursuant to 49 CFR 

Part 573, Defect and Noncompliance 

Responsibility and Reports; the original 

submissions were dated April 30, 2010, 

and corrected versions were dated May 

28, 2010. 

Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 

30120(h) (see implementing rule at 49 

CFR part 556), VTN and MTI have 

petitioned for an exemption from the 

notification and remedy requirements of 

49 U.S.C. chapter 301 on the basis that 

this noncompliance is inconsequential 

to motor vehicle safety. 

Notice of receipt of VTN and MTI’s 

petitions was published, with a 30-day 

public comment period, on December 8, 

2010, in the Federal Register (75 FR 

76518). One comment was received 

from Meritor WABCO, the equipment 

manufacturer who manufactured the 

component that is the source of the 

subject noncompliance. Subsequent to 

receiving the comment, the NHTSA 

Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance 

(OVSC) requested, and NAT provided, 

information that supplements the data, 

views and arguments included in the 

VTN and MTI petitions. To view the 

petitions, comment and all supporting 

documents log onto the Federal Docket 

Management System Web site at: 

http://www.regulations.gov/. Then 

follow the online search instructions to 

locate docket number ‘‘NHTSA–2010– 

0160.’’ 

Contact Information: For further 

information on this decision, contact 

Mr. James Jones, Office of Vehicle Safety 

Compliance, the National Highway 

Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), 

telephone (202) 366–5294, facsimile 

(202) 366–7002. 

Summary OF VTN’s and MTI’s 

Petitions: VTN stated that the affected 

Volvo VNL, VNM, and VHD model 

trucks were manufactured from March 

1, 2007 through December 11, 2009. A 

total of 1,916 affected Volvo trucks were 

manufactured of which 1,763 were sold 

in the U.S. 

MTI stated that the affected Mack 

CHU, CXU and GU model trucks were 

manufactured from March 1, 2007, 

through December 11, 2009. A total 

1,287 affected Mack trucks were 

manufactured of which 1,202 were sold 

in the U.S. 

Only the trucks sold in the United 

States are the subject of their petition. 

VTN and MTI state that the 

noncompliance is that the quick release 

service brake function for brakes 

mounted on the vehicle front steer axle 

may not activate properly during 

FMVSS No. 121 brake pressure release 

certification testing due to an internal 

component variation in certain Meritor 

WABCO ABS modulator valves 

installed on the subject vehicles. As a 

result, certain vehicles may not comply 

with the FMVSS No. 121 brake pressure 

release timing requirement as specified 

in S5.3.4.1(a). However, VTN and MTI 

indicate that they do not believe that 

this issue has any effect on the ABS 

performance of the brake system. 

VTN and MTI also state that they have 

taken steps to correct the 

noncompliance in future production. 

VTN and MTI rely on the test report 

submitted with the petition to support 

their contention that the described 

FMVSS No. 121 noncompliance is 

inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. 

VTN and MTI believe that their 

petitions, to exempt them from 

providing recall notification of 

noncompliance as required by 49 U.S.C. 

30118 and remedying the recall 

noncompliance as required by 49 U.S.C. 

30120, should be granted. 


emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 65 / Wednesday, April 4, 2012 / Notices 20481 

2 56 FR13785. 

3Requested by NHTSA’s Office of Vehicle Safety 

Compliance (OVSC) by letter dated June 6, 2011. 

NHTSA Decision 

Background 

FMVSS No. 121 establishes 

performance and equipment 

requirements for motor vehicles 

equipped with air brake systems. 

Paragraph S5.3.4.1(a) of FMVSS No. 

121, requires in pertinent part that; 

With an initial service brake chamber air 

pressure of 95 psi, the air pressure in each 

brake chamber shall, when measured from 

the first movement of the service brake 

control, fall to 5 psi in not more than 0.55 

second in the case of trucks and buses; * * * 

To minimize excessive brake drag, the 

requirement limits the time for 

pressurized air to exhaust from the 

service brake chamber after the service 

brakes have been released. For vehicles 

equipped with conventional S-cam 

foundation brakes, the brake linings 

release from the drums as pressurized 

air exhausts from the service brake 

chambers. Typically, heavy-duty vehicle 

manufacturers have met the requirement 

by installing a quick release valve in the 

front (steer) axle control line, between 

the left and right ABS modulator valves. 

The subject Volvo and Mack trucks have 

ABS modulator valves which have an 

integrated quick release function to 

allow rapid exhaustion of air pressure 

from the front axle brake chambers. In 

faulty valves, the quick release function 

does not operate as intended causing 

slow exhaustion of pressurized air from 

the brake chambers and consequently 

slow pneumatic release times. 

Pneumatic release timing test results 

provided by NAT show that a tractor 

equipped with a faulty valve took 0.98s 

for pressurized air inside the brake 

chamber to fall from 95 psi to 5 psi 

versus 0.55s as required. 

Poor pneumatic timing could affect 

brake performance. For example, if a 

vehicle’s wheels lock as the driver is 

attempting to stop, the vehicle will skid. 

If the driver is to regain control of the 

vehicle, immediate release of the brakes 

is necessary.2 Additionally, poor 

pneumatic timing could cause the 

brakes to drag and cause premature 

wear of the brake linings. Under certain 

conditions, excessive brake drag could 

contribute to heat build-up within the 

foundation brake assembly resulting in 

degradation of braking power, 

particularly in cases in which the driver 

repeatedly applies the vehicle’s brakes 

to reduce speed while traveling down 

an extended slope. 

Subsequent to submitting the VTN 

and MTI petitions, NAT provided test 

data and analyses 3 to evaluate the effect 

of the faulty valves on various aspects 

of the vehicle’s braking performance. 

The tests and analyses were performed 

by an independent test lab, Link 

Commercial Vehicle Testing (Link) and 

Mr. Richard Radlinski. Based on the test 

results, NAT has drawn the conclusion 

that there is no degradation of the brake 

performance of subject noncompliant 

vehicles and no negative impact on 

vehicle safety. 

The Problem—Faulty Meritor Wabco 

ABS Modulator Valve 

The noncompliance is caused by a 

faulty quick release service brake 

function that may not activate properly 

to release air pressure from the brake 

chamber in the time specified by 

FMVSS No. 121. The quick release 

function is integral to Meritor WABCO’s 

ABS modulator valve. In brake system 

designs other than the subject vehicle’s, 

a separate quick release valve placed 

between the front steer axle’s left and 

right ABS modulator valves, performs 

the quick release function. 

According to NAT, when the 

modulator valve was retooled due to a 

supplier sourcing change, the case 

surface was not adequately controlled 

within tolerance. As a result, the 

required internal pressure differential 

within the valve does not develop as 

quickly as it should and air does not 

exhaust, or exhausts slowly, through the 

valve’s exhaust port. This leads to 

increased brake release times. Brake 

actuation, however, is not adversely 

affected. 

Link/Radlinski Test Data 

A. Release Timing Tests 

Link conducted timing tests to 

illustrate the difference between release 

times of noncompliant and compliant 

systems with and without ABS 

operational. The static timing tests were 

conducted on a 4x2 Volvo tractor’s front 

steer axle equipped with a properly 

functioning ABS modulator valve (i.e., 

fast valve). To achieve the noncompliant 

system, Link replaced the good valve 

with a faulty one (i.e., slow valve). 

To simulate braking conditions 

without ABS operational, Link followed 

OVSC compliance test procedure (OVSC 

TP) protocol. To simulate braking 

conditions with ABS operational, Link 

first filled the air brake chamber to 95 

psi. Then, Link manually activated the 

ABS modulator solenoid valve (ABS 

control system was disconnected) to the 

‘‘open’’ position and measured how 

long it took for the air to exhaust down 

to 5 psi through exhaust ports 

controlled by the modulator valve. 

Without ABS operational, the 

compliant system had average release 

times of 0.36s and 0.37s, for left and 

right brake chambers respectively, 

comfortably below the FMVSS No. 121 

requirement of 0.55s. However for the 

noncompliant system, the release times 

were much higher and well above the 

FMVSS No. 121 requirement at 0.91s 

and 0.98s, for left and right brake 

chambers, respectively. 

With ABS operational, release times 

were all below 0.20s for both compliant 

and non-compliant systems. As noted 

by Link, these results may not fully 

represent actual release times that 

would occur during a real ABS braking 

event because the electronic control 

unit’s (ECU) activation of the ABS 

modulator valve was bypassed. 

B. Road Tests 

Link conducted four different road 

tests on two Volvo tractors to illustrate 

differences in the dynamic braking 

performance of noncompliant vehicles 

when compared to compliant vehicles. 

One tractor was equipped with a single 

rear axle (i.e., 2009 Volvo VNM 4x2) 

and the other with a dual rear axle and 

lift axle (i.e., 2007 Volvo VT 8x4). To 

simulate the noncompliant system 

configuration, Link lengthened the 

brake control line from the brake pedal 

to the front axle’s modulator valves. 

1. Fully Loaded Vehicle—60 mph 

stopping distance tests (ABS 

operational). 

These tests generally followed OVSC 

TP protocol. Both tractors, loaded to 

gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) 

using an un-braked control trailer, were 

stopped on dry pavement from an initial 

speed of 60 mph. There was no 

significant difference in the average 

stopping distances of noncompliant 

vehicles when compared to compliant 

vehicles. 

2. Unloaded Vehicle (Bobtail)—500 

ft., wet Jennite (low friction surface), 30 

mph, Braking-in-a-curve tests (ABS 

operational). 

These tests also generally followed 

OVSC TP protocol. Additionally, Link 

measured the stopping distances during 

each run. The results show that the 

differences in performance between 

noncompliant and compliant 

configurations were insignificant. 

3. Repeated brake Snubs—Simulated 

heat build-up tests (ABS operational). 

The results show no significant rise in 

brake lining temperatures for the 

noncompliant configuration when 

compared to the compliant 

configuration. 


emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with NOTICES
20482 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 65 / Wednesday, April 4, 2012 / Notices 

1Bridgestone Americas Tire Operations, LLC 

(Bridgestone), is a Delaware corporation that 

manufactures and imports replacement equipment. 

2Bridgestone’s petition, which was filed under 49 

CFR part 556, requests an agency decision to 

exempt Bridgestone as a replacement equipment 

manufacturer from the notification and recall 

responsibilities of 49 CFR Part 573 for 467 of the 

affected tires. However, a decision on this petition 

will not relieve tire distributors and dealers of the 

prohibitions on the sale, offer for sale, introduction 

or delivery for introduction into interstate 

commerce of the noncompliant tires under their 

control after Bridgestone notified them that the 

subject noncompliance existed. 

4. Unloaded and Fully Loaded—500 

ft., wet Jennite, 30 mph, Braking-in-acurve tests (ABS Failure Modes). 

The results were inconclusive. 

Noncompliant configurations performed 

better than compliant configurations 

during some stops and not as good as 

compliant configurations during other 

stops. Link attributed the confounding 

results to variability in the friction level 

of the wet Jennite surface during the 

tests. 

Summary and Conclusion 

The vehicle manufacturer installed 

faulty ABS modulator valves on the 

front steer axle of subject vehicles. The 

faulty valves were not manufactured 

within engineering specifications and 

do not rapidly release pressurized air 

from brake chambers as required. 

Laboratory test data results and analyses 

submitted by the vehicle manufacturer 

demonstrate the following: 

1. When simulating severe braking 

events which require ABS activation, 

noncompliant vehicles would meet the 

pneumatic time requirement because 

pressurized air in the brake chamber 

quickly exhausts through the valve via 

ports controlled by ABS modulators. 

2. There is no significant difference in 

stopping distances of noncompliant 

vehicles when compared to compliant 

vehicles during 60 mph panic stops. 

3. There is no significant difference in 

stopping distances or vehicle stability of 

noncompliant vehicles when compared 

to compliant vehicles during 30 mph 

braking-in-a-curve tests. 

4. There is no significant rise in brake 

lining temperatures of noncompliant 

vehicles when compared to compliant 

vehicles during repeated brake stops at 

30–70 psi application pressures. 

NHTSA has concluded that the test 

data results and analyses are sufficient 

to grant the petition for the specific 

conditions that cause the subject 

vehicles to be out of compliance with 

the standard’s pneumatic release time 

requirement. 

NHTSA emphasizes that in the case of 

the subject vehicles, only the failure of 

the release timing to meet the exact 

timing requirement for the brakes 

mounted on the steer axles of the 

subject truck tractors is at issue. The 

release timing requirements for the 

drive axles and for the trailer brake 

control line output coupling of the 

subject vehicles were not affected by 

this noncompliance and were not 

considered under this grant. NHTSA 

considers brake release timing to be an 

important element of FMVSS No. 121 

requirements, because in the event a 

non-ABS trailer is being towed, the 

driver is able to quickly release the 

brakes of any locked wheels to restore 

vehicle control and maintain yaw 

stability. Also, the release timing 

requirements ensure that brakes on 

certain axles of a vehicle combination 

(steer, drive, or trailer) do not 

excessively drag such that during 

repeated brake applications they 

become overly heated. The subject 

petition is granted solely on the 

demonstration by petitioner, comparing 

compliant and noncompliant vehicles, 

that the noncompliance in the subject 

vehicles does not create a significant 

safety risk. It is important that all other 

vehicles subject to these requirements 

continue to meet them. 

In consideration of the foregoing, 

NHTSA concludes that VTN and MTI 

have provided sufficient information to 

indicate that the subject FMVSS No. 121 

noncompliance is inconsequential to 

motor vehicle safety. Accordingly, VTN 

and MTI’s petition is granted and the 

petitioner is exempted from the 

obligation of providing notification of, 

and a remedy for, the subject 

noncompliance under 49 U.S.C. 30118 

and 30120. 

NHTSA notes that the statutory 

provisions (49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 

30120(h)) that permit manufacturers to 

file petitions for a determination of 

inconsequentiality allow NHTSA to 

exempt manufacturers only from the 

duties found in sections 30118 and 

30120, respectively, to notify owners, 

purchasers, and dealers of a defect or 

noncompliance and to remedy the 

defect or noncompliance. Therefore, this 

decision only applies to the subject 

vehicles that VTN and MTI no longer 

controlled at the time that they 

determined that a noncompliance 

existed in the subject vehicles. 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120: 

Delegations of authority at CFR 1.50 and 

501.8. 

Issued on: March 28, 2012. 

Nancy Lummen Lewis, 

Associate Administrator for Enforcement. 

[FR Doc. 2012–8000 Filed 4–3–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

[Docket No. NHTSA–2012–0025; Notice 1] 

Bridgestone Americas Tire Operations, 

LLC, Receipt of Petition for Decision of 

Inconsequential Noncompliance 

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration, DOT. 

ACTION: Receipt of Petition. 

SUMMARY: Bridgestone Americas Tire 

Operations, LLC, (Bridgestone),1 has 

determined that certain Firestone 

Transforce AT, size LT265/70R17, light 

truck replacement tires manufactured 

between November 20, 2011 and 

December 10, 2011, do not fully comply 

with paragraph S5.5(d) of Federal Motor 

Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 

139, New Pneumatic Radial Tires for 

Light Vehicles. Bridgestone has filed an 

appropriate report dated January 9, 

2012, pursuant to 49 CFR Part 573, 

Defect and Noncompliance 

Responsibility and Reports. 

Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 

30120(h) (see implementing rule at 49 

CFR part 556), Bridgestone has 

petitioned for an exemption from the 

notification and remedy requirements of 

49 U.S.C. chapter 301 on the basis that 

this noncompliance is inconsequential 

to motor vehicle safety. 

This notice of receipt of Bridgestone’s 

petition is published under 49 U.S.C. 

30118 and 30120 and does not represent 

any agency decision or other exercise of 

judgment concerning the merits of the 

petition. 

Tires Involved: Affected are 

approximately 467 Firestone brand 

Transforce AT, size LT265/70R17, light 

truck replacement tires manufactured 

between November 20, 2011 and 

December 10, 2011, at the Bridgestone 

Canada, Inc., plant located in Uoliette, 

Quebec, Canada and imported into the 

United States by Bridgestone. 

NHTSA notes that the statutory 

provisions (49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 

30120(h)) that permit manufacturers to 

file petitions for a determination of 

inconsequentiality allow NHTSA to 

exempt manufacturers only from the 

duties found in sections 30118 and 

30120, respectively, to notify owners, 

purchasers, and dealers of a defect or 

noncompliance and to remedy the 

defect or noncompliance. Therefore, 

these provisions only apply to the 467 2

tires that Bridgestone no longer 

controlled at the time that it determined 

that a noncompliance existed in the 

subject tires. 

Noncompliance: Bridgestone explains 

that the noncompliance is that the 


emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with NOTICES