Document ID: NHTSA-2010-0160-0004
Agency: nhtsa
Document Type: Notice
Title: Petitions for Decisions of Inconsequential Noncompliance: Volvo Trucks North America and Mack Trucks, Inc.
Posted Date: 2012-04-04T04:00Z

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 65 (Wednesday, April 4, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 20480-20482]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-8000]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Volvo Trucks North America and Mack Trucks, Inc., are both 
United States corporations that import and manufacture motor 
vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.

[[Page 20481]]

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ 56 FR13785.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Requested by NHTSA's Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance 
(OVSC) by letter dated June 6, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.

[[Page 20482]]

    4. Unloaded and Fully Loaded--500 ft., wet Jennite, 30 mph, 
Braking-in-a-curve 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