[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 229 (Friday, November 28, 1997)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 63306-63308]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-31263]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 571

[Docket No. NHTSA-97-3148]
RIN 2127-AC62


Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Fuel System Integrity; 
Crossover Lines

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), 
Department of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Termination of rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: This document terminates a rulemaking in which the agency had 
considered amending Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 301, Fuel 
System Integrity, to limit fuel spillage experienced by vehicles 
equipped with a crossover fuel line. Upon reviewing the comments on its 
proposal, the agency concludes that the safety benefits of the proposed 
amendment are too small to justify its issuance.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical issues: Dr. William J.J. 
Liu, Office of Crashworthiness Standards, National Highway Traffic 
Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, D.C., 
20590. Telephone: (202) 366-4923. FAX (202) 366-4329.

[[Page 63307]]

    For legal issues: Ms. Nicole Fradette, Office of Chief Counsel, 
NCC-20, telephone (202) 366-2992, FAX (202) 366-3820.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

A. Standard No. 301, Fuel System Integrity

    Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 301, Fuel System 
Integrity, specifies requirements for the integrity of motor vehicle 
fuel systems, including the fuel tanks, lines and connections and 
emission controls. The standard's principal purpose is to reduce deaths 
and injuries from fires caused by fuel spillage during and after motor 
vehicle crashes. The standard currently applies to passenger cars, and 
to multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks and buses that have a gross 
vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 10,000 pounds or less and use fuel with 
a boiling point above 32 deg. Fahrenheit. The only type of vehicle with 
a GVWR over 10,000 pounds to which the Standard applies is school 
buses.

B. California Highway Patrol Rulemaking Petition

    On May 30, 1986, the California Highway Patrol (CHP) submitted a 
rulemaking petition requesting NHTSA to amend Standard No. 301 to 
establish requirements to protect fuel lines, crossover lines and 
bottom fittings on medium and heavy trucks 1 against 
breakage when struck by road debris. The petitioner believed that such 
requirements would reduce the frequency and magnitude of fuel spills 
caused when road debris damage the fuel tank, the shut-off valve, or 
the crossover line on medium and heavy trucks and truck tractors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Those trucks that have a GVWR greater than 10,000 pounds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The CHP based its petition on data gathered from 142 diesel fuel 
spills that occurred on Southern California highways during 1984 and 
1985. According to the petition, ``one-third of the 142 spills were 
caused by an object on the road being struck by [a heavy vehicle's] 
front wheels and thrown against the tank or fuel lines.'' CHP stated 
that the major consequence of these diesel fuel spills was the cost to 
the State of cleaning the spill, investigating the leak, and 
undertaking traffic control. In addition, CHP stated that seven 
``secondary'' crashes were caused by vehicles that struck a dropped 
fuel tank or skidded out-of-control on spilled fuel. Based on the above 
considerations, CHP requested that NHTSA issue standards that would 
protect fuel lines, crossover lines and bottom fittings against 
breakage from road debris.
    On May 2, 1988, NHTSA published a notice granting the CHP petition 
to establish performance requirements for crossover lines, end 
fittings, and shut off valves. (53 FR 15578). In the grant notice, the 
agency stated that--

    The issues raised by the petitioner warrant further 
consideration. NHTSA plans to conduct research into the issue of 
heavy vehicle post-crash fires to determine whether rulemaking is 
appropriate on this issue.

C. Crossover Fuel Lines

    The principal focus of the CHP petition was crossover fuel lines. 
These fuel lines are used on heavy vehicles with dual fuel tanks to 
enable the tanks to maintain a constant fuel level and to allow the 
engine to draw fuel from only one tank. The crossover line is typically 
one of the fuel system components closest to the ground. In this 
location, an unprotected crossover line is susceptible to being struck 
by road debris, or being snagged in crashes when the truck rides over 
another vehicle or highway structure.
    Given the vulnerability of a crossover line, fuel spills can be 
prevented by routing the fuel line through a metal sleeve or attaching 
the fuel line to the rear of an angle iron or beam. Such means of 
protection have become increasingly common. Another way to prevent fuel 
spills is through the use of breakaway/frangible valves installed at 
the point where the line would otherwise be attached to each tank. 
These valves are designed to break before any other part of the line 
and to seal both sides of the break. 2 To date, relatively 
few motor vehicles have been equipped with these devices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ These valves are referred to as frangible valves throughout 
the remainder of the document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. NHTSA Proposal

    Following its grant of the CHP petition, NHTSA conducted a test 
program at its Vehicle Research and Test Center (VRTC) to develop an 
appropriate test procedure for crossover lines. On May 17, 1994, NHTSA 
published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) proposing to amend 
Standard No. 301 to limit fuel spillage experienced by vehicles 
equipped with a crossover fuel line (59 FR 25590). The proposal 
incorporated the VRTC test procedure, which is documented in a report 
submitted to the docket. 3
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ ``Testing to Develop Fuel System Integrity Standard,'' VRTC, 
March 1992.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The agency proposed that fuel leakage be limited to 30 grams (1 
ounce) by weight, beginning with the onset of the application of a 
11,100 Newtons (2,500 pounds) test force to the crossover fuel line and 
ending two minutes after the end of the test force application. NHTSA 
tentatively concluded that the proposed requirements would eliminate 
most of the fuel spillage from crossover line breakage and estimated 
that it would prevent one fatality and 55 injuries each year that occur 
in secondary crashes due to fuel spillage. NHTSA requested comments on 
whether there is a safety need for the proposal.

D. Society of Automotive Engineers and NHTSA Tests

    While NHTSA analyzed the public comments on the NPRM, the agency 
also conducted a test program to evaluate and compare the proposed test 
procedure with a test procedure for crossover lines independently 
developed by the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE). SAE had drafted 
Recommended Practice J1624, Fuel Crossover Line, to evaluate and set 
minimum strength requirements for crossover lines. The SAE draft 
Recommended Practice included a different test procedure than the 
proposed procedure. The Recommended Practice specifies a different and 
higher load level of 22,200 Newtons (5,000 pounds) compared to the 
11,100-Newton (2,500 pound) load of the proposed procedure, and applies 
the load in a different manner.
    The VRTC report concluded that the proposed test procedure and the 
SAE draft test procedure were both generally reasonable and 
practicable.4 The report further stated that the draft SAE 
J1624 Recommended Practice included test procedures and requirements 
that were more rigorous than necessary to evaluate current crossover 
fuel lines. The report concluded that the SAE test procedure may result 
in much higher costs to manufacturers and consumers than fuel systems 
meeting the NHTSA tests. Although it favored the VRTC procedure over 
the SAE procedure, the report concluded that both procedures needed 
significant modifications before they could be incorporated into a 
Federal motor vehicle safety standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ ``Testing to Evaluate Two Proposed Fuel Crossover Line 
Protection Procedures,'' VRTC, June 1995.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Comments

    NHTSA received 15 comments on the NPRM proposing to prevent fuel 
spillage from crossover fuel lines. The commenters included nine 
vehicle manufacturers (Mack Trucks,

[[Page 63308]]

Mitsubishi, Ford, PACCAR, Flxible, General Motors (GM), Navistar, 
Bugatti Automobili, and Lotus), four associations (the California 
Trucking Association (CTA), the National Truck Equipment Association 
(NTEA), American Trucking Associations (ATA), and the American 
Automobile Manufacturers Association (AAMA)), and two safety groups 
(the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) and Advocates for 
Highway and Auto Safety (Advocates).
    Commenters expressed differing views about the need to require 
crossover fuel line protection. Advocates, NFPA, CTA and Mitsubishi 
supported the proposal. Mack, ATA, NTEA, AAMA, GM, Ford, Bugatti, and 
Lotus opposed it. ATA, NTEA, and AAMA stated that they were not aware 
of any safety problem associated with fires resulting from crossover 
line failure. ATA stated that manufacturers have already recognized the 
need to provide fuel systems with greater resistance to fuel leakage 
and are voluntarily providing them. Mack, NTEA, and GM stated that 
there was a trend in the industry away from crossover fuel lines.
    Commenters addressed other issues including harmonization with a 
SAE Recommended Practice, frangible valves, cost and application, 
leadtime, and the proposed test procedures and performance 
requirements.

IV. Agency Decision

    After reviewing its own reports and the public comments on this 
proposal, NHTSA has decided not to issue a requirement for crossover 
fuel line protection and to terminate rulemaking on this issue.
    To complete rulemaking on the proposed amendment, the agency would 
need to devote significant agency resources to refine the proposed test 
procedures. The agency believes such an expenditure of additional 
resources is not warranted, given the limited and uncertain benefits 
that could be obtained from such a requirement.
    The comments show that the vehicle manufacturers have developed and 
implemented new designs that eliminate the need for crossover lines in 
many vehicles. The agency anticipates that the trend toward new systems 
that eliminate crossover lines will continue. In the interval since the 
NPRM was issued, the industry has significantly improved their design 
for those vehicles that will continue to use crossover lines. Based on 
information supplied by the industry, the agency estimates that less 
than 50 percent of trucks are still produced with crossover lines. Of 
these vehicles, 90 percent are equipped with substantial protective 
structures that are able to withstand the 2,500-pound test load 
proposed in the NPRM. Thus, the agency believes that the proposed 
requirement would affect fewer than five percent of the new truck 
population. The agency further believes that even fewer heavy trucks 
will be equipped with crossover lines in the future.
    The agency estimated in the NPRM that the requirement would prevent 
one fatality and two nonfatal injuries per year due to fires (and 0.6 
fatality and 55 nonfatal injuries due to secondary crashes caused by 
fuel spillage). In view of the trends in manufacturing practices noted 
above, the agency believes that these estimates overstate the benefits 
that would result in the future from the requirement.
    In addition to the reduced benefits from the requirement, the per-
vehicle costs would have been substantial ($50 or more per truck and 
$1,000 per test).
    For the reasons set forth above, NHTSA has decided to terminate the 
rulemaking action to amend Standard No. 301 that would have required 
crossover fuel line protection.

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117, and 30166; 
delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.

    Issued on: September 24, 1997.
L. Robert Shelton,
Associate Administrator for Safety Performance Standards.

[Signature page for RIN 2127-AC62]

(Termination of Rulemaking)

[FR Doc. 97-31263 Filed 11-26-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P