[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 247 (Wednesday, December 24, 2003)]
[Notices]
[Pages 74703-74708]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-31753]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration


Denial of Motor Vehicle Defect Petition, DP03-004

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

ACTION: Denial of petition for a defect investigation.

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

SUMMARY: This notice sets forth the reasons for the denial of a 
petition submitted to NHTSA under 49 U.S.C. 30162, requesting that the 
agency investigate alleged increased vehicle stopping distance due to 
certain failures of the EC-17, Version 2.3 (EC-17), antilock braking 
system electronic control unit (ABS ECU) and the Dura Drain M-12 
modulator (M-12), both manufactured by Bendix Commercial Vehicle 
Systems, LLC (Bendix). The petition is identified as DP03-004.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Jonathan White, Office of Defects 
Investigation (ODI), NHTSA, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 
20590. Telephone: (202) 366-5226.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In June 2003, Mr. Jing Tang (Petitioner) 
filed a petition for a defect investigation alleging that potential 
safety defects existed in both the EC-17, Version 2.3 (EC-17), antilock 
braking system electronic control unit (ABS ECU) and the Dura Drain M-
12 modulator (M-12), both manufactured by Bendix Commercial Vehicle 
Systems, LLC (Bendix). The Petitioner asserted that the defects in both 
components resulted in extended vehicle stopping distances. Both 
components are used in the pneumatic antilock braking systems of 
commercial type vehicles. The EC-17 is an electronic controller for the 
antilock braking system of large trucks, truck tractors and buses, 
while the M-12 is a modulator and relay valve combination used on large 
trailers. The Petitioner, a former staff control engineer with the 
Bendix Braking Control Group, cited his personal familiarity with the 
components as the basis for his allegations.
    The Petitioner contacted ODI in September 2002 to convey his 
concerns regarding these components. During the intervening months, 
prior to the submission of his petition, ODI monitored its consumer 
complaint database and attempted to follow up with possible 
complainants.
    After receiving the petition for a defect investigation, ODI 
reviewed and analyzed data and information from multiple sources that 
included material provided by the Petitioner, vehicle owner complaints 
contained within the NHTSA consumer complaint database, and information 
provided by Bendix in response to an ODI inquiry.

EC-17 ECU Issue

Background

    In July 2000, Bendix initiated a recall (NHTSA 00E-041) of 
the EC-17 1030R ECU primarily because the unit's software was unable to 
differentiate false incoming signals. The controller's interpretation 
of the signals activated the antilock feature, which extended braking 
distances under certain conditions. The EC-17 1030R was manufactured 
between November 3, 1997 and August 16, 2000.
    At the time NHTSA was notified of the recall decision, Bendix 
reported that they had conducted an investigation and identified the 
underlying issues that prompted the action. The Bendix investigation 
concluded that the EC-17 1030R controller was receiving ``false'' 
signals through the wheel speed sensor input. The controller was then 
interpreting these false signals as impending wheel lock-up. In 
response to the impending wheel lock-up interpretation, the controller 
would command the reduction of pneumatic pressure to the vehicle brake 
chamber at the affected wheel. Under such conditions, with the braking 
system antilock feature now activated, the vehicle could experience an 
extended stopping distance.
    Bendix identified two potential sources of the false wheel speed 
signals. The first source was identified as chafing to the wheel speed 
sensor wire due to contact with other moving or rotating components. 
The other source of aberrant signals was identified as damaged or 
displaced wheel components, such as tone rings.
    Bendix concluded that by itself, the EC-17 1030R controller was not 
defective, but in the presence of false or aberrant wheel speed 
signals, the controller lacked the sufficient software codes to 
differentiate these signals from otherwise valid signals. Beginning 
mid-June 2000, Bendix introduced the EC-17 Version 2.3,\1\ which 
contained software that adequately addressed the issue of wheel speed 
signal differentiation. The EC-17 Version 2.3 controller was introduced 
to replace the recalled EC-17 1030R controllers. In addition, Bendix 
introduced the EC-30 in mid-2001 to supercede the EC-17 series. As the 
EC-30 controller was introduced, it

[[Page 74704]]

was also used as a remedy part for the EC-17 1030R recall.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Production of 210,913 units between 06/13/00 and 09/25/01.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Petitioner alleges that the algorithm used in the EC-17 Version 
2.3 only corrected for potential low speed (less than 12 MPH) braking 
problems on rough road surfaces. His concern is that extended vehicle 
braking distances could otherwise occur at higher speeds on rough 
surfaces. To illustrate his concern, the Petitioner referenced a 
``hardware-in-loop simulation'' that depicted an extended vehicle 
braking distance on a washboard-type surface. During the simulation, 
the Petitioner reported that there was no air ``pressure in the brake 
chamber for the first 15 seconds.'' The Petitioner also referenced a 
Kansas City area customer who complained of ``non-effective brakes'' 
when the vehicle was operated on a rough surface as a possible example 
of such an occurrence.

Bendix Response

    Subsequent to the recall, Bendix continued to monitor complaints of 
extended vehicle braking distances and identified the potential for 
extended vehicle stopping distances on unpaved and ``severely bumpy'' 
road surfaces, such as those occasionally found in rural areas. The 
company's analysis, which included individual contact with 
complainants, revealed that an extended braking distance event was only 
likely to occur on severely rough road surfaces that extended for more 
than 100 feet. During field-testing, Bendix was unable to reproduce an 
extended braking event on a typical ``washboard'' \2\ surface.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Bendix advised ODI that there is not an industry 
``benchmark'' for the evaluation of rough road or ``washboard'' 
performance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regarding the Petitioner's allegation that extended braking 
distances could occur at high speeds on washboard surfaces, Bendix 
reported that such occurrences have not materialized in field testing 
or through owner complaints. Bendix advised that the Petitioner's 
allegations are based upon computer simulations ``involving 
artificially induced electronic inputs'' that ``are more extreme even 
than worst case scenarios.'' According to Bendix, although ``many of 
these signals are not realistic or real world conditions,'' they are 
often bench-tested with an ECU \3\ to assist engineers with evaluating 
possible algorithm changes. Bendix concludes that although the 
Petitioner cites potential scenarios of extended braking distances, the 
basis for his conclusions involve conditions not applicable to ``real 
world'' conditions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Defined as ``hardware in loop'' simulation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regarding the Petitioner's allegation that a Kansas City-area 
complaint concerned extended vehicle braking distances on rough road 
surfaces, Bendix noted that at the time of the complaint, the remedy 
for the EC-17 1030R recall had not been performed on several vehicles 
from the fleet in question. Bendix reported satisfactory resolution of 
the complaint upon completion of the recall remedy and, for two of the 
vehicles, the correction of foundation brake problems.
    Bendix reasserted that potential events of extended braking 
distances are only likely to occur on severe rough roads where the 
``washboard'' surface extends more than 100 feet. The company concludes 
that such conditions are atypical highway conditions and that the 
potential can be mitigated through driver intervention. Bendix stated 
that investigation of the few complaints of extended braking distances 
revealed that the vehicles were being operated on unpaved surfaces and 
that by assuring increased driver awareness of ABS operation the 
complaints or concerns were resolved.
    In consideration of these ``extreme conditions,'' Bendix introduced 
the EC-30 ABS controller in June 2001. The company reports that the EC-
30 Version 2.02 ``provides improved performance on extreme washboard 
surfaces.'' In sum, Bendix asserts that there is no safety defect with 
the EC-17 Version 2.3 controller.
    Bendix reported no knowledge of any crashes or injuries 
attributable to poor performance of either EC-17 version. Although 
Bendix did acknowledge the occurrence of a property damage collision 
\4\ wherein an ABS-equipped bus rear ended another bus, separate 
investigations by law enforcement, the local school system, and Bendix 
all concluded that the sole cause was unrelated to the brake system 
operation and was attributed to driver inattention.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ March 2002, West Virginia--paved, straight, level, dry road 
surface at a controlled intersection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bendix Complaint and Warranty History

    ODI queried Bendix with regard to complaints and warranty claims 
that referenced the EC-17 controller, excluding those that referenced 
the model 1030R that was recalled. Bendix reported that it has received 
18 complaints (including reports of incidents or inquiries) regarding 
poor performance, including extended braking distances (complaint rate 
equals to 8.5 per 100,000 units). Of the 18 complaints, only four 
specifically mentioned performance issues related to the vehicle being 
operated on a rough or ``washboard'' surface (corrected complaint rate 
1.8 per 100,000 units). Within these complaints, where the surface 
condition was known, it was described as unpaved. Of the remaining 14 
complaints, five were conclusively identified as unrelated to the ABS 
ECU. The nine remaining complaints were resolved through other 
component repairs or by providing additional information to the 
complainant (presumably the complainant used the information to resolve 
the complaint).
    Bendix identified a total of 10th \5\ warranty claims related to 
the EC-17 ABS control unit between September 2000 and January 2003.\6\ 
Although the basis for the warranty claims are not identified, at least 
two claims were identified as involving the 1030R model in 
circumstances where the recall remedy had not been installed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Corrected warranty rate is 3.7 per 100,000 units.
    \6\ As of June 2003.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

ODI Actions

    ODI research of the NHTSA vehicle owner (or consumer) complaint 
database revealed no complaints regarding malfunction, failure, or 
extended vehicle braking distance with regard to a Bendix brand 
pneumatic antilock braking system component.
    ODI also communicated informally with International and Blue Bird 
(two manufacturers that participated in the 1030R recall) and was 
advised that these manufacturers had not received any new complaints 
after the recall remedy was performed.

M-12 Modulator Issue

Background

    The Petitioner alleges that his review and work on the modulator 
revealed that it could become ineffective at maintaining pneumatic 
brake pressure under cold ambient temperatures (less than 20-degrees 
Fahrenheit). The Petitioner stated that his research revealed that 
under cold ambient temperatures, the rubber diaphragm in the modulator 
could become rigid, thereby not permitting it to effectively seal the 
pilot chamber drain hole during a brake application. Should the drain 
not seal, sufficient pneumatic pressure may not be delivered to the 
brake chamber. The Petitioner reported that ``an internal test'' 
confirmed his suspicion of the diaphragm becoming rigid at cold 
temperatures.

M-12 Modulator and Relay Valve Assembly

    Bendix describes the M-12 as a combination modulator and relay 
valve

[[Page 74705]]

assembly \7\ for the pneumatic antilock brake system on large trailers. 
Information provided by Bendix indicates that the M-12 was manufactured 
between November 1997 and March 2001 with a total production of 
approximately 78,509 units. Additional information indicates that the 
M-12 underwent four modifications during the years of production. Those 
modifications are summarized in the table below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The M-12 also carries the designation of MC-12 when an ECU 
is combined with the modulator/relay valve assembly.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   Date                             Modification
------------------------------------------------------------------------
March 1998................................  Change in solenoid supplier.
August 1998...............................  Dura Drain Feature Added.
September 1999............................  Housing Casting Improved.
October 2000..............................  Dura Drain Feature
                                             Discontinued.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With regard to the defect petition, the most applicable 
modification would appear to be the introduction of the Dura Drain 
feature, which was added as a product improvement. Bendix reported an 
approximate production of 50,778 units (approximately 64% of the total 
units) with this feature. The Dura Drain feature was subsequently 
discontinued, reportedly as a means to reduce cost. Production of the 
M-12/MC-12 was discontinued approximately 5 months later (March 2001), 
as it was replaced by the MC-30 modulator/ECU assembly.

M-12--Bendix Response

    Bendix advised ODI that with regard to the defect alleged by the 
Petitioner, the company conducted an investigation that consisted of 
multiple tests and studies. This investigation began in November 2000 
after a Bendix representative, while on a routine customer contact 
visit, was informed of an issue that was described as ``inconsistent 
trailer braking.'' The customer, a vehicle fleet owner with facilities 
near the Bendix headquarters, regularly participated in the evaluation 
of Bendix products. According to Bendix, the complaint concerned 
reports of three fleet drivers who described an occurrence of ``trailer 
push,'' in which the vehicle driver senses that the trailer brakes 
appear to operate more slowly or less effectively than the tractor 
brakes. The ensuing investigation determined that the likely cause was 
a diminished build up of air pressure in the trailer brake system.
    During the early stages of the investigation, the Petitioner's 
allegation and analysis that diaphragm rigidity due to cold ambient 
temperatures was considered as a possible cause. Bendix reported that 
further evaluation and testing ``cast doubt'' on the Petitioner's 
contentions. The company reported that there had been no similar 
complaints during the winter months of 1998, 1999 and early 2000. 
Furthermore, the compound used in the M-12 diaphragm was specified for 
adequate performance to -40 degrees Fahrenheit. Bendix reported that 
testing at cold ambient temperatures could not ``consistently replicate 
the predicted (poor) performance'' due to a rigid diaphragm.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Data provided by Bendix does indicate that some early 
testing revealed occasional leakage of Dura Drain at colder 
temperatures when the antilock system is active. Additionally, 
Bendix concedes that a rigid diaphragm could lead to degradation in 
antilock brake performance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Nonetheless, Bendix continued to receive trailer-braking 
complaints, many outside of winter months. As Bendix conducted detailed 
inspections of the M-12 modulators, the company observed ``a strong 
correlation (of braking complaints) to the presence of solid or fibrous 
contamination in the air intake valve area.'' The company also observed 
that the complaints ``were regionally clustered'' and ``specific to 
certain vehicle (trailer) makes.'' The conclusion of their 
investigation was that contamination in the intake port of the valve 
and not the rigidity of the diaphragm was the most likely cause for a 
majority of the ``trailer push'' or extended braking distance 
complaints. Bendix also noted that an evaluation of some complaints 
revealed other causes such as kinked air lines or external valve 
damage. Regarding the source of the contamination, Bendix cited the 
observation of material consistent with insect infiltration or 
hibernation as well as possible maintenance practices.
    Bendix reported no known occurrences of crashes or injuries 
associated with the lack of performance or failure of the M-12 
modulator.

Bendix Complaint and Warranty History

    ODI queried Bendix with regard to complaints and warranty claims 
that referenced the M-12. Bendix provided ODI with data indicating that 
between April 1999 and early August 2003, the company received 
complaints on 139 M-12 units \9\ that were in use on trailers owned by 
seven (7) fleets. Nearly 70% of the complaints were received from one 
large fleet described by Bendix as one that regularly participates in 
product evaluations. A second large fleet accounted for approximately 
18% of the complaints, revealing that nearly 88% of the complaints 
originated with two fleet operations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Complaints appear to reflect all M-12 units. There was no 
differentiation between units produced with and without the Dura 
Drain feature, resulting in an overall complaint rate of 17.7 per 
10,000 units.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Bendix reported that in those cases in which it was able to 
investigate the basis for the complaint, contamination of the air 
system was identified in approximately 94% of the complaints. With 
regard to the contamination, Bendix reported that the majority 
consisted of evidence of insect nesting and fibrous/cloth material 
likely to have been introduced during vehicle assembly or maintenance.
    For all but 27 complaints, Bendix provided information on the month 
and year of the complaint (identified as the date of occurrence). 
Review of the data revealed that more than half of the complaints were 
received during 2001. The data also revealed that less than one half of 
the complaints occurred during the winter months of November through 
February. These trends are illustrated in the tables below.
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P

[[Page 74706]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN23DE03.000

    Bendix reported processing 65 warranty claims \10\ between October 
1999 and June 2003. Review of the data indicates that less than one 
half of the warranty claims were processed during the winter months of 
November through February. Information provided with the warranty 
claims offered few analytical details regarding the reason for the 
warranty claim. It is also noteworthy that the product descriptions for 
warranty claims reference both the M-12 (9.5% of the claims) and the 
MC-12 (90.5% of the claims). Since the MC-12 also contains the ECU, 
some of the claims may be related to components other than the Dura 
Drain feature. The warranty data provided no differentiation between 
units equipped or not equipped with the Dura Drain feature. Warranty 
trends are illustrated in the tables below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Warranty rate of 8 per 10,000 units.

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

[[Page 74707]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN23DE03.001

BILLING CODE 4910-59-C

ODI Actions

    Review of the NHTSA vehicle owner complaint database revealed no 
complaints regarding the M-12 modulator or extended trailer stopping 
distances. ODI staff did contact one of the vehicle fleet owners 
identified by the Petitioner. The fleet representative advised ODI that 
although Bendix evaluated the performance of their trailers, driver 
training appeared to be the greater problem. The fleet had no 
continuing concerns.

Conclusion

    ODI acknowledges the Petitioner's personal involvement in the 
evaluation of the performance of both the EC-17 Version 2.3 ABS 
controller and the M-12 modulator assembly. Although the Petitioner 
offers information that is not entirely disputed by Bendix, his 
contention that the components contain defects that relate to motor 
vehicle safety is not supported by the available data.
    With regard to the EC-17 Version 2.3 ABS controller, data provided 
by Bendix revealed that extended braking distances were only likely on 
extremely rough surfaces (over long distances) characteristic of 
unpaved surfaces. Although the company's next generation ECU reportedly 
improves performance in this type of setting, Bendix reported that 
enhanced vehicle driver awareness has mitigated the issue for the EC-
17. ODI has no independent information that contradicts this assertion.
    With regard to the M-12 modulator, data provided by Bendix revealed 
that although diaphragm rigidity (due to cold ambient temperatures) may 
degrade antilock performance (i.e., extend braking distance during an 
ABS event), the company's investigation and analysis failed to 
consistently replicate the poor performance. Furthermore, Bendix 
provided data that showed a greater number of complaints and warranty 
claims occurring during warmer weather. Their analysis also identified 
the presence of air system contamination in an overwhelming number of 
complaints.

[[Page 74708]]

    Upon review of the available data it is unlikely that NHTSA would 
issue an order requiring the notification and remedy of a safety-
related defect in either the EC-17 Version 2.3 or the M-12 modulator at 
the conclusion of an investigation. Therefore, in view of the need to 
allocate and prioritize NHTSA's limited resources to best accomplish 
the agency's safety mission, the petition is denied.

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30162(d); delegations of authority at CFR 
1.50 and 501.8.

    Issued on: December 18, 2003.
Kenneth N. Weinstein,
Associate Administrator for Enforcement.
[FR Doc. 03-31753 Filed 12-23-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P