[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 137 (Monday, July 19, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Pages 43052-43054]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-16383]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2004-18640, Notice 1]


InterModal Technologies, Inc.; Receipt of Application for a 
Temporary Exemption From Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 121

    Pursuant to the procedures of 49 CFR part 555, InterModal 
Technologies, Inc. (``InterModal'') has applied for a Temporary 
Exemption from the requirements of S5.2.3.2 Antilock Malfunction 
Signal, and S5.2.3.3 Antilock Malfunction Indicator in Federal Motor 
Vehicle Safety Standard (``FMVSS'') No. 121, Air brake systems. The 
basis of the application is that the exemption would facilitate the 
development or field evaluation of a new motor vehicle safety feature 
providing a safety level at least equal to that of the standard, and 
that the applicant is otherwise unable to sell a vehicle whose overall 
level of safety is at least equal to that of a non-exempted vehicle.
    We are publishing this notice of receipt of the application in 
accordance with the requirements of 49 U.S.C. 30113(b)(2). This notice 
makes no judgment on the merits of the application. Similarly, this 
notice does not address the merits of InterModal's statements that the 
MSQR-5000 is an antilock braking system. The merits may be addressed in 
comments and in the agency's resolution of this matter.

I. Background

    InterModal is a manufacturer of semi-trailers incorporated in the 
State of Colorado. InterModal intends to manufacture semi-trailers 
equipped with a device, which it refers to as ``MSQR-5000 pneumatic 
antilock braking system'' (``MSQR-5000'').\1\ The MSQR-5000 does not 
incorporate electrical circuits to transmit or receive electrical 
signals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ For additional information on this peittion, please see 
Docket No. NHTSA-2004-18640 at http://dms.dot.gov/search/searchFormSimple.cfm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The trailers equipped with MSQR-5000 would not comply with the 
requirements of S5.2.3.2 and S5.2.3.3 of FMVSS No. 121. Petitioner 
seeks a temporary exemption from the requirements of S5.2.3.2 and 
S5.2.3.3 because an exemption would facilitate the development or field 
evaluation of MSQR-5000, which petitioner contends offers a safety 
level at least equal to that of antilock brake systems (``ABS'') that 
comply with FMVSS No. 121. Further, petitioner contends that it is 
otherwise unable to sell a vehicle whose overall level of safety is at 
least equal to that of non-exempted vehicles. If the petition is 
granted, InterModal intends to produce not more than 2,500 trailers 
annually. For additional information on InterModal, please go to http://www.intermodaltechnologies.com.

II. Why InterModal Needs a Temporary Exemption

    Petitioner contends that the MSQR-5000 device, installed on 
trailers manufactured by InterModal, operates as a conventional ABS. 
However, a trailer equipped with the MSQR-5000 does not comply with the 
requirements of S5.2.3.2 and S5.2.3.3 of FMVSS No. 121.
    S5.2.3.2 requires that:

    ``* * * each trailer * * * manufactured on or after March 1, 
2001, that is equipped with an antilock brake system shall be 
equipped with an electrical circuit that is capable of signaling a 
malfunction in the trailer's

[[Page 43053]]

antilock brake system, and shall have the means for connection of 
this antilock brake system malfunction signal circuit to the towing 
vehicle * * *''

    S5.2.3.3 requires that:

    ``In addition to the requirements of S5.2.3.2, each trailer * * 
* manufactured on or after March 1, 1998, and before March 1, 2009, 
shall be equipped with an external antilock malfunction indicator 
lamp * * *''

    The trailers in question are incapable of meeting either 
requirement. Trailers equipped with only the MSQR-5000 would not be 
equipped with an electrical circuit capable of signaling a malfunction 
in the ABS. Further, these trailers would not be equipped with an 
external antilock malfunction indicator lamp.
    InterModal has not specified the length for the requested 
exemption. However, under 49 CFR Sec.  555.8(b) a temporary exemption 
from a standard granted on a basis other than substantial economic 
hardship terminates according to its terms not later than 2 years after 
the date of issuance. Accordingly, the agency assumes that InterModal 
is seeking a two-year exemption.

III. Why the Exemption Would Make It Easier To Develop or Perform Field 
Evaluation of a New Motor Vehicle Safety Feature; and Why the Applicant 
Is Otherwise Unable To Sell a Vehicle Whose Overall Level of Safety or 
Impact Protection Is at Least Equal to That of a Non-Exempted Vehicle

    InterModal did not elaborate on how an exemption from the 
requirements of S5.2.3.2 and S5.2.3.3 would facilitate development or 
field evaluation of a new motor vehicle safety feature. The petition 
indicates that MSQR-5000 has already been developed by Air Brake 
Systems, Inc. Accordingly, development of a new motor vehicle safety 
feature is not at issue. While InterModal might be of the view that the 
grant of the petition would allow InterModal to conduct field 
evaluations of semi-trailers equipped with MSQR-5000, we note that the 
petition states that there are more than 7,000 MSQR-5000 units already 
in operation.
    As previously discussed, an InterModal trailer equipped with MSQR-
5000 would not comply with the requirements of S5.2.3.2 and S5.2.3.3 of 
FMVSS No. 121. Petitioner asserts that because MSQR-5000 does not use 
electricity, modifications to bring the vehicle into compliance with 
FMVSS No. 121 are impossible. Unless an exemption is granted, 
petitioners would not be able to sell semi-trailers equipped with the 
MSQR-5000.

IV. Why the Overall Level of Safety of Trailers Equipped With MSQR-5000 
Is at Least Equal to That of Non-Exempted Semi-Trailers

    Petitioner offers several reasons why it believes the overall level 
of safety of semi-trailers equipped with MSQR-5000 is at least equal to 
that of non-exempted semi-trailers.
    First, InterModal argues that based on laboratory test data and 
field-test data, MSQR-5000 operates as a conventional ABS. Further, 
InterModal states that MSQR-5000 met or exceeded all the performance 
requirements in FMVSS No. 121. Petitioner also cites to several 
affidavits in support of its contention that trailers equipped with 
MSQR-5000 are at least as safe as trailers equipped with conventional 
ABS.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ For laboratory test data, field-test data, and affidavits, 
see Docket No. NHTS-2004-18640.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, petitioner contends that MSQR-5000 is a ``fully closed-
loop'' system as opposed to conventional electronic ABS that utilizes 
modulators to vent air during the braking cycle. According to 
petitioner, electronic ABS is subject to contamination and wear due to 
venting. Further, in its view, venting may extend the stopping 
distance. By contrast, MSQR-5000 modulates air internally and does not 
vent during braking.
    Third, instead of an electronic malfunction indicator, semi-
trailers equipped with MSQR-5000 feature a pneumatic malfunction 
indicator located in the cabin. Petitioner asserts that this design 
alerts the driver if the system malfunctions. In the event of a severe 
air pressure loss, an emergency brake chamber releases to engage the 
emergency brake, stopping the vehicle until repairs can be made.
    Finally, petitioner asserts that MSQR-5000 is easier to install and 
maintain; causes less wear on the brake linings; has fewer parts that 
are susceptible to damage or wear; and has a better a safety record.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ In support of the last statement, petitioner indicates that 
in September 2000, 300,000 electronic ABS units were subject to a 
voluntary recall because of delays in brake application.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Why an Exemption Would Be in the Public Interest and Consistent With 
the Objectives of Motor Vehicle Safety

    Petitioner has not set forth the reasons why granting this 
exemption would be in the public interest, as required by 49 CFR Sec.  
555.5(b)(7). However, petitioner presented several arguments of why it 
believes that a semi-trailer equipped with a MSQR-5000 device is 
superior to a semi-trailer equipped with conventional ABS system that 
complies with the requirements of FMVSS No. 121. Specifically, 
petitioner argues that MSQR-5000: (1) Is less expensive; (2) is less 
expensive to install; (3) is easier to operate; (4) has a better safety 
record than ABS products that comply with the requirements of FMVSS No. 
121; (5) causes less wear on brake linings; (6) has fewer parts that 
are susceptible to damage or wear.

VI. How You May Comment on Inter Modal Application

    We invite you to submit comments on the application described 
above. You may submit comments [identified by DOT Docket Number NHTSA-
2004-18640] by any of the following methods:
     Web site: http://dms.dot.gov. Follow the instructions for 
submitting comments on the DOT electronic docket site by clicking on 
``Help and Information'' or ``Help/Info.''
     Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of 
Transportation, 400 7th Street, SW., Nassif Building, Room PL-401, 
Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: Room PL-401 on the plaza level of the 
Nassif Building, 400 7th Street, SW., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. 
and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays.
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting 
comments.
    Instructions: All submissions must include the agency name and 
docket number or Regulatory Identification Number (RIN) for this 
rulemaking. Note that all comments received will be posted without 
change to http://dms.dot.gov, including any personal information 
provided.
    Docket: For access to the docket in order to read background 
documents or comments received, go to http://dms.dot.gov at any time or 
to Room PL-401 on the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh 
Street, SW., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through 
Friday, except Federal Holidays.
    Privacy Act: Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all 
comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual 
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf 
of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's 
complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on 
April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages 19477-78) or you may visit 
http://dms.dot.gov.
    We shall consider all comments received before the close of 
business on

[[Page 43054]]

the comment closing date indicated below. To the extent possible, we 
shall also consider comments filed after the closing date. We shall 
publish a notice of final action on the application in the Federal 
Register pursuant to the authority indicated below.
    Comment closing date: August 18, 2004.(49 U.S.C. 30113; delegations 
of authority at 49 CFR 1.50. and 501.8).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: George Feygin in the Office of Chief 
Counsel, NCC-112, (Phone: 202-366-2992; Fax 202-366-3820; E-mail: 
[email protected]).

    Issued on: July 14, 2004.
Stephen R. Kratzke,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 04-16383 Filed 7-16-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P