[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
