Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance

Date d’inscription	18 juillet 2019
Numéro de l’enjeu	19-024-VEH
Nom	David Roy
Organisme	New York State Police
Adresse	1220 Washington Ave.Bldg. 22Albany, New York, 12226United StatesVoir sur la carte (s’ouvre dans un nouvel onglet)
Téléphone	5184573258
Télécopieur	(518) 457-9620
Courriel	[email protected]
Comité	Comité des véhicules
État	Fermé
Résumé de l’enjeu	J'ai découvert un réservoir d'air comprimé dans le système de freinage pneumatique d'un tracteur routier et d'une remorque. Ce réservoir était tellement rouillé qu'il fuyait. Dans les deux cas, le tracteur pouvait maintenir la pression d'air, mais celle-ci ne dépassait pas 90 PSI. Ces fuites d'air se trouvaient dans le corps du réservoir en raison de la corrosion. Actuellement, cela ne constituerait une infraction hors service du véhicule que si la fuite provoquait un échec au test de perte d'air, ce qui n'était pas le cas. Ce problème a déjà été traité dans une demande d'intervention précédente (n° 12-005-VEH). Dans cette demande, le comité avait évoqué un trou d'épingle dans le réservoir. Celui que j'ai inspecté était assez grand pour que je puisse y insérer un doigt. La rouille était tellement forte autour du trou que si j'appuyais dessus, toute ma main s'y enfonçait.
Justification ou besoin	Je pense que c'est aussi important, voire plus important, qu'une fuite audible sur une conduite d'air, sauf au niveau d'un raccord correct. Avec l'intégrité du réservoir compromise, le risque de rupture est imminent. Dans ce cas précis, la remorque n'avait qu'un seul réservoir d'air, dont la défaillance aurait affecté les quatre freins de la remorque.
Demande d’action	J'aimerais que cette question soit réexaminée et qu'on prenne en compte les réservoirs d'air qui présentent des fuites et/ou une corrosion si importante qu'ils risquent de se rompre de façon imminente. Formulation suggérée : Un réservoir d'air présente une fuite d'air due à la corrosion ou à des dommages ailleurs qu'au niveau d'une vanne ou d'un raccord.
Mesures prises par le comité	Comment from industry that if it passed the air loss rate test, then it is working. Comment since it is a 396 violation, it would have to be put in as an OOS violation. There are other places in Operational Policy 15 to note violations under 396 that are not OOS, such as the transmission air line. Within Ops 15 1.b(3) it would have to be changed for the air tank to be cited. Currently says anything other than brake system goes under 396 and the tank is part of the brake system. Comment that Canada can cite the violation as this condition would be in their standard, so if US wants to note a violation that Ops Policy 15 should be modified. It was suggested that the correct violation would be 393.50. Comment from the brake industry was that 393.50 deals with sizing, and that the reservoir capacity is adequate. Comments that if it is in violation it must be fixed prior to dispatch was accepted by industry in the meeting. A mention was made to look at 393.40 where FMVSS 121 was adopted for all brakes. Comment that in this case, it should be an imminent hazard because it could fail at any time. It was discussed that 396.7 should not be cited and placed as OOS. Discussion also indicated that if the only thing wrong is leak in air reservoir, and it is not documented as a violation, then the vehicle will get a CVSA decal and they will not be made aware of the condition of the tank. Comment that a hole in an air line is in the OOSC and that air tank should get same consideration. Answer from industry, that if hole is in tank, carriers would want to be aware of it and that 396 is appropriate and it should not be OOS. A hole in an air line should not be treated the same as a hole in an air hose. If it doesn’t maintain air pressure than it should be OOS. Motion was made to amend Operational Policy 15 to indicate that the hole in the air reservoir should be noted as a violation of 396.3(a)1 but not OOS. Discussion about whether to use the word audible. Industry wanted a specific standard for audible. Comment about referring to 393.40 and FMVSS 121 saying no leaking. Comment from industry that FMVSS 121 is referring to performance standards and allows for some leakage, 10 psi in 10 minutes. There are no specific regulations in the United States which cover when an air reservoir is leaking, and so the consensus of the committee was to document a violation of 396.3(a)(1). It was determined that a leaking brake chamber diaphragm and the air reservoir are the only 2 non-OOS violations of the 396.3(a)(1) for brakes, so the leaking brake chamber diaphragm should also be added into the Operational Policy 15. The committee voted unanimously to amend Operational Policy 15. Operational Policy 15, Section 1 b.(3) When should an audible air leak in the brake system be documented as a violation? ANSWER: When a vehicle has an air leak at a proper connection, or at an undetermined location and the vehicle passes the CVSA OOSC air loss rate test, inspectors will record a violation for an air leak on the inspection report. NOTE: 393.45(d) indicates that the leak has to affect the brake performance under 393.52. Enforcement cannot determine to what extent a leak has to be to affect the brake performance; therefore, any leak in the brake system will be documented as a violation. NOTE: An audible leak in the brake system, such as a leak discovered when the treadle valve is applied or a leak in a hose from an air reservoir to a relay valve, will be documented under 393.45(d). An audible leak in a brake diaphragm or an air reservoir will be documented under 396.3(a)(1). Any other leak that cannot be attributed to the brake system or suspension systems (see 393.207(f)) will not be placed out of service and will be documented under 396.3(a)(1).

Date d’inscription

18 juillet 2019

Numéro de l’enjeu

19-024-VEH

Nom

David Roy

Organisme

New York State Police

Adresse

1220 Washington Ave.Bldg. 22Albany, New York, 12226United StatesVoir sur la carte

Téléphone

5184573258

Télécopieur

(518) 457-9620

Courriel

[email protected]

Comité

Comité des véhicules

État

Fermé

Résumé de l’enjeu

J'ai découvert un réservoir d'air comprimé dans le système de freinage pneumatique d'un tracteur routier et d'une remorque. Ce réservoir était tellement rouillé qu'il fuyait. Dans les deux cas, le tracteur pouvait maintenir la pression d'air, mais celle-ci ne dépassait pas 90 PSI. Ces fuites d'air se trouvaient dans le corps du réservoir en raison de la corrosion. Actuellement, cela ne constituerait une infraction hors service du véhicule que si la fuite provoquait un échec au test de perte d'air, ce qui n'était pas le cas. Ce problème a déjà été traité dans une demande d'intervention précédente (n° 12-005-VEH). Dans cette demande, le comité avait évoqué un trou d'épingle dans le réservoir. Celui que j'ai inspecté était assez grand pour que je puisse y insérer un doigt. La rouille était tellement forte autour du trou que si j'appuyais dessus, toute ma main s'y enfonçait.

Justification ou besoin

Je pense que c'est aussi important, voire plus important, qu'une fuite audible sur une conduite d'air, sauf au niveau d'un raccord correct. Avec l'intégrité du réservoir compromise, le risque de rupture est imminent. Dans ce cas précis, la remorque n'avait qu'un seul réservoir d'air, dont la défaillance aurait affecté les quatre freins de la remorque.

Demande d’action

J'aimerais que cette question soit réexaminée et qu'on prenne en compte les réservoirs d'air qui présentent des fuites et/ou une corrosion si importante qu'ils risquent de se rompre de façon imminente. Formulation suggérée : Un réservoir d'air présente une fuite d'air due à la corrosion ou à des dommages ailleurs qu'au niveau d'une vanne ou d'un raccord.

Mesures prises par le comité

Comment from industry that if it passed the air loss rate test, then it is working. Comment since it is a 396 violation, it would have to be put in as an OOS violation. There are other places in Operational Policy 15 to note violations under 396 that are not OOS, such as the transmission air line. Within Ops 15 1.b(3) it would have to be changed for the air tank to be cited. Currently says anything other than brake system goes under 396 and the tank is part of the brake system. Comment that Canada can cite the violation as this condition would be in their standard, so if US wants to note a violation that Ops Policy 15 should be modified. It was suggested that the correct violation would be 393.50. Comment from the brake industry was that 393.50 deals with sizing, and that the reservoir capacity is adequate. Comments that if it is in violation it must be fixed prior to dispatch was accepted by industry in the meeting.

A mention was made to look at 393.40 where FMVSS 121 was adopted for all brakes. Comment that in this case, it should be an imminent hazard because it could fail at any time. It was discussed that 396.7 should not be cited and placed as OOS. Discussion also indicated that if the only thing wrong is leak in air reservoir, and it is not documented as a violation, then the vehicle will get a CVSA decal and they will not be made aware of the condition of the tank. Comment that a hole in an air line is in the OOSC and that air tank should get same consideration. Answer from industry, that if hole is in tank, carriers would want to be aware of it and that 396 is appropriate and it should not be OOS. A hole in an air line should not be treated the same as a hole in an air hose. If it doesn’t maintain air pressure than it should be OOS.

Motion was made to amend Operational Policy 15 to indicate that the hole in the air reservoir should be noted as a violation of 396.3(a)1 but not OOS. Discussion about whether to use the word audible. Industry wanted a specific standard for audible. Comment about referring to 393.40 and FMVSS 121 saying no leaking. Comment from industry that FMVSS 121 is referring to performance standards and allows for some leakage, 10 psi in 10 minutes. There are no specific regulations in the United States which cover when an air reservoir is leaking, and so the consensus of the committee was to document a violation of 396.3(a)(1). It was determined that a leaking brake chamber diaphragm and the air reservoir are the only 2 non-OOS violations of the 396.3(a)(1) for brakes, so the leaking brake chamber diaphragm should also be added into the Operational Policy 15. The committee voted unanimously to amend Operational Policy 15.

Operational Policy 15, Section 1 b.(3) When should an audible air leak in the brake system be documented as a violation?

ANSWER: When a vehicle has an air leak at a proper connection, or at an undetermined location and the vehicle passes the CVSA OOSC air loss rate test, inspectors will record a violation for an air leak on the inspection report.

NOTE: 393.45(d) indicates that the leak has to affect the brake performance under 393.52. Enforcement cannot determine to what extent a leak has to be to affect the brake performance; therefore, any leak in the brake system will be documented as a violation.

NOTE: An audible leak in the brake system, such as a leak discovered when the treadle valve is applied or a leak in a hose from an air reservoir to a relay valve, will be documented under 393.45(d). An audible leak in a brake diaphragm or an air reservoir will be documented under 396.3(a)(1). Any other leak that cannot be attributed to the brake system or suspension systems (see 393.207(f)) will not be placed out of service and will be documented under 396.3(a)(1).

OOSC, Partie II, Article 1. systèmes de freinage, m. Réservoir d'air (réservoir) - Fuite