The National Transport Commission (NTC) has recently released ‘exposure drafts’ for proposed, but yet to be approved, amendments to the Heavy Vehicle National Law (HVNL) including its regulations.
The law commenced on 10 February 2014.
The HVNL review project began about five years ago. The Heavy Vehicle National Law is state-based law. The participating jurisdictions – Queensland, NSW, ACT, Victoria, South Australia and Tasmania – all adopted the HVNL by their own legislation.
Making substantive changes to the HVNL is therefore challenging because each jurisdiction has a veto.
This may explain why submissions from industry about reforms to the HVNL have been largely ignored.
I want to explain to you an old hobbyhorse-issue of mine. Approval of modifications that are made by ‘supplier-modifiers’ require an independent approval.
These businesses supply and install equipment onto heavy vehicles.
They have no status in the HVNL despite being the product experts for the equipment that they supply.
An installation onto an in-service vehicle of, for example, a fifth-wheel coupling, or an advanced brake system, or a body that the supplier has manufactured, must be approved by an Approved Vehicle Examiner (AVE).
The HVNL assumes that each vehicle modification is bespoke and should be individually approved by an independent, accredited examiner — the AVE.
In many instances, the modification by a ‘supplier-modifier’ is routine and done according to its installation instructions. It is the product expert.
There is no community benefit in requiring an AVE to approve this work.
Because AVEs are in short supply, the industry would be better served by having AVEs focus on significant, bespoke modifications.
The difference in requirements between the new vehicle and in-service vehicle domains is stark.
In the HVNL, a modification is defined as a change to the vehicle that is not in the original equipment manufacturer’s (OEMs) specification.
An installation that is in the OEM specification, using specified parts and installation procedures is not a modification and does not need to be approved by an AVE. Let me illustrate this.
If the OEM has five optional fifth wheel models that it can supply, the installation of any of these, using the OEM-specified parts according to the OEM’s specified installation instructions, is not a modification, because the result is the same as if the OEM supplied it.
This work could be done by the selling dealer or by the ‘supplier-modifier’ that supplied the fifth wheel to the OEM in the first place.
If the same ‘supplier-modifier’ installs a different fifth wheel type onto an in-service vehicle, then approval by an AVE is needed. This silly situation could be fixed in the HVNL by allowing the NHVR to accredit a ‘supplier-modifier’ as an ‘approved installer’ for the specific installation according to approved installation parts, plans and procedures.
Significant time savings and a cost reduction of about $800 would result without any additional safety risk.
Peter Hart,
Chairman, ARTSA-i
.JPG)
.jpg)
