Notice2024-28118
Daimler Truck North America, LLC; Receipt of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
December 2, 2024
Issuing agencies
Transportation DepartmentNational Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Abstract
Daimler Truck North America, LLC (DTNA) has determined that a model year (MY) 2022 Western Star 4900 truck tractor does not fully comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 136, Electronic Stability Control Systems for Heavy Vehicles. DTNA filed a noncompliance report dated February 28, 2024, and subsequently petitioned NHTSA (the "Agency") on March 22, 2024, for a decision that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety. This document announces receipt of DTNA's petition.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 89 Issue 231 (Monday, December 2, 2024)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 231 (Monday, December 2, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Pages 95353-95355]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2024-28118]
[[Page 95353]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA-2024-0018; Notice 1]
Daimler Truck North America, LLC; Receipt of Petition for
Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Receipt of petition.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Daimler Truck North America, LLC (DTNA) has determined that a
model year (MY) 2022 Western Star 4900 truck tractor does not fully
comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 136,
Electronic Stability Control Systems for Heavy Vehicles. DTNA filed a
noncompliance report dated February 28, 2024, and subsequently
petitioned NHTSA (the ``Agency'') on March 22, 2024, for a decision
that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to
motor vehicle safety. This document announces receipt of DTNA's
petition.
DATES: Send comments on or before January 2, 2025.
ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit written data,
views, and arguments on this petition. Comments must refer to the
docket and notice number cited in the title of this notice and may be
submitted by any of the following methods:
<bullet> Mail: Send comments by mail addressed to the U.S.
Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building
Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC
20590.
<bullet> Hand Delivery: Deliver comments by hand to the U.S.
Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building
Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC
20590. The Docket Section is open on weekdays from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m.
except for Federal Holidays.
<bullet> Electronically: Submit comments electronically by logging
onto the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) website at <a href="https://www.regulations.gov/">https://www.regulations.gov/</a>. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
<bullet> Comments may also be faxed to (202) 493-2251.
Comments must be written in the English language, and be no greater
than 15 pages in length, although there is no limit to the length of
necessary attachments to the comments. If comments are submitted in
hard copy form, please ensure that two copies are provided. If you wish
to receive confirmation that comments you have submitted by mail were
received, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard with the
comments. Note that all comments received will be posted without change
to <a href="http://regulations.gov">regulations.gov</a>, including any personal information provided.
All comments and supporting materials received before the close of
business on the closing date indicated above will be filed in the
docket and will be considered. All comments and supporting materials
received after the closing date will also be filed and will be
considered to the fullest extent possible.
When the petition is granted or denied, notice of the decision will
also be published in the Federal Register pursuant to the authority
indicated at the end of this notice.
All comments, background documentation, and supporting materials
submitted to the docket may be viewed by anyone at the address and
times given above. The documents may also be viewed on the internet at
<a href="http://regulations.gov">regulations.gov</a> by following the online instructions for accessing the
dockets. The docket ID number for this petition is shown in the heading
of this notice.
DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement is available for review in a
Federal Register notice published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ahmad Barnes, General Engineer, NHTSA,
Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, (202) 366-7236.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Overview
DTNA determined that one MY 2022 Western Star 4900 truck tractor
does not fully comply with section 5.2 of FMVSS No. 136, Electronic
Stability Control Systems for Heavy Vehicles. (49 CFR 571.136).
DTNA filed a noncompliance report dated February 28, 2024, pursuant
to 49 CFR part 573, Defect and Noncompliance Responsibility and
Reports. DTNA petitioned NHTSA on March 22, 2024, for an exemption from
the notification and remedy requirements of 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 on
the basis that this noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to
motor vehicle safety, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h) and
49 CFR part 556, Exemption for Inconsequential Defect or Noncompliance.
This notice of receipt of DTNA's petition is published under 49
U.S.C. 30118 and 30120 and does not represent any agency decision or
another exercise of judgment concerning the merits of the petition.
II. Vehicles
Involved One MY 2022 Western Star 4900 truck tractor, manufactured
on October 6, 2021, was reported by the manufacturer.
III. Rule Requirements
Paragraph S5.2 of FMVSS No. 136 includes the requirements relevant
to this petition. FMVSS No. 136 establishes the standards for, and
requires the installation of, electronic stability control (ESC)
systems in certain heavy vehicles for the purpose of reducing loss of
control and rollovers. The system's operational requirements outlined
in paragraph S5.2 are:
(1) The ESC system must function when the vehicle is traveling at
speeds greater than 20 km/h (12.4 mph), while reversing, and during
system initialization.
(2) The ESC system must remain capable of activation, even when the
antilock brake system or the traction control system is engaged.
IV. Noncompliance
DTNA explains that the subject vehicle does not conform to FMVSS
No. 136 paragraph S5.2 because it is equipped with a function that
deactivates the required ESC system. Specifically, the subject vehicle
is equipped with an ``off-road mode'' that the driver can activate
which deactivates the vehicle's ESC system, including at speeds above
20 km/h (12.4 mph)
V. Summary of DTNA Petition
The following views and arguments presented in this section, ``V.
Summary of DTNA's Petition,'' are the views and arguments provided by
DTNA. They have not been evaluated by the Agency and do not reflect the
views of the Agency. DTNA describes the subject noncompliance and
contends that the noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to
motor vehicle safety.
DTNA reports that the subject vehicle was inadvertently equipped
with a feature that disables the ESC functionality. DTNA states that
this feature, which is commonly used in vocational trucks for off-road
conditions, was also used in truck tractors prior to the implementation
of FMVSS No. 136. DTNA asserts that this feature is necessary for
vocational use in off-road conditions that antilock brake (ABS) and
electronic stability control (ESC) systems are not designed to handle
effectively. DTNA explains that
[[Page 95354]]
the feature enables wheel locking to reduce stopping distances on
uneven terrain and surfaces with poor traction, such as dirt or gravel.
DTNA notes that the subject noncompliance has been corrected in
production, and the off-road system is no longer installed on DTNA's
truck tractors subject to FMVSS No. 136.
DTNA explains that ABS and ESC systems are not optimized for off-
road use and may impact vehicle safety in such settings. DTNA states
that while ABS and ESC systems were designed and tested for driving on
paved roads, they do not account for driving on surfaces with
irregularities. DTNA cites brake supplier ZF, which asserts that
vehicles tuned for off-road driving is safer without ABS/ESC functions
in those conditions, not less. According to ZF, ESC systems require
accurate vehicle speed data based on the reference speed. The reference
speed is normally determined by a reading from a non-driven steer axle,
as that axle is not influenced by drive slip; by definition, however,
all-wheel-drive vehicles do not have a non-driven steer axle. This
limitation is addressed in modern trucks not subject to FMVSS No. 136
by disabling ESC when the front axle is engaged by the transfer case.
DTNA further highlights that ZF representatives indicate that off-road
driving requires more aggressive maneuvers, which exceed the thresholds
of ABS/ESC systems designed for highway use. Additionally, the inertial
sensors and algorithms designed for highway conditions, may
inadvertently activate inappropriately in off-road conditions.
According to DTNA, the optional off-road mode makes the vehicle
safer in off-road conditions. DTNA's petition cites a graph from SAE
International's report J2246 (2014) to illustrate that ABS systems are
optimized for hard, paved surfaces, which typically involves a wheel
slip ratio of around 20 percent before arresting longitudinal force.
DTNA notes that off-road driving often occurs on looser, more
deformable surfaces with higher wheel slip ratios. DTNA states that the
ABS algorithm, which limits wheel slip, may result in sub-optimal
performance in these conditions. Instead, DTNA suggests that an
algorithm allowing for wheel lock-up in these conditions would provide
superior stopping distance on loose, deformable surfaces, particularly
for trained commercial drivers who select the off-road mode.
DTNA explains that prohibiting the optimization of vocational
vehicles for off-road environments restricts their ability to complete
their tasks. DTNA's petition includes a table (Figure 3) showing that
while vehicles in normal operation mode are compliant and optimal for
paved road conditions, they may have difficulties when used on off-road
terrain DTNA contends that while vehicles in off-road mode are not
compliant, they are unlikely to be operated on paved roads as all
drivers of the subject vehicle should have a commercial driver's
license and training as well as the presence of an off-road mode
indicator on the instrument cluster. Vehicles in normal operation mode
in off-road conditions are compliant but not optimal for the conditions
and are difficult to operate. DTNA asserts that vehicles in off-road
mode in off road conditions are, while noncompliant, are the best
suited for off-road conditions.
DTNA notes that while NHTSA might be concerned that this off-road
function may be used on road conditions, this is unlikely because the
system must be manually engaged before it can activate, and the
instrument cluster indicates when off-road mode is engaged.
Additionally, the system cannot be accidentally left on as it
disengages automatically after the vehicle is shut off. DTNA also
emphasizes that drivers of the subject vehicle must have commercial
driver's licenses, ensuring that they are trained and familiar with
commercial vehicles and would understand the off-road function and its
activation.
DTNA notes that light-duty trucks are allowed to be equipped with a
switch that disables the ESC system, in accordance with FMVSS No. 126.
Citing NHTSA's rationale from the FMVSS No. 126 final rule on April 6,
2007 (72 FR 17236), DTNA states that NHTSA recognized the need to
temporarily disable the ESC in certain conditions where the system
could hinder vehicle performance. DTNA further notes that NHTSA
permitted the option to temporarily disable ESC because ESC is not
suited for certain conditions and may be an unnecessary impediment to
the operation of a vehicle in those conditions and without the ability
to temporarily disable the function, drivers may disable it entirely.
DTNA, points out that similar to in light-duty trucks, the heavy-duty
vehicle in question defaults back to ESC enabled mode after the vehicle
is turned off. DTNA also suggests that the conditions in which ESC
might be temporarily disabled and reactivated are similar to those
considered by NHTSA for light duty vehicles, which NHTSA concluded
allowed for an appropriate level of safety.
Experienced commercial vehicle drivers highlight the necessity of
ESC disablement in off-road environments. Drivers working in the
construction, mining, logging, and forestry industries agree that
standard ABS and ESC systems are disruptive and counterproductive in
the off-road environments where they frequently work. Rugged off-road
conditions present challenges that could and would not exist in highway
conditions and would therefore necessitate a different approach to
vehicle control.
Drawing from customer complaints, DTNA cites real world situations
in which the mandatory ABS and ESC systems in question are frustrating
and inadequate in off-road conditions. According to one customer, it
has become such a commonplace issue that dealers in the Canadian
logging industry ``predominantly order logging trucks as trucks (rather
than truck tractors) to avoid ESC.''
(1) DTNA refers to NHTSA precedent to highlight the importance of
prioritizing real-world safety benefits when necessary. DTNA compares
its petition to the 1988 D.C. Circuit Court case U.S. v. General Motors
Corp. also known as the ``X-Cars Case'' (6556 F. Supp. 15555, D.D.C.
1987). DTNA summarizes that in the ``X-Cars Case,'' the D.C. Circuit
Court recognized the propensity of those vehicles to lock up their
wheels during certain braking events but concluded that the risk to
motor vehicle safety was insignificant and did not rise to the level of
a defect posing an unreasonable risk to motor vehicle safety. DTNA
notes that the testing procedures outlined in FMVSS No. 136 were based
on conditions like a ``solid-paved surface'' with a peak friction
coefficient of 1.02 and a slope of 0 percent to 1 percent, while
surfaces with irregularities like dips and large cracks, are unsuitable
for testing under the standard. However, DTNA believes this does not
reflect real-world scenarios where wheel lock up may be necessary under
certain circumstances.
DTNA also mentions that NHTSA maintained its decision to deny ESC
disablement functions in FMVSS No. 136 as part of the rulemaking
process as neither Bendix nor Meritor WABCO provided justification for
why disablement would be beneficial in off-road conditions. (80 FR
36085, June 23, 2015.) DTNA states that while NHTSA acknowledged
Bendix's assertion that the current ESC systems were optimized for on-
road and mild off-road conditions, more severe off-road conditions may
require optimization better suited to those conditions. DTNA suggests
that this acknowledgment
[[Page 95355]]
implies that certain ESC systems may not perform optimally in severe
off-road conditions, which are relevant to operators of the subject
vehicle.
DTNA concludes by stating its belief that the subject noncompliance
is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety and its
petition to be exempted from providing notification of the
noncompliance, as required by 49 U.S.C. 30118, and a remedy for the
noncompliance, as required by 49 U.S.C. 30120, should be granted.
NHTSA notes that the statutory provisions (49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and
30120(h)) that permit manufacturers to file petitions for a
determination of inconsequentiality allow NHTSA to exempt manufacturers
only from the duties found in sections 30118 and 30120, respectively,
to notify owners, purchasers, and dealers of a defect or noncompliance
and to remedy the defect or noncompliance. Therefore, any decision on
this petition only applies to the subject vehicles that DTNA no longer
controlled at the time it determined that the noncompliance existed.
However, any decision on this petition does not relieve vehicle
distributors and dealers of the prohibitions on the sale, offer for
sale, or introduction or delivery for introduction into interstate
commerce of the noncompliant vehicles under their control after DTNA
notified them that the subject noncompliance existed.
(Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120: delegations of authority at 49
CFR 1.95 and 501.8)
Otto G. Matheke III,
Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2024-28118 Filed 11-29-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
</pre></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on December 2, 2024.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.