Notice2025-04950
Mack Trucks 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
March 24, 2025
Issuing agencies
Transportation DepartmentNational Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Abstract
Mack Trucks, Inc., (Mack) has determined that certain model year (MY) 2017-2026 Mack Pinnacle (PI/PN) and MY 2017-2019 Mack CHU trucks do not fully comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 121, Air Brake Systems. Mack filed a noncompliance report dated December 20, 2024, and amended it on January 15, 2025. Mack petitioned NHTSA (the "Agency") on January 15, 2025, for a decision that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety. This document announces receipt of Mack's petition.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 90 Issue 55 (Monday, March 24, 2025)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 55 (Monday, March 24, 2025)]
[Notices]
[Pages 13511-13513]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2025-04950]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA-2025-0008; Notice 1]
Mack Trucks 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: Mack Trucks, Inc., (Mack) has determined that certain model
year (MY) 2017-2026 Mack Pinnacle (PI/PN) and MY 2017-2019 Mack CHU
trucks do not fully comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard
(FMVSS) No. 121, Air Brake Systems. Mack filed a noncompliance report
dated December 20, 2024, and amended it on January 15, 2025. Mack
petitioned NHTSA (the ``Agency'') on January 15, 2025, for a decision
that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to
motor vehicle safety. This document announces receipt of Mack's
petition.
DATES: Send comments on or before April 23, 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
[[Page 13512]]
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="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.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="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.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: Mack determined that certain MY 2017-2026 Mack
Pinnacled (PI/PN) and MY 2017-2019 Mack CHU trucks do not fully comply
with paragraph S5.1.2.1 of FMVSS No. 121, Air Brake Systems (49 CFR
571.121).
Mack filed a noncompliance report dated December 20, 2024, and
amended the report on January 15, 2025, pursuant to 49 CFR part 573,
Defect and Noncompliance Responsibility and Reports. Mack petitioned
NHTSA on January 15, 2025, 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 Mack'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: Mack reported that approximately 12,827 MY
2017-2026 Mack Pinnacled (PI/PN) and 2017-2019 Mack CHU Trucks
manufactured between April 12, 2016, and December 19, 2024, do not meet
the requirements of FMVSS No. 121.
III. Relevant FMVSS Requirements: Paragraph S5.1.2.1 of FMVSS No.
121 includes the requirements relevant to this petition. Paragraph
S5.1.2.1 requires, in relevant part, that the combined volume of all
service and supply reservoirs be at least 12 times the combined volume
of all service brake chambers.
IV. Noncompliance: Mack determined that the subject vehicles have
service reservoirs with a combined volume of less than twelve times the
combined volume of all service brake chambers. Mack estimates that the
air reservoir volume in the subject vehicles falls less than 1.5
percent short of the required level of the nominal value of the air
reservoirs as specified in table V of FMVSS 121 S5.1.2.1.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN24MR25.001
V. Summary of Mack's Petition: The following views and arguments
presented in this section, ``V. Summary of Mack's Petition,'' are the
views and arguments provided by Mack. They have not been evaluated by
the Agency and do not reflect the views of the Agency. Mack describes
the subject noncompliance and contends that the noncompliance is
inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.
Mack quotes NHTSA as stating that ``an important issue to consider
in determining inconsequentiality is the safety risk to individuals who
experience the type of event against which the recall would otherwise
protect.'' (Daimler Trucks North America, Grant of Petition for
Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 87 FR 14325, March 14,
2022.)
Mack cites the original rule published in 1971, in which NHTSA
stated that the purpose of FMVSS No. 121 was to specify the
requirements for the safe performance of air brake systems under normal
and emergency conditions. (36 FR 3817, Feb. 27, 1971.) Mack also refers
to the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that preceded the FMVSS No. 121
final rule which explained that the proposed requirement for separate
supply and service reservoirs to have a capacity that is 16 times the
combined volume of all brake chambers was intended to protect the brake
system against the consequence of malfunction. In the final rule, the
reservoir capacity requirement was reduced to 12 times the combined
brake chamber capacity due to comments that were received and
reevaluation by the Administrator. (36 FR 3818, Feb. 27, 1971). Mack
believes that the FMVSS No. 121 air reserve requirements are ``intended
to assure that the trucks have an adequate air reserve to enable them
to stop safely, even in the event of a malfunction.'' Mack lists three
reasons why the subject vehicles meet the intended purpose of the
safety standard:
1. Mack states that the subject vehicles have a greater air
reserve, and therefore more energy to stop the truck, than required by
FMVSS No. 121. Mack asserts that the amount of energy from the air
pressure reservoir that is necessary to stop a vehicle is based more on
air pressure than the volume of the reservoir itself. Therefore, Mack
contends that the subject vehicles successfully compensate for any
possible shortfall in stopping distance by having a slightly smaller
reservoir with a higher air pressure. Mack uses a data table of test
results comparing the actuation timing of the air brakes of the
noncompliant trucks with a reservoir pressure of 100 psi with a
compliant truck with the same reservoir pressure. According to their
data, there is a ``nearly identical'' difference between
[[Page 13513]]
the actuation timing (and by extension stopping distance) of compliant
and noncompliant trucks. Mack then shows that the actuation timing of a
reservoir with 110 psi (which is used in all configurations of their
trucks) gives the vehicles a ``superior'' stopping distance to
compliant vehicles. Mack states that all testing protocols conform with
a technical paper released by NHTSA entitled ``Tests To Evaluate
Reservoir Volume Requirements For Standard And Long Stroke Chambers,
VRTC-82-0255 (January 1996).''
2. Mack states that ``(t)he subject trucks compensate for the risk
of malfunctions related to reservoir capacity at least as well as
compliant trucks.'' Mack names three potential causes of malfunction
that they believe were meant to be addressed by the required reservoir
capacity requirements and gives reasons why the noncompliant trucks do
not have a higher risk of those malfunctions.
The first is the risk of air governor cut-in pressure malfunction.
Mack states that any increase in stopping distance caused by risk of
failure of the air governors on the noncompliant subject trucks will be
more than negated by the above-mentioned higher air pressure in the
reservoirs.
The second is the risk of reduction of available air volume caused
by water accumulating in the vehicle's pneumatic system. Mack
recognizes that twelve to one reservoir-to-service-brake volume ratio
required by FMVSS No. 121 lowers the risk of water accumulation.
However, they claim to have reduced the risk of water accumulation in
noncompliant trucks by instead installing air dryers as standard
equipment in the entire subject vehicle population. This leads to an
even greater reduction of water and humidity accumulation in the
subject noncompliant vehicle population than compliant vehicles without
air dryers. Mack additionally mentions that the greater air reserve
will compensate for the reduction of available air volume caused by
water accumulation even without the air dryers.
The third risk is the potential for air leakage to reduce the
amount of energy needed for braking. As established, the subject
vehicles have a greater air reserve than required in FMVSS No. 121 and
as a result, would better tolerate an air leak. The subject
noncompliant vehicles have a compressor fill rate (compliant with FMVSS
121, S5.1.1) that Mack says would ``compensate for non-readily
detectable air leaks.''
3. Mack states that it has not received, nor found any complaints
or field reports related to this noncompliance. While Mack acknowledges
that a lack of complaints is not usually considered relevant to NHTSA's
decision on inconsequential noncompliance, it notes that the absence of
complaints of increased vehicle stopping distance supports their
assertion that the noncompliant vehicles do not pose any increased risk
to public safety.
Mack reiterates that for the above reasons, the subject
noncompliant trucks do not have any increase in stopping distance, even
in the event of a malfunction or emergency, and therefore meet the
purpose of the safety standard although not technically conforming to
it.
Mack 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 Mack no longer
controlled at the time it determined that the noncompliance existed.
However, any decision on this petition does not relieve vehicles
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 Mack
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. 2025-04950 Filed 3-21-25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
</pre></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on March 24, 2025.
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.