Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 231 / Monday, December 2, 2024 / Notices 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: 

• 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. 

• 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. 

• Electronically: Submit comments 

electronically by logging onto the 

Federal Docket Management System 

(FDMS) website at https://

www.regulations.gov/. Follow the 

online instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• 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 regulations.gov, 

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 

regulations.gov 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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
95354 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 231 / Monday, December 2, 2024 / Notices 

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 offroad 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 offroad 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 offroad 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 offroad 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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 231 / Monday, December 2, 2024 / Notices 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 

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY 

Office of Foreign Assets Control 

Notice of OFAC Sanctions Actions 

AGENCY: Office of Foreign Assets 

Control, Treasury. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of the 

Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets 

Control (OFAC) is publishing the names 

of one or more persons that have been 

placed on OFAC’s Specially Designated 

Nationals and Blocked Persons List 

(SDN List) based on OFAC’s 

determination that one or more 

applicable legal criteria were satisfied. 

All property and interests in property 

subject to U.S. jurisdiction of these 

persons are blocked, and U.S. persons 

are generally prohibited from engaging 

in transactions with them. 

DATES: This action was issued on 

September 25, 2024. See SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION for relevant dates. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

OFAC: Associate Director for Global 

Targeting, 202–622–2420; or Assistant 

Director for Sanctions Compliance, 202– 

622–2490 or https://ofac.treasury.gov/ 

contact-ofac. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Electronic Availability 

The SDN List and additional 

information concerning OFAC sanctions 

programs are available on OFAC’s 

website: https://ofac.treasury.gov. 

Notice of OFAC Actions 

On September 25, 2024, OFAC 

determined that the property and 

interests in property subject to U.S. 

jurisdiction of the following persons are 

blocked under the relevant sanctions 

authority listed below. 

Individuals 

1. VICTOR, Prophane (a.k.a. 

PROFANE, Victor; a.k.a. PROPHANE, 

Victor), 64 Pelerin 5, Petion-Ville, West, 

HT6142, Haiti; 3, Rue Marcelin, Tabarre 

61, Tabarre, Ouiest, HT6125, Haiti; DOB 

08 Feb 1969; POB Port-au-Prince, Haiti; 

nationality Haiti; citizen Haiti; Gender 

Male; Passport R10097145 (Haiti) 

expires 09 May 2031; National ID No. 

0033760991 (Haiti) (individual) 

[GLOMAG]. 

Designated pursuant to section 

(1)(a)(iii)(A)(3) of Executive Order 13818 

of December 20, 2017, ‘‘Blocking the 

Property of Persons Involved in Serious 

Human Rights Abuse or Corruption,’’ 82 

FR 60839, 3 CFR, 2017 Comp., p. 399, 

(E.O. 13818) for being a person who has 

materially assisted, sponsored, or 

provided financial, material, or 

technological support for, or goods or 

services to or in support of an entity, 

including any government entity, that 

has engaged in, or whose members have 

engaged in serious human rights abuse, 

where the activity is conducted by a 

foreign person. 

2. ELAN, Luckson (Latin: E ́LAN, 

Luckson) (a.k.a. ELAN, Lucson; a.k.a. 

‘‘GENERAL LUCKSON’’; a.k.a. 

‘‘JENERAL LUCKSON’’), Artibonite 

Department, Haiti; DOB 06 Jan 1988; 

nationality Haiti; Gender Male 

(individual) [GLOMAG]. 

Designated pursuant to section 

(1)(a)(ii)(A) and (1)(a)(ii)(C)(1) of E.O. 

13818 for being a foreign person who is 

responsible for or complicit in, or has 

directly or indirectly engaged in, serious 

human rights abuse and is or has been 

a leader or official of an entity, 

including any government entity, that 

has engaged in, or whose members have 

engaged in serious human rights abuse 

relating to the leader’s or official’s 

tenure. 

Lisa M. Palluconi, 

Acting Director, Office of Foreign Assets 

Control. 

[FR Doc. 2024–28084 Filed 11–29–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4810–AL–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY 

Office of Foreign Assets Control 

Notice of OFAC Sanctions Action 

AGENCY: Office of Foreign Assets 

Control, Treasury. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of the 

Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets 

Control (OFAC) is publishing the names 

of one or more persons that have been 

placed on OFAC’s Specially Designated 

Nationals and Blocked Persons List 

(SDN List) based on OFAC’s 

determination that one or more 

applicable legal criteria were satisfied. 

All property and interests in property 

subject to U.S. jurisdiction of these 

persons are blocked, and U.S. persons 

are generally prohibited from engaging 

in transactions with them. 

DATES: This action was issued on 

November 26, 2024. See Supplementary 

Information for relevant dates. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

OFAC: Associate Director for Global 

Targeting, 202–622–2420; or Assistant 

Director for Sanctions Compliance, 202– 

622–2490 or https://ofac.treasury.gov/ 

contact-ofac. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Electronic Availability 

The SDN List and additional 

information concerning OFAC sanctions 

programs are available on OFAC’s 

website: https://ofac.treasury.gov. 

Notice of OFAC Action 

On November 26, 2024, OFAC 

determined that the persons identified 

below meet one or more of the criteria 

for the imposition of sanctions set forth 

in section 1(a)–(c) of Executive Order 

14059 of December 15, 2021, ‘‘Imposing 

Sanctions on Foreign Persons Involved 

in the Global Illicit Drug Trade,’’ 86 FR 

71549 (December 17, 2021) (E.O. 14059). 

OFAC has selected to impose blocking 

sanctions pursuant to section 2(a)(i) of 

E.O. 14059 on the persons identified 

below. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1