```

[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 231 (Monday, December 2, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Pages 95353-95355]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[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:
     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

[[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
```