Mack Trucks LLC, Receipt of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 13511-13513 [2025-04950]

Agencies

• National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
• DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 55 (Monday, March 24, 2025)]
[Notices]
[Pages 13511-13513]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[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:
     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

[[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 https://www.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 
https://www.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: 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