[September 09, 2011] Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Electronic Stability Control Systems Tweet Sep 09, 2011 (Transportation Department Documents and Publications/ContentWorks via COMTEX) -- SUMMARY: This document responds to a petition for reconsideration of a September 2008 final rule that made changes to a new Federal motor vehicle safety standard requiring light vehicles to be equipped with electronic stability control systems. In that final rule, the agency stated that it had previously fulfilled the obligations of the United States with respect to initiating rulemaking with respect to the global technical regulation for electronic stability control and had adopted the regulation to the extent appropriate. The petition for reconsideration identified three areas of the present text of the electronic stability control standard that are not, in the petitioner's view, harmonized with the global technical regulation. After considering the petition, the agency is granting the petition in part and amending slightly the test procedures of the standard and is otherwise denying the petition. EFFECTIVE DATE: This final rule is effective October 11, 2011. Petitions for reconsideration must be received not later than October 24, 2011. ADDRESSES: Petitions for reconsideration should refer to the docket number and must be submitted to: Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical issues, you may contact John Lee, Office of Crash Avoidance Standards, by telephone at (202) 366-4924, and by fax at (202) 366-7002. For legal issues, you may contact David Jasinski, Office of the Chief Counsel, by telephone at (202) 366-2992, and by fax at (202) 366-3820. You may send mail to both of these officials at the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Table of Contents I. Background of the ESC Regulation A. Benefits of ESC B. ESC Final Rule C. September 2008 Amendment II. GTR and Petition for Reconsideration A. Global Technical Regulation B. Alliance's Petition for Reconsideration III. Discussion and Analysis of Petition A. ESC Control Identification B. Two-Part Telltales C. Lightweight Outriggers D. Effective Date IV. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices V. Regulatory Text I. Background of the ESC Regulation A. Benefits of ESC Electronic stability control (ESC) systems use automatic computer-controlled braking of individual wheels to assist the driver in maintaining control in critical driving situations in which the vehicle is beginning to lose directional stability at the rear wheels (spin out) or directional control at the front wheels (plow out). NHTSA's crash data study of existing vehicles equipped with ESC demonstrated that these systems reduce fatal single-vehicle crashes of passenger cars by 55 percent and fatal single-vehicle crashes of light trucks and vans (LTVs) by 50 percent. /1/ NHTSA estimates that ESC has the potential to prevent 56 percent of the fatal passenger car rollovers and 74 percent of the fatal LTV first-event rollovers that would otherwise occur in single-vehicle crashes. /2/ FOOTNOTE 1 Sivinski, R., Crash Prevention Effectiveness of Light-Vehicle Electronic Stability Control: An Update of the 2007 NHTSA Evaluation; DOT HS 811 486 (June 2011). END FOOTNOTE FOOTNOTE 2 Id. END FOOTNOTE B. ESC Final Rule On April 6, 2007, NHTSA published a final rule establishing Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 126, Electronic Stability Control Systems, which sets forth requirements for ESC systems on new light vehicles. /3/ FMVSS No. 126 contains performance requirements that include both definitional and dynamic testing elements. These elements together ensure that ESC systems intervene properly to limit oversteer and understeer in order to provide the level of yaw (directional) stability associated with the high level of safety benefits observed in crash data studies of ESC-equipped vehicles. NHTSA adopted a phase-in schedule to implement this requirement such that all light vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 2011 must be equipped with a complying ESC system. FOOTNOTE 3 72 FR 17236. Docket No. NHTSA-2007-27662, item 1. END FOOTNOTE FMVSS No. 126 also requires a standardized set of ESC telltales and controls. However, compliance with the telltale and control requirements was deferred until the end of the phase-in period. NHTSA concluded that it was not practicable to implement the telltale and control requirements under the phase-in schedule and was unwilling to delay the phase-in and the expected safety benefits for this reason alone. Accordingly, the provisions in FMVSS No. 126 dealing with telltales and controls are prefaced by the phrase "as of September 1, 2011." C. September 2008 Amendment We received four petitions for reconsideration of the April 2007 final rule. Among the issues raised in the petitions were ones involving details of the requirements for controls and telltales. On September 22, 2008, we published a final rule (September 2008 reconsideration rule) that granted in part and denied in part the petitions. /4/ Three of the issues we addressed are pertinent to the issues discussed in this petition for reconsideration of that rule. FOOTNOTE 4 73 FR 54526, Docket No. NHTSA-2008-0068, item 1. END FOOTNOTE First, we granted a petition by Porsche Cars North America, Inc. (Porsche) to allow two-part "ESC Off" telltales. The April 2007 final rule required both an ESC malfunction telltale identified by the ISO symbol for ESC or the abbreviation "ESC" and a second telltale to identify when an ESC system has been turned off by the driver. The second telltale was required to be identified by the ISO symbol for ESC with the word "Off" below it or by the words "ESC Off." We considered allowing a two-part telltale in the April 2007 final rule, but decided against doing so because we thought that allowing a partial telltale would have created a conflict with the requirement that the ESC Off status be indicated by the ESC Off telltale whenever the driver has manually disabled the ESC system and that an ESC malfunction be indicated separately by the ESC malfunction telltale when an ESC malfunction occurs at the same time. Porsche petitioned for reconsideration of the April 2007 final rule, stating that its ESC system is designed in a manner such that, in the rare case in which an ESC malfunction occurs after the system has been manually disabled, the system automatically disables the manual control functionality and extinguishes the word "Off' while continuing to illuminate the ESC symbol or abbreviation, thereby indicating the malfunction. Upon reconsideration, NHTSA decided to allow for a two-part telltale rather than requiring manufacturers to maintain separate telltales for ESC malfunction and "ESC Off." In the September 2008 final rule, we explained that, if an ESC malfunction occurs after a driver has disabled ESC, requiring that both telltales illuminate at the same time, both telltales would communicate the same message to the driver: That the ESC functionality has been reduced or eliminated. Also, we noted our belief that it would be rare for an ESC system to malfunction after it has been manually disabled. Because of that, we believe that requiring both messages to display simultaneously is not necessary for safety. Accordingly, we amended S5.3.3 of FMVSS No. 126 to allow for a two-part "ESC Off" telltale. Second, we received a petition from the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers (Alliance) and the Association of International Automobile Manufacturers /5/ seeking clarification that an ESC Off control could be included in a multi-function control that could be used to turn ESC off or on and could also be used to turn traction control off and to select an ESC "performance mode" would not be prohibited by FMVSS No. 126. We consider a multi-function control to be a switch or button that combines several functions. As provided by S5.4.3 (formerly S5.4.2), /6/ an ESC control whose only purpose is to disable the ESC system or place it in a mode or modes in which it no longer satisfies the performance requirements must be labeled either with the ESC symbol plus the word "Off" or the phrase "ESC Off." Paragraph S5.4.4 (formerly S5.4.3) creates an exception for a control used primarily for another function, such as a four-wheel drive low-range transfer case, that does not control the ESC system directly but has the ancillary effect of placing the ESC system in a mode that no longer satisfies the performance requirement. We agreed that a multi-function control was permissible, and we clarified S5.4.4 accordingly. FOOTNOTE 5 The Association of International Automobile Manufacturers is now known as Global Automakers. END FOOTNOTE FOOTNOTE 6 The September 2008 final rule redesignated S5.4.2 and S5.4.3 as S5.4.3 and S5.4.4 respectively. See 73 FR 54542. For the sake of simplicity, we will refer to the paragraph designations as they exist now throughout this document. END FOOTNOTE --This is a summary of a Federal Register article originally published on the page number listed below-- Final rule; response to petition for reconsideration. CFR Part: "49 CFR Part 571" RIN Number: "RIN 2127-AL02" Citation: "76 FR 55829" Document Number: "Docket No. NHTSA-2011-0140" Federal Register Page Number: "55829" "Rules and Regulations" [ Back To TMCnet.com's Homepage ]