Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Electronic Stability Control Systems; Controls and Displays, 54526-54543 [E8-22067]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
54526
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 184 / Monday, September 22, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
or in whole, shall provide clear and
conspicuous notice, which takes into
account the needs of persons with
disabilities, to new subscribers of its
non-election or partial election to
provide Alert messages at the point-ofsale.
(b) The point-of-sale includes stores,
kiosks, third party reseller locations,
web sites (proprietary or third party),
and any other venue through which the
CMS provider’s devices and services are
marketed or sold.
(c) CMS providers electing to transmit
alerts ‘‘in part’’ shall use the following
notification:
NOTICE REGARDING TRANSMISSION OF
WIRELESS EMERGENCY ALERTS
(Commercial Mobile Alert Service)
[[CMS provider]] has chosen to offer
wireless emergency alerts within portions of
its service area, as defined by the terms and
conditions of its service agreement, on
wireless emergency alert capable devices.
There is no additional charge for these
wireless emergency alerts.
Wireless emergency alerts may not be
available on all devices or in the entire
service area, or if a subscriber is outside of
the [[CMS provider]] service area. For details
on the availability of this service and
wireless emergency alert capable devices,
please ask a sales representative, or go to
[[CMS provider’s URL]].
Notice required by FCC Rule 47 CFR
10.240 (Commercial Mobile Alert Service).
(d) CMS providers electing in whole
not to transmit alerts shall use the
following notification language:
NOTICE TO NEW AND EXISTING
SUBSCRIBERS REGARDING
TRANSMISSION OF WIRELESS
EMERGENCY ALERTS (Commercial Mobile
Alert Service)
[[CMS provider]] presently does not
transmit wireless emergency alerts. Notice
required by FCC Rule 47 CFR 10.240
(Commercial Mobile Alert Service).
ebenthall on PROD1PC60 with RULES
§ 10.250 Notification to Existing
Subscribers of Non-Participation in CMAS.
(a) A CMS provider that elects not to
transmit CMAS Alert Messages, in part
or in whole, shall provide clear and
conspicuous notice, which takes into
account the needs of persons with
disabilities, to existing subscribers of its
non-election or partial election to
provide Alert messages by means of an
announcement amending the existing
subscriber’s service agreement.
(b) For purposes of this section, a
CMS provider that elects not to transmit
CMAS Alert Messages, in part or in
whole, shall use the notification
language set forth in § 10.240 (c) or (d)
respectively, except that the last line of
the notice shall reference FCC Rule 47
CFR 10.250, rather than FCC Rule 47
CFR 10.240.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:19 Sep 19, 2008
Jkt 214001
(c) In the case of prepaid customers,
if a mailing address is available, the
CMS provider shall provide the required
notification via U.S. mail. If no mailing
address is available, the CMS provider
shall use any reasonable method at its
disposal to alert the customer to a
change in the terms and conditions of
service and directing the subscriber to
voice-based notification or to a Web site
providing the required notification.
§ 10.260
Timing of Subscriber Notification.
A CMS provider that elects not to
transmit CMAS Alert Messages, in part
or in whole, must comply with
§§ 10.240 and 10.250 no later than 60
days following an announcement by the
Commission that the Alert Aggregator/
Gateway system is operational and
capable of delivering emergency alerts
to participating CMS providers.
§ 10.270 Subscribers’ Right To Terminate
Subscription.
If a CMS provider that has elected to
provide CMAS Alert Messages in whole
or in part thereafter chooses to cease
providing such alerts, either in whole or
in part, its subscribers may terminate
their subscription without penalty or
early termination fee.
§ 10.280 Subscribers’ Right To Opt Out of
CMAS Notifications.
(a) CMS providers may provide their
subscribers with the option to opt out of
both, or either, the ‘‘Child Abduction
Emergency/AMBER Alert’’ and
‘‘Imminent Threat Alert’’ classes of
Alert Messages.
(b) CMS providers shall provide their
subscribers with a clear indication of
what each option means, and provide
examples of the types of messages the
customer may not receive as a result of
opting out.
[FR Doc. E8–21946 Filed 9–19–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration
49 CFR Part 571
[Docket No. NHTSA–2008–0068]
RIN 2127–AK19
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
Standards; Electronic Stability Control
Systems; Controls and Displays
National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
AGENCY:
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Final rule; response to petitions
for reconsideration.
ACTION:
SUMMARY: On April 6, 2007, NHTSA
published a final rule establishing a new
Federal motor vehicle safety standard
requiring light vehicles to be equipped
with electronic stability control systems.
The final rule was established as part of
a comprehensive plan for reducing the
serious risk of rollover crashes and the
risk of death and serious injury in those
crashes. This document responds to
several petitions for reconsideration of
the final rule. After carefully
considering the issues raised, the agency
is granting some aspects of the petitions,
and denying some aspects. This
document amends the final rule
accordingly. This document also fulfills
the obligations of the United States with
respect to initiating rulemaking in order
to comply with the global technical
regulation (GTR) for ESC, adopted on
June 26, 2008.
DATES: This rule is effective October 22,
2008.
ADDRESSES: Petitions for reconsideration
should refer to the docket number and
be submitted to: Administrator, National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration,
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West
Building, 4th Floor, Washington, DC
20590. Note that all documents received
will be posted without change to the
docket, including any personal
information provided. Please see the
Privacy Act discussion under section IV
on Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
below.
For
technical issues, contact Nathaniel
Beuse, Office of Crash Avoidance
Standards, by telephone at (202) 366–
4931, or by fax at (202) 366–7002. For
legal issues, contact Rebecca Yoon,
Office of the Chief Counsel, by
telephone at (202) 366–2992, or by fax
at (202) 366–3820.
Both persons may be reached by mail
at the following address: National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration,
U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200
New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington,
DC 20590.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Table of Contents
I. Summary of Final Rule; Response to
Petitions for Reconsideration
II. Background
A. Benefits of ESC
B. April 2007 Final Rule
C. Summary of Petitions for
Reconsideration to the Final Rule
III. Discussion and Analysis of Responses to
Petitions for Reconsideration
A. Telltale Issues
1. Use of a Two-Part ‘‘ESC Off’’ Telltale
E:\FR\FM\22SER1.SGM
22SER1
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 184 / Monday, September 22, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
2. Inclusion of ESC-Related Systems in ESC
Malfunction Telltale Operational
Requirements
3. Compliance Dates for Telltale
Requirements
B. Multi-Function ESC Controls
C. ‘‘ESC Off’’ Control Labeling
D. Disconnection of the Optional ‘‘ESC
Off’’ Control
E. Automatic Return of ESC System to
‘‘On’’ Mode for Each Ignition Cycle
F. Low-Speed Threshold for ESC Operation
G. Fault Detection and Cancellation Test
Procedures
H. Effective Dates for Amended Procedures
and Requirements
I. Inclusion of Roll Stability Control in the
Scope of the Final Rule
J. NHTSA’s Rulemaking Analysis on
Preemption
K. International Harmonization and the
Global Technical Regulation on ESC
IV. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
V. Regulatory Text
I. Summary of Final Rule; Response to
Petitions for Reconsideration
In this document, NHTSA responds to
petitions for reconsideration of its April
2007 final rule concerning electronic
stability control (ESC) systems. That
rule established a new Federal Motor
Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No.
126, Electronic Stability Control
Systems, which sets forth requirements
for these systems on new light vehicles,
to be applicable to all light vehicles by
September 1, 2011.
We are granting some of the petitions
in part. In granting these petitions,
today’s final rule makes several changes
to the regulatory text of 49 CFR 571.126,
Electronic Stability Control Systems,
and of 49 CFR 571.101, Controls and
Displays. These are generally minor
changes, all of which are consistent
with agency’s goal in the original final
rule to encourage rapid installation of
this life-saving technology. Changes to
the regulatory text are summarized
below.
We are denying a petition from the
American Association for Justice (AAJ)
to withdraw preemption language from
the regulatory analysis section of the
final rule, and to expand the scope of
the final rule to require roll stability
control in addition to ESC.
ebenthall on PROD1PC60 with RULES
Summary of Changes
1. In FMVSS No. 101, to avoid
confusion regarding the compliance
date for ESC telltale requirements, the
agency is adding ‘‘As of September 1,
2011’’ in the relevant places to
paragraphs S5.5.2 and S5.5.5 and Table
1.
2. To clarify that related vehicle
systems may use the ESC malfunction
telltale and that the ESC malfunction
telltale may flash to indicate operation
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:19 Sep 19, 2008
Jkt 214001
of related systems, the agency is slightly
revising S5.3.3 and adding a new
S5.3.10 to FMVSS No. 126.
3. For purposes of clarification, the
agency is revising S5.3.9 in FMVSS No.
126 to remove language that might be
interpreted to require the ESC
malfunction telltale to illuminate to
indicate a disconnection of the ESC Off
control.
4. To simplify the telltale
requirements, we are also allowing twopart telltales that are able to display
both the ‘‘ESC malfunction’’ and ‘‘ESC
Off’’ messages.
5. To avoid any potential negative
safety consequences of requiring
vehicles to restart in 2-wheel drive
when they are using 4-wheel drive to
navigate difficult terrain, the agency is
expanding the exception to S5.4.1’s key
cycle automatic ESC reactivation
requirement in FMVSS No. 126. We are
revising S5.4.1 to tie the exception
directly to the low-range 4-wheel drive
configuration, and adding a definition
for 4-wheel drive low-range
configuration. For the same reason, the
agency is revising S5.4.1’s default mode
requirement to refer to ESC modes
within the same drive configuration.
6. FMVSS No. 126 requires that ESC
systems meet two fundamental
performance criteria, stability and
responsiveness. It is possible that these
performance criteria can conflict in
some drive configurations,1 thereby
creating ambiguity with respect to the
existing requirement in S5.4.1 that
refers to an ESC mode that satisfies the
performance requirements ‘‘by the
greatest margin.’’ To address this, the
agency is revising S5.4.1 to specify that
upon vehicle restart, ESC systems must
revert to the manufacturer’s original
default mode for that drive
configuration. These modes, with some
exceptions as noted, must meet the
stability and responsiveness
requirements of the standard.
7. To clarify that ESC systems need
not be operational before they have
initialized, the agency is adding
S7.10.2’s initialization procedure to
S7.10.4 and S6.3.1 of FMVSS No. 126.
8. In recognition of the fact that many
current ESC system designs cannot hold
1 This is a basic problem of vehicle dynamics: in
order to be stable, a vehicle should experience less
side-to-side movement, but in order to be
responsive, a vehicle must be able to move side-toside as necessary. Proper and safe vehicle handling,
which ESC facilitates, must strike a balance
between stability and responsiveness depending on
the situation. Thus, it is possible that increasing
stability in response to driving conditions could
decrease responsiveness—yet S5.4.1 as written
requires both stability and responsiveness to be
satisfied by the greatest margin, which is not always
possible or desirable. This is why the agency is
revising this section.
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
54527
a malfunction in memory when the
ignition is cycled off and then back on
as required, S7.10.3 of FMVSS No. 126
will not be mandatory until September
1, 2011.
9. To gain the substantial safety
benefits of ESC as quickly as possible,
and because we anticipate no negative
safety consequences, the agency is
accommodating current ESC systems by
changing the low-speed cutoff for ESC
operation from 15 km/h (9.3 mph) to 20
km/h (12.4 mph) and adding a brake
application to all initialization
procedures in FMVSS No. 126.
10. To clarify that the final rule did
not prohibit multi-function ESC
controls, the agency is adding language
to that effect in S5.4 of FMVSS No. 126.
11. To clarify changes made to the
regulatory text, the agency is adding
definitions for ‘‘drive configuration’’
and ‘‘mode’’ to S4 of FMVSS No. 126.
II. Background
A. Benefits of ESC
Electronic stability control, or ESC,
systems use automatic computercontrolled 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 36 percent
and fatal single-vehicle crashes of sport
utility vehicles (SUVs) by 63 percent.2
NHTSA estimates that ESC has the
potential to prevent 70 percent of the
fatal passenger car rollovers and 88
percent of the fatal SUV rollovers that
would otherwise occur in single-vehicle
crashes.3
B. April 2007 Final Rule
On April 6, 2007, NHTSA published
a final rule establishing the new Federal
Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS)
No. 126, Electronic Stability Control
Systems, which sets forth requirements
for these systems on new light vehicles.4
FMVSS No. 126 contains performance
requirements that include both
definitional and dynamic testing
elements. These elements together
ensure that ESC systems intervene
2 Dang, J., Statistical Analysis of the Effectiveness
of Electronic Stability Control (ESC) Systems—Final
Report, DOT HS 810 794, U.S. Department of
Transportation, Washington, DC (July 2007).
Available at Docket No. NHTSA–2007–28629, item
2.
3 Id.
4 Docket No. NHTSA–2007–27662, item 1; 72 FR
17236 (Apr. 6, 2007).
E:\FR\FM\22SER1.SGM
22SER1
ebenthall on PROD1PC60 with RULES
54528
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 184 / Monday, September 22, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
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 ESCequipped vehicles. FMVSS No. 126 also
requires a standardized set of ESC
telltales and controls.
The new standard’s requirements for
yaw stability control (that is, the parts
of the standard with the biggest
potential to prevent crashes) can be met
by most ESC-equipped vehicles
currently being manufactured. However,
none of those vehicles appear to use the
exact set of telltales and controls
required by the new standard. In order
to provide the American public with the
substantial safety benefits of ESC as
soon as possible, NHTSA accelerated
the phase-in schedule in the final rule
as compared to the schedule proposed
in the September 2006 notice of
proposed rulemaking (NPRM),5 but
deferred the telltale and display
requirements until the end of the phasein. Thus, the final rule set the phase-in
as:
• 55 percent of a manufacturer’s light
vehicles manufactured during the
period from September 1, 2008 to
August 31, 2009 are required to comply
with the standard;
• 75 percent from September 1, 2009
to August 31, 2010;
• 95 percent from September 1, 2010
to August 31, 2011; and
• All light vehicles thereafter.
This compares to the NPRM’s proposal
for a 30/60/90/all phase-in schedule
over the same time period. The agency
noted in the final rule preamble that
some manufacturers will have to
depend on carry-forward credits for
vehicles with complying ESC systems
manufactured after June 5, 2007 (the
effective date of the final rule) in order
to meet the accelerated phase-in
schedule.
Regarding the deferral of the telltale
and display requirements until the end
of the phase-in period, although NHTSA
perceived certain advantages with
standardizing these requirements, we
concluded that it was not practicable to
implement the necessary changes under
the accelerated phase-in schedule, and
we were not willing to delay the phasein (and the expected safety benefits) for
this reason alone. Accordingly, the
agency prefaced many of the provisions
in FMVSS No. 126 dealing with telltales
and displays with the phrase ‘‘as of
September 1, 2011.’’ However, after the
final rule was published, we discovered
that that phrase had been inadvertently
5 Docket No. NHTSA–2006–25801, item 1; 71 FR
54712 (Sept. 18, 2006).
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:19 Sep 19, 2008
Jkt 214001
omitted from two of the relevant
provisions. NHTSA published a
correction notice on June 22, 2007 to
address this issue.6
C. Summary of Petitions for
Reconsideration to the Final Rule
Four parties petitioned for
reconsideration of the April 6, 2007
final rule: the American Association for
Justice (AAJ); 7 Porsche Cars North
America, Inc. (Porsche); 8 and in a joint
petition, the Alliance of Automotive
Manufacturers and the Association of
International Automobile Manufacturers
(Alliance/AIAM).9 Chrysler also
submitted a letter supporting revised
recommendations submitted by the
Alliance/AIAM following its original
petition for reconsideration.10 Most of
the issues presented by the
manufacturer petitioners addressed
details of the requirements for controls
and displays and their effect on phasein requirements. AAJ petitioned NHTSA
to change language in the final rule
preamble concerning the preemptive
effect of Federal regulations, and also
petitioned that the scope of the final
rule be expanded to require roll stability
control in addition to ESC that focuses
on yaw stability.
The next section addresses the
petitions issue by issue, and provides
the agency’s response for each issue.
III. Analysis of and Response to
Petitions for Reconsideration
A. Telltale Issues
1. Use of a Two-Part ‘‘ESC Off’’ Telltale
The final rule requires an ESC
malfunction telltale identified by the
ISO symbol for ESC or the abbreviation
‘‘ESC.’’ It also requires a second telltale
to identify when the ESC system has
been turned off by the driver. That
telltale must be identified by the ISO
symbol for ESC with the word ‘‘Off’’
below it, or the words ‘‘ESC Off.’’
Porsche Cars North America, Inc.
(Porsche) originally commented to the
NPRM that instead of requiring two
completely separate telltales for the ESC
malfunction and ESC Off messages, the
rule should allow for a partial telltale
with just the word ‘‘Off’’ adjacent to the
ESC malfunction telltale. The ESC Off
message would be created by
illuminating the ‘‘Off’’ telltale and the
ESC malfunction telltale
simultaneously. The object of this
6 Docket No. NHTSA–2007–27662, item 9; 72 FR
34409 (Jun. 22, 2007).
7 Id., item 6.
8 Id., item 4.
9 Id., item 5.
10 Chrysler letter, id., item 12; Alliance/AIAM
revised recommendations, id., item 10.
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
design would be to save space on the
instrument panel.
NHTSA did not include Porsche’s
suggested change in the final rule
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
telltale whenever the driver has
manually disabled the ESC. In the case
where the ESC system detects a fault
when it is in the manually disabled
state, the ‘‘Off’’ part of the partial, twopart telltale would have to be
extinguished to indicate the ESC
malfunction.11
Porsche petitioned for reconsideration
on NHTSA’s decision on two-part
telltales. Specifically, Porsche explained
in its petition that ‘‘in the rare case
when a malfunction occurs after the
driver has manually disabled the
system,’’ its ESC system ‘‘would operate
so that the malfunction event results in
the manual control functionality being
automatically disabled.’’ Thus, the ‘‘ESC
Off’’ message would no longer be
correct, because the ESC would have
overridden the manual disablement; and
the ‘‘ESC Malfunction’’ message would
be correct. Porsche petitioned that
NHTSA clarify that a two-part telltale
would not be prohibited in the situation
it described, and requested that NHTSA
add a footnote to Table 1 of FMVSS No.
101 that a two-part ESC Off telltale is
acceptable if the parts are configured as
depicted for the symbol or phrase
stipulated by the table to identify the
ESC Off telltale.
Porsche also requested that a footnote
be added to Table 1 indicating that the
‘‘ESC Off’’ telltale ‘‘is mandatory only in
the event that the system is manually
disabled by the driver.’’
Agency Response: We are granting
this petition in part and denying in part.
We have considered the two-part telltale
issue further and have concluded that
there will be no significant safety
consequences from allowing
manufacturers to use a two-part telltale
instead of entirely separate telltales for
ESC malfunction and ESC Off. The
situation that Porsche describes, where
the ESC system overrides the driver’s
‘‘Off’’ command if a malfunction occurs
while the ESC system is disabled, would
already meet the requirements of the
final rule. This is because in that
situation, it would be correct to
extinguish the ‘‘Off’’ portion of the twopart telltale (because ESC would no
longer be off), and leave only the ‘‘ESC’’
portion illuminated. Thus, for that
particular case, a two-part telltale would
satisfy NHTSA’s original requirement
11 See
E:\FR\FM\22SER1.SGM
72 FR 17236, 17276 (Apr. 6, 2007).
22SER1
ebenthall on PROD1PC60 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 184 / Monday, September 22, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
that the ESC malfunction message be
displayed without interfering with the
ESC Off message, because the ESC
would no longer be manually disabled.
More generally, if an ESC system
malfunction occurs after a driver has
disabled ESC, requiring both telltales to
illuminate at the same time, both
telltales would convey essentially the
same message to the driver: that ESC
functionality has been reduced or
eliminated. Because of this, and because
we anticipate that ESC systems will
likely only rarely malfunction after they
have been manually disabled, upon
further consideration we do not believe
that requiring both messages to be
presented simultaneously (and thus
prohibiting two-part telltales) is
necessary for safety. To build on
Porsche’s example, if an ESC system
uses a two-part telltale that illuminates
both parts to convey the ‘‘ESC Off’’
message, but does not override the
driver’s ‘‘Off’’ command if a
malfunction occurs while ESC is
disabled, the telltale would simply
continue to display ‘‘ESC Off,’’ which
would indicate to the driver that ESC
functionality is reduced. Because the
final rule requires ESC to return to ‘‘on’’
with each ignition cycle, the ‘‘Off’’
telltale must be extinguished, and the
malfunction telltale can simply be
illuminated at that point. We believe
that this would not present significant
safety problems, since the driver would
still be notified promptly upon
restarting the engine that the ESC
malfunction exists. There would be no
period in which the two-part telltale
failed to convey the basic message that
ESC functionality was reduced or
eliminated.
Implementing this change necessitates
revision of paragraph S5.3.3 to clarify
that when an ESC system uses a twopart telltale, the malfunction telltale
need not illuminate if the ‘‘Off’’ telltale
is illuminated. We are revising S5.3.3
accordingly.
However, we are denying the request
to add a footnote to Table 1 of FMVSS
No. 101 stating that a two-part ESC Off
telltale is acceptable if the parts are
simply configured as described. We do
not believe that further clarification is
necessary beyond what is already
provided here.
Additionally, we are denying
Porsche’s request to add a footnote to
Table 1 stating that the ‘‘ESC Off’’
telltale is mandatory only when the
system is manually disabled by the
driver. S5.4.3 of FMVSS No. 126
requires that the ESC Off telltale
indicate the status of the ESC system
when certain controls other than the
manual ESC Off control have the
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:19 Sep 19, 2008
Jkt 214001
ancillary effect of turning ESC off. The
suggested footnote would conflict with
this requirement.
2. Inclusion of ESC-Related Systems in
ESC Malfunction Telltale Operational
Requirements
In the preamble to the ESC final rule,
NHTSA agreed with commenters that a
single malfunction telltale that relates
generally to vehicle stability systems
would be sufficiently informative for
drivers, and would be effective in
conveying the message that a
malfunction has occurred which may
require diagnosis and service by a repair
facility. Thus, NHTSA included a
footnote for Table 1 of FMVSS No. 101
stating, as regards the ESC malfunction
telltale, that ‘‘This symbol may also be
used to indicate the malfunction of
related systems/function including
traction control, trailer stability assist,
corner brake control, and other similar
functions that use throttle and/or
individual torque control to operate and
share common components with the
ESC system.’’
The Alliance/AIAM petitioned
NHTSA to revise paragraphs S5.3.3 and
S5.3.8 of FMVSS No. 126 to clarify that
the ESC malfunction telltale may be
illuminated to indicate a malfunction of
related systems, and also may flash to
indicate operation of a related system.
Petitioners expressed concern that the
omission of this clarification might
create an inconsistency with FMVSS
No. 101.
Agency response: We are granting this
petition in part. We agree that it would
improve FMVSS No. 126’s clarity to
amend the regulatory text to specify that
related systems may use the ESC
malfunction telltale and that the ESC
malfunction telltale may flash to
indicate operation of a related system.
Instead of revising S5.3.3 and S5.3.8 as
suggested by the Alliance/AIAM
petition, we are revising S5.3.3 slightly,
and are adding a new S5.3.10 to address
these issues. S5.3.10 will state:
Manufacturers may use the ESC
malfunction telltale in a steady burning mode
to indicate malfunctions of ESC-related
systems/functions including traction control,
trailer stability assist, corner brake control,
and other similar functions that use throttle
and/or individual wheel torque control to
operate and share common components with
the ESC system, and they may use the ESC
malfunction telltale in a flashing mode to
indicate operation of these ESC-related
systems.
We believe this addition will address
the Alliance/AIAM’s concerns.
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
54529
3. Compliance Dates for Telltale
Requirements
The final rule allowed manufacturers
greater lead time to standardize the
presentation of ESC controls and
displays, deferring many of these
requirements until the end of the phasein, i.e., September 1, 2011. This was
because NHTSA wanted to achieve the
safety benefits of equipping vehicles
with ESC as quickly as possible.
Although the agency perceived certain
advantages to standardizing controls
and displays, it was not practicable to
implement those changes in keeping
with the accelerated phase-in schedule.
Thus, many of the provisions of the
final rule concerning controls and
displays contain the phrase ‘‘as of
September 1, 2011.’’ 12
The Alliance/AIAM petitioned
NHTSA to include the phrase ‘‘as of
September 1, 2011’’ in paragraphs
S5.3.3 and S5.4.3 as well, since those
paragraphs also concern controls and
displays. Petitioners stated that
‘‘Requiring manufacturers to meet the
provisions of S5.3.3 and S5.4.3 [in
keeping with the phase-in] will
preclude the accrual of credits and
prevent manufacturers from meeting the
accelerated phase-in schedule specified
in the final rule.’’
The Alliance/AIAM petition also
requested that NHTSA clarify that the
changes made to FMVSS No. 101 by the
ESC final rule would also be mandatory
at the same time as the controls and
displays requirements in FMVSS No.
126, by changing the mandatory
compliance date for the FMVSS No. 101
provisions in the final rule to September
1, 2011.
Agency response: The petition to add
the compliance date to S5.3.3 and S5.4.3
of FMVSS No. 126 is moot, because the
change requested by the Alliance/AIAM
has already been made in a correction
notice published by NHTSA on June 22,
2007.13
We are granting the petition to add
the compliance date to the provisions in
question in FMVSS No. 101. As written,
FMVSS No. 101 could be read to
prohibit controls and displays that
FMVSS No. 126 would allow prior to
September 1, 2011. NHTSA did not
intend this result. Thus, we are adding
‘‘As of September 1, 2011’’ to the
provisions on ESC telltales and
identifiers in S5.5.2, S5.5.5, and Table 1
of FMVSS No. 101.
12 These include paragraphs S5.3.1, S5.3.2,
S5.3.4, S5.4.2, S5.5.2, and S5.5.6.
13 See supra note 5.
E:\FR\FM\22SER1.SGM
22SER1
54530
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 184 / Monday, September 22, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
The Alliance/AIAM offered the
example of a multi-function control that
could be used to turn ESC off or on, but
could also be used to turn traction
control off and to select an ESC
‘‘performance mode.’’ Because such a
control could be seen as neither a
control whose only purpose is to disable
ESC, nor a control for another system
with an ancillary effect, petitioners
requested that the agency clarify that
multi-function controls like the one
described are not prohibited by FMVSS
No. 126. Figure 1 below shows a rotary
multi-function control (this example
was provided in the petition).
Agency response: We are granting the
petition to clarify S5.4.3, although we
note that this question was already
answered in the affirmative in the
agency’s response to the GM request for
interpretation. FMVSS No. 126 does not
prohibit multi-function ESC controls
that combine the control whose only
purpose is to disable the ESC system
with controls used for other purposes.
Paragraph S5.4 specifically allows
controls whose sole purpose is to
disable ESC and establishes various
requirements for them. The only reason
that the standard distinguishes between
these controls used only for disabling
ESC from those used to control systems
with an ancillary effect on ESC is to
express the labeling requirements for
the control symbols. The multi-function
control example presented by the
petition combines several controls in a
single piece of hardware: one control
whose only purpose is to disable ESC,
one unregulated control for the traction
control system, and another control that
places the ESC system in an
intermediate ‘‘sport’’ or ‘‘performance’’
mode.’’
In the rotary multi-function control
example of Figure 1, the function within
the control that disables ESC, because
its only purpose is to disable ESC,
would be required to be identified using
the symbol or text specified in FMVSS
No. 101 for ‘‘ESC Off’’ (effective
September 1, 2011) on or adjacent to
that part of the control. We would not
consider the precise example given by
the Alliance/AIAM petition as satisfying
FMVSS No. 101’s requirement that the
‘‘ESC Off’’ label (‘‘identifier’’) be
adjacent to the control it identifies,
because the telltale lamp is located
between the two.16 However, this
problem could be solved by moving the
lamp to the other side of the label.
FMVSS No. 126 does not specify
requirements for the ‘‘TC off’’ function
in the example, nor for the ‘‘ESC
Performance mode’’ function, unless
that function within the control places
the ESC system in a mode in which it
no longer satisfies the standard’s
performance requirements. If it did, it
would be considered an ‘‘ESC Off’’
control (because it is a control whose
purpose is to place the ESC system in
a mode in which it no longer satisfies
the performance requirements) and
would also have to be labeled
accordingly.
The agency notes that in analyzing the
applicability of the labeling requirement
to the rotary multi-function control
identified by the petition, we
additionally considered other types of
multi-function controls. For example,
we considered toggle buttons which
must be pressed repeatedly in order to
cycle through multiple functions
(including ESC Off), as well as controls
used to navigate through multiple
functions (including ESC Off) displayed
in an information center. Just as for
rotary multi-function controls, these
other multi-function controls must be
labeled with ‘‘ESC Off’’ if they contain
a function whose only purpose is to
disable ESC or place it in a mode in
which it no longer satisfies the
performance requirements. NHTSA
reiterates that ESC Off controls,
regardless of whether they are contained
within a multi-function control, must be
labeled with ‘‘ESC Off.’’ We believe that
this is necessary for the safety of the
driver, and to discourage the driver from
turning ESC off unless it is absolutely
necessary. Unlike rotary controls,
however, with a toggle button or a single
button or switch for an information
center, there is no obvious location for
the ‘‘ESC Off’’ label. In these situations,
we nevertheless require the control to be
labeled with ‘‘ESC Off,’’ even if it also
contains additional labels that the
manufacturer believes are necessary to
identify the other functions it contains.
ebenthall on PROD1PC60 with RULES
14 This question was also raised in a request for
interpretation from Mr. Brian Latouf of General
Motors North America, which the agency answered
on August 29, 2007 (‘‘the GM request for
interpretation’’.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:19 Sep 19, 2008
Jkt 214001
15 Of
paragraphs S5.2.1, S5.2.2, and S5.2.3.
No. 101, S4 Definitions, defines
‘‘Adjacent’’ as ‘‘with respect to a control, telltale or
indicator, and its identifier * * * (a) The identifier
is in close proximity to the control, telltale or
16 FMVSS
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
indicator; and (b) No other control, telltale,
indicator, identifier or source of illumination
appears between the identifier and the telltale,
indicator, or control that the identifier identifies.’’
E:\FR\FM\22SER1.SGM
22SER1
ER22SE08.005</GPH>
The Alliance/AIAM petitioned for
clarification of paragraphs S5.4.2 and
S5.4.3 regarding a control switch or
button that combines several functions,
which we will call a ‘‘multi-function’’
control for simplicity.14 For
background, paragraph S5.4.2 requires
that an ESC control whose only purpose
is to disable the ESC system or place it
in a mode in which it no longer satisfies
the performance requirements 15 be
labeled either with the ESC symbol plus
the word ‘‘Off’’ or the phrase ‘‘ESC Off.’’
The ‘‘ESC Off’’ telltale must also
illuminate when ESC is in a state in
which it no longer satisfies the
performance requirements. Paragraph
S5.4.3 creates an exception for a control
primarily for another function, such as
a four-wheel drive low-range transfer
case, that does not specifically control
the ESC system directly, but has the
ancillary effect of turning off ESC in low
range. Such a control need not be
labeled an ‘‘ESC Off’’ control, but the
‘‘ESC Off’’ telltale must still illuminate
if ESC is put in a state in which it no
longer satisfies the performance
requirements.
B. Multi-Function ESC Controls
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 184 / Monday, September 22, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
ebenthall on PROD1PC60 with RULES
The Alliance/AIAM also petitioned
NHTSA to remove the word ‘‘only’’
from S5.4 and S5.4.2 of the regulatory
text in order to allow multi-function
controls. The agency is denying this
aspect of the petition. S5.4 and S5.4.2
simply permit ESC Off controls and
require them to be labeled with ‘‘ESC
Off.’’ Paragraph S5.4 has been amended
to state that ‘‘ESC Off’’ controls may be
included in multi-function controls.
Therefore, we do not believe that
removing the word ‘‘only’’ from the
regulatory text is necessary.
C. ‘‘ESC Off’’ Control Labeling
As explained in this response to
petitions and in the final rule, paragraph
S5.4.2 requires that an ESC control
whose only purpose is to disable the
ESC system or place it in a mode in
which it no longer satisfies the
performance requirements, be labeled
with either the ESC symbol plus the
word ‘‘Off’’ or the phrase ‘‘ESC Off.’’
NHTSA believes that labeling these
controls with ‘‘ESC Off’’ is necessary to
ensure that drivers clearly understand
that they may lose the safety benefits of
ESC by using this control.
The Alliance/AIAM petitioned
NHTSA to change the control labeling
requirements in the final rule to require
simply the label ‘‘ESC’’ rather than the
label ‘‘ESC Off.’’ Petitioners argued that
requiring the word ‘‘Off’’ on even
dedicated controls ‘‘will result in
customer confusion and
dissatisfaction.’’ Petitioners also
asserted that ‘‘labeling a control with
’Off’ is unprecedented and inconsistent
with the way that similar controls are
handled in various Federal Motor
Vehicle Safety Standards.’’ Therefore,
they requested that the relevant
provisions and table sections in FMVSS
No. 101 and FMVSS No. 126 be revised
to make the current ESC malfunction
symbol (that is, the ESC symbol alone or
the letters ‘‘ESC’’ alone) also the
identifier for a control to be called the
‘‘ESC control’’ that could turn ESC off
as one of its functions. The changes
would retain the current ESC Off
symbol as an identifier for the ‘‘ESC
Off’’ telltale, but not for the control.
Agency response: We are denying this
petition, because as expressed
repeatedly, we believe that labeling a
control that disables ESC with ‘‘ESC
Off’’ is beneficial for safety and for
driver comprehension. The final rule
permitted ESC to be turned off by the
driver only because there are rare
circumstances in which turning ESC off
could be advantageous. It did not
require manufacturers to include an ESC
Off control. NHTSA’s primary concern
in the final rule was to minimize the
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:19 Sep 19, 2008
Jkt 214001
possibility of a driver turning ESC off
accidentally, or being otherwise unsure
of the ESC system’s status. The control
was required to be labeled ‘‘ESC Off’’ to
discourage drivers from touching the
control unless they truly wanted to
disable the system. NHTSA remains
concerned that using simply the ESC
symbol or letters ‘‘ESC’’ for these
controls could lead drivers to think they
had to use the control to select ESC
operation, when they would almost
always be safer not touching the control
at all.
The Alliance/AIAM petition offered
no new evidence that the current
requirements for labeling the ESC Off
control are in any way more confusing
or less effective in fulfilling the agency’s
goal of discouraging drivers from
casually or unintentionally disabling
ESC than their suggested alternatives.
Consequently, we are denying this
petition.
D. Disconnection of the Optional ‘‘ESC
Off’’ Control
In the final rule, NHTSA stated that
although it would consider a
disconnection of the ‘‘ESC Off’’ control
to constitute a malfunction suitable for
simulation under the standard, because
it directly impacts ESC operability, until
the end of the phase-in period we would
allow manufacturers to not illuminate
the ESC malfunction telltale for
disconnection of the ‘‘ESC Off’’
control.17 At the time, this was
permitted in order to accommodate the
current lack of standardization of ESC
controls and displays, which would be
resolved by the end of the phase-in
period. The Alliance/AIAM petitioned
NHTSA to clarify that there is no
requirement to illuminate the
malfunction telltale when the ESC
control is disconnected, and in doing so,
to remove the exclusion in S5.3.9 that
states that ‘‘a disconnection of the ‘‘ESC
Off’’ control need not illuminate the
ESC malfunction telltale.’’ S5.3.9
currently reads as follows:
S5.3.9 Prior to September 1, 2011, a
disconnection of the power to the ESC
electronic control unit may be indicated by
the ABS malfunction telltale instead of the
ESC malfunction telltale and a disconnection
of the ‘‘ESC Off’’ control need not illuminate
the ESC malfunction telltale.
The Alliance/AIAM argued that
because S5.3.9 provides an exception
for vehicles built before September 1,
2011, a requirement is implied after that
date. Petitioners further argued that it is
neither necessary nor appropriate to
require the malfunction telltale to
illuminate when the disable control is
17 72
PO 00000
FR 17271 (Apr. 6, 2007).
Frm 00041
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
54531
disconnected, because as a practical
matter, a fault in the optional ESC Off
control will not affect the ability of the
ESC system to function. Thus, the
Alliance/AIAM requested that NHTSA
remove the last clause of S5.3.9, and
simply clarify in the preamble that a
disconnection of the ‘‘ESC Off’’ control
need not illuminate the ESC
malfunction telltale.
Agency response: We are granting this
petition, because it appears that no
vehicles currently have the means to
detect an ESC Off switch disconnection,
and because upon further consideration
we believe that an identical safety level
will be maintained. Generally speaking,
when an ESC Off switch becomes
disconnected, the result will be
equivalent to having no ESC Off control
at all—which would frequently be
preferable from a safety perspective. The
driver would only be aware of the
disconnection if he or she attempted to
use the control to disable ESC and the
‘‘ESC Off’’ telltale did not illuminate.
The only circumstance that NHTSA can
imagine in which a disconnection of the
ESC Off control would be different than
simply not having an ESC Off control
would be if the control became
disconnected after it had been used to
turn off the system, which would affect
the control signal to turn ESC back on
and could thus conceivably create a
safety risk. We believe, however, that
this would be a very rare occurrence.
Moreover, if the switch is disconnected
while the ESC is off, the driver retains
the warning of the status indicator, and
ESC will be automatically restored as
soon as the vehicle is restarted, because
that function is controlled by the ESC’s
electronic control unit, which is not
affected by the switch’s disconnection.
Thus, we clarify that ESC Off switch
disconnections that do not affect ESC
operation other than in the narrow
circumstance described above would
not be considered an ESC system
malfunction severe enough for a telltale
warning. We are revising paragraph
S5.3.9 to remove the text in question.
E. Automatic Return of ESC System to
‘‘On’’ Mode for Each Ignition Cycle
The final rule included an ignition
cycle default requirement in paragraph
S5.4.1, which required the ESC system
to return to a mode that satisfied the
equipment and performance
requirements ‘‘at the initiation of each
new ignition cycle, regardless of what
mode the driver had previously
selected.’’ If the system had multiple
modes that satisfied the requirements,
‘‘the default mode must be the mode
that satisfies the performance
requirements * * * by the greatest
E:\FR\FM\22SER1.SGM
22SER1
ebenthall on PROD1PC60 with RULES
54532
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 184 / Monday, September 22, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
margin.’’ However, the final rule
included an exception for vehicles from
returning to the default mode if the
mode previously selected by the driver
‘‘is specifically for enhanced traction
during low-speed, off-road driving and
is entered by the driver using a
mechanical control that cannot be
automatically reset electrically.’’ This
exception was included in response to
manufacturer comments that certain
low-range, speed-limited 4-wheel drive
modes were accessed via use of a
mechanical lever, and there was no way
to move the lever back automatically to
return to the default mode at the start of
each new ignition cycle. Additionally,
the agency agreed that there could be a
safety risk if, for example, a vehicle in
4-wheel drive driving up a steep hill
suddenly stalled and had to be restarted,
but returned to 2-wheel drive because of
the ignition cycle default requirement
which required that the default mode be
the one that satisfied the performance
requirements by the greatest margin.
The Alliance/AIAM petitioned
NHTSA to change the word
‘‘mechanical’’ in S5.4.1 to ‘‘manual,’’
essentially broadening the exclusion
from the key cycle automatic ESC
reactivation requirement for low-speed
off-road modes that are selected by the
driver using an electronic control.
Petitioners argued that the safety
concerns (i.e., preventing ESC from
reactivating when it could be harmful,
as when the vehicle is stuck in snow or
negotiating rugged or steep terrain)
applied the same for electricallyselected modes as for mechanicallyselected modes. However, petitioners
subsequently submitted revised
recommendations on this issue,
focusing not only on the ‘‘mechanical’’
versus ‘‘manual’’ distinction, but also
more broadly on how the ignition cycle
default requirement should be applied
for maximum safety when a vehicle
offers multiple drive configuration
options (like 2-wheel drive, low-range 4wheel drive, high-range 4-wheel drive
with locked center differential, etc.).
The discussion below addresses the
various aspects of this issue.
Broader exclusion of low-speed offroad modes from ignition cycle
reactivation requirement:
The Alliance/AIAM petitioned for a
broader exception in S5.4.1 for all lowspeed off-road modes, including those
induced by non-mechanical driverselectable controls like touch screens or
push buttons. Petitioners argued that
safety concerns are still relevant for
these modes just as they are for the
agency’s current exclusion for
mechanically-selected low-speed offroad modes. For example, whether a
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:19 Sep 19, 2008
Jkt 214001
vehicle is placed in an alternate mode
mechanically or by pressing a button on
a touch screen, if the mode is used for
driving up steep hills or navigating
rough terrain, requiring it to revert to a
mode inappropriate for those conditions
if the vehicle stalls and must be
restarted could create hazards for the
driver.
Agency response: We are granting this
petition by tying S5.4.1’s exception
directly to the low-range configuration
of 4WD vehicles actually designed for
off-road capability, and defining 4WD
low-range configuration to specify
minimum low-range gear reduction to
assure that the vehicle is limited to lowspeed operation. NHTSA agrees that the
safety issue raised by petitioners is
valid, and believes that the safety
concerns associated with allowing a
vehicle to remain in low-range 4WD
upon restart should be minimized, since
the vehicle will be limited to low
speeds.
‘‘Opposition’’ of S5.2’s two
requirements of stability and
responsiveness and ‘‘by the greatest
margin’’ requirement for different drive
configurations:
The Alliance/AIAM petitioned to
revise the exception language of S5.4.1
that provides that the default mode to
which ESC must return must be ‘‘the
mode that satisfies the performance
requirements of S5.2 by the greatest
margin.’’ Petitioners argued that S5.2’s
two requirements of stability and
responsiveness ‘‘are often in opposition
with each other.’’ This is because
increasing ESC intervention may
increase the compliance margin for the
stability requirement, but also reduce
the margin for responsiveness, while the
opposite will happen when ESC
intervention is decreased, as in the
various ‘‘ESC performance modes’’ that
petitioners offer on their vehicles.
Petitioners had no specific request on
this issue, but appear to have
incorporated this concern into other
requests for changes to regulatory text.
Also on the issue of the S5.2 reference
in S5.4.1, the Alliance/AIAM requested
that the agency not require vehicles in
high-range 4WD locked-differential
modes to return automatically to the
ESC mode with the greatest margin of
compliance with S5.2’s requirements.
Petitioners argued that this requirement
complicates compliance, and thus
potential credit earnings, for vehicles
with a high-range 4WD mode with a
locked center differential, because ESC
algorithms must be adjusted to
accommodate those modes, so that they
intervene differently in those contexts.
Thus, even if the ESC system could
meet S5.2 in these modes, it might not
PO 00000
Frm 00042
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
meet it by the greatest margin as
required by S5.4.1, so it would have to
be shifted back to 2WD.
Petitioners argued that this result is a
problem for several reasons. First, none
of the systems on vehicles with highrange 4WD modes with locked center
differential are currently capable of
automatically switching back to 2WD
mode (and unlocking the center
differential) with the ignition cycle
alone. Second, as for all restarts in a
new drive configuration mode, it can
conceivably create a safety hazard or
severe inconvenience for the driver—a
vehicle in 4WD may stall in mud or
snow and end up deeply dug in before
the driver realizes that it restarted in
2WD. And third, as addressed in the
final rule, vehicles that use mechanical
controls to access the high-range 4WD
mode with locked center differential
have no practical way of reverting
automatically to 2WD at a new ignition
cycle.
Agency response: We are granting
these requests by revising S5.4.1’s
default mode requirement to refer to
ESC modes within the same drive
configuration mode, and by removing
the ‘‘by the greatest margin’’
requirement. Unlike in the case of lowrange 4WD with a locked center
differential, ESC continues to operate in
the corresponding high-range mode.
However, because 4WD vehicles are not
designed to be driven on dry pavement
with a locked center differential,18 there
is little information about their results
in the FMVSS No. 126 performance test,
which is conducted on dry pavement. It
is possible that vehicles may pass the
test in 4WD with a locked center
differential, but the test is much more
representative of what the vehicle
encounters when operated in 2WD
mode. If the vehicle does not pass the
test in 4WD with a locked center
differential, it would be required to
18 By way of background, high-range 4WD with
locked center differential is designed for driving in
snow or on unpaved roads, where there is no
particular need to drive slowly, so it is not speedlimited by low gear ratios. ‘‘Locked center
differential’’ means that the drive gears at the front
and rear axles are locked together, so they do not
move independently like they ordinarily would.
With a locked center differential, tires that would
have no traction (when, for example, passing over
an ice patch) are able to ‘‘slip’’ due to the locked
axles and continue moving, so the vehicle avoids
getting stuck. Tire slippage can be helpful when a
driver is negotiating slippery surfaces like packed
snow, but it creates large forces and causes rapid
tire wear when the tires are forced to slip on dry
pavement, because the axles are essentially fighting
one another. Thus, vehicles are capable of driving
on regular dry pavement in high-range 4WD with
locked center differential, but the driver would
probably not want to remain in that mode for long.
E:\FR\FM\22SER1.SGM
22SER1
ebenthall on PROD1PC60 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 184 / Monday, September 22, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
revert automatically to 2WD mode at a
new ignition cycle.
However, NHTSA realizes that this
result would not be beneficial in some
of the situations described by
petitioners, such as when the vehicle is
operating in loose sand or snow and
could get dug in by restarting in 2WD.
Additionally, we realize that vehicles
with mechanical controls cannot
automatically revert to another mode
when the ignition is cycled. It was not
the agency’s intent to require these
results. Moreover, as a practical matter,
the ESC performance test is conducted
with the vehicle coasting, so a locked
center differential will cause
considerable longitudinal wheel slip
and slow the vehicle quickly during the
test, aiding its stability. For these
reasons, NHTSA is revising S5.4.1’s
default mode requirement to refer to
ESC modes within the same drive
configuration mode.
However, because ESC can remain
operative in high-range 4WD with
locked center differential, and may be
able to meet FMVSS No. 126’s stability
performance requirements, we are
specifying that a vehicle in high-range
4WD with locked center differential
need not revert to 2WD with the next
ignition cycle if it can meet the stability
performance requirements of S5.2.1 and
S5.2.2. As stated, locking the vehicle’s
center differential will likely result in
increased understeer. This will have the
inherent effect of improving lateral
stability, but at the expense of some
responsiveness degradation. However,
in the driving situations appropriate for
use of the high-range 4-wheel drive
configuration with locked center
differential mode (i.e., snow- or icecovered roads, or on unpaved roads), we
believe the benefits of improved lateral
stability outweigh the ancillary effect of
reduced responsiveness. Therefore, for
vehicles placed in a high-range 4WD
with locked center differential mode, we
are only requiring the ESC system to
revert at each ignition cycle to a mode
that can meet the stability performance
requirements. We believe that this
solution resolves petitioners’ concerns
about vehicles not being able to meet
both stability and responsiveness
requirements in high-range 4WD with
locked center differential.
Additionally, we are removing the
sentence at the end of S5.4.1 that
includes the ‘‘by the greatest margin’’
language, and are instead specifying that
the default mode must be the
‘‘manufacturer’s original’’ default mode.
The ‘‘by the greatest margin’’ language
was originally included in FMVSS No.
126 to ensure that the ignition cycle
default mode was always the mode that
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:19 Sep 19, 2008
Jkt 214001
provided the maximum level of safety,
particularly if the ESC system included
modes that were more ‘‘sporty’’ and had
a lower compliance margin, even if they
met the performance requirements.
However, upon further consideration,
the agency believes it is highly unlikely
that manufacturers would choose to
offer ESC systems with default modes
that were not the modes with the
highest compliance margins. Therefore,
we are simply requiring that vehicles
return to the manufacturer’s original
default mode at the next ignition cycle.
By ‘‘manufacturer’s original default
mode,’’ the agency means the basic ESC
mode for the drive configuration, that is
not a driver-selectable mode, that meets
the final rule’s performance
requirements (or in the case of highrange 4WD with locked center
differential, that meets the stability
performance requirements).
Request to allow technical
documentation in lieu of meeting
performance requirements:
In their revised recommendations the
Alliance/AIAM also argued that ESC
modes induced by selecting high-range
4WD with locked center differential
should not be required to satisfy S5.1
and S5.2 at the next ignition cycle as
called for by S5.4.1. Petitioners
requested that NHTSA instead require
manufacturers to document, per the
‘‘ESC System Technical
Documentation’’ provision of S5.6, that
a control algorithm appropriate to highrange 4WD operation with a locked
center differential is operational above
20 km/h in that drive configuration.
With such documentation, the vehicle
would not be required to change ESC
modes or drive configuration at the
initiation of a new ignition cycle.
Agency response: We are denying this
request. The situation presented by
high-range 4WD with locked center
differential is not suited to a
documentation solution in the way that
understeer mitigation is, which is what
S5.6 was intended to address. Unlike
understeer mitigation, it is possible to
perform the test established by the
standard even with the vehicle in highrange 4WD with locked center
differential, and the test procedure
should still be useful to demonstrate
objectively that ESC remains functional
in this drive configuration without the
need to rely on documentation, as
discussed above. The agency notes that
a docket submission by Chrysler on
September 26, 2007 supports the idea
that ESC modes available with a locked
center differential should be expected to
satisfy the stability criteria (S5.2.1 and
PO 00000
Frm 00043
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
54533
S5.2.2) of the ESC test used in FMVSS
No. 126.19
We do not expect that vehicles tested
with a locked center differential will
meet the responsiveness criterion
(S5.2.3) in a similar manner. However,
responsiveness on a high coefficient of
friction surface in a mode with the
center differential locked is not relevant
to evaluating the operation of ESC. Any
lack of responsiveness in the test would
not be the result of ESC operation, but
rather the consequence of the front and
rear drive axles creating high opposing
forces, which cannot be resolved by tire
slippage on dry pavement the way they
would be on a surface like packed snow.
As discussed above, the agency believes
that in the case of vehicles in high-range
4WD with locked center differential,
which are used primarily for safe
handling on slippery surfaces like
packed snow and dirt, vehicle stability
is a more important property to
demonstrate than vehicle
responsiveness. Thus, manufacturers
would have no obligation to ensure that
vehicles in this drive configuration
could meet S5.2.3.
Whether the ‘‘ESC Off’’ indicator must
be illuminated for driver selection of
alternate operating modes:
Finally, on the subject of driverselectable operating modes, the
Alliance/AIAM requested that NHTSA
remove the requirement in S5.4.3 that
the ‘‘ESC Off’’ indicator be illuminated
whenever a driver-selectable operating
mode renders the vehicle incapable of
meeting the performance requirements
of S5.2. Petitioners expressed concern
that, if putting the vehicle in 4WD
illuminates the ESC Off telltale, drivers
might be discouraged from using 4WD
because they might think that ESC is not
working even though it has been
optimized for that mode, or might seek
unnecessary vehicle service for what
appears to be a malfunction in their ESC
system.
Agency response: This issue is
addressed by the agency’s revision of
S5.4.1 to require vehicles in particular
4WD modes to meet only the stability
performance requirements of S5.2.1 and
S5.2.2 and not the responsiveness
requirement of S5.2.3 as well. If the ESC
mode for a high-range 4WD with locked
center differential drive configuration is
capable of satisfying the stability
criteria, it should not be considered as
turning ESC off. Thus, there would be
no reason to illuminate the ESC Off
telltale. NHTSA is revising S5.4.4 and
S5.5.4 to clarify this point.
The table below summarizes the
ignition cycle default requirements for
19 Docket
E:\FR\FM\22SER1.SGM
No. NHTSA–2007–27662–12.
22SER1
54534
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 184 / Monday, September 22, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
manually-activated ESC modes in
different drive configurations and the
required ESC Off telltale response:
SAMPLE OF IGNITION CYCLE DEFAULT REQUIREMENTS OF S5.4.1 WITH TELLTALE STATUS REQUIREMENTS (LIST IS NOT
ALL-INCLUSIVE)
Mode
Meets stability &
responsiveness
requirements
‘‘Off
Telltale’’
status
2WD ..........................
yes ............................
off ............
Performance 1 ..........
yes ............................
off ............
Performance 2 ..........
no ..............................
on ............
AWD/4WD Auto ........
no (neither) ...............
on ............
AWD/4WD Auto ........
on ............
AWD/4WD Auto ........
no (stability—yes) (responsiveness—no).
yes ............................
Locked ......................
no (neither) ...............
on ............
Locked ......................
no (stability—yes) (responsiveness—no).
yes (both) ..................
off ............
no ..............................
no ..............................
on ............
on ............
Drive configuration
2WD (3 selections
avail.).
AWD/4WD Auto (1 selection avail.).
4WD Hi Locked (1 selection avail.).
Locked ......................
ebenthall on PROD1PC60 with RULES
4WD Low ....................
Any Above ..................
Low ...........................
‘‘ESC OFF’’ Control
activated.
F. Low-Speed Threshold for ESC
Operation
The final rule, in both the paragraph
S4 definition of an ESC system and in
paragraph S5.1.2 as part of the
equipment requirements, requires ESC
to operate at all speeds above 15 km/h
(9.3 mph). NHTSA included a lowspeed threshold for ESC operation as a
result of comments to the NPRM. 15
km/h (9.3 mph) was chosen largely
because that speed was the typical
threshold for ABS operation, and ABS
shares a number of components with
ESC.20
The Alliance and AIAM petitioned
the agency to remove the low-speed
threshold in the ESC system definition
of paragraph S4, and to allow the
manufacturer to determine the lowspeed threshold and initialization
period and conditions until the end of
the phase-in period in paragraph S5.1.2.
The Alliance/AIAM argued that ‘‘Many
current vehicles have a design cut-off
threshold speed higher than the 15 km/
h (9.3 mph) specified in FMVSS 126,’’
and that the different initialization
periods required by different ESC
systems may result in some systems not
working until the vehicle has reached
32 km/h (20 mph).21 Petitioners further
argued that the 15 km/h (9.3 mph) lowspeed threshold would interfere with
20 Id.,
at 17264.
petition at 5.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:19 Sep 19, 2008
off ............
at 6.
23 Docket
Jkt 214001
off ............
2WD default meets stability and responsiveness requirements.
2WD default meets stability and responsiveness requirements.
2WD default meets stability and responsiveness requirements.
Default to some mode that meets stability
and responsiveness requirements.
Default to some mode that meets stability
and responsiveness requirements.
Default to some mode that meets stability
and responsiveness requirements.
Default to some mode that meets stability
requirements.
Default to some mode that meets stability
requirements.
Default to some mode that meets stability
requirements.
Normal low ...................................................
Default to applicable mode within existing
drive configuration that meets appropriate
performance requirements.
manufacturers’ ability to accrue carryforward and phase-in credits.22
In a supplemental document to its
petition for reconsideration, the
Alliance/AIAM requested a specific
low-speed threshold of 20 km/h (12.4
mph), but also that the agency still
allow the manufacturer to determine the
initialization period and conditions
before the end of the phase-in period in
S5.1.2.23 The petitioners stated that they
had conducted additional research, and
determined that their ‘‘member
vehicles’’ could manage this revised
low-speed threshold recommendation.
Agency response: We are granting this
petition in part, although we are not
adopting the exact language offered by
the Alliance/AIAM. Regarding the lowspeed threshold, the original proposed
language of S4 as contained in the
NPRM stated that ESC must be
operational ‘‘over the full speed range of
the vehicle (except below a low-speed
threshold where loss of control is
unlikely).’’ As stated above, NHTSA
included a specific speed designation
for the low-speed threshold in the final
rule in response to comments, but our
goal has always been to avoid requiring
ESC to operate at speeds below which
loss of control is not a significant
concern. NHTSA agrees that a lowspeed threshold of 20 km/h (12.4 mph),
22 Id.
21 Alliance
ESC default setting (ignition cycle)
PO 00000
No. NHTSA–2007–27662–10, at 8.
Frm 00044
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
‘‘Off
Telltale’’
status
off.
off.
off.
off.
off.
off.
off.
off.
off.
on.
off.
consistent with the apparent capabilities
of most of the existing ESC-equipped
fleet, constitutes a limit for ESC
operation below which loss of control is
unlikely. Thus, the low-speed threshold
is revised accordingly in S4 and S5.1.2
of the regulatory text.
Additionally, the Alliance/AIAM
petition requested that NHTSA allow
manufacturers to determine their own
initialization periods until the end of
the phase-in period. NHTSA is denying
this petition because we are revising S4
and S5.1.2 to clarify that ESC need not
be operational during system
initialization. This point was already
made in our letter of interpretation to
GM, but we believe that this minor
clarification should also be made to the
regulatory text to avoid any further
confusion.
G. Fault Detection and Cancellation
Test Procedures
The need of the ESC system to
initialize affects provisions of FMVSS
No. 126 in addition to the definition of
ESC system in S4 and the description of
the required equipment in S5.1.2. For
example, if the system has not
completed initialization and is not yet
operational, it likely cannot detect
malfunctions in the system—a problem
which relates to the requirements for
ESC malfunction telltales and for their
testing. Paragraph S5.3 establishes the
requirement for a malfunction telltale
E:\FR\FM\22SER1.SGM
22SER1
ebenthall on PROD1PC60 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 184 / Monday, September 22, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
for ESC systems and specifies a number
of attributes for the telltale. Paragraph
S7.10 of the standard sets forth a test
procedure for the malfunction telltale,
and S7.10.2 accounts for the need for
the vehicle to be driven for up to two
minutes to allow the ESC system to
initialize and conduct diagnostics in
order for it to be able to detect a
malfunction.
The Alliance/AIAM petition asked the
agency to clarify that the initialization
procedure necessary for the system to
find a malfunction and illuminate the
telltale (in S7.10.2) is also applied to the
vehicle when the telltale is tested for
extinguishment after the fault is
corrected (S7.10.4).24 Petitioners further
requested that the ESC malfunction
telltale test procedure be referenced in
S5.3 to assure that the test procedures
are reflected in the ESC malfunction
requirements section of the standard.
Additionally, petitioners argued that
most current ESC systems require a
brake application in order to detect
some ESC system malfunctions, and
petitioned the agency to include a
requirement for a brake application in
the initialization procedure.
Agency response: We are granting
these requests. As discussed above, the
agency did not intend to require ESC to
operate when it is still initializing. For
a system that needs to initialize before
it can discover a malfunction and
illuminate the malfunction telltale, like
the majority of the ESC systems
currently on the market, the system
cannot discover that the malfunction is
no longer present and extinguish the
telltale without completing the same
initialization procedure. Therefore, the
agency is including the same
initialization procedure in S7.10.4 as is
already specified in S7.10.2. Similarly,
to clarify that the vehicle must be
initialized before testing begins, we are
including the same initialization
procedure in S6.3.1, as part of the test
conditions. Additionally, after
considering the petitions, we consider
the inclusion of a brake application in
the initialization procedure
requirements to be a very minor
amendment. We are revising the
regulatory text to reflect these changes.
In considering these requests, the
agency also noted that S7.10.3 of the
ESC malfunction detection procedure
requires that the telltale illuminate
immediately when the engine is
restarted following an ignition cycle in
which a malfunction was detected. In
other words, the ESC system must hold
the existence of a malfunction in
24 This point was also answered in the GM letter
of interpretation.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:19 Sep 19, 2008
Jkt 214001
memory, rather than rediscovering it
with the new ignition cycle. Some ESC
systems currently on the market must
initialize before they can identify some
specific types of malfunctions, which
means that they are unable to hold the
existence of a malfunction in memory.
For these systems, we recognize that
this requirement simply cannot be met,
although it may be possible for other
ESC systems that do not need to
initialize to recognize a malfunction. In
order to be consistent with the other
provisions of S7.10, the agency is
making S7.10.3 effective at the end of
the phase-in, and will revise the
regulatory text accordingly. However,
we note that after the phase-in, all ESC
systems must be able to hold
malfunctions in memory and illuminate
the malfunction telltale immediately
upon engine restart if the malfunction
still exists.
H. Effective Dates for Amended
Procedures and Requirements
The Alliance/AIAM petitioned that
the revisions they requested to the final
rule be made retroactive to June 5, 2007
(the effective date of the final rule), so
that carry-forward credits for complying
vehicles built after that date could be
used by manufacturers in satisfying the
phase-in schedule for that standard.
Agency response: We are granting this
petition, to the extent to which we are
making the revisions requested in the
petition. In the April 2007 final rule,
NHTSA provided that manufacturers
may earn credits for vehicles
manufactured on or after June 5, 2007,
that comply with the new ESC standard.
In today’s final rule, we are making a
number of minor amendments to that
standard, many of which are of a
clarifying nature and none of which
affect safety benefits.
Given our decision in the April 2007
final rule to permit manufacturers to
earn credits for complying vehicles
manufactured on or after June 5, 2007
and given the minor nature of today’s
amendments, it is our position that
manufacturers may earn credits for
vehicles manufactured on or after that
date if the vehicles comply with the
standard as amended by today’s rule.
We believe it is sufficient to make that
point in this preamble.
We are making this final rule effective
30 days after publication. The
amendments do not impose new
requirements but instead provide
clarification and additional flexibility in
appropriate areas. We accordingly find
good cause for making the rule effective
in this timeframe.
PO 00000
Frm 00045
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
54535
I. Inclusion of Roll Stability Control in
the Scope of the Final Rule
AAJ petitioned NHTSA to reconsider
its decision not to address the need for
roll stability control in the final rule. It
argued that the agency’s statement in
the final rule that ‘‘There is currently an
insufficient body of data to judge the
efficacy of [these] systems’’ 25 was
incorrect, because ‘‘the agency may be
able to obtain the appropriate
information through its authority to
institute a rulemaking or to issue a
subpoena.’’ 26 It also argued that if
NHTSA declines to reconsider the final
ESC rule on this basis, ‘‘the agency must
establish a rulemaking to address RSC
immediately,’’ because doing so ‘‘would
develop the statistics to demonstrate the
efficacy of such systems.’’ 27
Agency response: We are denying this
petition. While we may consider
establishing requirements for roll
stability control in the future, we
reiterate that insufficient data currently
exists for the agency to establish such
requirements as part of FMVSS No. 126,
as we discussed at length in the final
rule.28 In explaining the basis of our
decision, we will first explain the
difference between the yaw stability
control that ESC produces and roll
stability control, and then explain
briefly why we did not include roll
stability control as part of the ESC final
rule.
‘‘Yaw stability control’’ is the
technical term for the action of ESC
which keeps the vehicle pointed in the
direction the driver is steering through
the automatic reduction of engine power
and automatic application of braking at
individual wheels to turn the vehicle, in
order to help drivers avoid imminent
loss-of-control situations.29 ‘‘Roll
stability control,’’ in contrast, prevents
vehicle tip-up by sensing the vehicle’s
body roll angle and applying a high
brake force to the outside front wheel to
straighten the vehicle’s path and reduce
lateral acceleration if the roll angle
indicates probable tip-up. Put
differently, yaw stability control is
based on the vehicle’s sensing loss of
control on the horizontal plane, and roll
stability control is based on the
vehicle’s sensing loss of control on the
vertical plane, although both use brake
forces at individual wheels to make the
path correction. Additionally, yaw
25 72
FR 17236, 17239 (Apr. 6, 2007).
petition at 1, available at Docket No.
NHTSA–2007–27662, item 6.
27 Id. at 2.
28 See 72 FR 17236 at 17253, 17258 (Apr. 6,
2007).
29 The final rule contains a much more thorough
description of how ESC uses yaw stability control.
See id. at 17243–44 (Apr. 6, 2007).
26 AAJ
E:\FR\FM\22SER1.SGM
22SER1
54536
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 184 / Monday, September 22, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
ebenthall on PROD1PC60 with RULES
stability control must be temporarily
overridden to allow roll stability control
to change the path of the vehicle to
reduce lateral acceleration.
NHTSA did not include requirements
for roll stability control in the final rule
for several reasons. First, roll stability
control involved relatively new
technology, and none of the vehicles
examined in NHTSA’s crash data study
which proved the substantial safety
benefits of yaw stability control also had
roll stability control. We do not
currently have sufficient information on
the effectiveness of roll stability control
as a safety technology to include it as
part of this safety standard. Moreover,
because roll stability control in theory
functions by temporarily disabling yaw
stability control, NHTSA cannot judge
its overall effect without real-world
crash data.
Our highest priority is ensuring that
the ESC systems required by FMVSS
No. 126 are present on all vehicles as
soon as possible. Just because the final
rule did not include roll stability control
as part of FMVSS No. 126, however,
does not mean that the agency does not
acknowledge that the technology may
eventually demonstrate safety benefits.
We stated in the final rule that ‘‘The
agency will track the rollover rate of
vehicles equipped with roll stability
control through analysis of Stategenerated crash data and evaluate its
effectiveness once a sufficient sample
size becomes available (i.e.,
approximately three to four years).’’ 30
Further, FMVSS No. 126 does not
preclude manufacturers from equipping
vehicles with roll stability control.
Finally, we are denying AAJ’s request
that ‘‘the agency * * * establish a
rulemaking to address [roll stability
control] immediately’’ if it denies the
petition for reconsideration. As
discussed above, NHTSA will continue
monitoring roll stability control as a
safety technology. We are undertaking
our own research on RSC, and are
collecting comparative crash data on
RSC-equipped vehicles from the states.
We will consider initiating rulemaking
as we gather more information regarding
its practicability and the safety benefits
that it provides. As the final rule stated,
* * * because our data study showed yaw
stability control reducing rollovers of SUVs
by 84% by reducing and mitigating road
departures, and because on-road untripped
rollovers are much less common events, the
target population of crashes that roll stability
control could possibly prevent may be very
small. If and when roll stability control can
be shown to be cost-effective, then it could
30 72
FR 17236, 17258 (Apr. 6, 2007).
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:19 Sep 19, 2008
Jkt 214001
be a candidate for inclusion in the standard
in subsequent rulemaking.31
AAJ provided no additional facts or
information in its petition for
reconsideration/rulemaking that
contributes to the agency’s
understanding of whether a roll stability
control safety standard is necessary or
helpful at this time, or whether
requiring manufacturers to provide the
information on roll stability control that
AAJ suggests would, in fact, be
necessary or helpful. Therefore, we are
denying its request.
J. NHTSA’s Discussion of Implied
Preemption
AAJ objected to the agency’s general
statement in the final rule preamble
that, in Geier v. American Honda Motor
Co., the Supreme Court recognized the
possibility that state tort law can create
an obstacle to a NHTSA safety standard
and could therefore be impliedly
preempted. AAJ interpreted that
statement as a claim by the agency that
the ESC rule itself impliedly preempts
state tort law and requested that the
agency eliminate that statement. (Since
the agency cannot ‘‘eliminate’’ a
discussion in the preamble of an already
published final rule, we assume that
AAJ is asking that the agency ‘‘disavow’’
the discussion.) AAJ argued that ‘‘Geier
is an unusual, fact-driven case which
cannot be used to establish preemption
of state tort law for all NHTSA motor
vehicle safety rules.’’ Based on its view
that the agency had made a claim of
preemption, AAJ further argued that,
under the Administrative Procedure
Act, ‘‘any claim of conflict preemption
must be preceded by notice and
comment as to whether a direct conflict
exists between state law and the
electronic stability control rule.’’
Agency response: The agency does not
consider this portion of AAJ’s
submission to be a petition for
reconsideration, as NHTSA’s
preemption discussion is not a rule.32
Accordingly, we are treating this portion
as a simple request to disavow the
discussion in the final rule preamble.
We provided the general discussion of
implied preemption and Geier in
accordance with the directive of
Executive Order 13132, Federalism, for
agencies to analyze the federalism
31 72
FR 17236, 17258 (Apr. 6, 2007).
49 CFR § 553.35, ‘‘Petitions for
Reconsideration,’’ paragraph (a), which states that
‘‘Any interested person may petition the
Administrator for reconsideration of any rule issued
under this part. * * * The petition must contain a
brief statement of the compliant and an explanation
as to why compliance with the rule is not
practicable, is unreasonable, or is not in the public
interest.’’ (Emphasis added.)
32 See
PO 00000
Frm 00046
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
implications of their rulemakings. In
that discussion, the agency explained
that NHTSA’s safety standards can
preempt state laws in at least two ways:
Either expressly, through the express
preemption provision of the Vehicle
Safety Act, or impliedly, if State
requirements create a conflict and thus
stand as an obstacle to the
accomplishment and execution of a
NHTSA safety standard.33 Per the
Order, we considered the nature of the
ESC standard and its objectives and
whether there might be specific
conflicts between the standard and
anticipated State tort law. We did not
detect any conflicts.34 Without a
conflict, there is no implied preemption.
However, we could not then, and cannot
now, completely rule out the possibility
that such a conflict might become
apparent in the future through
subsequent experience with the
standard. Even if the agency had
identified what it believed to be a
conflict, the issue of whether there was
a conflict and, if so, whether State tort
law action would be impliedly
preempted would ultimately be a matter
for the courts to decide. For the
aforementioned reasons, the agency
declines to remove the Geier language
from its discussion of preemption law.
K. International Harmonization and the
Global Technical Regulation for ESC
The April 2007 final rule described
NHTSA’s intent to begin formal work to
develop a global technical regulation
(GTR) on ESC in that year. Over the
course of several meetings of the United
Nations’ Economic Commission for
Europe (UNECE) World Forum for the
Harmonization of Vehicle Regulations
(WP.29) during 2007 and 2008, the
agency participated in successful efforts
that culminated in the establishment of
the ESC GTR under the 1998 Global
Agreement.35 The U.S., as a Contracting
Party of the 1998 Agreement that voted
in favor of establishing this GTR, is
obligated under the Agreement to
initiate the process for adopting the
provisions of the GTR.36 The issuance of
this response to petitions for
reconsideration fulfills the obligation of
33 See the ‘‘Federalism’’ discussion at 72 FR
17300–01 (Apr. 6, 2007).
34 Id.
35 Although commonly referred to as the 1998
Global Agreement, this provision is more formally
titled the ‘‘1998 Agreement Concerning the
Establishing of Global Technical Regulations for
Wheeled Vehicles, Equipment and Parts which can
be Fitted and/or be Used on Wheeled Vehicles.’’
36 While the 1998 Agreement obligates such
Contracting Parties to initiate rulemaking within
one year of the establishment of the GTR, it leaves
the ultimate decision of whether to adopt the GTR
into their domestic law to the parties themselves.
E:\FR\FM\22SER1.SGM
22SER1
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 184 / Monday, September 22, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
the U.S. to initiate that process. The
regulatory text of the April 2007 final
rule, as amended by this document, is
consistent with that of the GTR.
IV. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
This rule makes several minor
changes to the regulatory text of FMVSS
No. 126, and does not increase the
regulatory burden of manufacturers. The
agency has discussed the relevant
requirements of the Vehicle Safety Act,
Executive Order 12866, the Department
of Transportation’s regulatory policies
and procedures, the Regulatory
Flexibility Act, Executive Order 13132
(Federalism), Executive Order 12988
(Civil Justice Reform), Executive Order
13045 (Protection of Children from
Environmental Health and Safety Risks),
the Paperwork Reduction Act, the
National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act, the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act, and the National
Environmental Policy Act in the April
2007 final rule cited above. Those
discussions are not affected by these
changes.
ebenthall on PROD1PC60 with RULES
Privacy Act
Please note that any one is able to
search the electronic form of all
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:19 Sep 19, 2008
Jkt 214001
documents received into any of our
dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the document (or signing the
document, if submitted on behalf of an
association, business, labor union, etc.).
You may review DOT’s complete
Privacy Act Statement in the Federal
Register published on April 11, 2000
(Volume 65, Number 70; Pages 19477–
78), or you may visit https://
www.dot.gov/privacy.html.
V. Regulatory Text
List of Subjects in 49 CFR Parts 571 and
585
Imports, Motor vehicle safety, Report
and recordkeeping requirements, Tires.
■ In consideration of the foregoing,
NHTSA is amending 49 CFR part 571 as
follows:
PART 571—FEDERAL MOTOR
VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS
1. The authority citation for part 571
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115,
30117, and 30166; delegation of authority at
49 CFR 1.50.
§ 571.101
displays.
Standard No. 101; Controls and
*
*
*
*
*
S5.5.2 The telltales for any brake
system malfunction required by Table 1
to be red, air bag malfunction, low tire
pressure, electronic stability control
malfunction (as of September 1, 2011),
passenger air bag off, high beam, turn
signal, and seat belt must not be shown
in the same common space.
*
*
*
*
*
S5.5.5 In the case of the telltale for a
brake system malfunction, air bag
malfunction, side air bag malfunction,
low tire pressure, electronic stability
control malfunction (as of September 1,
2011), passenger air bag off, high beam,
turn signal, or seat belt that is designed
to display in a common space, that
telltale must displace any other symbol
or message in that common space while
the underlying condition for the
telltale’s activation exists.
*
*
*
*
*
BILLING CODE 4910–59–P
2. In Section 571.101, revise S5.5.2,
S5.5.5, and Table 1 to read as follows:
■
PO 00000
Frm 00047
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
54537
E:\FR\FM\22SER1.SGM
22SER1
VerDate Aug<31>2005
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 184 / Monday, September 22, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
15:19 Sep 19, 2008
Jkt 214001
PO 00000
Frm 00048
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\22SER1.SGM
22SER1
ER22SE08.006</GPH>
ebenthall on PROD1PC60 with RULES
54538
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:19 Sep 19, 2008
Jkt 214001
PO 00000
Frm 00049
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\22SER1.SGM
22SER1
54539
ER22SE08.007</GPH>
ebenthall on PROD1PC60 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 184 / Monday, September 22, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Aug<31>2005
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 184 / Monday, September 22, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
15:19 Sep 19, 2008
Jkt 214001
PO 00000
Frm 00050
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\22SER1.SGM
22SER1
ER22SE08.008</GPH>
ebenthall on PROD1PC60 with RULES
54540
54541
BILLING CODE 4910–59–C
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:19 Sep 19, 2008
Jkt 214001
PO 00000
Frm 00051
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\22SER1.SGM
22SER1
ER22SE08.009</GPH>
ebenthall on PROD1PC60 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 184 / Monday, September 22, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
54542
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 184 / Monday, September 22, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
3. In Section 571.126, revise S4,
S5.1.2, S5.3, S5.3.3, S5.3.9, S5.4, S5.4.1,
S5.4.2, S5.4.3, ,S5.5.1, S5.5.4, S6.3.1,
S7.10.2, S7.10.3, and S7.10.4 to read as
follows; add S5.3.10, S5.4.2, and S5.5.10
to read as follows; and redesignate
S5.4.2 and S5.4.3 to S5.4.3 and S5.4.4,
respectively to read as follows:
■
§ 571.126 Standard No. 126; Electronic
stability control systems
ebenthall on PROD1PC60 with RULES
*
*
*
*
*
S4. Definitions.
Ackerman Steer Angle means the
angle whose tangent is the wheelbase
divided by the radius of the turn at a
very low speed.
Drive configuration means the driverselected, or default, condition for
distributing power from the engine to
the drive wheels (examples include, but
are not limited to, 2-wheel drive, frontwheel drive, rear-wheel drive, all-wheel
drive, 4-wheel drive high gear with
locked differential, and 4-wheel drive
low gear).
Electronic stability control system or
ESC system means a system that has all
of the following attributes:
(1) That augments vehicle directional
stability by applying and adjusting the
vehicle brake torques individually to
induce a correcting yaw moment to a
vehicle;
(2) That is computer-controlled with
the computer using a closed-loop
algorithm to limit vehicle oversteer and
to limit vehicle understeer;
(3) That has a means to determine the
vehicle’s yaw rate and to estimate its
side slip or side slip derivative with
respect to time;
(4) That has a means to monitor driver
steering inputs;
(5) That has an algorithm to determine
the need, and a means to modify engine
torque, as necessary, to assist the driver
in maintaining control of the vehicle;
and
(6) That is operational over the full
speed range of the vehicle (except at
vehicle speeds less than 20 km/h (12.4
mph), when being driven in reverse, or
during system initialization).
Lateral acceleration means the
component of the vector acceleration of
a point in the vehicle perpendicular to
the vehicle’s x-axis (longitudinal) and
parallel to the road plane.
Low-range four-wheel drive
configuration means a drive
configuration that has the effect of
locking the drive gears at the front and
rear axles together and providing an
additional gear reduction between the
engine speed and vehicle speed of at
least 2.0.
Mode means an ESC performance
algorithm, whether driver-selected or
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:19 Sep 19, 2008
Jkt 214001
not (examples include, but are not
limited to, standard (default) mode,
performance mode, snow or slippery
road mode, or Off mode).
Oversteer means a condition in which
the vehicle’s yaw rate is greater than the
yaw rate that would occur at the
vehicle’s speed as a result of the
Ackerman Steer Angle.
Side slip or side slip angle means the
arctangent of the lateral velocity of the
center of gravity of the vehicle divided
by the longitudinal velocity of the
center of gravity.
Understeer means a condition in
which the vehicle’s yaw rate is less than
the yaw rate that would occur at the
vehicle’s speed as a result of the
Ackerman Steer Angle.
Yaw rate means the rate of change of
the vehicle’s heading angle measured in
degrees/second of rotation about a
vertical axis through the vehicle’s center
of gravity.
*
*
*
*
*
S5.1.2 Is operational during all
phases of driving including
acceleration, coasting, and deceleration
(including braking), except when the
driver has disabled ESC, the vehicle
speed is below 20 km/h (12.4 mph), the
vehicle is being driven in reverse, or
during system initialization
*
*
*
*
*
S5.3 ESC Malfunction. The vehicle
must be equipped with a telltale that
provides a warning to the driver of the
occurrence of one or more malfunctions
that affect the generation or
transmission of control or response
signals in the vehicle’s electronic
stability control system. When tested
according to S7.10, the ESC malfunction
telltale:
*
*
*
*
*
S5.3.3 As of September 1, 2011,
except as provided in paragraphs S5.3.4,
S5.3.5, S5.3.8, and S5.3.10, the ESC
malfunction telltale must illuminate
only when a malfunction(s) of the ESC
system exists and must remain
continuously illuminated under the
conditions specified in S5.3 for as long
as the malfunction(s) exists (unless the
‘‘ESC malfunction’’ and ‘‘ESC Off’’
telltales are combined in a two-part
telltale and the ‘‘ESC Off’’ telltale is
illuminated), whenever the ignition
locking system is in the ‘‘On’’ (‘‘Run’’)
position; and
*
*
*
*
*
S5.3.9 Prior to September 1, 2011, a
disconnection of the power to the ESC
electronic control unit may be indicated
by the ABS malfunction telltale instead
of the ESC malfunction telltale.
S5.3.10 Manufacturers may use the
ESC malfunction telltale in a steady-
PO 00000
Frm 00052
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
burning mode to indicate malfunctions
of ESC-related systems and functions
including traction control, trailer
stability assist, corner brake control, and
other similar functions that use throttle
and/or individual wheel torque control
to operate and share common
components with the ESC system, and
may use the ESC malfunction telltale in
a flashing mode to indicate operation of
these ESC-related systems.
S5.4 ESC Off and Other System
Controls. The manufacturer may include
an ‘‘ESC Off’’ control whose only
purpose is to place the ESC system in
a mode or modes in which it will no
longer satisfy the performance
requirements of S5.2.1, S5.2.2, and
S5.2.3. An ‘‘ESC Off’’ control may be
combined with other controls in a
multi-function control. Manufacturers
may also provide controls for other
systems that have an ancillary effect
upon ESC operation. Controls of either
kind that place the ESC system in a
mode in which it will no longer satisfy
the performance requirements of S5.2.1,
S5.2.2, and S5.2.3 are permitted,
provided that:
S5.4.1 The vehicle’s ESC system
must always return to the
manufacturer’s original default ESC
mode that satisfies the requirements of
S5.1 and S5.2 at the initiation of each
new ignition cycle, regardless of what
ESC mode the driver had previously
selected, unless (a) the vehicle is in a
low-range four-wheel drive
configuration selected by the driver on
the previous ignition cycle that is
designed for low-speed, off-road
driving, or (b) the vehicle is in a fourwheel drive configuration selected by
the driver on the previous ignition cycle
that is designed for operation at higher
speeds on snow-, sand-, or dirt-packed
roads and that has the effect of locking
the drive gears at the front and rear
axles together, provided that the vehicle
meets the stability performance
requirements of S5.2.1 and S5.2.2 in this
mode.
S5.4.2 In addition to the
requirements of S5.4.1, if the vehicle’s
ESC system has more than one ESC
mode that satisfies the requirements of
S5.1 and S5.2 within the drive
configuration selected for the previous
ignition cycle, the system must return to
the manufacturer’s original default ESC
mode.
S5.4.3 As of September 1, 2011, a
control whose only purpose is to place
the ESC system in a mode or modes in
which it will no longer satisfy the
performance requirements of S5.2.1,
S5.2.2, and S5.2.3 must be identified by
the symbol shown for ‘‘ESC Off’’ in
Table 1 of Standard No. 101 (49 CFR
E:\FR\FM\22SER1.SGM
22SER1
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 184 / Monday, September 22, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
ebenthall on PROD1PC60 with RULES
571.101), or the text, ‘‘ESC Off’’ as listed
under ‘‘Word(s) or Abbreviations’’ in
Table 1 of Standard No. 101 (49 CFR
571.101).
S5.4.4 A control for another system
that has the ancillary effect of placing
the ESC system in a mode in which it
no longer satisfies the performance
requirements of S5.2.1, S5.2.2, and
S5.2.3 need not be identified by the
‘‘ESC Off’’ identifiers in Table 1 of
Standard No. 101 (49 CFR 571.101), but
the ESC status must be identified by the
‘‘ESC Off’’ telltale in accordance with
S5.5, as of September 1, 2011, except if
the vehicle is in a 4-wheel drive high
gear configuration that has the effect of
locking the drive gears at the front and
rear axles together provided the vehicle
meets the stability performance criteria
of S5.2.1 and S5.2.2.
*
*
*
*
*
S5.5.1 Except as provided in
S5.5.10, the vehicle manufacturer must
provide a telltale indicating that the
vehicle has been put into a mode that
renders it unable to satisfy the
requirements of S5.2.1, S5.2.2 and
S5.2.3, if such a mode is provided.
*
*
*
*
*
S5.5.4 Except as provided in
paragraph S5.4.4, the ‘‘ESC Off’’ telltale
must remain continuously illuminated
for as long as the ESC is in a mode that
renders it unable to satisfy the
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:19 Sep 19, 2008
Jkt 214001
requirements of S5.2.1, S5.2.2, and
S5.2.3, and
*
*
*
*
*
S5.5.10 The ‘‘ESC Off’’ telltale need
not illuminate when the vehicle is in a
4-wheel drive high gear locked
differential configuration that has the
effect of locking the drive gears at the
front and rear axles together provided
the vehicle meets the stability
performance requirements of S5.2.1 and
S5.2.2.
*
*
*
*
*
S6.3.1 The ESC system is enabled
for all testing, except when it is turned
off directly or by simulating a
malfunction in accordance with S7.3
and S7.10, respectively. The ESC system
shall be initialized as follows: Place the
vehicle in a forward gear and obtain a
vehicle speed of 48 ± 8 km/h (30 ± 5
mph). Drive the vehicle for at least two
minutes including at least one left and
one right turning maneuver and at least
one application of the service brake.
*
*
*
*
*
S7.10.2 With the vehicle initially
stationary and the ignition locking
system in the ‘‘Lock’’ or ‘‘Off’’ position,
activate the ignition locking system to
the ‘‘Start’’ position and start the engine.
Place the vehicle in a forward gear and
obtain a vehicle speed of 48 ± 8 km/h
(30 ± 5 mph). Drive the vehicle for at
least two minutes including at least one
left and one right turning maneuver and
at least one application of the service
PO 00000
Frm 00053
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
54543
brake. Verify that within two minutes
after obtaining this vehicle speed the
ESC malfunction indicator illuminates
in accordance with S5.3.
S7.10.3 As of September 1, 2011,
stop the vehicle, deactivate the ignition
locking system to the ‘‘Off’’ or ‘‘Lock’’
position. After a five-minute period,
activate the vehicle’s ignition locking
system to the ‘‘Start’’ position and start
the engine. Verify that the ESC
malfunction indicator again illuminates
to signal a malfunction and remains
illuminated as long as the engine is
running or until the fault is corrected.
S7.10.4 Deactivate the ignition
locking system to the ‘‘Off’’ or ‘‘Lock’’
position. Restore the ESC system to
normal operation, activate the ignition
system to the ‘‘Start’’ position and start
the engine. Place the vehicle in a
forward gear and obtain a vehicle speed
of 48 ± 8 km/h (30 ± 5 mph). Drive the
vehicle for at least two minutes
including at least one left and one right
turning maneuver and at least one
application of the service brake. Verify
that within two minutes after obtaining
this vehicle speed that the ESC
malfunction indicator has extinguished.
*
*
*
*
*
Issued: September 16, 2008.
David Kelly,
Acting Administrator.
[FR Doc. E8–22067 Filed 9–19–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–59–P
E:\FR\FM\22SER1.SGM
22SER1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 184 (Monday, September 22, 2008)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 54526-54543]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-22067]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
49 CFR Part 571
[Docket No. NHTSA-2008-0068]
RIN 2127-AK19
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Electronic Stability
Control Systems; Controls and Displays
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Final rule; response to petitions for reconsideration.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On April 6, 2007, NHTSA published a final rule establishing a
new Federal motor vehicle safety standard requiring light vehicles to
be equipped with electronic stability control systems. The final rule
was established as part of a comprehensive plan for reducing the
serious risk of rollover crashes and the risk of death and serious
injury in those crashes. This document responds to several petitions
for reconsideration of the final rule. After carefully considering the
issues raised, the agency is granting some aspects of the petitions,
and denying some aspects. This document amends the final rule
accordingly. This document also fulfills the obligations of the United
States with respect to initiating rulemaking in order to comply with
the global technical regulation (GTR) for ESC, adopted on June 26,
2008.
DATES: This rule is effective October 22, 2008.
ADDRESSES: Petitions for reconsideration should refer to the docket
number and be submitted to: Administrator, National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building, 4th
Floor, Washington, DC 20590. Note that all documents received will be
posted without change to the docket, including any personal information
provided. Please see the Privacy Act discussion under section IV on
Rulemaking Analyses and Notices below.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical issues, contact
Nathaniel Beuse, Office of Crash Avoidance Standards, by telephone at
(202) 366-4931, or by fax at (202) 366-7002. For legal issues, contact
Rebecca Yoon, Office of the Chief Counsel, by telephone at (202) 366-
2992, or by fax at (202) 366-3820.
Both persons may be reached by mail at the following address:
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Summary of Final Rule; Response to Petitions for Reconsideration
II. Background
A. Benefits of ESC
B. April 2007 Final Rule
C. Summary of Petitions for Reconsideration to the Final Rule
III. Discussion and Analysis of Responses to Petitions for
Reconsideration
A. Telltale Issues
1. Use of a Two-Part ``ESC Off'' Telltale
[[Page 54527]]
2. Inclusion of ESC-Related Systems in ESC Malfunction Telltale
Operational Requirements
3. Compliance Dates for Telltale Requirements
B. Multi-Function ESC Controls
C. ``ESC Off'' Control Labeling
D. Disconnection of the Optional ``ESC Off'' Control
E. Automatic Return of ESC System to ``On'' Mode for Each
Ignition Cycle
F. Low-Speed Threshold for ESC Operation
G. Fault Detection and Cancellation Test Procedures
H. Effective Dates for Amended Procedures and Requirements
I. Inclusion of Roll Stability Control in the Scope of the Final
Rule
J. NHTSA's Rulemaking Analysis on Preemption
K. International Harmonization and the Global Technical
Regulation on ESC
IV. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
V. Regulatory Text
I. Summary of Final Rule; Response to Petitions for Reconsideration
In this document, NHTSA responds to petitions for reconsideration
of its April 2007 final rule concerning electronic stability control
(ESC) systems. That rule established a new Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
Standard (FMVSS) No. 126, Electronic Stability Control Systems, which
sets forth requirements for these systems on new light vehicles, to be
applicable to all light vehicles by September 1, 2011.
We are granting some of the petitions in part. In granting these
petitions, today's final rule makes several changes to the regulatory
text of 49 CFR 571.126, Electronic Stability Control Systems, and of 49
CFR 571.101, Controls and Displays. These are generally minor changes,
all of which are consistent with agency's goal in the original final
rule to encourage rapid installation of this life-saving technology.
Changes to the regulatory text are summarized below.
We are denying a petition from the American Association for Justice
(AAJ) to withdraw preemption language from the regulatory analysis
section of the final rule, and to expand the scope of the final rule to
require roll stability control in addition to ESC.
Summary of Changes
1. In FMVSS No. 101, to avoid confusion regarding the compliance
date for ESC telltale requirements, the agency is adding ``As of
September 1, 2011'' in the relevant places to paragraphs S5.5.2 and
S5.5.5 and Table 1.
2. To clarify that related vehicle systems may use the ESC
malfunction telltale and that the ESC malfunction telltale may flash to
indicate operation of related systems, the agency is slightly revising
S5.3.3 and adding a new S5.3.10 to FMVSS No. 126.
3. For purposes of clarification, the agency is revising S5.3.9 in
FMVSS No. 126 to remove language that might be interpreted to require
the ESC malfunction telltale to illuminate to indicate a disconnection
of the ESC Off control.
4. To simplify the telltale requirements, we are also allowing two-
part telltales that are able to display both the ``ESC malfunction''
and ``ESC Off'' messages.
5. To avoid any potential negative safety consequences of requiring
vehicles to restart in 2-wheel drive when they are using 4-wheel drive
to navigate difficult terrain, the agency is expanding the exception to
S5.4.1's key cycle automatic ESC reactivation requirement in FMVSS No.
126. We are revising S5.4.1 to tie the exception directly to the low-
range 4-wheel drive configuration, and adding a definition for 4-wheel
drive low-range configuration. For the same reason, the agency is
revising S5.4.1's default mode requirement to refer to ESC modes within
the same drive configuration.
6. FMVSS No. 126 requires that ESC systems meet two fundamental
performance criteria, stability and responsiveness. It is possible that
these performance criteria can conflict in some drive
configurations,\1\ thereby creating ambiguity with respect to the
existing requirement in S5.4.1 that refers to an ESC mode that
satisfies the performance requirements ``by the greatest margin.'' To
address this, the agency is revising S5.4.1 to specify that upon
vehicle restart, ESC systems must revert to the manufacturer's original
default mode for that drive configuration. These modes, with some
exceptions as noted, must meet the stability and responsiveness
requirements of the standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ This is a basic problem of vehicle dynamics: in order to be
stable, a vehicle should experience less side-to-side movement, but
in order to be responsive, a vehicle must be able to move side-to-
side as necessary. Proper and safe vehicle handling, which ESC
facilitates, must strike a balance between stability and
responsiveness depending on the situation. Thus, it is possible that
increasing stability in response to driving conditions could
decrease responsiveness--yet S5.4.1 as written requires both
stability and responsiveness to be satisfied by the greatest margin,
which is not always possible or desirable. This is why the agency is
revising this section.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. To clarify that ESC systems need not be operational before they
have initialized, the agency is adding S7.10.2's initialization
procedure to S7.10.4 and S6.3.1 of FMVSS No. 126.
8. In recognition of the fact that many current ESC system designs
cannot hold a malfunction in memory when the ignition is cycled off and
then back on as required, S7.10.3 of FMVSS No. 126 will not be
mandatory until September 1, 2011.
9. To gain the substantial safety benefits of ESC as quickly as
possible, and because we anticipate no negative safety consequences,
the agency is accommodating current ESC systems by changing the low-
speed cutoff for ESC operation from 15 km/h (9.3 mph) to 20 km/h (12.4
mph) and adding a brake application to all initialization procedures in
FMVSS No. 126.
10. To clarify that the final rule did not prohibit multi-function
ESC controls, the agency is adding language to that effect in S5.4 of
FMVSS No. 126.
11. To clarify changes made to the regulatory text, the agency is
adding definitions for ``drive configuration'' and ``mode'' to S4 of
FMVSS No. 126.
II. Background
A. Benefits of ESC
Electronic stability control, or 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 36 percent and fatal single-vehicle crashes of sport
utility vehicles (SUVs) by 63 percent.\2\ NHTSA estimates that ESC has
the potential to prevent 70 percent of the fatal passenger car
rollovers and 88 percent of the fatal SUV rollovers that would
otherwise occur in single-vehicle crashes.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Dang, J., Statistical Analysis of the Effectiveness of
Electronic Stability Control (ESC) Systems--Final Report, DOT HS 810
794, U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, DC (July 2007).
Available at Docket No. NHTSA-2007-28629, item 2.
\3\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. April 2007 Final Rule
On April 6, 2007, NHTSA published a final rule establishing the new
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 126, Electronic
Stability Control Systems, which sets forth requirements for these
systems on new light vehicles.\4\ FMVSS No. 126 contains performance
requirements that include both definitional and dynamic testing
elements. These elements together ensure that ESC systems intervene
[[Page 54528]]
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. FMVSS No. 126 also requires a standardized set of ESC
telltales and controls.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Docket No. NHTSA-2007-27662, item 1; 72 FR 17236 (Apr. 6,
2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The new standard's requirements for yaw stability control (that is,
the parts of the standard with the biggest potential to prevent
crashes) can be met by most ESC-equipped vehicles currently being
manufactured. However, none of those vehicles appear to use the exact
set of telltales and controls required by the new standard. In order to
provide the American public with the substantial safety benefits of ESC
as soon as possible, NHTSA accelerated the phase-in schedule in the
final rule as compared to the schedule proposed in the September 2006
notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM),\5\ but deferred the telltale and
display requirements until the end of the phase-in. Thus, the final
rule set the phase-in as:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Docket No. NHTSA-2006-25801, item 1; 71 FR 54712 (Sept. 18,
2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
55 percent of a manufacturer's light vehicles manufactured
during the period from September 1, 2008 to August 31, 2009 are
required to comply with the standard;
75 percent from September 1, 2009 to August 31, 2010;
95 percent from September 1, 2010 to August 31, 2011; and
All light vehicles thereafter.
This compares to the NPRM's proposal for a 30/60/90/all phase-in
schedule over the same time period. The agency noted in the final rule
preamble that some manufacturers will have to depend on carry-forward
credits for vehicles with complying ESC systems manufactured after June
5, 2007 (the effective date of the final rule) in order to meet the
accelerated phase-in schedule.
Regarding the deferral of the telltale and display requirements
until the end of the phase-in period, although NHTSA perceived certain
advantages with standardizing these requirements, we concluded that it
was not practicable to implement the necessary changes under the
accelerated phase-in schedule, and we were not willing to delay the
phase-in (and the expected safety benefits) for this reason alone.
Accordingly, the agency prefaced many of the provisions in FMVSS No.
126 dealing with telltales and displays with the phrase ``as of
September 1, 2011.'' However, after the final rule was published, we
discovered that that phrase had been inadvertently omitted from two of
the relevant provisions. NHTSA published a correction notice on June
22, 2007 to address this issue.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Docket No. NHTSA-2007-27662, item 9; 72 FR 34409 (Jun. 22,
2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Summary of Petitions for Reconsideration to the Final Rule
Four parties petitioned for reconsideration of the April 6, 2007
final rule: the American Association for Justice (AAJ); \7\ Porsche
Cars North America, Inc. (Porsche); \8\ and in a joint petition, the
Alliance of Automotive Manufacturers and the Association of
International Automobile Manufacturers (Alliance/AIAM).\9\ Chrysler
also submitted a letter supporting revised recommendations submitted by
the Alliance/AIAM following its original petition for
reconsideration.\10\ Most of the issues presented by the manufacturer
petitioners addressed details of the requirements for controls and
displays and their effect on phase-in requirements. AAJ petitioned
NHTSA to change language in the final rule preamble concerning the
preemptive effect of Federal regulations, and also petitioned that the
scope of the final rule be expanded to require roll stability control
in addition to ESC that focuses on yaw stability.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Id., item 6.
\8\ Id., item 4.
\9\ Id., item 5.
\10\ Chrysler letter, id., item 12; Alliance/AIAM revised
recommendations, id., item 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The next section addresses the petitions issue by issue, and
provides the agency's response for each issue.
III. Analysis of and Response to Petitions for Reconsideration
A. Telltale Issues
1. Use of a Two-Part ``ESC Off'' Telltale
The final rule requires an ESC malfunction telltale identified by
the ISO symbol for ESC or the abbreviation ``ESC.'' It also requires a
second telltale to identify when the ESC system has been turned off by
the driver. That telltale must be identified by the ISO symbol for ESC
with the word ``Off'' below it, or the words ``ESC Off.''
Porsche Cars North America, Inc. (Porsche) originally commented to
the NPRM that instead of requiring two completely separate telltales
for the ESC malfunction and ESC Off messages, the rule should allow for
a partial telltale with just the word ``Off'' adjacent to the ESC
malfunction telltale. The ESC Off message would be created by
illuminating the ``Off'' telltale and the ESC malfunction telltale
simultaneously. The object of this design would be to save space on the
instrument panel.
NHTSA did not include Porsche's suggested change in the final rule
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 telltale whenever the driver has manually disabled the ESC. In the
case where the ESC system detects a fault when it is in the manually
disabled state, the ``Off'' part of the partial, two-part telltale
would have to be extinguished to indicate the ESC malfunction.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ See 72 FR 17236, 17276 (Apr. 6, 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Porsche petitioned for reconsideration on NHTSA's decision on two-
part telltales. Specifically, Porsche explained in its petition that
``in the rare case when a malfunction occurs after the driver has
manually disabled the system,'' its ESC system ``would operate so that
the malfunction event results in the manual control functionality being
automatically disabled.'' Thus, the ``ESC Off'' message would no longer
be correct, because the ESC would have overridden the manual
disablement; and the ``ESC Malfunction'' message would be correct.
Porsche petitioned that NHTSA clarify that a two-part telltale would
not be prohibited in the situation it described, and requested that
NHTSA add a footnote to Table 1 of FMVSS No. 101 that a two-part ESC
Off telltale is acceptable if the parts are configured as depicted for
the symbol or phrase stipulated by the table to identify the ESC Off
telltale.
Porsche also requested that a footnote be added to Table 1
indicating that the ``ESC Off'' telltale ``is mandatory only in the
event that the system is manually disabled by the driver.''
Agency Response: We are granting this petition in part and denying
in part. We have considered the two-part telltale issue further and
have concluded that there will be no significant safety consequences
from allowing manufacturers to use a two-part telltale instead of
entirely separate telltales for ESC malfunction and ESC Off. The
situation that Porsche describes, where the ESC system overrides the
driver's ``Off'' command if a malfunction occurs while the ESC system
is disabled, would already meet the requirements of the final rule.
This is because in that situation, it would be correct to extinguish
the ``Off'' portion of the two-part telltale (because ESC would no
longer be off), and leave only the ``ESC'' portion illuminated. Thus,
for that particular case, a two-part telltale would satisfy NHTSA's
original requirement
[[Page 54529]]
that the ESC malfunction message be displayed without interfering with
the ESC Off message, because the ESC would no longer be manually
disabled.
More generally, if an ESC system malfunction occurs after a driver
has disabled ESC, requiring both telltales to illuminate at the same
time, both telltales would convey essentially the same message to the
driver: that ESC functionality has been reduced or eliminated. Because
of this, and because we anticipate that ESC systems will likely only
rarely malfunction after they have been manually disabled, upon further
consideration we do not believe that requiring both messages to be
presented simultaneously (and thus prohibiting two-part telltales) is
necessary for safety. To build on Porsche's example, if an ESC system
uses a two-part telltale that illuminates both parts to convey the
``ESC Off'' message, but does not override the driver's ``Off'' command
if a malfunction occurs while ESC is disabled, the telltale would
simply continue to display ``ESC Off,'' which would indicate to the
driver that ESC functionality is reduced. Because the final rule
requires ESC to return to ``on'' with each ignition cycle, the ``Off''
telltale must be extinguished, and the malfunction telltale can simply
be illuminated at that point. We believe that this would not present
significant safety problems, since the driver would still be notified
promptly upon restarting the engine that the ESC malfunction exists.
There would be no period in which the two-part telltale failed to
convey the basic message that ESC functionality was reduced or
eliminated.
Implementing this change necessitates revision of paragraph S5.3.3
to clarify that when an ESC system uses a two-part telltale, the
malfunction telltale need not illuminate if the ``Off'' telltale is
illuminated. We are revising S5.3.3 accordingly.
However, we are denying the request to add a footnote to Table 1 of
FMVSS No. 101 stating that a two-part ESC Off telltale is acceptable if
the parts are simply configured as described. We do not believe that
further clarification is necessary beyond what is already provided
here.
Additionally, we are denying Porsche's request to add a footnote to
Table 1 stating that the ``ESC Off'' telltale is mandatory only when
the system is manually disabled by the driver. S5.4.3 of FMVSS No. 126
requires that the ESC Off telltale indicate the status of the ESC
system when certain controls other than the manual ESC Off control have
the ancillary effect of turning ESC off. The suggested footnote would
conflict with this requirement.
2. Inclusion of ESC-Related Systems in ESC Malfunction Telltale
Operational Requirements
In the preamble to the ESC final rule, NHTSA agreed with commenters
that a single malfunction telltale that relates generally to vehicle
stability systems would be sufficiently informative for drivers, and
would be effective in conveying the message that a malfunction has
occurred which may require diagnosis and service by a repair facility.
Thus, NHTSA included a footnote for Table 1 of FMVSS No. 101 stating,
as regards the ESC malfunction telltale, that ``This symbol may also be
used to indicate the malfunction of related systems/function including
traction control, trailer stability assist, corner brake control, and
other similar functions that use throttle and/or individual torque
control to operate and share common components with the ESC system.''
The Alliance/AIAM petitioned NHTSA to revise paragraphs S5.3.3 and
S5.3.8 of FMVSS No. 126 to clarify that the ESC malfunction telltale
may be illuminated to indicate a malfunction of related systems, and
also may flash to indicate operation of a related system. Petitioners
expressed concern that the omission of this clarification might create
an inconsistency with FMVSS No. 101.
Agency response: We are granting this petition in part. We agree
that it would improve FMVSS No. 126's clarity to amend the regulatory
text to specify that related systems may use the ESC malfunction
telltale and that the ESC malfunction telltale may flash to indicate
operation of a related system. Instead of revising S5.3.3 and S5.3.8 as
suggested by the Alliance/AIAM petition, we are revising S5.3.3
slightly, and are adding a new S5.3.10 to address these issues. S5.3.10
will state:
Manufacturers may use the ESC malfunction telltale in a steady
burning mode to indicate malfunctions of ESC-related systems/
functions including traction control, trailer stability assist,
corner brake control, and other similar functions that use throttle
and/or individual wheel torque control to operate and share common
components with the ESC system, and they may use the ESC malfunction
telltale in a flashing mode to indicate operation of these ESC-
related systems.
We believe this addition will address the Alliance/AIAM's concerns.
3. Compliance Dates for Telltale Requirements
The final rule allowed manufacturers greater lead time to
standardize the presentation of ESC controls and displays, deferring
many of these requirements until the end of the phase-in, i.e.,
September 1, 2011. This was because NHTSA wanted to achieve the safety
benefits of equipping vehicles with ESC as quickly as possible.
Although the agency perceived certain advantages to standardizing
controls and displays, it was not practicable to implement those
changes in keeping with the accelerated phase-in schedule. Thus, many
of the provisions of the final rule concerning controls and displays
contain the phrase ``as of September 1, 2011.'' \12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ These include paragraphs S5.3.1, S5.3.2, S5.3.4, S5.4.2,
S5.5.2, and S5.5.6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Alliance/AIAM petitioned NHTSA to include the phrase ``as of
September 1, 2011'' in paragraphs S5.3.3 and S5.4.3 as well, since
those paragraphs also concern controls and displays. Petitioners stated
that ``Requiring manufacturers to meet the provisions of S5.3.3 and
S5.4.3 [in keeping with the phase-in] will preclude the accrual of
credits and prevent manufacturers from meeting the accelerated phase-in
schedule specified in the final rule.''
The Alliance/AIAM petition also requested that NHTSA clarify that
the changes made to FMVSS No. 101 by the ESC final rule would also be
mandatory at the same time as the controls and displays requirements in
FMVSS No. 126, by changing the mandatory compliance date for the FMVSS
No. 101 provisions in the final rule to September 1, 2011.
Agency response: The petition to add the compliance date to S5.3.3
and S5.4.3 of FMVSS No. 126 is moot, because the change requested by
the Alliance/AIAM has already been made in a correction notice
published by NHTSA on June 22, 2007.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ See supra note 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We are granting the petition to add the compliance date to the
provisions in question in FMVSS No. 101. As written, FMVSS No. 101
could be read to prohibit controls and displays that FMVSS No. 126
would allow prior to September 1, 2011. NHTSA did not intend this
result. Thus, we are adding ``As of September 1, 2011'' to the
provisions on ESC telltales and identifiers in S5.5.2, S5.5.5, and
Table 1 of FMVSS No. 101.
[[Page 54530]]
B. Multi-Function ESC Controls
The Alliance/AIAM petitioned for clarification of paragraphs S5.4.2
and S5.4.3 regarding a control switch or button that combines several
functions, which we will call a ``multi-function'' control for
simplicity.\14\ For background, paragraph S5.4.2 requires that an ESC
control whose only purpose is to disable the ESC system or place it in
a mode in which it no longer satisfies the performance requirements
\15\ be labeled either with the ESC symbol plus the word ``Off'' or the
phrase ``ESC Off.'' The ``ESC Off'' telltale must also illuminate when
ESC is in a state in which it no longer satisfies the performance
requirements. Paragraph S5.4.3 creates an exception for a control
primarily for another function, such as a four-wheel drive low-range
transfer case, that does not specifically control the ESC system
directly, but has the ancillary effect of turning off ESC in low range.
Such a control need not be labeled an ``ESC Off'' control, but the
``ESC Off'' telltale must still illuminate if ESC is put in a state in
which it no longer satisfies the performance requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ This question was also raised in a request for
interpretation from Mr. Brian Latouf of General Motors North
America, which the agency answered on August 29, 2007 (``the GM
request for interpretation''.
\15\ Of paragraphs S5.2.1, S5.2.2, and S5.2.3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Alliance/AIAM offered the example of a multi-function control
that could be used to turn ESC off or on, but could also be used to
turn traction control off and to select an ESC ``performance mode.''
Because such a control could be seen as neither a control whose only
purpose is to disable ESC, nor a control for another system with an
ancillary effect, petitioners requested that the agency clarify that
multi-function controls like the one described are not prohibited by
FMVSS No. 126. Figure 1 below shows a rotary multi-function control
(this example was provided in the petition).
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22SE08.005
Agency response: We are granting the petition to clarify S5.4.3,
although we note that this question was already answered in the
affirmative in the agency's response to the GM request for
interpretation. FMVSS No. 126 does not prohibit multi-function ESC
controls that combine the control whose only purpose is to disable the
ESC system with controls used for other purposes. Paragraph S5.4
specifically allows controls whose sole purpose is to disable ESC and
establishes various requirements for them. The only reason that the
standard distinguishes between these controls used only for disabling
ESC from those used to control systems with an ancillary effect on ESC
is to express the labeling requirements for the control symbols. The
multi-function control example presented by the petition combines
several controls in a single piece of hardware: one control whose only
purpose is to disable ESC, one unregulated control for the traction
control system, and another control that places the ESC system in an
intermediate ``sport'' or ``performance'' mode.''
In the rotary multi-function control example of Figure 1, the
function within the control that disables ESC, because its only purpose
is to disable ESC, would be required to be identified using the symbol
or text specified in FMVSS No. 101 for ``ESC Off'' (effective September
1, 2011) on or adjacent to that part of the control. We would not
consider the precise example given by the Alliance/AIAM petition as
satisfying FMVSS No. 101's requirement that the ``ESC Off'' label
(``identifier'') be adjacent to the control it identifies, because the
telltale lamp is located between the two.\16\ However, this problem
could be solved by moving the lamp to the other side of the label.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ FMVSS No. 101, S4 Definitions, defines ``Adjacent'' as
``with respect to a control, telltale or indicator, and its
identifier * * * (a) The identifier is in close proximity to the
control, telltale or indicator; and (b) No other control, telltale,
indicator, identifier or source of illumination appears between the
identifier and the telltale, indicator, or control that the
identifier identifies.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FMVSS No. 126 does not specify requirements for the ``TC off''
function in the example, nor for the ``ESC Performance mode'' function,
unless that function within the control places the ESC system in a mode
in which it no longer satisfies the standard's performance
requirements. If it did, it would be considered an ``ESC Off'' control
(because it is a control whose purpose is to place the ESC system in a
mode in which it no longer satisfies the performance requirements) and
would also have to be labeled accordingly.
The agency notes that in analyzing the applicability of the
labeling requirement to the rotary multi-function control identified by
the petition, we additionally considered other types of multi-function
controls. For example, we considered toggle buttons which must be
pressed repeatedly in order to cycle through multiple functions
(including ESC Off), as well as controls used to navigate through
multiple functions (including ESC Off) displayed in an information
center. Just as for rotary multi-function controls, these other multi-
function controls must be labeled with ``ESC Off'' if they contain a
function whose only purpose is to disable ESC or place it in a mode in
which it no longer satisfies the performance requirements. NHTSA
reiterates that ESC Off controls, regardless of whether they are
contained within a multi-function control, must be labeled with ``ESC
Off.'' We believe that this is necessary for the safety of the driver,
and to discourage the driver from turning ESC off unless it is
absolutely necessary. Unlike rotary controls, however, with a toggle
button or a single button or switch for an information center, there is
no obvious location for the ``ESC Off'' label. In these situations, we
nevertheless require the control to be labeled with ``ESC Off,'' even
if it also contains additional labels that the manufacturer believes
are necessary to identify the other functions it contains.
[[Page 54531]]
The Alliance/AIAM also petitioned NHTSA to remove the word ``only''
from S5.4 and S5.4.2 of the regulatory text in order to allow multi-
function controls. The agency is denying this aspect of the petition.
S5.4 and S5.4.2 simply permit ESC Off controls and require them to be
labeled with ``ESC Off.'' Paragraph S5.4 has been amended to state that
``ESC Off'' controls may be included in multi-function controls.
Therefore, we do not believe that removing the word ``only'' from the
regulatory text is necessary.
C. ``ESC Off'' Control Labeling
As explained in this response to petitions and in the final rule,
paragraph S5.4.2 requires that an ESC control whose only purpose is to
disable the ESC system or place it in a mode in which it no longer
satisfies the performance requirements, be labeled with either the ESC
symbol plus the word ``Off'' or the phrase ``ESC Off.'' NHTSA believes
that labeling these controls with ``ESC Off'' is necessary to ensure
that drivers clearly understand that they may lose the safety benefits
of ESC by using this control.
The Alliance/AIAM petitioned NHTSA to change the control labeling
requirements in the final rule to require simply the label ``ESC''
rather than the label ``ESC Off.'' Petitioners argued that requiring
the word ``Off'' on even dedicated controls ``will result in customer
confusion and dissatisfaction.'' Petitioners also asserted that
``labeling a control with 'Off' is unprecedented and inconsistent with
the way that similar controls are handled in various Federal Motor
Vehicle Safety Standards.'' Therefore, they requested that the relevant
provisions and table sections in FMVSS No. 101 and FMVSS No. 126 be
revised to make the current ESC malfunction symbol (that is, the ESC
symbol alone or the letters ``ESC'' alone) also the identifier for a
control to be called the ``ESC control'' that could turn ESC off as one
of its functions. The changes would retain the current ESC Off symbol
as an identifier for the ``ESC Off'' telltale, but not for the control.
Agency response: We are denying this petition, because as expressed
repeatedly, we believe that labeling a control that disables ESC with
``ESC Off'' is beneficial for safety and for driver comprehension. The
final rule permitted ESC to be turned off by the driver only because
there are rare circumstances in which turning ESC off could be
advantageous. It did not require manufacturers to include an ESC Off
control. NHTSA's primary concern in the final rule was to minimize the
possibility of a driver turning ESC off accidentally, or being
otherwise unsure of the ESC system's status. The control was required
to be labeled ``ESC Off'' to discourage drivers from touching the
control unless they truly wanted to disable the system. NHTSA remains
concerned that using simply the ESC symbol or letters ``ESC'' for these
controls could lead drivers to think they had to use the control to
select ESC operation, when they would almost always be safer not
touching the control at all.
The Alliance/AIAM petition offered no new evidence that the current
requirements for labeling the ESC Off control are in any way more
confusing or less effective in fulfilling the agency's goal of
discouraging drivers from casually or unintentionally disabling ESC
than their suggested alternatives. Consequently, we are denying this
petition.
D. Disconnection of the Optional ``ESC Off'' Control
In the final rule, NHTSA stated that although it would consider a
disconnection of the ``ESC Off'' control to constitute a malfunction
suitable for simulation under the standard, because it directly impacts
ESC operability, until the end of the phase-in period we would allow
manufacturers to not illuminate the ESC malfunction telltale for
disconnection of the ``ESC Off'' control.\17\ At the time, this was
permitted in order to accommodate the current lack of standardization
of ESC controls and displays, which would be resolved by the end of the
phase-in period. The Alliance/AIAM petitioned NHTSA to clarify that
there is no requirement to illuminate the malfunction telltale when the
ESC control is disconnected, and in doing so, to remove the exclusion
in S5.3.9 that states that ``a disconnection of the ``ESC Off'' control
need not illuminate the ESC malfunction telltale.'' S5.3.9 currently
reads as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ 72 FR 17271 (Apr. 6, 2007).
S5.3.9 Prior to September 1, 2011, a disconnection of the power
to the ESC electronic control unit may be indicated by the ABS
malfunction telltale instead of the ESC malfunction telltale and a
disconnection of the ``ESC Off'' control need not illuminate the ESC
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
malfunction telltale.
The Alliance/AIAM argued that because S5.3.9 provides an exception
for vehicles built before September 1, 2011, a requirement is implied
after that date. Petitioners further argued that it is neither
necessary nor appropriate to require the malfunction telltale to
illuminate when the disable control is disconnected, because as a
practical matter, a fault in the optional ESC Off control will not
affect the ability of the ESC system to function. Thus, the Alliance/
AIAM requested that NHTSA remove the last clause of S5.3.9, and simply
clarify in the preamble that a disconnection of the ``ESC Off'' control
need not illuminate the ESC malfunction telltale.
Agency response: We are granting this petition, because it appears
that no vehicles currently have the means to detect an ESC Off switch
disconnection, and because upon further consideration we believe that
an identical safety level will be maintained. Generally speaking, when
an ESC Off switch becomes disconnected, the result will be equivalent
to having no ESC Off control at all--which would frequently be
preferable from a safety perspective. The driver would only be aware of
the disconnection if he or she attempted to use the control to disable
ESC and the ``ESC Off'' telltale did not illuminate. The only
circumstance that NHTSA can imagine in which a disconnection of the ESC
Off control would be different than simply not having an ESC Off
control would be if the control became disconnected after it had been
used to turn off the system, which would affect the control signal to
turn ESC back on and could thus conceivably create a safety risk. We
believe, however, that this would be a very rare occurrence. Moreover,
if the switch is disconnected while the ESC is off, the driver retains
the warning of the status indicator, and ESC will be automatically
restored as soon as the vehicle is restarted, because that function is
controlled by the ESC's electronic control unit, which is not affected
by the switch's disconnection.
Thus, we clarify that ESC Off switch disconnections that do not
affect ESC operation other than in the narrow circumstance described
above would not be considered an ESC system malfunction severe enough
for a telltale warning. We are revising paragraph S5.3.9 to remove the
text in question.
E. Automatic Return of ESC System to ``On'' Mode for Each Ignition
Cycle
The final rule included an ignition cycle default requirement in
paragraph S5.4.1, which required the ESC system to return to a mode
that satisfied the equipment and performance requirements ``at the
initiation of each new ignition cycle, regardless of what mode the
driver had previously selected.'' If the system had multiple modes that
satisfied the requirements, ``the default mode must be the mode that
satisfies the performance requirements * * * by the greatest
[[Page 54532]]
margin.'' However, the final rule included an exception for vehicles
from returning to the default mode if the mode previously selected by
the driver ``is specifically for enhanced traction during low-speed,
off-road driving and is entered by the driver using a mechanical
control that cannot be automatically reset electrically.'' This
exception was included in response to manufacturer comments that
certain low-range, speed-limited 4-wheel drive modes were accessed via
use of a mechanical lever, and there was no way to move the lever back
automatically to return to the default mode at the start of each new
ignition cycle. Additionally, the agency agreed that there could be a
safety risk if, for example, a vehicle in 4-wheel drive driving up a
steep hill suddenly stalled and had to be restarted, but returned to 2-
wheel drive because of the ignition cycle default requirement which
required that the default mode be the one that satisfied the
performance requirements by the greatest margin.
The Alliance/AIAM petitioned NHTSA to change the word
``mechanical'' in S5.4.1 to ``manual,'' essentially broadening the
exclusion from the key cycle automatic ESC reactivation requirement for
low-speed off-road modes that are selected by the driver using an
electronic control. Petitioners argued that the safety concerns (i.e.,
preventing ESC from reactivating when it could be harmful, as when the
vehicle is stuck in snow or negotiating rugged or steep terrain)
applied the same for electrically-selected modes as for mechanically-
selected modes. However, petitioners subsequently submitted revised
recommendations on this issue, focusing not only on the ``mechanical''
versus ``manual'' distinction, but also more broadly on how the
ignition cycle default requirement should be applied for maximum safety
when a vehicle offers multiple drive configuration options (like 2-
wheel drive, low-range 4-wheel drive, high-range 4-wheel drive with
locked center differential, etc.). The discussion below addresses the
various aspects of this issue.
Broader exclusion of low-speed off-road modes from ignition cycle
reactivation requirement:
The Alliance/AIAM petitioned for a broader exception in S5.4.1 for
all low-speed off-road modes, including those induced by non-mechanical
driver-selectable controls like touch screens or push buttons.
Petitioners argued that safety concerns are still relevant for these
modes just as they are for the agency's current exclusion for
mechanically-selected low-speed off-road modes. For example, whether a
vehicle is placed in an alternate mode mechanically or by pressing a
button on a touch screen, if the mode is used for driving up steep
hills or navigating rough terrain, requiring it to revert to a mode
inappropriate for those conditions if the vehicle stalls and must be
restarted could create hazards for the driver.
Agency response: We are granting this petition by tying S5.4.1's
exception directly to the low-range configuration of 4WD vehicles
actually designed for off-road capability, and defining 4WD low-range
configuration to specify minimum low-range gear reduction to assure
that the vehicle is limited to low-speed operation. NHTSA agrees that
the safety issue raised by petitioners is valid, and believes that the
safety concerns associated with allowing a vehicle to remain in low-
range 4WD upon restart should be minimized, since the vehicle will be
limited to low speeds.
``Opposition'' of S5.2's two requirements of stability and
responsiveness and ``by the greatest margin'' requirement for different
drive configurations:
The Alliance/AIAM petitioned to revise the exception language of
S5.4.1 that provides that the default mode to which ESC must return
must be ``the mode that satisfies the performance requirements of S5.2
by the greatest margin.'' Petitioners argued that S5.2's two
requirements of stability and responsiveness ``are often in opposition
with each other.'' This is because increasing ESC intervention may
increase the compliance margin for the stability requirement, but also
reduce the margin for responsiveness, while the opposite will happen
when ESC intervention is decreased, as in the various ``ESC performance
modes'' that petitioners offer on their vehicles. Petitioners had no
specific request on this issue, but appear to have incorporated this
concern into other requests for changes to regulatory text.
Also on the issue of the S5.2 reference in S5.4.1, the Alliance/
AIAM requested that the agency not require vehicles in high-range 4WD
locked-differential modes to return automatically to the ESC mode with
the greatest margin of compliance with S5.2's requirements. Petitioners
argued that this requirement complicates compliance, and thus potential
credit earnings, for vehicles with a high-range 4WD mode with a locked
center differential, because ESC algorithms must be adjusted to
accommodate those modes, so that they intervene differently in those
contexts. Thus, even if the ESC system could meet S5.2 in these modes,
it might not meet it by the greatest margin as required by S5.4.1, so
it would have to be shifted back to 2WD.
Petitioners argued that this result is a problem for several
reasons. First, none of the systems on vehicles with high-range 4WD
modes with locked center differential are currently capable of
automatically switching back to 2WD mode (and unlocking the center
differential) with the ignition cycle alone. Second, as for all
restarts in a new drive configuration mode, it can conceivably create a
safety hazard or severe inconvenience for the driver--a vehicle in 4WD
may stall in mud or snow and end up deeply dug in before the driver
realizes that it restarted in 2WD. And third, as addressed in the final
rule, vehicles that use mechanical controls to access the high-range
4WD mode with locked center differential have no practical way of
reverting automatically to 2WD at a new ignition cycle.
Agency response: We are granting these requests by revising
S5.4.1's default mode requirement to refer to ESC modes within the same
drive configuration mode, and by removing the ``by the greatest
margin'' requirement. Unlike in the case of low-range 4WD with a locked
center differential, ESC continues to operate in the corresponding
high-range mode. However, because 4WD vehicles are not designed to be
driven on dry pavement with a locked center differential,\18\ there is
little information about their results in the FMVSS No. 126 performance
test, which is conducted on dry pavement. It is possible that vehicles
may pass the test in 4WD with a locked center differential, but the
test is much more representative of what the vehicle encounters when
operated in 2WD mode. If the vehicle does not pass the test in 4WD with
a locked center differential, it would be required to
[[Page 54533]]
revert automatically to 2WD mode at a new ignition cycle.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ By way of background, high-range 4WD with locked center
differential is designed for driving in snow or on unpaved roads,
where there is no particular need to drive slowly, so it is not
speed-limited by low gear ratios. ``Locked center differential''
means that the drive gears at the front and rear axles are locked
together, so they do not move independently like they ordinarily
would. With a locked center differential, tires that would have no
traction (when, for example, passing over an ice patch) are able to
``slip'' due to the locked axles and continue moving, so the vehicle
avoids getting stuck. Tire slippage can be helpful when a driver is
negotiating slippery surfaces like packed snow, but it creates large
forces and causes rapid tire wear when the tires are forced to slip
on dry pavement, because the axles are essentially fighting one
another. Thus, vehicles are capable of driving on regular dry
pavement in high-range 4WD with locked center differential, but the
driver would probably not want to remain in that mode for long.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, NHTSA realizes that this result would not be beneficial in
some of the situations described by petitioners, such as when the
vehicle is operating in loose sand or snow and could get dug in by
restarting in 2WD. Additionally, we realize that vehicles with
mechanical controls cannot automatically revert to another mode when
the ignition is cycled. It was not the agency's intent to require these
results. Moreover, as a practical matter, the ESC performance test is
conducted with the vehicle coasting, so a locked center differential
will cause considerable longitudinal wheel slip and slow the vehicle
quickly during the test, aiding its stability. For these reasons, NHTSA
is revising S5.4.1's default mode requirement to refer to ESC modes
within the same drive configuration mode.
However, because ESC can remain operative in high-range 4WD with
locked center differential, and may be able to meet FMVSS No. 126's
stability performance requirements, we are specifying that a vehicle in
high-range 4WD with locked center differential need not revert to 2WD
with the next ignition cycle if it can meet the stability performance
requirements of S5.2.1 and S5.2.2. As stated, locking the vehicle's
center differential will likely result in increased understeer. This
will have the inherent effect of improving lateral stability, but at
the expense of some responsiveness degradation. However, in the driving
situations appropriate for use of the high-range 4-wheel drive
configuration with locked center differential mode (i.e., snow- or ice-
covered roads, or on unpaved roads), we believe the benefits of
improved lateral stability outweigh the ancillary effect of reduced
responsiveness. Therefore, for vehicles placed in a high-range 4WD with
locked center differential mode, we are only requiring the ESC system
to revert at each ignition cycle to a mode that can meet the stability
performance requirements. We believe that this solution resolves
petitioners' concerns about vehicles not being able to meet both
stability and responsiveness requirements in high-range 4WD with locked
center differential.
Additionally, we are removing the sentence at the end of S5.4.1
that includes the ``by the greatest margin'' language, and are instead
specifying that the default mode must be the ``manufacturer's
original'' default mode. The ``by the greatest margin'' language was
originally included in FMVSS No. 126 to ensure that the ignition cycle
default mode was always the mode that provided the maximum level of
safety, particularly if the ESC system included modes that were more
``sporty'' and had a lower compliance margin, even if they met the
performance requirements. However, upon further consideration, the
agency believes it is highly unlikely that manufacturers would choose
to offer ESC systems with default modes that were not the modes with
the highest compliance margins. Therefore, we are simply requiring that
vehicles return to the manufacturer's original default mode at the next
ignition cycle. By ``manufacturer's original default mode,'' the agency
means the basic ESC mode for the drive configuration, that is not a
driver-selectable mode, that meets the final rule's performance
requirements (or in the case of high-range 4WD with locked center
differential, that meets the stability performance requirements).
Request to allow technical documentation in lieu of meeting
performance requirements:
In their revised recommendations the Alliance/AIAM also argued that
ESC modes induced by selecting high-range 4WD with locked center
differential should not be required to satisfy S5.1 and S5.2 at the
next ignition cycle as called for by S5.4.1. Petitioners requested that
NHTSA instead require manufacturers to document, per the ``ESC System
Technical Documentation'' provision of S5.6, that a control algorithm
appropriate to high-range 4WD operation with a locked center
differential is operational above 20 km/h in that drive configuration.
With such documentation, the vehicle would not be required to change
ESC modes or drive configuration at the initiation of a new ignition
cycle.
Agency response: We are denying this request. The situation
presented by high-range 4WD with locked center differential is not
suited to a documentation solution in the way that understeer
mitigation is, which is what S5.6 was intended to address. Unlike
understeer mitigation, it is possible to perform the test established
by the standard even with the vehicle in high-range 4WD with locked
center differential, and the test procedure should still be useful to
demonstrate objectively that ESC remains functional in this drive
configuration without the need to rely on documentation, as discussed
above. The agency notes that a docket submission by Chrysler on
September 26, 2007 supports the idea that ESC modes available with a
locked center differential should be expected to satisfy the stability
criteria (S5.2.1 and S5.2.2) of the ESC test used in FMVSS No. 126.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ Docket No. NHTSA-2007-27662-12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We do not expect that vehicles tested with a locked center
differential will meet the responsiveness criterion (S5.2.3) in a
similar manner. However, responsiveness on a high coefficient of
friction surface in a mode with the center differential locked is not
relevant to evaluating the operation of ESC. Any lack of responsiveness
in the test would not be the result of ESC operation, but rather the
consequence of the front and rear drive axles creating high opposing
forces, which cannot be resolved by tire slippage on dry pavement the
way they would be on a surface like packed snow. As discussed above,
the agency believes that in the case of vehicles in high-range 4WD with
locked center differential, which are used primarily for safe handling
on slippery surfaces like packed snow and dirt, vehicle stability is a
more important property to demonstrate than vehicle responsiveness.
Thus, manufacturers would have no obligation to ensure that vehicles in
this drive configuration could meet S5.2.3.
Whether the ``ESC Off'' indicator must be illuminated for driver
selection of alternate operating modes:
Finally, on the subject of driver-selectable operating modes, the
Alliance/AIAM requested that NHTSA remove the requirement in S5.4.3
that the ``ESC Off'' indicator be illuminated whenever a driver-
selectable operating mode renders the vehicle incapable of meeting the
performance requirements of S5.2. Petitioners expressed concern that,
if putting the vehicle in 4WD illuminates the ESC Off telltale, drivers
might be discouraged from using 4WD because they might think that ESC
is not working even though it has been optimized for that mode, or
might seek unnecessary vehicle service for what appears to be a
malfunction in their ESC system.
Agency response: This issue is addressed by the agency's revision
of S5.4.1 to require vehicles in particular 4WD modes to meet only the
stability performance requirements of S5.2.1 and S5.2.2 and not the
responsiveness requirement of S5.2.3 as well. If the ESC mode for a
high-range 4WD with locked center differential drive configuration is
capable of satisfying the stability criteria, it should not be
considered as turning ESC off. Thus, there would be no reason to
illuminate the ESC Off telltale. NHTSA is revising S5.4.4 and S5.5.4 to
clarify this point.
The table below summarizes the ignition cycle default requirements
for
[[Page 54534]]
manually-activated ESC modes in different drive configurations and the
required ESC Off telltale response:
Sample of Ignition Cycle Default Requirements of S5.4.1 With Telltale Status Requirements (List Is Not All-Inclusive)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Meets stability &
Drive configuration Mode responsiveness ``Off Telltale'' ESC default setting ``Off Telltale''
requirements status (ignition cycle) status
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2WD (3 selections avail.)......... 2WD.................. yes.................. off.................. 2WD default meets off.
stability and
responsiveness
requirements.
Performance 1........ yes................. off................. 2WD default meets off.
stability and
responsiveness
requirements.
Performance 2........ no.................. on.................. 2WD default meets off.
stability and
responsiveness
requirements.
AWD/4WD Auto (1 selection avail.). AWD/4WD Auto......... no (neither)......... on................... Default to some mode that off.
meets stability and
responsiveness
requirements.
AWD/4WD Auto......... no (stability--yes) on.................. Default to some mode off.
(responsiveness--no). that meets stability and
responsiveness
requirements.
AWD/4WD Auto......... yes................. off................. Default to some mode off.
that meets stability and
responsiveness
requirements.
4WD Hi Locked (1 selection avail.) Locked............... no (neither)......... on................... Default to some mode that off.
meets stability
requirements.
Locked............... no (stability--yes) off.................. Default to some mode that off.
(responsiveness--no). meets stability
requirements.
Locked............... yes (both)........... off................. Default to some mode that off.
meets stability
requirements.
4WD Low........................... Low.................. no................... on................... Normal low............... on.
Any Above......................... ``ESC OFF'' Control no................... on................... Default to applicable off.
activated. mode within existing
drive configuration that
meets appropriate
performance requirements.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
F. Low-Speed Threshold for ESC Operation
The final rule, in both the paragraph S4 definition of an ESC
system and in paragraph S5.1.2 as part of the equipment requirements,
requires ESC to operate at all speeds above 15 km/h (9.3 mph). NHTSA
included a low-speed threshold for ESC operation as a result of
comments to the NPRM. 15 km/h (9.3 mph) was chosen largely because that
speed was the typical threshold for ABS operation, and ABS shares a
number of components with ESC.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ Id., at 17264.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Alliance and AIAM petitioned the agency to remove the low-speed
threshold in the ESC system definition of paragraph S4, and to allow
the manufacturer to determine the low-speed threshold and
initialization period and conditions until the end of the phase-in
period in paragraph S5.1.2. The Alliance/AIAM argued that ``Many
current vehicles have a design cut-off threshold speed higher than the
15 km/h (9.3 mph) specified in FMVSS 126,'' and that the different
initialization periods required by different ESC systems may result in
some systems not working until the vehicle has reached 32 km/h (20
mph).\21\ Petitioners further argued that the 15 km/h (9.3 mph) low-
speed threshold would interfere with manufacturers' ability to accrue
carry-forward and phase-in credits.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ Alliance petition at 5.
\22\ Id. at 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In a supplemental document to its petition for reconsideration, the
Alliance/AIAM requested a specific low-speed threshold of 20 km/h (12.4
mph), but also that the agency still allow the manufacturer to
determine the initialization period and conditions before the end of
the phase-in period in S5.1.2.\23\ The petitioners stated that they had
conducted additional research, and determined that their ``member
vehicles'' could manage this
