36050 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 120 / Tuesday, June 23, 2015 / Rules and Regulations

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Avoidance Standards, by telephone at A. Outriggers (202) 366–9146, and by fax at (202) 493– B. Automated Machine National Highway Traffic Safety 2990. For legal issues, you may contact C. Anti-Jackknife System Administration David Jasinski, Office of the Chief D. Control Trailer E. Sensors Counsel, by telephone at (202) 366– F. Ambient Conditions 49 CFR Part 571 2992, and by fax at (202) 366–3820. You G. Road Test Surface [Docket No. NHTSA–2015–0056] may send mail to both of these officials H. Vehicle Test Weight at the National Highway Traffic Safety I. RIN 2127–AK97 Administration, 1200 New Jersey J. Mass Estimation Drive Cycle Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. K. Conditioning Federal Motor Vehicle Safety SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: L. Compliance Options Standards; Electronic Stability Control M. Data Collection Systems for Heavy Vehicles Table of Contents XII. ESC Disablement I. Executive Summary A. Summary of Comments AGENCY: National Highway Traffic II. Statutory Authority B. Response to Comments Safety Administration (NHTSA), III. Background XIII. ESC Malfunction Detection, Telltale, Department of Transportation (DOT). IV. Safety Need and Activation Indicator ACTION: Final rule. A. Heavy Vehicle Crash Problem A. ESC Malfunction Detection B. Contributing Factors in Rollover and B. ESC Malfunction Telltale SUMMARY: This document establishes a Loss-of-Control Crashes C. Combining ESC Malfunction Telltale new Federal Motor Vehicle Safety C. NTSB Safety Recommendations With Related Systems Standard No. 136 to require electronic D. Motorcoach Safety Plan D. ESC Activation Indicator stability control (ESC) systems on truck E. International Regulation XIV. Benefits and Costs tractors and certain buses with a gross V. Summary of the May 2012 NPRM A. Target Crash Population B. System Effectiveness vehicle weight rating of greater than VI. Overview of the Comments VII. Key Differences Between the Final Rule 1. Summary of the NPRM 11,793 kilograms (26,000 pounds). ESC and the NRPM 2. Summary of Comments and Response systems in truck tractors and large buses VIII. ESC Requirement (a) ATRI Study are designed to reduce untripped A. Whether To Require Stability Control (b) Bendix Study rollovers and mitigate severe understeer B. Whether To Require ESC or RSC 3. Effectiveness Estimate or oversteer conditions that lead to loss C. Definition of ESC C. Benefits Estimates of control by using automatic computer- D. Technical Documentation 1. Safety Benefits controlled braking and reducing engine IX. Vehicle Applicability and Phase-In 2. Monetized Benefits torque output. A. Trucks D. Cost Estimate In 2018, we expect that, without this 1. Summary of the NPRM Truck Tractors 2. Exclusions From ESC Requirement Large Buses rule, about 34 percent of new truck 3. Single-Unit Trucks E. Cost Effectiveness tractors and 80 percent of new buses 4. Compliance Dates F. Comparison of Regulatory Alternatives affected by this final rule would be B. Buses XV. Regulatory Analyses and Notices equipped with ESC systems. We believe 1. Summary of the NPRM A. Executive Order 12866, Executive Order that, by requiring that ESC systems be 2. Buses Built on Truck 13563, and DOT Regulatory Policies and installed on the rest of truck tractors and (a) Summary of NPRM Procedures large buses, this final rule will prevent (b) Summary of Comments B. Regulatory Flexibility Act 40 to 56 percent of untripped rollover (c) NHTSA’s Response to Comments C. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism) 3. Hydraulic-Braked Buses crashes and 14 percent of loss-of-control D. Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice 4. School Buses Reform) crashes. As a result, we expect that this 5. Transit Buses E. Protection of Children From final rule will prevent 1,424 to 1,759 6. Minimum Seating Capacity and Seating Environmental Health and Safety Risks crashes, 505 to 649 injuries, and 40 to Configuration F. Paperwork Reduction Act 49 fatalities at $0.1 to $0.6 million net 7. Compliance Dates G. National Technology Transfer and cost per equivalent life saved, while 8. Class 3 Through 6 Buses Advancement Act generating positive net benefits. C. Retrofitting H. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act X. Performance Testing I. National Environmental Policy Act DATES: The effective date of this rule is A. NHTSA’s Proposed Performance Tests J. Incorporation by Reference August 24, 2015. The incorporation by 1. Characterization Test—SIS K. Regulatory Identifier Number (RIN) reference of certain publications listed 2. Roll and Yaw Stability Test—SWD L. Privacy Act in the rule is approved by the Director 3. Lateral Displacement of the Federal Register as of August 24, B. Comments on SIS and SWD Maneuvers I. Executive Summary 2015. C. Alternative Maneuvers Considered in This final rule establishes a new Petitions for reconsideration: Petitions the NPRM D. Comments on Alternative Test Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard for reconsideration of this final rule (FMVSS) No. 136, Electronic Stability must be received not later than August Maneuvers E. NHTSA Examination and Testing of Control Systems for Heavy Vehicles, to 7, 2015. EMA Maneuvers reduce rollover and loss of directional ADDRESSES: Petitions for reconsideration F. Roll Stability Performance Test—J-Turn control of truck tractors and large buses. of this final rule must refer to the docket Test The standard requires that truck tractors and notice number set forth above and 1. Rationale for Using J-Turn Test and certain large buses with a gross be submitted to the Administrator, 2. Test Procedure and Performance vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of greater National Highway Traffic Safety Requirements than 11,793 kilograms (26,000 pounds) Administration, 1200 New Jersey 3. System Responsiveness 4. Engine Torque Reduction to be equipped with an electronic Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. 5. Roll Stability Performance Requirements stability control (ESC) system that meets FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For G. Yaw Stability the equipment and performance criteria technical issues, you may contact H. Understeer of the standard. ESC systems use engine Patrick Hallan, Office of Crash XI. Test Conditions and Equipment torque control and computer-controlled

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:37 Jun 22, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\23JNR2.SGM 23JNR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 120 / Tuesday, June 23, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 36051

braking of individual to assist conditions. This estimate is based on an distance requirements, and severe- the driver in maintaining control of the update of the estimate presented in a service tractors, for which we believe vehicle and maintaining its heading in 2011 research note analyzing the two additional years of lead time is situations in which the vehicle is effectiveness of ESC systems discussed necessary to design and test ESC becoming roll unstable (i.e., lift in the Final Regulatory Impact Analysis systems. potentially leading to rollover) or (FRIA) accompanying this final rule.2 This final rule is applicable to buses experiencing loss of control (i.e., The agency considered requiring over 14,969 kilograms (33,000 pounds) deviation from driver’s intended path truck tractors and large buses to be GVWR manufactured more than three due to understeer, oversteer, trailer equipped with RSC systems. When years after the date of this final rule. swing or any other yaw motion leading compared to the ESC requirement in Although we proposed a two-year lead to directional loss of control). In such this final rule, RSC systems would cost time for buses in the NPRM, the situations, intervention by the ESC less than ESC systems, be slightly more Motorcoach Enhanced Safety Act system can assist the driver in cost-effective, but would produce net mandates that new rules, including maintaining control of the vehicle, benefits that are much lower than the stability enhancing technology, be thereby preventing fatalities and injuries net benefits from this final rule. This is applicable to all buses manufactured associated with vehicle rollover or because RSC systems are less effective at more than three years after publication collision. preventing rollover crashes and much of a final rule. However, for buses with This final rule is made pursuant to the less effective at preventing loss-of- a GVWR greater than 11,793 kilograms authority granted to NHTSA under the control crashes. We also considered (26,000 pounds) but not more than National Traffic and Motor Vehicle requiring trailers to be equipped with 14,969 kilograms (33,000 pounds), we Safety Act (‘‘Motor Vehicle Safety Act’’). RSC systems. However, this alternative believe that three years of lead time is Under 49 U.S. C. Chapter 301, Motor would save many fewer lives, would not not feasible. Some of these buses Vehicle Safety (49 U.S. C. 30101 et se.), be cost-effective, and would not result include vehicles with body-on-frame the Secretary of Transportation is in net benefits. construction and hydraulic , for responsible for prescribing motor This final rule requires ESC systems which ESC system availability is not as vehicle safety standards that are to meet both definitional criteria and widespread. Therefore, we are allowing practicable, meet the need for motor performance requirements. It is four years of lead time for buses with a vehicle safety, and are stated in necessary to include definitional criteria GVWR greater than 11,793 kilograms objective terms. The responsibility for and require compliance with them (26,000 pounds) but not more than promulgation of Federal motor vehicle because developing separate 14,969 kilograms (33,000 pounds). We safety standards is delegated to NHTSA. performance tests to cover the wide believe that including buses with body- This rulemaking also completes array of possible operating ranges, on-frame construction and hydraulic NHTSA’s rulemaking pursuant to a roadways, and environmental brakes in this final rule will spur directive in the Moving Ahead for conditions would be impractical. The development of ESC systems for other Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP– definitional criteria are consistent with hydraulic-braked vehicles, including 21) that the Secretary consider requiring those recommended by SAE vehicles with a GVWR of greater than stability enhancing technology on International and used by the United 4,536 kilograms (10,000 pounds) but not 1 motorcoaches. Nations (UN) Economic Commission for more than 11,793 kilograms (26,000 There have been two types of stability Europe (ECE), and similar to the pounds), which are not covered by this control systems developed for heavy definition of ESC in FMVSS No. 126, rulemaking. vehicles. A roll stability control (RSC) the agency’s stability control standard We have chosen an alternative performance test to demonstrate an ESC system is designed to prevent rollover for light vehicles. This definition by decelerating the vehicle using system’s ability to mitigate roll describes an ESC system for heavy braking and engine torque control. The instability to what was proposed. After vehicles as one that will enhance both other type of stability control system is considering the public comments and the roll and yaw stability of a vehicle ESC, which includes all of the functions conducting additional track testing, we using a computer-controlled system that of an RSC system plus the ability to have determined that a 150-foot-radius can receive inputs such as the vehicle’s mitigate severe oversteer or understeer J-turn test maneuver is an efficient lateral acceleration and yaw rate, and conditions by automatically applying means to ensure vehicles maintain roll use the information to apply brakes brake force at selected wheel-ends to stability. Like the test maneuver in the individually, including trailer brakes, help maintain directional control of a NPRM, the J-turn test maneuver is and modulate engine torque. vehicle. To date, ESC and RSC systems among those available to manufacturers This final rule is applicable to all new for heavy vehicles have been developed to demonstrate compliance with the typical three- truck tractors for air-braked vehicles. Truck tractors UNECE mandate for ESC on trucks and manufactured on or after August 1, and buses covered by today’s final rule buses. 2017. We believe that two years of lead make up a large proportion of air-braked The J-turn test maneuver, based on an time is sufficient for these vehicles to be heavy vehicles and a large proportion of alternative test discussed in the NPRM, equipped with ESC, given that this is a the heavy vehicles involved in both involves accelerating to a constant common platform for which ESC rollover crashes and total heavy vehicle speed on a straight stretch of high- systems are readily available today. We crashes. friction track before entering into a 150- As a result of the data analysis are allowing four years of lead time for foot radius curve. After entering the research, we determined that ESC all other truck tractors. These vehicles curve, the driver attempts to maintain systems can be 40 to 56 percent effective include two-axle vehicles, which have the lane. At a speed that is at up to 1.3 in reducing first-event untripped been more recently required to satisfy times the speed at which the ESC rollovers and 14 percent effective in new, reduced minimum stopping system activates, but in no case below eliminating loss-of-control crashes 48.3 km/h (30 mph), an ESC system 2 See Wang, Jing-Shiam, ‘‘Effectiveness of caused by severe oversteer or understeer Stability Control Systems for Truck Tractors’’ must activate the vehicle’s service (January 2011) (DOT HS 811 437); Docket No. brakes to slow the vehicle’s speed to 1 Pub. L. 112–141 (July 6, 2012). NHTSA–2010–0034–0043. 46.7 km/h (29 mph) within 3 seconds

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:37 Jun 22, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\23JNR2.SGM 23JNR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 36052 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 120 / Tuesday, June 23, 2015 / Rules and Regulations

after entering the curve and 45.1 km/h have been tested in the SWD maneuver. an on/off switch for a traction control (28 mph) within 4 seconds after entering However, we are continuing to examine system. We understand that traction the curve. Additional J-turn tests are possible yaw performance maneuvers, control systems are related to ESC conducted to ensure that an ESC system including the SWD maneuver, to test systems in that they can control engine is able to reduce engine torque. yaw stability performance in the future. torque output and activate the brakes on The performance metric for the J-turn The decision to adopt the J-turn test individual wheel ends. However, we do (reduction in forward speed) is easy to maneuver as the performance test in this not find these arguments to be a obtain and serves as a proxy for absolute final rule has caused us to reconsider compelling reason to allow an ESC lateral acceleration. Lateral acceleration test conditions and equipment. system deactivation switch or automatic on a fixed-radius curve is a function of However, many aspects of testing deactivation of ESC systems at speeds forward velocity. On a 150-foot radius remain identical to the proposal. For above 20 km/h (12.4 mph). curve, a forward speed of 48.3 km/h (30 example, we will conduct performance This final rule requires that an ESC mph) corresponds to a lateral testing on a high-friction surface. We system be able to detect a malfunction acceleration of approximately 0.4g. believe that the potential for variance in and provide a driver with notification of Based on prior NHTSA testing, we have surface friction on a low-friction surface a malfunction by means of a telltale. found that 0.4g represents the margin of may introduce variabilities in ESC This requirement is similar to the lateral stability on a typical fully loaded testing that may lead to inconsistent malfunction detection and telltale truck tractor with the loads having a results. We are still equipping all test requirements for light vehicles in high center of gravity (CG). That is, vehicles with outriggers and truck FMVSS No. 126. After considering lateral acceleration levels greater than tractors with anti-jackknife systems for public comments, we have changed the 0.4g (or forward speeds on a 150-foot the safety of test drivers. vehicle depicted on the telltale to better radius curve of greater than 48.3 km/h On the other hand, many proposed represent the profile of a combination (30 mph)) on a typical truck tractor are aspects of testing had to be modified to vehicle or bus rather than a passenger likely to lead to lateral instability, wheel accommodate the J-turn test maneuver. . lift, and possible rollover. However, Because the J-turn test maneuver is a Based on the agency’s effectiveness lateral acceleration levels less than 0.4g path-following maneuver, we are not estimates, this final rule will prevent (or forward speeds on a 150-foot radius using a steering wheel controller that 1,424 to 1,759 crashes per year resulting curve of less than 48.3 km/h (30 mph)) was proposed in the NPRM. We noted in 505 to 649 injuries and 40 to 49 on a typical truck tractor are unlikely to potential variabilities in the proposed fatalities. This final rule will also result lead to lateral instability, wheel lift, and specification for the control trailer. in significant monetary savings as a rollover. However, because the performance result of the prevention of property This final rule includes a requirement metric for the J-turn test maneuver is damage and travel delays. proposed in the NPRM that an ESC different than the proposed SWD Without this final rule, we project system be able to mitigate yaw requirements, those variabilities that, in 2018, manufacturers would have instability. This requirement is similar identified in the NPRM that were equipped 33.9 percent of truck tractors to one proposed in the NPRM, and related to the SWD maneuver are no with ESC systems, 21.3 percent of truck adopted in this final rule, requiring an longer relevant. We have modified the tractors would be equipped with RSC ESC system be able to mitigate loading condition to load the vehicle to systems, and 80.0 percent of large buses understeer. However, this final rule its GVWR because that is the most would be equipped with ESC systems. does not include any performance test severe test condition with the J-turn test Based on the agency’s cost teardown to evaluate the ability of an ESC system maneuver. Finally, the number of study, the average ESC system cost is to mitigate yaw instability. Although the sensors used in testing is substantially estimated to be $585 for truck tractors NPRM included the sine with dwell reduced because the vehicle’s actual and $269 for large buses. The (SWD) maneuver to test both roll and lateral acceleration throughout the incremental cost of installing an ESC yaw instability, we have decided not to maneuver does not need to be system in place of an RSC system on a include it in this final rule. The SWD measured. truck tractor is estimated to be $194. maneuver is only a partial test of the We have considered comments on the Based upon the agency’s estimate that ability to mitigate yaw instability. It issue of allowing ESC system 150,000 truck tractors and 2,200 buses tests an ESC system’s ability to mitigate disablement. This final rule does not covered by this final rule will be loss of control resulting from oversteer allow the driver to disable the ESC manufactured annually, the agency conditions, but not its ability to mitigate system at speeds higher than 20 km/h estimates the total technology cost of understeer, which is the most common (12.4 mph), which we have defined as this final rule to be approximately $45.6 loss-of-control scenario for heavy the minimum speed at which an ESC million. vehicles. NHTSA has been unable to system must operate. Many of the This final rule is highly cost effective develop a test for understeer mitigation. comments we received arguing in favor and beneficial. The net benefits of this As argued by many commenters, of allowing ESC system disablement final rule are estimated to range from performing the SWD maneuver entails were, in fact, arguing for disablement of $412 to $525 million at the 3 percent substantial time and instrumentation traction control to allow a vehicle to discount rate and $312 to $401 million burdens. We do not believe that this start moving on certain surfaces with at the 7 percent discount rate. The additional time and cost is justified low friction such as on snow, ice, or off- agency estimates that this rule will solely to test an ESC system’s ability to road conditions. However, we do not result in societal economic savings mitigate yaw instability caused by believe that an ESC system would resulting from preventing crashes, oversteer conditions when a majority of prevent a heavy vehicle from moving in reducing congestion, and preventing the benefits of this final rule are derived these circumstances. Rather, we believe property damage, such that the net cost from rollover prevention and the that manufacturers may wish to disable of this final rule range from $3.6 to majority of benefits attributed to an automatic to $12.3 million at a 3 percent discount prevented loss-of-control crashes in allow the vehicle to move. NHTSA does rate and from $12.3 to $19.2 million at heavy vehicles are derived from not require traction control systems, nor 7 percent discount rate. As a result, the understeer mitigation, which would not does NHTSA prohibit the installation of net cost per equivalent life saved ranges

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:37 Jun 22, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\23JNR2.SGM 23JNR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 120 / Tuesday, June 23, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 36053

from $0.1 to $0.3 million at the 3 rate. The costs and benefits of this rule percent discount rate and from $0.3 to are summarized in Table 1. $0.6 million at the 7 percent discount

TABLE 1—ESTIMATED ANNUAL COST, BENEFITS, AND NET BENEFITS OF THE FINAL RULE [In millions of 2013 dollars]

Societal Total Cost per Vehicle costs economic VSL savings monetized equivalent live Net benefits savings savings saved

At 3% Discount ...... $45.6 $33.3–$42.1 $424–$528 $458–$571 $0.1–$0.3 $412–$525 At 7% Discount ...... 45.6 26.4–33.3 332–413 358–446 0.3–$.6 312–401

II. Statutory Authority motorcoaches. The Secretary was elevated passenger deck located over a NHTSA is issuing this final rule directed to prescribe regulations that baggage compartment.’’ under the National Traffic and Motor address stability enhancing technology Under section 32703(e)(1) of the Vehicle Safety Act (‘‘Motor Vehicle if the Secretary determines that such Motorcoach Enhanced Safety Act, any Safety Act’’). Under 49 U.S.C. Chapter standards meet the requirements and regulation prescribed in accordance 301, Motor Vehicle Safety (49 U.S.C. considerations set forth in subsections with section 32703(b) (and several other 30101 et seq.), the Secretary of (a) and (b) of 49 U.S.C. 30111. These subsections) shall apply to all Transportation is responsible for requirements are discussed in the motorcoaches manufactured more than prescribing motor vehicle safety preceding paragraph. three years after the date on which the standards that are practicable, meet the The Motorcoach Enhanced Safety Act regulation is published as a final rule, need for motor vehicle safety, and are directs the Secretary to consider various take into account the impact to seating stated in objective terms. ‘‘Motor vehicle other motorcoach rulemakings, in capacity of changes to size and weight provided timeframes, related to safety of motorcoaches and the ability to safety’’ is defined in the Motor Vehicle 3 Safety Act as ‘‘the performance of a belts, improved roof support standards, comply with State and Federal size and motor vehicle or motor vehicle advanced glazing standards and other weight requirements, and be based on equipment in a way that protects the portal improvements to prevent partial the best available science. Prior to enactment of the Motorcoach public against unreasonable risk of and complete ejection of motorcoach Enhanced Safety Act, the agency’s May accidents occurring because of the passengers, pressure monitoring 23, 2012 NPRM proposed requiring design, construction, or performance of systems, and tire performance truck tractors and large buses with a a motor vehicle, and against standards. The Act also includes GVWR of greater than 11,793 kg (26,000 unreasonable risk of death or injury in provisions on fire research, interior lb.) to be equipped with stability an accident, and includes impact protection, enhanced seating enhancing technology. Thus, the agency nonoperational safety of a motor designs, and collision avoidance had already considered requiring vehicle.’’ ‘‘Motor vehicle safety systems, and the consideration of motorcoaches to have stability standard’’ means a minimum rulemaking based on such research. enhancing technology, and had performance standard for motor vehicles There also are provisions in the proposed requiring the same, prior to or motor vehicle equipment. When Motorcoach Enhanced Safety Act the enactment of the Motorcoach prescribing such standards, the relating to improved oversight of motorcoach service providers, including Enhanced Safety Act. Secretary must consider all relevant, The agency does not interpret the available motor vehicle safety enhancements to driver licensing and training programs and motorcoach Motorcoach Enhanced Safety Act on its information. The Secretary must also own as a mandate to require stability consider whether a standard is inspection programs. In section 32702, ‘‘Definitions,’’ of the enhancing technology on over-the-road reasonable, practicable, and appropriate Motorcoach Enhanced Safety Act, the buses. With respect to rollover crash for the types of motor vehicles or motor Act states at section 32702(6) that ‘‘the avoidance, section 32703(b)(3) of the vehicle equipment for which it is term ‘motorcoach’ has the meaning Motorcoach Enhanced Safety Act directs prescribed and the extent to which the given the term ‘over-the-road bus’ in the agency to ‘‘consider requiring’’ standard will further the statutory section 3038(a)(3) of the Transportation stability enhancing technology such as purpose of reducing traffic accidents Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA– electronic stability control or torque and associated deaths. The 21) (49 U.S.C. 5310 note), but does not vectoring on over-the-road buses. responsibility for promulgation of include a bus used in public However, the agency was also directed Federal motor vehicle safety standards transportation provided by, or on behalf in section 32703(b) to prescribe a is delegated to NHTSA. regulation if the Secretary determines On July 6, 2012, President Obama of, a public transportation agency; or a that such standards meet the signed MAP–21, which incorporated in school bus, including a multifunction requirements and considerations for Subtitle G the ‘‘Motorcoach Enhanced school activity bus.’’ Section 3038(a)(3) issuing a motor vehicle safety standard Safety Act of 2012.’’ Section 32703(b)(3) states: ‘‘The term ‘over-the-road bus’ under the Motor Vehicle Safety Act. The of the Act states that, not later than two means a bus characterized by an Motorcoach Enhanced Safety Act does years after the date of enactment of the 3 Pursuant to the Motor Vehicle Safety Act and not provide independent statutory Act, the Secretary shall consider the Motorcoach Enhanced Safety Act, NHTSA authority to require stability enhancing requiring motorcoaches to be equipped published a final rule requiring lap/shoulder seat technologies on over-the-road buses.4 with stability enhancing technology, belts for each passenger seating position on all new such as electronic stability control and over-the-road buses, and in new buses other than over-the-road buses with a GVWR greater than 4 In contrast, the Motorcoach Enhanced Safety torque vectoring, to reduce the number 11,793 kilograms (26,000 pounds) beginning on Act specifically mandated that the agency prescribe and frequency of rollover crashes of November 26, 2016. 78 FR 70415 (Nov. 25, 2013). Continued

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:37 Jun 22, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\23JNR2.SGM 23JNR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 36054 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 120 / Tuesday, June 23, 2015 / Rules and Regulations

Thus, any mandate requiring stability proceeding. Even if it was within scope wheel is turned, the displacement of the enhancing technology pursuant to the to require torque vectoring, the agency front wheels generates a at the Motorcoach Enhanced Safety Act is would not do so in this rulemaking. The front wheels and a lateral force is dependent on satisfying the agency’s understanding of torque generated. That lateral force leads to considerations and requirements of the vectoring is that it is a technology that vehicle rotation, and the vehicle starts Motor Vehicle Safety Act. allows a vehicle’s differential or brakes rotating about its center of gravity. In issuing this final rule, we took into to vary the power supplied to the drive Then, the vehicle’s yaw causes the rear account the considerations of section axle wheel end. In contrast, ESC wheels to experience a slip angle. That 32703(e)(1) of the Motorcoach Enhanced systems activate the vehicle’s service causes a lateral force to be generated at Safety Act regarding the implementation brakes to vary the braking on each the rear tires, which causes vehicle of regulations prescribed in accordance wheel end combined with the ability to rotation. All of these actions establish a with subsection (b)(3). Unlike reduce engine torque (which reduces steady-state turn in which lateral subsection (b)(3), subsection (e)(1) does power on drive axle wheel ends). In the acceleration and yaw rate are constant. not use permissive language. Because May 2012 NPRM, we noted that, all In combination vehicles, which this final rule is issued in accordance things being equal, a vehicle entering a typically consist of a tractor towing a with subsection (b)(3), we believe the curve at a higher speed is more likely to trailer, an additional phase is the considerations regarding the application roll over than a vehicle entering a curve turning response of the trailer, which is of regulations in subsection (e)(1) must at a lower speed.7 Once a vehicle is similar to, but slightly delayed, when be addressed in this rulemaking. about to enter a curve at a high enough compared to the turning response of the Nonetheless, because the Motorcoach speed that would generate sufficient tractor. Enhanced Safety Act contains no lateral acceleration to cause a possible If the lateral forces generated at either independent statutory authority in rollover, the most effective manner to the front or the rear wheels exceed the support of a mandate for stability vary the individual wheel speeds in an friction limits between the road surface enhancing technology, the attempt to prevent the rollover is and the tires, the result will be a vehicle considerations in subsection (e)(1) are primarily through the activation of a loss-of-control in the form of severe constrained by the agency’s authority to vehicle’s service brakes along with the understeer (loss of traction at the steer issue standards under the Motor Vehicle decrease in engine power and the use of tires) or severe oversteer (loss of traction Safety Act. Therefore, where the engine braking. Torque vectoring at the rear tires). In a combination considerations in subsection (e)(1) systems that are differential-based vehicle, a loss of traction at the trailer conflict with any requirements and would not provide adequate braking wheels would result in the trailer considerations set forth in subsections power and would be less effective than swinging out of its intended path. (a) and (b) of 49 U.S.C. 30111, the ESC at slowing a vehicle down to allow Conversely, rollover conditions occur requirements of the Motor Vehicle it to maneuver a curve without rolling on a vehicle when high lateral forces are Safety Act supersede the Motorcoach over. Likewise, brake-based torque generated at the tires from steering or Enhanced Safety Act.5 vectoring systems would be less sliding and result in a vehicle lateral This final rule is practicable, meets a effective than ESC for braking in a need for motor vehicle safety, and is acceleration that exceeds the rollover curve. In brake-based systems, the threshold of the vehicle. stated in objective terms. With respect inside wheels are braked during to the considerations of the Motorcoach cornering in order to prevent any loss of High lateral acceleration is one of the Enhanced Safety Act, we believe that traction, which could result because primary causes of rollovers. Figure 1 Congress intended that a final rule there is less weight on those wheel depicts a simplified untripped rollover based on the 2012 NPRM would during cornering. ESC provides braking condition. As shown, when the lateral complete the rulemaking proceeding to both the inside and outside wheels of force (i.e., lateral acceleration) is specified in section 32703(b)(3) of the the vehicle resulting in better brake sufficiently large and exceeds the roll Act. Electronic stability control will performance. stability threshold of the tractor-trailer reduce the number and frequency of combination vehicle, the vehicle will rollover crashes of motorcoaches. This III. Background roll over. Many factors related to the rulemaking is based on the best In the NPRM, we provided a detailed drivers’ maneuvers, heavy vehicle available science. Further, we have explanation of how rollovers occur, how loading conditions, vehicle handling considered the impact to seating stability control technologies such as characteristics, roadway design, and capacity and changes to size and weight roll stability control and electronic road surface properties would result in of motorcoaches, and we believe that stability control function and reduce various lateral accelerations and this rule will have no effect on these rollover, examples of situations in influences on the rollover propensity of considerations. ESC systems will add which stability control systems may not a vehicle. For example, given other less than 10 pounds of additional be effective, and the differences between factors are equal, a vehicle entering a weight to over-the-road buses.6 stability enhancing technology on light curve at a higher speed has a higher Although the Motorcoach Enhanced vehicles and heavy vehicles.8 This lateral acceleration and, as a result, is Safety Act also suggested torque section is a summary of that more likely to roll than a vehicle vectoring as a possible technology to information. entering the curve at a lower speed. consider requiring on motorcoaches, we A turning maneuver initiated by the Also, transporting a high-CG load would did not propose requiring torque driver’s steering input results in a increase the rollover probability more vectoring in the May 2012 NPRM, and vehicle response that can be broken than transporting a relatively lower CG it is beyond the scope of this rulemaking down into two phases. As the steering load.

regulations requiring safety belts to be installed at with a GVWR of 14,969 kilograms (33,000 pounds) for Heavy Trucks,’’ Docket No. NHTSA–2011– each designated seating position on all over-the- or less. 0066–0034. road buses. 6 ‘‘Report: Cost and Weight Analysis of Electronic 7 77 FR 30771. 5 See section IX.B below for such a finding with Stability Control (ESC) and Roll Stability Control 8 77 FR 30771–74. respect to the application of this final rule to buses

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:37 Jun 22, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\23JNR2.SGM 23JNR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 120 / Tuesday, June 23, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 36055

Stability control technologies help a cannot currently detect whether or not a steering wheel angle sensor, which driver maintain directional control and the trailer is equipped with ABS. senses the driver’s steering input.10 11 help to reduce roll instability. Two An RSC system can reduce rollovers, The other is a yaw rate sensor, which types of heavy vehicle stability control but is not designed to help to maintain measures the actual turning movement technologies have been developed. One directional control of a truck tractor. of the vehicle. These system inputs are such technology is roll stability control Nevertheless, RSC systems may provide monitored by the system’s ECU, which or RSC. RSC systems are available for some additional ability to maintain estimates when the vehicle’s directional truck tractors and for trailers. A tractor- directional control in some scenarios, response begins to deviate from the such as in a low-center-of-gravity based RSC system consists of an driver’s steering command, either by scenario, where an increase in a lateral electronic control unit (ECU) that is oversteer or understeer. An ESC system acceleration may lead to yaw instability mounted on a vehicle and continually intervenes to restore directional control rather than roll instability. by taking one or more of the following monitors the vehicle’s speed and lateral In comparison, a trailer-based RSC acceleration based on an accelerometer, actions: Decreasing engine power, using system has an ECU mounted on the engine braking, selectively applying the and estimates vehicle mass based on trailer, which typically monitors the engine torque information.9 The ECU brakes on the truck tractor to create a trailer’s wheel speeds, the trailer’s counter-yaw moment to turn the vehicle continuously estimates the roll stability suspension to estimate the trailer’s back to its steered direction, or applying threshold of a vehicle, which is the loading condition, and the trailer’s the brakes on the trailer. An ESC system lateral acceleration above which a lateral acceleration. A trailer-based RSC enhances the RSC functions because it combination vehicle will roll over. system works similarly to a tractor- has the added information from the based system. However, a trailer-based When the vehicle’s lateral acceleration steering wheel angle and yaw rate RSC system can only apply the trailer approaches the roll stability threshold, sensors, as well as more braking power brakes to slow a combination vehicle, the RSC system intervenes. Depending because of its additional capability to whereas a tractor-based RSC system can on how quickly the vehicle is apply the tractor’s steer axle brakes.12 approaching the estimated rollover apply brakes on both the tractor and Figure 2 illustrates the oversteering threshold, the RSC system intervenes by trailer. The other type of stability control and understeering conditions. While one or more of the following actions: systems available for truck tractors and Figure 2 may suggest that a particular Decreasing engine power, using engine large buses is an ESC system. An ESC vehicle loses control due to either braking, applying the tractor’s drive-axle system incorporates all of the inputs of oversteer or understeer, it is quite brakes, or applying the trailer’s brakes. an RSC system. However, it also has two possible that a vehicle could require When RSC systems apply the trailer’s additional sensors to monitor a vehicle both understeering and oversteering brakes, they use a pulse modulation for loss of directional control, which interventions during progressive phases protocol to prevent wheel lockup may result due to either understeer or of a complex crash avoidance maneuver because tractor stability control systems oversteer. The first additional sensor is such as a double lane change.

9 RSC systems are not presently available for large 11 Some RSC systems also use a steering wheel the steering axle without knowing where the driver buses. angle sensor, which allows the system to identify is steering the vehicle. 10 Because ESC systems must monitor steering potential roll instability events earlier. inputs from the tractor, ESC systems are not 12 This is a design strategy to avoid the available for trailers. unintended consequences of applying the brakes on

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:37 Jun 22, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\23JNR2.SGM 23JNR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 ER23JN15.008 36056 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 120 / Tuesday, June 23, 2015 / Rules and Regulations

Understeering. The left side of Figure reduces the predictability of the First, on light vehicles, the yaw stability 2 shows a truck tractor whose driver has vehicle’s handling threshold is typically lower than the roll lost directional control during an • Entry speeds that are much too high stability threshold. This means that a attempt to drive around a right curve. for a curved roadway or entrance/exit light vehicle making a crash avoidance The ESC system momentarily applies ramp maneuver, such as a lane change on a • the right rear brake, creating a clockwise Cargo load shifts or liquid sloshing dry road, is more likely to reach its yaw rotational force, to turn the heading of within the trailer during a steering stability threshold and lose directional maneuver control before it reaches its roll stability the vehicle back to the correct path. It • will also reduce engine power to gently Vehicle tripped by a curb or other threshold and rolls over. On a heavy slow the vehicle and, if necessary, apply roadside object or barrier vehicle, however, the roll stability • Truck rollovers that are the result of additional brakes (while maintaining threshold is lower than the yaw stability collisions with other motor vehicles threshold in most operating conditions, the uneven brake force to create the • Inoperative antilock braking primarily because of its higher center-of- necessary yaw moment). systems—the performance of stability gravity height.14 As a result, there is a Oversteering. The right side of Figure control systems depends on the proper greater propensity for a heavy vehicle, 2 shows that the truck tractor whose functioning of ABS particularly in a loaded condition, to driver has lost directional control • Brakes that are out-of-adjustment or roll during a severe crash avoidance during an attempt to drive around a other defects or malfunctions in the maneuver or when negotiating a curve, right curve. In a vehicle equipped with ESC, RSC, or brake system. than to become yaw unstable, as ESC, the system immediately detects • Maneuvers during tire tread compared with light vehicles. that the vehicle’s heading is changing separation or sudden tire deflation more quickly than appropriate for the events. Second, a tractor-trailer combination driver’s intended path (i.e., the yaw rate On April 6, 2007, the agency unit is comprised of a power unit and is too high). To counter the clockwise published a final rule that established one or more trailing units with one or rotation of the vehicle, it momentarily FMVSS No. 126, Electronic Stability more articulation points. In contrast, applies the left front brake, thus creating Control Systems, which requires all although a light vehicle may a counter-clockwise counter-rotational passenger , multipurpose passenger occasionally tow a trailer, a light vehicle force and turning the heading of the vehicles, trucks and buses with a GVWR is usually a single rigid unit. The tractor vehicle back to the correct path. It will of 4,536 kg (10,000 lb.) or less to be and the trailer have different center-of- also reduce engine power to gently slow equipped with an electronic stability gravity heights and different lateral the vehicle and, if necessary, apply control system beginning in model year acceleration threshold limits for additional brakes (while maintaining 2012.13 The system must be capable of rollover. A combination vehicle rollover the uneven brake force to create the applying brake torques individually at frequently begins with the trailer where necessary yaw moment). The ESC all four wheels, and must comply with the rollover is initiated by trailer wheel activation can be so subtle that the the performance criteria established for lift. driver does not perceive the need for stability and responsiveness when Third, due to greater length, mass, steering corrections. subjected to the sine with dwell steering and mass moments of inertia of heavy maneuver test. For light vehicles, the A stability control system will not vehicles, they respond more slowly to focus of the FMVSS No. 126 is on prevent all rollover and loss-of-control steering inputs than do light vehicles. addressing yaw instability, which can crashes. A stability control system has The longer of a heavy assist the driver in preventing the the capability to prevent many vehicle, compared with a light vehicle, vehicle from leaving the roadway, untripped on-road rollovers and first- results in a slower response time, which thereby preventing fatalities and injuries event loss-of-control events. gives the stability control system the associated with crashes involving Nevertheless, there are real-world opportunity to intervene and prevent tripped rollover, which often occur situations in which stability control rollovers. when light vehicles run off the road. systems may not be as effective in Finally, the larger number of wheels The standard does not include any avoiding a potential crash. Such on a heavy vehicle, as compared to a equipment or performance requirements situations include: light vehicle, makes heavy vehicles less for roll stability. • Off-road maneuvers in which a The dynamics of light vehicles and 14 One instance where a heavy vehicle’s yaw vehicle departs the roadway and heavy vehicles differ in many respects. stability threshold might be higher than its roll encounters a steep incline or an stability threshold is in an unloaded condition on unpaved surface that significantly 13 72 FR 17236. a low-friction road surface.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:37 Jun 22, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\23JNR2.SGM 23JNR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 ER23JN15.009 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 120 / Tuesday, June 23, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 36057

likely to become yaw unstable on dry Combination trucks were involved in B. Contributing Factors in Rollover and road surface conditions. 3,000 injury crashes and 373 fatal Loss-of-Control Crashes crashes, and single-unit trucks were IV. Safety Need Many factors related to heavy vehicle involved in 3,000 injury crashes and operation, as well as factors related to A. Heavy Vehicle Crash Problem 194 fatal crashes. roadway design and road surface According to FMCSA’s Large Truck This section presents data on the properties, can cause heavy vehicles to and Bus Crash Facts 2011, cross-country safety problem associated with rollover become yaw unstable or to roll. Listed intercity buses were involved in 39 of and loss of control of heavy vehicles. below are several real-world situations the 242 fatal bus crashes in 2011. The The information has been updated from in which stability control systems may bus types presented in the crash data similar information contained in the prevent or lessen the severity of such include school buses, cross-country NPRM. For the specific target crashes. intercity buses, transit buses, van-based population used to support the agency’s • Speed too high to negotiate a buses, and other buses. From 2002 to system effectiveness and estimated curve—The entry speed of vehicle is too 2011, cross-country intercity buses, on benefits, see Section XIV. high to safely negotiate a curve. When average, accounted for approximately 12 The Traffic Safety Facts 2012 reports the lateral acceleration of a vehicle that tractor trailer combination vehicles percent of all buses involved in fatal crashes, whereas transit buses and during a steering maneuver exceeds the are involved in about 72 percent of the vehicle’s roll or yaw stability threshold, fatal crashes involving large trucks, school buses accounted for 34 percent and 40 percent, respectively, of all buses a rollover or loss of control is initiated. annually.15 According to FMCSA’s Curves can present both roll and yaw Large Truck and Bus Crash Facts 2011, involved in fatal crashes. However, most of the transit bus and school bus crashes instability issues to these types of these vehicles had a fatal crash vehicles due to varying heights of loads involvement rate of 1.46 crashes per 100 are not rollover or loss-of-control crashes that ESC systems are capable of (low versus high, empty versus full) and million vehicle miles traveled during road surface friction levels (e.g., wet, 2011, whereas single-unit trucks had a preventing. Fatal rollover and loss-of- control crashes are a subset of these dry, icy, snowy). fatal crash involvement rate of 1.00 • Road design configuration—Some crashes per 100 million vehicle miles crashes. There are many more fatalities in drivers may misjudge the curvature of traveled.16 Combination vehicles buses with a GVWR greater than 11,793 ramps and not brake sufficiently to represent about 24 percent of large kg (26,000 lb.) compared to buses with negotiate the curve safely. This includes trucks registered but travel 61 percent of a GVWR between 4,536 kg and 11,793 driving on ramps with decreasing radius the large truck miles, annually. Traffic kg (10,000 lb. and 26,000 lb.).17 In the curves as well as operating on curves tie-ups resulting from loss-of-control 10-year period between 2000 and 2009, and ramps with improper signage. A and rollover crashes also contribute to there were 42 fatalities on buses with a vehicle traveling on a curve with a in millions of dollars of lost GVWR between 4,536 kg and 11,793 kg decrease in super-elevation (banking) at productivity and excess energy (10,000 lb. and 26,000 lb.) compared to the end of a ramp where it merges with consumption each year. the roadway causes an increase in According to Traffic Safety Facts 209 fatalities on buses with a GVWR greater than 11,793 kg (26,000 lb.). vehicle lateral acceleration, which may 2012, the overall crash problem for increase even more if the driver tractor trailer combination vehicles in Among buses with a GVWR of greater than 11,793 kg (26,000 lb.), over 70 accelerates the vehicle in preparation to that year was approximately 180,000 merge. crashes, 42,000 of which involve injury. percent of the fatalities were cross- • country intercity bus occupants, ‘‘other Sudden steering maneuvers to The overall crash problem for single- 18 avoid a crash—The driver makes an unit trucks is nearly as large—in 2012, buses,’’ and ‘‘unknown buses.’’ Thus, although these buses are only involved abrupt steering maneuver, such as a there were approximately 154,000 single- or double-lane-change maneuver, crashes, 35,000 of which were injury in 12 percent of fatal crashes involving buses, they represent the majority of or attempts to perform an off-road crashes. However, the fatal crash recovery maneuver, generating a lateral involvement for truck tractors is much fatalities from bus crashes. Furthermore, the size of the rollover acceleration that is sufficiently high to higher. In 2011, there were 2,736 fatal crash problem for cross-country cause roll or yaw instability. combination truck crashes and 1,066 intercity buses is greater than in other Maneuvering a vehicle on off-road, fatal single-unit truck crashes. unpaved surfaces such as grass or gravel The rollover crash problem for buses. According to FARS data from 2000 to 2009, there were 114 occupant may require a larger steering input combination trucks is much greater than (larger wheel slip angle) to achieve a for single-unit trucks. In 2011, there fatalities as a result of rollover events on cross-country intercity buses, ‘‘other given vehicle response, and this can were approximately 8,000 crashes lead to a large increase in lateral involving combination truck rollover buses,’’ and ‘‘unknown buses’’ with a GVWR of greater than 11,793 kg (26,000 acceleration once the vehicle returns to and 5,000 crashes involving single-unit the paved surface. This increase in truck rollover. As a percentage of all lb.), which represents 55 percent of bus fatalities on those bus types. lateral acceleration can cause the crashes, combination trucks are vehicle to exceed its roll or yaw stability involved in rollover crashes at a higher 17 This data was taken from the FARS database threshold. rate compared to single-unit trucks. and was presented in the final rule requiring that • Loading conditions—A loss of yaw Approximately 4.6 percent of all seat belts be installed on certain buses. See 78 FR stability due to severe over-steering is combination truck crashes were 70415, 70423–26 (Nov. 25, 2013). more likely to occur when a vehicle is 18 rollovers, but 3.2 percent of single-unit The FARS database has five bus body type in a lightly loaded condition and has a truck crashes were rollovers. categories: (1) Cross-country/intercity bus, (2) transit bus, (3) school bus, (4) other bus, and (5) lower center-of-gravity height than it unknown bus. Transit bus and school bus body would have when fully loaded. Heavy 15 DOT HS 812 032, available at http://www- types were excluded from the analysis because they vehicle rollovers are much more likely nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/812032.pdf. are easily recognized and categorized as such by 16 FMCSA–RRA–13–049 (Oct. 2013), available at crash investigators and those coding the FARS data. to occur when the vehicle is in a fully http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/sites/fmcsa.dot.gov/files/ Thus, those vehicles are unlikely to be miscoded as loaded condition, which results in a docs/LargeTruckandBusCrashFacts2011.pdf. other buses. high center of gravity for the vehicle.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:37 Jun 22, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\23JNR2.SGM 23JNR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 36058 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 120 / Tuesday, June 23, 2015 / Rules and Regulations

Cargo placed off-center in the trailer of whether the vehicles are equipped demonstrated in one of eight tests, and may result in the vehicle being less with a hydraulic or pneumatic brake the rollover control function must be stable in one direction than in the other. system. demonstrated in one of two tests. For It is also possible that improperly • H–11–08: Once the performance compliance purposes, the ECE secured cargo can shift while the standards from Safety Recommendation regulation requires a road test to be vehicle is negotiating a curve, thereby H–11–07 have been developed, require performed with the function enabled reducing roll or yaw stability. Sloshing the installation of stability control and disabled, or as an alternative, can occur in tankers transporting liquid systems on all newly manufactured accepts results from a computer bulk cargoes, which is of particular commercial vehicles with a GVWR simulation. No test procedure or pass/ concern when the tank is partially full greater than 10,000 pounds. fail criterion is included in the regulation, but it is left to the discretion because the vehicle may experience D. Motorcoach Safety Plan significantly reduced roll stability of the Type Approval Testing Authority during certain maneuvers. In November 2009, the U.S. in agreement with the vehicle • Road surface conditions—The road Department of Transportation manufacturer to show that the system is surface condition can also play a role in Motorcoach Safety Action Plan was functional. The implementation date of the loss of control a vehicle experiences. issued.20 Among other things, the Annex 21 was 2012 for most vehicles, On a dry, high-friction asphalt or Motorcoach Safety Action Plan includes with a phase-in based on the vehicle concrete surface, a tractor trailer an action item for NHTSA to assess the type. safety benefits for stability control on combination vehicle executing a severe V. Summary of the May 2012 NPRM turning maneuver is likely to experience large buses and develop objective a high lateral acceleration, which may performance standards for these Since 2006, the agency has been lead to roll or yaw instability. However, systems.21 Consistent with that plan, involved in testing truck tractors and a similar maneuver performed on a wet NHTSA made a decision to pursue a large buses with stability control or slippery road surface is not as likely stability control requirement for large systems. To evaluate these systems, to experience the high lateral buses. NHTSA sponsored studies of crash data acceleration because of less available In March 2011, NHTSA issued its in order to examine the potential safety tire traction. Hence, the vehicle is more latest Vehicle Safety and Fuel Economy benefits of stability control systems. likely to be yaw unstable than roll Rulemaking and Research Priority Plan NHTSA and industry representatives unstable. (Priority Plan).22 The Priority Plan separately evaluated data on dynamic describes the agency plans for test maneuvers. At the same time, the C. NTSB Safety Recommendations rulemaking and research for calendar agency launched a three-phase testing The National Transportation Safety years 2011 to 2013. The Priority Plan program to improve its understanding of Board (NTSB) has issued several safety includes stability control on truck how stability control systems in truck recommendations relevant to ESC tractors and large buses, and states that tractors and buses work and to develop systems on heavy and other vehicles. the agency plans to develop test dynamic test maneuvers to challenge One is H–08–15, which addresses ESC procedures for a Federal motor vehicle roll propensity and yaw stability. By systems and collision warning systems safety standard on stability control for combining the studies of the crash data with active braking on commercial truck tractors, with the countermeasures with the testing data, the agency is able vehicles. Recommendations H–11–07 of roll stability control and electronic to evaluate the potential effectiveness of and H–11–08 specifically address stability control, which are aimed at stability control systems for truck stability control systems on commercial addressing rollover and loss-of-control tractors and large buses. motor vehicles and buses with a GVWR crashes. The agency conducted a three-phase testing program for truck tractors and above 10,000 pounds. Two other safety E. International Regulation recommendations, H–01–06 and H–01– large buses that was described at length 07, relate to adaptive cruise control and The United Nations (UN) Economic in the NPRM and in published reports in order to develop one or more test collision warning systems on Commission for Europe (ECE) maneuvers to ensure that ESC systems commercial vehicles and are indirectly Regulation 13, Uniform Provisions can reduce vehicle instability. As a related to ESC on heavy vehicles Concerning the Approval of Vehicles of result of the agency’s testing program because these technologies require the Categories M, N and O with Regard to and the test data received from industry, ability to apply brakes without driver Braking, has been amended to include the agency was able to develop reliable input. Annex 21, Special Requirements for • H–08–15: Determine whether Vehicles Equipped with a Vehicle and repeatable test maneuvers that equipping commercial vehicles with Stability Function. Annex 21’s could demonstrate a stability control collision warning systems with active requirements apply to trucks with a system’s ability to prevent rollover and braking 19 and electronic stability GVWR greater than 3,500 kg (7,716 lb.), loss of directional control among the control systems will reduce commercial buses with a seating capacity of 10 or varied configurations of truck tractors vehicle accidents. If these technologies more (including the driver), and trailers and buses in the fleet. After considering and evaluating are determined to be effective in with a GVWR greater than 3,500 kg several test maneuvers, the agency reducing accidents, require their use on (7,716 lb.). Trucks and buses are proposed using two test maneuvers for commercial vehicles. required to be equipped with a stability performance testing: The slowly • H–11–07: Develop stability control system that includes rollover control increasing steer (SIS) maneuver and the system performance standards for all and directional control, while trailers sine with dwell (SWD) maneuver. The commercial motor vehicles and buses are required to have a stability system SIS maneuver is a characterization with a gross vehicle weight rating that includes only rollover control. The maneuver used to determine the amount greater than 10,000 pounds, regardless directional control function must be of steering input required by the SWD 19 Active braking involves using the vehicle’s 20 See supra, note 6. maneuver. By determining the brakes to maintain a certain, preset distance 21 Id. at 28–29. relationship between a vehicle’s steering between vehicles. 22 See Docket No. NHTSA–2009–0108–0032. wheel angle and the lateral acceleration,

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:37 Jun 22, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\23JNR2.SGM 23JNR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 120 / Tuesday, June 23, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 36059

the SIS maneuver normalizes the followed by a fixed radius curve. The additional time would be necessary to severity of the SWD maneuver. The SIS steering wheel angle is determined by develop, test, and equip these vehicles maneuver was also proposed to be used the driver making adjustments and with ESC systems. Although the agency to ensure that the system has the ability corrections to maintain the fixed path. has statutory authority to require to reduce engine torque. In the RSM maneuver, a vehicle is retrofitting of in-service truck tractors, Using a steering wheel angle derived driven at a constant speed and a steering trailers, and large buses, the agency did from the SIS maneuver, the agency wheel input that is based on the steering not propose to require retrofitting, but proposed conducting the sine with wheel angle derived from the SIS sought comment on its feasibility, given dwell maneuver. The SWD test maneuver. The steering wheel angle is the integrated aspects of a stability maneuver challenges both roll and yaw then held for a period of time before it control system. stability by subjecting the vehicle to a is returned to zero. In both the J-turn VI. Overview of the Comments sinusoidal input. This maneuver would and RSM maneuvers, a stability control be repeated for two series of test runs system acts to reduce lateral This section presents a brief overview (first in the counterclockwise direction acceleration, and thereby wheel lift and of the comments received in response to and then in the clockwise direction) at roll instability, by applying selective the NPRM. The comments are addressed several target steering wheel angles from braking. A vehicle without a stability in detail in the section related to the 30 to 130 percent of the angle derived control system being tested with these subject of the comment. However, those in the SIS maneuver. maneuvers would exhibit high levels of comments that merely advocated the We proposed measuring, recording, lateral acceleration and potentially adoption or rejection of the proposal or and processing lateral acceleration, yaw experience wheel lift or rollover. some aspect thereof without any rate, and engine torque data derived The NPRM also set forth the test underlying explanation are not from the SIS and SWD maneuvers to conditions that the agency would use to addressed further. determine four performance metrics: ensure safety and demonstrate sufficient We also conducted a public hearing Lateral acceleration ratio (LAR), yaw performance. All vehicles were on July 24, 2012 in Washington, D.C.23 rate ratio (YRR), lateral displacement, proposed to be tested using outriggers Summaries of the oral testimony and a and engine torque reduction. The LAR for the safety of the test driver. The transcript of the hearing are both and YRR metrics ensure that the system agency proposed using an automated available in the docket.24 Although we reduces lateral acceleration and yaw steering controller for the RSM, SIS, and have considered the public hearing rate, respectively, after an aggressive SWD maneuvers to ensure reproducible testimony as if it was a written comment steering input, thereby preventing and repeatable test execution received in the docket, much of the rollover and loss of control, performance. The agency proposed testimony was duplicated in the written respectively. The lateral displacement testing truck tractors with an unbraked comments. We have discussed public metric ensures that the stability control control trailer to eliminate the effect of hearing testimony below only where system is not set to intervene solely by the trailer’s brakes on testing. The that testimony was not reflected in making the vehicle nonresponsive to agency also proposed a test to ensure written comments received by the driver input. The engine torque that system malfunction is detected. agency. reduction metric ensures that the system The NPRM proposed that a final rule In addition to the comments received has the capability to automatically would take effect for most truck tractors at the public hearing, we received reduce engine torque in response to and applicable buses produced two written comments from 43 individuals high lateral acceleration and yaw rate years after publication of a final rule. or entities. The commenters represented conditions. We stated that two years of lead time wide-ranging interests, including The agency also considered several would be necessary to ensure sufficient individuals, truck drivers, truck fleet test maneuvers based on its own work availability of stability control systems operators, vehicle component and that of industry. In particular, the from suppliers of these systems and to manufacturers, truck and bus agency’s research included both a J-turn complete necessary engineering on all manufacturers, and safety advocacy maneuver and a ramp steer maneuver vehicles. For three-axle tractors with organizations. The identity of the 46 (RSM) for evaluating roll stability. The one drive axle, tractors with four or commenters, their self-identified J-turn maneuver is a path-following more , and severe service tractors, interest or affiliation, if given, where the maneuver where a vehicle is driven on we proposed allowing two years of comments can be located in the docket a test course consisting of a straight lane additional lead time. We stated this are cited in Table 2.25

TABLE 2—LIST OF COMMENTERS AND LOCATION OF COMMENTS IN THE DOCKET

Commenter Docket Number

Vehicle Manufacturers: Blue Bird Body Company (Blue Bird) ...... NHTSA–2012–0065–0034 Daimler Trucks North America LLC (Daimler) ...... NHTSA–2012–0065–0028 EvoBus GmbH ...... NHTSA–2012–0065–0027 Fire Apparatus Manufacturer’s Association ...... NHTSA–2012–0065–0014 Navistar, Inc...... NHTSA–2012–0065–0039 Schneider National Inc. (Schneider) ...... NHTSA–2012–0065–0033 Temsa Global (Temsa) ...... NHTSA–2012–0065–0019 Truck & Engine Manufacturers Association (EMA) ...... NHTSA–2012–0065–0044 Volvo Group ...... NHTSA–2012–0065–0031

23 Notice of the hearing was published in the 2012–0065–0049. A transcript of the public hearing 25 Three commenters presented comments only at Federal Register on July 2, 2012. 77 FR 39206. is contained in Docket No. NHTSA–2012–0065– the public hearing. 24 Summaries of the oral testimony provided by 0056. the presenters are contained in Docket No. NHTSA–

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:37 Jun 22, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\23JNR2.SGM 23JNR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 36060 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 120 / Tuesday, June 23, 2015 / Rules and Regulations

TABLE 2—LIST OF COMMENTERS AND LOCATION OF COMMENTS IN THE DOCKET—Continued

Commenter Docket Number

Component Manufacturers: Bendix Commercial Vehicle Systems ...... NHTSA–2012–0065–0046 NHTSA–2012–0065–0048 NHTSA–2012–0065–0055 Heavy Duty Brake Manufacturers Council (HDBMC) ...... NHTSA–2012–0065–0041 Meritor WABCO ...... NHTSA–2012–0065–0035 Robert Bosch LLC (Bosch) ...... NHTSA–2012–0065–0036 Drivers and Fleet Operators: American Trucking Associations, Inc. (ATA), including report of the American Transportation Research Institute NHTSA–2012–0065–0016 (ATRI). NHTSA–2012–0065–0030 NHTSA–2012–0065–0057 Associated Logging Contractors—Idaho ...... NHTSA–2012–0065–0042 John Boyle ...... NHTSA–2012–0065–0017 Jim Burg, James Burg Trucking Company ...... NHTSA–2012–0065–0056 (public hearing) John H. Hill, The Hill Group ...... NHTSA–2012–0065–0056 (public hearing) Alexander J. MacDonald ...... NHTSA–2012–0065–0005 National Ready Mixed Concrete Association ...... NHTSA–2012–0065–0038 National School Transportation Association ...... NHTSA–2012–0065–0037 Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association (OOIDA) ...... NHTSA–2012–0065–0024 Skagit Transportation Inc ...... NHTSA–2012–0065–0006 Bob Waterman ...... NHTSA–2012–0065–0052 Safety Organizations: AAA Public Affairs (AAA) ...... NHTSA–2012–0065–0043 Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety (Advocates) ...... NHTSA–2012–0065–0047 American Highway Users Alliance ...... NHTSA–2012–0065–0040 Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance (CVSA) ...... NHTSA–2012–0065–0050 Consumers Union ...... NHTSA–2012–0065–0053 Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) ...... NHTSA–2012–0065–0021 Kentucky Injury Prevention and Research Center ...... NHTSA–2012–0065–0007 National Association for Pupil Transport (NAPT) ...... NHTSA–2012–0065–0023 National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) ...... NHTSA–2012–0065–0015 Road Safe America ...... NHTSA–2012–0065–0004 Other Organizations and Private Individuals: American Association for Justice (AAJ) ...... NHTSA–2012–0065–0020 American Trauma Society ...... NHTSA–2012–0065–0009 Justin C. Barriault ...... NHTSA–2012–0065–0010 Robert M. Chin ...... NHTSA–2012–0065–0011 Jerry R. Curry ...... NHTSA–2012–0065–0018 Jerry J. Evans ...... NHTSA–2012–0065–0003 Fried Rogers Goldberg, LLC ...... NHTSA–2012–0065–0025 Nadya V. Gerber ...... NHTSA–2012–0065–0012 The Martec Group, Inc. (Martec) ...... NHTSA–2012–0065–0051 Mercatus Center at George Mason University (Mercatus) ...... NHTSA–2012–0065–0022 Josh A. Sullivan ...... NHTSA–2012–0065–0013 Hon. Betty Sutton ...... NHTSA–2012–0065–0056 (public hearing)

VII. Key Differences Between the Final NPRM, we proposed using a slowly requirement that an ESC system be Rule and the NRPM increasing steer (SIS) maneuver as a capable of mitigating yaw instability. characterization maneuver and a sine The 150-foot J-turn maneuver also This section summarizes the with dwell (SWD) maneuver as a roll uses a different performance metric than significant differences between the and yaw performance maneuver. The the SWD maneuver. The SWD NPRM and this final rule. Less 150-foot J-turn test maneuver is maneuver’s performance criteria were significant changes are noted in the the change in lateral acceleration and appropriate sections of the preamble. discussed in the NPRM and is a variation of an alternative test maneuver yaw rate through the maneuver. In this The most significant change between proposed in the NPRM. final rule, we are using a simpler the NPRM and the final rule is that the metric—reduction in forward speed. agency has chosen an alternative Because the 150-foot J-turn test The change in performance test performance test maneuver to maneuver only tests an ESC system’s maneuver has also led to changes in the demonstrate an ESC system’s ability to ability to mitigate roll instability and the test conditions and equipment. Because maintain vehicle stability. After agency lacks any alternative test the test maneuver in this final rule is considering public comments and maneuver to test an ESC system’s ability conducted over a fixed path, rather than conducting additional track testing, we to mitigate yaw instability, this final fixed steering used for the SWD have adopted a 150-foot J-turn rule does not include a performance test maneuver, an automated steering wheel maneuver as the performance test to evaluate yaw instability. However, controller will not be used for the J-turn maneuver in this final rule. In the this final rule carries forward the maneuver. We have also modified the

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:37 Jun 22, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\23JNR2.SGM 23JNR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 120 / Tuesday, June 23, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 36061

loading condition for vehicles to test control mandate at preventing rollover control mandate. Some motor carriers them at GVWR. We have also reduced and loss-of-control crashes. who commented also supported a the instrumentation requirements in Individual commenters, many of stability control mandate. The NTSB light of the simpler performance metric. whom identified themselves as truck and a former Member of Congress, Betty drivers, also questioned the safety of Sutton, both supported a stability VIII. ESC Requirement stability control systems and their control mandate. Many individual A. Whether to Require Stability Control ability to prevent crashes. One commenters also supported a stability In the May 2012 NPRM, the agency commenter believes that stability control mandate. proposed to require that all truck control systems are unsafe based on Although these commenters come tractors and certain buses with a GVWR personal experience because it often from varied backgrounds, their reasons of more than 11,793 kg (26,000 lb.) to be engaged the service brakes in curves. for supporting a stability control equipped with ESC. The agency Another commenter was concerned that mandate were generally consistent. preliminarily found that the proposed drivers would become too dependent on Commenters supporting a mandate standard met the need for motor vehicle stability control systems and cause them generally cited research from NHTSA, safety.26 That finding was based upon to drive through curves faster with the the manufacturing industry, and others the safety problem discussed in the system than without. regarding the effectiveness of stability OOIDA and many individual NPRM and summarized in section IV control systems, and their ability to commenters were concerned about the above.27 Moreover, the agency found prevent rollover and loss-of-control total cost of the rule and whether the that requiring ESC systems on truck crashes and save lives. IIHS, for benefits justified the costs. Relatedly, tractors and certain large buses would example, cited its own research several commenters raised concerns that be cost-effective.28 suggesting that having ESC systems on We received many comments stability control systems would add all truck tractors could prevent as many addressing the general question of complexity to the brake system by as 295 fatal crashes each year. Some whether stability control systems should requiring additional parts, and thus, individual commenters also cited be required on truck tractors and large higher repair costs. Yankee Trucks also personal experience with stability raised concerns that if a stability control buses. Several commenters questioned control systems. John Hill observed that system malfunctions, ABS would also the need for a stability control mandate the cost of a stability control system on not function. OOIDA claimed that a on truck tractors and certain large buses a vehicle is comparable to the cost to the stability control requirement would and recommended against adopting a government of a single compliance cause drivers and truck companies to final rule requiring any type of stability review of a motor carrier’s safety keep existing vehicles in service longer control system. A consistent theme in practices. These commenters generally or even go out of business due to the many of the comments received from agreed that the benefits of a stability added costs of stability control and private individuals was also expressed control mandate far exceed its costs. in the comment from Yankee Trucks. other regulatory mandates. Some commenters also expressed After considering all public These commenters argued that the concerns that stability control comments, the agency is proceeding decision to include ESC should be technologies could have negative effects with adopting FMVSS No. 136 to decided by the vehicle’s end user. on safety. For example, individual require all truck tractors and certain Other commenters such as Mercatus large buses with a GVWR of more than and OOIDA were concerned that commenters questioned whether it was safe to have stability control systems 11,793 kg (26,000 lb.) to have stability NHTSA failed to look at alternative control systems. This decision is largely methods to improve motor vehicle braking the vehicle automatically in wet conditions or on curves. Associated driven by the data before the agency. In safety problems caused by rollover and developing the proposal, the agency loss-of-control crashes. Mercatus Logging Contractors opposed a mandate because it believes that a stability analyzed crash data to identify risks not suggested that NHTSA failed to look at addressed in existing FMVSSs. These driver fatigue detection, road condition control requirement may cause safety issues on forest roads, which are safety risks include rollover and loss-of- sensors, improved safety procedures, or control crashes that are caused by many driver training, which might be less different from highways. Commenters from a wide variety of factors including traveling at a speed too costly. OOIDA highlighted driver backgrounds supported a stability high to negotiate a curve, sudden training, enforcement of traffic laws, control mandate. These organizations steering maneuvers to avoid a crash, driver incentives, improved include organizations such as Road Safe loading conditions, road surface crashworthiness, and road signage as America, the Kentucky Injury conditions, and road design alternative ways to deal with the Prevention and Research Center, the configuration. The agency’s research, rollover problem. Several other American Trauma Society, the described at length in the NPRM, shows commenters highlighted driver training that stability control technologies could and accountability related to both American Association for Justice, prevent crashes in these situations. driving and vehicle loading as Advocates, the American Highway alternative methods that could prevent Users Alliance, AAA, the Commercial With respect to the comments rollover and loss-of-control crashes. The Vehicle Safety Alliance, and Consumers suggesting that vehicles braking during Boyle Brothers, OOIDA, and several Union. Business associations a curve or on wet conditions could have individual commenters both noted that representing brake suppliers (HDBMC), adverse safety consequences, we stability control systems would not truck manufacturers (EMA), and truck observe that an ESC system is designed prevent crashes caused by driving too fleet operators (ATA) all supported a to slow the vehicle in a curve in order fast for conditions. Both Mercatus and stability control mandate. Brake to reduce the lateral acceleration and OOIDA believe that alternative suppliers such as Bosch, Bendix, and allow the operator to maintain roll and measures are less costly than a stability Meritor WABCO also supported a yaw control of the vehicle only in stability control mandate. Individual situations where instability is imminent. 26 77 FR 30788. truck and bus manufacturers who After careful qualitative and 27 77 FR 30769–71. commented also such as Daimler, Volvo, quantitative assessment, we have 28 77 FR 30791. and Navistar supported a stability concluded that requiring stability

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:37 Jun 22, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\23JNR2.SGM 23JNR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 36062 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 120 / Tuesday, June 23, 2015 / Rules and Regulations

control systems will improve the overall preliminary conclusion that mandating Both Schneider and ATA cited a safety of the vehicle. RSC systems would be more cost- study by the American Transportation Regarding other possible effective than mandating ESC systems, Research Institute (ATRI) that surveyed improvements to reduce crashes, we do mandating ESC systems would result in stability control technology used in the not disagree that many of the higher net benefits. trucking industry. This study collected suggestions regarding driver training, Several commenters agreed with crash and financial data from the enforcements, and crashworthiness of NHTSA’s proposal to require ESC trucking industry, including trucks and buses could improve motor systems rather than RSC systems. Jerry information regarding whether the vehicle safety and (except for the latter) Curry and Bendix specifically vehicle was equipped with an ESC reduce vehicle rollover and loss-of- mentioned that ESC systems should be system, an RSC system, or no stability control crashes. However, driver required instead of RSC systems. Mr. control system at all. The sample training and enforcement of traffic Curry and IIHS also commented that included 135,712 trucks, of which safety laws are outside of NHTSA’s RSC systems would not be the best 68,647 had RSC systems, 39,529 had regulatory authority under the Safety platform to use when considering future ESC systems, and 27,536 had no Act. Moreover, the commenters technological advances. John Hill stability control systems. The study advocating these alterative means to similarly observed that ESC systems included unit costs of stability systems, address the safety problem did not have the potential to support future average annual miles per tractor, the provide data to support their collision avoidance and crash mitigation total number of safety incidents conclusions that their alternatives technologies. Mr. Hill also observed that (including rollover crashes), and the would be less costly or more cost- loss-of-control crashes can be difficult to average cost of each incident. The crash effective than a stability control identify and classify. Road Safe analysis concluded that industry-wide mandate. Although the issues related to America, Mr. MacDonald, and AAA said installation of RSC systems would result costs and benefits will be addressed the agency should require ESC in fewer rollover, jackknife, and tow/ more specifically in section XIV below, equipment on truck tractors and buses. stuck crashes compared to industry- the agency has concluded that requiring IIHS and Jim Burg recommended wide installation of ESC systems. ESC systems on truck tractors and requiring ESC systems over RSC systems NHTSA agrees with those certain large buses is cost-effective and because loss-of-control collisions can be commenters recommending ESC the most effective means to address the reduced using ESC systems. Volvo, systems instead of RSC systems. safety problem identified in this while not expressly advocating for an However, we are not relying on the rulemaking. ESC mandate, stated that it had assertions of Mr. Curry, Mr. Hill and IIHS that ESC systems provide a better B. Whether to Require ESC or RSC investigated the use of RSC systems, but platform for future technological found they were unable to provide The agency proposed to require that advances. We believe the justification stability control in a wide range of truck tractors and large buses be for ESC systems is satisfied using driving conditions and environments equipped with ESC systems rather than benefits estimates for today’s ESC that its customers operate. RSC systems. An ESC system is capable systems, without having to consider of all of the functions of an RSC system. In its comment, Bendix stated that an possible future advances such as In addition, an ESC system has the ESC system has an effectiveness that is forward collision mitigation systems. additional ability to detect yaw 31% greater than a RSC system. Bendix Similarly, we are not relying on instability, provide braking at front also commented that ESC systems Bendix’s assessment of ESC system wheels, and detect the steering wheel provide ‘‘more information about what effectiveness. While Bendix’s analysis of angle. These additions, as demonstrated the vehicle is doing’’ because these the effectiveness of ESC and RSC by NHTSA’s testing, allow an ESC systems include two additional sensors. systems is addressed in more detail in system to have better rollover Bendix also said that ESC systems section XIV below, we believe that our prevention performance than an RSC provide more effective interventions own analysis based on an effectiveness system in addition to the yaw instability through selective application of all study conducted by University of prevention component. This is because available vehicle brakes. Michigan Transportation Research the steering wheel angle sensor allows Other commenters supported RSC as Institute (UMTRI) and Meritor WABCO the ESC system to anticipate changes in a minimum requirement rather than is a more accurate assessment of the lateral acceleration based upon driver ESC. Schneider, for example, asserted effectiveness of ESC and RSC systems. input and to intervene with engine that it considered purchasing vehicles Although both NHTSA and Bendix torque reduction or selective braking with ESC system, but determined that reached the conclusion that ESC sooner, rather than waiting for the ESC systems would provide a negligible systems will be more effective than RSC lateral acceleration sensors to detect benefit at substantially higher costs systems at preventing rollover crashes, potential instability. when compared to RSC. ATA also we believe that Bendix’s method of The NPRM stated that mandating ESC asserted that marginal benefit of ESC determining system effectiveness is systems rather than RSC systems will over RSC is not justified by the added arbitrarily biased in favor of ESC prevent more crashes, injuries, and cost based on current information. ATA systems. fatalities. The additional benefits from cited the variability of the truck-tractor Regarding ATA’s assertion of the ESC systems can be attributed to both industry in four areas: (1) Private variability of trucks, we agree that truck the ESC’s system’s ability to intervene trucking vs. for-hire companies; (2) the tractors are varied and that some of sooner and its ability to prevent yaw size of loads; (3) the type of truck and those variations affect vehicle stability. instability that would lead to loss-of- trailer being used (e.g., box, van, However, we believe that variability control crashes. refrigerated, liquid and bulk tankers); justifies choosing to require ESC The NPRM stated that mandating ESC and by operation (e.g., agricultural, long systems rather than RSC systems. In systems rather than RSC systems will haul, short haul, over size, overweight, particular, ATA observed that trucks result in higher initial costs to etc.). ATA believes this diversity may carry various loads, implying that manufacturers. Moreover, while our warrant choosing ESC or RSC certain kinds of loads may be more benefit and cost estimates led to the depending on the individual vehicle. suited to ESC systems whereas other

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:37 Jun 22, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\23JNR2.SGM 23JNR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 120 / Tuesday, June 23, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 36063

loads may only require RSC systems to and much less beneficial in addressing lateral acceleration and wheel speeds; achieve equal effectiveness. However, loss-of-control crashes. Although RSC and the ability to control engine power the nature of the trucking industry is systems are slightly more cost beneficial output. such that a truck tractor may end up than ESC systems, ESC systems provide In developing a definition for ESC, the towing many different types of trailers substantially higher net benefits because agency reviewed the functional in its lifetime, including flatbed trailers, ESC systems will prevent many more attributes contained in SAE J2627 and box trailers, and tanker trailers. A crashes.30 NHTSA has concluded that the requirements of Annex 21 of UN vehicle manufacturer is unlikely to the additional safety benefits of ESC ECE Regulation 13, and incorporated know at the time of a vehicle’s systems in both rollover and loss-of- parts of both of definitions the NPRM. production whether a specific truck control crashes justify the additional The proposed definition was similar in tractor is going to be carrying loads that cost of ESC systems compared to RSC wording to the definition from FMVSS are more likely to cause a rollover or systems. No. 126, which specifies certain features loss-of-control crash because the load that must be present, that ESC be C. Definition of ESC has a high center of gravity or has the capable of applying all the brakes potential to slosh. The only way to The NPRM included definitional individually on the vehicle, and that it ensure that the vehicles that ATA criteria in the proposed regulatory text. have a computer using a closed-loop believes would perform better with ESC We reasoned that, relying solely on algorithm to limit vehicle oversteer and systems is to require all truck tractors to performance-based tests without understeer when appropriate. Unlike be equipped with ESC systems. mandating any specific equipment may the light vehicle standard, which The ATRI study will be addressed require a battery of tests to cover the focuses on yaw stability, the NPRM more specifically in the benefits and complete operating range of the vehicle. proposed to require a stability control costs discussion in section XIV below Given the wide array of possible system that also helps to mitigate roll and in the FRIA accompanying this final configurations and operating ranges for instability conditions. rule. However, for the purpose of heavy vehicles, the agency did not Furthermore, the proposed definition determining whether to require ESC believe it was practical to develop required that the ESC system must be systems or RSC systems, the ATRI performance tests that address the full operational during all phases of driving, study’s suggestion that RSC systems range of possibilities and remain cost- including acceleration, coasting, would be more beneficial than ESC effective. Accordingly, the agency deceleration, and braking, except when systems reflects the specific truck proposed to include definitional criteria the vehicle is below a low-speed carriers they studied, but does not in the NPRM, which included threshold where loss of control or necessarily constitute a representative equipment that would be required as rollover is unlikely. According to sample of the truck fleet. ATRI’s part of a compliant ESC system.31 We information the agency obtained from conclusion is contrary to NHTSA’s own note that, when developing the ESC vehicle manufacturers and ESC system findings that ESC systems are more requirement for light vehicles, the suppliers, the low speed threshold for a effective and have greater net benefits agency chose to include such a stability control system is 10 km/h (6.2 than RSC systems. First, as explained requirement in FMVSS No. 126. mph) for yaw stability control and 20 above, ESC systems contain all of the SAE International has a km/h (12.4 mph) for roll stability functions of RSC systems, plus have Recommended Practice on Brake control. For the purposes of the NPRM, additional sensors such as a steering Systems Definitions-Truck and Bus, the agency set a single threshold of 20 wheel angle sensor, to allow a system to J2627 (Aug. 2009), which includes a km/h (12.4 mph) as the speed below intervene based on a predicted rise in definition of Electronic Stability Control which ESC is not required to be lateral acceleration rather than waiting and Roll Stability Control. SAE operational. for the lateral acceleration to rise. International’s definition of an ESC The benefit of an ESC system is that Second, ESC systems have the system requires that a system have an it will reduce vehicle rollovers and loss capability to braking all of the vehicle’s electronic control unit that considers of control under a wide variety of axles, whereas an RSC system is wheel speed, yaw rate, lateral vehicle operational and environmental generally unable to brake the steering acceleration, and steering angle and that conditions. However, the performance axle of the vehicle. Third, although the system must intervene and control tests in the NPRM would only evaluate NHTSA’s own research found that one engine torque and auxiliary brake ESC system performance under very RSC system performed as well or systems to correct the vehicle’s path. specific conditions. To ensure that a slightly better than an ESC system under The UN ECE Regulation 13 definition vehicle is equipped with an ESC system certain conditions, we attributed the for the electronic stability control that met the proposed definition, we performance difference to that particular system, promulgated in Annex 21, proposed that vehicle manufacturers RSC system being programmed to brake includes the following functional make available to the agency more aggressively than the ESC system attributes for directional control: documentation that would enable on the same vehicle.29 For these Sensing yaw rate, lateral acceleration, NHTSA to ascertain that the system reasons, we conclude that the ATRI wheel speeds, braking input and includes the components and performs study is not representative of the entire steering input; and the ability to control the functions of an ESC system. trucking industry or the performance of engine power output. For vehicles with Meritor WABCO, HDBMC, and ESC systems compared to RSC systems. rollover control, the functions required Bendix recommended a change to the Based on the foregoing, this final rule by the stability control include: Sensing definition of an ESC system. Where the will require that truck tractors and definition required that the system both certain buses be equipped with ESC 30 Cost-effectiveness is measured in terms of augment vehicle directional stability systems rather than RSC systems. As lower cost per equivalent life saved. For more and enhance rollover stability by discussed in section XIV below, RSC discussion of the costs and benefits of this rule see applying and adjusting brake torques, systems are less beneficial than ESC Section XIV, below, and the Final Regulatory the commenters recommended that the Impact Analysis accompanying this final rule, systems in reducing rollover crashes which has been placed in the docket. words ‘‘having the capability of’’ be 31 Similar requirements exist in the light vehicle added to each instance. Bendix also 29 77 FR 30779. ESC requirements. See 49 CFR 571.126, S4. recommended that each instance of

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:37 Jun 22, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\23JNR2.SGM 23JNR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 36064 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 120 / Tuesday, June 23, 2015 / Rules and Regulations

‘‘brake torque’’ should be changed to HDBMC, and Bendix suggested an system meets the FMVSSs. HDBMC and ‘‘deceleration torque.’’ addition to the requirement that a Bendix requested confirmation that this We agree with the commenters’ system have a means to estimate the technical documentation would be recommendation to change the vehicle (or combination vehicle) mass. considered proprietary information and requirement that ESC systems augment The commenters request that NHTSA would not be released to the public. vehicle directional stability and include language allowing a system to Finally, Bendix was concerned about enhance rollover stability by ‘‘applying automatically obtain the vehicle’s mass. the acceptance criteria for the and adjusting vehicle brake torques’’ to NHTSA is not making the suggested evaluation of the submitted technical ‘‘having the capability of applying and change. The suggested change would documentation. Bendix stated that there adjusting vehicle brake torques.’’ The require a system to have a means to was no objective acceptance criteria in wording in the NPRM could be estimate or automatically obtain vehicle the proposed standard and construed to require brake torques to be mass. We do not believe there is a recommended that the agency add applied simultaneously at each wheel manner in which to automatically acceptance criteria. position for correcting yaw moment or obtain the vehicle’s mass short of Upon consideration of the comments, reduce lateral acceleration. This was not weighing it on a scale. Any other we have decided to remove from the our intention. Rather, we intended to calculation of the vehicle’s mass is an regulatory text references to specific require that brake torque at each wheel estimate. We note that the means for documentation that NHTSA would position be capable of being applied and obtaining the vehicle’s mass is not request from manufacturers. However, adjusted individually. In analogous prescribed. The requirement is NHTSA’s Office of Vehicle of Safety portions of the ESC system definition, necessary to ensure that the ESC system Compliance often requests, as part of its we use the words ‘‘has a means,’’ which is capable of using the vehicle mass data testing to verify compliance with the is similar in meaning to ‘‘capable.’’ in the closed-loop algorithm of its FMVSSs, certain information from However, we are not making Bendix’s computer to apply and adjust the manufacturers. For example, NHTSA suggested change of the term ‘‘brake vehicle brake torques for enhancing may ask how a manufacturer’s system torque’’ to ‘‘deceleration torque.’’ We are rollover stability and inducing meets the definition of an ‘‘ESC System’’ not sure that Bendix’s suggested correcting yaw moment. Adding set forth in this final rule. Information language would be functionally ‘‘automatically obtain’’ to the definition such as the technical documentation different than the proposal and cannot does not improve or clarify the that was listed in the regulatory text of see how it adds clarity. We are requirement to have a means of the NPRM may be included in or specifically interested in requiring that estimating vehicle mass. responsive to such a request. Of course, systems be capable of controlling the In summary, NHTSA continues to a manufacturer’s inability to brakes independently at each wheel end believe that the definitional criteria, demonstrate that its system meets the on at least one front and at least one rear including required equipment and definition of an ‘‘ESC System’’ could axle of the vehicle. system capabilities, are necessary to lead to a finding of noncompliance with Bendix also recommended a change to ensure that ESC systems perform as they S5.1 of FMVSS No. 136. the requirement that the system enhance are intended and as they currently vehicle directional stability by applying perform. These criteria are objective in IX. Vehicle Applicability and Phase-In and adjusting the vehicle brake torques. terms of explaining to manufacturers A. Trucks Bendix requested that NHTSA clarify what type of performance is required that the ‘‘vehicle’’ referred to in this and the minimal equipment necessary 1. Summary of the NPRM requirement is the truck tractor or bus for that purpose. Vehicles with a GVWR greater than and not the trailer. That is, Bendix 10,000 pounds include a large variety of wanted to ensure that the trailer is D. Technical Documentation vehicles ranging from medium duty omitted from the vehicle directional The NPRM proposed requiring that pickup trucks to different types of stability requirements. Bendix noted the vehicle manufacturer provide a single-unit trucks, buses, trailers and that the requirements regarding the system diagram that identifies all ESC truck tractors. Vehicles with a GVWR of system’s ability to control trailer brakes system hardware; a written explanation, greater than 10,000 pounds are divided is addressed elsewhere. with logic diagrams included, into Classes 3 through 8. Class 7 We agree with Bendix’s describing the ESC system’s basic vehicles are those with a GVWR greater recommendation. It was not our operational characteristics; and a than 11,793 kilograms (26,000 pounds) intention to include trailers in the discussion of the pertinent inputs to the and up to 14,969 kilograms (33,000 requirement that vehicles be capable of computer and how its algorithm uses pounds), and Class 8 vehicles are those maintaining directional stability. Bendix that information to prevent rollover and with a GVWR greater than 14,969 is correct that there could to be some limit oversteer and understeer. Because kilograms (33,000 pounds). confusion with the proposed the proposed definition for ESC systems About 85 percent of truck tractors requirement because a trailer is also a on truck tractors included the capability sold annually in the U.S. are air-braked motor vehicle and consequently, the to provide brake pressure to a towed three-axle (6×4) tractors with a front proposed requirement that vehicles vehicle, the agency proposed requiring axle that has a GAWR of 14,600 pounds have the capability to maintain that, as part of the system or less and with two rear drive axles directional stability and the roll stability documentation, the manufacturer that have a combined GAWR of 45,000 may be misinterpreted to apply to a include the information that shows how pounds or less, which we will refer to trailer. Therefore, we have revised the the tractor provides brake pressure to a as ‘‘typical 6×4 tractors.’’ Other truck ESC definition to specify that truck towed trailer under the appropriate tractors, including two-axle (4×2) tractors and buses must have the means conditions. tractors, tractors with four or more to apply and adjust vehicle brake Volvo questioned the need for axles, and severe service tractors, torques on at least one front and at least manufacturers to submit technical represent about 15 percent of the truck- one rear axle. documentation to NHTSA, stating that tractor market in the U.S. Regarding the definitional criteria for NHTSA has relied on the In the NPRM, the agency proposed mass estimation, Meritor WABCO, manufacturer’s certification that the that truck tractors with a GVWR greater

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:37 Jun 22, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\23JNR2.SGM 23JNR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 120 / Tuesday, June 23, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 36065

than 11,793 kilograms (26,000 pounds) requires more than one operator to steer burden the manufacturers with regard to would be required to have ESC systems. it. their small volume products. EMA’s The agency did not propose requiring The agency is not adding the actions related to this rulemaking stability control systems on trailers, exclusion suggested by FAMA. support this conclusion. For example, primarily because trailer-based RSC Although FAMA stated that its vehicles EMA provided test data to the agency systems were determined by the agency would not be subject to the exclusion of after performing multiple test research to be much less effective than vehicles with an axle having a gross axle maneuvers with severe duty trucks tractor-based RSC or ESC systems in weight rating of 29,000 pounds or more, equipped with ESC systems. EMA also preventing rollover. Trailer-based RSC it is not clear that this or other included the test results from the severe systems are capable of applying braking exclusions do not apply. Moreover, duty trucks to form its recommended only on the trailer’s brakes. Tractor- absent specific information that more test criteria for an alternate roll stability based systems can command more fully explains why an exclusion is test. braking authority by using both the necessary and not overly broad, NHTSA Meritor WABCO requested NHTSA to tractor and trailer brakes. As a result, cannot agree that an exclusion for all add the words ‘‘pneumatically braked’’ trailer-based RSC systems do not appear combination vehicles that require more to the definitions of truck tractors and to provide additional safety benefits than one operator to steer it is buses in the ESC rule. Similarly, EMA when used in combination with tractor- necessary. recommended that NHTSA include the based RSC or ESC systems. In addition, Furthermore, the scope of the ESC requirements within FMVSS No. the typical service life of a trailer is 20 exclusion suggested by FAMA is not 121 rather than in a separate standard. to 25 years compared with about 8 to 10 consistent with the scope of the rule. We are not expressly limiting the years for a truck tractor. Because new Specifically, this final rule, like the scope of the final rule to air braked tractors are added to the U.S. fleet at a NPRM, applies to truck tractors, not vehicles. Although Class 8 vehicles faster rate than new trailers, the safety trailers. However, the suggested typically use pneumatic or air brakes, benefits from stability control systems exclusion would apply to combination Class 7 vehicles vary between either air would be achieved at a faster rate by vehicles, which include both a truck or hydraulic brakes. The scope of the requiring stability control systems to be tractor and a trailer. That is, the NPRM includes all truck tractors and installed on a tractor. presence of a trailer would form the Class 7 and 8 buses, which showed the basis for the exclusion. If this exclusion greatest rollover problem of all the buses Our proposed rule also excluded was added to the final rule, then the according to our research. In order to certain types of low-volume, highly basis for the exclusion would be address the safety problem with these specialized vehicle types. In these cases, dependent on the trailer that is attached classes of buses, the ESC rule must the vehicle’s speed capability does not to the vehicle. This would be confusing include both air and hydraulic brakes. allow it to operate at speeds where roll and unnecessarily complicate Limiting the scope of this rulemaking to or yaw instability is likely to occur. enforcement. air braked vehicles could provide an These exclusions were drawn from Finally, FAMA has not articulated incentive for some manufacturers to FMVSS No. 121, Air brake systems, why its vehicles cannot be equipped equip vehicles with hydraulic brakes which exclude any vehicle equipped with ESC systems. Because the ESC rather than air brakes to circumvent an with an axle that has a gross axle weight requirement applies only to the truck ESC system requirement. rating of 29,000 pounds or more; any tractor, the system would only need to truck or bus that has a speed attainable take account of one steering wheel 3. Single-Unit Trucks in two miles of not more than 33 mph; input. There would be no requirement The agency did not propose to and any truck that has a speed that the vehicle respond to any inputs include single-unit trucks with a GVWR attainable in two miles of not more than from the trailer. Moreover, NHTSA over 4,536 kg (10,000 pounds). Several 45 mph, an unloaded vehicle weight would conduct compliance testing of commenters recommended expanding that is not less than 95 percent of its the truck tractor using the control trailer the scope of the rule to include straight GVWR, and no capacity to carry specified in the test procedure, not a trucks. Skagit, NTSB, IIHS, and NAPT occupants other than the driver and trailer with a steering wheel. all suggested that ESC should be operating crew. Several commenters suggested that mandated on all commercial vehicles 2. Exclusions From ESC Requirement the agency reduce the scope of the ESC greater than 10,000 pounds GVWR, requirement. EMA requested that including straight trucks. Advocates The Fire Apparatus Manufacturers’ NHTSA exclude all severe duty trucks recommended that NHTSA should Association (FAMA) was generally from the scope of a final rule. It consider the FMCSA study stating the supportive of the rule. However, they reasoned that manufacturers offer number of fatalities by single-unit stated that the rule would not be multiple configurations of truck tractors trucks, based on data from 2008, are feasible if it is interpreted to apply to a with different , axle, and 1,147 each year. Bosch stated that the Tractor Drawn Aerial Apparatus. As suspension combinations. Furthermore, rule should be expanded to cover all FAMA explained, this apparatus is a it claimed that manufacturers often vehicles over 10,000 pounds GVWR combination vehicle used for build only a few vehicles in each vehicles, including hydraulic-braked firefighting, which are used in many configuration and in some cases of vehicles, because this segment accounts large urban fire departments. The severe duty trucks, may only build a for a large number of commercial and distinguishing feature of this vehicle is single vehicle in a particular load bearing vehicles on the U.S. roads. that it has two drivers, one in the truck configuration. Bosch claims that a mandate with a tractor and one in the trailer. FAMA The agency is not excluding severe phase-in period is needed to facilitate believes that an ESC algorithm on such duty trucks as EMA suggests. Currently, industry development of ESC systems a vehicle would be very complex manufacturers are able to produce on these vehicles. On the other hand, because it would need to consider two products in small volumes that meet all Bendix recommended that ‘‘[t]he steering wheels rather than one. FAMA the requirements of the Federal Motor decision by the agency regarding if and suggested that NHTSA exclude from a Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS). The when to consider rulemaking on single- final rule any combination vehicle that addition of the ESC rule will not unduly unit trucks should be based on the same

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:37 Jun 22, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\23JNR2.SGM 23JNR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 36066 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 120 / Tuesday, June 23, 2015 / Rules and Regulations

level of research undertaken for tractor implementation dates of the new with ESC systems. The applicability of and coach.’’ FMVSS No. 121 stopping distance the proposal to buses mirrored the We are not expanding the scope of requirements to give manufacturers the applicability of the agency’s proposal this rulemaking to include single-unit opportunity to refine the braking that certain large buses be equipped trucks. We believe that a level of systems prior to the implementation of with seat belts.32 The proposal for seat research closer to what we had to this ESC rule. EMA said it is impractical belts was applicable to buses with a support the NPRM for truck tractors and for manufacturers to certify compliance gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of large buses is necessary before NHTSA tests using the tests in the NPRM for all 11,793 kilograms (26,000 pounds) or would propose to mandate ESC on all typical 6×4 tractors within 2 years of the greater, 16 or more designated seating single-unit trucks. After publishing the final rule. Moreover, EMA said that positions (including the driver), and at NPRM, we began a research and testing tractors with four or more axles and least 2 rows of passenger seats that are program to study the safety benefits and severe service tractors have not been rearward of the driver’s seating position performance criteria of ESC systems on evaluated using the tests in the NPRM and are forward-facing or can convert to single-unit trucks. The research is not and likely would need additional lead forward-facing without the use of tools.’’ yet complete. Furthermore, as we stated time. However, EMA did not specify That proposal excluded school buses in the NPRM, the complexity of the how much additional lead time was and urban transit buses sold for single-unit truck population and the necessary. Finally, EMA and Bendix operation in urban transportation along limited crash data available present a recommended including two-axle a fixed route with frequent stops. The significant challenge to determining the tractors in the longer lead time period agency proposed a very similar effectiveness of stability control on because it appears to be an error. applicability in the NPRM for this these vehicles. At this time, we will not In contrast, HDBMC stated its belief rulemaking.33 We believed that the include single-unit trucks in the ESC that the suppliers of ESC systems are proposal encompassed the category of rule. However, we believe including prepared to meet the anticipated ‘‘cross-country intercity buses’’ buses with hydraulic brakes in this final deployment demands by the represented in the FARS and FMCSA rule will spur development of ESC implementation dates proposed. data (identified in section II.A above) systems for other hydraulic-braked We recognize the recent changes to that had a higher involvement of crashes vehicles, including trucks with a GVWR the stopping distance requirements in that ESC systems are capable of of greater than 4,536 kilograms (10,000 FMVSS No. 121 affected truck tractors. preventing. pounds) but not more than 11,793 Truck tractors, other than three-axle 2. Buses Built on Truck Chassis kilograms (26,000 pounds). truck tractors, were recently subjected to (a) Summary of NPRM 4. Compliance Dates the reduced stopping distance changes that went into effect on August 1, 2013. The agency tested three air-braked The agency proposed that all new Manufacturers of these truck tractors buses, all of which had a GVWR over typical 6×4 truck tractors would be were given two additional years beyond 14,969 kg (33,000 lb.) (Class 8). required to meet the proposed standard the timeframe for three-axle truck Nevertheless, the agency included Class beginning two years after a final rule is tractors to comply with the amendments 7 buses (buses with a GVWR of more published. Because there are currently to FMVSS No. 121. We agree with than 11,793 kg (26,000 lb.) but not only two suppliers of truck tractor and Daimler and EMA that at least four years greater than 14,969 kg (33,000 lb.). We large bus stability control systems, of lead time is warranted for all truck reasoned that, although many Class 7 Bendix and Meritor WABCO, we tractors other than typical 6×4 tractors buses are built on chassis similar to reasoned that the industry would (three-axle truck tractors with a front those of single-unit trucks for which require lead time to ensure that the axle that has a GAWR of 6,622 kg ESC has not been widely developed, necessary production stability control (14,600 pounds) or less and with two and we are not aware of any Class 7 bus systems are available to manufacturers. rear drive axles that have a combined that is equipped or currently available NHTSA also proposed a two-year lead GAWR of 20,412 kg (45,000 pounds) or with ESC. Class 7 buses represent less time for two-axle tractors. less). Although HDMA said that its For severe service tractors and tractors than 20 percent of the market. Although member companies are ready to supply with four axles or more, which the agency was not aware of any Class brake components by the represent about 5 percent of annual 7 bus currently available with ESC, we implementation dates proposed, we truck tractor sales, the agency believed were aware that stability control realize that truck tractor manufacturers additional lead time was necessary to systems are available on a limited need extra time to integrate the ESC develop, test, and equip these vehicles number of Class 8 single-unit trucks, systems into their products and to with a stability control system. such as concrete trucks, refuse trucks, perform the necessary testing to ensure Therefore, we proposed to require that and other air-braked trucks, and that the compliance. In addition, manufacturers severe service tractors and other same technology could be developed for recently made brake system changes to atypical tractors be equipped with ESC use on Class 7 buses, which we believed these models of truck tractors in order systems beginning four years after the were also air-braked vehicles. We also to comply with the new requirements in final rule is published. believed that the manufacturers of Class Four commenters addressed the the FMVSS No. 121 amendments. We 7 buses would need additional lead time compliance dates for trucks proposed by recognize that ESC systems must be to have the ESC systems developed, the NPRM. Daimler requested an integrated into the brake systems, and tested and installed on their vehicles. additional lead time for ESC we expect that manufacturers may need Hence, for large buses, the agency implementation because it said that it to modify the brake systems for a second proposed an effective date of two years only has RSC systems developed on time. after the final rule is published, some models and needs more time to B. Buses 32 design and validate ESC on all of its 75 FR 50958 (Aug. 18, 2010). 1. Summary of the NPRM 33 The primary difference is that the ESC proposal models. was not made applicable to buses with a GVWR of In its comment, EMA mentioned that The NPRM proposed that certain exactly 11,793 kilograms (26,000 pounds) in order this ESC rule should align with the buses would be required to be equipped to exclude Class 6 vehicles from the proposal.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:37 Jun 22, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\23JNR2.SGM 23JNR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 120 / Tuesday, June 23, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 36067

primarily to accommodate configuration; monocoque 35 school buses, transit buses, and manufacturers of Class 7 buses. construction; 40 or more passenger perimeter seating buses. In Section However, we sought comment on the seats; no provisions for standee V.B.1 of the NPRM, NHTSA mentioned feasibility of including Class 7 buses passengers; and one passenger entrance the rationale for not including a that are built on chassis similar to those and exit door. EMA asserted that requirement for ESC on single-unit of single-unit trucks within two years. NHTSA did not study ESC on other trucks with a GVWR over 4,536 We noted that, although we believed non-motorcoach buses, and therefore, kilograms (10,000 pounds) at this that Class 7 buses were primarily air the rule should not apply to those buses. time.36 The rationale was primarily braked and that ESC systems were based on the differences between truck (c) NHTSA’s Response to Comments readily available for air-braked buses, tractors and single-unit trucks; it was system availability for any hydraulic- NHTSA is not changing the general not intended and did not mention the braked buses that may be covered may applicability of the ESC requirement to differences between buses built on truck be more limited. We requested that, if buses. As we stated in the NPRM, we chassis and buses built with monocoque hydraulic-braked buses were covered by intended the applicability of the ESC construction. Although the NPRM stated the proposal, commenters address requirement to buses to be similar to the that single-unit trucks as a whole are manners in which hydraulic-braked applicability of the agency’s more complex and diverse than truck buses may be differentiated for requirement that buses have seat belts at tractors, this does not necessarily apply exclusion or a different phase-in period. each passenger seating position. In both to buses built on truck chassis. Among rulemakings, the target vehicles were the different bodies that could be (b) Summary of Comments high occupancy buses associated with a assembled on a truck chassis, a bus Several commenters raised issues known fatality and injury risk. The body presents a degree of complexity related to the NPRM’s definition for buses typically carried a large number of and diversity that is substantially less large buses. EMA and Navistar passengers and were operated at than the other truck bodies. For commented that the ‘‘large bus’’ highway speeds. We examined the example, a bus body presents a scenario definition should not include involvement of high occupancy buses in where center-of-gravity height and cargo commercial buses, which are buses fatal crashes over a 10-year period type are more easily calculated because greater than 11,793 kg (26,000 lb.), but (FARS data files, for the NPRM, 1999– the bus is limited to transporting people are not traditional intercity buses. They 2008). In this examination of high and their luggage rather than varied claimed that many of these buses are occupancy bus data, we inspected crash cargo. The chassis supplier for a bus built on truck chassis and are different data for buses with a GVWR greater than would be more likely to have knowledge than the Class 8 buses tested by NHTSA. 4,536 kg (10,000 lb.). We analyzed the of critical vehicle design parameters that They stated that these buses are built in construction type and various attributes affect ESC calibration. multiple stages by multiple of the vehicles. The 2000–2009 FARS NHTSA reviewed various definitions manufacturers, which would make data show that for buses over 4,536 kg used in motorcoach safety legislation compliance certification difficult. (10,000 lb.), there were 49 passenger including the ‘‘over-the-road bus’’ According to Navistar, NHTSA did fatalities in buses with a GVWR less definition in TEA–21 that was not ‘‘reach out’’ to Navistar regarding its than 11,793 kg (26,000 lb.), but there referenced in MAP–21. Similar to the commercial buses because it claimed were 209 in buses with a GVWR greater final rule requiring seat belts on certain NHTSA was not aware of its Class 8 than 11,793 kg (26,000 lb.). buses, we are not limiting the commercial buses from the sole fact that Moreover, MAP–21, which was applicability of the ESC requirement to they were not specifically mentioned in enacted after publication of the NPRM, TEA–21’s definition of over-the-road list of bus manufacturers included in requires the Secretary to consider buses.37 We believe that the definitions the NPRM. requiring ESC systems on certain large referring to over-the-road buses or over- In its comments, EMA opined that buses if the Secretary determines that the-road bus service are too narrow, non-motorcoach buses with a GVWR such a requirement is consistent with because a number of intercity transport over 11,793 kg (26,000 lb.) are more the requirements of the Motor Vehicle buses involved in fatal crashes were closely related to single-unit trucks. It Safety Act. We believe that mandating body-on-chassis buses that lacked an also commented that some of the same ESC systems on the buses covered by elevated passenger deck over a baggage issues related to requiring ESC systems the NPRM, subject to some minor compartment. Further, definitions based on single-unit trucks are also present for changes discussed below, is consistent on the intended use of the vehicle could large buses. with those requirements. That is, this pose difficulties for manufacturers and EMA stated that consistent with the standard is practicable, meets the need dealers, because the intended use of a Motorcoach Enhanced Safety Act (part for motor vehicle safety, and may be vehicle might not be known at the time of MAP–21), it considered the term stated in objective terms. We believe of vehicle manufacture or sale. We want ‘‘motorcoach’’ to have the same meaning that ESC systems are currently available to make sure as reasonably possible that as ‘‘over-the-road-bus,’’ which ‘‘means a for must buses covered by this final rule the buses we most wanted to affect bus characterized by an elevated and can be developed for the others. (high-capacity buses associated with passenger deck located over a baggage Moreover, the safety problem discussed known fatality and injury risks) would compartment.’’ 34 EMA and Daimler also in Section IV.D above highlights the meet the ‘‘motorcoach’’ safety standards, commented that a ‘‘motorcoach’’ has rollover problem in buses with a GVWR without having to depend on the state some, if not all, of the following greater than 11,793 kg (26,000 lb.). of knowledge of persons in the attributes: a GVWR greater than 33,000 NHTSA has decided to adopt the manufacturing and distribution chain pounds (Class 8); air disc brakes; proposal to require all buses with a about the prospective use of the bus. passenger deck floor more than 45 GVWR over 11,793 kg (26,000 lb.), Currently, there is no common inches above the ground; rear engine subject to some modified exclusions for Departmental or industry definition of ‘‘motorcoach.’’ FMCSA does not have a 34 The rulemaking requirements of the 35 Monocoque means a type of vehicular Motorcoach Enhanced Safety Act are addressed in construction in which the body is combined with 36 77 FR 30789. section II above. the chassis as a single unit. 37 78 FR 70429.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:37 Jun 22, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\23JNR2.SGM 23JNR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 36068 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 120 / Tuesday, June 23, 2015 / Rules and Regulations

definition for motorcoach in its Brake Systems. A number of factors entirely, NHTSA will extend the regulations, but it considers a such as GVWR, GAWR, and any other compliance date for buses that may be ‘‘motorcoach’’ to be an over-the-road specific conditions given by the equipped with hydraulic brakes. bus. As noted above, over-the-road manufacturer must be considered when NHTSA acknowledges that ESC systems buses are a subset of the buses NHTSA determining if a bus will be compliant are still in development for large buses believes should be regulated as with the braking requirements after it is with hydraulic-braked buses, and ‘‘motorcoaches,’’ encompassing a part of built. Likewise, the agency expects therefore, manufacturers and suppliers but not enough of the heavy bus safety manufacturers to give similar conditions need additional time to implement this problem we seek to address. of final manufacture under which the new technology. However, whether the We reviewed the underlying chassis manufacturer specifies that the bus is equipped with air brakes or structure of high-occupancy vehicles completed vehicle will conform to the hydraulic brakes, we expect the involved in fatal crashes. Some had a ESC standard. The agency considers that performance requirements to apply monocoque structure with a luggage burden of bus manufacturers to comply because they are based on the stability compartment under the elevated with the ESC rule will not be more of the bus as defined by its attributes passenger deck (‘‘over-the-road buses’’). difficult than the current burden of such as geometry, mass, inertia, and However, an elevated passenger deck complying with the air brake center-of-gravity height. There is a over a baggage compartment was not an requirements in FMVSS No. 121. negligible change in these attributes element common to the buses involved between an air-braked and a hydraulic- 3. Hydraulic-Braked Buses in fatal intercity transport. In FARS data braked bus. for buses with a GVWR greater than In the NPRM, we requested comment 11,793 kg (26,000 lb.), 36 percent of the on manners in which hydraulic-braked 4. School Buses fatalities were in the other bus and buses may be differentiated, such as by Six commenters recommended that unknown bus categories, i.e., not in the exclusion or a different phase-in period NHTSA include a requirement that over-the-road bus category. Some buses for the ESC rule. Six commenters school buses be equipped with ESC were built using body-on-chassis provided statements about hydraulic- systems in the final rule. Consumers configurations. braked buses and how they should be Union commented that ESC technology We believe that body-on-chassis excluded. Specifically, Blue Bird should be required for school buses in configurations are newer entrants into opposes an ESC mandate on hydraulic- order to set a precedent for future crash the motorcoach services market. They braked buses with a GVWR of 36,200 avoidance technologies. Martec appear to be increasing in number. A pounds and less. It also commented that recommended that ESC be required on cursory review of the types of buses the agency should wait until ESC all buses because it claims that ‘‘large being used in the Washington, DC area systems are developed and fully school buses satisfy multiple criteria for motorcoach services showed that evaluated for hydraulic-braked medium described by NHTSA in its 2011–2013 traditional motorcoaches are generally or heavy buses and not include Rulemaking and Research Priority Plan: used for fixed-route services between hydraulic-braked buses as part of the the addition of ESC/RSC to school buses major metropolitan areas. However, for ESC rule at this time. Blue Bird, would offer large safety benefits, would charter, tour, and commuter Daimler, Meritor WABCO, Navistar, and apply to high-occupancy vehicles, and transportation from outlying areas, EMA all commented that they are not would apply to a vulnerable many bus types are used. Some are of aware of any ESC systems available for population—children.’’ Skagit, NTSB, monocoque structure, while others are hydraulic-braked buses covered by the and IIHS all want ESC to be mandated of body-on-chassis structure. NPRM. Meritor WABCO recommended on all buses greater than 10,000 lb., The agency tested Class 8 buses, those that NHTSA exclude vehicles that are including school buses. with a GVWR greater than 14,969 kg not ‘‘pneumatically braked.’’ Finally, Conversely, Daimler and NSTA both (33,000 lb.), because these buses have both Daimler and EMA stated that they agreed that NHTSA not include school larger dimensions and masses than want the ESC regulation to extend only buses in a final rule mandating ESC Class 7 buses, and it places them on the to motorcoaches over 33,000 pounds. systems on large buses. NSTA asserted most severe end of the spectrum. The NHTSA has no convincing evidence that, if school buses were subject to an performance criteria were created based to exclude hydraulic-braked buses from ESC mandate, the costs to purchase on the testing of the larger Class 8 buses, this ESC rule. The NPRM proposed to school buses would increase. NSTA is and the agency has made a reasoned require ESC on both Class 7 and Class concerned that the added costs would determination that the criteria are 8 buses. The mandate in the Motorcoach reduce the number of school buses on applicable for Class 7 buses, as well. If Enhanced Safety Act makes no the road, and, consequently, reduce the a Class 8 bus with a larger GVWR can differentiation between Class 7 and number of children riding buses to pass the minimum performance criteria Class 8 buses. In order to address the school. NTSA claims that students for ESC systems, a Class 7 bus with a rollover and loss-of-control safety riding school buses are eight times safer smaller GVWR can reasonably be problems with these classes of buses, than riding in the family vehicle required to meet the same criteria. the ESC rule must include both air and because school buses travel at lower Despite the fact that some of these hydraulic brakes. speeds and largely in residential areas. buses are built in multiple stages by Based on feedback received from the As in the NPRM, we are excluding multiple manufacturers, the agency does commenters, we recognize that Class 7 school buses from the ESC requirement. not agree that compliance with the ESC buses are composed of both air- and Each NHTSA rulemaking must address standard will be very difficult. hydraulic-braked vehicles. We recognize a present safety need and be justified by Presently, manufacturers building buses that manufacturers who produce large present safety benefits. We cannot in various stages must provide an buses equipped with hydraulic-powered accept Consumers Union’s incomplete vehicle document (49 CFR brakes might need extra time to ensure recommendation to do rulemaking now part 568) to subsequent manufacturers the proper integration between the ESC based on speculative benefits of ESC listing each standard that applies. One system and the vehicle’s chassis, engine, systems on school buses. According to example of a standard that must be and braking system. Rather than exclude FARS data between 2000 and 2009, documented is FMVSS No. 121, Air hydraulic-braked buses from the rule among the large buses, more than 70%

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:37 Jun 22, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\23JNR2.SGM 23JNR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 120 / Tuesday, June 23, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 36069

of fatalities on large buses with a GVWR provided by, or on behalf of, a public This reference was included in the seat greater than 11,793 kg (26,000 lb.) were transportation agency. However, as we belt NPRM based on FMCSA’s related to cross-country intercity bus explained in the previous section definition of a ‘‘commercial motor crashes. Similarly, we stated in the regarding school buses, an exclusion vehicle,’’ for purposes of FMCSA’s NPRM that FMCSA’s Large Truck and based on the intended use of the vehicle commercial driver’s license Bus Crash Facts 2008 indicates that could pose difficulties for requirements.39 In the final rule, most of the school bus crashes are not manufacturers and dealers, because the however, NHTSA noted that FMCSA’s rollover or loss-of-control crashes that intended use of a vehicle might not be regulations state that buses with a ESC systems are capable of preventing. known at the time of vehicle GVWR greater than 11,793 kg (26,000 For these reasons, we will not require manufacture or sale. Consequently, we lb.) are commercial vehicles under the school buses to be equipped with ESC will not adopt the recommendation commercial driver’s license regulations, at this time. suggested by EMA and Volvo to exclude regardless of the number of DSPs. Navistar, EMA, and Daimler requested urban transit buses used in suburban Accordingly, that exclusion was that the school bus exclusion extend express service. removed from the final rule.40 into its line of school bus derivatives. The final rule requiring seat belts at EMA and Daimler suggested that the Navistar and EMA reasoned that some all passenger seating position on certain rule exclude all buses with fewer than commercial buses are built on truck buses noted that commenters on that 40 passenger seats, which they imply chassis. Because of their similarities to NPRM were troubled that the proposed would exclude buses that are not school buses, they reasoned that those transit bus exclusion was not considered ‘‘motorcoaches.’’ However, buses should be exempted from the ESC sufficiently clear. To make the neither EMA nor Daimler included any rule. According to Daimler, school bus definition more clear, the final rule explanation for why 40 passenger seats derivatives are vehicles built with made clarifications that we believe are is an appropriate cutoff for an ESC hydraulic brakes, and no ESC system is also warranted in this final rule system requirement, and we can available on these types of hydraulic requiring ESC systems on certain perceive none. We do not believe that a brakes in the market today. buses.38 First, we made the regulatory minimum number of passenger seats We disagree with Daimler, EMA, and text clearer in describing a ‘‘transit bus’’ would serve to include or exclude buses Navistar that the school bus exception by referring to a structural feature (a that are being driven at long distances should extend to other buses that are stop-request system) that buses must or at highway speeds. similar or ‘‘derivatives’’ as Daimler have to be a ‘‘transit bus.’’ A ‘‘stop- The NPRM also proposed to exclude stated. If the commenters’ reasoning was request system’’ means a vehicle- buses with fewer than two rows of adopted, any manufacturer could offer a integrated system for passenger use to passenger seats that are rearward of the school bus version of a particular bus signal to a vehicle operator that a stop driver’s seating position and are model and claim that the school bus is requested. Second, we expanded the forward-facing or can convert to exception should apply because of the description of a transit bus by forward-facing without the use of tools. artificially created similarities. This recognizing that a transit bus could be This reference was included in the large would create an unintended loophole sold for public transportation provided bus seat belt NPRM to distinguish buses for the ESC requirement and potentially not only by, but also on behalf of, a with perimeter seating such as those undermine the rule. State or local government, for example, used to transport passengers in airports 5. Transit Buses by a contractor. between the terminal and locations such Finally, we made clear that over-the- as a rental car facility or long term The NPRM proposed to exclude from road buses, as defined by TEA–21, do parking.41 These buses typically have a the ESC system requirements urban not qualify as ‘‘transit buses,’’ even if single forward-facing row of seats in the transit buses sold for operation in urban the over-the-road bus has a stop-request back of the vehicle and seats along one transportation along a fixed route with system or is sold for public or both sides of the bus. These buses frequent stops. EMA and Volvo transportation provided by or on behalf typically carry people for a relatively suggested that we exclude certain buses of a State or local government. This final short period, often transport standees, based on the intended use of the vehicle clarification ensures both that a generally accommodate baggage and in public transit. Volvo requested that manufacturer cannot integrate a simple other items, and are designed for rapid the agency base the exclusion on the stop-request system on any bus and boarding and alighting. These buses Federal Transit Administration’s (FTA) make it subject to the transit bus were excluded because we believed they bus procurement guidelines. Volvo exclusion. We recognize that any over- would be used for relatively short suggested excluding ‘‘urban transit the-road bus used for public distances on set routes, which are not buses which may be used on suburban transportation provided by or on behalf widely exposed to general traffic. express service and general service on of a State or local government is likely In the seat belt final rule, the agency urban arterial streets along a fixed route to be used as a commuter express bus simplified the exclusion by defining with frequent stops.’’ Similarly, EMA that would carry large numbers of these vehicles as perimeter seating suggested adding to the exclusion for passengers over long distances at buses and excluding them from the seat transit buses ‘‘urban transit buses used highway speeds. However, this use case belt requirement rather than specifying in suburban express service.’’ is similar to the use of over-the-road the number of rows and seats that a bus Conversely, Volvo stated during the buses by private companies in intercity has. Second, we referred to the public hearing that it was practical and service. maximum number of forward-facing technologically feasible to equip its DSPs that the vehicle may have rather 6. Minimum Seating Capacity and urban buses with ESC, but it did not than the number of ‘‘rows’’ it may have. Seating Configuration want to do so because it did not We made this change because there is perceive a safety need. The NPRM also excluded buses that no definition of ‘‘row’’ generally The Motorcoach Enhanced Safety Act had fewer than 16 designated seating excludes from its mandate to consider positions (DSPs), including the driver. 39 75 FR 50969. requiring ESC systems on large buses a 40 78 FR 70433. bus used in public transportation 38 78 FR 70438. 41 78 FR 70434.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:37 Jun 22, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\23JNR2.SGM 23JNR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 36070 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 120 / Tuesday, June 23, 2015 / Rules and Regulations

applicable to the FMVSSs and it was the vehicle. Based on the comments (10,000 pounds) but not more than difficult to define ‘‘row’’ for the purpose received from the bus industry, Class 7 11,793 kilograms (26,000 pounds). of excluding perimeter-seating buses buses are equipped with both air and C. Retrofitting using plain language. Thus, we defined hydraulic brakes. Rather than a ‘‘perimeter-seating bus’’ as a bus with differentiate between brake systems of NHTSA considered proposing to 7 or fewer DSPs rearward of the driver’s the Class 7 buses, we believe it would require retrofitting of in-service truck seating position that are forward-facing be better to base the compliance date tractors, trailers, and large buses with or can convert to forward-facing without requirements on GVWR. This will also stability control systems. The Secretary the use of tools, and excluded address the concerns of manufacturers has the statutory authority to perimeter-seating buses from the seat of buses built on truck chassis, for promulgate safety standards for belt requirement.42 which ESC systems may not currently ‘‘commercial motor vehicles and We believe that this exclusion is be equipped. We believe that at least equipment subsequent to initial similarly applicable to the ESC system four years of lead time are necessary to manufacture.’’ 43 The Secretary has requirement, and we are adopting in ensure that suppliers have ESC systems delegated authority to NHTSA to this final rule the simplified language available for hydraulic-braked large promulgate safety standards for used in the seat belt final rule. A buses. Accordingly, this final rule commercial motor vehicles and perimeter-seating bus typically carries allows Class 7 bus manufacturers four equipment subsequent to initial people for short distances on set routes years of lead time before the manufacture when the standards are and is often less exposed to general requirements of this final rule become based upon and similar to an FMVSS traffic than transit buses. However, applicable. promulgated, either simultaneously or consistent with the Motorcoach previously, under chapter 301 of title Enhanced Safety Act, we are not 8. Class 3 Through 6 Buses 49, U.S.C.44 Additionally, the Federal excluding from the ESC system Some of the commenters Motor Carrier Safety Administration requirement perimeter-seating buses recommended that we expand the scope (FMCSA) is authorized to promulgate that are also over-the-road buses. Some to include mid-size buses which are and enforce vehicle safety regulations, of these buses may include vehicles typically built on single-unit truck including those aimed at maintaining often referred to as ‘‘limo buses’’ or frames. Skagit, NTSB, IIHS, NAPT, commercial motor vehicles so they ‘‘party buses.’’ These vehicles may also Advocates, and Bosch all suggested that continue to comply with the safety be used as touring or entertainment ESC should be mandated on all buses standards applicable to commercial buses with eating and sleeping greater than 10,000 pounds. The NTSB motor vehicles at the time they were accommodations that are used by estimated that 11,600 mid-size buses manufactured. celebrities and entertainers on tour. We (buses with a GVWR between 10,000 Although the NPRM did not propose expect that these types of buses will be pounds and 26,000 pounds) are requiring truck tractors, trailers, or large used for intercity travel and driven at produced each year. Advocates buses to be equipped with stability highway speeds. recommended that NHTSA should control systems ‘‘subsequent to initial 7. Compliance Dates consider the NTSB recommendation manufacture,’’ we requested public comment on several issues related to The NPRM proposed that buses meet that all buses over 10,000 pounds GVWR should be equipped with retrofitting in-service truck tractors, the ESC system requirements two years trailers, and buses: after publication of a final rule stability control systems. Bosch stated • that the agency should develop a The extent to which a proposal to implementing the proposal. Although retrofit in-service vehicles with stability we did not receive any comments performance standard to cover vehicles in Classes 3 through 7 with hydraulic control systems would be complex and specifically addressing the compliance costly because of the integration date for large buses, the Motorcoach brakes because this segment accounts for a large number of commercial and between a stability control system and Enhanced Safety Act specifically states the vehicle’s chassis, engine, and that a stability enhancing requirement load bearing vehicles on the U.S. roads. Bosch claims that a standard with a braking systems. shall apply to all motorcoaches • The changes necessary to an manufactured more than 3 years after phase-in period is needed to facilitate industry development of ESC systems originally manufactured vehicle’s the date on which the regulation is systems that interface with a stability published as a final rule. Based on the for these vehicles. Bosch also cites Annex 21 of UN ECE Regulation 13, control system, such as plumbing for Congressional determination that any new air brake valves and lines and a enhancing stability technology which requires ESC on buses operating in the European Union. new electronic control unit for a revised rulemaking shall apply to all over-the- antilock brake system. road buses manufactured more than 3 We are not expanding the scope of • The additional requirements that years after the final rule is published, this rule to include vehicles with a would have to be established to ensure we will allow bus manufacturers that GVWR of 11,793 kilograms (26,000 that stability control components are at amount of time inasmuch as a three-year pounds) or less. After publishing the an acceptable level of performance for a lead time is practical. NPRM, we began a research program to compliance test, given the uniqueness of With respect to Class 7 buses, the study the safety benefits and the maintenance condition for vehicles agency has determined that a three-year performance criteria of ESC systems on in service, particularly for items such as compliance date is not practical. The single-unit trucks, which includes mid- tires and brake components that are scope of this final rule includes buses size buses. The research is not yet important for ESC performance. that are hydraulic-braked. We recognize complete on single-unit trucks or • The original manufacture date of the manufacturers of hydraulic-braked smaller buses. However, we believe vehicles that should be subject to any buses will likely require extra time to including buses with hydraulic brakes retrofitting requirements. ensure system availability and that the in this final rule will spur development ESC system is properly integrated with of ESC systems for other hydraulic- 43 See Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Act of braked vehicles, including buses with a 1999, section 101(f), Pub. L. 106–159 (Dec. 9, 1999). 42 See 78 FR 70434–35. GVWR of greater than 4,536 kilograms 44 See 49 CFR 1.50(n).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:37 Jun 22, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\23JNR2.SGM 23JNR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 120 / Tuesday, June 23, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 36071

• Whether the performance possibility of incomplete or incorrect integrate the ESC system to the vehicle’s requirements for retrofitted vehicles retrofit installations if retrofits are chassis, engine, and braking system; (3) should be less stringent or equally required. the changes necessary on the in-service stringent as for new vehicles, and, if less The National Ready Mix Concrete vehicle to interface with the ESC system stringent, the appropriate level of Association argued that there should not such as plumbing for new air brake stringency. be an ESC system retrofit requirement valves and lines and a new electronic • The cost of retrofitting a stability on single-unit trucks or truck tractors control unit for the ABS system; and (4) control system on a vehicle, which we because retrofit costs will be higher on the additional requirements for in- believe would exceed the cost of existing trucks than installations on new service vehicles considering the including stability control on a new trucks. They further stated that a variety uniqueness of the maintenance vehicle. of improvised techniques are needed condition of the tire and brake Several commenters addressed issues when doing retrofit installations, and components. Considering that the related to retrofitting in-service vehicles these techniques result in higher potential safety risks and certain high with ESC systems. We received maintenance costs. They were also costs associated with a requirement to comments both favoring and opposing concerned that a retrofitted system retrofit in-service vehicles with ESC retrofitting. would not work on some older trucks systems greatly exceed the benefits, Road Safe America, NTSB, and because of unworkable truck designs NHTSA has not included a retrofit Advocates supported a requirement for and interference with safety and requirement in this final rule. ESC to be retrofitted to existing heavy electronic features. vehicles. Road Safe America HDBMC stated that there should be no X. Performance Testing recommended that RSC systems be retrofit requirement because retrofitting A. NHTSA’s Proposed Performance retrofitted on all existing truck trailers. of ESC systems is impractical and Tests NTSB cited its recommendation that difficult. HDBMC cited the challenges of RSC systems be retrofitted on in-use ESC system retrofitting, which include: The agency’s research initially cargo tank trailers. In its comments, (1) Compatibility of the vehicle; (2) focused on a variety of maneuvers that Advocates said that there should be a computer hardware and software issues; we could use to evaluate the roll retrofit requirement to install ESC (3) issues with new component stability performance and the yaw systems on all in-service vehicles. installation; (4) vehicle downtime to stability performance of truck tractors Advocates stated that the failure to make the conversion; (5) testing and and large buses. Several of these require retrofitting could significantly validation; and (6) further unknown maneuvers were also tested by industry delay fleet penetration of ESC systems variables. and some of them are allowed for use because of the extended service life of EMA asserted that it would be unsafe in testing for compliance to the UN ECE the affected vehicles. to implement a retrofit requirement stability control regulation. The Many more commenters were because ESC systems are not currently agency’s goal was to develop one or opposed to a retrofit requirement for installed over existing components. more maneuvers that showed the most ESC systems. IIHS stated that ESC EMA also believes that aftermarket promise as repeatable and reproducible systems should not be required to be facilities do not have the capability to roll and yaw performance tests for retrofitted at this time, but that the design, test, and implement ESC which objective pass/fail criteria could agency should explore the feasibility systems. EMA stated that rotational be developed. Based on the agency’s creating a requirement in the future. sensors, yaw rate, and lateral own testing and the results from American Highway Users requested that accelerometers must be mounted close industry-provided test data, two there should be no retrofit requirements to the vehicle’s center of yaw rotation, stability performance tests were for existing vehicles in order to or complex calculations must be used to proposed to evaluate ESC systems on incorporate ESC systems and would compensate for any deviations in the truck tractors and large buses—the SIS oppose any efforts to implement a mounting. Finally, EMA commented test and the SWD test. retrofit requirement. In its comment, that the necessary components for an 1. Characterization Test—SIS ATA did not support a retrofit ESC system do not exist for older requirement for ESC systems because it vehicle models. The agency proposed using the slowly claims there is an average of a 4–5 year Bendix commented that it had, for the increasing steer maneuver (SIS) as a turnover for a majority of Class 7 and purposes of research and development, characterization test to determine the Class 8 tractors. Volvo commented that retrofitted ESC to more than 25 vehicles. unique dynamic characteristics of a there should not be a retrofit of trucks Bendix estimated that retrofitting in- vehicle. This maneuver would allow the because the changes to the vehicle are service vehicles would take between 80 agency to determine the relationship too significant, and there is no way to and 120 person-hours for installation between the steering wheel angle and assure the quality of the retrofit. because each installation would have to lateral acceleration of a vehicle. Also as Meritor WABCO stated that there be customized and there would be little part of the SIS characterization test, the should not be a retrofit of vehicles or no OEM support. ability of the ESC system to reduce because, as a system supplier, it does After considering the public engine torque is determined. During not offer an ESC system retrofit option. comments, NHTSA has decided not to each of the SIS maneuvers, ESC Meritor WABCO also specified that ESC include a retrofit requirement in this activation is confirmed by verifying that systems must be engineered and final rule. NHTSA recognizes that the the system automatically reduces the validated for each vehicle model and costs and safety risks of mandating an driver requested engine torque output. parts must be added, which would be ESC system retrofit may exceed the The NPRM proposed that, for each of difficult to do on in-service vehicles. benefits. Those commenters supporting the SIS maneuver test runs, the Meritor WABCO further stated that an an ESC system retrofit did not provide commanded engine torque and the ESC system requires a steering wheel any information to mitigate issues such driver requested torque signals must angle sensor, which is difficult to design as: (1) The complexity and cost to diverge at least 10 percent for 1.5 for in-service vehicles. Meritor WABCO retrofit in-service vehicles with ESC seconds after the beginning of ESC also expressed concern about the systems; (2) the changes necessary to system activation. This test

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:37 Jun 22, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\23JNR2.SGM 23JNR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 36072 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 120 / Tuesday, June 23, 2015 / Rules and Regulations

demonstrates that the ESC system has each of the successive test runs, the expense of poor lateral displacement in the capability to reduce engine torque, steering amplitude would be increased response to the driver’s steering input. as required in the functional definition. by increments of 0.1A until a steering A hypothetical way to pass a stability The vehicles that the agency tested were amplitude of 1.3A or 400 degrees, control performance test would be to all able to meet this proposed whichever is less, is achieved. Upon make either the vehicle or its stability performance level. completion the test runs, the agency control system intervene simply by would conduct post-processing of the making the vehicle poorly responsive to 2. Roll and Yaw Stability Test—SWD yaw rate and lateral acceleration data to the speed and steering inputs required In the NPRM, we proposed using the determine the lateral acceleration ratio, by the test. An extreme example of this sine with dwell maneuver (SWD) to test yaw rate ratio, and lateral displacement, potential lack of responsiveness would the ability of an ESC system to mitigate as discussed below. occur if an ESC system locked both front conditions that would lead to rollover or The lateral acceleration ratio (LAR) is wheels as the driver begins a severe loss of control. Conceptually, the a performance metric developed to avoidance maneuver that might lead to steering profile of this maneuver is evaluate the ability of a vehicle’s ESC vehicle rollover. Front wheel lockup similar to that expected to be used by system to prevent rollovers. Lateral would create an understeer condition in real drivers during some crash acceleration is measured on a bus or a the vehicle, which would result in the avoidance maneuvers. As the agency tractor and corrected for the vehicle’s vehicle plowing straight ahead and found in the light vehicle ESC research roll angle. As a performance metric, the colliding with an object the driver was program, the severity of the SWD lateral acceleration value is normalized trying to avoid. It is very likely that maneuver makes it a rigorous test, while by dividing it by the maximum lateral front wheel lockup would reduce the maintaining steering rates within the acceleration that was determined at any roll instability of the vehicle since the capabilities of human drivers. We time between 1.0 seconds after the lateral acceleration would be reduced. believed that the maneuver is severe beginning of steering and the This is clearly, however, not a desirable enough to produce rollover or vehicle completion of steering. The two compromise. loss-of-control without a functioning proposed performance criteria are Because a vehicle that simply ESC system on the vehicle. described below: responds poorly to steering commands The agency’s test program was able to • A vehicle must have a LAR of 30 may be able to meet the stability criteria develop test parameters for the SWD percent or less 0.75 seconds after proposed in the NPRM, a minimum maneuver so that both roll stability and completion of steer. responsiveness criterion was also yaw stability could be evaluated using • A vehicle must have a LAR of 10 proposed for the SWD test. The a single loading condition and test percent or less at 1.5 seconds after proposed lateral displacement criterion maneuver. Previously, the SWD completion of steer. was that a truck tractor equipped with maneuver had typically been used to The yaw rate ratio (YRR) is a stability control must have a lateral evaluate only the yaw instability of a performance metric used to evaluate the displacement of 2.13 meters (7 feet) or vehicle. NHTSA evaluated several ability of a vehicle’s ESC system to more at 1.5 seconds from the beginning loading conditions and found that a prevent yaw instability. The YRR of steer, measured during the sine with loading condition of 80 percent of the expresses the lateral stability criteria for dwell maneuver. For a bus, the tractor’s GVWR enabled us to evaluate the sine with dwell test to measure how proposed performance criterion is a both the yaw and roll stability control quickly the vehicle stops turning, or lateral displacement of 1.52 meters (5 of the ESC system. rotating about its vertical axis, after the feet) or more at 1.5 seconds after the For a truck tractor, the agency would steering wheel is returned to the beginning of steer. The lateral conduct the SWD test with the truck straight-ahead position. The lateral displacement criteria is less for a bus tractor coupled to an unbraked control stability criterion, expressed in terms of because a large bus has a longer trailer and loaded with ballast directly YRR, is the percent of peak yaw rate that wheelbase than a truck tractor and over the kingpin. The combination is present at designated times after higher steering ratio, which makes it vehicle would be loaded to 80 percent completion of steer. This performance less responsive than a truck tractor. of the tractor’s GVWR. For a bus, the metric is identical to the metric used in vehicle is loaded with a 68 kilogram B. Comments on SIS and SWD the light vehicle ESC system Maneuvers (150 pound) ballast in each of the performance requirement in FMVSS No. vehicle’s designated seating positions, 126. The two proposed performance The agency received many comments, which would bring the vehicle’s weight criteria are described below: particularly from representatives of ESC to less than its GVWR. The test vehicles • A vehicle must have a YRR of 40 system, truck tractor, and bus were proposed to be equipped with percent or less 0.75 seconds after manufacturers specifically addressing outriggers to prevent the trailer from completion of steer. the slowly increasing steer and sine rolling over in case the ESC system does • A vehicle must have a YRR of 15 with dwell maneuvers proposed in the not function properly. percent or less at 1.5 seconds after NPRM. The comments raised issues The SWD test would be conducted at completion of steer. regarding the relevance of the SWD and a speed of 72 km/h (45 mph). An SIS tests, the amount of space required automated steering machine would be 3. Lateral Displacement to perform the test, and the automated used to initiate the steering maneuver. Lateral displacement is a performance steering machine. Each vehicle is subjected to two series metric used to evaluate the Daimler Trucks North America of test runs. One series uses responsiveness of a vehicle, which (DTNA), the ATA, and Navistar claimed counterclockwise steering for the first relates to its ability to steer around the SWD was not representative of a half-cycle, and the other series uses objects. Stability control intervention real-world maneuver. EMA stated the no clockwise steering for the first half- has the potential to significantly manufacturer to date was using the cycle. The steering amplitude for the increase the stability of the vehicle in SWD maneuver to test and validate an initial run of each series is 0.3A, where which it is installed. However, we ESC system. Navistar claimed the A is the steering wheel angle believe that these improvements in standard width of a highway lane does determined from the SIS maneuver. In vehicle stability should not come at the not allow room for the SWD maneuver

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:37 Jun 22, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\23JNR2.SGM 23JNR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 120 / Tuesday, June 23, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 36073

to be completed. EMA shared Navistar’s portable, meaning that any test facility support the proposal. Further EMA belief that a driver of a truck tractor that can run FMVSS No. 121 tests criticized NHTSA’s test program for would require 6 to 8 lanes of road width should be able to run FMVSS No. 136 using only one control trailer and one to perform a SWD maneuver on a tests. test facility. Volvo alleged that the roadway, and the SWD test is unlike any In the NPRM, we proposed using a proposed performance tests could maneuver likely to occur on public steering machine to provide the steering potentially damage test vehicles, and roads. wheel inputs for the vehicles during the some manufacturers conduct assurance DTNA asserted that the SWD test fails SIS and SWD tests. Advocates tests on customer vehicles. to provide adequate pass/fail criteria as recommended that the SWD and SIS an ESC performance test. Similarly, tests should be required along with an C. Alternative Maneuvers Considered in Volvo stated that the SWD performance automated steering machine. However, the NPRM test criteria is impractical and Bendix, Volvo, and EMA expressed We considered other test maneuvers unnecessary because there are concern regarding the steering machine besides the SIS and SWD tests in the established validation test methods and the capabilities of a vehicle’s NPRM. The SWD maneuver was chosen available and in use. steering system to perform the SWD in the NPRM over other maneuvers DTNA, Navistar, and EMA suggested maneuver. Bendix stated that the because our research demonstrated that that tuning the ESC system to pass the steering robot specified in the NPRM is it has the most optimal set of SWD test could compromise the system inadequate and suggested that more characteristics, including the severity of performance. Navistar reasoned that research needs to be done to find a the test, repeatability and focusing on the SWD test would steering controller more suited for large reproducibility of results, and the ability diminish the amount of design work vehicles. According to Volvo, the same to address rollover, lateral stability, and done to optimize ESC performance for steering machine requirements as those responsiveness. However, we left within other conditions. Navistar also found in FMVSS No. 126 would not be the scope of the NPRM several other test speculated that some ESC systems may sufficient for heavy vehicles. EMA and maneuvers that could be used to test an not comply with the SWD test and may Bendix expressed concerns that the ESC system’s ability to mitigate require a lengthy research and SWD requires steering inputs that instability. development plan to redesign the approach the limit of what a human With respect to rollover instability systems. On the other hand, Bendix being can accomplish. EMA also claims mitigation, we discussed the ramp steer Commercial Vehicle Systems (Bendix) the SWD test exceeds the capacity of maneuver (RSM) and J-turn maneuver. assured the agency that tractors power steering systems on some The two tests are similar in that both equipped with the current Bendix ESC tractors, which affects the results of the maneuvers require the tested vehicle to systems could pass the proposed SWD SWD and exposes the driver to safety be driven at a constant speed and then and SIS tests. risks. the vehicle is turned in one direction for DTNA and EMA alleged that there Commenters also addressed the costs a certain period of time. The test speed would be additional burdens and of conducting the proposed SIS and and the severity of the turn are designed restrictions on manufacturers caused by SWD tests. ATA and EMA stated that to cause a test vehicle to approach or a SWD performance test. DTNA stated the proposed SWD test would be costly exceed its roll stability threshold such that manufacturers have a burden to because of the logistics and preparation that, without a stability control system, conduct extensive ESC testing because costs to test at TRC. Navistar said that the vehicle would exhibit signs of roll of the lack of experience with the SWD a new facility would need to be built to instability. Both tests would be test. EMA claimed that heavy vehicle conduct the SWD tests at an estimated performed with the tractor loaded to its options would be restricted to ensure cost of $4 to 6 million plus additional GVWR. Furthermore, we do not expect compliance with the SWD test. Neither costs for maintenance and repair of the a vehicle that could pass one test to fail commenter provided details to support facility. the other. its claims. Meritor WABCO, EMA, and Volvo The most notable difference between We also received comments on the provided estimates regarding the costs the J-turn and the RSM maneuvers is amount of space required to conduct SIS and burden of conducting the SWD test. that the J-turn is a path-following and SWD tests. According to Navistar, Meritor WABCO commented that the maneuver. That is, it is performed on a EMA, and Bendix, the SWD and SIS tests are too costly and estimated the fixed path curve. In contrast, the RSM tests require a large area in order to costs to be in excess of $28,000 per maneuver is a non-path-following perform the tests. Navistar, EMA, tractor. EMA claimed the SWD is too maneuver that is performed with a fixed DTNA, Volvo, and the HDBMC claimed expensive because heavy vehicles have steering wheel input determined for that the Transportation Research Center many variations, small volumes, and each vehicle. For example, during the (TRC) in Ohio is the only test facility typically testing is performed on agency’s and EMA’s testing, the J-turn large enough to perform the SWD and saleable vehicles. EMA estimated that maneuver was performed on a 150-foot SIS tests. Based on this belief, they each truck tractor manufacturer would radius curve. In contrast, the RSM is assume an increase in the number of need to run 50 to 80 tests for its 6x4 performed based on a steering wheel manufacturers using TRC will limit the tractors causing a high cost for the SWD angle derived from the SIS test. We test facility availability. Bendix testing, which is spread out over a low expect that, with the RSM, the radius of provided data and calculations to production volume of heavy vehicles. the curve would be close to the fixed support its recommendation for the test EMA further commented that radius used in the J-turn maneuver. area dimensions needed to safely manufacturers might have to redesign However, in the RSM, the vehicle would perform the SIS and SWD tests. steering systems to comply in order to be steered with a steering controller and According to Bendix, the SIS test needs perform the SWD tests, which would the driver would not have to make an area of 176 m (563.2 ft.) by 151 m further increase the costs. Additionally, adjustments and corrections to steering (483.2 ft.), and the SWD test needs a EMA claims NHTSA did not test any to maintain the fixed path. smaller area of 112 m (358.4 ft.) by 58 severe service tractors using SWD We included both maneuvers in our m (185.6 ft.). Bendix further argued that testing, and the sample of truck tractors roll stability testing. We also included the ESC performance tests should be NHTSA tested was too narrow to possible performance metrics. For the

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:37 Jun 22, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\23JNR2.SGM 23JNR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 36074 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 120 / Tuesday, June 23, 2015 / Rules and Regulations

RSM, these performance metrics were The RSM would use a similar, but not However, neither of these test included in the preamble to the NPRM. identical lateral acceleration ratio maneuvers was developed to a level that For the J-turn maneuver, the performance metric to evaluate roll would make them suitable for the performance metrics were included in stability. As with the SWD maneuver, agency to consider using as yaw materials supporting the NPRM that the LAR used in the RSM would performance tests. were placed in the docket.45 indicate that the stability control system In July 2009, EMA provided research When comparing the J-turn to the is applying selective braking to lower information on several yaw stability test 48 RSM in the NPRM, the agency lateral acceleration experienced during maneuvers. One of these maneuvers considered the RSM to be a preferable the steering maneuver. In the SWD was the SWD on dry pavement that is test maneuver because the RSM maneuver, the LAR is the ratio of the similar to what was proposed in the maneuver can be performed with an lateral acceleration at a fixed point in NPRM. The second maneuver was a automated steering wheel controller. time to the peak lateral acceleration SWD maneuver conducted on wet during the period from one second after Jennite. The third maneuver was a ramp Because the J-turn is a path-following 49 maneuver, a test driver must constantly the beginning of steer to the completion with dwell maneuver on wet Jennite. make adjustments to the steering input of steer. In contrast, the LAR metric we EMA did not provide any test data on the last two maneuvers. Thus, we for the vehicle to remain in the lane would use for the RSM would be the considered them to be concepts rather throughout the test maneuver. ratio of the lateral acceleration at a fixed than fully developed maneuvers that we Moreover, driver variability could be point in time to the lateral acceleration could consider using for yaw stability introduced from test to test based upon at the end of ramp input, which is the testing. minor variations in the timing of the moment at which the steering wheel angle reaches the target steering wheel We received no other alternative yaw initial steering input and the position of performance tests from industry until the test vehicle in the lane. angle for the test. Also, in contrast to the SWD maneuver, the LAR measurements EMA’s submission of data in late In addition, the RSM appeared to be 50 for the RSM would be taken at a time 2010. EMA suggested using a wet more consistent because it involves a when the steering wheel is still turned. Jennite drive through test maneuver fixed steering wheel angle rather than a This means that, although the SWD demonstrated yaw performance in a fixed path. There is negligible maneuver is a more dynamic steering curve on a low friction surface. The variability based on the timing of the maneuver, the LAR criteria for the RSM maneuver is based upon a maneuver the initial steering input because the test is would be greater than the LAR criteria agency currently conducts on heavy designed to begin at the initiation of for the SWD maneuver. The vehicles to verify stability and control of steering input, rather than the vehicle’s performance criteria for the RSM would antilock braking systems while braking position on a track. Moreover, an depend on whether fixed-rate steering in a curve. As part of the test, a vehicle automated steering wheel controller can is driven into a 500-foot radius curve or fixed-time steering input is used. more precisely maintain the required with a low-friction wet Jennite surface In a March 2012 submission given to steering wheel input than a driver can. at increasing speeds to determine the the agency prior to the publication of Therefore, we tentatively concluded that maximum drive-through speed at which the NPRM, which was revised with the RSM is more consistent and more the driver can keep the vehicle within additional details in April 2012, EMA repeatable than the J-turn, which is a 12-foot lane. As with the J-turn, we are suggested that NHTSA use different test critical for agency compliance testing concerned about the repeatability of this speeds and performance criteria for the purposes. test maneuver because of variability in J-turn maneuver.46 EMA suggested that the wet Jennite test surface and the Notwithstanding the above a test speed that is 30 percent greater drivers’ difficulty in maintaining a observations, we recognized that many than the minimum speed at which the manufacturers perform NHTSA’s constant speed and steering input in the ESC system intervenes with engine, curve. compliance tests in order to certify that engine brake, or service brake control. their vehicles comply with NHTSA’s In a March 2012 submission, which Instead of measuring LAR, EMA was revised with additional details in safety standards. We also recognize that, suggested that, during three out of four over time, manufacturers are likely to April 2012, EMA provided information runs, the vehicle would be required to about another yaw stability test along use other methods such as simulation, decelerate at a minimum deceleration modeling, etc., to determine compliance with additional information on the J- rate. NHTSA has conducted testing on 51 with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety turn maneuver. This maneuver variations of this EMA maneuver, and simulates a single lane change on a wet Standards. In this regard, we observed we suggested that we would conduct that, because the J-turn and the ramp roadway surface. It is be conducted further testing. We requested comments within a 3.7 meter (12 foot) wide path. steer maneuvers are so similar, on EMA’s suggested test procedure and manufacturers may be able to determine The roadway condition is be a wet, low performance criteria for the J-turn friction surface such as wet Jennite with compliance with a stability control maneuver. standard by using the J-turn maneuver a peak coefficient of friction of 0.5. The After evaluating several maneuvers on other test conditions (i.e., road even if the agency ultimately decided to different surfaces, the agency was use the RSM for compliance testing. conditions, burnish procedure, liftable unable to develop any alternative axle position, and initial brake Thus, if a manufacturer sought to certify performance-based dynamic yaw test compliance based upon performance temperatures) are similar to those maneuvers that were repeatable enough proposed in the NPRM. In this testing, a manufacturer would not for compliance testing purposes. Bendix necessarily need to perform compliance described two maneuvers intended to 48 Docket No. NHTSA–2010–0034–0035. testing with an automated steering 47 evaluate the yaw stability of tractors. 49 This ramp with dwell maneuver is the same controller. one identified by Bendix referenced in the prior 46 Docket No. NHTSA–2010–0034–0032; Docket paragraph and in section IV.E.3. 45 See ‘‘Tractor Semi-Trailer Stability Objective No. NHTSA–2010–0034–0040. 50 Docket No. NHTSA–2010–0034–0022; Docket Performance Test Research—Roll Stability,’’ Docket 47 These tests are discussed in section IV.E.3. See No. NHTSA–2010–0034–0023. No. NHTSA–2010–0034–0009 Pages xiv, 18, 22–27, Docket No. NHTSA–2010–0034–0037 and Docket 51 Docket No. NHTSA–2010–0034–0032; Docket 35. No. NHTSA–2010–0034–0038. No. NHTSA–2010–0034–0040.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:37 Jun 22, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\23JNR2.SGM 23JNR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 120 / Tuesday, June 23, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 36075

maneuver, the truck enters the path at brakes are considered to be activated Bendix submitted test data and criteria progressively higher speeds to establish when at least 35 kPa (5 psi) is observed using a ramp with dwell maneuver, the minimum speed at which the ESC at the service brakes. EMA which it suggested could be used for system intervenes and applies the recommended that four test runs be testing both the roll and yaw stability of tractor’s brakes. The maneuver is then performed and that the deceleration rate a vehicle. IIHS did not endorse a be repeated four times at that speed must be at least 0.91 m/s2 (3.0 ft./s2) in particular performance test, but made a with the vehicle remaining within the three of the four test runs. general statement that there should be a lane at all times during the maneuver. With respect to the SWD test in the requirement of performance tests for EMA suggests, as a performance agency’s proposal, EMA stated that the ESC. criterion, that during at least three of the SWD maneuver is nearly identical to the Furthermore, EMA agrees with four runs, the ESC system must provide maneuver used in FMVSS No. 126. NHTSA’s assessment that it is difficult a minimum level (presently However, in FMVSS No. 126, NHTSA to test for understeer control. EMA unspecified) of differential braking. At stated that the maneuver was only used believes that the reasoning for not the NPRM phase, the agency had not to test yaw stability, not roll stability. testing understeer control in FMVSS No. had an opportunity to conduct testing of EMA observed that heavy vehicles are 126 can be carried over to heavy vehicle this maneuver, but we expressed an different from light vehicles because ESC. In that rulemaking, NHTSA intention to determine whether this is a they have higher centers of gravity and concluded that the understeer viable alternative yaw stability test. The are more likely to roll over than to lose prevention requirement that was agency requested comment on all directional control. Because the SWD included in the system capability aspects of EMA’s yaw stability test test does not test roll stability on light requirements was objective, even discussed in its March and April 2012 vehicles, EMA reasoned that the without a performance test.52 maneuver should not be used to test roll submissions, including the test E. NHTSA Examination and Testing of stability on heavy vehicles. conditions, test procedure, and possible EMA Maneuvers performance criteria that would allow Regarding yaw testing, EMA disagreed the agency to test both trucks and buses with NHTSA’s assessment in the NPRM In response to the March and April with this maneuver. that low friction surfaces such as wet 2012 submission from EMA and Jennite may be too variable to conduct additional data submitted to the agency D. Comments on Alternative Test ESC testing, citing NHTSA’s use of wet in June 2012 and November 2012 after Maneuvers Jennite in testing air brake performance the issuance of the NPRM containing Seven commenters (Daimler, Volvo, in FMVSS No. 121. EMA recommended results of additional tests discussed by Meritor WABCO, Navistar, HDMA, using a test course with an overall EMA, the agency conducted its own EMA, and Bendix) recommended that length of 58.5 meters (192 feet). The testing in 2013 using EMA’s suggested NHTSA adopt alternative dynamic vehicle proceeds into the maneuver in rollover performance maneuver.53 The performance test maneuvers instead of a 3.1-meter (10-foot) wide entrance lane. results of this testing are summarized in the SIS and SWD. These alternative A steering maneuver is made within 28 the reports: (1) ‘‘2013 Tractor maneuvers were either described in the meters (92 feet), and the vehicle Semitrailer Stability Objective NPRM or included in comments completes the maneuver by entering a Performance Test Research—150-Foot submitted in response to the NPRM. second 3.7-meter (12-foot) wide Radius J-Turn Test Track Research;’’ (2) EMA submitted a comment including departure lane with a length of 15.2 ‘‘Stability Control System Test Track general test conditions for a J-turn meters (50 feet). The coefficient of Research with a 2014 Prevost X3–45 maneuver to test roll stability and a friction of the road surface is 0.5. The Passenger Motorcoach;’’ and (3) single lane change on a wet surface to maneuver is similar to a single lane ‘‘Stability Control System Test Track test yaw stability. In a later submission, change on a wet surface test. The test is Research with a 2014 Van Hool CX45 EMA provided actual test information conducted at a speed that is 1.6 km/h (1 Passenger Motorcoach.’’ 54 This section and suggested performance criteria mph) greater than the reference speed provides a summary of these reports. based on data gathered at two different determined in the rollover maneuver. These reports do not address the yaw test facilities using 10 different truck The vehicle is driven on the test course stability performance maneuver tractors. Daimler, Meritor WABCO, for four test runs at the test speed and suggested by EMA to test yaw stability. HDMA, EMA, and Bendix supported the brake pressure is measured at EMA’s lane change maneuver test is adopting EMA’s J-turn test maneuver as opposite wheel ends. EMA performed on a wet level surface with the performance test requirement for recommended that a differential brake a peak friction coefficient of 0.5. testing roll stability. pressure of at least 69 kPa (10 psi) in NHTSA’s past test results with this test The J-turn maneuver described in three of the four test runs as a minimum surface and similar performance EMA’s submissions uses a test course performance requirement. maneuvers has shown that ESC systems with straight lane connected to a 45.7- Daimler, HDMA, EMA, and Bendix have the capability to improve vehicle meter (150-foot) radius, a lane width of recommended that NHTSA adopt the yaw and roll stability performance on 3.7 meters (12 feet), and a surface single lane change maneuver described low friction surfaces. However, vehicle coefficient of 0.9. The test speed of the in EMA’s comment for testing yaw handling characteristics dictated the maneuver is determined by driving a stability, if the test is workable. performance of the vehicle on low vehicle on the test course and Otherwise, they recommended friction surfaces. Test data revealed that, identifying the minimum vehicle speed removing performance requirements depending on whether the tractor that causes the ESC system to apply the related to yaw stability, leaving only an service brakes. That speed is the equipment definition requiring yaw 52 72 FR 17261 (Apr. 6, 2007). reference speed. The vehicle is then stability performance. 53 Docket No. NHTSA–2010–0034–0032; Docket driven on the test course, entering the Other commenters had similar views No. NHTSA–2010–0034–0040; Docket No. NHTSA– curve at 1.3 times the reference speed. on yaw testing. For example, Meritor 2012–0065–0059; Docket No. NHTSA–2012–0065– 0060. The deceleration rate is determined WABCO recommended that NHTSA 54 Docket No. NHTSA–2012–0065–0062; Docket from a time starting at when the ESC should wait to test yaw stability until it No. NHTSA–2012–0065–0063; Docket No. NHTSA– system activates the service brakes. The could develop a new yaw stability test. 2012–0065–0064.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:37 Jun 22, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\23JNR2.SGM 23JNR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 36076 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 120 / Tuesday, June 23, 2015 / Rules and Regulations

understeered or oversteered with 0.9. The curved lane formed a reach and maintain prior to entering the respect to the trailer, the ESC system semicircle, and a straight lane used for curve. The test driver released the behavior changed. Under such varying bringing the vehicle up to speed was throttle two or more seconds after the behaviors, measures of performance that oriented tangentially at both ends of the stability control system intervened with were investigated could not be curved lane. This allowed the same test either torque reduction or brake standardized to capture the benefits of course to be used in both a clockwise application. However, it was discovered an ESC system over the whole range of and counterclockwise orientation. The that it was easier for the test driver to vehicles tested. We have concluded that agency placed cones at every 11.25 control speed if throttle was maintained objective performance tests for ESC degrees of arc angle to mark the inner until the stability control system using a low friction surface requires and outer lane boundaries. reduced the vehicle’s forward speed by additional data analysis, maneuver Prior to testing, the test tractors were 2 to 3 mph. design, and test procedure development, loaded to the GVWR by attaching them Initially, vehicles were tested with an which would require further delaying to one of the two unbraked control entrance speed of 20 mph. Additional this final rule with no assurance that an trailers used for testing. The remaining test runs were conducted at entrance acceptable maneuver on a low-friction test conditions (i.e., road surface speeds increased incrementally by 1 surface could be developed. Therefore, friction, ambient temperature mph until a reference speed could be we have not further tested EMA’s conditions, burnish procedure, liftable determined. The reference speed was suggested yaw performance maneuver. axle conditions) largely mirrored those the speed at which the stability system We may investigate this maneuver in specified in FMVSS No. 121 for testing intervened with at least 5 psi of service the future. air brakes, which also generally brake pressure. Additional tests were The main objective of NHTSA’s truck- mirrored the test conditions set forth in conducted at speeds incremented by 1 tractor testing was to gain additional the NPRM. mph until the target test speed was experience with a the 150-foot radius J- The test driver maneuvered the test reached, which was 130 percent of the turn maneuver procedures suggested by vehicle into the straight lane and reference speed. Four additional test EMA and to collect test track approached the curve, then traveled runs were conducted at the target test performance data on air braked truck through the 180 degrees of arc in the speed. tractors equipped with stability control curve. The driver attempted to steer the Near the end of testing, the agency system. The agency conducted tests on vehicle in such a manner that it stayed conducted four additional test runs at three class 8 air-braked truck tractors in the lane throughout the maneuver. the reference speed, during which the and two control trailers. The three The brake pressure was measured at test driver fully depressed the trucks used were a 2006 Freightliner each wheel end and was monitored accelerator pedal after crossing the start 6x4 equipped with separate RSC and using a computer. All maneuvers were gate. The purpose of this testing was to ESC systems, a 2006 Volvo 6x4 conducted in one direction, and then evaluate the stability control system’s equipped with an ESC system, and a the entire procedure was completed in ability to reduce driver-commanded 2011 Mack 4x2 equipped with an ESC the opposite direction, so that vehicles engine torque. system. were tested both clockwise and Following this procedure, the agency The test procedures were derived counterclockwise independently. The determined reference speeds and target from those EMA submitted in April test sequence was repeated for each of test speeds for each test vehicle 2012, which the agency placed in the the test vehicles and, for the connected to each of the control trailers docket with the NPRM.55 The test Freightliner, repeated separately with and run in each direction. All vehicles course consisted of a 12-foot wide the ESC and RSC systems enabled. tested had the ESC systems intervene at curved lane with a 150-foot radius Each test was conducted at a specified entrance speeds not greater than 30 measured from the center of the lane entrance speed, with a tolerance of mph. The results are summarized in the and a peak surface friction coefficient of +/¥1 mph, which the driver would following table.

TABLE 3—REFERENCE SPEED, TARGET TEST SPEED, AND LANE VIOLATIONS OBSERVED DURING 150-FOOT J-TURN TESTS

Reference speed Target test speed Lane violations observed at (mph) (mph) or below the target test × Tractor Control trailer [Reference Speed 1.3] speed Counter- Clockwise Counter- Counter- clockwise clockwise Clockwise clockwise Clockwise

Freightliner 6×4 ESC ... 1 28 ...... 28 ...... 36 ...... 36 ...... 0 0 2 27 ...... 28 ...... 35 ...... 36 ...... 0 0 Freightliner 6×4 RSC ... 1 30 ...... 26 ...... 39 ...... 34 ...... 2 0 2 Not Tested ...... Not Tested ...... Not Tested ...... Not Tested ...... ¥ ¥ Mack 4×2 ESC ...... 1 25 ...... 24 ...... 33 ...... 31 ...... 0 0 2 25 ...... 24 ...... 33 ...... 31 ...... 0 0 Volvo 6×4 ESC ...... 1 26 ...... 26 ...... 34 ...... 34 ...... 0 0 2 26 ...... 25 ...... 34 ...... 33 ...... 0 0

EMA suggested, as the performance s 2 during three of four test runs at an evaluating EMA’s suggested metric, that the ESC system decelerate entrance speed of 130 percent of the performance metric, the agency the vehicle at a rate greater than 3 ft./ reference speed. In addition to considered additional performance

55 Docket No. NHTSA–2010–0034–0040.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:37 Jun 22, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\23JNR2.SGM 23JNR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 120 / Tuesday, June 23, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 36077

metrics for evaluating roll stability F. Roll Stability Performance Test—J- tractors each equipped with ESC performance. In its roll stability test Turn Test systems consistently met the proposed development, the agency had performance requirements using the 1. Rationale for Using J-Turn Test considered lateral acceleration and SWD test. In addition, no commenter forward speed as possible roll stability NHTSA has decided to substitute the submitted supporting information performance metrics.56 J-turn maneuver in place of the SIS and describing any specific design SWD maneuvers as the performance test NHTSA’s past test track research compromises that would occur as a for an ESC system. The J-turn test will showed that tractors pulling trailers result of complying with the SWD test. be used to evaluate the roll stability of Likewise, the agency does not with high centers-of-gravity have a high a vehicle. Likewise, the J-turn will also characterize the testing of saleable probability of rolling over in a 150-foot be used to ensure that the ESC system vehicles as an unnecessary cost radius curve when speeds exceeded 30 reduces engine torque to the wheels. increase. Contrarily, performing the mph.57 Tractors equipped with ESC Because the J-turn is conducted on a tests on saleable vehicles, as opposed to systems, driven under the same fixed curve, longitudinal velocity manufacturing a vehicle solely for scenario, were slowed down by the ESC (speed) directly correlates to lateral testing purposes, reduces the amount of systems and consequently, roll acceleration. NHTSA has determined cost to a manufacturer. The instability was mitigated. These that the J-turn test is the most cost- manufacturers have provided no basis observations guided comparisons in effective and least burdensome for their assertions that they could not performance and allowed the agency to alternative that achieves the objectives resell vehicles after conducting SWD develop speed-based performance of the ESC rule. Moreover, the roll tests. Although they have asserted that metrics relative to the entrance to the stability mitigation performance the vehicles may be damaged during 150-foot curve. Specific speed requirements associated with the J-turn testing, NHTSA has not experienced any thresholds can be established as a maneuver are comparable to the vehicle damage during its own testing. performance metric. minimum performance requirements In response to Volvo’s claim of potential In the agency’s testing using a high associated with the SWD maneuver damage to vehicles being tested, the center-of-gravity load, roll instability proposed in the NPRM. agency recognizes that any performance (wheel lift) was first observed in tests To be clear, however, the agency test, if done unsafely, could potentially generating approximately 0.4g of lateral rejects much of the criticism of the SWD damage the vehicle being tested. acceleration at the tractor’s center of maneuver in the comments from truck Nevertheless, NHTSA believes the J- gravity. Wheel lift was generally manufacturers. Although we are turn test maneuver is more efficient observed between 3 and 4 seconds after abandoning the proposed SIS and SWD than the SWD test for assessing the roll the steering input, which is when 0.4g maneuver in favor of a J-turn maneuver instability mitigation of ESC systems. of lateral acceleration was sustained. to test roll stability in this final rule, The J-turn test can demonstrate roll Based on these observations, the agency NHTSA still considers the SWD test to stability using only a single test. There set the tractor lateral acceleration be a viable test to measure the minimum is no need to analyze and extrapolate thresholds for roll stability during the performance of an ESC system on a data between two separate test 150-foot J-turn maneuver at a maximum heavy vehicle. maneuvers as there is using the SIS and of 0.375 g at 3.0 seconds after the We do not agree with the commenters’ SWD tests. This will allow the agency vehicle crossed the start gate and 0.350 assertions about the relevance of the to complete a compliance test more g at 4.0 seconds after the vehicle crossed SWD maneuver. The lack of voluntary quickly using the J-turn than using the the start gate. adoption of the SWD test by vehicle SIS and SWD tests. manufacturers does not, by itself, make We did not receive any estimate from However, because the radius of the the SWD test irrelevant. EMA or its members regarding the costs curved portion of the track is fixed, Likewise, the comments regarding the to perform the J-turn test. However, these lateral acceleration thresholds can width of public roads and how the EMA and its members did not object to be related to speed thresholds using the maneuver is not likely to occur on 2 the cost of its suggested performance formula A=V /R, where A is the lateral public roads are inapposite. The test, nor did any commenter discuss the acceleration, V is the vehicle’s forward purpose of the performance test is to difference in cost of the J-turn test speed, and R is the radius of the curve. determine the minimum performance versus the SWD and SIS tests. Instead, Inserting the specified lateral requirements of ESC systems using an the agency received a recommendation acceleration levels and the radius of the objective and repeatable test. The fact from dozens of commenters to adopt the curve, the agency’s lateral acceleration that the SWD test will not be performed J-turn test. The agency estimates that it thresholds converted to maximum on public roads and must be performed would cost approximately $13,400 per speed thresholds of 29 mph and 28 mph on a test track, which can be 6 to 8 lanes truck tractor and $20,100 per large bus at 3.0 and 4.0 seconds, respectively. of public road width or larger, is not by to conduct the full series of J-turn test Each tractor and stability control itself a persuasive argument that the test maneuvers contained in this final rule. system tested exceeded EMA’s is irrelevant. We also note that the J-turn maneuver suggested 3 ft./s2 minimum deceleration Nor does the agency agree with the is similar to the Ramp Steer Maneuver test criteria. Each tractor and stability commenters suggesting that additional (RSM), which was discussed at length in control system tested also exceeded design work would be necessary in the NPRM. Both maneuvers use a test NHTSA’s speed and lateral acceleration order for vehicles to meet SWD course with a straight lane connected to thresholds. performance requirement. None of the a curved lane. However, the RSM commenters suggesting additional maneuver is an open loop type test, uses 56 See Docket No. NHTSA–2010–0034–0009. design work was necessary submitted an automated steering controller, and 57 See ‘‘Tractor Semi-Trailer Stability Objective information to justify the assertion. requires conducting an SIS maneuver to Performance Test Research—Roll Stability,’’ Docket Moreover, Bendix, a system supplier, determine the appropriate steering No. NHTSA–2010–0034–0009; ‘‘Tractor Semitrailer Stability Objective Performance Test Research— asserted that current ESC systems could wheel angle for testing. The J-turn is a Yaw Stability,’’ Docket No. NHTSA–2010–0034– pass the proposed SWD test. NHTSA’s path-following maneuver and the 0046. own testing using two typical 6×4 vehicle is steered by the driver. We have

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:37 Jun 22, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\23JNR2.SGM 23JNR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 36078 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 120 / Tuesday, June 23, 2015 / Rules and Regulations

chosen a path-following maneuver over 2. Test Procedure and Performance Each is subjected to multiple J-turn the fixed-steering RSM because of track Requirements test runs with a test speed starting at 32 space concerns regarding the SIS km/h (20 mph) and increased in 1.6 km/ The J-turn test procedure developed maneuver. We believe that the amount h (1 mph) increments until ESC service based on EMA’s suggestion is a of track space necessary to conduct the brake activation is observed. The test sequential procedure in which the test SIS maneuver may only be available at driver will not apply the service brakes vehicle is repeatedly driven through a one or two test facilities in the United or the engine exhaust braking during the 150-foot radius curve. The test is maneuver. For air-braked vehicles, ESC States. While one of these facilities is conducted on the same test course and readily available to NHTSA for service brake activation occurs when the is generally performed in the manner ESC system causes the pressure in the compliance testing purposes, we suggested by EMA with only minor recognize that manufacturers may wish service brake system to reach at least 34 changes added to test lateral kPa (5 psi) for a continuous duration of to test their own vehicles as part of their responsiveness and to test the ESC compliance certification. at least 0.5 second. For vehicles with system’s ability to reduce engine output. hydraulic brakes, ESC service brake We emphasize that the adoption of We have also modified the minimum application occurs when the ESC system the J-turn maneuver should not in any performance criteria to use forward causes the pressure in the service brake way diminish the roll stability speed rather than deceleration rate. We system to reach at least 172 kPa (25 psi) performance we have observed from found that using deceleration rate as a for a continuous duration of at least 0.5 ESC systems. The performance criteria minimum performance criteria would second. This speed is considered the associated with the J-turn test maneuver not address vehicle wheel lift and Preliminary Reference Speed. This in this final rule have been chosen to subsequent rollover, especially when procedure is conducted separately using ensure a level of roll instability the vehicle has a load with a high clockwise and counterclockwise mitigation performance similar to that center-of-gravity. EMA’s suggestion only steering. required to satisfy the SWD maneuver. measures the braking rate, but it does The J-turn maneuver is then repeated Although the test is conducted at a not measure the ESC system’s capability four times at the Preliminary Reference lower speed, the radius of the curve will to lower vehicle lateral acceleration to Speed to confirm that this is the speed increase lateral acceleration to a level an acceptable threshold. at which ESC service brake activation that would generate roll instability in A diagram of the curve is included in occurs. To do this, four test runs are vehicles without ESC systems. We the regulatory text to clarify any performed and ESC service brake believe that all large trucks and buses ambiguities in the description of the application is verified. If ESC service equipped with current generation ESC course. Although the lane markings are brake application is verified, this speed systems will meet the minimum depicted with dots on the figure, there is considered the Reference Speed. If performance requirements just as we is no specification for how the lane is ESC service brake activation does not believe they would have met the marked. It may, for example, be marked occur during at least two of the four test minimum performance requirements with cones or painted lines. Although runs, the Preliminary Reference Speed associated with the SWD maneuver. the figure depicts a counter-clockwise is incremented by 1.6 km/h (1 mph) and Therefore, we do not believe that the layout, the test is conducted in both ESC service brake application is again verified. Again, the Reference Speed is use of a different test maneuver will directions. determined for both the clockwise and change the expected performance of The start gate is placed at the point of counterclockwise direction. the test course where the straight lane ESC systems. Once the Reference Speed is We also observe that, like the sine section intersects with the curved determined, the ESC system’s ability to with dwell maneuver, the J-turn section of the lane. An end gate is reduce engine torque is verified. Two maneuver that is one of the placed on the curved portion of the lane series of four test runs (one series at 120 degrees of arc angle from the start demonstration tests in Annex 21 of UN clockwise, the other series gate. It will take a test vehicle more than ECE Regulation 13. If a manufacturer counterclockwise) are conducted at the 4 seconds to pass through the end gate. chooses the J-Turn test as a Reference Speed. During these Therefore, all of the necessary data will demonstration test to show compliance maneuvers, the driver will fully depress be collected by that point. with Annex 21 and can achieve the the accelerator pedal after entering the performance criteria established in this For truck tractors, the lane width is curve and throughout the curve. NHTSA final rule, then there would be 3.7 meters (12 feet) for both the straight will verify that the engine torque output compatibility between the performance section and curved section of the is less than the driver-requested output. tests of FMVSS No. 136 and UN ECE course. However, large buses require This ensures that the driver’s attempt to Regulation 13. additional lane width on the curved accelerate the vehicle does not override section of the course because buses have the ESC service brake application and NTSB provided comments indicating longer wheelbases, which make it verifies the system’s ability to mitigate that rollover performance standards substantially more difficult to maintain instability by reducing engine torque. should be measured by static rollover a narrower lane within the curve. The Thereafter, the vehicle is subjected to stability. NHTSA does not agree with large buses that the agency tested did multiple series of test runs (both the NTSB’s suggestion. NHTSA not physically fit in the curved section clockwise and counterclockwise) at an developed test methods that could of the 12-foot lane because of their long entrance speed up to a maximum test evaluate an ESC system’s performance wheelbases. During testing, the rear speed, which is up to 1.3 times the dynamically. The goal is to create a wheels of the buses departed the lane Reference Speed, but no less than 48 measure of performance that will ensure even at very low entrance speeds km/h (30 mph). At a speed between 48 that an ESC system could prevent a because of the geometry of the buses, km/h (30 mph) and the maximum test rollover. A static stability test would not not because of a lack of stability. speed, the vehicle is subjected to eight measure how an ESC system reduces Therefore, for buses, the lane width on maneuvers, during which ESC service lateral acceleration to reduce untripped the curved section of the course is 4.3 brake activation is verified. The vehicle rollovers. meters (14 feet). must be able to meet the roll stability

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:37 Jun 22, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\23JNR2.SGM 23JNR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 120 / Tuesday, June 23, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 36079

performance criteria discussed below at ESC system activated the vehicle’s multiplication factor of 1.3 will be used any speed between 48 km/h (30 mph) service brakes, is determined as part of to ensure that ESC systems operate over and the maximum test speed. the J-turn test sequence. An additional a range of speeds. A factor of 1.3 allows two test series (one using clockwise the vehicle’s ESC system to reach a level 3. System Responsiveness steering and the other using where maximum brake force is applied The NPRM described the need for a counterclockwise steering) are by the system, and, as a result, ensures lateral displacement performance metric conducted after the reference speed is the ESC system reduces the longitudinal because of the possibility of a calculated. The driver then fully velocity and lateral acceleration of the manufacturer making the vehicle poorly depresses the accelerator pedal after the vehicle are below the threshold values. responsive to the speed and steering vehicle crosses the start gate. After ESC At factors below 1.3, our testing has inputs required by the SWD test. The activation occurs, data is collected to shown that ESC systems have not yet risk of poor lateral displacement in determine the difference between the achieved their maximum braking force. response to the driver’s steering input actual engine torque output and the At factors above 1.3, we have concerns was mitigated by a minimum driver requested torque. After analyzing about the safety of testing because the responsiveness criterion. Although the research data from the J-turn testing, we ESC systems have achieved their SWD test is being replaced with the J- have determined that the ESC system maximum braking force and the lateral turn test, we still need to account for must reduce the driver requested engine acceleration of the vehicle could remain vehicle responsiveness. The nature of torque by at least 10 percent for at least high. the J-turn test provides two criteria for 0.5 second during the time period In contrast, using a performance ensuring vehicle responsiveness: between 1.5 seconds after the vehicle requirement such as EMA’s suggested Maintaining the lane within the fixed passes the start gate and when it travels minimum deceleration metric provides radius curve and a minimum test speed. through the end gate. We are not no assurance that the deceleration will The first responsiveness criterion is considering reduced engine torque be sufficient to prevent rollover. For the requirement that the vehicle before 1.5 seconds after the vehicle example, using EMA’s suggested maintain the lane during at least six of crosses the start gate (and the driver procedure, if a vehicle is able to enter eight runs in the roll performance test fully depresses the accelerator pedal) a curve at a relatively high rate of speed series or at least two of four runs in any because our testing has shown that there before an ESC system activates, the other test series. This requirement is a lag between when the operator of performance requirement will be more ensures that, during J-turn test runs at the vehicle requests full throttle and stringent than if a system is tuned to increasing speeds, the ESC system when the vehicle responds by providing activate at lower rates of speed. actually activates before the vehicle full throttle. Particularly, if a test is conducted at an becomes unstable. We are not imposing entrance speed of less than 48 km/h (30 this requirement for each test run within 5. Roll Stability Performance mph), the system’s ability to prevent a series to account for driver variability Requirements rollover is not challenged because the and possible driver error in conducting Based on NHTSA’s research, for a vehicle is unlikely to experience lateral the maneuver. Absent driver error, we typical combination vehicle, an ESC forces that have the potential to cause do not expect any vehicle equipped system must reduce the heavy vehicle’s instability, even if the vehicle was not with current-generation ESC systems to lateral acceleration to less than 0.4g to equipped with an ESC system. leave the lane during any J-turn test. prevent wheel lift and possible vehicle The other responsiveness criterion in rollover.58 NHTSA considered how to We considered, but rejected, using the this final rule is the minimum vehicle measure lateral acceleration during the lateral acceleration ratio, which was the entry speed of 48 km/h (30 mph) for the J-turn maneuver. However, lateral proposed performance criteria for both roll performance test. This will acceleration is a function of longitudinal the SWD maneuver and the alternative discourage a manufacturer from velocity. Using the equation A=V2/R, RSM, rather than the reduction in designing a system that will intervene where A is lateral acceleration, V is absolute lateral acceleration. Using the only at very low speeds, thus artificially longitudinal velocity, and R is the J-turn maneuver, it was sufficient to decreasing the speed at which the radius of the curve, when driven in a ensure that the absolute lateral vehicle will enter the curve during the fixed radius curve, with a 45.7-meter acceleration was below the threshold for roll performance test. (150-foot) radius, 0.4g of lateral wheel lift after the vehicle has begun its acceleration would be achieved at a turn. Furthermore, unlike the SWD and 4. Engine Torque Reduction forward velocity of approximately 48 RSM maneuver where the beginning of As proposed in the NPRM, there must km/h (30 mph). That is, at speeds below steer can be determined, the beginning be at least a 10 percent reduction in 30 mph, a vehicle would generate less of the J-turn maneuver occurs when the engine torque when measured 1.5 than 0.4g of lateral acceleration and vehicle crosses the start gate. At this seconds after the activation of the ESC would be unlikely to roll over. This was point, the lateral acceleration of the system. The percent reduction is confirmed in the agency’s testing, where vehicle is zero or close to zero because measured between the actual engine the test vehicles remained stable at the vehicle is traveling in a straight line. torque output and the driver-requested speeds below 30 mph. After the vehicle crosses the start gate, torque input. This measurement was to NHTSA track testing has shown that the driver has some discretion for be taken during the slowly increasing the minimum test speed for effectively steering the vehicle and maintaining the steer maneuver. However, now that the testing the ESC system is 48 km/h (30 lane. The low initial lateral acceleration agency has adopted the J-turn test as its mph). However, where the ESC system and the driver variation both make the performance test, the SIS test is no activates at a speed such that 1.3 times lateral acceleration ratio an longer necessary. the minimum activation speed is greater inappropriate performance metric for Accordingly, the agency has modified than 48 km/h (30 mph), the vehicle may the J-Turn test. Instead, we found that the engine torque reduction test in the be tested at a speed up to 1.3 times the reduction in the absolute lateral NPRM so that it can be used with the minimum activation speed. A acceleration of a vehicle, which on a J-turn test. The reference speed, which fixed curve is a function of velocity, was is the lowest test speed at which the 58 See 77 FR 30776–78. sufficient to determine the performance

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:37 Jun 22, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\23JNR2.SGM 23JNR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 36080 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 120 / Tuesday, June 23, 2015 / Rules and Regulations

of an ESC system with respect to roll a performance test, NHTSA would need During the testing to develop FMVSS stability control. to do further research on the Bendix No. 126 for light vehicles, the agency Thus, the minimum performance maneuver and determine adequate concluded that understanding both requirement to demonstrate roll stability performance metrics. what understeer mitigation can and performance in this final rule is We are also concerned that the cannot do is complicated, and that there expressed in terms of a vehicle’s maneuver is conducted on a low-friction are certain situations where understeer forward speed (longitudinal velocity) at wet Jennite surface. EMA stated that it mitigation could potentially produce two points in time. The specific disagrees with the statement in the safety disbenefits if not properly tuned. requirements are: NPRM that low-friction surfaces such as Therefore, the agency decided to enforce • The longitudinal velocity measured wet Jennite are too variable to make the requirements to meet the understeer at 3.0 seconds after vehicle passes them unusable for ESC testing. EMA criterion included in the ESC definition through the start gate to the J-turn believes that the use of wet Jennite in using a two-part process. First, the maneuver must not exceed 47 km/h (29 FMVSS No. 121 for air-brake testing requirement to meet definitional criteria mph). makes wet Jennite suitable for ESC ensured that all had the hardware • The longitudinal velocity measured testing. However, we remain concerned needed to limit vehicle understeer. at 4.0 seconds after vehicle passes about the potential for variability in Second, the agency required through the start gate to the J-turn surface friction on a wet Jennite surface manufacturers to make available maneuver must not exceed 45 km/h (28 for ESC system testing. engineering documentation to NHTSA To date, we have found that only the mph). upon request to show that the system is SWD maneuver proposed in the NPRM capable of addressing vehicle NHTSA’s research indicates than an is suitable for testing yaw stability, and ESC system’s ability to maintain an understeer. even that test is limited to testing Based on the agency’s experience absolute lateral acceleration below the oversteer. As discussed above, we have criteria would provide an acceptable from the light vehicle ESC rulemaking decided not to conduct compliance tests and the lack of a suitable test to evaluate probability that the vehicle would on vehicles using the SWD because of remain stable and that a level of understeer performance, the agency did the substantial time and not propose a test for understeer to absolute lateral acceleration above the instrumentation burden associated with criteria would result in a high evaluate ESC system performance for the SWD maneuver. We do not believe truck tractors and large buses. The probability of the vehicle becoming that this additional time and cost is unstable. agency sought comment on the lack of justified solely to test yaw stability an understeer test. G. Yaw Stability when a majority of the benefits of this Advocates stated in its comment that final rule are derived from rollover NHTSA has decided to defer research there should be a compliance test for prevention. Moreover, the SWD understeer performance. It said the ESC on the yaw maneuver suggested by maneuver would only test oversteer EMA, the single lane change on a wet equipment requirement for understeer is mitigation of yaw instability, whereas not enough to ensure sufficient surface test. EMA did not provide any understeer is the primary type of yaw data showing how its performance performance to mitigate understeer instability that we observed in our conditions. criterion (differential brake pressure) testing. However, we are continuing to measures the capability of the ESC While we agree with the Advocates examine possible yaw performance goal of having an understeer test, we system to prevent yaw instability. maneuvers, including the SWD Moreover, EMA submitted data showing have not been able to develop a test that maneuver and the lane change safely challenges an ESC system’s that at least three of its tested vehicles maneuver suggested by EMA to test yaw failed to meet the criteria. NHTSA ability to mitigate understeer. Moreover, stability control performance in the we believe the definitional criteria are would need to further research the EMA future. maneuver and determine adequate robust enough to ensure that an ESC performance metrics. More data is H. Understeer system will reduce loss-of-control needed to create criteria that represent As we stated in the NPRM, the agency crashes in both understeer and oversteer appropriate stability thresholds by has no performance test to evaluate how conditions. showing an acceptable probability that the ESC responds when understeer is XI. Test Conditions and Equipment the vehicle would remain stable if the induced. The technique used by a ESC system maintains those criteria. stability control system for mitigating A. Outriggers The SWD maneuver was designed to wheel lift, excessive oversteer or Throughout the agency’s research test the ESC system’s ability to prevent understeer conditions is to apply program, truck tractors and buses were yaw instability by measuring how unbalanced wheel braking so as to equipped with outrigger devices to quickly the vehicle stops turning, or generate moments (torques) to reduce prevent vehicle rollover. During the rotating about its vertical axis, after the lateral acceleration and to correct program, the agency encountered many steering wheel is returned to the excessive oversteer or understeer. instances of wheel lift and outrigger straight-ahead position. The vehicle that However, for a vehicle experiencing contact with the ground indicating that continues to turn or rotate about its excessive understeer, if too much it was probable that rollover could occur vertical axis under these conditions is oversteering moment is generated, the during testing. Over many years of most likely experiencing oversteer, vehicle may oversteer and spin out with research of ESC systems, it has been which is what ESC is designed to obvious negative safety consequences. proven that outriggers are essential to prevent. EMA’s data does not show how In addition, excessive understeer ensure driver safety and to prevent its yaw maneuver will adequately test mitigation acts like an anti-roll stability vehicle and property damage during the ESC system’s capabilities to prevent control where it momentarily increases NHTSA’s compliance testing. Although oversteer. Likewise, the Bendix test, a the lateral acceleration the vehicle can NHTSA conducted some of its testing ramp with dwell maneuver, will not be attain. Hence, too much understeer with ESC systems disabled, thereby examined by NHTSA at this time for mitigation can create safety problems in increasing the need for outriggers, yaw stability testing. In order to create the form of vehicle spin out or rollover. outriggers are still necessary as a safety

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:37 Jun 22, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\23JNR2.SGM 23JNR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 120 / Tuesday, June 23, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 36081

measure during testing of vehicles outrigger installations on the control experience and technique of the driver, equipped with an ESC system in case trailers, and the NPRM solicited the vehicle may have a steering wheel the system fails to activate. comments on bus outrigger designs. angle that is varied by the time the The agency proposed that outriggers This is because outriggers cannot be vehicle crosses the start gate. This be used on all truck tractors and buses mounted under the flat structure, but variance is tolerable because we do not tested. We believe that outrigger instead must extend through the bus. expect that it will be difficult for a influence on heavy vehicles is minimal NHTSA used outriggers on the three professional test driver to maintain the because of the higher vehicle weight large buses tested during its research vehicle lane. Nevertheless, to ensure and test load. To reduce test variability program and will use outriggers for that variability in testing does not affect and increase the repeatability of the test testing buses for compliance with this vehicle compliance, the performance results, the agency proposed to specify rule. The agency plans to use the same requirements need only be satisfied a standard outrigger design for the outrigger arms of the standard outrigger during two out of four runs of a test outriggers that will be used for design that it plans to use for truck series (or six out of eight runs of the compliance testing. The agency used tractor testing. Therefore, the size, final series). this same approach in FMVSS No. 126 weight, and other design characteristics C. Anti-Jackknife System for compliance testing of light vehicle will be similar. ESC systems. The agency also made The location and manner of mounting The agency proposed using an anti- available the detailed design the outriggers on buses cannot be jackknife system when testing truck specifications by reference to a design identical to truck tractors. Nonetheless, tractors. An anti-jackknife system document located in the agency public there are a limited number of large bus prevents the trailer from striking the docket. manufacturers, which results in a tractor during testing in the event that For truck tractors, the document limited number of unique chassis a jackknife event occurs during testing. detailing the outrigger design to be used structural designs. Also, the agency This would prevent damage to the in testing has been placed in a public understands that large bus structural tractor that may occur during testing. docket.59 This document provides designs do not change significantly from We do not believe that the use of an detailed construction drawings, year-to-year. We believe that once anti-jackknife system will affect test specifies materials to be used, and outrigger mounts have been constructed results, nor have we observed any provides installation guidance. For for several different bus designs, those damage to test vehicles, including truck tractor combinations, the mountings can be modified and reused vehicle finishes, caused by anti- outriggers are mounted on the trailer. during subsequent testing. The agency jackknife cables. The outriggers are mounted mid-way has, in the document described above, The agency proposed using cables to between the center of the kingpin and provided additional engineering design limit the angle of articulation between the center of the trailer axle (in the fore drawings and further installation the truck tractor and trailer, and set a and aft direction of travel), which is guidelines for installing the standard minimum angle of 45 degrees because generally near the geometric center of outrigger assemble to large buses. setting the cables too tight could the trailer. They will be centered artificially help the ESC system geometrically from side-to-side and B. Automated Steering Machine maintain control during testing. bolted up under the traditional flatbed The NPRM proposed using an However, if the angle of articulation is control trailer. Total weight of the automated steering machine be used for set too low the turning radius of the outrigger assembly, excluding the the test maneuvers on the truck tractors combination vehicle decreases to a mounting bracket and fasteners required and large buses in an effort to achieve point where maneuverability of the to mount the assembly to the flatbed highly repeatable and reproducible vehicle becomes an issue. A vehicle trailer, is less than 2,500 pounds. The compliance test results. In the SWD with too low of a turning radius would bulk of the mass is for the mounting maneuver, the steering must follow an not be able to drive through the J-turn bracket which is located under the exact sinusoidal pattern over a three- test course. Therefore, we must to set a trailer near the vehicle’s lateral and second time period. For the SWD minimum articulation angle for the longitudinal center of gravity so that its maneuver, each test vehicle is subjected jackknife system that ensures safety inertial effects are minimized. The to as many 22 individual test runs all during testing, but is not too low such width of the outrigger assembly is 269 requiring activation at a specific vehicle that it would affect test results. inches and the contact wheel to ground speed, each of which will require a However, our testing has shown that 45 plane height is adjustable to allow for different peak steering wheel angle and degrees is too high of an angle for a 4x2 various degrees of . A typical corresponding steering wheel turning truck tractor, because the trailer could installation on a flatbed type trailer rate. still contact the truck tractor. Therefore involves clamping and bolting the However, the agency has chosen the agency is specifying 30 degrees as the outrigger mounting bracket to the main J-turn maneuver for the performance minimum articulation angle in this final rails of the flatbed. test. Although the SWD test requires a rule, which is sufficient to provide The NPRM proposed that the fixed steering wheel angle, the J-turn safety during the testing of all truck outrigger design have a maximum test is a path-following maneuver. This tractors. weight of 726 kg (1,600 lb.). However, means a steering controller will not be D. Control Trailer the agency raised the weight limit of the required for the J-turn test because the outriggers used for testing to driver provides the steering wheel input The agency proposed using a control accommodate the use of older and in order to keep the vehicle within the trailer to evaluate the performance of a heavier outrigger designs. This final rule lane during the test maneuver. truck tractor in the loaded condition. In raises the maximum weight of the Because the driver must attempt to FMVSS No. 121, the agency specifies outriggers to 1,134 kg (2,500 lb.). keep the vehicle within the lane width, the use of an unbraked control trailer for For buses, the outrigger installations he has some discretion on the steering compliance testing purposes. An will not be as straightforward as the wheel angle and the position of the unbraked control trailer minimizes the vehicle within the lane as the vehicle effect of the trailer’s brakes when testing 59 Docket No. NHTSA–2010–0034–0010. crosses the start gate. Depending on the the braking performance of a tractor in

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:37 Jun 22, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\23JNR2.SGM 23JNR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 36082 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 120 / Tuesday, June 23, 2015 / Rules and Regulations

its loaded condition. Nevertheless, in acceleration is negligible. The sole outputs are available to allow the driver the NPRM, we identified potential consideration in the performance to monitor vehicle speed. variability in the control trailer that criteria in this final rule is speed F. Ambient Conditions affected the repeatability of SWD testing reduction, which has not been observed and asked for comments on how the to be affected by variations in the The ambient temperature range control trailer may be specified to control trailer. specified in other FMVSSs for outdoor prevent variability.60 We note that Volvo, EMA, and Bendix brake performance testing is 0 °C to 38 Navistar and EMA commented on a recommended the adoption of the J-turn °C (32 °F to 100 °F). However, when the specific truck tractor that satisfied the test, which is one of the alternative tests agency proposed a range of 0 °C to 40 proposed SWD criteria with the ESC discussed in the NPRM. None of the °C (32 °F to 104 °F) for FMVSS No. 126, system disabled. We believe this is commenters supporting adoption of the the issue of tire performance at near ‘‘Vehicle J’’ that was identified in the J-turn test raised issues regarding freezing temperatures was raised. The NPRM. NHTSA conducted its own variability in the control trailer with the agency understood that near freezing testing on ‘‘Vehicle J’’ using a different J-turn maneuver. Rather, their temperatures could impact the control trailer. In contrast to EMA’s test comments regarding control trailer variability of compliance test results. As results, NHTSA’s testing showed that variability were limited to the SWD test a result, the agency increased the lower Vehicle J became laterally unstable with maneuver. bound of the temperature range to 7 °C the ESC system disabled. Further, the agency conducted J-turn (45 °F) to minimize test variability at Volvo, EMA, Advocates, and Bendix testing using two different control lower ambient temperatures. For the commented on the control trailer trailers. We did not find any relevant same reasons, the NPRM proposed an specifications. Volvo asserted that differences in the ESC system ambient temperature range of 7 °C to 40 further specifications need to be made performance of the truck tractors when °C (45 °F to 104 °F) for testing. for the control trailer because trailer connected to different control trailers. In their comments, Meritor WABCO, configuration greatly affects compliance We believe, based on our testing and the EMA, and Bendix recommended of the SWD test. EMA stated that the lack of comments related to the control changes to the minimum ambient control trailer’s track width, deck trailer in the J-turn maneuver, that the temperature allowed for testing. The height, ballast, suspension, tires and potential for variability identified in the three commenters requested that the torsional stiffness affect the SWD test NPRM related to the control trailer was minimum temperature for performance results, and small variations in the limited to the SWD maneuver. We tests to be reduced. Meritor WABCO control trailer influence the SWD conclude that the factors identified in recommended a minimum temperature testing. EMA further indicated that the NPRM will have no effect on the of 2 °C (35 °F). Both EMA and Bendix would not be practical to build trailers performance of vehicles using the J-turn recommended a minimum temperature with stricter design specifications in maneuver. of 0 °C (32 °F). EMA asserted that the order to perform SWD tests and obtain Volvo also commented that the minimum temperature of 7 °C (45 °F) consistent results. Conversely, control trailer specified in FMVSS No. proposed in the NPRM reduces the Advocates and Bendix recommended 121 will not work with four or more amount of time available to test vehicles that the agency add new specifications axle tractors such as 8x6 truck tractor’s during the year. We agree that a and tighten up existing requirements in because the trailer’s fifth wheel position minimum test temperature of 7 °C order to reduce the variability in testing. causes interference between the tractor (45 °F) restricts the agency’s ability to Advocates recommended specifying frame and trailer frame. NHTSA has test for compliance in certain areas of track width, trailer CG height, and load considered this comment and believes the United States, including NHTSA’s CG height in the standard because it that there is merit in Volvo’s assertion. Vehicle Research and Test Center in would minimize variation in testing. A control trailer at the length specified Ohio. Thus, we are lowering the Other than soliciting comments in the in the NPRM of 6550 ± 150 mm (258 ± minimum testing temperature to 2 °C NPRM, the agency did not investigate 6 in) may be too short to test vehicles (35 °F). We believe this change will whether variations in the control trailer with four or more axles. In this final have a negligible effect on the outcome significantly affect the results of the rule, we are changing the specified of performance testing. SWD maneuver. However, the agency length of the control trailer to allow for EMA further recommended that the has not further modified the testing with a longer trailer. We are upper limit be decreased from 40 °C specifications of the control trailer. specifying that truck tractors will be (104 °F) to 38 °C (100 °F) to match the Rather, we believe that, by using the J- tested with a control trailer that is FMVSS No. 121 ambient temperature turn maneuver rather than the SWD between 6400 mm and 7010 mm (252 in specifications. We are not adopting this maneuver, any potential test variability and 276 in), inclusive. However, for suggestion to match the temperature caused by different control trailers is truck tractors with four or more axles, specifications in FMVSS No. 121. EMA ameliorated. The agency’s research at the manufacturer’s option, NHTSA gave no reason other than consistency shows that, because the performance will test with a control trailer with a with FMVSS No. 121 for adopting this metric is vehicle speed rather than length up to 13,208 mm (520 in). We do change. Allowing for a larger lateral acceleration ratio, the effect that not believe that using a control trailer temperature range for testing ESC the control trailer has on the lateral longer than that specified in the systems does not have any effect on the proposal would cause variability in agency’s ability to conduct consecutive 60 There were three specifications, not set forth in testing. FMVSS No. 121 and FMVSS No. 136 control trailer specifications in FMVSS No. 121, tests because the FMVSS No. 121 testing that the agency identified that might affect SWD test E. Sensors is conducted at an ambient temperature performance and prevent repeatable, consistent test ° ° results using different control trailers. First, the The vehicle speed is measured with a of not greater than 38 C (100 F). Thus, track width of the control trailer is not specified. non-contact GPS-based speed sensor. compliance testing will be conducted at Second, the center of gravity of the control trailer Accurate speed data is required to any temperature between 2 °C (35 °F) is not specified. Third, the center of gravity of the ensure that the SWD maneuver is and 40 °C (104 °F). The agency proposed load in FMVSS No. 121 testing is only specified to ± be less than 24 inches above the top of the tractor’s executed at the required 72.4 1.6 km/ a maximum wind speed for conducting fifth wheel. h (45.0 ± 1.0 mph) test speed. Sensor the compliance testing of no greater

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:37 Jun 22, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\23JNR2.SGM 23JNR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 120 / Tuesday, June 23, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 36083

than 5 m/s (11 mph). This is the same so as to avoid exceeding a GAWR, For testing buses, the agency value specified for testing multi-purpose ballast will be reduced so that axle load proposed loading the vehicle to a passenger vehicles (MPVs), buses, and equals specified GAWR, maintaining simulated multi-passenger trucks under FMVSS No. 126. This is load proportioning as close as possible configuration. For this configuration the also the same value used for compliance to specified proportioning. bus would be loaded with the fuel tanks testing for FMVSS No. 135, Light In its comments, EMA recommended filled to at least 75 percent capacity, test Vehicle Brake Systems. changing the loading requirements from driver, test instrumentation, outriggers As for other ambient conditions, 80 percent of the truck tractor’s GVWR and simulated occupants in each of the Bendix recommended that the to 100 percent of the truck tractor’s vehicle’s designated seating positions. maximum wind speed be raised from 11 GVWR requirements. EMA wanted this The simulated occupant loads would be mph (5 m/s) to 22 mph (10 m/s). Bendix loading condition because it is used in obtained by securing 68 kilograms (150 did not specify any rationale for FMVSS No. 121 testing, and it would pounds) of ballast in each of the test wanting the increase in the allowable eliminate the burden of changing the vehicle’s designated seating positions wind speed. The agency sees no reason vehicle’s load when going from FMVSS to increase the wind speed at this time. No. 121 testing to FMVSS No. 136 without exceeding the vehicle’s GVWR testing. and GAWR. The 68 kilogram (150 G. Road Test Surface In light of the change to the J-turn pound) occupant load was chosen The NPRM proposed that the SWD maneuver, we have determined that the because that is the occupant weight maneuver be executed on a high friction vehicle should be tested at its GVWR specified for use by the agency for surface with a peak friction coefficient rather than 80 percent of the truck evaluating a vehicle’s load carrying (PFC) of 0.9, which is typical of a dry tractor’s GVWR. The agency proposed capability under FMVSS Nos. 110 and asphalt surface or a dry concrete SWD testing at 80 percent of GVWR 120. During loading, if any rating is surface. As in other standards where the because it was determined that such a exceeded the ballast load would be PFC is specified, we proposed that the weight would enable the agency to reduced until the respective rating or PFC be measured using an ASTM E1136 evaluate both roll and yaw stability with ratings are no longer exceeded. standard reference test tire in a single maneuver. The J-turn maneuver In the final rule, we have removed the accordance with ASTM Method E1337– is designed to evaluate only roll specification that the ballast consists of 90, at a speed of 64.4 km/h (40 mph), stability, and testing the vehicle at its water dummies. We do not believe that without water delivery. We proposed GVWR is the most severe configuration it is necessary to specify the type of incorporating these ASTM provisions for the maneuver. Thus, the agency can into the standard. use the same loading condition that it ballast in the test procedure. We note Although we have changed the uses for FMVSS No. 121 testing. that, for truck tractors, the type of performance test maneuver, we have not EMA also suggested removing the ballast that is loaded on the control changed the specifications for the road proposed test condition that the fuel trailer is not specified. We do not test surface. The J-turn maneuver is tank be 75 percent full. EMA reasoned believe, especially in light of the change conducted on a high friction surface that high fuel volume is dangerous for to the J-turn test, that the type of ballast with a PFC of 0.9. Thus, we are testing. Also, EMA observed that a 75% used (whether it is water, sand, or some incorporating the relevant ASTM fuel filling condition is not included in other ballast) would have an effect on provisions into this standard. FMVSS No. 121. the ESC system’s ability to lower the Bendix recommended adding a Regarding the fuel tank filling, vehicle’s forward speed. restriction that there be no ice or snow NHTSA specifies the 75 percent fuel Unlike in the NPRM, this final rule buildup on the test track surface. level in FMVSS No. 126 for testing light specifies that buses are tested at its NHTSA has not adopted this suggested vehicles. The goal of the fuel level GVWR. This is the most severe loading change. We believe that the surface PFC specification in FMVSS No. 126 was to condition for testing buses using the J- specification of 0.9 already ensures that ensure consistent vehicle test weights turn test maneuver. The NPRM for the performance tests. With the the test track will be free of snow and specified that buses would be tested adoption of the J-turn maneuver, ice. with a simulated full passenger load, NHTSA did not find any evidence of without any cargo other than test H. Vehicle Test Weight varying fuel levels affecting the results equipment. We have increased the The agency proposed that truck of the ESC performance tests. Therefore, testing load, which makes the load tractors be tested with the combined NHTSA agrees with EMA and will weight of the truck tractor and control remove the specification of a minimum condition consistent with the loading trailer be equal to 80 percent of the fuel tank level. NHTSA uses to test FMVSS No. 121 tractor’s GVWR. To achieve this load The agency proposed that liftable compliance. We have added condition, we proposed that the tractor axles be in the down position for specification to the loading procedure to be loaded with the fuel tanks filled to testing. This was because we proposed allow for the vehicle to be loaded to at least 75 percent capacity, test driver, to conduct our performance test in a GVWR. First, simulated passengers are test instrumentation, and ballasted loaded condition. Although the NPRM loaded. Next, ballast is added to the control trailer with outriggers. The proposed to load the truck tractor to 80 lowest baggage compartment. If the bus center of gravity of all ballast on the percent of its GVWR, we believed that does not have a baggage compartment or control trailer was proposed to be a truck tractor would operate with additional ballast is needed because the located directly above the kingpin. liftable axles in the down position. In baggage compartment is loaded to When possible, load distribution on the final rule, we are testing vehicles at capacity, ballast is added to the floor of non-steer axles will be in proportion to GVWR. Consequently, we will test the passenger compartment to load the the tractor’s respective axle GAWRs. vehicles equipped with liftable axles in bus to its GVWR. During loading, if any Load distribution will be adjusted by the down position. This is consistent axle rating is exceeded, the ballast is altering fifth wheel position, if with the test conditions for testing fully reduced in the reverse order it is loaded adjustable. In the case where the loaded air braked vehicles under until the GVWR or GAWR of any axle tractor’s fifth wheel cannot be adjusted FMVSS No. 121. is no longer exceeded.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:37 Jun 22, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\23JNR2.SGM 23JNR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 36084 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 120 / Tuesday, June 23, 2015 / Rules and Regulations

I. Tires tire combination. For instance, J. Mass Estimation Drive Cycle We proposed testing the vehicles with manufacturers currently certify that Both truck tractors and large buses the tires installed on the vehicle at time their vehicles meet the minimum experience large variations in payload of initial vehicle sale. The agency’s stopping distance and ABS mass, which affects a vehicle’s roll and compliance test programs generally requirements of FMVSS No. 121. They yaw stability thresholds. To adjust the evaluate new vehicles with new tires. must satisfy those requirements for any activation thresholds for these Therefore, we proposed that a new test vehicle-tire combination that is sold. variations, stability control systems vehicle have less than 500 miles on the That is, manufacturers have an estimate the mass of the vehicle after odometer when received for testing. obligation to certify compliance with all ignition cycles, periods of static idling, For testing, the agency proposed that applicable standards in whatever and other driving scenarios. To estimate tires be inflated to the vehicle configuration that tires are delivered to the mass, these systems require a period manufacturer’s recommended cold tire customers. We expect that of initial driving. inflation pressure(s) specified on the manufacturers design their ESC systems The agency proposed including a vehicle’s certification label or the tire to account for any potential differences mass estimation drive cycle as a part of inflation pressure label. We will not in tires that might be installed on the pre-test conditioning. To complete this change the vehicle’s tires during testing vehicle at the time of initial sale. drive cycle the test vehicle is unless test vehicle tires are damaged However, with respect to the tire accelerated to a speed of 64 km/h (40 before or during testing. We did not inflation pressure at which testing will mph), and then, by applying the vehicle propose using inner tubes for testing be conducted, we agree with EMA that brakes, decelerated at 0.3g to 0.4g to a because we have not seen any tire we should not use the inflation pressure stop. debeading in any test. specified on the vehicle’s certification Meritor WABCO requested that the Before executing any test maneuvers, or tire information labels. As EMA mass estimation drive cycle procedure the agency proposed to condition tires observes, a heavy truck may be sold be made manufacturer-specific. That is, to wear away mold sheen and achieve with many different tire combinations. Meritor WABCO requested that the operating temperatures. To begin the However, nothing requires that all of procedure be changed to specify that conditioning the test vehicle would be those combinations be listed on the NHTSA would contact the ESC system driven around a circle 46 meters (150 certification or tire information label.61 supplier for a mass estimation feet) in radius at a speed that produces However, multiple combinations may be procedure. Although we specified a mass a lateral acceleration of approximately listed on the label. Thus, we are estimation procedure in the NPRM, that 0.1g for two clockwise laps followed by removing from the regulatory text the procedure is based on current ESC two counterclockwise laps. reference to the vehicle’s certification or system designs. We recognize that EMA asserted that there should be no tire information label and merely system designs could change or new requirement for testing using the tires specifying that the tires’ inflation suppliers could enter the market with installed on the vehicle at the time of pressure will be the inflation pressure different designs that estimate vehicle initial sale. According to EMA, specified for the GVWR of the vehicle. mass differently. Thus, we accept sometimes a test vehicle is used for Regarding tire conditioning, Bendix Meritor WABCO’s request that NHTSA certifying compliance, but sometimes a requested clarification of whether the not specify a mass estimation cycle. vehicle that is later sold to a customer presence of a tire conditioning procedure means that the vehicle must However, we do not agree with is tested. Further, EMA notes that heavy Meritor WABCO’s suggestion that truck manufacturers often offer be equipped with new tires. Bendix also recommended that the agency remove NHTSA contact the ESC system supplier hundreds of different tire options for for the mass estimation cycle. It is the their customers. EMA notes that this section about the removal of mold sheen because by performing the brake vehicle’s manufacturer that is ultimately different tires would change the road responsible for certifying compliance conditioning test procedure, the same adhesion and cornering stiffness, with the FMVSSs. Thus, we believe it is result is likely to be achieved. potentially affecting test results. the vehicle’s manufacturer, not the ESC To clarify, the agency is not Finally, EMA recommended using system supplier, who should be specifying that new tires must be language from FMVSS No. 121 for the responsible for supplying NHTSA with installed prior to the ESC testing. tire inflation procedure specified by the mass estimation cycle procedure. However, in the event the vehicle has manufacturer for the vehicle’s GVWR, Thus, we expect that the vehicle instead of the procedure proposed in the not been driven prior to testing (for manufacturer will be able to provide the NPRM, which is to use the vehicle’s example, a FMVSS No. 121 compliance mass estimation cycle procedure to certification label or tire inflation test has not been performed), we do not NHTSA upon request in advance of any pressure label. EMA reasoned that the believe that the brake burnishing compliance testing. actual tires installed on the vehicle may procedure is sufficient to wear away any differ from the specifications given on mold sheen on the tire prior to ESC K. Brake Conditioning the label. testing. Therefore, the requirement to Heavy vehicle brake performance is First, inasmuch as EMA is referring to perform four laps is necessary for the affected by the original conditioning the tires used for certifying compliance, consistency and repeatability of the ESC and temperatures of the brakes. We we note that our regulations do not tests. We do not believe that this believe that incompletely burnished specify how manufacturers certify procedure is especially burdensome, brakes and excessive brake temperatures compliance. We recognize that some even if the mold sheen was removed can have an effect on ESC system test manufacturers do wish to base their during prior testing. results, particularly in the rollover certification of compliance on a performance testing, because a hard vehicle’s performance in NHTSA’s test 61 In fact, S5.1.2 of FMVSS No. 120, the standard brake application may be needed for the maneuvers. However, there is no that provides for tire information labeling on foundation brakes to reduce speed to vehicles over 10,000 pounds GVWR, expressly obligation for manufacturer’s to conduct contemplates that a vehicle may be sold with a tire prevent rollover. NHTSA’s compliance test for any size designation that is not listed on the tire The agency proposed that the burnish vehicle, much less for every possible information label. procedure specified in S6.1.8 of FMVSS

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:37 Jun 22, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\23JNR2.SGM 23JNR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 120 / Tuesday, June 23, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 36085

No. 121 be conducted prior to ESC compliance option was selected for XII. ESC Disablement system testing. The burnish procedure is compliance test purposes and provide A. Summary of Comments performed by conducting 500 brake that information to the agency upon snubs 62 between 40 mph and 20 mph at request. Bendix and Volvo raised this In the NPRM, the agency considered a deceleration of 10 fps2. If the vehicle issue because they did not believe that allowing a control for the ESC to be has already completed testing to FMVSS any of the proposed requirements disabled by the driver. Because, heavy No. 121, the agency did not propose to offered manufacturers any compliance vehicles currently equipped with ESC repeat the full burnishing procedure. options to choose from. systems do not include on/off controls Instead, the brakes are conditioned for for ESC that allow a driver to deactivate In this final rule, we are giving ESC system testing with 40 snubs. The or adjust the ESC system, the agency did agency proposed that the brake manufacturers a compliance option with not propose allowing an on/off switch temperatures be in the range of 65 °C to respect to the length of the control for ESC systems. The agency sought 204 °C (150 °F to 400 °F) at the trailer used for testing truck tractors. As public comment on the need to allow an beginning of each test maneuver. We discussed in section XI.D, on/off switch, and asked that also proposed that the brake manufacturers of truck tractors with commenters specifically address why temperature be measured by plug-type four or more axles may, at the manufacturers might need such a switch thermocouples installed on all brakes manufacturer’s option, have testing and how manufacturers would and that the hottest brake be used for conducted with a longer control trailer. implement a switch in light of the ABS determining whether cool-down periods Thus, we are retaining the language requirements. required. requiring manufacturers to specify Temsa and Advocates opposed We received no comment on the compliance options prior to agency allowing the disablement of the ESC burnishing procedure and are adopting testing. system. They stated that the ESC system the proposed procedure in this final should not be allowed to be deactivated M. Data Collection rule, with two exceptions. First, in the by a switch because the driver may inadvertently forget to reactivate the NPRM, we proposed to repeat the In the NPRM, we proposed that the system. FMVSS No. 121 burnish procedure at collection of data from the vehicle, such the manufacturer’s option. However, in In contrast, Daimler, Volvo, Meritor as engine torque output and driver- WABCO, HDBMC, Associated Logging, this final rule, we have removed the requested torque, come from the SAE option. Rather, we are merely specifying EMA, and Bendix recommended that we J1939 communication data link. Bendix allow the ESC systems to be disabled. that a burnish procedure similar to the requested that NHTSA change the one in FMVSS No. 121 be completed The commenters asserted that the ESC collection procedure to specify that the system may need to be disabled in prior to testing. Furthermore, rather data come from the vehicle controller than referencing FMVSS No. 121, we certain conditions such as slippery area network (CAN) bus, which is a roads in snow and mud, off-road have included the entire burnishing in more generic reference instead of FMVSS No. 136 to avoid the need to operation, and when using snow chains specifically requiring a SAE J1939 data cross-reference between Standards. on the tires. link. The CAN bus is what allows a Second, we have altered the metric Daimler stated in its comment that the vehicle’s electronic control units and conversion of 150 °F from 65 °C to 66 current ESC and traction control other devices to communicate with each °C to be more accurate. systems are interlinked, and the In the NPRM, the agency suggested, as other. SAE J1939 is a recommended disablement of traction control will a general rule, that a new test vehicle practice to standardize vehicle disable ESC systems. Daimler asserted have less than 500 miles on the communications. Bendix believes that that disabling traction control may be odometer when received for testing. citing SAE J1939 specifically may have necessary in conditions such as starting EMA commented on this suggestion, the effect of limiting vehicle design in from rest on sloped ground, driving on requesting that there be no odometer the future. slippery roads, and using snow chains. requirements on a test vehicle. EMA We agree with Bendix that the HDBMC also asserted that ESC believes that this requirement may reference to SAE J1939 should be disablement is needed for gaining require transporting the test vehicle by changed to a more generic reference. traction in snow and mud and to hauling it on a trailer to the test site if This will allow future technological provide optimum performance when the test site is located far away from the advances regarding in-vehicle using snow chains. Meritor WABCO place of manufacture. NHTSA agrees communications, including the similarly referred to the need for the with EMA that it is not feasible to adoption of new industry recommended ability to change the control scheme of require that a test vehicle have less than practices. Accordingly, we are the ESC system to allow for deep snow 500 miles on its odometer prior to specifying that data be collected from and mud. In contrast, Bendix stated that its ESC testing. This is particularly true in light the vehicle’s communication network or system is tuned for both on-road and of the burnishing procedure, which CAN bus. could itself require 500 miles of driving. mild off-road conditions. However, Bendix also commented upon the Bendix suggested that different vehicle Thus, the final rule does not have a filtering of engine torque data received mileage requirement for test vehicles. tuning may be necessary for severe off- from an analog signal. Bendix noted that road conditions. L. Compliance Options data from an SAE J1939 compliant Regarding the absence of ESC Both Bendix and Volvo requested communication network is digital data. disablement on current truck tractors, clarification of the proposed regulatory However, because we are removing the EMA also suggested that some small text specifying compliance options. references to SAE J1939 in response to volume tractors are more likely to need That provision would require that a Bendix’s comment, we are not changing to have an ESC disablement function for manufacturer identify which the procedure for filtering analog data off-road operation and claimed that at signals because recognize that some least one manufacturer had equipped a 62 A snub is a brake application where the vehicle communication systems could use vehicle with such a switch to is not braked to a stop but to a lower speed. analog signals. temporarily disable ESC. Further, EMA

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:37 Jun 22, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\23JNR2.SGM 23JNR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 36086 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 120 / Tuesday, June 23, 2015 / Rules and Regulations

suggested that ESC disablement While we agree that traction control differences between on-road and off- functions are not prevalent because may need to be disabled in slippery road uses in their comments. However, large fleet customers have been conditions such as snow or mud or neither supplier provided detailed purchasing ESC systems. other off-road conditions, the reasons for why ESC system HDMBC recommended that vehicles commenters do not explain why ESC disablement would be beneficial when that have a switch to disable ESC functions must be disabled in those used in off-road circumstances. In systems be equipped with a lamp circumstances. Although ESC may share contrast, Bendix said the off-road indicating that the ESC system is off components with traction control, the situations need ESC disablement at low similar to the ESC Off telltale in FMVSS requirements for ESC are independent speeds and different ESC tuning is No. 126. In its comment, Meritor of those for traction control. As expected. WABCO suggested that the ESC explained above, ESC mitigates roll and Regarding Volvo’s assertion that an malfunction lamp should be constantly yaw instability of the vehicle by ESC disablement switch may be illuminated if ESC is deactivated. reducing lateral acceleration and preferable to converters disabling ESC Meritor WABCO, HDBMC, Bendix, maintaining directional control, during a conversion of a vehicle from a EMA, and Volvo also suggested that respectively. Although traction control truck tractor to a truck, we do not vehicles be allowed to automatically provides mobility in starting on slippery believe that this limited circumstance disable their ESC systems under certain surfaces, it does not improve lateral justifies an ESC disablement switch. conditions. Meritor WABCO claimed stability beyond what ESC provides Volvo was not specific on the nature of that all-wheel drive is an example of through braking and reduction in engine the conversion it was referring to and when ESC should automatically be torque. Likewise, traction control does why the ESC system would need to be disabled. HDBMC, EMA, and Bendix not improve yaw stability by providing disabled. said there should be the ability to directional control. Traction control Bendix suggested that a switch could automatically disable ESC system for provides no further assistance when be allowed to disable an ESC system certain applications such as all-wheel lateral or yaw instability is detected. below a maximum speed of 25 mph. drive and truck tractors with multiple Furthermore, we are not requiring the Bendix believes that this would allow ESC system to activate at extremely low steering axles. Volvo asserted that, for maneuverability in slippery vehicle speeds, which is when the while it has no plans to offer an ESC on/ conditions such as mud or snow. vehicle would be starting from rest. This off switch, it recognizes that some Relatedly, Bendix suggested that the concern may be remedied by optimizing customers may want to convert a truck minimum ESC operational speed be traction control, and a manufacturer has tractor to a truck. Volvo believes that it raised from the proposed 20 km/h (12.4 the option to activate traction control or may be preferable to allow an ESC off mph) to 25 km/h (15.5 mph). allow deactivation of traction control at switch rather than having converters any vehicle speed. If the disablement of After considering the comments, we disabling the ESC system during a traction control also disables the ESC are not raising the minimum speed at conversion. system, then the disablement function is which an ESC system must operate. We In its comment, Bendix also prohibited from disabling ESC proposed the minimum operating speed recommended changing the minimum functionality at speeds above the of 20 km/h (12.4 mph) based on speed at which an ESC system is minimum speed ESC systems are information we obtained from vehicle required to operate from 20 km/h (12.4 required to operate. This means that the manufacturers and ESC system mph) to 25 km/h (15.5 mph) to ESC system must automatically suppliers, including Bendix. As we accommodate the wide variation of tires reactivate once the vehicle reaches the stated in the NPRM, the low speed sizes, tone ring tooth counts, and minimum speed at which the ESC thresholds of ESC systems were 10 km/ production tolerances. Bendix said the system is required to operate. h (6.2 mph) for yaw stability control and higher speed threshold is necessary Some of the commenters asserted the 20 km/h (12.4 mph) for roll stability based on wheel-speed sensor signal need for ESC disablement on vehicles control. We believed that setting a single strength and antilock braking system with all-wheel-drive or multi-steering low speed threshold was preferable functionality. axles. In FMVSS No. 126, we allow the because yaw and roll stability functions are intertwined. Bendix’s B. Response to Comments ESC to be disabled on light vehicles for certain four-wheel drive modes. None of recommendation for increasing the This final rule does not allow a the commenters asserted any minimum speed criteria presents new function to disable an ESC system at similarities that truck tractors and large information to the agency. We also speeds where ESC systems are required buses have with light vehicles regarding observe that the proposed minimum to operate. enhanced traction modes such as four- speed threshold is the same as UN ECE First, we address the integration wheel drive low. Therefore, we do not Regulation 13. Instead of raising the between traction control systems and believe any exceptions should be made minimum activation speed, at which an ESC systems. Both systems use the for all-wheel drive vehicles because ESC system must operate, vehicle’s brake control system to there was insufficient data submitted to manufacturers may wish to disable the accomplish different goals. Traction justify an exception for heavy vehicles. traction control system, where disabling control reduces engine power and With regard to vehicles with multiple traction control does not cause the ESC applies braking to a spinning drive steering axles, we received no specific system to be in a malfunction state, wheel in order to transfer torque to the information about the vehicle operation without compromising the effectiveness other on the axle. This and why vehicle with multiple steer of an ESC system. However, once a function is used to allow a vehicle to axles should be allowed to have their vehicle reaches a forward speed of 20 move forward in certain conditions ESC systems disabled either by switch km/h (12.4 mph), the ESC system is where wheel spin may otherwise or automatically. Without any required to be functional to prevent roll prevent forward movement. In contrast, information, the agency cannot justify and yaw instability. We believe that ESC systems are designed to maintain an exception. changes to the traction control system roll and yaw stability rather than Regarding off-road use, Bendix and operation will mitigate the concerns facilitate forward movement. Meritor WABCO discussed ESC tuning raised by the commenters regarding

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:37 Jun 22, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\23JNR2.SGM 23JNR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 120 / Tuesday, June 23, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 36087

system operability in slippery or off- system is in the ‘‘On’’ (‘‘Run’’) position. system is detected. Specifically, the ESC road conditions. The proposal required that ESC malfunction telltale would be required Finally, we also sought and received malfunction telltale extinguish after the to be mounted in the driver’s comments on how a manufacturer malfunction has been corrected. compartment in front of and in clear would implement an ESC disablement The NPRM also included a test that view of the driver and be identified by switch. Because we have decided not to would allow the engine to be running the symbol shown for ‘‘ESC Malfunction allow ESC disablement above the and the vehicle to be in motion as part Telltale’’ or the specified words or minimum speed at which ESC is of the diagnostic evaluation. The agency abbreviations listed in Table 1 of required to operate, we need not address proposed simulating several possible FMVSS No. 101, Controls and displays. these comments in this final rule. malfunctions to ensure the system and FMVSS No. 101 includes a requirement XIII. ESC Malfunction Detection, corresponding malfunction telltale for the telltale symbol, or abbreviation, Telltale, and Activation Indicator provides the required warning to the and the color required for the indicator vehicle operator, such as by lamp to show a malfunction in the ESC A. ESC Malfunction Detection disconnecting the power source to an system. The NPRM proposed that that ESC system component or The agency proposed that the symbol vehicles would be required to be disconnecting an electrical connection and color used to identify ESC equipped with an indicator lamp, to or between ESC system components. malfunction should be standardized mounted in front of and in clear view After a malfunction has been simulated with the symbol used on light vehicles. of the driver, which would be activated and identified by the system, the system The symbol established in FMVSS No. whenever there is a malfunction that would be restored to normal operation. 126 is the International Organization for affects the generation or of The engine is started and the Standardization (ISO) ESC symbol, control or response signals in the malfunction telltale is checked to ensure designated J.14 in ISO Standard 2575. vehicle’s ESC system. Heavy vehicles it has cleared. The symbol shows the rear of a vehicle presently equipped with ESC generally We received no adverse comments on trailed by a pair of ‘‘S’’ shaped skid do not have a dedicated ESC the requirement that an ESC system marks, shown below in Figure 3. The malfunction lamp. Instead, they share malfunction be displayed to the driver, malfunction telltale is displayed in the that function with the mandatory ABS nor did we receive comments on the test color yellow, which communicates the malfunction indicator lamp or the procedure for ensuring malfunction malfunction of a system that does not traction control activation lamp. The detection. Therefore, we are adopting require immediate correction. The agency proposed requiring a separate these requirements as proposed in the agency found that the ISO J.14 symbol ESC malfunction lamp because it would NPRM. and close variations were the symbols used by the greatest number of light alert the driver to the malfunction B. ESC Malfunction Telltale condition of the ESC and would help to vehicle manufacturers that used an ESC ensure that the malfunction is corrected The NPRM proposed requiring that an symbol before the requirement was at the earliest opportunity. ESC malfunction lamp provide a established. Furthermore, FMVSS No. The ESC malfunction telltale would warning to the driver when one or more 126 allows, as an option, the use of the be required to remain illuminated malfunctions that affect the generation text ‘‘ESC’’ in place of the telltale continuously as long as the malfunction of control or response signals in the symbol. This same option was proposed exists whenever the ignition locking vehicle’s electronic stability control in the NPRM for heavy vehicles.

In addition to the ESC malfunction means to determine the operational the telltale only illuminate in the event telltale being used to warn the driver of status of the ESC system during a of a system malfunction. a malfunction in the ESC, the telltale is roadside safety inspection. Meritor WABCO commented on the also used as a check of lamp function In the regulatory text of the NPRM, we operation of the light and said that the during vehicle start-up. We believe that proposed requiring that the ESC ESC malfunction lamp should be the ESC malfunction telltale should be malfunction telltale illuminate only continuously illuminated if there is a activated as a check of lamp function when a malfunction exists. However, we malfunction in the ESC system. We either when the ignition locking system also required that the telltale illuminate agree with Meritor WABCO. The is turned to the ‘‘On’’ (‘‘Run’’) position as a check of lamp function. These two requirement that the indicator lamp be whether or not the engine is running. requirements may be read as continuously illuminated if there is a This function provides drivers with the inconsistent with each other. We have malfunction in the ESC system was information needed to ensure that the added language to this final rule to included in the proposed standard and is included in this final rule. ESC system is operational before the clarify that the check of lamp function vehicle is driven. It also provides is an exception to the requirement that Bendix recommended a change that Federal and State inspectors with the would allow a malfunction lamp to

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:37 Jun 22, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\23JNR2.SGM 23JNR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 ER23JN15.010 36088 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 120 / Tuesday, June 23, 2015 / Rules and Regulations

remain illuminated until either the able to detect both a malfunction and a discretion to choose the vehicle outline system self-resets with an ignition cycle correction without the use of external should be left to the manufacturer. or a recommended diagnostic tool can tools. The malfunction lamp should not Similarly ATA and Volvo recommended be used to clear faults. Bendix states extinguish until the fault is actually that the telltale should depict the rear of that in some cases of faults, their corrected. a truck tractor above the ‘‘S’’ shaped systems are not guaranteed to self-reset We also received comments regarding skid marks. upon correction. the ESC system malfunction telltale itself. Temsa commented that there In response, we acknowledge desire of We are not adopting Bendix’s should be the option to use the text of the industry to most accurately depict suggested change to allow that the ‘‘ESC’’ on the malfunction indicator. the type of vehicle being displayed on telltale remain illuminated until a Temsa reasoned that this would be more the ESC system malfunction telltale. We diagnostic tool can be used to reset a user-friendly. This option was included believe that requiring a symbol fault. If a diagnostic tool can be used to in the NPRM and is included in this depicting the rear end of a trailer or bus remedy a fault without an ignition final rule. above the ‘‘S’’ skid marks will satisfy cycle, there is nothing prohibiting the We received several comments on the the concerns of the manufacturers malfunction telltale from being depiction of the vehicle in the telltale. without causing any confusion extinguished. However, we cannot Daimler referred to ECE Regulation 13, regarding the identification of the include in the malfunction lamp which citing ISO 2575, allows the telltale. We are including in the requirements the ability for the telltale vehicle shape to be changed to better allowable telltales for this Standard to remain illuminated, even after a represent the true exterior shape of a trailer and bus symbols drawn from ISO malfunction may have been corrected, given vehicle. Daimler also stated that it 2575. We have chosen to depict the rear until a diagnostic tool can be used. The uses a heavy truck or bus symbol on its outline of a trailer rather than a truck purpose of the requirement that the European systems and it may result in because it is a better depiction of the malfunction lamp extinguish upon an an increased cost if the symbol usual rear view of a combination ignition cycle after correction of the depicting a passenger car was required vehicle. The symbols are depicted in problem is that the system should be in the U.S. Daimler asserted that the Figure 4 below.

C. Combining ESC Malfunction Telltale could confuse a driver and diminish the systems means that a failure in one With Related Systems importance of addressing the fault. system is likely to be a failure in the Likewise, EMA noted that the current other system. In its comment, CVSA supported industry practice is to combine the In response, the agency must first NHTSA’s proposal to require a separate malfunction indicator lamp for the ESC correct what appears to be a common ESC malfunction telltale, without which and traction control systems. EMA also misconception shared by the the end user would not know if the observed that traction control and ESC commenters advocating that a separate system is operating. Further, CVSA systems share similar components and, traction control malfunction indicator reasoned that an anticipated Federal thus, tend to fail simultaneously. EMA should not be required. Currently, Motor Carrier Safety Administration stated that by mandating separate NHTSA has no performance (FMCSA) rule would require traction control and ESC malfunction requirements for traction control commercial vehicles with ESC systems lamps, NHTSA would be unnecessarily systems and no requirement that a be free of any indicated ESC faults. requiring investment of resources to traction control system malfunction Volvo supported combining the ESC change the instrument cluster. EMA generate a telltale visible to the driver. malfunction indicator with a stated that in FMVSS No. 126, NHTSA Thus, to require an ESC-only telltale malfunction indicator for a traction permits light vehicles to use the ESC does not necessarily require separate control system. Volvo reasoned that a malfunction indicator to signal telltales for ESC system malfunctions malfunction in the traction control malfunctions in related systems such as and traction control system system would be likely to also traction control. EMA requested that malfunctions. In fact, as the comments constitute a malfunction in the ESC NHTSA provide similar flexibility. demonstrate, nearly all traction control system. In a simplified fault Bendix similarly observed that the system malfunctions would also be ESC representation system submitted by current industry practice is to combine system malfunctions and will require an Volvo, 17 out of 18 faults in a traction ESC and traction control system ESC system malfunction telltale to control system were also ESC system malfunction indicators and that having illuminate. For those limited faults that would presumably trigger the a third lamp for traction control system circumstances where a traction control ESC malfunction indicator. Volvo malfunctions is unnecessary. Bendix system malfunction is not reasoned that having separate lamps for also stated that the interconnected simultaneously an ESC system traction control and ESC system faults nature of traction control and ESC malfunction, the manufacturer could

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:37 Jun 22, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\23JNR2.SGM 23JNR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 ER23JN15.011 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 120 / Tuesday, June 23, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 36089

display the malfunction to the driver in flashing mode to indicate ESC and above nonfatal injuries, and any manner that is not contrary to operation. Furthermore, we are property damage only crashes that were FMVSS No. 101 or not display the expressly excluding this function from the result of either (a) first-event malfunction at all. the requirement that the malfunction untripped rollover crashes and (b) loss- telltale only illuminate if there is an D. ESC Activation Indicator of-control crashes (e.g., jackknife, cargo ESC system malfunction. We believe shift, avoiding, swerving) that involved The agency requested comment on that allowing an activation indicator truck tractors or large buses and might whether there is a safety need for an will give manufacturers flexibility to be prevented if the subject vehicle were ESC activation indicator. We received inform drivers when the ESC system is equipped with a stability control four comments on the issue. activating. However, we are not system. Daimler stated that UN ECE requiring such an indicator because we Regulation 13 requires an ESC do not believe, nor do we have any data We updated the estimates from the activation indicator and that the U.S. to suggest, that drivers with activation NPRM which used the 2006–2008 should allow such an indicator. Daimler indicators will perform better than Fatality Analysis Reporting System reasoned that the driver would benefit drivers who are given no indicator. This (FARS) and General Estimate System from indication of the activation of an is consistent with the agency’s decision (GES) to used 2006–2012 FARS and GES ESC system because it may allow him to to allow, but not require, activation data. The FARS data were used for realize that a more cautious driving indicators on light vehicles. evaluating fatal crashes and the GES style may be appropriate. Moreover, XIV. Benefits and Costs data were used for evaluating nonfatal Daimler argued that it would not be crashes. The updated crash data showed advantageous to have contrary This section addresses the benefits a lower number of rollover crashes and requirements in the U.S. and Europe. and costs of the rule, including injuries from rollover crashes compared Volvo and Bendix stated that it estimates of ESC system effectiveness to the NPRM, but a higher number of currently provides ESC system and the size of the crash population. We fatalities from rollover crashes. activation indication by flashing the also address public comments related to Conversely, there are a higher overall malfunction lamp during system these issues. Much of the information in number of loss-of-control crashes and interventions. Both Volvo and Bendix this section is derived from the Final requested that NHTSA not preclude the Regulatory Impact Analysis (FRIA) injuries resulting from those crashes use of system activation indicators. associated with this final rule, which compared to the NPRM, but a lower EMA similarly requested flexibility for has been placed in the docket. number of fatalities from loss-of-control manufacturers to allow system crashes. The estimated number of activation indicators. A. Target Crash Population crashes, fatalities, injuries, and deaths Based on the comments, NHTSA is The initial target crash population for that make up the initial target allowing, but not requiring, the use of estimating benefits includes all crashes population are summarized in the the ESC malfunction telltale in a resulting in occupant fatalities, MAIS 1 following table.

TABLE 4—INITIAL TARGET CRASHES, MAIS INJURIES, AND PROPERTY DAMAGE ONLY VEHICLE CRASHES BY CRASH TYPE

Crash type Crashes Fatalities Injuries PDO

Rollover ...... 4,577 122 1,957 2,510 Loss of control ...... 6,266 184 1,510 5,351

Total ...... 10,843 306 3,467 7,861 Source: 2006–2012 FARS, 2006–2012 GES. PDO: property damage only.

The 2006–2012 crash data were then population will benefit only from the approximately 15 percent annually and adjusted to take account of the incremental increased effectiveness of the rate of RSC system installation to estimated ESC and RSC system ESC systems over RSC systems. increase by about 5 percent annually. installation rates in model year 2018. To Based upon manufacturer production Thus, by 2018, we expect that 33.9 determine the number of crashes that estimates, about 26.2 percent of truck percent of vehicles would be equipped could be prevented by requiring that tractors manufactured in model year with ESC systems and 21.3 percent of ESC systems be installed on new truck 2012 were equipped with ESC systems vehicles would be equipped with ESC tractors, the agency had to consider two and 16.0 percent were equipped with systems. We would not expect that the RSC systems. We also estimate that 80 subsets of the total crash population— installation rate on buses would change percent of large buses subject to this those vehicles that would not be substantially before 2018. Adjusting the final rule are equipped with ESC equipped with stability control systems systems. Based upon historical rates of initial target crash populations using (Base 1 population) and those vehicles increase of installation of ESC and RSC these estimates, the agency was able to that would be equipped with RSC systems, from 2013 to 2018 (which is estimate the Base 1 and Base 2 systems (Base 2 population). The Base 1 the base model year for the cost and populations and the projected target population will benefit fully from this benefit analysis), we expect the rate of crash population (Base 1 + Base 2) final rule. However, the Base 2 ESC system installation to increase by expressed in the following table.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:37 Jun 22, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\23JNR2.SGM 23JNR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 36090 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 120 / Tuesday, June 23, 2015 / Rules and Regulations

TABLE 5–PROJECTED CRASHES, MAIS INJURIES, AND PROPERTY DAMAGE ONLY VEHICLE CRASHES BY CRASH TYPE, CRASH SEVERITY, INJURY SEVERITY, AND VEHICLE TYPE FOR 2018

Crash type Crashes Fatalities Injuries PDO

Base 1

Rollover ...... 2,099 56 898 1,151 Loss of Control ...... 2,813 83 678 2,403

Total ...... 4,912 139 1,576 3,554

Base 2

Rollover ...... 998 27 426 547 Loss of Control ...... 1,337 39 322 1,142

Total ...... 2,335 66 748 1,689

Base 1 + Base 2 (Projected Target Population)

Rollover ...... 3,097 83 1,324 1,698 Loss of Control ...... 4,150 122 1,000 3,545

Total ...... 7,247 205 2,324 5,243 Source: 2006–2012 FARS, 2006–2012 GES. PDO: property damage only.

The agency has also examined the and (3) The 2011 NHTSA Research systems. EMA asserted that, with so same crash data sources for large buses. Note.65 The effectiveness rates from the many trucks on the road currently Based upon this examination, the first two studies were based on equipped with stability control systems, agency estimates that an average of two computer simulation results, expert real-world data ought to be available. target rollover and three loss-of-control panel assessments of available crash Martec presented a rebuttal to the ATRI crashes that would be affected by ESC data, input from trucking fleets that had study. Bendix conducted its own ESC systems occur annually. The small adopted the technology, and research and RSC system effectiveness study number of crashes combined with the experiments. The third study refined the using a method similar to that used by high projected voluntary ESC system effectiveness that was established in the NHTSA. installation rate causes the benefits second study. (a) ATRI Study resulting from this final rule attributable None of these studies derived the to buses to be very small. Therefore, the effectiveness from a statistical analysis ATRI’s study concluded that benefits estimates for buses are not of real-world crashes. Such statistical equipping vehicles with RSC systems further presented and the benefits of analyses require a comparison of would result in fewer rollover, this final rule are assumed to be the vehicles with and without the jackknife, and tow/struck crashes benefits derived only from truck technology. This is not feasible because compared to ESC systems. The ATRI tractors. ESC and RSC penetration in the national study used crash data, miles traveled, and financial information that they B. System Effectiveness fleet of truck tractors is still small. ESC and RSC are relatively new technologies collected through their survey of 14 1. Summary of the NPRM that have only been installed on a small large and mid-size motor carriers. Of As we stated in the NPRM, direct data percentage of new tractors over the past these carriers, 81.5 percent were in the that would show the effectiveness of few years. truckload sector, 10.0 percent were in the less-than-truckload sector, and 8.5 stability control systems is not available 2. Summary of Comments and Response because stability control technology on percent were in the specialized sector. heavy vehicles is relatively new. ATA, Schneider, OOIDA, EMA, The ATRI sample included 135,712 Accordingly, the effectiveness rates Bendix, and Martec commented on the trucks; of these trucks, 68,647 (50.6%) presented in the NPRM were built upon agency’s effectiveness estimates. ATA, were equipped with RSC systems, from three earlier studies: (1) A 2008 Schneider, and OOIDA all relied upon 39,529 (29.1%) with ESC systems, and study on RSC that was conducted by a study by the American Transportation 27,536 (20.3%) with no stability control American Transportation Research Research Institute entitled ‘‘Roll systems. Using the data received, ATRI Institute and sponsored by the Federal Stability Systems: Cost Benefit Analysis calculated the crash rate per 100 million Motor Carrier Safety Administration of Roll Stability Control Verses miles traveled, the crash cost per 1,000 (FMCSA),63 (2) a 2009 study that was Electronic Stability Control Using miles traveled, and annual benefits and conducted by UMTRI and Meritor Empirical Crash Data.’’ EMA and crash costs for three truck groups: Those WABCO and sponsored by NHTSA,64 OOIDA both criticized the use of with ESC systems, those with RSC simulation and expert analysis data as a systems, and those with no stability 63 Murray, D., Shackelford S., House, A., Analysis substitute for real-world data. OOIDA control systems. The group with no of Benefits and Costs of Roll Stability Control asserted that the ATRI study stability control systems served as the Systems, FMCSA–PRT–08–007 October 2008. represented real-world data that did not baseline to compare the other two 64 Woodrooffe, J., Blower, D., and Green, P., groups. ATRI concluded that, if their Safety Benefits of Stability Control Systems for support requiring vehicles to have ESC Tractor-Semitrailers, DOT HS 811 205, October sample is consistent with the industry 2009. 65 Docket No. NHTSA–2010–0034–0043. as whole, RSC would result in fewer

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:37 Jun 22, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\23JNR2.SGM 23JNR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 120 / Tuesday, June 23, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 36091

rollover, jackknife, and tow/struck By revealing the hypothesis and the conclusions. There is no indication that crashes than ESC. RSC also would very specific intention of survey, ATRI ATRI investigated whether the three provide greater benefits and lower potentially biased the participants’ groups have similar characteristics. For installation costs than ESC. responses in favor of RSC systems. example, if the majority of trucks in the Martec was asked by Bendix to Carriers who have strong opinions in control group were specialty trucks and evaluate the ATRI’s study. Martec favor of RSC systems over ESC systems specialty trucks were prone to rollover asserted that the methods employed by may have been more willing to respond crashes while the ESC and RSC groups ATRI do not meet basic standards found than those who did not respond. We were overrepresented by a different in the global market research industry. believe that this happened given that truck sector that would prone to loss-of- Martec stated that, because the methods trucks with RSC systems (50.6 percent) control crashes, then the ATRI results ATRI employed in its study were and ESC systems (29.1 percent) are are not valid to address the difference inadequate, the results cannot be used substantially overrepresented in the between ESC and RSC. to draw any meaningful conclusions ATRI’s sample. The self-reporting bias is ATRI acknowledged that there are about the overall trucking industry’s further evidenced by the lack of some confounding factors that were not experience with stability control accurate representation of trucking controlled for. However, ATRI did not systems or the analysis of the costs and industry and counterintuitive crash rate try to identify these factors and examine benefits of individual technologies as outcome. Based on ATRI’s data, the the effects of these factors. Examining sold into the marketplace. respondents skewed towards the the confounding factors is essential to Martec reached four conclusions truckload sector (e.g., dry van, the validity of the analysis. With these refrigerated, flatbed, intermodal regarding ATRI’s study. First, ATRI’s concerns, the agency believes that it is container, and end-dump carriers) study demonstrated confirmation bias inappropriate to use ATRI’s results to compared to the overall industry and by elaborating on its hypotheses and support this final rule. thus does not represent the truck stating that the results of its research There are no other sources of real- industry as a whole. Therefore, ATRI’s will be used to ‘‘inform responses’’ to a world data available to NHTSA that results may not be attributed to the proposed NHTSA mandate. Second, discriminate between crashes involving effects of RSC systems and ESC systems, ATRI’s study lost objectivity by not heavy vehicles equipped with stability but rather to the sample bias from self- collecting all evidence in a controlled control systems and those that do not. reporting. and systematic way so that the results The quality of the self-reporting is The UMTRI study, which includes case can be replicated and validated by other also questionable, as evidenced by the reviews and simulation, which has been researchers and by not making an crash rates per 100 million miles reviewed and slightly modified by attempt to assure that its sample of traveled as shown in Table 1 of ATRI’s NHTSA, represents the best estimate fleets was random. Third, ATRI’s study report. The report states that trucks available to the agency regarding the is biased due to disproportionate equipped with ESC systems had higher effectiveness of stability control sampling that is not representative of rollover and jackknife crash rates than systems. the industry. Fourth, ATRI’s study lacks trucks equipped with RSC systems. (b) Bendix Study the necessary statistical tests to address Given that ESC systems include all of the uncertainty of the statistics. the functionality of an RSC system, that Bendix stated that, based on over 30 We largely agree with Martec’s ESC systems have additional braking years of experience on commercial conclusions regarding the ATRI study. capability, and that ESC has vehicle dynamic, braking, and stability Based in these concerns, we conclude substantially more effect on loss-of- control systems, the agency’s that it is inappropriate to use ATRI’s control crashes, these rates are illogical. assessment of the effectiveness of ESC results to calculate the benefits and the These illogical results most likely can be systems is conservative. Bendix cost-effectiveness of ESC and RSC explained by the impact of self-selection reviewed the 159 cases that were used systems. in the sample.66 as the basis for the agency’s ATRI’s sample is subjected to self- ATRI used control and comparison effectiveness estimates and re-rated ESC selection bias. When soliciting data, methodology to examine RSC and ESC. and RSC system effectiveness based on ATRI revealed the research hypothesis In its approach, ATRI used the trucks its experience. Furthermore, Bendix in their data request form, as shown in without stability control as the control identified some of these 159 cases that Appendix A of the ATRI report: ‘‘ATRI’s group and compared the crash rates of were not stability-control relevant and Research Advisory Committee trucks equipped with ESC and RSC included additional cases that agency hypothesized that, while ESC has more systems to those of the control group. did not identify as relevant. Based upon crash mitigation sensors than RSC For this approach, controlling these changes and Bendix’s own systems, the higher per-unit cost of ESC confounding factors (i.e., factors other estimates of ESC and RSC system may not make it as ‘cost-effective’ as than the technologies of interest that effectiveness, Bendix concluded that RSC.’’ Furthermore, in the survey form, would influence the crash rates) is ESC systems are 31 percent greater than ATRI stated that its research is intended critical in order to draw valid RSC systems. The gap is much wider to inform responses to NHTSA’s NPRM, that the 6 to 7 percent estimated by which proposed to mandate ESC 66 The results may also reflect that the RSC NHTSA. Table 6 shows the effectiveness systems could be tuned to be more sensitive to from Bendix’s analysis and those systems on all new equipment two years allow them to brake more aggressively. We noted after the rule goes into effect. this possibility in the NPRM. estimated by NHTSA in the NPRM.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:37 Jun 22, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\23JNR2.SGM 23JNR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 36092 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 120 / Tuesday, June 23, 2015 / Rules and Regulations

TABLE 6—EFFECTIVENESS COMPARISON BETWEEN BENDIX’S ANALYSIS AND NHTSA’S NPRM

Bendix NHTSA’s NPRM Overall Rollover LOC Overall Rollover LOC

ESC ...... 78 83 69 28–36 40–56 14 RSC ...... 47 58 26 21–30 37–53 3 Difference ...... 31 25 43 6–7 3 12

The agency believes that Bendix’s that RSC systems would have a small NPRM, which was derived from 2011 method of determining system effect on loss-of-control crashes. Third, research note. However, we have made effectiveness is biased in favor of ESC although Bendix categorized some of the two modifications. First, we have systems. Prior to issuing the NPRM, the cases addressed by NHTSA as not included an additional loss-of-control agency had shared its concerns with relevant, Bendix still assigned crash type (non-collision single-vehicle Bendix’s assignment of effectiveness at effectiveness for those cases. This seems jackknife crashes) that should have been two meetings. The agency identified contradictory. Finally, Bendix included included in the PRIA. Second, because four issues. additional cases that were not included we added an additional loss-of-control by NHTSA and UMTRI. However, these crash type, we have reweighted the ratio First, for many rollover crashes, cases included truck types that are not of rollover to loss-of-control crashes. Bendix assigned a significant higher covered by the NPRM or this final rule. However, these modifications have not effectiveness to ESC systems compared Thus, while we commend Bendix for to RSC systems. Based on the agency’s undertaking the review that NHTSA and substantially changed the effectiveness understanding of ESC and RSC system UMTRI undertook to review individual rates for ESC and RSC systems from the functions to prevent rollover crashes, crash cases, we cannot agree with the rates presented in the NPRM. As shown the agency’s engineers did not believe conclusion that ESC systems are in Table 7, ESC systems are considered the difference between ESC and RSC substantially more effective that RSC to be 3 percent more effective than RSC would be as pronounced as Bendix had systems at preventing rollover crashes. systems at reducing rollover crashes and estimated. Second, Bendix assigned a 12 percent more effective at reducing relatively high effectiveness for RSC 3. Effectiveness Estimate loss-of-control crashes. systems against loss-of-control crashes. In this final rule, we are generally However, the agency’s testing suggests using the effectiveness estimate used the

TABLE 7—EFFECTIVENESS RATES FOR ESC AND RSC BY TARGET CRASH TYPES

Technology Overall Rollover LOC

ESC ...... 25–32 40–56 14 RSC ...... 17–24 37–53 2

Although the J-turn performance test performance test) is based on the ability both rollover and loss-of-control does not measure an ESC system’s of current generation ESC systems to crashes. The benefits estimate for ability to prevent loss-of-control crashes prevent roll instability. rollover crashes are presented as a range resulting from yaw instability, the because the ESC effectiveness rate is a C. Benefits Estimates equipment requirement ensures some range. In contrast, there is only one level of yaw stability performance. Our 1. Safety Benefits estimate of benefits for loss-of-control assessment for yaw stability control crashes. Table 8 presents the benefits of performance is based on the ability of The crash benefits of this final rule this final rule. As shown in that table, current generation ESC systems to were derived by multiplying the this final rule will prevent 1,424 to prevent yaw instability, just as our projected target population, including 1,759 crashes, 40 to 49 fatalities, and assessment for roll stability performance fatalities, injuries, and property damage 505 to 649 injuries. (which does have an associated only crashes by the effectiveness rate for

TABLE 8—BENEFITS OF THE FINAL RULE

Crash type Crashes Fatalities Injuries PDO

Rollover ...... 870–1,205 23–32 372–516 476–661 LOC ...... 554 17 133 473

Total ...... 1,424–1,759 40–49 505–649 949–1,134

2. Monetized Benefits also provides tangible benefits costs, legal costs, congestion, property associated with the reduction in damage, and productivity. We have ESC systems are crash avoidance crashes. These benefits include savings broken down these benefits into those systems. Preventing a crash not only from medical care, emergency services, that are injury related and those that are saves lives and reduces injuries, but it insurance administration, workplace non-injury related. Of the listed

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:37 Jun 22, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\23JNR2.SGM 23JNR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 120 / Tuesday, June 23, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 36093

benefits, congestion and property of quality of life, household for the VSL for the next 30 years. The damage reduction are non-injury-related productivity, and after-tax wages. These VSL is adjusted to reflect real increases benefits, and the others are injury- benefits are realized through the life of in VSL that are likely to occur in the related benefits. These benefits are the vehicle and must be discounted to future as consumers become estimated based upon periodic reflect their value at the time of economically better off in real terms examinations of the economic impact of purchase. over time. vehicle crashes. The most recent June 2014 guidance from the analysis was completed in 2014.67 Department’s Office of the Secretary sets Using this guidance applied to the We have also monetized benefits in forth guidance for the treatment of VSL prevention of crashes resulting in terms of the value of a statistical life in regulatory analysis.68 This guidance fatalities, injuries, and property damage (VSL), which represents individuals’ establishes a VSL of $9.2 million for only, the following undiscounted willingness to pay to reduce the risk of analyses based on 2013 economics and monetized benefits of this final rule are dying. These benefits include the value a 1.18 percent annual adjustment rate estimated.

TABLE 9—UNDISCOUNTED MONETIZED BENEFITS OF THE FINAL RULE [2013 Dollars]

Low High

Societal Economic Savings for Crashworthiness ...... $27,013,989 $34,526,917 Congestion and Property Damage ...... 14,234,540 17,566,251 Societal Economic Savings Total ...... 41,248,529 52,093,168 VSL ...... 484,836,271 603,762,776

Total Monetized Savings ...... 526,084,800 655,855,944

D. Cost Estimate estimated that the proposed SIS and for ESC and RSC systems for heavy SWD test maneuvers would cost trucks to assess the required In the NPRM, we relied upon data approximately $15,000 per test to run, components and their unit costs. The received from manufacturers to estimate assuming availability of test facilities, results were published in a report titled, the costs of implementing the proposal tracks, and vehicles. ‘‘Cost and Weight Analysis of Electronic to require ESC systems on truck tractors We received specific a comment on Stability Control and Roll Stability and large buses. Based upon these the costs of ESC system from Bendix. Control for Heavy Trucks,’’ on October submissions, NHTSA calculated that the Bendix stated that they did not see a 25, 2012.69 The study looked at the average cost of an ESC system for both correlation between the cost differential incremental costs of equipping vehicles truck tractors and buses was $1,160 and estimated in the PRIA and those from with ESC and RSC systems over a the average cost of an RSC system was Bendix to its OEM customers. Bendix $640. Based on our estimates that did not specify their cost differential. baseline of ABS by looking at one truck 150,000 truck tractors and 2,200 buses However, Bendix stated that when ESC equipped only with ABS, two truck would be covered by the proposal, and was mandated, they believed the cost tractors equipped with RSC, one truck the estimates of 2012 ESC and RSC would be in the lower end of estimates. tractor equipped with ESC, and one system adoption in the fleet, we Thus, the net benefits of ESC would be large bus equipped with ESC. The estimated that the total cost of the further increased. following table shows the components proposal would be $113.6 million in After publishing the NPRM, the and the cost of each component on the 2010 economics. Furthermore, we agency published a cost teardown study five vehicles that were examined. TABLE 10—COMPONENT COST ESTIMATES FOR BASELINE ABS AND FOUR STABILITY TECHNOLOGY SYSTEMS IN 2013 DOLLARS 70

ABS WABCO tractor RSC Bendix tractor RSC WABCO tractor ESC Bendix large bus ESC WABCO tractor baseline component total component total component total component total component total

Wheel Speed Sensor .. $11.85 $47.40 X X X X ...... X X ...... X X Wheel Speed Cables.. 5.32 21.28 X X X X ...... X X ...... X X Dual Modulator Valves 284.82 569.64 X X X X ...... X X ...... X X Modulator Valve Ca- 10.50 42.00 X X X X ...... X X ...... X X bles. ECU ...... 90.05 90.05 X X X X ...... X X ...... X X Delta ECU* ...... 37.80 37.80 50.36 50.36 ..... 37.80 37.80 ...... 43.58 43.58 Solenoid Valves...... 29.20 58.40 29.20 58.40 ..... 29.20 58.40 ...... 29.20 87.60 Solenoid Valve Cables ...... 9.58 19.16 9.58 19.16 ..... 9.58 19.16 ...... 9.58 28.74 Lateral Accelerometer ...... 49.74 49.74 ...... In ECU ...... In Yaw Sen- ...... In ESC Module sor.

67 Blincoe, L. J., Miller, T. R., Zaloshnja, E., & 68 2014 Office of the Secretary memorandum on 69 See Docket No. NHTSA–2011–0066–0034. Lawrence, B. A., The economic and societal impact the ‘‘Guidance on Treatment of the Economic Value 70 The cost teardown study is in 2011 economics, of motor vehicle crashes, 2010, (May 2014) (DOT of a Statistical Life in U.S. Department of and it was revised to 2013 economics using an Transportation Analyses—2014 Adjustment., June HS 812 013). implicit price deflator (1.033=106.588/103.199). 13, 2014’’ http://www.dot.gov/regulations/ economic-values-used-in-analysis

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:37 Jun 22, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\23JNR2.SGM 23JNR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 36094 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 120 / Tuesday, June 23, 2015 / Rules and Regulations

TABLE 10—COMPONENT COST ESTIMATES FOR BASELINE ABS AND FOUR STABILITY TECHNOLOGY SYSTEMS IN 2013 DOLLARS 70—Continued

ABS WABCO tractor RSC Bendix tractor RSC WABCO tractor ESC Bendix large bus ESC WABCO tractor baseline component total component total component total component total component total

Modulator Valve (for ...... 197.82 197.82 197.82 197.82...... 197.82 197.82 trailer)**. Modulator Valve Ca- ...... 10.50 10.50 10.50 10.50...... 10.50 10.50 bles (for trailer). Yaw Rate Sensor ...... 51.38 51.38 ...... In ESC Module Pressure Sensor ...... 2.14 6.42 ...... 2.14 6.42 Pressure Sensor Cable ...... 10.12 30.36 ...... 10.12 30.36 Steering Angle Sensor ...... 29.50 29.50 ...... 29.50 29.50 ESC Module ...... 85.48 85.48 ESC Module Cable ...... 28.86 28.86 Baseline ABS Cost ...... 770.37 ...... Incremental Costs ...... 373.42 ...... 336.24 ...... 233.02 ...... 548.86 Above Baseline ABS. * Delta ECU is an incremental cost estimate over the cost of WABCO Tractor Baseline ABS ECU. ** Modulator Valve for trailer is added as a component in Bendix Tractor RSC, Meritor-WABCO Tractor RSC and Meritor-WABCO Tractor ESC since it is required to be installed in trailers in the final rule.

Furthermore, the installation of an TABLE 11—SUMMARY OF ESC AND tractors related to this final rule will ESC system requires a technician to RSC SYSTEM UNIT COST ESTI- reduce truck tractor sales by 101 units tune a system for each vehicle. We MATES IN 2013 DOLLARS per year. We expect that this rule will estimate that it will take one hour of have even less of an impact on the sales labor to perform this task at the cost of ESC ...... $585.22 of large buses, because the average cost $33.40. Additionally, this final rule RSC ...... 391.19 of a bus affected by this rule is requires the installation of a telltale ESC Incremental over RSC 194.03 approximately $400,000. lamp using specific symbols or text. We Based on our assumptions regarding estimate the cost of this lamp and We have also examined the effect of costs and the estimates of ESC and RSC associated wiring at $2.96. Thus, we increased costs on vehicle sales. We system penetration in the market in estimate the total cost for installing an expect that the cost of ESC systems is 2018, we expect that this final rule will ESC system to be $585.22 on truck relatively small compared to the result in a total cost of $45.6 million. estimated average cost of a truck tractor tractors and $269.38 on large buses. We The costs are set forth in Tables 12 and of $110,000. We expect that this cost 13. This total cost is based upon 21.3 have averaged the two estimates of the will be passed on to purchasers of truck percent of truck tractors sold annually cost to install an RSC system, which is tractors and large buses. Those upgrading from RSC systems to ESC $391.19.71 We note that this estimate purchasers have indicated that truck systems, 44.8 percent of truck tractors generally corresponds to the lower end operating costs represent about 21 sold annually without stability control of the cost estimate in the FRIA, which percent of total operating costs, and that systems installing ESC systems, and is consistent with Bendix’s comment. the elasticity of demand for truck freight 20.0 percent of large buses sold is approximately ¥1.174. Thus, we annually without stability control believe that the increased costs of truck systems installing ESC systems.

TABLE 12—TOTAL COST OF THE FINAL RULE [2013 $]

Technology Upgrade Needed Upgrade RSC None to ESC ESC

Truck Tractors: % Needing Improvements ...... 33.9% 21.3% 44.8% 150,000 Sales Estimated ...... 50,850 31,950 67,200 Costs per Affected Vehicle ...... 0 $194.03 $585.22

Total Costs ...... 0 $6.2 M $39.3 M Large Buses: % Needing Improvements ...... 80% 0% 20% 2,200 Sales Estimated ...... 1,760 0 440 Costs per Affected Vehicle ...... 0 NA $269.38

Total Costs ...... 0 $0 M $0.1 M M: million.

71 Unlike in the NPRM, the cost of installing an substantially less than on a truck tractor. This is because an ESC system on a bus is not required to ESC system on a bus is considered to be control a trailer’s brakes.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:37 Jun 22, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\23JNR2.SGM 23JNR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 120 / Tuesday, June 23, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 36095

TABLE 13—SUMMARY OF VEHICLE COSTS [2013 $]

Average vehicle costs Total costs

Truck Tractors ...... $303.50 $45.5 M Large Buses ...... 53.90 0.1 M

Total ...... 299.90 45.6 M

The agency estimates that the cost of vehicles. The costs include preparation, comparison purpose, the table also executing the J-turn test maneuvers will brake burnish test, and other includes the costs for SWD maneuver be $13,400 per truck tractor and $20,100 miscellaneous preparations and that was proposed in the NPRM.72 per large bus, assuming access is required equipment. Table 14 presents available to test facilities, tracks, and these estimated costs. In addition, for

TABLE 14—ESTIMATED COMPLIANCE TEST COST PER VEHICLE [2013 $]

J-Turn SWD Cost Items Tractor Large Bus Tractor Large Bus

(1) Preparing for and executing the test maneuvers, ...... $8,400.00 $12,800.00 $10,800.00 $14,700.00 (2) Executing brake burnish test, and ...... 2,600.00 3,600.00 2,600.00 3,600.00 (3) Other miscellaneous preparations and required equipment such as ...... 2,400.00 3,700.00 3,400.00 4,800.00 (a) Brake conditioning between maneuvers, (b) Jackknife cable maintenance, (c) ballast loading, and (d) Post data processing, i.e., LAR and Torque reduction process

Sum ...... 13,400.00 20,100.00 16,800.00 23,100.00

E. Cost Effectiveness dollars, as reflected in Table 15. Table The net benefits of this final rule are 15 also shows that the net cost per estimated to range from $412 to $525 Safety benefits can occur at any time equivalent life saved from this final rule million at a 3 percent discount rate and during the vehicle’s lifetime. Therefore, range from $0.1 to $0.3 million at a 3 from $312 to $401 million at a 7 percent the benefits are discounted at both 3 and percent discount rate and from $0.3 to discount rate. 7 percent to reflect their values in 2013 $0.6 million at a 7 percent discount rate.

TABLE 15—SUMMARY OF COST-EFFECTIVENESS AND NET BENEFITS BY DISCOUNT RATE [2013 $]

3% Discount 7% Discount Low High Low High

Fatal Equivalents ...... 40 50 32 40 Societal Economic Savings for Crashworthiness ...... $21,816,498 $27,883,938 $17,288,953 $22,097,227 Congestion and Property Damage ...... 11,495,815 14,186,504 9,110,106 11,242,401 Total Societal Economic Savings (1) ...... 33,312,313 42,070,442 26,399,059 33,339,628 VSL ...... 424,352,045 528,442,215 331,681,943 413,040,877 Total Monetized Savings (2) ...... 457,664,358 570,512,657 358,081,002 446,380,505 Vehicle Costs * ...... 45,644,570 45,644,570 45,644,570 45,644,570 Net Costs (3) ...... 12,332,257 3,574,128 19,245,511 12,304,942 Net Cost Per Fatal Equivalent (4) ...... 308,306 71,483 601,422 307,624 Net Benefits (5) ...... 412,019,788 524,868,087 312,436,432 400,735,935 * Vehicle costs are not discounted, since they occur when the vehicle is purchased, whereas benefits occur over the vehicle’s lifetime and are discounted back to the time of purchase. (1) = Societal Economic Savings for Crashworthiness + VSL Savings. (2) = Societal Economic Savings + VSL. (3) = Vehicle Costs – Total Societal Economic Savings. (4) = Net Costs/Fatal Equivalents. (5) = VSL – Net Costs.

72 We have revised the estimated SWD maneuver preparing for and executing the maneuvers, $2,000 and $3,000 for other miscellaneous preparations costs from the PRIA. In the PRIA, the estimated cost for executing FMVSS No. 121 brake burnish test, and required equipment. for SWD is $15,000 which included $10,000 for

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:37 Jun 22, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\23JNR2.SGM 23JNR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 36096 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 120 / Tuesday, June 23, 2015 / Rules and Regulations

F. Comparison of Regulatory truck tractors and large buses, our plans and the agency’s estimates of ESC Alternatives research has concluded that RSC and RSC system adoption rates between systems are less effective than ESC 2012 and 2018. The agency considered two systems. An RSC system is only slightly A summary of the cost effectiveness of alternatives to this final rule. The first less effective at preventing rollover RSC systems is set forth in Table 16. alternative was requiring RSC systems crashes than an ESC system, but it is When comparing this alternative to this be installed on all newly manufactured much less effective at preventing loss- final rule, requiring RSC systems rather truck tractors and buses covered by this of-control crashes. However, RSC than ESC systems would be slightly final rule. The second alternative was systems are estimated to cost less than more cost effective. However, this requiring RSC systems be installed on ESC systems. Furthermore, only alternative would save fewer lives and all newly manufactured trailers. approximately 44.8% of truck tractors have lower net benefits than this final Regarding the first alternative, will be required to install RSC systems rule. Consequently, the agency has requiring RSC systems be installed on based on data regarding manufacturers’ rejected this alternative.

TABLE 16—SUMMARY OF COST-EFFECTIVENESS AND NET BENEFITS BY DISCOUNT RATE ALTERNATIVE 1—REQUIRING TRACTOR-BASED RSC SYSTEMS [2013 $]

3% Discount 7% Discount Low High Low High

Fatal Equivalents ...... 25 35 20 28 Societal Economic Savings—Crashworthiness...... $14,708,167 $20,700,276 $11,655,804 $16,404,380 Congestion and Property Damage ...... 6,694,636 9,378,093 5,305,308 7,431,871 Total Societal Economic Savings (1) ...... 21,402,803 30,078,369 16,961,112 23,836,251 VSL ...... 260,249,473 363,828,274 203,416,130 284,375,367 Total Monetized Savings (2) ...... 281,652,276 393,906,643 220,377,242 308,211,618 Vehicle Costs * ...... 26,406,495 26,406,495 26,406,495 26,406,495 Net Costs (3) ...... 5,003,692 ¥3,671,874 9,445,383 2,570,244 Net Cost Per Fatal Equivalent (4) ...... 200,148 N/A 472,269 91,794 Net Benefits (5) ...... 255,245,781 367,500,148 193,970,747 281,805,123 * Vehicle costs are not discounted, since they occur when the vehicle is purchased, whereas benefits occur over the vehicle’s lifetime and are discounted back to the time of purchase. (1) = Societal Economic Savings ¥ Crashworthiness + VSL Savings. (2) = Societal Economic Savings + VSL. (3) = Vehicle Costs ¥ Total Societal Economic Savings; Cost per equivalent life saved is not presented where the alternative results in nega- tive net cost because there would be no cost per equivalent life saved. (4) = Net Costs/Fatal Equivalents. (5) = VSL ¥ Net Costs.

The second alternative considered turn test maneuver, the benefits of Table 17 sets forth a summary of the was requiring trailer-based RSC systems trailer-based RSC systems in preventing cost effectiveness of trailer-based RSC to be installed on all newly rollover are about 17.6 percent of systems. Because the operational life of manufactured trailers. Trailer-based tractor-based ESC systems, a trailer (approximately 45 years) is RSC systems are only expected to corresponding to an effectiveness rate of much longer than that of a truck tractor, prevent rollover crashes. Based on 7 to 10 percent. it would take longer for trailer-based 2006–2012 GES data, 98 percent of the The agency estimates that about RSC systems to fully penetrate the fleet target truck-tractor crashes involve truck 217,000 new trailers are manufactured than it would for any tractor-based each year. Further, based on information tractors with trailers attached. system. Therefore, when the benefits of Therefore, the base crash population is from manufacturers, the agency trailer-based RSC systems are 98 percent of Base 1 discussed above. estimates that a trailer-based RSC As discussed in the NPRM, it became system costs $400 per trailer. Available discounted at a 3 and 7 percent rate, apparent during testing that trailer- data indicates that as much as 5 percent there is a much higher discount factor. based stability control systems were less of the current annual production of As can be seen in Table 17, this results effective than tractor-based systems trailers comes with RSC systems in this alternative having negative net because trailer-based systems could installed. Assuming all new trailers benefits and a high cost per life saved. only control the trailer’s brakes. Based would be required to install RSC, the Also, this alternative would have no upon the agency’s testing of trailer- cost of this alternative is estimated to be effect on buses. Accordingly, the agency based RSC systems using a 150-foot J- $74.7 million. has rejected this alternative.

TABLE 17—SUMMARY OF COST-EFFECTIVENESS AND NET BENEFITS BY DISCOUNT RATE ALTERNATIVE 2—REQUIRING TRAILER-BASED RSC SYSTEMS [2013 $]

3% Discount 7% Discount Low High Low High

Fatal Equivalents ...... 3 3 2 2

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:37 Jun 22, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\23JNR2.SGM 23JNR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 120 / Tuesday, June 23, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 36097

TABLE 17—SUMMARY OF COST-EFFECTIVENESS AND NET BENEFITS BY DISCOUNT RATE—Continued ALTERNATIVE 2—REQUIRING TRAILER-BASED RSC SYSTEMS [2013 $]

3% Discount 7% Discount Low High Low High

Societal Economic Savings—Crashworthiness ...... $1,571,042 $2,036,588 $1,057,467 $1,370,825 Congestion and Property Damage ...... 684,213 938,236 460,543 631,526 Total Societal Economic Savings (1) ...... 2,255,255 2,974,824 1,518,010 2,002,351 VSL ...... 30,196,954 39,659,995 19,696,851 25,869,398 Total Monetized Savings (2) ...... 32,452,209 42,634,819 21,214,861 27,871,749 Vehicle Costs * ...... 74,734,800 74,734,800 74,734,800 74,734,800 Net Costs (3) ...... 72,479,545 71,759,976 73,216,790 72,732,449 Net Cost Per Fatal Equivalent (4) ...... 24,159,848 23,919,992 36,608,395 36,366,225 Net Benefits (5) ...... ¥42,282,591 ¥32,099,981 ¥53,519,939 ¥46,863,051 * Vehicle costs are not discounted, since they occur when the vehicle is purchased, whereas benefits occur over the vehicle’s lifetime and are discounted back to the time of purchase. (1) = Societal Economic Savings ¥ Crashworthiness + VSL Savings. (2) = Societal Economic Savings + VSL. (3) = Vehicle Costs ¥ Total Societal Economic Savings; negative means benefits are greater than the cost. (4) = Net Costs/Fatal Equivalents. (5) = VSL ¥ Net Costs.

XV. Regulatory Analyses and Notices justified. We seek to ensure that this technology and the additional coordination will also simplify the equipment necessary for an ESC system A. Executive Order 12866, Executive implementation of multiple are sensors that are already available Order 13563, and DOT Regulatory requirements on a single industry. and that can be installed without Policies and Procedures NHTSA’s Motorcoach Safety Action significant effect on other vehicle NHTSA has considered the impact of Plan identified four priority areas— systems. Further, we estimate that 80 this rulemaking action under Executive passenger ejection, rollover structural percent of the affected buses already Order 12866, Executive Order 13563, integrity, emergency egress, and fire have ESC systems. We realize that a and the Department of Transportation’s safety. There have been other initiatives rollover structural integrity rulemaking, regulatory policies and procedures. This on large bus performance, such as ESC or an emergency egress rulemaking, rulemaking is considered economically systems—an action included in the DOT could involve more redesign of vehicle significant and was reviewed by the plan—and an initiative to update the structure than rules involving systems Office of Management and Budget under large bus tire standard.73 In deciding such as seat belts, ESC, or tires.74 Our E.O. 12866, ‘‘Regulatory Planning and how best to initiate and coordinate decision-making in these and all the Review.’’ The rulemaking action has rulemaking in these areas, NHTSA rulemakings outlined in the ‘‘NHTSA’s also been determined to be significant examined various factors including the Approach to Motorcoach Safety’’ plan, under the Department’s regulatory benefits that would be achieved by the DOT’s Motorcoach Safety Action Plan, policies and procedures. NHTSA has rulemakings, the anticipated vehicle and the Motorcoach Enhanced Safety placed in the docket a Final Regulatory designs and countermeasures needed to Act will be cognizant of the timing and Impact Analysis (FRIA) describing the comply with the regulations, and the content of the actions so as to simplify benefits and costs of this rulemaking extent to which the timing and content requirements applicable to the public action. The benefits and costs are of the rulemakings could be coordinated and private sectors, ensure that summarized in section XIV of this to lessen the need for multiple redesign requirements are justified, and increase preamble. and to lower overall costs. After this the net benefits of the resulting safety Consistent with Executive Order examination, we decided on a course of standards. 13563 and to the extent permitted under action that prioritized the goal of B. Regulatory Flexibility Act the Vehicle Safety Act, we have reducing passenger ejection and Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility considered the cumulative effects of the increasing frontal impact protection Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., as amended by new regulations stemming from because many benefits could be the Small Business Regulatory NHTSA’s 2007 ‘‘NHTSA’s Approach to achieved expeditiously with Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of Motorcoach Safety’’ plan, DOT’s 2009 countermeasures that were readily 1996), whenever an agency is required Motorcoach Safety Action Plan, and the available (using bus seats with integral to publish a notice of rulemaking for Motorcoach Enhanced Safety Act, and seat belts, which are already available any proposed or final rule, it must have taken steps to identify from seat suppliers) and whose prepare and make available for public opportunities to harmonize and installation would not significantly comment a regulatory flexibility streamline those regulations. By impact other vehicle designs. Similarly, analysis that describes the effect of the coordinating the timing and content of we have also determined that an ESC rule on small entities (i.e., small the rulemakings, our goal is to rulemaking presents relatively few businesses, small organizations, and expeditiously maximize the net benefits synchronization issues with other rules, small governmental jurisdictions). The of the regulations (by either increasing because the vehicles at issue already Small Business Administration’s benefits or reducing costs or a have the foundation braking systems needed for the stability control combination of the two) while 74 The initiative on fire safety is in a research simplifying requirements on the public phase. Rulemaking resulting from the research will and ensuring that the requirements are 73 75 FR 60037 (Sept. 29, 2010). not occur in the near term.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:37 Jun 22, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\23JNR2.SGM 23JNR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 36098 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 120 / Tuesday, June 23, 2015 / Rules and Regulations

regulations at 13 CFR part 121 define a officials or the preparation of a Pursuant to Executive Order 13132 small business, in part, as a business federalism summary impact statement. and 12988, NHTSA has considered entity ‘‘which operates primarily within The final rule will not have ‘‘substantial whether this rule could or should the United States.’’ (13 CFR 121.105(a)). direct effects on the States, on the preempt State common law causes of No regulatory flexibility analysis is relationship between the national action. The agency’s ability to announce required if the head of an agency government and the States, or on the its conclusion regarding the preemptive certifies the rule will not have a distribution of power and effect of one of its rules reduces the significant economic impact on a responsibilities among the various likelihood that preemption will be an substantial number of small entities. levels of government.’’ issue in any subsequent tort litigation. SBREFA amended the Regulatory NHTSA rules can preempt in two To this end, the agency has examined Flexibility Act to require Federal ways. First, the National Traffic and the nature (e.g., the language and agencies to provide a statement of the Motor Vehicle Safety Act contains an structure of the regulatory text) and factual basis for certifying that a rule express preemption provision: When a objectives of this rule and finds that this will not have a significant economic motor vehicle safety standard is in effect rule, like many NHTSA rules, prescribes impact on a substantial number of small under this chapter, a State or a political only a minimum safety standard. As entities. subdivision of a State may prescribe or such, NHTSA does not intend that this NHTSA has considered the effects of continue in effect a standard applicable rule preempt state tort law that would this final rule under the Regulatory to the same aspect of performance of a effectively impose a higher standard on Flexibility Act. I certify that this final motor vehicle or motor vehicle motor vehicle manufacturers than that rule will not have a significant equipment only if the standard is established by this rule. Establishment economic impact on a substantial identical to the standard prescribed of a higher standard by means of State number of small entities. This final rule under this chapter. 49 U.S.C. tort law would not conflict with the will directly impact manufacturers of 30103(b)(1). It is this statutory command minimum standard announced here. truck-tractors, large buses, and stability by Congress that preempts any non- Without any conflict, there could not be control systems for those vehicles. It identical State legislative and any implied preemption of a State will indirectly affect purchasers of new administrative law addressing the same common law tort cause of action. truck-tractors and large buses, which aspect of performance. D. Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice include both fleets and owner-operators. The express preemption provision Reform) NHTSA believes the entities directly described above is subject to a savings affected by this rule do not qualify as clause under which ‘‘[c]ompliance with With respect to the review of the small entities. Inasmuch as some a motor vehicle safety standard promulgation of a new regulation, second-stage manufacturers of certain prescribed under this chapter does not section 3(b) of Executive Order 12988, body-on-frame buses that are subject to exempt a person from liability at ‘‘Civil Justice Reform’’ (61 FR 4729; Feb. this final rule are small businesses, this common law.’’ 49 U.S.C. 30103(e). 7, 1996), requires that Executive final rule will not substantially affect Pursuant to this provision, State agencies make every reasonable effort to those small businesses. The small common law tort causes of action ensure that the regulation: (1) clearly manufacturers that may be affected by against motor vehicle manufacturers specifies the preemptive effect; (2) this rule are final stage manufacturers that might otherwise be preempted by clearly specifies the effect on existing that purchase incomplete vehicles from the express preemption provision are Federal law or regulation; (3) provides other large manufacturers and complete generally preserved. However, the a clear legal standard for affected the manufacturing process. The Supreme Court has recognized the conduct, while promoting simplification incomplete vehicle manufacturers, possibility, in some instances, of and burden reduction; (4) clearly which we do not believe are small implied preemption of such State specifies the retroactive effect, if any; (5) businesses, typically certify compliance common law tort causes of action by specifies whether administrative with all braking-related standards and virtue of NHTSA’s rules, even if not proceedings are to be required before we believe ESC would be included expressly preempted. This second way parties file suit in court; (6) adequately among those. The sole effect on the final that NHTSA rules can preempt is defines key terms; and (7) addresses stage manufacturers is a marginal dependent upon there being an actual other important issues affecting clarity increase in the cost of incomplete conflict between an FMVSS and the and general draftsmanship under any vehicles due to the addition of ESC higher standard that would effectively guidelines issued by the Attorney systems. This additional cost is very be imposed on motor vehicle General. This document is consistent small relative to the average cost of manufacturers if someone obtained a with that requirement. buses subject to this final rule ($200,000 State common law tort judgment against Pursuant to this Order, NHTSA notes to $500,000), and the costs would likely the manufacturer, notwithstanding the as follows. The issue of preemption is ultimately be passed on to the final manufacturer’s compliance with the discussed above. NHTSA notes further purchaser. NHTSA standard. Because most NHTSA that there is no requirement that standards established by an FMVSS are individuals submit a petition for C. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism) minimum standards, a State common reconsideration or pursue other NHTSA has examined this final rule law tort cause of action that seeks to administrative proceedings before they pursuant to Executive Order 13132 (64 impose a higher standard on motor may file suit in court. FR 43255, August 10, 1999) and vehicle manufacturers will generally not concluded that no additional be preempted. However, if and when E. Protection of Children From consultation with States, local such a conflict does exist—for example, Environmental Health and Safety Risks governments or their representatives is when the standard at issue is both a Executive Order 13045, ‘‘Protection of mandated beyond the rulemaking minimum and a maximum standard— Children from Environmental Health process. The agency has concluded that the State common law tort cause of and Safety Risks’’ (62 FR 19855, April the rulemaking will not have sufficient action is impliedly preempted. See 23, 1997), applies to any rule that: (1) federalism implications to warrant Geier v. American Honda Motor Co., is determined to be ‘‘economically consultation with State and local 529 U.S.C. 861 (2000). significant’’ as defined under Executive

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:37 Jun 22, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\23JNR2.SGM 23JNR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 120 / Tuesday, June 23, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 36099

Order 12866, and (2) concerns an (with minor modifications) SAE Surface I. National Environmental Policy Act environmental, health, or safety risk that Vehicle Information Report on NHTSA has analyzed this rulemaking the agency has reason to believe may Automotive Stability Enhancement action for the purposes of the National have a disproportionate effect on Systems J2564 JUN2004 that provides Environmental Policy Act. The agency children. If the regulatory action meets an industry consensus definition of an has determined that implementation of both criteria, the agency must evaluate ESC system. In addition, SAE this action will not have any significant the environmental health or safety International has a Recommended impact on the quality of the human effects of the planned rule on children, Practice on Brake Systems Definitions— environment. and explain why the planned regulation Truck and Bus, J2627 AUG2009 that has is preferable to other potentially been incorporated into the agency’s J. Incorporation by Reference effective and reasonably feasible definition. As discussed earlier in the relevant alternatives considered by the agency. The agency based the performance portions of this document, we are This document is part of a rulemaking requirement (with modifications) on incorporating by reference various that is not expected to have a SAE Surface Vehicle Recommended materials into the Code of Federal disproportionate health or safety impact Practice J266 JAN96, Steady-State Regulations in this rulemaking. The on children. Consequently, no further Directional Control Test Procedures for standards we are incorporating are: analysis is required under Executive Passenger Cars and Light Trucks. UN • ASTM E1136–93 (Reapproved Order 13045. ECE Regulation 13 also allows the J- 2003), ‘‘Standard Specification for a Turn test maneuver as one option to be F. Paperwork Reduction Act Radial Standard Reference Test Tire,’’ used for demonstrating proper function approved March 15, 1993. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of an ESC system. • ASTM E1337–90 (Reapproved of 1995 (PRA), a person is not required The agency has also incorporated by 2008), ‘‘Standard Test Method for to respond to a collection of information reference two ASTM standards in order Determining Longitudinal Peak Braking by a Federal agency unless the to provide specifications for the road Coefficient of Paved Surfaces Using a collection displays a valid OMB control test surface. These are: (1) ASTM Standard Reference Test Tire,’’ number. There is not any information E1136–93 (Reapproved 2003), approved June 1, 2008. collection requirement associated with ‘‘Standard Specification for a Radial Under 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(1)(E), Congress this final rule. Standard Reference Test Tire,’’ and (2) allows agencies to incorporate by ASTM E1337–90 (Reapproved 2008), G. National Technology Transfer and reference materials that are reasonably ‘‘Standard Test Method for Determining Advancement Act available to the class of persons affected Longitudinal Peak Braking Coefficient of if the agency has approval from the Section 12(d) of the National Paved Surfaces Using a Standard Director of the Federal Register. As a Technology Transfer and Advancement Reference Test Tire.’’ part of that approval process, the Act (NTTAA) requires NHTSA to H. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act Director of the Federal Register (in 1 evaluate and use existing voluntary CFR 51.5) directs agencies to discuss (in consensus standards in its regulatory Section 202 of the Unfunded the preamble) the ways that the activities unless doing so would be Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) materials we are incorporating by inconsistent with applicable law (e.g., requires federal agencies to prepare a reference are reasonably available to the statutory provisions regarding written assessment of the costs, benefits, interested parties. Further the Director NHTSA’s vehicle safety authority) or and other effects of proposed or final requires agencies to summarize the otherwise impractical. Voluntary rules that include a Federal mandate material that they are incorporating consensus standards are technical likely to result in the expenditure by [proposing to incorporate] by reference. standards developed or adopted by State, local, or tribal governments, in the NHTSA has worked to ensure that voluntary consensus standards bodies. aggregate, or by the private sector, of standards being considered for Technical standards are defined by the more than $100 million annually incorporation by reference are NTTAA as ‘‘performance-based or (adjusted for inflation with base year of reasonably available to the class of design-specific technical specification 1995). Before promulgating a rule for persons affected. In this case, those and related management systems which a written statement is needed, directly affected by incorporated practices.’’ They pertain to ‘‘products section 205 of the UMRA generally provisions are NHTSA and parties and processes, such as size, strength, or requires the agency to identify and contracting with NHTSA to conduct technical performance of a product, consider a reasonable number of testing of new vehicles. New vehicle process or material.’’ regulatory alternatives and adopt the manufacturers may also be affected to Examples of organizations generally least costly, most cost-effective, or least the extent they wish to conduct regarded as voluntary consensus burdensome alternative that achieves NHTSA’s compliance test procedures on standards bodies include ASTM the objectives of the rule. The their own vehicles. These entities have International, SAE International (SAE), provisions of section 205 do not apply access to copies of aforementioned and the American National Standards when they are inconsistent with standards through ASTM International Institute (ANSI). If NHTSA does not use applicable law. Moreover, section 205 for a reasonable fee. These entities have available and potentially applicable allows the agency to adopt an the financial capability to obtain a copy voluntary consensus standards, we are alternative other than the least costly, of the material incorporated by required by the Act to provide Congress, most cost-effective, or least burdensome reference. through OMB, an explanation of the alternative if the agency publishes with Other interested parties in the reasons for not using such standards. the final rule an explanation of why that rulemaking process beyond the class This final rule requires truck tractors alternative was not adopted. affected by the regulation include and large buses to have electronic This final rule will not result in any members of the public, safety advocacy stability control systems. In the expenditure by State, local, or tribal groups, etc. Such interested parties can definitional criteria, the agency adapted governments or the private sector of access the standard by obtaining a copy the criteria based on the light vehicle more than $100 million, adjusted for from the aforementioned standards ESC rulemaking, which was based on inflation. development organizations.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:37 Jun 22, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\23JNR2.SGM 23JNR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 36100 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 120 / Tuesday, June 23, 2015 / Rules and Regulations

Interested parties may also access the Agenda in April and October of each Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, standards through NHTSA or the year. You may use the RIN contained in 30166 and 30177; delegation of authority at National Archives and Records the heading at the beginning of this 49 CFR 1.95. Administration (NARA). All approved document to find this action in the material is available for inspection at Unified Agenda. ■ 2. Revise paragraphs (d)(33) and (34) NHTSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., of § 571.5 to read as follows: Washington, DC 20590, and at the L. Privacy Act § 571.5 Matter incorporated by reference. National Archives and Records Anyone is able to search the Administration (NARA). For electronic form of all comments * * * * * information on the availability of this received into any of our dockets by the (d) * * * material at NHTSA, contact NHTSA’s name of the individual submitting the (33) ASTM E1136–93 (Reapproved Office of Technical Information comment (or signing the comment, if 2003), ‘‘Standard Specification for a Services, phone number (202) 366– submitted on behalf of an association, 2588. For information on the availability business, labor union, etc.). You may Radial Standard Reference Test Tire,’’ of this material at NARA, call (202) 741– review DOT’s complete Privacy Act approved March 15, 1993, into 6030, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/ Statement in the Federal Register §§ 571.105; 571.121; 571.122; 571.126; federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html. published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 571.135; 571.136; 571.139; 571.500. Finally, we have also described and 19477–78). (34) ASTM E1337–90 (Reapproved summarized the materials that we are 2008), ‘‘Standard Test Method for List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 571 incorporating by reference in this Determining Longitudinal Peak Braking document to give all interested parties Imports, Incorporation by reference, Coefficient of Paved Surfaces Using a an effective opportunity to comment. Motor vehicle safety, Motor vehicles, Standard Reference Test Tire,’’ The materials were previously Rubber and rubber products, Tires. approved June 1, 2008, into §§ 571.105; discussed in section XI.G. Regulatory Text 571.121; 571.122; 571.126; 571.135; K. Regulatory Identifier Number (RIN) In consideration of the foregoing, we 571.136; 571.500. amend 49 CFR part 571 as follows: The Department of Transportation * * * * * assigns a regulation identifier number PART 571—FEDERAL MOTOR ■ 3. Revise Table 1 of § 571.101 to read (RIN) to each regulatory action listed in VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS as follows: the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulations. The Regulatory Information ■ 1. The authority citation for part 571 § 571.101 Standard No. 101; Controls and Service Center publishes the Unified continues to read as follows: displays.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:37 Jun 22, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\23JNR2.SGM 23JNR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 120 / Tuesday, June 23, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 36101

Table 1 Controls, Telltales, and Indicators With Illumination or Color Requirements 1

Column 1 Column 2 Column3 Column 4 Column 5 Column 6 ITEM SYMBOL WORDS OR FUNCTION ILLUMIN- COLOR ABBRE- ATION VIATIONS

Highbeam 2 Blue or ------Telltale ------~D Green 4 3, 5

Turn signals 2 Control ------¢r:> ------3, 6 Telltale ------Green 4

Hazard warning signal Hazard Control Yes ------

3 A 7 ------Telltale ------

Position, side marker, end- Marker Lamps outline marker, identification, ;oa:. or Control Yes ------or clearance lamps .,...... 3,8 MKLps 8

Windshield wiping system Wiper or Control Yes ------Q Wipe

Windshield washing system Washer (!) or Control Yes ------I Wash

Windshield washing and wiping Washer-Wiper system combined or Control Yes ------~ Wash-Wipe

Windshield defrosting and Defrost, Defog, defogging system or Control Yes ------~ De f.

Rear window defrosting and Rear Defrost, defogging system Rear Defog, Control Yes ------Ci1 Rear Def., or R-Def.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:37 Jun 22, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\23JNR2.SGM 23JNR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 ER23JN15.012 36102 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 120 / Tuesday, June 23, 2015 / Rules and Regulations

Column 1 Column 2 Column3 Column 4 Column 5 Column 6 ITEM SYMBOL WORDS OR FUNCTION ILLUMIN- COLOR ABBRE- ATION VIATIONS

Brake system malfunction ------Brake Telltale ------Red 4

Antilock brake system Antilock, malfunction for vehicles subject ------Anti-lock, or Telltale ------Yellow to FMVSS 105 or 135 ABS 9

Malfunction in Variable Brake Brake Proportioning System ------Telltale ------Yellow Proportioning 9

Regenerative brake system RBSor malfunction ------Telltale ------Yellow ABS/RBS 9

Malfunction in antilock system ABS for vehicles other than trailers ------or Telltale ------Yellow subject to FMVSS 121 Antilock 9

Antilock brake system trailer Trailer ABS fault for vehicles subject to or Telltale ------Yellow FMVSS 121 ta00 Trailer Antilock

Brake pressure (for vehicles subject to FMVSS ------Brake Pressure 9 Telltale ------Red 4 105 or 135)

Low brake fluid condition 4 (for vehicles subject to FMVSS ------Brake Fluid 9 Telltale ------Red 105 or 135)

Parking brake applied Park or (for vehicles subject to FMVSS ------Telltale ------Red 4 Parking Brake 105 or 135) 9

Brake lining wear-out condition 4 (for vehicles subject to FMVSS ------Brake Wear 9 Telltale ------Red 135)

Electronic Stability Control System Malfunction (for vehicles subject to FMVSS 1j ESC 12 Telltale ------Yellow 126) lO,ll

Electronic Stability Control ESC OFF Control Yes ------... I

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:37 Jun 22, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\23JNR2.SGM 23JNR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 ER23JN15.013 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 120 / Tuesday, June 23, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 36103

Column 1 Column 2 Column3 Column 4 Column 5 Column 6 ITEM SYMBOL WORDS OR FUNCTION ILLUMIN- COLOR ABBRE- ATION VIATIONS

System "OFF" (for vehicles subject to FMVSS Telltale ------Yellow 126) 10

Electronic Stability Control System Malfunction (for vehicles subject to FMVSS IS 136) 11 or

ESC Telltale ------Yellow ~~ or ii <"<* Fuel Level ~ Telltale ------or Fuel ~ Indicator Yes ------

Engine oil pressure Telltale ------c:e:tl Oil 13 Indicator Yes ------Engine coolant temperature _J=_ Telltale ------...... Temp 13 Indicator Yes ------

Electrical charge Volts or Telltale ------E:!J Charge or Amp Indicator Yes ------

Engine stop ------Engine Stop 14 Control Yes ------

Automatic vehicle speed (cruise control) ------Control Yes ------

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:37 Jun 22, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\23JNR2.SGM 23JNR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 ER23JN15.014 36104 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 120 / Tuesday, June 23, 2015 / Rules and Regulations

Column 1 Column 2 Column3 Column 4 Column 5 Column 6 ITEM SYMBOL WORDS OR FUNCTION ILLUMIN- COLOR ABBRE- ATION VIATIONS

Speedometer MPH,orMPH ------Indicator Yes ------andkm/h 15

Heating and Air conditioning system ------Control Yes ------

Automatic (park) p transmission (reverse) R control (neutral) ------N Indicator Yes ------position (drive) D 16

Heating and/or air conditioning fan , or Fan Control Yes ------tJa Low Tire Pressure

(including malfunction) Low Tire 17 Telltale ------Yellow (See FMVSS 138) (l) 17

Low Tire Pressure (including malfunction that identifies involved tire) Low Tire 17 Telltale ------Yellow (See FMVSS 138) fl 17 Tire Pressure Monitoring System Malfunction ------TPMS 17, 19 Telltale ------Yellow (See FMVSS 138) 18

Notes: 1 An identifier is shown in this table if it is required for a control for which an illumination requirement exists or if it is used for a telltale for which a color requirement exists. If a line appears in column 2 and column 3, the control, telltale, or indicator is required to be identified, however the form of the identification is the manufacturer's option. Telltales are not considered to have an illumination requirement, because by defmition the telltale must light when the condition for its activation exists. 2 Additional requirements in FMVSS 108. 3 Framed areas of the symbol may be solid; solid areas may be framed. 4 Blue may be blue-green. Red may be red-orange. 5 Symbols employing four lines instead of five may also be used. 6 The pair of arrows is a single symbol. When the controls or telltales for left and right turn operate independently, however, the two arrows may be considered separate symbols and be spaced accordingly. 7 Not required when arrows of turn signal telltales that otherwise operate independently flash simultaneously as hazard warning telltale. 8 Separate identification is not required if function is combined with master lighting switch.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:37 Jun 22, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00056 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\23JNR2.SGM 23JNR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 ER23JN15.015 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 120 / Tuesday, June 23, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 36105

* * * * * (b) Perimeter-seating buses; (6) It has a means to estimate vehicle ■ 4. Revise the heading of § 571.126 to (c) Transit buses; mass or, if applicable, combination read as follows: (d) Any bus equipped with an axle vehicle mass; that has a gross axle weight rating of (7) It has a means to monitor driver § 571.126 Standard No. 126; Electronic steering inputs; stability control systems for light vehicles. 13,154 kilograms (29,000 pounds) or more; and (8) It has a means to modify engine * * * * * torque, as necessary, to assist the driver (e) Any bus that has a speed attainable ■ 5. Add § 571.136 to read as follows: in maintaining control of the vehicle in 3.2 km (2 miles) of not more than 53 and/or combination vehicle; and § 571.136 Standard No. 136; Electronic km/h (33 mph.) (9) When installed on a truck tractor, stability control systems for heavy vehicles. S4 Definitions. it has the means to provide brake S1 Scope. This standard establishes Ackerman Steer Angle means the pressure to automatically apply and performance and equipment angle whose tangent is the wheelbase modulate the brake torques of a towed requirements for electronic stability divided by the radius of the turn at a trailer. control (ESC) systems on heavy very low speed. ESC service brake application means vehicles. Electronic stability control system or the time when the ESC system applies S2 Purpose. The purpose of this ESC system means a system that has all a service brake pressure at any wheel for standard is to reduce crashes caused by of the following attributes: a continuous duration of at least 0.5 rollover or by directional loss-of-control. (1) It augments vehicle directional second of at least 34 kPa (5 psi) for air- S3 Application. This standard applies stability by having the means to apply braked systems and at least 172 kPa (25 to the following vehicles: and adjust the vehicle brake torques psi) for hydraulic-braked systems. S3.1 Truck tractors with a gross individually at each wheel position on Initial brake temperature means the vehicle weight rating of greater than at least one front and at least one rear average temperature of the service 11,793 kilograms (26,000 pounds). axle of the truck tractor or bus to induce brakes on the hottest axle of the vehicle However, it does not apply to: correcting yaw moment to limit vehicle immediately before any stability control (a) Any truck tractor equipped with oversteer and to limit vehicle system test maneuver is executed. an axle that has a gross axle weight understeer; Lateral acceleration means the rating of 13,154 kilograms (29,000 component of the vector acceleration of (2) It enhances rollover stability by pounds) or more; a point in the vehicle perpendicular to having the means to apply and adjust (b) Any truck tractor that has a speed the vehicle x-axis (longitudinal) and the vehicle brake torques individually at attainable in 3.2 km (2 miles) of not parallel to the road plane. each wheel position on at least one front more than 53 km/h (33 mph); and Oversteer means a condition in which and at least one rear axle of the truck (c) Any truck tractor that has a speed the vehicle’s yaw rate is greater than the tractor or bus to reduce lateral attainable in 3.2 km (2 miles) of not yaw rate that would occur at the acceleration of a vehicle; more than 72 km/h (45 mph), an vehicle’s speed as result of the unloaded vehicle weight that is not less (3) It is computer-controlled with the Ackerman Steer Angle. than 95 percent of its gross vehicle computer using a closed-loop algorithm Over-the-road bus means a bus weight rating, and no capacity to carry to induce correcting yaw moment and characterized by an elevated passenger occupants other than the driver and enhance rollover stability; deck located over a baggage operating crew. (4) It has a means to determine the compartment, except a school bus. S3.2 Buses with a gross vehicle vehicle’s lateral acceleration; Peak friction coefficient or PFC means weight rating of greater than 11,793 (5) It has a means to determine the the ratio of the maximum value of kilograms (26,000 pounds). However, it vehicle’s yaw rate and to estimate its braking test wheel longitudinal force to does not apply to side slip or side slip derivative with the simultaneous vertical force (a) School buses; respect to time; occurring prior to wheel lockup, as the

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:37 Jun 22, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00057 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\23JNR2.SGM 23JNR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 ER23JN15.016 36106 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 120 / Tuesday, June 23, 2015 / Rules and Regulations

braking torque is progressively remain within the lane between the start S5.4.2 The ESC malfunction telltale increased. gate (0 degrees of radius arc angle) and must be identified by the symbol shown Perimeter-seating bus means a bus the end gate (120 degrees of radius arc for ‘‘Electronic Stability Control System with 7 or fewer designated seating angle) during at least two of the four test Malfunction’’ or the specified words or positions rearward of the driver’s runs. abbreviations listed in Table 1 of seating position that are forward-facing S5.3.2 Engine Torque Reduction. Standard No. 101 (§ 571.101). or can convert to forward-facing without During each series of four consecutive S5.4.3 The ESC malfunction telltale the use of tools and is not an over-the- test runs for the determination of engine must be activated as a check-of-lamp road bus. torque reduction (see S7.7.2), the function either when the ignition Side slip or side slip angle means the vehicle must satisfy the criteria of locking system is turned to the ‘‘On’’ arctangent of the lateral velocity of the S5.3.2.1 and S5.3.2.2 during at least two (‘‘Run’’) position when the engine is not center of gravity of the vehicle divided of the four test runs. running, or when the ignition locking by the longitudinal velocity of the S5.3.2.1 The ESC system must system is in a position between the center of gravity. reduce the driver-requested engine ‘‘On’’ (‘‘Run’’) and ‘‘Start’’ that is Snub means the braking deceleration torque by at least 10 percent for a designated by the manufacturer as a of a vehicle from a higher speed to a minimum continuous duration of 0.5 check-light position. lower speed that is greater than zero. second during the time period from 1.5 S5.4.4 The ESC malfunction telltale Stop-request system means a vehicle- seconds after the vehicle crosses the need not be activated when a starter integrated system for passenger use to start gate (0 degree of radius arc angle) interlock is in operation. signal to a vehicle operator that they are to when it crosses the end gate S5.4.5 The ESC malfunction telltale requesting a stop. (120 degrees of radius arc angle). lamp must extinguish at the next Transit bus means a bus that is S5.3.2.2 The wheels of the truck ignition cycle after the malfunction has equipped with a stop-request system tractor or bus must remain within the been corrected. sold for public transportation provided lane between the start gate (0 degrees of S5.4.6 The manufacturer may use by, or on behalf of, a State or local radius arc angle) and the end gate (120 the ESC malfunction telltale in a government and that is not an over-the- degrees of radius arc angle). flashing mode to indicate ESC road bus. S5.3.3 Roll Stability Control Test. operation. Understeer means a condition in During each series of eight consecutive S6 Test Conditions. The which the vehicle’s yaw rate is less than test runs for the determination of roll requirements of S5 must be met by a the yaw rate that would occur at the stability control (see S7.7.3) conducted vehicle when it is tested according to vehicle’s speed as result of the at the same entrance speed, the vehicle the conditions set forth in the S6, Ackerman Steer Angle. must satisfy the criteria of S5.3.3.1, without replacing any brake system part Yaw Rate means the rate of change of S5.3.3.2, S5.3.3.3, and S5.3.3.4 during at or making any adjustments to the ESC the vehicle’s heading angle measure in least six of the eight consecutive test system except as specified. On vehicles degrees per second of rotation about a runs. equipped with automatic brake vertical axis through the vehicle’s center S5.3.3.1 The vehicle speed adjusters, the automatic brake adjusters of gravity. measured at 3.0 seconds after vehicle will remain activated at all times. S5 Requirements. Each vehicle must crosses the start gate (0 degrees of radius S6.1 Ambient Conditions. be equipped with an ESC system that arc angle) must not exceed 47 km/h (29 S6.1.1 The ambient temperature is meets the requirements specified in S5 mph). any temperature between 2 °C (35 °F) under the test conditions specified in S6 S5.3.3.2 The vehicle speed ° ° and the test procedures specified in S7 measured at 4.0 seconds after vehicle and 40 C (104 F). of this standard. crosses the start gate (0 degrees of radius S6.1.2 The maximum wind speed is S5.1 Required Equipment. Each arc angle) must not exceed 45 km/h (28 no greater than 5 m/s (11 mph). vehicle to which this standard applies mph). S6.2 Road Test Surface. must be equipped with an electronic S5.3.3.3 The wheels of the truck S6.2.1 The tests are conducted on a stability control system, as defined in tractor or bus must remain within the dry, uniform, solid-paved surface. S4. lane between the start gate (0 degrees of Surfaces with irregularities and S5.2 System Operational radius arc angle) and the end gate (120 undulations, such as dips and large Capabilities. degrees of radius arc angle). cracks, are unsuitable. S5.2.1 The ESC system must be S5.3.3.4 There must be ESC service S6.2.2 The road test surface operational over the full speed range of brake activation. produces a peak friction coefficient the vehicle except at vehicle speeds less S5.4 ESC Malfunction Detection. (PFC) of 0.9 when measured using an than 20 km/h (12.4 mph), when being Each vehicle must be equipped with an American Society for Testing and driven in reverse, or during system indicator lamp, mounted in front of and Materials (ASTM) E1136–93 initialization. in clear view of the driver, which is (Reapproved 2003) standard reference S5.2.2 The ESC must remain capable activated whenever there is a test tire, in accordance with ASTM of activation even if the antilock brake malfunction that affects the generation Method E 1337–90 (Reapproved 2008), system or traction control is also or transmission of control or response at a speed of 64.4 km/h (40 mph), activated. signals in the vehicle’s electronic without water delivery (both documents S5.3 Performance Requirements. stability control system. incorporated by reference, see § 571.5). S5.3.1 Lane Keeping During S5.4.1 Except as provided in S5.4.3 S6.2.3 The test surface has a Reference Speed Determination. During and S5.4.6, the ESC malfunction telltale consistent slope between 0% and 1%. each series of four consecutive test runs must illuminate only when a S6.2.4 J-Turn Test Maneuver Test conducted at the same entrance speed as malfunction exists and must remain Course. The test course for the J-Turn part of the test procedure to determine continuously illuminated for as long as test maneuver is used for the Reference the Preliminary Reference Speed and the malfunction exists, whenever the Speed Test in S7.7.1, the Engine Torque the Reference Speed (see S7.7.1), the ignition locking system is in the ‘‘On’’ Reduction Test in S7.7.2, and the Roll wheels of the truck tractor or bus must (‘‘Run’’) position. Stability Control Test in S7.7.3.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:37 Jun 22, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00058 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\23JNR2.SGM 23JNR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 120 / Tuesday, June 23, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 36107

S6.2.4.1 The test course consists of a straight section and is 4.3 meters (14 S6.2.4.4 Figure 1 shows the test straight entrance lane with a length of feet) for the curved section. course with the curved lane section 22.9 meters (75 feet) tangentially S6.2.4.3 The start gate is the tangent configured in the counter-clockwise connected to a curved lane section with point on the radius (the intersection of steering direction relative to the a radius of 45.7 meters (150 feet) the straight lane and the curved lane entrance lane. The course is also arranged with the curved lane section measured from the center of the lane. sections) and is designated as zero configured in the clockwise steering S6.2.4.2 For truck tractors, the lane degrees of radius of arc angle. The end direction relative to the entrance lane. width of the test course is 3.7 meters (12 gate is the point on the radius that is 120 The cones depicted in Figure 1 defining feet). For buses, the lane width of the degrees of radius arc angle measured the lane width are positioned solely for test course is 3.7 meters (12 feet) for the from the tangent point. illustrative purposes.

S6.3 Vehicle Conditions. bus is loaded with test driver, test any axle being exceeded or the GVWR S6.3.1 The ESC system is enabled for instrumentation, outriggers (see S6.3.6), of the bus being exceeded, simulated all testing, except for the ESC ballast, and a simulated occupant in occupant loads are removed until the malfunction test (see S7.8). each of the vehicle’s designated seating vehicle’s GVWR and all axles’ GAWR S6.3.2 All vehicle openings (doors, positions. The simulated occupant loads are no longer exceeded. windows, hood, trunk, cargo doors, etc.) are attained by securing 68 kilograms S6.3.4 Transmission and Brake are in a closed position except as (150 pounds) of ballast in each of the Controls. The transmission selector required for instrumentation purposes. test vehicle’s designated seating control is in a forward gear during all S6.3.3 Test Weight. positions. If the simulated occupant maneuvers. A vehicle equipped with an S6.3.3.1 Truck Tractors. A truck loads result in the bus being loaded to engine braking system that is engaged tractor is loaded to its GVWR by less than its GVWR, additional ballast is and disengaged by the driver is tested it to a control trailer (see added to the bus in the following with the system disengaged. S6.3.5). The tractor is loaded with the manner until the bus is loaded to its S6.3.5 Control Trailer. test driver, test instrumentation, and an GVWR without exceeding any axle’s S6.3.5.1 The control trailer is an anti-jackknife system (see S6.3.8). GAWR: First, ballast is added to the unbraked, flatbed semi-trailer that has a S6.3.3.2 Buses. A bus is loaded with lowest baggage compartment; second, single axle with a GAWR of 8,165 kg ballast (weight) to its GVWR to simulate ballast is added to the floor of the (18,000 lb.). The control trailer has a a multi-passenger and baggage passenger compartment. If the simulated length of at least 6,400 mm (252 inches), configuration. For this configuration the occupant loads result in the GAWR of but no more than 7,010 mm (276

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:37 Jun 22, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00059 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\23JNR2.SGM 23JNR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 ER23JN15.017 36108 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 120 / Tuesday, June 23, 2015 / Rules and Regulations

inches), when measured from the between 66 °C (150 °F) and 204 °C appropriate for a speed of 64 km/h (40 transverse centerline of the axle to the (400 °F). mph), make 500 snubs between 64 km/ centerline of the kingpin (the point S6.3.12 Thermocouples. The brake h (40 mph) and 32 km/h (20 mph) at a where the trailer attaches to the truck temperature is measured by plug-type deceleration rate of 0.3g, or at the tractor). At the manufacturer’s option, thermocouples installed in the vehicle’s maximum deceleration rate if truck tractors with four or more axles approximate center of the facing length less than 0.3g. After each brake may use a control trailer with a length and width of the most heavily loaded application accelerate to 64 km/h (40 of more than 7,010 mm (276 inches), but shoe or disc pad, one per brake. A mph) and maintain that speed until no more than 13,208 mm (520 inches) second thermocouple may be installed making the next brake application at a when measured from the transverse at the beginning of the test sequence if point 1.6 km (1.0 mile) from the initial centerline of the axle to the centerline the lining wear is expected to reach a point of the previous brake application. of the kingpin. point causing the first thermocouple to If the vehicle cannot attain a speed of 64 S6.3.5.2 The location of the center of contact the rubbing surface of a drum or km/h (40 mph) in 1.6 km (1.0 mile), gravity of the ballast on the control rotor. The second thermocouple is continue to accelerate until the vehicle trailer is directly above the kingpin. The installed at a depth of 0.080 inch and reaches 64 km/h (40 mph) or until the height of the center of gravity of the located within 1.0 inch vehicle has traveled 2.4 km (1.5 miles) ballast on the control trailer is less than circumferentially of the thermocouple from the initial point of the previous 610 mm (24 inches) above the top of the installed at 0.040 inch depth. For brake application, whichever occurs tractor’s fifth-wheel hitch (the area center-grooved shoes or pads, first. The brakes may be adjusted up to where the truck tractor attaches to the thermocouples are installed within three times during the burnish trailer). 0.125 inch to 0.250 inch of the groove procedure, at intervals specified by the S6.3.5.3 The control trailer is and as close to the center as possible. vehicle manufacturer, and may be equipped with outriggers (see S6.3.6). S6.4 Selection of Compliance Options. adjusted at the conclusion of the S6.3.5.4 A truck tractor is loaded to its Where manufacturer options are burnishing, in accordance with the GVWR by placing ballast (weight) on the specified, the manufacturer must select vehicle manufacturer’s control trailer which loads the tractor’s the option by the time it certifies the recommendation. non-steer axles. The control trailer is vehicle and may not thereafter select a S7.4.1.2 Prior to executing the loaded with ballast without exceeding different option for the vehicle. Each performance tests in S7.7, the brakes are the GAWR of the trailer axle. If the manufacturer shall, upon request from conditioned using 40 brake application tractor’s fifth-wheel hitch position is the National Highway Traffic Safety snubs from a speed of 64 km/h (40 mph) adjustable, the fifth-wheel hitch is Administration, provide information to a speed of 32 km/h (20 mph), with adjusted to proportionally distribute the regarding which of the compliance a target deceleration of approximately load on each of the tractor’s axle(s), options it has selected for a particular 0.3g. After each brake application, according to each axle’s GAWR, without vehicle or make/model. accelerate to 64 km/h (40 mph) and exceeding the GAWR of any axle(s). If S7 Test Procedure. S7.1 Tire Inflation. maintain that speed until making the the fifth-wheel hitch position cannot be Inflate the vehicle’s tires as specified in next brake application at a point 1.6 km adjusted to prevent the load from S6.3.7. (1.0 mile) from the initial point of the exceeding the GAWR of the tractor’s S7.2 Telltale Lamp Check. With the previous brake application. axle(s), the ballast is reduced until the vehicle stationary and the ignition S7.4.2 Brake Temperature. Prior to axle load is equal to or less than the locking system in the ‘‘Lock’’ or ‘‘Off’’ testing or any time during testing, if the GAWR of the tractor’s rear axle(s), position, activate the ignition locking hottest brake temperature is above ° ° maintaining load proportioning as close system to the ‘‘On’’ (‘‘Run’’) position or, 204 C (400 F) a cool down period is as possible to specified proportioning. where applicable, the appropriate performed until the hottest brake S6.3.6 Outriggers. Outriggers are used position for the lamp check. The ESC temperature is measured within the for testing each vehicle. The outriggers system must perform a check-of-lamp range of 66°C–204°C (150 °F–400 °F). are designed with a maximum weight of function for the ESC malfunction Prior to testing or any time during 1,134 kg (2,500 lb.), excluding mounting telltale, as specified in S5.4.3. testing, if the hottest brake temperature fixtures. S7.3 Tire Conditioning. Condition the is below 66°C (150 °F) individual brake S6.3.7 Tires. The tires are inflated to tires to wear away mold sheen and stops are repeated to increase any one the vehicle manufacturer’s specified achieve operating temperature brake temperature to within the target pressure for the GVWR of the vehicle. immediately before beginning the J-Turn temperature range of 66°C–204°C S6.3.8 Truck Tractor Anti-Jackknife test runs. The test vehicle is driven (150 °F–400 °F) before a test maneuver System. A truck tractor is equipped with around a circle 150 feet (46 meters) in is performed. an anti-jackknife system that allows a radius at a speed that produces a lateral S7.5 Mass Estimation Cycle. Perform minimum articulation angle of 30 acceleration of approximately 0.1g for the mass estimation procedure for the degrees between the tractor and the two clockwise laps followed by two ESC system according to the control trailer. counterclockwise laps. manufacturer’s instructions. This S6.3.9 Special Drive Conditions. A S7.4 Brake Conditioning and procedure will be repeated if an ignition vehicle equipped with an interlocking Temperature. Conditioning and warm- cycle occurs or is needed at any time axle system or a front wheel drive up of the vehicle brakes are completed between the initiation and completion system that is engaged and disengaged before and monitored during the of S7.7. by the driver is tested with the system execution of the J-Turn test maneuver. S7.6 ESC System Malfunction Check. disengaged. S7.4.1 Brake Conditioning. Condition Check that the ESC system is enabled by S6.3.10 Liftable Axles. A vehicle with the brakes in accordance with S7.4.1.1 ensuring that the ESC malfunction one or more liftable axles is tested with and S7.4.1.2. telltale is not illuminated. the liftable axles down. S7.4.1.1 Prior to executing the J-Turn S7.7 J-Turn Test Maneuver. The truck S6.3.11 Initial Brake Temperature. test maneuver, the vehicle’s brakes are tractor or bus is subjected to multiple The initial brake temperature of the burnished as follows: With the series of test runs using the J-Turn test hottest brake for any performance test is transmission in the highest gear maneuver. The truck tractor or bus

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:37 Jun 22, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00060 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\23JNR2.SGM 23JNR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 120 / Tuesday, June 23, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 36109

travels through the course by driving of each series conducted at the same (400 °F). If the hottest brake temperature down the entrance lane, crossing the entrance speed (within ±1.6 km/h (±1.0 is not between 66 °C (150 °F) and 204 start gate at the designated entrance mph)). The Reference Speed is °C (400 °F), the brake temperature is speed, turning through the curved lane determined for each direction: adjusted in accordance with S7.4.2. section, and crossing the end gate, while clockwise steering and counter- S7.7.3.2 During each test run, the the driver attempts to keep all of the clockwise steering. If ESC service brake driver will release the accelerator pedal wheels of the truck tractor or bus within application does not occur during at after the ESC system has slowed vehicle the lane. least two test runs of either series, the by more than 4.8 km/h (3.0 mph) below S7.7.1 Reference Speed Test. The Preliminary Reference Speed is the entrance speed. vehicle is subjected to J-Turn test increased by 1.6 km/h (1.0 mph), and S7.7.3.3 The maximum test speed is maneuvers to determine the Reference the procedure in this section is the greater of 130 percent of the Speed for each steering direction. The repeated. Reference Speed (see S7.7.1.2) or 48 km/ Reference Speeds are used in S7.7.2 and S7.7.2 Engine Torque Reduction Test. h (30 mph). The maximum test speed is S7.7.3. The vehicle is subjected to two series of determined for each direction: S7.7.1.1 Preliminary Reference Speed test runs using the J-Turn test maneuver clockwise steering and counter- Determination. The vehicle is subjected at an entrance speed equal to the clockwise steering. to two series of test runs using the J- Reference Speed determined in S7.7.1.2. S7.7.3.4 For each series of Roll Turn test maneuver at increasing One series uses clockwise steering, and Stability Control test runs, the vehicle entrance speeds. One series uses the other series uses counter-clockwise will perform eight consecutive test runs clockwise steering, and the other series steering. Each series consists of four test at the same entrance speed, which is uses counterclockwise steering. The runs with the vehicle at an entrance any speed between 48 km/h (30 mph) entrance speed of a test run is the 0.5 speed equal to the Reference Speed and and the maximum test speed second average of the raw speed data the driver fully depressing the determined according to S7.7.3.3. prior to any ESC system activation of accelerator pedal from the time when S7.7.3.5 Upon completion of testing, the service brakes and rounded to the the vehicle crosses the start gate until post processing is done as specified in nearest 1.0 mph. During each test run, the vehicle reaches the end gate. ESC S7.9. the driver attempts to maintain the engine torque reduction is confirmed by S7.8 ESC Malfunction Detection. selected entrance speed throughout the comparing the engine torque output and S7.8.1 Simulate one or more ESC J-Turn test maneuver. For the first test driver requested torque data collected malfunction(s) by disconnecting the run of each series, the entrance speed is from the vehicle communication power source to any ESC component, or 32 km/h ± 1.6 km/h (20 mph ± 1.0 mph) network or CAN bus. During the initial disconnecting any electrical connection and is incremented 1.6 km/h (1.0 mph) stages of each maneuver the two torque between ESC components (with the for each subsequent test run until ESC signals with respect to time will parallel vehicle power off). When simulating an service brake application occurs or any each other. Upon ESC engine torque ESC malfunction, the electrical of the truck tractor’s or bus’s wheels reduction, the two signals will diverge connections for the telltale lamp(s) are departs the lane. The vehicle entrance when the ESC system causes a not disconnected. speed at which ESC service brake commanded engine torque reduction S7.8.2 With the vehicle initially application occurs is the Preliminary and the driver depresses the accelerator stationary and the ignition locking Reference Speed. The Preliminary pedal attempting to accelerate the system in the ‘‘Lock’’ or ‘‘Off’’ position, Reference Speed is determined for each vehicle. activate the ignition locking system to direction: Clockwise steering and S7.7.2.1 Perform two series of test the ‘‘Start’’ position and start the engine. counter-clockwise steering. During any runs using the J-Turn test maneuver at Place the vehicle in a forward gear and test run, if any of the wheels of the truck the Reference Speed determined in accelerate to 48 ± 8 km/h (30 ± 5 mph). tractor or bus depart the lane at any S7.7.1.2 (±1.6 km/h (±1.0 mph)). The Drive the vehicle for at least two point within the first 120 degrees of first series consists of four consecutive minutes including at least one left and radius arc angle, the test run is repeated test runs performed using counter- one right turning maneuver and at least at the same entrance speed. If any of the clockwise steering. The second series one service brake application. Verify wheels of the truck tractor or bus depart consists of four consecutive test runs that, within two minutes of attaining the lane again, then four consecutive performed using clockwise steering. this speed, the ESC malfunction test runs are repeated at the same During each test run, the driver fully indicator illuminates in accordance entrance speed (±1.6 km/h (±1.0 mph)). depresses the accelerator pedal from the with S5.4. S7.7.1.2 Reference Speed time when the vehicle crosses the start S7.8.3 Stop the vehicle, deactivate the Determination. Using the Preliminary gate until the vehicle reaches the end ignition locking system to the ‘‘Off’’ or Reference Speed determined in S7.7.1.1, gate. ‘‘Lock’’ position. After a five-minute perform two series of test runs using the S7.7.2.2 During each of the engine period, activate the vehicle’s ignition J-Turn test maneuver to determine the torque reduction test runs, verify the locking system to the ‘‘Start’’ position Reference Speed. The first series commanded engine torque and the and start the engine. Verify that the ESC consists of four consecutive test runs driver requested torque signals diverge malfunction indicator again illuminates performed using counter-clockwise according to the criteria specified in to signal a malfunction and remains steering. The second series consists of S5.3.2.1. illuminated as long as the engine is four consecutive test runs performed S7.7.3 Roll Stability Control Test. The running until the fault is corrected. using clockwise steering. During each vehicle is subjected to multiple series of S7.8.4 Deactivate the ignition locking test run, the driver attempts to maintain test runs using the J-Turn test maneuver system to the ‘‘Off’’ or ‘‘Lock’’ position. a speed equal to the Preliminary in both the clockwise and the counter- Restore the ESC system to normal Reference Speed throughout the J-Turn clockwise direction. operation, activate the ignition system test maneuver. The Reference Speed is S7.7.3.1 Before each test run, the to the ‘‘Start’’ position and start the the minimum entrance speed at which brake temperatures are monitored and engine. Verify that the telltale has ESC service brake application occurs for the hottest brake is confirmed to be extinguished. at least two of four consecutive test runs between 66 °C (150 °F) and 204 °C S7.9 Post Data Processing.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:37 Jun 22, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00061 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\23JNR2.SGM 23JNR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 36110 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 120 / Tuesday, June 23, 2015 / Rules and Regulations

S7.9.1 Raw vehicle speed data is instant the center of the front tires of the kilograms (33,000 pounds) filtered with a 0.1 second running vehicle reach the start gate, the line manufactured on or after June 24, 2018 average filter. within the lane at zero degrees of radius must comply with this standard. S7.9.2 The torque data collected from arc angle. The completion of the S8.1.2 All buses manufactured on or the vehicle communication network or maneuver occurs at the instant the after August 1, 2019 must comply with CAN bus as a digital signal does not get center of the front tires of the vehicle this standard. filtered. The torque data collected from reach the end gate, which is the line the vehicle communication network or within the lane at 120 degrees of radius S8.2 Trucks. CAN bus as an analog signal is filtered arc angle. S8.2.1 All three-axle truck tractors with a 0.1-second running average. S7.9.5 Raw service brake pressure with a front axle that has a GAWR of S7.9.3 The activation point of the ESC measurements are zeroed (calibrated). 6,622 kilograms (14,600 pounds) or less engine torque reduction is the point Zeroed brake pressure data are filtered and with two rear drive axles that have where the measured driver demanded with 0.1 second running average filters. a combined GAWR of 20,412 kilograms torque and the engine torque first begin Zeroed and filtered brake pressure data (45,000 pounds) or less manufactured to deviate from one another (engine are dynamically offset corrected using a on or after August 1, 2017 must comply torque decreases while the driver defined ‘‘zeroed range’’. The ‘‘zeroing with this standard. requested torque increases) during the range’’ is defined as the 0.5 second time S8.2.2 All truck tractors manufactured Engine Torque Reduction Test. The period prior to ‘‘time zero’’ defined in on or after August 1, 2019 must comply torque values are obtained directly from S7.9.4. with this standard. the vehicle communication network or S8 Compliance Dates. Vehicles that CAN bus. Torque values used to are subject to this standard must meet Issued on June 3, 2015, in Washington, DC, determine the activation point of the the requirements of this standard under authority delegated in 49 CFR 1.95 and 501.5. ESC engine torque reduction are according to the implementation interpolated. schedule set forth in S8. Mark R. Rosekind, S7.9.4 The time measurement for the S8.1 Buses. Administrator. J-Turn test maneuver is referenced to S8.1.1 All buses with a gross vehicle [FR Doc. 2015–14127 Filed 6–22–15; 8:45 am] ‘‘time zero’’, which is defined as the weight rating of greater than 14,969 BILLING CODE 4910–59–P

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:37 Jun 22, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00062 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\23JNR2.SGM 23JNR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2