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 Steering 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. Tires RIN 2127–AK97 Administration, 1200 New Jersey J. Mass Estimation Drive Cycle Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. K. Brake 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 Chassis 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 wheels 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., wheel 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 brakes, 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.