Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Electronic Stability Control Systems |
|---|
Topics: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards
|
David L. Strickland
Federal Register
September 9, 2011
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 175 (Friday, September 9, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 55829-55833]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-23092]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
49 CFR Part 571
[Docket No. NHTSA-2011-0140]
RIN 2127-AL02
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Electronic Stability
Control Systems
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation.
ACTION: Final rule; response to petition for reconsideration.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document responds to a petition for reconsideration of a
September 2008 final rule that made changes to a new Federal motor
vehicle safety standard requiring light vehicles to be equipped with
electronic stability control systems. In that final rule, the agency
stated that it had previously fulfilled the obligations of the United
States with respect to initiating rulemaking with respect to the global
technical regulation for electronic stability control and had adopted
the regulation to the extent appropriate. The petition for
reconsideration identified three areas of the present text of the
electronic stability control standard that are not, in the petitioner's
view, harmonized with the global technical regulation. After
considering the petition, the agency is granting the petition in part
and amending slightly the test procedures of the standard and is
otherwise denying the petition.
DATES: This final rule is effective October 11, 2011.
Petitions for reconsideration must be received not later than
October 24, 2011.
ADDRESSES: Petitions for reconsideration should refer to the docket
number and must be submitted to: Administrator, National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington,
DC 20590.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical issues, you may contact
John Lee, Office of Crash Avoidance Standards, by telephone at (202)
366-4924, and by fax at (202) 366-7002.
For legal issues, you may contact David Jasinski, Office of the
Chief Counsel, by telephone at (202) 366-2992, and by fax at (202) 366-
3820.
You may send mail to both of these officials at the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE.,
Washington, DC 20590.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Background of the ESC Regulation
A. Benefits of ESC
B. ESC Final Rule
C. September 2008 Amendment
II. GTR and Petition for Reconsideration
A. Global Technical Regulation
B. Alliance's Petition for Reconsideration
III. Discussion and Analysis of Petition
A. ESC Control Identification
B. Two-Part Telltales
C. Lightweight Outriggers
D. Effective Date
IV. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
V. Regulatory Text
I. Background of the ESC Regulation
A. Benefits of ESC
Electronic stability control (ESC) systems use automatic computer-
controlled braking of individual wheels to assist the driver in
maintaining control in critical driving situations in which the vehicle
is beginning to lose directional stability at the rear wheels (spin
out) or directional control at the front wheels (plow out). NHTSA's
crash data study of existing vehicles equipped with ESC demonstrated
that these systems reduce fatal single-vehicle crashes of passenger
cars by 55 percent and fatal single-vehicle crashes of light trucks and
vans (LTVs) by 50 percent.\1\ NHTSA estimates that ESC has the
potential to prevent 56 percent of the fatal passenger car rollovers
and 74 percent of the fatal LTV first-event rollovers that would
otherwise occur in single-vehicle crashes.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Sivinski, R., Crash Prevention Effectiveness of Light-
Vehicle Electronic Stability Control: An Update of the 2007 NHTSA
Evaluation; DOT HS 811 486 (June 2011).
\2\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. ESC Final Rule
On April 6, 2007, NHTSA published a final rule establishing Federal
Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 126, Electronic Stability
Control Systems, which sets forth requirements for ESC systems on new
light vehicles.\3\ FMVSS No. 126 contains performance requirements that
include both definitional and dynamic testing elements. These elements
together ensure that ESC systems intervene properly to limit oversteer
and understeer in order to provide the level of yaw (directional)
stability associated with the high level of safety benefits observed in
crash data studies of ESC-equipped vehicles. NHTSA adopted a phase-in
schedule to implement this requirement such that all light vehicles
manufactured on or after September 1,
[[Page 55830]]
2011 must be equipped with a complying ESC system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ 72 FR 17236. Docket No. NHTSA-2007-27662, item 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FMVSS No. 126 also requires a standardized set of ESC telltales and
controls. However, compliance with the telltale and control
requirements was deferred until the end of the phase-in period. NHTSA
concluded that it was not practicable to implement the telltale and
control requirements under the phase-in schedule and was unwilling to
delay the phase-in and the expected safety benefits for this reason
alone. Accordingly, the provisions in FMVSS No. 126 dealing with
telltales and controls are prefaced by the phrase ``as of September 1,
2011.''
C. September 2008 Amendment
We received four petitions for reconsideration of the April 2007
final rule. Among the issues raised in the petitions were ones
involving details of the requirements for controls and telltales. On
September 22, 2008, we published a final rule (September 2008
reconsideration rule) that granted in part and denied in part the
petitions.\4\ Three of the issues we addressed are pertinent to the
issues discussed in this petition for reconsideration of that rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ 73 FR 54526, Docket No. NHTSA-2008-0068, item 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
First, we granted a petition by Porsche Cars North America, Inc.
(Porsche) to allow two-part ``ESC Off'' telltales. The April 2007 final
rule required both an ESC malfunction telltale identified by the ISO
symbol for ESC or the abbreviation ``ESC'' and a second telltale to
identify when an ESC system has been turned off by the driver. The
second telltale was required to be identified by the ISO symbol for ESC
with the word ``Off'' below it or by the words ``ESC Off.'' We
considered allowing a two-part telltale in the April 2007 final rule,
but decided against doing so because we thought that allowing a partial
telltale would have created a conflict with the requirement that the
ESC Off status be indicated by the ESC Off telltale whenever the driver
has manually disabled the ESC system and that an ESC malfunction be
indicated separately by the ESC malfunction telltale when an ESC
malfunction occurs at the same time.
Porsche petitioned for reconsideration of the April 2007 final
rule, stating that its ESC system is designed in a manner such that, in
the rare case in which an ESC malfunction occurs after the system has
been manually disabled, the system automatically disables the manual
control functionality and extinguishes the word ``Off' while continuing
to illuminate the ESC symbol or abbreviation, thereby indicating the
malfunction. Upon reconsideration, NHTSA decided to allow for a two-
part telltale rather than requiring manufacturers to maintain separate
telltales for ESC malfunction and ``ESC Off.'' In the September 2008
final rule, we explained that, if an ESC malfunction occurs after a
driver has disabled ESC, requiring that both telltales illuminate at
the same time, both telltales would communicate the same message to the
driver: That the ESC functionality has been reduced or eliminated.
Also, we noted our belief that it would be rare for an ESC system to
malfunction after it has been manually disabled. Because of that, we
believe that requiring both messages to display simultaneously is not
necessary for safety. Accordingly, we amended S5.3.3 of FMVSS No. 126
to allow for a two-part ``ESC Off'' telltale.
Second, we received a petition from the Alliance of Automobile
Manufacturers (Alliance) and the Association of International
Automobile Manufacturers \5\ seeking clarification that an ESC Off
control could be included in a multi-function control that could be
used to turn ESC off or on and could also be used to turn traction
control off and to select an ESC ``performance mode'' would not be
prohibited by FMVSS No. 126. We consider a multi-function control to be
a switch or button that combines several functions. As provided by
S5.4.3 (formerly S5.4.2),\6\ an ESC control whose only purpose is to
disable the ESC system or place it in a mode or modes in which it no
longer satisfies the performance requirements must be labeled either
with the ESC symbol plus the word ``Off'' or the phrase ``ESC Off.''
Paragraph S5.4.4 (formerly S5.4.3) creates an exception for a control
used primarily for another function, such as a four-wheel drive low-
range transfer case, that does not control the ESC system directly but
has the ancillary effect of placing the ESC system in a mode that no
longer satisfies the performance requirement. We agreed that a multi-
function control was permissible, and we clarified S5.4.4 accordingly.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ The Association of International Automobile Manufacturers is
now known as Global Automakers.
\6\ The September 2008 final rule redesignated S5.4.2 and S5.4.3
as S5.4.3 and S5.4.4 respectively. See 73 FR 54542. For the sake of
simplicity, we will refer to the paragraph designations as they
exist now throughout this document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Third, the petition also raised the issue of the identification of
multi-function controls and provided an example of a rotary multi-mode
control, which is shown in Figure 1 below. We stated that an ESC Off
control, regardless of whether it is contained in a multifunction
control, must be labeled ``ESC Off.'' In the case of the example
provided in Figure 1, we stated that such a control would not be
permissible. In explaining that conclusion, we noted that the ``ESC
Off'' label was not adjacent to the control because a lamp was located
between the two, and that the control could be made to comply with
FMVSS No. 101 by moving the lamp to the right side of the label.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR09SE11.015
[[Page 55831]]
II. GTR and Petition for Reconsideration
A. Global Technical Regulation
The April 2007 final rule described NHTSA's intent to begin formal
work to develop a global technical regulation (GTR) on ESC in that
year. Over the course of several meetings of the United Nations'
Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) World Forum for the
Harmonization of Vehicle Regulations (WP.29) during 2007 and 2008, the
agency participated in successful efforts that culminated in the
establishment of the ESC GTR (GTR No. 8) under the 1998 Global
Agreement.\7\ The U.S., as a Contracting Party of the 1998 Agreement
that voted in favor of establishing this GTR, is obligated under the
Agreement to initiate the process for adopting the provisions of the
GTR.\8\ We stated that the September 2008 reconsideration rule
fulfilled the obligation of the U.S. to initiate that process because
the regulatory text of the April 2007 final rule, as amended by the
September 2008 reconsideration rule, is consistent with that of GTR No.
8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Although commonly referred to as the 1998 Global Agreement,
this provision is more formally titled the ``1998 Agreement
Concerning the Establishing of Global Technical Regulations for
Wheeled Vehicles, Equipment and Parts which can be Fitted and/or be
Used on Wheeled Vehicles.''
\8\ While the 1998 Agreement obligates such Contracting Parties
to initiate rulemaking within one year of the establishment of the
GTR, it leaves the ultimate decision of whether to adopt the GTR
into their domestic law to the parties themselves.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Alliance's Petition for Reconsideration
We received one petition for reconsideration of the September 2008
reconsideration rule from the Alliance. The petition identified three
areas in which the Alliance believes there are inconsistencies between
FMVSS No. 126 and GTR No. 8.\9\ The Alliance also provided a follow-up
letter recommending specific regulatory language to address one of the
issues raised in its petition.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Docket No. NHTSA-2008-0068, item 2.
\10\ Docket No. NHTSA-2008-0068, item 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
First, the Alliance stated that the provisions of FMVSS No. 126 and
the corresponding part of the table of controls, telltales, and
indicators in FMVSS No. 101 related to the labeling of multi-function
controls is not consistent with GTR No. 8. Second, the Alliance stated
that NHTSA did not amend all of the necessary provisions to allow for a
two-part telltale. Third, the Alliance stated that, unlike GTR No. 8,
FMVSS No. 126 does not allow for the use of light weight outriggers for
testing vehicles weighing less than 1,588 kg (3,500 lbs.). The
Alliance's discussion of these issues and our response is described in
detail in the next section.
III. Discussion and Analysis of Petition
A. ESC Control Identification
As amended by the September 2008 reconsideration rule, S5.4 of
FMVSS No. 126 allows for the use of multi-function controls to place
the ESC system in a noncompliant mode and for the use of controls for
other systems that have the ancillary effect of placing the ESC system
in a noncompliant mode. Pursuant to S5.4.4, a control for a system that
has the ancillary effect of placing the ESC system in a noncompliant
mode need not be labeled with an ``ESC Off'' identifier. No such
exclusion exists for a multi-function control. Thus, a multi-function
control that can be used to place the ESC system in a noncompliant mode
must be labeled with the ``ESC Off'' identifier.
GTR No. 8 also excludes controls for a system that has the
ancillary effect of placing the ESC system in a noncompliant mode from
the requirement that the control be labeled with the ``ESC Off''
identifier. However, GTR No. 8 has two additional provisions that are
not found in FMVSS No. 126 related to two types of multi-function
controls. First, GTR No. 8 requires that a control for a multi-mode ESC
system, with at least one noncompliant mode, be identified with the
``ESC'' symbol with the text ``OFF'' adjacent to the control position
for a noncompliant mode. Second, where an ESC system is controlled by a
multi-functional control associated with a multi-task display, the
control itself is not required to be identified with the ``ESC Off''
identifier, but the driver display is required to identify clearly to
the driver the control position for a noncompliant mode with the ``ESC
Off'' identifier. The Alliance petitioned the agency to incorporate
these two provisions into FMVSS No. 126 to achieve harmonization.
We are denying the portion of the Alliance's petition seeking
amendment to ESC control identification. We believe that the ESC
control identification provisions of FMVSS No. 126 fully implement the
provisions of GTR No. 8, and that no further amendment is necessary to
achieve harmonization. We address our reasons with respect to each of
the two types of multi-function controls below.
First, regarding multi-function ESC controls, such as the example
in Figure 1, that include at least one function designed to place the
ESC system in a mode or modes that would no longer satisfy the
performance requirements of S5.2.1, S5.2.2, and S5.2.3 of FMVSS No.
126, we addressed such a control in the September 2008 reconsideration
rule. We stated that the example set forth in Figure 1 would not
satisfy the requirement that the ``ESC Off'' label (the ``identifier'')
be adjacent to the control that it identifies because the telltale lamp
is located between the two. The definition of ``adjacent'', as set
forth in S4 of FMVSS No. 101, requires that the identifier of a control
be both in close proximity to the control and that no other control,
telltale, indicator, identifier, or source of illumination appear
between the identifier and the control. We suggested that this problem
could be solved by moving the lamp to the other side of the label. If
the lamp was moved to the other side of the label, the identifier ``ESC
Off'' would be adjacent to the ``ESC Off'' control.
The Alliance contends that adopting the language of the GTR would
accommodate the specific control set forth in Figure 1. However, even
if we made the amendment suggested by the Alliance, the example set
forth in Figure 1 would not meet the requirements of FMVSS No. 101
because a source of illumination would be located between the control
and the identifiers of the various control positions. That is, the
Alliance's concern with respect to the example control in Figure 1 is
not with harmonization, but with the requirements of FMVSS No. 101.
FMVSS No. 101 generally requires that the identifiers of the various
control positions be adjacent to the control. Otherwise, there would be
nothing to prohibit the identifiers of the various control positions
from being located in a remote location.
Although the Alliance contends that the language of GTR No. 8 would
also accommodate a push-button control that must be pressed repeatedly
in order to cycle through multiple functions, we find nothing in the
text of GTR No. 8 or the amendments suggested by the Alliance that
would allow any control other than one similar to that set forth in
Figure 1. However, if the control depicted in Figure 1 were operated by
pushing the control rather than turning it, we again note that such a
control would be permissible if the lamp was moved to the other side of
the label.
The Alliance has offered no compelling justification for changing
our position set forth in the September 2008 reconsideration rule that
controls similar to the one depicted in Figure 1 would be allowed
simply by moving the lamp to the other side of the label to comply with
FMVSS No. 101. Therefore, we do not believe the
[[Page 55832]]
Alliance's suggested amendment to accommodate multi-function controls
is necessary to harmonize FMVSS No. 126 with GTR No. 8.
Second, regarding ESC controls incorporated into multi-function
controls with associated multi-task display, we do not believe any
regulatory amendment is necessary to accommodate such controls. There
is a general requirement, set forth in S5.1.3 of FMVSS No. 101, that
the identification of controls must be placed on or adjacent to
controls, and this general requirement is applicable to ``ESC Off''
controls. However, S5.1.4 of FMVSS No. 101 sets forth an exception to
this general requirement for multi-function controls associated with a
multi-task display. Such controls must meet the following five
requirements set forth in that section:
The control must be visible to the driver under defined
conditions.
The display must identify the control with which it is
associated graphically or using words.
If the control has layers, the top-most layer must
identify which control is possible from the associated multi-function
control.
The controls identified in Table 1 and Table 2 of FMVSS
No. 101 (which includes ``ESC Off'') must use the identification
specified in the table whenever those functions are the active function
of the control.
Associated displays may not display telltales listed in
Table 1 or Table 2 (which includes ``ESC Off'').
An ``ESC Off'' control may be included in a multi-function control
with an associated multi-task display, provided it meets the
requirements of S5.1.4 of FMVSS No. 101. We acknowledge that preamble
language in the September 2008 reconsideration rule suggested that
controls used to navigate through multiple functions (including ESC
Off) displayed in an information center must be labeled with ``ESC
Off.'' We did not intend that statement to apply to multi-function
controls with an associated multi-task display allowed by FMVSS No.
101. We find nothing in the text of FMVSS No. 126 that would exclude
``ESC Off'' controls from being included in such a multi-function
control with an associated multi-task display permitted by FMVSS No.
101. Accordingly, no amendment is necessary to accommodate such
controls.
B. Two-Part Telltales
The Alliance acknowledged NHTSA's allowance of a two-part telltale
in the September 2008 final rule. However, the Alliance stated that,
although NHTSA amended S5.3.3 of FMVSS No. 126 to allow for a two-part
telltale, S5.5.2 was not modified and could be read to prohibit the use
of a two-part telltale.
As set forth in the April 2007 final rule, S5.5.2 requires that the
``ESC Off'' telltale be identified by the symbol for ``ESC Off'' or the
text ``ESC OFF.'' The Alliance noted that GTR No. 8 requires the
telltale to be identified with the symbol for ``ESC Off,'' the text
``ESC OFF,'' or the word ``OFF'' on or adjacent to either the ESC Off
control or the ESC malfunction telltale. The Alliance requested that
NHTSA amend S5.5.2 to incorporate all of the provisions related to two-
part telltales as provided in GTR No. 8.
We are denying the Alliance's petition to amend S5.5.2 because we
do not agree that S5.5.2 could be read to prohibit the use of two-part
telltales. A two-part telltale is, by definition, the addition of the
word ``OFF'' adjacent to the ESC malfunction telltale. The acceptable
``ESC Off'' telltales listed in S5.5.2 include the ``ESC Off'' symbol
or the text ``ESC OFF.'' Both the ``ESC Off'' symbol and the text ``ESC
OFF'' place the word ``OFF'' adjacent to what would be considered an
appropriate ESC malfunction telltale. Accordingly, S5.5.2 does not
prohibit the use of two-part telltales.
Furthermore, the Alliance's requested language, which provides that
the word ``OFF'' on or adjacent to the control referred to in S5.4 of
FMVSS No. 126 (the ``ESC Off'' control) would be an allowed ``ESC Off''
telltale, is problematic. We cannot discern how the word ``OFF'' on or
adjacent to a control would, by itself, constitute a two-part telltale.
As noted above, a two-part telltale places the word ``OFF'' adjacent to
the illuminated ESC malfunction telltale. The word ``OFF'' adjacent to
the control would only constitute a two-part telltale if the control
itself included the illuminating ESC malfunction telltale. Thus, by
being adjacent to the control, the word ``OFF'' would also be adjacent
to the telltale. But such a control would not be a two-part telltale
because the word ``OFF'' was next to the control; rather, it would be a
two-part telltale because the word ``OFF'' was adjacent to the
illuminated ESC malfunction telltale. The agency is unaware of any such
design. Accordingly, it is not necessary to accommodate two-part
telltales or achieve harmonization to include language stating that the
word ``OFF'' on or adjacent to the control referred to the ``ESC Off''
control would be an allowed ``ESC Off'' telltale.
C. Lightweight Outriggers
The Alliance's petition for reconsideration also noted an
inconsistency between FMVSS No. 126 and GTR No. 8 regarding the use of
outriggers for testing light weight vehicles weighing less than 1,588
kg (3,500 lb). Specifically, GTR No. 8 specifies three sizes of
outriggers depending on the weight of the vehicle, while FMVSS No. 126
only specifies two sizes of outriggers. The Alliance noted that
European and Asian markets have a larger proportion of light weight
vehicles than the United States market. However, the Alliance also
cited recent increases in fuel prices and demand by consumers for
smaller vehicles. The Alliance noted in its petition that there is at
least one sport-utility vehicle that weighs less than 1,588 kg (3,500
lb). The Alliance predicted that, with increasing fuel costs, it is
likely that the United States vehicle fleet, including light trucks,
will shift to lighter weight vehicles, and that it would be necessary
to evaluate these smaller vehicles with the light weight outrigger.
The testing procedures for FMVSS No. 126 specify that trucks,
multipurpose passenger vehicles, and buses are equipped with outriggers
when tested. Passenger cars need not be tested with outriggers.
Therefore, the Alliance's suggested change to FMVSS No. 126 would only
apply to lightweight trucks, multipurpose passenger vehicles, and buses
under 1,588 kg (3,500 lb) baseline weight.
The Alliance correctly noted in its petition that GTR No. 8 and
FMVSS No. 126 differ in their specifications for outriggers on vehicles
weighing less than 1,588 kg (3,500 lb). While FMVSS No. 126 specifies
the use of a standard outrigger for all vehicles with a baseline weight
under 2,722 kg (6,000 lb), GTR No. 8 specifies the use of a standard
outrigger for vehicles weighing between 1,588 kg (3,500 lb) and 2,722
kg (6,000 lb) and a light outrigger for vehicles weighing less than
1,588 kg (3,500 lb). FMVSS No. 126 does not specify the use of
lightweight outriggers for testing trucks, multipurpose passenger
vehicles, or buses.
NHTSA grants the Alliance's petition with regard to the use of
light outriggers on lightweight trucks, multipurpose passenger
vehicles, and buses. Although there are presently only a few trucks
with baseline weights of 1,588 kg (3,500 lb) or below, there is a
possibility that production of lightweight trucks may increase in the
future. To achieve accuracy of testing of these lightweight vehicles
and to promote driver safety, NHTSA is amending S6.3.4 to include
[[Page 55833]]
the use of lightweight outriggers for vehicles with a baseline weight
of less than 1,588 kg (3,500 lb). This amendment has the effect of
harmonizing the provisions of FMVSS No. 126 related to the use of
outriggers in testing with those of GTR No. 8.
D. Effective Date
Section 30111(d) of title 49, United States Code, provides that a
Federal motor vehicle safety standard may not become effective before
the 180th day after the standard is prescribed or later than one year
after it is prescribed except when a different effective date is, for
good cause shown, in the public interest. This rule makes amendments to
regulatory provisions that are subject to phase-in and delayed
effective dates that were set forth in the April 2007 final rule. These
amendments do not impose new requirements on manufacturers, but instead
change the outriggers the agency uses during compliance testing of a
very small number of vehicles to increase the testing accuracy.
Therefore, good cause exists for these amendments to be made effective
before the 180th day after issuance of this final rule.
IV. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
We have considered the impact of this rulemaking action under
Executive Order 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and Review,'' Executive
Order 13563, ``Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review,'' and the
Department of Transportation's regulatory policies and procedures. This
rulemaking document was not reviewed by the Office of Management and
Budget under those two Executive Orders. This rule makes several minor
changes to the regulatory text of FMVSS No. 126, and does not increase
the regulatory burden of manufacturers. It has been determined to be
not ``significant'' under Executive Order 12866 and the Department of
Transportation's regulatory policies and procedures.
The agency has discussed the relevant requirements of the Vehicle
Safety Act, the Regulatory Flexibility Act, Executive Order 13132
(Federalism), Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform), Executive
Order 13045 (Protection of Children from Environmental Health and
Safety Risks), the Paperwork Reduction Act, the National Technology
Transfer and Advancement Act, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, and the
National Environmental Policy Act in the April 2007 final rule cited
above. Those discussions are not affected by these changes.
Privacy Act
Please note that any one is able to search the electronic form of
all documents received into any of our dockets by the name of the
individual submitting the document (or signing the document, if
submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.).
You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal
Register published on April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages
19477-78), or you may visit http://www.dot.gov/privacy.html.
V. Regulatory Text
List of Subjects in 49 CFR Parts 571
Imports, Motor vehicle safety, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Tires.
In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA amends 49 CFR part 571 as
follows:
PART 571--FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS
0
1. The authority citation for part 571 of Title 49 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117, and 30166;
delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.
0
2. In section 571.126, revise S6.3.4 to read as follows:
Sec. 571.126 Standard No. 126; Electronic stability control systems.
* * * * *
S6.3.4 Outriggers. Outriggers are used for testing trucks,
multipurpose passenger vehicles, and buses. Vehicles with a baseline
weight less than 1,588 kg (3,500 lbs) are equipped with ``light''
outriggers. Vehicles with a baseline weight equal to or greater than
1,588 kg (3,500 lbs) and less than 2,722 kg (6,000 lbs) are equipped
with ``standard'' outriggers. Vehicles with a baseline weight equal to
or greater than 2,722 kg (6,000 lbs) are equipped with ``heavy''
outriggers. A vehicle's baseline weight is the weight of the vehicle
delivered from the dealer, fully fueled, with a 73 kg (160 lb) driver.
Light outriggers are designed with a maximum weight of 27 kg (59.5 lb)
and a maximum roll moment of inertia of 27 kg-m\2\ (19.9 ft-lb-sec\2\).
Standard outriggers are designed with a maximum weight of 32 kg (70 lb)
and a maximum roll moment of inertia of 35.9 kg-m\2\ (26.5 ft-lb-
sec\2\). Heavy outriggers are designed with a maximum weight of 39 kg
(86 lb) and a maximum roll moment of inertia of 40.7 kg-m\2\ (30.0 ft-
lb-sec\2\).
* * * * *
Issued on: August 31, 2011.
David L. Strickland,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2011-23092 Filed 9-8-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P