Vol. 143, No. 11 — March 14, 2009

Regulations Amending the Motor Vehicle Safety Regulations (Electronic Stability Control Systems)

Statutory authority

Motor Vehicle Safety Act

Sponsoring department

Department of Transport

REGULATORY IMPACT ANALYSIS STATEMENT

(This statement is not part of the Regulations.)

Executive summary

Issue

This proposed amendment would modify Schedule IV of the Motor Vehicle Safety Regulations to introduce a new Canada Motor Vehicle Safety Standard, Standard 126, entitled “Electronic Stability Control Systems,” hereafter referred to as the Canadian safety standard 126. This proposed Canadian safety standard would require electronic stability control (ESC) systems on new light-duty vehicles (vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating of 4 536 kg or less) manufactured after August 31, 2011.

Implementation of this Canadian safety standard is expected to reduce the number of crashes in which the driver loses directional control of the vehicle. It is proposed that the Canadian safety standard be harmonized to the safety standard of the United States’ requirements pertaining to ESC. Harmonizing with United States standard would provide Canadians the benefits obtainable with ESC, and would remove any potential impediment to trade between the two countries.

Description

ESC is a technology designed primarily to assist the driver in maintaining control of a vehicle during emergency manoeuvres, such as swerving or braking suddenly to avoid an obstacle. ESC can also help the driver maintain control in such situations as when cornering on slippery surfaces. ESC works by monitoring, on a continuous basis, steering wheel activity and vehicle direction by utilizing wheel-speed, yaw rate and steering angle sensors. The ESC system works by automatically activating the brake on one or several wheels as needed to maintain vehicle control; in some cases, current ESC systems also reduce engine power simultaneously with the application of the brakes.

Recent studies, including those completed by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety and the US National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, estimate that ESC would reduce the number of fatal or serious crashes by 43% in the United States. Studies in Europe and Japan report reductions of 20% to 40% in the number of fatal crashes. ESC can prevent many types of crashes, but it is especially effective in preventing vehicle crashes that result from a loss of control. Analyses of Canadian crash data by the Department of Transport indicate that ESC could prevent approximately 29% of fatal and injury-causing crashes involving loss of control for light-duty vehicles. In 2006, it is estimated that loss of control resulted in the death of 768 vehicle occupants in Canada, as well as causing serious injuries to 2 578 vehicle occupants. The Department of Transport estimates that there would have been approximately 225 fewer deaths and 755 fewer people seriously injured on our roads if all light-duty vehicles had been fitted with ESC systems that year.

Since 2004, Canadian research and testing has shown that ESC improves the stability of vehicles in emergency avoidance manoeuvres. Various vehicles with proprietary variants of ESC systems were tested. As of April 2008, seventeen vehicles had been tested under two scenarios: a sudden lane change on a straight highway and a sudden increase in steering on a highway exit ramp. Testing is planned on five more vehicles by the end of 2008 and during winter 2009. Test results using the safety requirements of the United States have also shown that these requirements are effective since they demonstrated that vehicles fitted with ESC were significantly more stable than vehicles with this safety technology disabled. Thus, it demonstrated that most vehicles not fitted with ESC could not comply with the standard. Testing done on snow and on wet pavement also showed that ESC is effective under Canadian driving conditions.

On April 6, 2007, the United States adopted the new Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 126 for vehicle stability and control, entitled “Electronic Stability Control Systems,” which includes equipment and performance requirements, a phase-in schedule as well as the implementation of tell-tales for ESC systems. The standard of the United States requires a phase-in by which 55% of vehicles manufactured by each company on or after September 1, 2008, until August 31, 2009, inclusively, 75% of vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 2009, until August 31, 2010, inclusively, 95% of vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 2010, until August 31, 2011, inclusively, and 100% of vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 2011, must be equipped with an ESC system meeting the standard’s requirements.

The proposed Canadian safety standard 126 would require ESC on new vehicles, and would apply to passenger cars, multi-purpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses with a gross vehicle weight rating of 4 536 kg or less, manufactured on or after September 1, 2011. However, as in the standard of the United States, vehicles that are manufactured in two or more stages or that are altered will have one additional year to comply with the new Canadian safety standard 126. This proposed standard would harmonize its regulatory requirements governing ESC with those of the United States, (see footnote 1) which would be incorporated by reference through the use of a Technical Standards Document.

An ESC system would be defined in Technical Standards Document 126 as having the following attributes:

• Augments vehicle directional stability by applying and adjusting the vehicle brake torques individually to induce a correcting yaw moment to a vehicle;
• Is computer-controlled with the computer using a closed-loop algorithm to limit both vehicle oversteer and understeer;
• Has a means to determine the vehicle’s yaw rate and to estimate its side slip or side slip derivative with respect to time;
• Has a means to monitor driver steering inputs;
• Has an algorithm to determine the need, and a means to modify engine torque, as necessary, to assist the driver in maintaining control of the vehicle; and
• Is operational over the full speed range of the vehicle (except at vehicle speeds less than 20 km/h, when being driven in reverse, or during system initialization).

Furthermore, there are three main requirements within the proposed Regulations: equipment requirements, performance requirements and implementation of tell-tales.

Under the equipment requirements, an ESC system provided with a vehicle to which the Canadian safety standard 126 applies must:

• Be capable of applying brake torques individually to all four wheels and have a control algorithm that utilizes this capability;
• Be operational during all phases of driving including acceleration, coasting, and deceleration (including braking), except when the driver has disabled ESC, the vehicle speed is below 20 km/h, the vehicle is being driven in reverse, or during system initialization; and
• Remain capable of activation even if the antilock brake system (ABS) or traction control system is also activated.

The performance requirements are tested through the use of a Sine With Dwell steering manoeuvre test. This performance test simulates a sudden lane change. The Sine With Dwell test, which is conducted with a prescribed automated steering machine, provides consistent, repeatable results across the range of vehicles stipulated within the Canadian safety standard 126. The performance requirements contain two criteria: stability criterion and responsiveness criterion. The stability criterion ensures that the vehicle returns to control in a short period of time after the steering wheel is returned to the straight-ahead position. The responsiveness criterion stipulates a minimum vehicle lateral displacement and is necessary because a vehicle that responds very little to steering commands can show high stability in the performance test. Thus, the responsiveness criterion ensures, in conjunction with the stability criterion, that the vehicle reacts properly to steering inputs and remains in control.

An ESC system malfunction tell-tale that would remain illuminated if a malfunction occurred would be mandatory and must be mounted inside the occupant compartment in front of and in clear view of the driver.

In certain situations, there may be legitimate reasons to disengage the ESC system. These situations include when a vehicle is driven on a deformable surface such as mud or snow, or while driven with a compact spare tire or tire chains installed. Accordingly, vehicle manufacturers may include an ESC off control that places the ESC system in a mode in which it does not satisfy the performance requirements of the standard. If this control is included, it must be identified by a prescribed symbol in order to indicate properly to the driver that this control can deactivate the ESC. In addition, an “ESC OFF” tell-tale, as shown in the Canadian safety standard for tell-tales, must be used. To maintain harmonization with the United States and the global technical regulation for ESC systems, the English word “OFF” would be used in the control and tell-tale to ensure that the driver clearly understands that the ESC system has been deactivated. The word “OFF” has been acknowledged at the international level to be comprehensible by vehicle users worldwide. However, as per the Canadian safety standard, a description must be provided to consumers in the owner’s manual in English and French.

Regulatory and non-regulatory options considered

With regards to the safety benefits obtainable with ESC systems, a number of regulatory and non-regulatory options were considered to reduce the number of crashes in which the driver loses directional control of the vehicle as follows.

Status quo

At present, there is no federal Canadian requirement for light-duty vehicles to be equipped with an ESC system. As stated above, there are many international studies as well as the Canadian ESC effectiveness study showing that the effectiveness of ESC to reduce vehicle crashes involving loss of control is significant. With the introduction of the United States standard pertaining to ESC, and the global technical regulation for ESC, if no Canadian regulations or significantly different regulations are introduced, it could cause a potential impediment to trade if manufacturers chose to offer an ESC system that does not comply with the safety standard of the United States. More importantly, regulations would permit all Canadian motorists to benefit fully from ESC technology.

Public awareness campaign in conjunction with Regulations

In addition to the implementation of the Canadian safety standard, the Department of Transport identified the need to educate Canadians and raise awareness about the benefits of ESC. Therefore, in January 2007, the Department of Transport published a Web page on ESC available at www.tc.gc.ca/ESC. This Web page contains consumer-oriented information on the nature of ESC and its benefits, as well as a listing of vehicles fitted with an ESC system in Canada, and also indicates the Department of Transport’s position on ESC. The ESC Web page was updated in October 2008 and will continue to be updated as new information becomes available. The Department of Transport has also issued a media advisory on ESC dated March 10, 2008. Furthermore, the Department of Transport officials have been presenting their ESC research and findings to key stakeholders, including provincial and territorial governments, safety organizations, manufacturers, consumer-focused media and publishers. Several meetings have been held with these groups to discuss strategies for promoting ESC. Promotional materials for ESC have been developed and liaisons have been established with international organizations in an effort to raise public awareness of and demand for ESC. In this regard, the Department of Transport was actively involved in an ESC Media Event with its stakeholders, hosted by the Canadian Automobile Association and held in Toronto on October 30, 2008.

Introduce Regulations

Research and analysis within Canada show that the equipment and performance requirements prescribed in the safety standard of the United States are effective in discriminating vehicles fitted with an ESC system from vehicles not equipped with this safety technology. Harmonizing with the safety standard of the United States would facilitate regulatory acceptance by the industry, and would remove any potential impediment to trade and compliance between these countries. As such, it will facilitate the industry’s ability to import and export products by standardizing vehicle requirements and compliance testing, which in turn would offer a wider variety of vehicles fitted with an ESC system to Canadian consumers. Indeed, currently, more vehicles fitted with an ESC system are offered on the United States market than in Canada. As the number of vehicles fitted with ESC systems must increase in the United States to comply with the United States phase-in schedule, Canadian manufacturers will need to fit their product with ESC systems if they wish to continue exporting light-duty vehicles to the United States.

Most importantly, harmonizing with the safety standard of the United States would provide to Canadian road users the benefits obtainable from ESC safety systems. An estimated benefit/cost ratio of 3.9 demonstrates the potential of mandatory implementation of ESC on light-duty vehicles.

Benefits and costs

An assessment, based on motor vehicle collisions from 2000–2005, demonstrated that ESC had an estimated effectiveness of 29% on crashes involving loss of control with light-duty vehicles, if fatal and injury-causing crashes are taken as the base. Since there were 2 163 vehicle occupant fatalities in 2006 and over 35% of those are estimated to be loss-of-control crashes, approximately 225 lives could have been saved. This statistical study was done using an adjusted odds-ratio method, which takes into account various confounding variables. The statistical study and method of determining this effectiveness can be found in A Study of the Effectiveness of Electronic Stability Control in Canada, Transport Canada, 2008, Chouinard et al., to be published.

As demonstrated in Table 1, based on 2006 light-duty vehicle occupant fatalities at a statistical value to society of $6.11 million per fatality, the potential benefit to society is estimated at $1.375 billion for vehicle occupant fatalities involved in a loss of control. This number is considered conservative since it does not take into account the benefit to society from injuries prevented, reduction of cyclist and pedestrian fatalities and property damage. Furthermore, vehicles already fitted with ESC and ABS as optional equipment have not been included in the cost to industry. By comparing the estimated benefits to the cost of implementing ESC on all stipulated vehicles, as shown in Table 2, it is apparent that the benefit to society far outweighs the cost.

Table 1: Estimated potential benefit to society

	Car / light truck fatalities (vehicle occupants)	ESC effectiveness (adjusted odds-ratio)	Potential lives saved	Statistical value to society	Potential benefit to society
Loss of control 2006 data	768*	29.3%	225	$6.11M	$1.375B

* 2163 × 35.5% = 768

Table 2: Estimated cost to industry to add ESC

Vehicle sales – Canada, 2006	1.6M
Estimated cost of ESC for vehicles already equipped with ABS	$175 per vehicle
Estimated cost of ESC for vehicles not equipped with ABS	$525 per vehicle
Vehicles with ESC as standard equipment (2006 sales)	18%
Vehicles with ABS as standard equipment (2006 sales)	60%
Vehicles without ESC and ABS as standard equipment (2006 sales)*	22%
Cost = (1.6M × 60% × $175) + (1.6M × 22% × $525) = $353M
*Assuming no vehicle has ABS or ESC as optional equipment.

Vehicle crashes involved in loss of control: Benefit/Cost = $1.375B/$353M = 3.9

Consultation

The Department of Transport informs the automotive industry, public safety organizations and the general public when changes are planned to the Motor Vehicle Safety Regulations. This gives them the opportunity to comment on these changes by letter or email. The Department of Transport also consults regularly, in face-to-face meetings or teleconferences, with the automotive industry, public safety organizations, provinces and territories.

The Department of Transport has been researching and working with stakeholders on ESC for the past several years. Since 2007, the Department of Transport has had multiple meetings and exchange of letters with the two automotive manufacturing associations of Canada, the Association of International Automobile Manufacturers of Canada (see footnote 2) and the Canadian Vehicle Manufacturers’ Association, (see footnote 3) to present its research program, to introduce the regulatory plan, and to seek partners to promote ESC. Manufacturers are in agreement with the safety benefits of ESC and are encouraging the government to harmonize with the safety standard of the United States. However, because of the different fleet mixes between Canada and the United States, both associations indicated to the Department of Transport that the phase-in schedule of the United States was not fair for Canada. Thus, a Memorandum of Understanding was proposed by the Department of Transport to help increase market penetration of ESC in Canada before the effective date of September 1, 2011. The two associations subsequently signed a Letter of Commitment and a Letter of Agreement respectively that cover the introduction of ESC on vehicles manufactured for Canada between September 1, 2008, and the proposed date of introduction of the Canadian safety standard 126. This voluntary commitment by industry will permit the Department of Transport to monitor ESC fitment during this period and will benefit Canadians by providing information to consumers regarding which vehicles are fitted with ESC.

Specifically, the two associations have agreed to the following:

• For each Canadian vehicle for which there is an equivalent United States vehicle that complies with the safety standard of the United States, if ESC is offered as either standard or optional equipment on the United States vehicle, ESC will also be available as standard or optional on the Canadian vehicle;
• The associations will provide model by model information on whether ESC is fitted on a vehicle and whether it is standard or optional; and
• For each model year from 2007 to 2011 inclusive, the associations will report the level of ESC fitment (in percentages) for the vehicles manufactured for the Canadian market.

The associations have already reported that the level of fitment for model year 2007 was just over 33%. Based on this level, the Department of Transport is confident that Canadian fitment, averaged over the overall fleet, will rise in tandem with the fitment of United States fleet, and approach the percentages stipulated during the United States phase-in period.

In addition to the national level of development of ESC requirements, Canada has participated in the development of a global technical regulation for ESC, which was adopted in June 2008, under the auspices of the United Nations World Forum for Harmonization of Vehicle Regulations. The United States has incorporated the requirements of the ESC global technical regulation in its national regulations with the publication of amendments to its ESC safety standard on September 22, 2008. As a first step, and in order to fulfill Canada’s obligation towards the World Forum, this proposal introduces these amendments into Technical Standards Document 126. Thus, the Canadian regulation would be in alignment with the global technical regulation for ESC. The United Nations Economic Commission for Europe is currently incorporating the ESC global technical regulation in its Regulation No. 13-H. When incorporated, the Department of Transport will assess the need to introduce these requirements into the Canadian safety standard 126 as an alternative means of compliance.

Selected option and cooperation

The selected option is to implement Canadian safety standard 126 by introducing Technical Standards Document 126 that harmonizes Canadian requirements governing ESC with those of the United States. In parallel with the proposed amendment, the Department of Transport is promoting ESC to raise public awareness and demand for ESC. Furthermore, the Letters of Commitment/Agreement signed by the two automotive manufacturing associations will benefit Canadians by providing ESC fitment information to consumers for Canadian vehicles. This will assist Canadians to easily identify those vehicle models that are ESC equipped, which could help save their own lives as well as those of their passengers. It should be noted that if Canadians are unable to locate a vehicle model of their choice that is ESC-equipped within the Canadian market, they may wish to explore the Unites States market to see whether the desired ESC-equipped model is available. Under section 12 of the Motor Vehicle Safety Regulations, Canadians are permitted to import vehicles from the Unites States that are purchased at the retail level.

Implementation, enforcement and service standards

The requirements of Canadian safety standard 126 will be mandatory for applicable vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 2011. Applicable vehicles manufactured in two or more stages or that are altered must comply with the Canadian safety standard 126 on or after September 1, 2012.

Motor vehicle manufacturers and importers are responsible for ensuring that their products comply with the requirements of the Motor Vehicle Safety Regulations. The Department of Transport monitors self-certification programs of manufacturers and importers by reviewing their test documentation, inspecting vehicles, and testing vehicles obtained in the open market. When a defect is found, the manufacturer or importer must issue a notice of defect to owners and to the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities. If a vehicle does not comply with a safety standard, the manufacturer or importer is subject to prosecution and, if found guilty, may be fined as prescribed in the Motor Vehicle Safety Act.

Contact

Julie Deschatelets
Regulatory Development Engineer
Road Safety and Motor Vehicle Regulation Directorate
Transport Canada
275 Slater Street, 17th Floor
Ottawa, Ontario
K1A 0N5
Email: julie.deschatelets@tc.gc.ca

Please note: It is important that your submission be provided to the attention of the person noted above before the closing date. Submissions not sent directly to the person noted may not be considered as part of this regulatory proposal. Individual responses will not be sent to your submission. Any subsequent final regulation that is published in the Canada Gazette, Part II, would contain any changes that are made, along with a summary of the comments received. Please indicate in your submission if you do not wish to be identified or if you do not wish to have your comments published in the Canada Gazette, Part II.

PROPOSED REGULATORY TEXT

Notice is hereby given, pursuant to subsection 11(3) of the Motor Vehicle Safety Act (see footnote a), that the Governor in Council, pursuant to subsection 11(1) of that Act, proposes to make the annexed Regulations Amending the Motor Vehicle Safety Regulations (Electronic Stability Control Systems).

Interested persons may make representations with respect to the proposed Regulations to the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities within 75 days after the date of publication of this notice. All such representations must be in writing and cite the Canada Gazette, Part I, and the date of publication of this notice, and be sent to Julie Deschatelets, Regulatory Development Engineer, Road Safety and Motor Vehicle Regulation Directorate, Department of Transport, 17th Floor, 275 Slater Street, Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0N5 (email: julie.deschatelets@tc.gc.ca).

Ottawa, March 5, 2009

MARY PICHETTE
Assistant Clerk of the Privy Council

REGULATIONS AMENDING THE MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY REGULATIONS (ELECTRONIC STABILITY CONTROL SYSTEMS)

AMENDMENTS

1. Schedule III to the Motor Vehicle Safety Regulations (see footnote 4) is amended by adding the following after item 124:

Column I	Column II	Column III Classes of Vehicles
Item (CMVSS)	Description	Bus	Motorcycle
			Enclosed Motorcycle	Open Motorcycle	Limited-speed Motorcycle	Motor Tricycle
126	Electronic Stability Control Systems	X

Column I	Column II	Column III Classes of Vehicles
Item (CMVSS)	Description	Restricted-use Motorcycle	Multi-purpose Pas- senger Vehicle	Pas- senger Car	Snow-mobile	Snow-mobile Cutter	Trailer
126	Electronic Stability Control Systems		X	X

Column I	Column II	Column III Classes of Vehicule
Item (CMVSS)	Description	Trailer Converter Dolly	Truck	Vehicle Imported Temporarily for Special Purposes	Low-speed Vehicle	Three-wheeled Vehicle
126	Electronic Stability Control Systems		X

2. (1) Subsection 101(1) of Schedule IV to the Regulations is amended by striking out “and” at the end of paragraph (x), by adding “and” at the end of paragraph (y) and by adding the following after paragraph (y):

(z) the electronic stability control system off control.

(2) Subsection 101(2) of Schedule IV to the Regulations is amended by striking out “and” at the end of paragraph (u) and by adding the following after paragraph (v):

(w) an electronic stability control system malfunction; and

(x) the deactivation of the electronic stability control system.

(3) Subsection 101(5) of Schedule IV to the Regulations is amended by striking out “and” at the end of paragraph (k), by adding “and” at the end of paragraph (l) and by adding the following after paragraph (l):

(m) the electronic stability control system off control.

(4) The portion of subsection 101(7) of Schedule IV to the Regulations before paragraph (a) is replaced by the following:

(7) The identification in respect of each of the controls for the systems referred to in paragraphs (3)(a), (c) and (e) and (5)(a) to (c) and (f) to (m), other than an identification symbol in respect of a foot control, of a hand control that is mounted on the steering column, on the floor, on the floor console or in the windshield header area, or of a control for an air-conditioning and heating system that does not direct air directly onto the windshield, shall

(5) Subsection 101(9) of Schedule IV to the Regulations is amended by striking out “and” at the end of paragraph (n) and by adding the following after paragraph (o):

(p) the electronic stability control system malfunction tell-tale; and

(q) the electronic stability control system off tell-tale.

(6) The portion of subsection 101(14) of Schedule IV to the Regulations before paragraph (a) is replaced by the following:

(14) Except as provided in subsection (20) and in section S5.5.5 of Technical Standards Document No. 126, Electronic Stability Control Systems, no tell-tale shall emit light except

(7) Table I to section 101 of Schedule IV to the Regulations is amended by adding the following at the end of that Table:

Control	Identification
Electronic stability control system off

(8) Table II to section 101 of Schedule IV to the Regulations is amended by adding the following at the end of that Table:

Display	Tell-tale Colour	Identification
Electronic stability control system or related systems malfunction	YELLOW
Electronic stability control system off	YELLOW

3. Schedule IV to the Regulations is amended by adding the following after section 124:

ELECTRONIC STABILITY CONTROL SYSTEMS (STANDARD 126)

126. (1) Except as provided in subsection (2), every passenger car, multi-purpose passenger vehicle, truck and bus with a GVWR of 4 536 kg or less manufactured after August 31, 2011 shall conform to the requirements of Technical Standards Document No. 126, Electronic Stability Control Systems (TSD 126), as amended from time to time.

(2) A vehicle referred to in subsection (1) that is manufactured in two or more stages or a completed vehicle that is altered within the meaning of subsection 9(1) shall conform to the requirements of TSD 126 beginning on September 1, 2012.

(3) If an electronic stability control system off control is fitted on a vehicle, the manufacturer shall, in the English and French versions of the owner’s manual, indicate clearly that the electronic stability control system may be deactivated and provide the symbols for identifying the off control and corresponding tell-tale.

(4) This section expires on January 1, 2014.

COMING INTO FORCE

4. These Regulations come into force on August 31, 2011.

[11-1-o]

Footnote 1
U.S. Federal Register, Vol. 72, No. 66, Friday, April 6, 2007, p. 17236; Vol. 72, No. 120, Friday, June 22, 2007, p. 34409; and Vol. 73, No. 184, Monday, September 22, 2008, p. 54526.

Footnote 2
The Association of International Automobile Manufacturers of Canada represents the following automotive manufacturers and importers as voting members: BMW Canada Inc., Honda Canada Inc., Hyundai Auto Canada, Kia Canada Inc., Mazda Canada Inc., Mercedes-Benz Canada Inc., Mitsubishi Motor Sales of Canada, Inc., Nissan Canada Inc., Porsche Cars Canada Ltd., Subaru Canada Inc., Suzuki Canada Inc., Toyota Canada Inc. and Volkswagen Canada Inc.

Footnote 3
The Canadian Vehicle Manufacturers’ Association represents Chrysler Canada Inc.; Ford Motor Company of Canada, Limited; General Motors of Canada Limited; and Navistar Canada, Inc.

Footnote a
S.C. 1993, c. 16

Footnote 4
C.R.C., c. 1038

NOTICE:
The format of the electronic version of this issue of the Canada Gazette was modified in order to be compatible with extensible hypertext markup language (XHTML 1.0 Strict).