Vol. 143, No. 26 — December 23, 2009

Registration

SOR/2009-323 December 10, 2009

MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY ACT

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

P.C. 2009-1977 December 10, 2009

Whereas, pursuant to subsection 11(3) of the Motor Vehicle Safety Act (see footnote a), a copy of the proposed Regulations Amending the Motor Vehicle Safety Regulations (Electronic Stability Control Systems), substantially in the annexed form, was published in the Canada Gazette, Part I, on March 14, 2009, and a reasonable opportunity was afforded to interested persons to make representations to the Minister of Transport with respect to the proposed Regulations;

Therefore, Her Excellency the Governor General in Council, on the recommendation of the Minister of Transport, pursuant to subsection 11(1) of the Motor Vehicle Safety Act (see footnote b), hereby makes the annexed Regulations Amending the Motor Vehicle Safety Regulations (Electronic Stability Control Systems).

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

AMENDMENTS

1. Schedule III to the Motor Vehicle Safety Regulations (see footnote 1) 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 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) This section expires on January 1, 2015.

COMING INTO FORCE

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

REGULATORY IMPACT ANALYSIS STATEMENT

(This statement is not part of the Regulations.)

Executive Summary

Issue

This amendment modifies Schedule III and 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. This Canadian safety standard requires an electronic stability control (ESC) system on new light-duty vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 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. The Canadian safety standard is harmonized with the requirements of the United States safety standard pertaining to ESC. Harmonizing with the United States safety standard provides Canadians the safety benefits obtainable with ESC, and removes any potential impediment for 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 suddenly to avoid an obstacle or cornering on slippery surfaces. ESC works by monitoring, on a continuous basis, steering wheel activity and vehicle direction by utilizing vehicle wheel speed, yaw rate and steering wheel angle sensors. The ESC system works by automatically activating the brake on one or more wheels as needed to maintain vehicle control; in some cases, current ESC systems also reduce engine power simultaneously with the application of the brakes.

Studies carried out by the United States estimated that ESC would reduce the number of single-vehicle crashes in the United States. The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety claimed that ESC reduces the risk of a single-vehicle crash by approximately 41%. (see footnote 2) For its part, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration of the United States claimed that ESC reduces the risk that a passenger car will be involved in a single-vehicle collision by 35%, and for light truck vehicles, by 67%. (see footnote 3) Studies in Europe and Japan report significant reductions in the number of fatal crashes. (see footnote 4) 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. (see footnote 5) 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. Test results have shown that the United States safety standard requirements are effective since they demonstrated that vehicles with ESC enabled 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 performance requirements of 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 United States safety standard includes a phase-in approach whereby a minimum number of manufactured vehicles must be equipped with ESC. The phase-in schedule requires an ESC system meeting the standard’s requirements on 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.

The Canadian safety standard requires ESC on new vehicles, and applies to passenger cars, multi-purpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses with a gross vehicle weight rating of 4 536 kg or less and manufactured on or after September 1, 2011. However, as in the United States safety standard, vehicles that are manufactured in two or more stages or that are altered, such as ambulances, have one additional year to comply with the new Canadian safety standard. This standard harmonizes its regulatory requirements governing ESC with those of the United States, which are now incorporated through the use of a technical standards document. (see footnote 6)

In addition, 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 global technical regulation in its federal regulations with the publication of amendments to its safety standard on September 22, 2008. In order to fulfill Canada’s obligation towards the World Forum, this amendment introduces the United States changes within the technical standards document. Thus, the Canadian regulation is in alignment with the global technical regulation for ESC.

An ESC system is defined 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 for, 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, or when being driven in reverse, or during system initialization).

Furthermore, there are three main requirements within the Canadian safety standard: 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 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. The performance requirements contain two criteria: stability criterion and responsiveness criterion. The stability criterion ensures that vehicle directional control is maintained after the steering wheel is returned to the straight-ahead position at the end of the manoeuvre. The responsiveness criterion stipulates a minimum vehicle lateral displacement for a given steering input, and is necessary because a vehicle that responds very little to steering commands can exhibit deceptively high-stability characteristics 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 remains illuminated if a malfunction occurs is 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 while driven with a compact spare tire or when tire chains are 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 must be used. To maintain harmonization with the United States and the global technical regulation for ESC, the English word “OFF” is 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.

Regulatory and non-regulatory options considered

With regard 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

Before the publication of this amendment, there was no federal Canadian requirement for vehicles to be equipped with an ESC system. As stated earlier, there are many international studies as well as the Canadian study showing that the effectiveness of ESC to reduce vehicle crashes involving loss of control is significant. With the introduction of the United States safety standard pertaining to ESC, and the global technical regulation for ESC, if no Canadian safety standard or if significantly different safety requirements were introduced, it could cause a potential impediment to trade. Indeed, manufacturers might chose to offer no ESC or an ESC system that does not comply with the United States safety standard. More importantly, if no Canadian safety standard was introduced, all Canadian motorists could not fully benefit from ESC technology.

Introduce a new Canadian safety standard

Research and analysis within Canada show that the equipment and performance requirements prescribed in the United States safety standard are effective in discriminating vehicles fitted with an ESC system from vehicles not equipped with this safety technology. Harmonizing with the United States safety standard facilitates regulatory acceptance by the industry, and removes any potential impediment to trade and compliance between these countries. As such, it facilitates the industry’s ability to import and export products by standardizing vehicle requirements and compliance testing, which in turn offers a wider variety of vehicles fitted with an ESC system to Canadian consumers. 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 need to fit their products with ESC systems if they wish to continue exporting light-duty vehicles to the United States.

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

Public awareness campaign

In addition to the implementation of the Canadian safety standard, and given the potential safety benefits of ESC, the Department of Transport identified the need to educate Canadians, and to promote and raise awareness about 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. The Web page is 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 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. As well, a news release on ESC was issued on March 13, 2009, announcing the pre-publication of this amendment in the Canada Gazette.

Benefits and costs

An assessment, based on motor vehicle collisions data from 2000–2005, demonstrated that ESC had an estimated effectiveness of 29% in the reduction of crashes involving loss of control with light-duty vehicles, based on fatal and injury-causing crash data. 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, 2009, 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 life saved, the potential benefit to society is estimated at $1.375 billion for vehicle occupant fatalities resulting from a loss of control. Based on vehicle sales in 2006, as shown in Table 2, the estimated cost to industry of implementing ESC is $353 million for that year. Therefore, the overall benefit/cost ratio is estimated to be 3.9. This ratio is considered conservative since it does not take into account the benefit to society from vehicle occupant 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, it is clear that the benefit to society far outweighs the cost.

Table 1: Estimated potential benefit to society

Loss of control	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 x 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 had ABS or ESC as optional equipment.

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

Consultation

The intention to introduce this Canadian safety standard was announced in the Department of Transport’s Regulatory Plan, which is widely distributed to interested stakeholders, either directly or through various associations on a quarterly basis. The Department also consults regularly in face-to-face meetings or in teleconferences with the automotive industry, public safety organizations, the provinces, and the territories. Given that harmonized regulations are pivotal to trade and to a competitive Canadian automotive industry, the Department meets regularly with its counterpart in the United States and with the authorities of other countries to discuss issues of mutual interest and proposed regulatory changes.

This amendment was published in the Canada Gazette, Part I, on March 14, 2009, and was followed by a 75-day comment period. Four organizations provided comments: the Association of International Automobile Manufacturers of Canada (AIAMC); the Canadian Vehicle Manufacturers’ Association (CVMA); Manitoba Infrastructure and Transportation; and Manitoba Public Insurance. Six citizens also wrote to the Department of Transport to provide their opinions following the Part I publication.

The AIAMC indicated its support for the harmonization of the requirements with the United States safety standard. The AIAMC expressed concern regarding petitions of reconsideration that were submitted to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration of the United States by the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, AIAMC’s counterpart in the United States. In the petitions, manufacturers requested that United States Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards 101 and 126 be reviewed to better align them with the global technical standard on ESC. Accordingly, the AIAMC requested that the Government of Canada wait until the United States adopts these changes before publishing the Part II of this amendment, and therefore harmonizing the corresponding Canadian safety standards.

Although the Government of Canada is aware of these petitions, it did not see the need to wait until these changes are published in the United States to move forward with this amendment. The Government will ensure that any future changes made to the United States safety standards will be reflected in the harmonization of the corresponding Canadian safety standards.

The AIAMC also suggested updating the Canadian safety standard for vehicle controls and displays in the near future. The update of this particular standard is part of another amendment to the Regulations and is in progress.

Lastly, the AIAMC indicated that its members have already undertaken the necessary initiatives to increase the fitting of ESC on vehicles for the Canadian market. Therefore, AIAMC states that its members are ready to meet the mandatory compliance date of September 1, 2011.

The members of CVMA support the amendment to the Regulations. They support the initiatives taken by the Department to make this important safety system available to Canadians. An editorial concern in the Web version of the technical standards document was pointed out by CVMA. The necessary change to the text was made based on this comment.

The CVMA underlined its strong opposition to the requirement in subsection 126(3) of the proposed Canadian safety standard and suggested that it should be removed. This proposed requirement specified that if an ESC off control is fitted on a vehicle, the manufacturer must indicate in the French and English versions of the owner’s manual that the system may be deactivated by this control, and must provide the symbols that identify this control and its corresponding tell-tale. The CVMA stated that this clause was not harmonized with the United States safety standard and that it was unnecessarily prescriptive, as manufacturers already provide such instructions and information on the operation of their vehicles to consumers for legal and commercial reasons. The Association also indicated that this provision was not typical of regulatory requirements relating to an owner’s manual.

The Government of Canada believes that the provision that was proposed pertaining to the owner’s manuals is similar to other current requirements of the Regulations, which require that safety information be clearly indicated in the English and French manuals. However, the Department is also of the opinion that some safety goals can be achieved through alternate means.

Therefore, as a result of the concern noted by the CVMA, the Department removed the proposed requirement for information to be provided in the owner’s manuals. However, the Department believes that in the case where a vehicle is equipped with an ESC off control, it is very important that the owner of the vehicle fully and clearly understand that this control deactivates an important safety feature. The Department will therefore engage other means, such as adding information on the ESC Web page, to inform Canadians about the possibility of their vehicle being equipped with an ESC off control. In addition, in order to work towards harmonization of safety requirements, the Department will work with its counterparts in the United States, as well as with the United Nations World Forum for Harmonization of Vehicle Regulations, to seek ways to ensure that the manufacturers provide safety information to the owners of new vehicles equipped with the latest technologies. The Department is also open to considering suggestions from manufacturers on how safety information can be consistently provided to consumers on a voluntary (non-regulated) basis.

Manitoba Infrastructure and Transportation, and Manitoba Public Insurance indicated in a joint submission that they fully support the amendment. Manitoba also supports harmonization with the United States safety standard and the global technical regulation. Although the majority of vehicles currently on the roads in Canada are not yet fitted with ESC, the two Manitoba organizations noted a reduction of collisions and damage claims involving vehicles fitted with ESC.

Some citizens expressed their support for this amendment and emphasized the potential safety benefits that ESC will provide. Others stated that this amendment would be against open market practices and would limit the freedom of consumers to choose the type of vehicle and equipment they want, as well as increase the cost of vehicles. Based on research and statistical study, the Government is confident that the benefits to society in terms of saved lives, health care savings and in prevention of traumas resulting from a crash are significant and far outweigh the cost of implementation of ESC systems. Also, the regulation will benefit all Canadian road users regardless of the type of vehicles they choose to use or are compelled to use.

In addition to the implementation of the Canadian safety standard, the Department of Transport undertook a public awareness campaign. The Department of Transport officials met in this regard with key stakeholders, including provincial and territorial governments, safety organizations, manufacturers, consumer-focused media and publishers. Several stakeholders have shown their support for the Department’s initiatives to promote ESC. The Canadian Automobile Association is one of the organizations that has shown its support by posting ESC information on its Web site and by hosting the ESC Media Event on October 30, 2008.

Furthermore, AIAMC and CVMA signed a Letter of Commitment and a Letter of Agreement respectively that cover the introduction of ESC on vehicles manufactured in Canada between September 1, 2008, and the date of the introduction of the Canadian safety standard. This voluntary commitment by industry permitted 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 in Canada. The Department Web page is updated as soon as new information is available. The associations have reported that the level of fitment on vehicles manufactured for Canada for model year 2007 was just over 33%; for model year 2008, the level of fitment was up to 48%.

Selected option and cooperation

The selected option is to implement the Canadian safety standard that harmonizes Canadian requirements governing ESC with those of the United States. In parallel with this amendment, the Department of Transport is promoting ESC to raise public awareness and demand for this safety system. Furthermore, the Letters of Commitment/Agreement signed by the two automotive manufacturing associations will benefit Canadians by increasing market availability of ESC in Canada and providing ESC fitment information to consumers for Canadian vehicles. This will assist Canadians to easily identify those vehicle models that are ESC equipped prior to the coming into force of the regulation.

Implementation, enforcement and service standards

The requirements of the Canadian safety standard are 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 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. In addition, when a defect in a vehicle or equipment is identified, 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 liable to prosecution and, if found guilty, may be fined as prescribed in the Motor Vehicle Safety Act.

Contact

Julie Deschatelets
Senior 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

Footnote a
S.C. 1993, c. 16

Footnote b
S.C. 1993, c. 16

Footnote 1
C.R.C., c. 1038

Footnote 2
Farmer, C., Effects of Electronic Stability Control: An Update, Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (www.iihs.org), 2006, United States

Footnote 3
Dang, J.N., Statistical analysis of the effectiveness of electronic stability control (ESC), National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (www.nhtsa.dot.gov), 2006, United States

Footnote 4
Chouinard et al., A Study of the Effectiveness of Electronic Stability Control in Canada, Transport Canada, 2009, to be published

Footnote 5
Idem

Footnote 6
The text of the technical standards document is based on Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 126, Electronic Stability Control Systems, as published in the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 49, Part 571, revised as of October 1, 2008.

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).