[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 45 (Friday, March 7, 1997)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 10514-10516]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-5727]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
49 CFR Part 571
[Docket No. 95-93, Notice 3]
RIN 2127-AF76
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Withdrawal of Proposed
Rule, Announcement of Technical Workshop on Accelerator Control Systems
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation.
ACTION: Withdrawal of notice of proposed rulemaking, and announcement
of a technical workshop.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this document, NHTSA withdraws a proposal to amend the
safety standard on accelerator control systems that would have deleted
a provision that specifies return-to-idle times for a normally
operating accelerator control system. The proposal was part of NHTSA's
efforts to implement the President's Regulatory Reinvention Initiative.
NHTSA has decided to withdraw its proposal in order to focus on the
broader issue of making the accelerator control system standard more
relevant for electronic accelerator systems. NHTSA announces a
technical workshop, tentatively scheduled for March 24, 1997, to
discuss electronic accelerator control technology and potential methods
of assuring fail-safe performance.
DATES: Technical workshop: The technical workshop is tentatively
scheduled for March 24, 1997. Those persons wishing to participate in
the workshop should contact Mr. Patrick Boyd (at the address given
below) not later than March 24, 1997.
Written comments. Written comments on the subject matter of the
workshop are due April 24, 1997.
ADDRESSES: The technical workshop will be held at the U.S. Department
of Transportation building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC. A
notice announcing the room number, and confirming the workshop date,
will be published shortly after the deadline for the public to advise
the agency of their intent to participate.
Written comments. Written comments concerning the subject matter of
the technical workshop should refer to the docket number and notice
number cited at the beginning of this notice, and be submitted to:
Docket Section, Room 5109, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC
20590 (Docket hours are from 9:30 a.m. to 4 p.m.) It is requested, but
not required, that 10 copies of the comment be provided.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical issues: Mr. Patrick
Boyd, Office of Crash Avoidance Standards, NPS-21, telephone (202) 366-
6346.
For legal issues: Ms. Dorothy Nakama, Office of Chief Counsel, NCC-
20, (202) 366-2992.
Both may be reached at the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, 400 Seventh St., SW., Washington, DC, 20590. Comments
should not be sent to these persons, but should be mailed to the Docket
Section.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
President's Regulatory Reinvention Initiative
Pursuant to the President's March 4, 1995 directive, ``Regulatory
Reinvention Initiative,'' to the heads of departments and agencies,
NHTSA undertook a review of all its regulations and directives. During
the course of this review, the agency identified rules that it could
propose to eliminate as unnecessary or to amend to improve their
comprehensibility, application or appropriateness. As described below,
NHTSA identified Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 124
Accelerator control systems (49 CFR 571.124) as one rule that might
benefit from being amended.
Background of Standard No. 124
Standard No. 124's purpose is to reduce deaths and injuries
resulting from loss of control of the engine speed of a moving vehicle
due to malfunctions in the vehicle's accelerator control system. Since
1972, Standard No. 124
[[Page 10515]]
has specified requirements for ensuring the return of a vehicle's
throttle to the idle position under each of the following two
circumstances: (1) When the driver removes the actuating force
(typically, the driver's foot or cruise control) from the accelerator
control, and (2) when there is a severance or disconnection in the
accelerator control system. Standard No. 124 applies to passenger cars,
multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses.
Paragraph S5.1 of Standard No. 124 requires that, under any load
condition, and within the time specified in S5.3, the throttle must
return to the idle position from any accelerator position or any speed
of which the engine is capable, whenever the driver removes the
actuating force. The standard defines the throttle as ``the component
of the fuel metering device that connects to the driver-operated
accelerator control system and that by input from the driver-operated
accelerator control system controls the engine speed.''
Standard No. 124 has two further requirements to provide safety in
the event of accelerator control failure. The first, specified at S5.1,
requires ``at least two sources of energy,'' each capable of returning
the throttle to idle position within the time limit for normal
operation, from any accelerator position or speed whenever the driver
removes the opposing actuating force. The second, specified at S5.2,
requires that the throttle return to idle ``whenever any one component
of the accelerator control system is disconnected or severed at a
single point'' and the driver releases the pedal.
Paragraph S5.3 requires that the throttle return to idle within 1
second for vehicles of 4536 kilograms or less gross vehicle weight
rating (GVWR) and within 2 seconds for vehicles with a GVWR greater
than 4536. The maximum allowable time is increased to 3 seconds for any
vehicle that is exposed to ambient air at -18 degrees to -40 degrees
Celsius during the test or for any portion of a 12 hour conditioning
period.
Prior Request for Comments and Public Response
The agency published a request for comments (60 FR 62061) on
December 4, 1995 to initiate a discussion of the accelerator control
issues frequently raised by manufacturers in requests for
interpretation.
The questions involved two aspects of the standard: The return-to-
idle requirement and the single-point failure requirement. In their
requests for interpretation, manufacturers had sought assurance that
the presence of controls that lock the engine speed above the idle
level to facilitate the use of auxiliary equipment for dumping, mixing,
compacting, etc. would not be considered violations of the return-to-
idle timing requirements. Manufacturers had similar concerns about the
degree of repeatability of idle speed necessary for compliance with the
return-to-idle provisions. Some manufacturers were concerned that since
the speed to which a vehicle returns may vary from one occasion to the
next, the agency might regard speeds at the high end of the range of
normal variations of idle speeds as a violation of the return-to-idle
requirement. The agency requested comment on these issues to determine
whether it should amend the standard to eliminate concern that the
normal operation of accelerator controls could be confused with
instances of failure.
The second aspect of concern arises from the emerging technology of
electronic accelerator control systems. The agency had received
requests for interpretation expressing the belief that electronic
accelerator control systems were not subject to the requirement that
the engine return to idle in the event of a single point disconnection
or severance of the system. Although NHTSA had written a letter to
Isuzu in 1988 confirming that the single-point failure requirement
applies to both electronic and mechanical accelerator controls, the
agency requested comments on the need for language in the standard to
clarify how the requirement applies to electronic accelerator controls.
In the request for comments, NHTSA discussed clarifying the
existing standard's language with specific performance requirements for
enumerated types of disconnections and severances of mechanical and
electronic accelerator controls. Most auto industry commenters voiced a
preference for rescinding the standard, suggesting that market forces
would assure safety without the need for Standard No. 124. However,
they commented that, should the agency disagree about recision, a
standard specifying fail-safe performance in the least design-specific
terms would be preferable to the solution suggested in the notice.
Industry commenters expressed a desire to participate in a public
technical meeting with NHTSA concerning electronic accelerator controls
and potential regulatory language regarding fail-safe performance.
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
NHTSA tentatively agreed with the commenters that market forces are
likely to prevent the introduction of accelerator controls whose normal
mode of operation is a threat to safety, but it disagreed that market
forces would necessarily assure adequate fail-safe performance.
Consequently, in a notice published on April 30, 1996 (61 FR 19020),
NHTSA proposed to eliminate section S5.3, which contains the return-to-
idle timing tests for the normal operation of accelerator controls. As
a rationale for the proposed removal of S5.3, NHTSA pointed out that
its standards compliance test program has revealed no noncompliances
with S5.3 for at least the past eight years. NHTSA stated that with the
elimination of S5.3, Standard No. 124 would be concerned solely with
fail-safe requirements for engine controls. An effort to define idle
speed tolerances and the normal operation of controls for operating
special equipment would no longer be necessary.
NHTSA further stated its belief that the market force argument
cannot be made for the fail-safe performance of accelerator controls.
The normal operating characteristics of a vehicle's accelerator control
system are immediately and constantly apparent to the buyer and user.
An unsatisfactory design would be met with criticism and rejection.
However, the vehicle owner has no easy way to experience directly the
consequences of severances of the control circuits on loss of engine
control and little motivation to do so.
Public Comments on the NPRM
In response to the NPRM, NHTSA received comments from the Advocates
for Highway and Auto Safety (Advocates), Allied Signal Inc., Chrysler,
General Motors, Mr. Honore J. Lartigue, and Volkswagen. Industry
comments to the NPRM were positive but perfunctory. Chrysler and Allied
Signal pointed out that the return-to-idle time required for partially
disabled systems by the retained fail-safe performance requirements
would be no different than the normal operation requirements for trucks
proposed for elimination. Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety
characterized the proposal as an abuse of agency discretion. It
criticized NHTSA's tentative opinion of the lack of need for
requirements for the normal operation of accelerator controls as
unsupported with appeals to specific data, studies, or other evidence.
1
Generally, the industry commenters expressed more interest in the
electronic accelerator control issues, which were not the specific
subject of the NPRM, than in the proposed elimination of S5.3. Allied
Signal, Volkswagen and General Motors cited the difficulty of applying
the language of the current
[[Page 10516]]
standard to electronic accelerator controls, including even the basic
terms ``throttle'' and ``idle position.'' General Motors'' comment
dismissed the proposal as unimportant and instead presented useful
ideas about fail-safe provisions it considered applicable to electronic
accelerator controls. It stated that with electronic engine controls,
throttle position is no longer the singular factor that controls engine
speed. It is possible to exploit control of spark advance and/or fuel
metering as alternative means of preventing uncontrolled engine speed.
Therefore, General Motors suggested that the present requirement of two
sources of energy to return the throttle to the idle position be
replaced by a more general requirement of two means capable of
returning the engine to idle in the event of the disconnection or
severance of the other. It also suggested a second provision that if
two means of returning the engine to idle cannot be provided, then a
fail-safe feature would either shut-down the engine or automatically
shift the transmission into neutral in the event of a disconnection or
severance of the accelerator control.
General Motors' suggestions invite questions about their
applicability to diesel engines and about the desirability of shifting
the transmission into neutral, but they represent constructive thought
about the preservation of fail-safe performance in the face of changing
technology for accelerator control.
Agency Withdrawal of NPRM
After carefully reviewing the public comments, NHTSA has decided to
withdraw its proposal to remove S5.3 from Standard No. 124. The public
commenters addressing the issue have highlighted the fact that there
are many unresolved areas involving electronic accelerator controls.
NHTSA is withdrawing the proposal so that it can fully review the issue
of making the standard more relevant to electronic systems prior to
considering any other amendments to the Standard.
Technical Workshop
As stated in its December 4, 1995 request for comments (60 FR
62061), NHTSA plans to hold a technical workshop on the need to amend
Standard No. 124. NHTSA tentatively plans to hold the workshop on March
24, 1997, at the U.S. Department of Transportation Building (400
Seventh Street, SW.) in Washington, DC. NHTSA believes its long range
plans for Standard No. 124 will be facilitated if workshop participants
and submitters of written comments discuss the questions raised in the
December 1995 request for comments.
The agency wishes workshop participants to discuss:
(1) The principles of operation of existing and potential
electronic accelerator control systems for gasoline and diesel engines;
(2) The principles of operation of existing and potential means of
providing fail-safe performance in the event of loss of accelerator
control by the primary system; and
(3) Suggestions for regulatory requirements that will assure the
fail-safe performance of electronic accelerator control systems.
The agency therefore asks those persons interested in participating
to make their interest known by contacting Mr. Boyd, and describing the
topic(s) the person wishes to address. Although NHTSA expects to hold
the technical workshop in March 1997, it would appreciate being
informed if any interested persons need more time to prepare remarks.
If many people state that more time is necessary, NHTSA will pick a
later date. The two persons mentioned at the beginning of this
termination notice are available to answer questions.
NHTSA will issue another notice announcing the room number of the
workshop and agenda items to be discussed. If necessary, the date for
the workshop and submission of written comments will be adjusted.
Accordingly, as discussed in the preamble, the notice of proposed
rulemaking published in the Federal Register on April 30, 1996 (61 FR
19020) is withdrawn.
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117, and 30166;
delegations of authority at 49 CFR 1.50 and 501.8.
Issued on: March 4, 1997.
L. Robert Shelton,
Associate Administrator for Safety Performance Standards.
[FR Doc. 97-5727 Filed 3-6-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
