[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 84 (Tuesday, April 30, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 19020-19022]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-10667]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
49 CFR Part 571
[Docket No. 95-093, Notice 02]
RIN 2127-AF76
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Accelerator Control
Systems
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this document, NHTSA proposes to change the scope of the
Federal motor vehicle safety standard on accelerator control systems.
The current standard prohibits uncontrolled engine speed in the event
of a disconnection or severance of the accelerator control system at a
single point, and it also specifies return-to-idle times for the normal
operation of accelerator control systems. The agency has tentatively
decided that it not necessary to regulate the normal operation of
accelerator control systems. Vehicles with return-to-idle times too
great for safe driving would be unacceptable to prospective vehicle
buyers regardless of a regulation. The standard will continue to
require fail-safe performance of accelerator control systems in the
case of a single point disconnection or severance. This proposed action
is part of NHTSA's efforts to implement the President's Regulatory
Reinvention Initiative.
DATES: Comments are due June 14, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Comments 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 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, FAX (202) 366-4329.
For legal issues: Ms. Dorothy Nakama, Office of Chief Counsel, NCC-
20, (202) 366-2992, FAX (202) 366-3820.
Both may be reached at the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, 400 Seventh St., S.W., Washington, D.C., 20590.
Comments should not be sent or FAXed to these persons, but should be
sent to the Docket Section.
[[Page 19021]]
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 has identified Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 124
Accelerator control systems (49 CFR 571.124) as one rule that may
benefit from amendments.
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 and other technical questions. The questions involved
two general areas. In one area of concern, manufacturers sought
assurance that the presence of locking engine controls to facilitate
the use on parked trucks of auxiliary equipment for dumping, mixing,
compacting, etc. would not be considered violations of the return-to-
idle timing requirements. Manufacturers had similar concerns over the
degree of repeatability of idle speed necessary for compliance with the
return-to-idle provisions. The document raised this area of discussion
because the agency wanted to clarify the language of the standard to
eliminate concern that the normal operation of accelerator controls
could be confused with instances of failure.
The second area of discussion involved the emerging technology of
electronic accelerator control systems. The agency had received
requests for interpretation expressing the belief that electronic
accelerator control systems were exempt from the fail-safe requirement
applied to mechanical accelerator controls, namely that the engine
return to idle in the event of a single point disconnection or
severance of the system. The document cited a 1988 interpretation
letter to Isuzu confirming that FMVSS No. 124 applies to both
electronic and mechanical accelerator controls, and it discussed the
possible need for language in the standard clarifying the fail-safe
requirement as it applies to electronic accelerator controls.
Most auto industry commenters voiced a preference for rescinding
the standard, and the American Trucking Associations (ATA) expressed
the belief that loss of engine control is not a safety problem for
medium and heavy trucks because they accelerate more slowly than cars.
The auto industry commenters suggested that market forces and
litigation pressure are sufficient to assure fail-safe accelerator
controls without Federal motor vehicle safety standards. But, they also
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. The
document had discussed clarifying the existing standard's language with
specific performance requirements for enumerated types of
disconnections and severances of mechanical and electronic accelerator
controls.
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
NHTSA tentatively agrees 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. Consequently, NHTSA proposes
to eliminate section S5.3 of Standard No. 124 which contains return-to-
idle timing tests for the normal operation of accelerator controls. The
NHTSA standards compliance test program has revealed no non-
compliances with S5.3 for at least the past eight years. With the
elimination of this section, Standard No. 124 will be concerned solely
with fail-safe requirements for engine controls. The effort to define
idle speed tolerances and the normal operation of controls for
operating special equipment would no longer be necessary.
Two other amendments are necessary for consistency with the
proposed elimination of S5.3. The fail-safe performance requirements of
S5.1 and S5.2 cite S5.3 to establish response times for a return-to-
idle position in the event of a severance. Those citations would be
replaced by a fixed time limit of 3 seconds in order to establish that
a fail-safe response must be rapid. A time limit of 3 seconds is
consistent with the least restrictive limit under S5.3. The other
amendment would be a modification of the scope statement of S1 to
remove normal operation from the scope of the standard.
However, 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 is
immediately and constantly apparent to the buyer and user. An
unsatisfactory design will be met with criticism and rejection.
However, the vehicle owner has no way to evaluate the consequences of
severances of the control circuits on loss of engine control and little
motivation to do so. In fact, a comment from the Flxible Corporation, a
major bus manufacturer, indicates that engine manufacturers may be
hesitant to adequately inform even vehicle manufacturers about the
fail-safe performance of their electronic accelerator controls in the
mistaken belief that the devices are exempt from Standard No. 124.
Flxible's comment also cast some doubt on the adequacy of the fail-safe
design of some electronic accelerator controls by observing that
moisture from the steam cleaning of an engine with an electronic
accelerator control system caused runaway engine speed.
The agency is not persuaded by ATA's contention that loss of engine
control of a heavy commercial vehicle should be regarded less seriously
than the same failure of a light vehicle. It also does not believe that
the substitution of tort litigation for federal safety standards, as
suggested by some commenters, serves the public interest. Therefore,
the agency intends to hold a public technical meeting, as suggested by
most of the commenters, to hear ideas for achieving a fail-safe
performance standard for accelerator controls without design specific
language. The time and place of the meeting will be announced in a
future notice.
Proposed Effective Date
The proposed elimination of S5.3 from Standard No. 124 would not
compromise safety and would not add burdens to manufacturers. NHTSA has
tentatively determined that there is good cause shown that an effective
date earlier than 180 days after issuance is in the public interest.
Accordingly, the agency proposes that, if adopted in a final rule, the
amendments would have an effective date of 45 days after the
publication of the final rule in the Federal Register.
Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures
This rulemaking document was not reviewed under E.O. 12866,
``Regulatory Planning and Review.'' NHTSA has analyzed the impact of
this rulemaking action and determined that it is not ``significant''
under the Department of Transportation's regulatory policies and
procedures. NHTSA believes that these
[[Page 19022]]
proposed amendments, if made final, would not impose any additional
costs and would not yield any savings because this rule would not
change the design or equipment of vehicles. Since there would not be
any impacts, preparation of a full regulatory evaluation is not
warranted.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
NHTSA has also considered the impacts of this rule under the
Regulatory Flexibility Act. I hereby certify that this rule would not
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. It does not affect any costs associated with the manufacture
or sale of vehicles. Accordingly, an initial regulatory flexibility
analysis has not been prepared.
National Environmental Policy Act
NHTSA has also analyzed this proposed rule under the National
Environmental Policy Act and determined that it would not have any
significant impact on the quality of the human environment.
Executive Order 12612 (Federalism)
NHTSA has analyzed this proposed rule in accordance with the
principles and criteria contained in E.O. 12612, and has determined
that it would not have significant federalism implications to warrant
the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
Civil Justice Reform
This proposed rule would not have any retroactive effect. Under 49
U.S.C. 30103, whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard is in
effect, a State may not adopt or maintain a safety standard applicable
to the same aspect of performance which is not identical to the Federal
standard, except to the extent that the state requirement imposes a
higher level of performance and applies only to vehicles procured for
the State's use. 49 U.S.C. 30161 sets forth a procedure for judicial
review of final rules establishing, amending or revoking Federal motor
vehicle safety standards. That section does not require submission of a
petition for reconsideration or other administrative proceedings before
parties may file suit in court.
Procedures for Filing Comments
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on the
amendments proposed in this rulemaking action. It is requested but not
required that any comments be submitted in 10 copies.
Comments must not exceed 15 pages in length (49 CFR 553.21). This
limitation is intended to encourage commenters to detail their primary
arguments in concise fashion. Necessary attachments, however, may be
appended to those comments without regard to the 15-page limit.
If a commenter wishes to submit certain information under a claim
of confidentiality, 3 copies of the complete submission including the
purportedly confidential business information should be submitted to
the Chief Counsel, NHTSA at the street address shown above, and 7
copies from which the purportedly confidential information has been
expunged should be submitted to the Docket Section. A request for
confidentiality should be accompanied by a cover letter setting forth
the information specified in 49 CFR 512, the agency's confidential
business information regulation.
All comments received on or before the close of business on the
comment closing date indicated above for the proposal will be
considered, and will be available to the public for examination in the
docket at the above address both before and after the closing date. To
the extent possible, comments received too late for consideration in
regard to the final rule will be considered as suggestions for further
rulemaking action. Comments on the proposal will be available for
public inspection in the docket. NHTSA will continue file relevant
information in the docket after the closing date, and it is recommended
that interested persons continue to monitor the docket for new
material.
Those persons desiring to be notified upon receipt of their
comments in the rules docket should enclose a self-addressed stamped
postcard in the envelope with their comments. Upon receiving the
comments the docket supervisor will return the postcard by mail.
List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 571
Imports, Motor vehicles, Motor vehicle safety, Rubber and rubber
products, Tires.
In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA proposes to amend 49 CFR
part 571 as follows:
PART 571--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 571 would continue to read as
follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117, and 30166;
delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.
2. Section 571.124 would be amended by revising S1., S5.1 and S5.2
and removing S5.3 to read as follows:
Sec. 571.124 Standard No. 124, Accelerator control systems.
S1. Scope. This standard establishes requirements for the return of
a vehicle's throttle to idle position in the event of a severance or
disconnection in the accelerator control system.
* * * * *
S5.1 There shall be at least two sources of energy capable of
returning the throttle to the idle position. In the event of failure of
one source of energy by a single severance or disconnection, the
throttle shall return to the idle position within 3 seconds from any
accelerator position or speed whenever the driver removes the opposing
actuating force.
S5.2 The throttle shall return to the idle position from any
accelerator position or any speed of which the engine is capable
whenever any one component of the accelerator control system is
disconnected or severed at a single point. The return to idle shall
occur within 3 seconds measured either from the time of severance or
disconnection or from the first removal of the opposing actuating force
by the driver.
Issued on: April 25, 1996.
Barry Felrice,
Associate Administrator for Safety Performance Standards.
[FR Doc. 96-10667 Filed 4-29-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
