10514 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 45 / Friday, March 7, 1997 / Proposed Rules

final rule on small entities. 5 U.S.C. 603

and 604. Alternatively, EPA may certify

that the rule will not have a significant

impact on a substantial number of small

entities. Small entities include small

businesses, small not-for-profit

enterprises, and government entities

with jurisdiction over populations of

less than 50,000.

SIP approvals under section 110 and

subchapter I, Part D, of the CAA do not

create any new requirements, but

simply approve requirements that the

State is already imposing. Therefore,

because the federal SIP approval does

not impose any new requirements, I

certify that it does not have a significant

impact on any small entities affected.

Moreover, due to the nature of the

Federal-State relationship under the

CAA, preparation of a regulatory

flexibility analysis would constitute

federal inquiry into the economic

reasonableness of State action. The CAA

forbids EPA to base its actions

concerning SIPs on such grounds.

Union Electric Co. v. E.P.A., 427 U.S.

246, 256–66 (S.Ct. 1976); 42 U.S.C.

7410(a)(2).

C. Unfunded Mandates

Under Section 202 of the Unfunded

Mandates Reform Act of 1995

(‘‘Unfunded Mandates Act’’), signed

into law on March 22, 1995, EPA must

prepare a budgetary impact statement to

accompany any proposed or final rule

that includes a Federal mandate that

may result in estimated costs to State,

local, or tribal governments in the

aggregate; or to the private sector, of

$100 million or more. Under Section

205, EPA must select the most costeffective and least burdensome

alternative that achieves the objectives

of the rule and is consistent with

statutory requirements. Section 203

requires EPA to establish a plan for

informing and advising any small

governments that may be significantly

or uniquely impacted on by the rule.

EPA has determined that the approval

action proposed does not include a

Federal mandate that may result in

estimated costs of $100 million or more

to either State, local, or tribal

governments in the aggregate, or to the

private sector. This Federal action

approves pre-existing requirements

under State or local law, and imposes

no new requirements. Accordingly, no

additional costs to State, local, or tribal

governments, or to the private sector,

result from this action.

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q.

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Carbon monoxide,

Hydrocarbons, Intergovernmental

relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements, Volatile organic

compounds.

40 CFR Part 81

Air pollution control, National parks,

Wilderness areas.

Dated: February 26, 1997.

Charles Findley,

Acting Regional Administrator, EPA Region

10.

[FR Doc. 97–5642 Filed 3–6–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

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
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 45 / Friday, March 7, 1997 / Proposed Rules 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-toidle 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 returnto-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-toidle 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
10516 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 45 / Friday, March 7, 1997 / Proposed Rules

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 failsafe 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

49 CFR Part 572

[Docket No. 96–65; Notice 3]

RIN 2127–AG58

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety

Standards

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic

Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT.

ACTION: Denial of request for extension

of comment due date.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Z.

Taylor Vinson, Office of Chief Counsel,

NHTSA, Room 5219, 400 7th Street SW,

Washington, D.C. 20590 (telephone

202–418–8142).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This

document denies a petition for

extension of time to comment on

proposed Federal Motor Vehicle Safety

Standard No. 100 Low-speed vehicles.

On January 8, 1997, the National

Highway Traffic Safety Administration

published a notice of proposed

rulemaking that would apply a new

Federal motor vehicle safety standard to

motor vehicles whose maximum speed

does not exceed 25 mph (Docket No.

96–65; Notice 2, 62 FR 1077). February

24, 1997, was established as the due

date for comments on the proposal.

Advocates for Highway and Auto

Safety petitioned the agency to extend

the comment period for an additional 30

days. The reason for the request is the

temporary closure of the docket room,

Room 5109 of the Nassif Building, from

February 10 to March 10, 1997.

Advocates argued that dockets will be

unavailable for public inspection during

this period and that comments filed in

response to the proposal will likewise

be unavailable for inspection for two

weeks before the closing date of

February 24, 1997.

Although Room 5109 is closed for the

period indicated, comments filed in

response to Notice 2 and other pending

notices are available for inspection in

Room 6130 of the Nassif Building

during ordinary business hours of 9:30

a.m. to 4:00 p.m. as before. Thus, the

temporary closure of Room 5109 will

not affect the ability of the public to

inspect comments being submitted to

dockets during the period February 10

to March 10, 1997. Visitors to the Nassif

Building have been advised of the

temporary change of the NHTSA docket

room from Room 5109 to Room 6130 by

signs posted on or before February 10 in

the Department’s Central Docket Room

and in each of the four street-level

entrances to the Nassif Building.

Advocates also avers that the proposal

to allow a new class of Low Speed

Vehicles to operate on the public roads

without full conformity to current

Federal motor vehicle safety standards

has serious implications and itself

warrants an extension of the comment

period for an additional 30 days.

NHTSA denies the petition by

Advocates for additional time in which

to comment on Notice 2. The public has

had full access to comments filed in

response to Notice 2 of Docket No. 96–

65 during the comment period (in fact,

only two comments had been filed by

February 19, 1997). Before issuing the

notice of proposed rulemaking, NHTSA