[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