Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Accelerator Control Systems

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