[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 105 (Thursday, May 30, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 27039-27042]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-13528]



=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 571

[Docket No. 96-52; Notice 1]
RIN 2127-AF86


Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Controls and Displays

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), 
Department of Transportation.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: In this notice, NHTSA proposes changes to the Federal Motor 
Vehicle Safety Standard on motor vehicle controls and displays. The 
agency seeks public comment on five proposals for changes, including 
rescission of the standard. This proposed action is undertaken as part 
of NHTSA's efforts to implement the President's Regulatory Reinvention 
Initiative.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before July 15, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Comments must refer to the docket and notice numbers cited 
at the beginning of this notice and be submitted to: Docket Section, 
Room 5109, NHTSA, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590. It 
is requested that 10 copies of the comments be provided. The Docket 
Section is open on weekdays from 9:30 a.m. to 4 p.m.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Richard Van Iderstine, Office of 
Vehicle Safety Standards, NPS-21, National Highway Traffic Safety 
Administration, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590. Mr. 
Van Iderstine's telephone number is (202) 366-5280 and his FAX number 
is (202) 366-4329.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

President's Regulatory Reinvention Initiative

    Pursuant to the March 4, 1995 directive ``Regulatory Reinvention 
Initiative,'' from the President to the heads of departments and 
agencies, NHTSA undertook a review of its regulations and directives. 
During the course of this review, NHTSA identified regulations that it 
could propose to eliminate as unnecessary or to amend to improve their 
comprehensibility, application, or appropriateness. Among these 
regulations is Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 101, Controls 
and displays (49 CFR Sec. 571.101).

Standard No. 101

    Standard No. 101 was issued in 1967 (32 FR 2408) as one of the 
initial Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS's). The standard 
applies to passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles (MPVs), 
trucks, and buses. Its purpose is to assure the accessibility and 
visibility of motor vehicle controls and displays under daylight and 
nighttime conditions. The standard is intended to reduce the risk of 
safety hazards caused by the diversion of the driver's attention from 
the driving task in order to locate the desired control or display, and 
by mistakes in selecting controls. The standard also seeks to ensure 
that a driver restrained by a seat belt can reach certain controls.
    Standard No. 101 specifies location requirements (S5.1), 
identification requirements (S5.2), and illumination requirements 
(S5.3). It specifies that the controls and displays must be accessible 
and visible to a driver restrained in accordance with Standard No. 208, 
Occupant crash protection (S6). In addition, Table 1 ``Identification 
and Illumination of Controls'' and Table 2 ``Identification and 
Illumination of Displays'' further specify which controls and displays 
are subject to the identification requirements, and how they are to be 
identified and illuminated.

NHTSA's Proposals for Change

    NHTSA proposes five alternatives for changes to the Standard and 
seeks public comment on each proposal. The proposals are: (1) 
rescinding the standard; (2) regulating only those controls and 
displays related to motor vehicle safety; (3) regulating only those

[[Page 27040]]

controls and displays required by other Federal Motor Vehicle Safety 
Standards; (4) consolidating all control and display requirements into 
Standard No. 101 and (5) permitting International Standards 
Organization (ISO) symbols on some or all controls and displays 
requiring identification. If NHTSA decides not to rescind Standard No. 
101, it may decide to adopt one or more of the other proposals. Since 
some of the proposals, (for example, Proposals Three and Five) address 
different matters in Standard No. 101, they are not mutually exclusive.
    Due to the relative simplicity of the proposals, the agency is not 
setting forth regulatory language for implementing the proposals.

1. Proposal One--Rescind Standard No. 101

    NHTSA's first proposal is to rescind Standard No. 101. NHTSA 
tentatively concludes that even if Standard No. 101 were rescinded, 
manufacturers would continue to provide appropriate means of 
identifying and illuminating controls and displays and place those 
controls and displays in accessible locations. Even if the standard 
were rescinded, the agency fully expects manufacturers to provide 
drivers the means to distinguish among various controls and displays. 
Further, drivers must be warned of defective functioning of a device in 
the vehicle in order to be able to avoid potentially hazardous 
conditions, including the possibility of a crash.
    Except for some required controls and displays listed in other 
standards, there is none specifically required by Standard No. 101. The 
standard only addresses the visibility, access and illumination of 
controls and displays if they are provided. While the initial premise 
for the standard was that these aspects need to be regulated for 
minimizing driver distractions, the controls and displays have in 
effect become an industry practice that may not require continued 
Federal regulation. NHTSA believes that market forces will ensure 
manufacturers continue the currently specified practices.
    A good example of how market forces have responded to customers' 
demands has been the location of the horn button(s). In the absence of 
more specific location requirements, the horn button was historically 
located at the center of the steering wheel. With the advent of air bag 
implementation in that same location, the horn button was often 
displaced to the spokes of the steering wheel. Apparently this location 
is contrary to the desires of many drivers, as evidenced by the 
increased number of letters to the agency about that displacement. This 
displacement, however, was only temporary, until manufacturers found 
ways to install horn switches in the cover material over the air bag 
mechanism. As a consequence, as vehicle steering wheels are updated, 
the horn control is returning to the center of the wheel.
    NHTSA notes that if Standard No. 101 were rescinded, some States 
might adopt regulations requiring controls and displays or regulating 
their identification, illumination or accessibility, which would 
subject manufacturers to multiple, conflicting rules and increase 
vehicle production costs. Were the States to adopt such regulations, 
there would not be any express preemption under 49 U.S.C. section 
30103(b), which preempts State standards if they conflict with an 
existing Federal standard. It also does not appear likely that a court 
would find any implied Federal preemption of State requirements, 
regardless of whether they are similar or dissimilar to those in the 
Standard. A State regulation addressing the same subject as a rescinded 
Federal regulation would be impliedly preempted only if the State 
regulation conflicted with or otherwise frustrated achieving the 
purposes of the Federal statute. Even if the agency were to conclude 
that no regulation, Federal or State, of controls and displays is 
necessary, it is not readily apparent how State regulations, even ones 
differing from those of another State, on this subject would conflict 
with Federal law or have a deleterious effect on motor vehicle safety.

2. Proposal Two--Regulate Only Those Controls and Displays Related to 
Motor Vehicle Safety

    The second proposal is to update Standard No. 101 by removing 
obsolete provisions and regulating only those controls and displays 
related to safety. Standard No. 101 includes references to vehicles 
manufactured before September 1, 1987 and September 1, 1989. NHTSA 
proposes to remove all references to vehicles manufactured before 
September 1, 1987 and September 1, 1989.
    After references to vehicles manufactured before September 1, 1989 
are removed, S3, Application, of Standard No. 101 will be shortened to 
state: ``This standard applies to passenger cars, multipurpose 
passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses.'' NHTSA further proposes to 
amend S5.(b), and S5.3.3(d), by removing references to vehicles 
manufactured before September 1, 1987 and September 1, 1989. Finally, 
NHTSA proposes to remove Table 1(a) ``Identification and Illumination 
of Controls'' and Table 2(a) ``Identification and Illumination of 
Internal Displays,'' since each table applies to vehicles manufactured 
before September 1, 1987.
    Additionally, the standard currently regulates aspects of controls 
and displays not required to be on vehicles, and that do not have a 
direct effect on motor vehicle safety. Under Proposal Two, Standard No. 
101 would regulate only controls and displays that directly bear on the 
need for motor vehicle safety, whether they are specified in another 
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard or not.
    NHTSA proposes to remove the following controls from Table 1 
``Identification and Illumination of Controls'': the heating and air 
conditioning control; the hand throttle; the heating and air 
conditioning fan control; and the manual choke. It also proposes to 
remove the coolant temperature display from Table 2 ``Identification 
and Illumination of Displays.'' Examples of displays that would 
continue to be regulated include the seat belt and turn signal displays 
(both specified in other safety standards) and the fuel level display 
and speedometer (if they are provided), neither of which is specified 
in a safety standard.
    NHTSA also proposes to remove each of the above named controls and 
displays (proposed for removal from Tables 1 or 2) if listed in the 
location requirements of S5.1 of Standard No. 101. The agency seeks 
comments on which controls and displays are believed to be safety-
related.

3. Proposal Three--Regulate Only Controls and Displays Required by 
Other Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards

    Proposal Three is similar to Proposal Two, but would limit Standard 
No. 101 to regulating controls and displays specified in another safety 
standard. Thus, under proposal three, the following controls presently 
listed in Table 1 ``Identification and Illumination of Controls'' would 
be removed: horn; heating and/or air conditioning fan; rear window 
defrosting and defogging system; manual choke; engine start; engine 
stop; hand throttle; automatic vehicle speed; and heating and air 
conditioning system.
    The following displays specified in Table 2 ``Identification and 
Illumination of Displays'' would be removed: fuel level telltale and 
gauge; oil pressure telltale and gauge; coolant temperature telltale 
and gauge; electrical charge

[[Page 27041]]

telltale and gauge; the speedometer, and the odometer.
    NHTSA also proposes to remove each of the above named controls and 
displays if listed in the location requirements of S5.1 of Standard No. 
101.
    The rationale for this proposal is that it would not affect the 
placement in vehicles of controls and displays no longer specified in 
Standard No. 101. Market forces (in the form of customer demand) would 
be highly likely to ensure that vehicle manufacturers would continue to 
provide appropriately identified, illuminated, and located controls and 
displays. Auto consumer media and customers themselves would be likely 
to react negatively to vehicles that do not adequately identify the 
vehicle's controls and displays, or if the controls are placed in a 
location difficult for the driver to reach while driving.

4. Proposal Four--Consolidate in Standard No. 101 Controls and Displays 
Specified in Other Standards

    Under this proposal, NHTSA would include in Standard No. 101 
reference to the controls and displays specified in other standards; 
today only Standard No. 208, Occupant crash protection, has such 
requirements. This reference would be consistent with the agency's 
practice regarding the identification of controls and displays for 
other regulated vehicle systems. For example, when the agency published 
a final rule (60 FR 6411; February 5, 1995) establishing FMVSS No. 135, 
Passenger car brake systems, it also amended Table 2 in Standard No. 
101 to include the two brake displays, the ``variable brake 
proportioning system'' display and the ``parking brake applied'' 
display specified in Standard No. 135. Similarly, when NHTSA amended 
the standards on hydraulic and air brakes to specify antilock braking 
systems, it amended Standard No. 101 to reference the antilock braking 
system displays (60 FR 13216; March 10, 1995).
    At present, Standard No. 101 does not include certain controls or 
displays specified in Standard No. 208, Occupant crash protection. 
Paragraph S4.5.2, Readiness indicator, of Standard No. 208 specifies 
that an occupant crash protection system that deploys in the event of a 
crash shall have a monitoring system with a readiness indicator. The 
indicator shall monitor its own readiness and shall be clearly visible 
from the driver's designated seating position.
    In this notice of proposed rulemaking, NHTSA proposes to 
incorporate the readiness indicator specified in Standard No. 208 into 
Standard No. 101 and to specify the means of identifying the indicator 
and whether it must be illuminated. To keep Standard No. 101 consistent 
with requirements in other Federal motor vehicle safety standards, 
NHTSA proposes to amend Table 2 ``Identification and Illumination of 
Displays'' by specifying the air bag readiness indicator. NHTSA 
proposes to amend Column 3 (``Identifying Words or Abbreviation'') to 
indicate that the air bag readiness indicator must be identified with 
the words ``AIR BAG'', and to amend Column 4 to indicate that the air 
bag readiness indicator display must be illuminated. The agency is not 
proposing to specify a color (Column 2) or an identifying symbol 
(Column 4) for the air bag readiness indicator.
    In a final rule published May 23, 1995 (60 Federal Register 27233), 
Standard No. 208 was amended to permit manufacturers the option of 
installing a key-operated air bag manual cutoff device that motorists 
could use to deactivate the front passenger-side air bag in vehicles 
that cannot accommodate infant restraints in the rear seat. The 
deactivation device is needed because when rear-facing infant 
restraints are used in the front seat of dual air bag vehicles, they 
extend forward to a point near the dashboard where they can be struck 
by a deploying air bag.
    The air bag manual cutoff device is specified in Standard No. 208 
at S4.5.4, Passenger Air Bag Manual Cutoff Device. Paragraph S4.5.4.2 
describes the device as being separate from the vehicle ignition switch 
and operable by means of the ignition key for the vehicle. Paragraph 
S4.5.4.3 specifies that a telltale light on the dashboard shall be 
clearly visible from all front seating positions and shall be 
illuminated whenever the passenger air bag is deactivated. Paragraph 
S4.5.4.3 further requires the air bag manual cut off device's telltale 
to be yellow, identified with ``AIR BAG OFF,'' and illuminated the 
entire time that the passenger air bag is deactivated. The air bag 
manual cutoff device telltale is further not to be combined with the 
air bag readiness indicator.
    NHTSA proposes to transfer the specifications for the air bag 
manual cutoff device telltale from Standard No. 208 to Standard No. 
101. The language describing the eligibility criteria for vehicles 
permitted to have an air bag manual cutoff device will remain in 
Standard No. 208.
    NHTSA proposes to include the air bag manual cutoff telltale in 
Table 2 (``Identification and Illumination of Displays'') of Standard 
No. 101. NHTSA is not proposing to specify a symbol for the device in 
Table 2. The agency proposes to amend the column on illumination to 
indicate, by stating ``yes'', that illumination is required. NHTSA 
would add a footnote indicating the telltale is to be illuminated only 
when the air bag manual cutoff device is activated.
    NHTSA further proposes that the air bag manual cutoff device be 
described in Table 1 (``Identification and Illumination of Controls'') 
of Standard No. 101. NHTSA proposes that the device be identified in 
Column 2 (``Identifying Words or Abbreviation'') with the words ``Air 
Bag Cutoff.'' NHTSA is not proposing to specify an identifying symbol 
or to specify illumination for the air bag manual cutoff device.
5. Proposal Five--Permit ISO Symbols to Identify Controls and Displays
    Many of the symbols specified in Tables 1 and 2 of Standard No. 101 
are based on symbols developed by the International Standards 
Organization (ISO). In the interests of international harmonization of 
vehicle safety standards, under Proposal Five, NHTSA would permit any 
ISO symbol to be used to identify a control or display. NHTSA would 
require that each ISO symbol used be described in the owner's manual. 
Identification is necessary to ensure that the driver understands the 
meaning of the symbol. It has been NHTSA's experience that the meaning 
of certain ISO symbols may not be intuitively evident to a driver.

Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
1. Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures
    This notice of proposed rulemaking was not reviewed under Executive 
Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review). NHTSA has analyzed the 
impact of this rulemaking action and determined that it is not 
``significant'' within the meaning of the Department of 
Transportation's regulatory policies and procedures. The agency 
anticipates if a final rule should result from this notice of proposed 
rulemaking, it would not have more than a minimal effect on the costs 
associated with controls and displays. If Proposal Four were adopted, 
vehicle manufacturers would incur minimal additional costs. All 
manufacturers already provide some type of identification for the air 
bag readiness indicator and many provide illumination of it. NHTSA 
estimates that the additional costs resulting from adopting Proposal 
Four would be so minimal that preparation of a full regulatory 
evaluation is not warranted.

[[Page 27042]]

    None of the other proposals would impose new requirements or have 
any effect on costs which can be estimated at this time. Proposal Two 
would delete requirements for motor vehicles manufactured before 
September 1, 1987 and September 1, 1989. If the standard were rescinded 
pursuant to Proposal One, NHTSA anticipates no changes in costs 
resulting from manufacturers' actions, because manufacturers are not 
expected to respond to the rescission by making any significant changes 
in the location, identification, and illumination of motor vehicle 
controls and displays. Further, many of the controls and displays 
specified in Standard No. 101 are also specified in other Federal motor 
vehicle safety standards.
    To the extent that individual States might choose to establish 
their own requirements for controls and displays, which would be 
permitted if the agency rescinded the standard, as discussed above, 
vehicle production costs would increase. However, the agency has no way 
of foretelling the extent to which States might opt to do this or of 
estimating the increase in production cost that would result.
    If Proposals Two or Three were adopted, NHTSA also anticipates no 
changes in costs since it does not believe manufacturers will make any 
significant changes in the location, identification, and illumination 
of motor vehicle controls and displays.

2. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    NHTSA has also considered the impacts of this rule under the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act. For the reasons explained above, I hereby 
certify that this rule would not have a significant economic impact on 
a substantial number of small entities. Accordingly, there would not be 
any significant effect on small organizations, jurisdictions or other 
entities which purchase new motor vehicles. For this reason, an initial 
regulatory flexibility analysis has not been prepared.

3. 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 environment.

4. 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.

5. 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 comments on the proposal. 
It is requested but not required that 10 copies be submitted.
    All comments must not exceed 15 pages in length. (49 CFR 553.21). 
Necessary attachments may be appended to these submissions without 
regard to the 15-page limit. This limitation is intended to encourage 
commenters to detail their primary arguments in a concise fashion.
    If a commenter wishes to submit certain information under a claim 
of confidentiality, three copies of the complete submission, including 
purportedly confidential business information, should be submitted to 
the Chief Counsel, NHTSA, at the street address given above, and seven 
copies from which the purportedly confidential information has been 
deleted should be submitted to the Docket Section. A request for 
confidentiality should be accompanied by a cover letter setting forth 
the information specified in the agency's confidential business 
information regulation. 49 CFR Part 512.
    All comments received before the close of business on the comment 
closing date indicated above for the proposal will be considered, and 
will be available for examination in the docket at the above address 
both before and after that date. To the extent possible, comments filed 
after the closing date will also be considered. 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 inspection in the docket. NHTSA will continue to 
file relevant information as it becomes available in the docket after 
the closing date, and it is recommended that interested persons 
continue to examine 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.
    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117, and 30166; 
delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.
    Issued on: May 23, 1996.
Barry Felrice,
Associate Administrator for Safety Performance Standards.
[FR Doc. 96-13528 Filed 5-29-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P