Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Controls and Displays

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