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 2]

RIN 2127-AF86

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Controls and Displays

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),

Transportation.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: In this document, NHTSA amends the Federal Motor Vehicle

Safety Standard on motor vehicle controls and displays by removing two

tables and certain regulatory text, all of which apply to motor

vehicles manufactured before September 1, 1989. The agency makes no

other changes to the Standard. This rulemaking action is undertaken as

part of NHTSA's efforts to implement the President's Regulatory

Reinvention Initiative to remove unnecessary regulatory language.

DATES: Effective date: This final rule is effective July 31, 1997.

Petitions for reconsideration: Any petitions for reconsideration of

this final rule must be received by NHTSA no later than July 31, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Any petition for reconsideration of this final rule should

refer to the docket and notice number set forth in the heading and be

submitted to: Administrator, NHTSA, 400 Seventh Street, S.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

For technical issues: Mr. Chris Flanigan, Office of Crash Avoidance

Standards, NPS-21. Mr. Flanigan's telephone number is (202) 366-4918

and his FAX number is (202) 366-4329.

For legal issues: Ms. Dorothy Nakama, Office of Chief Counsel, NCC-

20, telephone (202) 366-2992, FAX (202) 366-3820.

Both may be reached at the National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590.

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 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

[[Page 32539]]

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.

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

In a Federal Register document published on May 30, 1996 (61 FR

27039) NHTSA proposed five alternatives for changes to the Standard and

sought public comment on each proposal. The proposals were: (1) Rescind

the standard; (2) regulate only those controls and displays related to

motor vehicle safety; (3) regulate only those controls and displays

required by other Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; (4)

consolidate all control and display requirements into Standard No. 101

and (5) permit International Standards Organization (ISO) symbols on

some or all controls and displays requiring identification. NHTSA

identified none of the five proposals as the preferred agency position.

NHTSA stated that if it 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, NHTSA stated the proposals are

not mutually exclusive. NHTSA stated that due to the relative

simplicity of the proposals, it would propose no regulatory language to

implement the proposals.

1. Proposal One--Rescind Standard No. 101

In the NPRM, NHTSA tentatively concluded 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. 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. NHTSA stated that 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 stated its belief that market forces will ensure manufacturers

continue the currently specified practices, citing the changing

location of the horn button as an example.

NHTSA noted 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. NHTSA further noted that 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.

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

Motor Vehicle Safety

The second proposal was 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

proposed 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, NHTSA proposed that S3, Application, of Standard No. 101

be shortened to state: ``This standard applies to passenger cars,

multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses.'' NHTSA further

proposed 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 proposed 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 may not have a

direct effect on motor vehicle safety. Under Proposal Two, NHTSA

proposed to amend Standard No. 101 so that it 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.

Accordingly, NHTSA proposed 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 proposed to

remove the coolant temperature display from Table 2 ``Identification

and Illumination of Displays.'' NHTSA cited as examples of displays

that would continue to be regulated 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.

3. Proposal Three--Regulate Only Controls and Displays Required by

Other Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards

NHTSA's proposed changes under Proposal Three were similar to

Proposal Two, but would have limited 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'' were proposed to 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'' were proposed to be removed: fuel level

telltale and gauge; oil pressure telltale and gauge; coolant

temperature telltale and gauge; electrical charge telltale and gauge;

the speedometer; and the odometer.

NHTSA's rationale was that if enacted, Proposal Three would not

affect the placement in vehicles of controls and displays no longer

specified in Standard No. 101. NHTSA stated 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.

[[Page 32540]]

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

Specified in Other Standards

Under Proposal Four, NHTSA proposed to 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. At present, Standard No. 101 does not include certain

controls or displays specified in Standard No. 208, Occupant crash

protection.

Specifically, NHTSA proposed 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 proposed to amend Table 2

``Identification and Illumination of Displays'' by specifying the air

bag readiness indicator. NHTSA proposed 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 did not propose to specify a

color (Column 2) or an identifying symbol (Column 4) for the air bag

readiness indicator.

NHTSA also proposed to include in Standard No. 101, the air bag

manual cutoff device 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 proposed to transfer the specifications for the air bag

manual cutoff device telltale from Standard No. 208 to Standard No.

101. NHTSA proposed to include the air bag manual cutoff telltale in

Table 2 (``Identification and Illumination of Displays'') of Standard

No. 101. NHTSA did not propose to specify a symbol for the device in

Table 2. The agency proposed to amend the column on illumination to

indicate, by stating ``yes'', that illumination is required. NHTSA

proposed to add a footnote indicating the telltale is to be illuminated

only when the air bag manual cutoff device is activated.

NHTSA further proposed that the air bag manual cutoff device be

described in Table 1 (``Identification and Illumination of Controls'')

of Standard No. 101. NHTSA proposed that the device be identified in

Column 2 (``Identifying Words or Abbreviation'') with the words ``Air

Bag Cutoff.'' NHTSA did not propose 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 proposed to permit

any ISO symbol to be used to identify a control or display. NHTSA

proposed to require that each ISO symbol used be described in the

owner's manual. NHTSA stated that the description may be necessary to

ensure that the driver understands the meaning of the symbol.

Public Comments

In response to the NPRM, NHTSA received comments from the following

ten commenters: Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety (Advocates),

American Automobile Manufacturers Association (AAMA), Center for Auto

Safety (CAS), Chrysler, Coalition of Small Volume Automobile

Manufacturers (COSVAM), Mitsubishi, National Automobile Dealers

Association (NADA), Toyota, Truck Manufacturers Association (TMA), and

Volkswagen. With a few exceptions, the commenters generally raised

objections to all five proposals raised in the NPRM. The commenters

offered the following reasons for their opposition.

Necessity for the Rulemaking

Two commenters expressed skepticism about the need for proposed

changes to Standard No. 101 as described in the NPRM. Advocates stated

that they did not understand why the rulemaking was being conducted,

stating that NHTSA has shown no ``pressing safety need being unmet by

the current standard.'' Advocates urged NHTSA not to disturb the

regulatory status quo with a ``proposal that appears to be a frivolous

use of agency resources.''

CAS described Standard No. 101 as having ``30 years of success''

and NHTSA's invoking the Regulatory Reinvention Initiative to rescind

the standard as ``misplaced.'' CAS further stated that NHTSA itself

acknowledges Standard No. 101 imposes little cost on industry, and

NHTSA has not shown that eliminating the Standard ``would not open the

door for the introduction of irregular and inadequate designs and

configurations of instrument panel controls and displays.''

Public Comments on Proposal One--Rescind Standard No. 101

No commenter supported rescission of Standard No. 101. The most

often cited reason for opposing rescission was that a Federal Motor

Vehicle Safety Standard on controls and displays was needed to preempt

potentially conflicting and confusing State requirements. Advocates

viewed Proposal One as having ``no merit whatever'' and particularly

objected to NHTSA's reliance on ``market forces'' having a role in

maintaining controls and displays. Advocates cited a public comment by

General Motors (on another NHTSA matter) for the proposition that State

regulation (in the absence of a Federal standard) is ``undesirable.''

Chrysler stated it was desirable to have a certain level of control and

display consistency in the national fleet. Toyota stated that its

vehicle production costs would increase if it had to meet differing

state requirements.

TMA did not support rescission, asserting that in the future,

numerous intelligent transportation systems (ITS) will likely be

introduced, and ``human factors considerations'' may mean ITS-based

collision warning/avoidance systems would require more standardization.

The ITS may incorporate a large number of automatic collision avoidance

systems, such as side, frontal, and lane change/merge with their

accompanying in-vehicle warnings and sensors, which could confuse

vehicle operators. Standardized controls and displays could minimize

operator confusion. CAS opposed Proposal One stating that no legally

sufficient rationale for rescission had been articulated in the notice.

Public Comments on Proposal Two--Regulate Only Those Controls and

Displays Related to Motor Vehicle Safety

NHTSA received mixed comments on this proposal. Among those writing

in favor of Proposal Two were Volkswagen, TMA and AAMA. AAMA

[[Page 32541]]

stated that even if NHTSA were to no longer regulate controls and

displays not related to motor vehicle safety, manufacturers would

continue to provide identification, illumination, and accessible

locations for controls and displays.

Many others, however, objected to this proposal because NHTSA did

not specify what it meant by a control or display with no bearing on

safety. Advocates asserted NHTSA has the burden of defining which

controls and displays are ``safety-related'' and that to make

``conclusory opinions'' about which controls and displays can be

removed from Standard No. 101 is ``capricious'' and ``a violation of

agency responsibilities.'' Advocates provided an example of when a

display NHTSA had proposed for removal (the temperature display) may

have a bearing on motor vehicle safety.

CAS opposed Proposal Two stating that at a minimum, NHTSA should

have explained ``what attributes it believes distinguish a vehicle

control and display which directly affects or bears on safety from one

which does not.'' CAS also raised objections to specific controls and

displays NHTSA identified for removal under Proposal Two. Toyota stated

that since it could not determine which controls and displays

``directly bear on the need for motor vehicle safety,'' it would

withhold comment.

Under Proposal Two, NHTSA also proposed to remove outdated tables

and regulatory provisions from Standard No. 101, referring to motor

vehicles manufactured before September 1, 1987 and September 1, 1989.

No commenter opposed removing the outdated provisions.

Public Comments on Proposal Three--Regulate Only Controls and Displays

Required by Other FMVSS

NHTSA received various responses to this proposal. Among those

writing in favor of Proposal Three were Volkswagen and AAMA. NADA

stated that Standard No. 101 should serve as a ``consolidated

reference'' to controls and displays regulated elsewhere. Advocates

opposed Proposal Three, characterizing the proposal as ``a fundamental

dereliction of agency obligations to protect and advance the safety of

motor vehicle occupants.'' Toyota stated that it did not agree with

Proposal Three since all controls and displays specified in the current

standard are ``all equally important in maintaining motor vehicle

safety.'' TMA opposed Proposal Three, stating that there may be a

safety need to regulate controls and displays beyond those in the

FMVSSs. CAS commented that although the criterion for selecting the

controls and displays under Proposal Three was ``unambiguous,'' before

it can remove ``critical'' controls and displays such as the horn, fuel

level indicator, or speedometer from Standard No. 101, NHTSA should

offer more than its boilerplate ``market forces'' assertions, and

provide ``concrete evidence and data justifying the benefits of its

proposed actions.''

Public Comments on Proposal Four--Consolidate in Standard No. 101

Controls and Displays Specified in Other Standards

Although NHTSA received mixed comments on this proposal, more

commenters favored Proposal Four than any other proposal. Mitsubishi

stated that controls and displays for safety devices in other standards

(such as brakes and air bags) should not be included in Standard No.

101 to avoid redundancy and ``to make all the requirements easier to

understand.'' Advocates, the AAMA, Chrysler, and TMA on the other hand,

favored Proposal Four. Advocates stated it would ``improve

comprehension of the requirements for the controls and displays by

integrating specific FMVSS control/display requirements from other

standards into No. 101.'' TMA stated that Proposal Four would be

especially helpful to those who are not intimately familiar with the

complete range of standards. CAS stated that it would reserve judgment

on Proposal Four until it can review NHTSA's proposed regulatory text

implementing Proposal Four.

As part of Proposal Four, NHTSA also proposed that certain controls

and displays, presently specified in Standard No. 208, should instead

be specified in Standard No. 101. Many commenters, including Advocates

and Toyota, offered comments on attributes that the air bag readiness

indicator display and air bag manual cutoff device should have, if they

are specified in Standard No. 101.

Public Comments on Proposal Five--Permit ISO Symbols to Identify

Controls and Displays

Although commenters addressed the issue of ISO standards in

Standard No. 101, the broader issue of harmonizing the Standard with

international standards was also addressed. As an example, Chrysler

generally wrote in support of international harmonization of the FMVSSs

by allowing use of ISO symbols. Volkswagen stated that NHTSA should

permit ISO symbols to identify controls and displays for which

requirements are prescribed in Standard No. 101. NADA stated that ISO

symbols should be allowed ``whenever possible.''

AAMA supported Proposal Five, stating most ISO symbols are already

permitted by Standard No. 101. AAMA further stated that symbols not

specified in Standard No. 101 have been in U.S. vehicles for years and

that the ``motoring public has been educated as to the meaning of these

symbols.'' TMA stated that it supported Proposal Five for practical

reasons, ``e.g., the difficulty in assuring that every custom truck

configuration is matched to unique documentation, cannot support the

requirement for each ISO symbol to be described in the owner's

manual.''

CAS, on the other hand, urged NHTSA not to permit (presumably

unfamiliar) ISO symbols because of potential adverse safety

consequences if the driver is uncertain about the information the

symbol is meant to convey. Advocates wrote that it ``strongly opposes''

Proposal Five, commenting that ``all three versions of rescission of

the current requirements of No. 101 would open the door to the use of

ISO symbols that NHTSA has already recognized as inadequate for motor

vehicle safety.''

Both commenters who did not support the proposal to permit any

International Standards Organization (ISO) symbol cited NHTSA's own

past rulemakings, especially on the brake standard, to show NHTSA has

in the past sometimes been reluctant to permit certain ISO symbols

because it did not believe those symbols were intuitively evident.

Among the commenters writing on behalf of making Standard No. 101

harmonize with international standards was COSVAM. COSVAM asked NHTSA

to add a new paragraph to Standard No. 101 that would state that

``compliance with ECE, EEC or Japanese requirements on the subject of

controls and displays will be deemed to be compliance with FMVSS 101.

Similarly, Toyota recommended that Standard No. 101 be revised to

incorporate ISO 275 ``Road vehicles--symbols for controls, indicators,

and tell-tales'' to be harmonized with the Japanese and European

standards.

NHTSA Decision and Final Rule

The purpose of the President's Regulatory Reinvention Initiative

was to have the Federal government take a careful look at its

regulations to identify and remove any unnecessary provisions. In

response to that Initiative, NHTSA examined Standard No. 101. NHTSA was

concerned that Standard No. 101 might be imposing a needless regulatory

burden on the public by regulating

[[Page 32542]]

aspects of motor vehicle design that were beyond what was needed to

assure safety. To explore these concerns further, the agency proposed a

number of alternative ways that might reduce the regulatory burden of

this standard. These alternatives included rescinding Standard No. 101,

regulating only the controls and displays related to safety or required

by other safety standards, consolidating controls and displays required

in other standards, and permitting the use of ISO symbols to identify

controls and displays.

The public comments on the proposal indicate that the current

requirements are not imposing unnecessary regulatory burdens. Further,

there was no broad consensus, even among the vehicle manufacturers, in

support of any of the proposals.

Several commenters urged the agency to further international

harmonization by adopting the proposal to permit the use of recognized

international symbols for the controls and displays inside a vehicle.

Although NHTSA is not adopting that proposal for the reasons explained

below, the agency is committed to exploring the possibilities of

harmonizing its regulatory requirements with the regulatory

requirements of other nations, provided that such harmonization does

not reduce the safety protection afforded to the American public. As

evidence of that commitment, the agency has held a public meeting on

July 10 and July 11, 1996 and a public workshop on January 16, 1997 on

the subject of harmonizing the requirements of the Federal motor

vehicle safety standards with the counterpart requirements in other

countries' safety standards. The agency used the meeting and workshop

to explain to the public what factors the agency would consider in

deciding whether the U.S. safety standard and some other nation's

safety standard are ``functionally equivalent,'' and to get public

comments on the process the agency proposes to use to make functional

equivalence determinations.

NHTSA believes it is more appropriate for the agency to establish a

comprehensive approach and process for considering functional

equivalence of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards and other

nations' standards before the agency considers the functional

equivalence of any standard or group of standards. Once the agency's

comprehensive approach and process are in place for functional

equivalence decisions, NHTSA will consider any requests for functional

equivalence determinations of Standard No. 101 that are made according

to the established process. It would be premature to consider that

subject in this rulemaking, outside the overall process for considering

functional equivalence.

Accordingly, rulemaking to change Standard No. 101 is hereby

terminated except with respect to the proposal to remove outdated

language. The outdated language is hereby removed.

Implementation of Proposal Two--Removing Outdated Provisions

No commenter opposed removal of the outdated provisions. Removing

unnecessary regulatory language is consistent with the Regulatory

Reinvention Initiative. As described in the NPRM, the outdated language

includes references to vehicles manufactured before September 1, 1987

and September 1, 1989. In addition, two tables, Table 1(a)

``Identification and Illumination of Controls'' and Table 2(a)

``Identification and Illumination of Internal Displays'' apply to

vehicles manufactured before September 1, 1987.

Effective Date

The agency determines that there is good cause shown that an

effective date earlier than 180 days after issuance is in the public

interest. This final rule only removes outdated provisions from

Standard No. 101 and makes no substantive changes to the Standard.

Recently, the agency amended its provisions in 49 CFR section 553.35

regarding petitions for reconsideration to extend the period within

which petitions may be filed to 45 days. Accordingly, the final rule

will take effect 45 days after its publication in the Federal Register.

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. This final rule

has no effect on the costs associated with controls and displays

because it only removes outdated regulatory language from Standard No.

101. No substantive changes are made in Standard No. 101.

2. Regulatory Flexibility Act

NHTSA has also considered the impacts of this final rule under the

Regulatory Flexibility Act. For the reasons explained above, I hereby

certify that this final rule does not have a significant economic

impact on a substantial number of small entities. Accordingly, there is

no significant effect on small organizations, jurisdictions or other

entities which purchase new motor vehicles. For this reason, a final

regulatory flexibility analysis has not been prepared.

3. National Environmental Policy Act

NHTSA has also analyzed this final 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 final 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 final rule does 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.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 571

Imports, Motor vehicle safety, Motor vehicles, Rubber and rubber

products, Tires.

In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA amends 49 CFR part 571 as

follows:

1. The authority section for part 571 continues 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 571.101 is amended by revising S3., revising S5., and

revising S5.3.3 to read as follows:

Sec. 571.101 Standard No. 101; Controls and displays.

* * * * *

S3. Application. This standard applies to passenger cars,

multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses.

* * * * *

[[Page 32543]]

S5. Requirements. Each passenger car, multipurpose passenger

vehicle, truck and bus manufactured with any control listed in S5.1 or

in column 1 of Table 1, and each passenger car, multipurpose passenger

vehicle and truck or bus less than 10,000 pounds GVWR with any display

listed in S5.1 or in column 1 of Table 2, shall meet the requirements

of this standard for the location, identification, and illumination of

such control or display.

* * * * *

S5.3.3 (a) Means shall be provided for making controls, gauges, and

the identification of those items visible to the driver under all

driving conditions.

(b) The means for providing the required visibility--

(1) Shall be adjustable to provide at least two levels of

brightness, one of which is barely discernible to a driver who has

adapted to dark ambient roadway conditions.

(2) May be operable manually or automatically, and

(3) May have levels of brightness at which those items and

identification are not visible.

(c) If the level of brightness is adjusted by automatic means to a

point where those items or their identification are not visible to the

driver, a means shall be provided to enable the driver to restore

visibility.

* * * * *

3. Section 571. 101 is revised by removing Table 1(a)

``Identification and Illumination of Controls'' following Table 1.

4. Section 571.101 is revised by removing Table 2(a)

``Identification and Illumination of Internal Displays'' following

Table 2.

Issued on: June 6, 1997.

Ricardo Martinez,

Administrator.

[FR Doc. 97-15675 Filed 6-13-97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-59-P