97-15675. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Controls and Displays  

  • [Federal Register Volume 62, Number 115 (Monday, June 16, 1997)]
    [Rules and Regulations]
    [Pages 32538-32543]
    From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
    [FR Doc No: 97-15675]
    
    
    =======================================================================
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    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
    
    
    

Document Information

Published:
06/16/1997
Department:
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Entry Type:
Rule
Action:
Final rule.
Document Number:
97-15675
Pages:
32538-32543 (6 pages)
Docket Numbers:
Docket No. 96-52, Notice 2
RINs:
2127-AF86: Rescind Controls and Displays
RIN Links:
https://www.federalregister.gov/regulations/2127-AF86/rescind-controls-and-displays
PDF File:
97-15675.pdf
CFR: (1)
49 CFR 571.101