[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