[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 184 (Tuesday, September 23, 2003)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 55217-55240]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-24145]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 571

[DOT Docket No. NHTSA-03-16194]
RIN 2127-AI09


Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Controls and Displays

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: In this document, we propose to update and expand our standard 
regulating motor vehicle controls and displays. The standard requires, 
among other things, that certain controls, telltales and indicators be 
identified by specified symbols or words. The NPRM proposes to require 
the mandatory use of symbols for the identification of these controls, 
telltales and indicators, as well as for additional controls, telltales 
and indicators. The NPRM also proposes to extend the standard's display 
requirements to vehicles with a Gross Vehicle Weight Rating (GVWR) 
greater than 10,000 pounds. Finally, the NPRM proposes to update the 
standard's requirements for multi-function controls and displays, to 
make the requirements appropriate for advanced systems.

DATES: You should submit your comments early enough to ensure that 
Docket Management receives them not later than November 24, 2003.

ADDRESSES: You may submit your comments [identified by the DOT DMS 
Docket Number cited in the heading of this document] by any of the 
following methods:
    [sbull] Web Site: http://dms.dot.gov. Follow the instructions for 
submitting comments on the DOT electronic docket site.
    [sbull] Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
    [sbull] Mail: Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of 
Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, Room PL-401, 
Washington, DC, 20590-001.
    [sbull] Hand Delivery: Room PL-401 on the plaza level of the Nassif 
Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays.
    [sbull] Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting 
comments.
    You may call the Docket at 202-366-9324. You may visit the Docket 
from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For non-legal issues, except for 
international harmonization issues, you may call Ms. Gayle Dalrymple, 
Office of Crash Avoidance Standards at (202) 366-5559. Her FAX number 
is (202) 493-2739.
    For international harmonization issues, you may call Mr. Patrick 
Boyd, Office of Crash Avoidance Standards at (202) 366-6346. His FAX 
number is (202) 493-2739.
    For legal issues, you may call Ms. Dorothy Nakama, Office of the 
Chief Counsel at (202) 366-2992. Her FAX number is (202) 366-3820.
    You may send mail to all of these officials at National Highway 
Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh St., SW., Washington, DC 
20590.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Background
II. Issues Raised in 1996 NPRM and 1997 Final Rule
III. Concerns Underlying this Proposal
    A. Need to Standardize Identifying Symbols for Additional 
Controls and Displays
    B. Need to Modify Identification Requirements for Multi-function 
Controls with Remote Displays
IV. Harmonizing with Canadian and International Standards
    A. Working with Canada
    B. Working with the World Forum for Harmonization of Vehicle 
Regulations of the United Nations/Economic Commission for Europe
V. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
    A. Proposed New Definitions
    1. ``Adjacent''
    2. ``Common Space''
    3. ``Control''
    4. ``Indicator''
    5. ``Multi-Function Control'' and ``Multi-Task Display''
    6. ``Telltale''
    B. Application to Vehicles of 4,536 Kg. (10,000 Pounds) or 
Greater GVWR
    C. Location of Controls
    D. Labeling Requirement for Ring-Type Horn Actuators
    E. Visibility Requirements Under ``Daylight and Nighttime'' 
Conditions
    F. Proposed New Tables
    1. Table 1
    a. Items in Proposed Table 1 Not in Current Tables
    b. Air Bag Malfunction Telltale
    c. Malfunction of Trailer ABS Telltale
    d. Required Use of Symbols and Word Identifiers for Brake 
Telltales
    e. Air Bag Deactivated Telltale
    f. Speedometer
    2. Proposed Table 2
    G. Objectivity
    H. Common Space for Displaying Multiple Messages
    I. Identification of Multi-function Controls
    J. Other Issues
    K. Conforming Amendments to Other Standards
VI. Leadtime and Cost
VII. Regulatory Analyses and Notices
    A. Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and 
Procedures
    B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
    C. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)
    D. Executive Order 12778 (Civil Justice Reform)
    E. National Environmental Policy Act
    F. Paperwork Reduction Act
    G. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
    H. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    I. Plain Language
    J. Regulation Identifier Number (RIN)
VIII. Comments
Proposed Regulatory Text

I. Background

    NHTSA issued the original version of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety 
Standard (FMVSS) 101, Controls and Displays, in 1967 (32 FR 2408) as 
one of the initial FMVSSs. The standard applies to passenger cars, 
multipurpose passenger vehicles (MPVs), trucks, and buses.\1\ The 
purpose of the original standard was to assure the accessibility and 
visibility of motor vehicle controls and displays under all lighting 
conditions. The standard was designed to reduce the risk of safety 
hazards caused by the diversion of the driver's attention from the 
driving task to locate and identify the desired control or display, and 
to ensure that a driver wearing a safety belt could reach controls 
needed to accomplish the driving task.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The requirements of the current Table 2, ``Identification 
and Illustration of Displays'' do not apply to vehicles of 10,000 
pounds or more GVWR. We are proposing to change this. See section 
V.B.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At present, FMVSS 101 specifies requirements for the location 
(S5.1), identification (S5.2), and illumination (5.3) of various 
controls and displays. It specifies that those controls and displays 
must be accessible and visible to a driver properly seated wearing his 
or her safety belt. Table 1, ``Identification and Illumination of 
Controls,'' and Table 2, ``Identification and Illumination of 
Displays,'' indicate which controls and displays are subject to the 
identification requirements, and how they are to be identified, 
colored, and illuminated.

II. Issues Raised in 1996 NPRM and 1997 Final Rule

    In 1996, pursuant to a March 4, 1995 directive entitled 
``Regulatory Reinvention Initiative'' from the President to the heads 
of departments

[[Page 55218]]

and agencies,\2\ NHTSA undertook a review of its regulations and 
directives. During the course of this review, we identified regulations 
that could be proposed for elimination as unnecessary or for revision 
to improve their comprehensibility, application, or appropriateness.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The initiative was intended in part to eliminate duplicative 
and unnecessary agency rules and regulations in addition to 
streamlining existing regulations that remain useful and relevant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We identified FMVSS 101 as one of those regulations because it 
appeared to be a candidate either for elimination or revision. We were 
concerned that the Standard might be imposing a needless regulatory 
burden on the public by regulating 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. Specifically, in a May 30, 1996 notice of proposed rulemaking 
(61 FR 27039), we identified the following approaches to amending FMVSS 
101: (1) Rescinding the standard; (2) regulating only those controls 
and displays whose function is related to motor vehicle safety, and 
removing outdated provisions; (3) regulating only those controls and 
displays required by other FMVSSs; (4) consolidating all control and 
display requirements into FMVSS 101; and (5) permitting the use of 
International Standards Organization (ISO) symbols on some or all 
controls and displays currently required to be identified. We announced 
that if we decided not to rescind FMVSS 101, we might adopt one or more 
of the other proposals.
    The public comments on the proposal indicated that the current 
requirements are not imposing unnecessary regulatory burdens. None of 
the commenters urged rescission of the standard. Further, there was no 
broad consensus, even among the vehicle manufacturers, in support of 
any of the proposals.
    After reviewing the public comments, we published a final rule, 
announcing that we had decided not to adopt any of the proposals (62 FR 
32538; June 16, 1997). We nonetheless amended the standard by removing 
outdated provisions.
    In response to the proposal to regulate only those controls and 
displays whose function is ``related to motor vehicle safety,'' some 
commenters questioned our suggestion in the NPRM that some controls and 
displays were not related to safety. In the final rule, we did not 
provide guidance on which controls and displays are or are not safety 
related.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The agency notes, in retrospect, that while only some 
controls and displays are for safety functions like brakes or 
vehicle speed, one of the purposes of FMVSS 101 is to reduce the 
amount of time that a driver's attention is diverted from the 
driving task while he or she attempts to locate, correctly identify 
and correctly operate the desired control or display. In that sense, 
all controls and displays are related to vehicle safety.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As to our proposal to permit the use of ISO symbols to identify 
some or all controls and displays currently required by the standard to 
be identified, commenters from the motor vehicle industry generally 
supported that proposal. The American Automobile Manufacturers 
Association (AAMA) supported use of the ISO symbols, noting that 
symbols not specified in FMVSS 101 have been used in U.S. vehicles for 
years and that the ``motoring public has been educated as to the 
meaning of these symbols.''
    On the other hand, public interest groups raised concerns about the 
ISO symbols. The Center for Auto Safety (CAS) urged us not to permit 
ISO symbols because of potential adverse safety consequences if a 
driver were uncertain how to interpret the symbols. Commenters opposed 
to using ISO symbols also cited several past NHTSA rulemakings, 
especially several on the brake standards, in which the agency had 
expressed reluctance to permit ISO symbols whose meaning it did not 
believe to be intuitively obvious, i.e., immediately understandable 
without the necessity for any education or memorization.
    In the response to these comments, we expressed our commitment 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.''

III. Concerns Underlying This Proposal

    Two primary concerns underlie this proposal to update FMVSS 101.

A. Need To Standardize Identifying Symbols for Additional Controls and 
Displays

    First, we tentatively conclude that requiring vehicle controls and 
displays to be consistently identified by means of an internationally 
recognized set of graphics in all vehicles would promote safety. This 
is particularly important as the controls and displays in vehicles 
increase in number and complexity.
    The consistent use in all new motor vehicles of a single symbol for 
each function would increase the recognition of that function among all 
drivers. Moreover, the internationally recognized symbols are 
independent of any particular language. In addition, using an 
established set of symbols also used in other areas enhances their 
recognition.
    The foregoing considerations have led us to propose the use of a 
graphic symbol set established by the International Standards 
Organization (ISO) specifically for controls and displays in motor 
vehicles, ISO 2575:2000. The ISO symbol set has existed for many years. 
The great majority of vehicles manufactured for sale in the U.S. 
already use many of these symbols. As a result, U.S. drivers have 
become familiar with many of them through exposure in their current 
vehicles.
    We believe that, for all vehicles sold today, the vehicle owner's 
manual lists the symbols used in the vehicle and explains their 
meanings. To test this belief, NHTSA staff randomly selected owner's 
manuals for 12 different vehicles. All of the vehicles used some ISO 
symbols. In all cases, the manuals provided complete explanations of 
all symbols used in the vehicle, including their definition and the 
function or condition they represented. Therefore, an explicit 
requirement that manufacturers list such information in their vehicles' 
owners' manuals appears unnecessary.
    We recognize that some vehicle functions are easily represented by 
a symbol, such as the horn, while others may be more difficult to 
convey graphically. Nonetheless, the consistent and widespread use of 
even the less intuitive symbols generates understanding of their 
meanings.
    We note that an SAE report from the early 1980s, ``Investigation 
Into the Identification and Interpretation of Automotive Indicators and 
Controls,'' showed that U.S. drivers generally failed to recognize the 
ISO brake malfunction symbol, a graphic representation of a brake drum 
and shoes with an exclamation point in the center. In general, the word 
``BRAKE'' better communicated a brake malfunction. In the twenty-plus 
years since that report, many manufacturers have used the ISO symbols 
for parking brake, brake lining wear, ABS, and brake malfunction in 
U.S. vehicles (accompanied by the English word, where required), so 
that U.S. drivers are much more exposed to the graphic of the brake 
drum and shoes than they were in the past. We believe that the proposed 
five-year phase-in of the ISO brake symbol proposed here, during which 
the word ``BRAKE'' must appear

[[Page 55219]]

in combination with the ISO brake malfunction symbol, would contribute 
toward all drivers learning the meaning of the symbol.
    We also note that, nearly 20 years ago, the agency stated that it 
agreed with the idea that ``too many symbols'' would not be in the 
interest of motor vehicle safety.\4\ However, we believe today, the 
issue is not so much the number of symbols or other identifiers, but 
the number of controls, telltales and indicators. In today's 
increasingly sophisticated vehicles, the number of controls, telltales 
and indicators is steadily increasing. These items must be identified 
in some fashion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 49 FR 30191-92; July 27, 1984.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The function of FMVSS 101 is not to limit or regulate the number of 
controls, telltales and indicators in vehicles; instead, its function 
is to ensure that when a regulated control, telltale, or indicator 
exists in the vehicle, proper identification is provided. Whether that 
identification is a word, an abbreviation, or a graphic, it is a means 
of representing a specific vehicle function or condition. We 
tentatively conclude that, in response to the increase in the number of 
controls in vehicles, it would be desirable to require each control to 
be labeled with the same symbol in every vehicle in order to minimize 
driver confusion and distraction. After a period of learning, symbols 
would be generally recognized as to the function or condition they 
represent.

B. Need To Modify Identification Requirements for Multi-function 
Controls With Remote Displays

    Second, we tentatively conclude that there is a need to amend FMVSS 
101 in response to the development and increased use of multi-function 
controls linked to a display screen remote from the control itself to 
convey information to drivers about the status of multiple vehicle 
systems and means of controlling those systems. We believe that FMVSS 
101's current requirement that the identification for controls ``be 
placed on or adjacent to the control'' restricts the design of these 
types of systems unnecessarily. Accordingly, we are proposing an 
amendment to accommodate those systems.

IV. Harmonizing With Canadian and International Standards

A. Working With Canada

    Implementing its commitment to explore the international 
harmonization of FMVSS 101, NHTSA talked with Transport Canada 
(Canada's counterpart to the U.S. Department of Transportation) in the 
late 1990s about Canada's controls and displays standard, i.e., 
Canadian Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 101. The joint goal of NHTSA and 
Transport Canada in these talks was to revise their respective 
standards so that, subject to the overriding concern of ensuring that 
they continue to provide at least the same level of motor vehicle 
safety, they are better organized, easier to understand, and consistent 
with the positions of the U.S., Canada, and European standards 
organizations. This notice of proposed rulemaking is based in part on 
that collaboration.

B. Working With the World Forum for Harmonization of Vehicle 
Regulations of the United Nations/Economic Commission for Europe

    The United States and Canada have also informally discussed earlier 
drafts of the proposed FMVSS 101 and the possibility of its being 
considered for adoption by other countries participating in the United 
Nations/Economic Commission for Europe World Forum for Harmonization of 
Vehicle Regulations (also know as Working Party 29). Working Party 29 
administers two agreements dealing with the establishment and 
harmonization of technical motor vehicle safety regulations: a 1958 
Agreement called the ``Agreement concerning the adoption of uniform 
technical prescriptions for wheeled vehicles, equipment and parts which 
can be fitted and/or be used on wheeled vehicles and the conditions for 
reciprocal recognition of approvals granted on the basis of these 
prescriptions'' and a 1998 Agreement known as the 1998 Global 
Agreement. The 1998 Global Agreement provides for the establishment of 
global technical regulations regarding the safety, emissions, energy 
conservation and theft prevention of wheeled vehicles, equipment and 
parts. The Agreement contains procedures for establishing global 
technical regulations by either harmonizing existing regulations or 
developing new ones.
    On July 18, 2000, in anticipation of the 1998 Global Agreement's 
entry into force, NHTSA published a request for public comments on the 
agency's list of preliminary recommendations of standards or aspects of 
standards for consideration by the Contracting Parties to the Agreement 
in prioritizing the development and establishment of global technical 
regulations under the Agreement (65 FR 44565). In the notice, the 
agency said that it believed that the recommendations would serve the 
interest of improving motor vehicle safety in the U.S. It also said it 
would help carry out the 1998 Global Agreement's goal of continuously 
improving and seeking high levels of safety around the world. In turn, 
accomplishing that goal would promote the development of new and/or 
better U.S. standards, thus leveraging the available NHTSA resources 
for such development.
    One of NHTSA's preliminary recommendations in the notice concerned 
controls and displays:

    Controls and displays: No ECE regulation exists on this subject. 
Further, the European Union (EU) directive on this subject lacks 
many of the location and illumination requirements of the U.S. 
standard (FMVSS No.101) and concentrates mainly on symbols. WP.29 is 
interested in developing an ECE regulation on controls and displays 
and has asked the U.S. and Canada to develop a draft harmonized 
standard that will incorporate control and display requirements 
currently in standards of other countries. The draft will include 
requirements regarding visibility, illumination and location of 
controls and displays, and will specify many standardized ISO 
symbols as mandatory or optional.

    After reviewing the public comments, we published a document on 
January 18, 2001 (66 FR 4893) (DOT Docket No. NHTSA-00-7638; Notice 2) 
setting forth the recommendations the agency would make to WP.29. We 
submitted those recommendations at the March 2001 meeting of WP.29 in 
Geneva. WP.29 considered our recommendations and those of other 
Contracting Parties and in March 2002 adopted a work program of initial 
priorities under the 1998 Global Agreement, including controls and 
displays.

V. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

A. Proposed New Definitions

    In S4, Definitions, we propose the following new or amended 
definitions:
    1. ``Adjacent''--At present, the term ``adjacent'' appears in FMVSS 
101's ``Identification'' section at S5.2.1(a) ``The identification 
appears on or adjacent to the control'' and at S5.2.3: ``The 
identification required or permitted by this section shall be placed on 
or adjacent to the display that it identifies.'' The word ``adjacent'' 
is not presently defined in FMVSS 101. As will be explained more fully 
below, the term ``adjacent'' has resulted in several requests for 
interpretation of what ``adjacent'' means for controls that are 
identified by images that appear on a digital display screen. We 
propose to clarify ``adjacent'' with the following definition: 
``Adjacent, with respect to a symbol identifying a control, telltale or 
indicator, means: (a) the symbol is in close proximity to the control, 
telltale or

[[Page 55220]]

indicator; and (b) no other control, telltale, indicator, identifying 
symbol or source of illumination appears between the identifying symbol 
and the telltale, indicator, or control that the symbol identifies.'' 
This would put into regulatory form the definition of the term 
``adjacent'' that we have used in FMVSS 101 interpretation letters such 
as the June 8, 2000 letter to an unidentified company, and the February 
27, 2001 letter to Mazda North American Operations.
    2. ``Common space''--This term, which is used but not defined in 
FMVSS 101, would be defined as ``an area on which more than one 
telltale, indicator, identifier or other message may be displayed, but 
not simultaneously.'' This definition is intended to address designs in 
which a ``common space'' is used to display more than one warning, 
message or identification, but not simultaneously. The ``common space'' 
is a space-saving device.
    3. ``Control''--At present, FMVSS 101 regulates both hand-operated 
controls and foot-operated controls. The Standard requires that certain 
foot-operated controls, i.e., those for service brake, accelerator, 
clutch, high beam, windshield washer and windshield wiper, must be 
operable by the driver. We propose to limit the term ``control,'' and 
thus FMVSS 101 itself, to hand-operated controls. We are doing so for 
two reasons. First, we are unaware of any current vehicles whose high 
beam, or windshield washer or wiper controls are foot-operated. Second, 
there is no need, as a practical matter, to include a requirement that 
service brakes, accelerators, and clutches be operable by the driver.
    4. ``Indicator''--We propose to use this new term to replace the 
term ``gauge'' because ``gauge'' connotes an analog display whereas 
``indicator'' does not. We propose to define ``indicator'' as ``a 
device that shows the magnitude of physical characteristics that the 
instrument is designed to sense.''
    5. ``Multi-function control'' and ``multi-task display.'' We 
propose two new definitions to address the use of controls that select 
several different vehicle functions and that display information about 
those functions on a display that is remote from the control. A multi-
function control is ``a control through which the driver may select, 
and affect the operation of, more than one vehicle function.'' A multi-
task display is ``a display on which more than one message can be shown 
simultaneously.'' These controls and displays are discussed in Section 
V.I.
    6. ``Telltale''--We propose to redefine ``telltale'' as an 
``optical signal that, when illuminated, indicates the actuation of a 
device, a correct or improper functioning or condition, or a failure to 
function.'' It is NHTSA's belief that this proposed definition is more 
specific and less broad than the present definition.

B. Application to Vehicles of 4,536 kg (10,000 lb) or Greater GVWR

    At present, FMVSS 101 at S5 excludes vehicles of 4,536 kg (10,000 
lb) or greater gross vehicle weight rating from the location, 
illumination, and color requirements for displays. We are proposing to 
remove the exclusion, and to make the standard's display requirements 
applicable to medium and heavy vehicles. Our rationale to include these 
vehicles is that it would meet the need for safety to ensure that 
drivers of medium and heavy vehicles are able to see and identify their 
displays as easily as do drivers of light vehicles.

C. Location of Controls

    At S5.1.1, in the section on ``Location,'' we propose to require 
that the controls listed in the standard must be located so that they 
are within reach of the driver while the driver is restrained by a 
crash protection system pursuant to FMVSS 208, Occupant Crash 
Protection. Included are not only controls essential to the driving 
task (i.e., turn signal, windshield wiping and washing), but also 
controls such as the air conditioning and heating control and fan 
control.

D. Labeling Requirement for Ring-Type Horn Actuators.

    We propose at S5.2.1 that the standard exclude only horns actuated 
by lanyards from the requirement for identifying horn actuators. This 
would remove a current exclusion for ring-type horn actuators. We are 
unaware of any vehicles that use ring-type horn controls. However, we 
believe that with the current interest in styling vehicles to resemble 
earlier models we may again see ring-type horn controls in some 
vehicles.\5\ Since the majority of current drivers would not be 
familiar with the use of this type of horn control, it should be 
labeled, if possible. We seek comment on whether this type of horn 
actuator is used in vehicles currently in production, or planned for 
production. If ring-type horn actuators are used, in what types of 
vehicles are they found, and is there a means by which they can be 
labeled?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ We note that the providing of ring-type horn controls is 
limited by FMVSS 203, Impact Protection for the Driver from the 
Steering Control System. This standard requires steering control 
systems to be constructed so that no components or attachments, 
including horn actuating mechanisms and trim hardware, can catch the 
driver's clothing or jewelry during normal driving maneuvers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

E. Visibility Requirements Under ``Daylight and Nighttime'' Conditions

    At S5.3.2.1, we propose to specify that means be provided ``for 
illuminating the indicators, identifications of indicators, and 
identifications of hand-operated controls listed in Table 1 
sufficiently to make them visible to the driver under daylight and 
nighttime driving conditions.'' At S5.3.3, we propose to specify that 
means be provided for illuminating telltales and their identification 
sufficiently to make them visible to the driver ``under daylight and 
nighttime driving conditions.'' The present language at S.5.3.3(a) 
states that means shall be provided for making controls, gauges, and 
their identification of those items ``visible to the driver under all 
driving conditions.'' The narrower ``visible * * * under daylight and 
nighttime conditions'' language is proposed because under some extreme 
lighting conditions (e.g. driving directly into a sunrise or sunset), 
it is virtually impossible to make illuminated symbols (even after 
adjusting the level of illumination) or non-illuminated symbols be 
visible to the driver. NHTSA believes that, for the most part, the 
instances in which the driver cannot see symbols are of short duration, 
and therefore would not cause a safety problem if the telltales and/or 
their identifiers were not ``visible'' to the driver during that short 
time period.

F. Proposed New Tables

    In the current standard, Table 1 lists controls, the symbols and/or 
words to identify them, and whether illumination is required, while 
Table 2 lists displays, the symbols and/or words to identify them, the 
required color, and whether illumination is required.
    The proposed revised standard would have two tables, each of which 
would include both controls and displays.
    Table 1 would specify symbols, color requirements and whether 
illumination is required for controls, telltales, and indicators for 
which we are proposing illumination or color requirements. These 
proposed requirements reflect requirements already in FMVSS 101, CMVSS 
101, ECE 78/316, or are proposed in the draft GTR on ``Hand controls, 
tell-tales, and indicators.''
    Table 2 would specify symbols for controls, telltales, and 
indicators other than those listed in proposed Table 1. No color or 
illumination requirements are specified in this table.

[[Page 55221]]

    We believe that the new, proposed tables would simplify a search 
for a symbol and show when a symbol is used for several different 
displays (control, indicator, or telltale). The symbols in the proposed 
tables are essentially identical to the ISO symbols.
    1. Table 1. As indicated above, the proposed Table 1 lists 
controls, telltales, and indicators for which we are proposing an 
illumination or color requirement. Column 1 of the table names the 
control, telltale or indicator, column 2 specifies the required symbol, 
column 3 indicates whether the item is a control, telltale, indicator, 
or some combination of control, telltale, or indicator, column 4 states 
whether illumination is required for that item, and column 5 specifies 
the required color, if any. All controls, telltales, and indicators 
that had an illumination or color requirement in the present Tables 1 
and 2 are proposed to be included in new Table 1.
    a. Items in Proposed Table 1 Not in the Current Tables. The 
following items are proposed to be included in the new Table 1, but do 
not appear in either of the current FMVSS 101 tables: (1) The controls 
and telltales for front and rear fog lamps and parking lamps; (2) the 
telltale concerning air bag malfunction required by FMVSS 208; and (3) 
the engine on-board diagnostics telltale required by emissions 
standards.
    b. Air Bag Malfunction Telltale. While FMVSS 208 requires a 
telltale concerning air bag malfunction, the identification is not 
specified. This has resulted in manufacturers using different 
identifications, e.g., ``SRS'' or ``INFL REST''. We propose to require 
the ISO symbol for air bag malfunction to make the display uniform in 
all vehicles.
    c. Malfunction of Trailer ABS Telltale. Table 1 includes a telltale 
indicating a malfunction of trailer antilock brake system (ABS). We 
note that the symbol for the telltale is not identical to the ISO 
symbol. The ISO specifies a symbol that indicates which trailer, in a 
rig hauling multiple trailers, is experiencing the problem. To our 
knowledge, no current vehicle has this sensing capability. FMVSS 121, 
Air Brake Systems, requires tractor and trailer ABS malfunctions to be 
identified separately. However, only one telltale is required for 
trailer ABS malfunctions, regardless of the number of trailers. The ABS 
malfunction telltales proposed in Table 1, if adopted, would permit 
compliance with braking standards. The ISO symbol, which includes 
numbered trailers, on the other hand, represents a capability not 
required by any country's safety standard, and therefore would require 
more than is necessary for compliance with braking standards. We 
believe that manufacturers currently do not plan to use that symbol 
because standard tractor/trailer wiring systems have too few lines to 
make it possible to communicate information indicating which trailer is 
experiencing the problem.
    d. Required Use of Symbols and Word Identifiers for Brake 
Telltales.
    FMVSS 101 currently specifies that for controls and displays for 
which a symbol is shown in the standard's tables, the control or 
display must be identified by either that symbol or by the word or 
abbreviation shown in the tables. The standard requires some items, 
including the brake system malfunction telltales required by FMVSS 105 
and 135, to be identified by words.
    In proposed Table 1, identifying words or abbreviations have been 
eliminated for all telltales, except for the brake system malfunction 
telltales regulated by FMVSS 105 and 135, for which the word ``BRAKE'' 
is incorporated into the symbols. We are proposing to require the word 
``BRAKE'', in addition to the ISO symbol, for these telltales to aid 
consumers in correctly interpreting the meaning of the brake symbols 
during a five-year learning period.
    The requirements for the word ``BRAKE'' would end after the five 
year period. We believe that five years is enough time to enable the 
American public to learn the meaning of the symbols. We seek public 
comment on the length of this period.
    We believe that requiring the use of a standardized set of symbols 
would promote safety by making the manner of identification of 
controls, telltales and indicators uniform across the fleet, thereby 
reducing driver distraction. It also harmonizes U.S. requirements and 
symbol usage with Canadian and UN/ECE standards.
    e. Air Bag Deactivated Telltale. The advanced air bag requirements 
of FMVSS 208 include, for vehicles that have automatic suppression 
features, a requirement for a telltale that indicates whether the 
passenger air bag is deactivated. See S19.2.2. Among other things, the 
telltale must have the identifying words ``PASSENGER AIR BAG OFF'' or 
``PASS AIR BAG OFF'' on the telltale or within 25 mm (1.0 in) of the 
telltale. The advanced air bag requirements are being phased in on a 
mandatory basis beginning September 1, 2003. We have decided not to 
propose any change in FMVSS 208's requirements for this telltale at 
this time, i.e., it will continue to be required to have the 
identifying words ``PASSENGER AIR BAG OFF'' or ``PASS AIR BAG OFF'' on 
the telltale or within 25 mm (1.0 in) of the telltale.
    f. Speedometer. As with the existing version of FMVSS 101, a 
vehicle's speedometer would be required to be identified with ``MPH, or 
MPH and km/h''. The intent is to require speedometer display in MPH, 
and to allow the addition of km/h at the option of the manufacturer. 
This differs from the requirements of many other countries. However, as 
we explained in a final rule published in the Federal Register on May 
15, 2000 (65 FR 30915), speedometers graduated in km/h only would be 
useless for drivers in the U.S., where speed limits are communicated in 
MPH alone.
    2. Proposed Table 2. As discussed earlier, proposed Table 2 
specifies symbols for the controls, indicators and telltales that are 
not listed in Table 1. Proposed Table 2 items have no illumination, 
location, or color requirements. A vehicle containing an item listed in 
either proposed Table 1 or Table 2 would be required to use the symbol 
listed for the item, regardless of the vehicle's weight class.

G. Objectivity

    Comments are requested on increasing the objectivity, and thus the 
enforceability, of the performance requirements proposed in this 
document. For example, is there an appropriate way to increase the 
objectivity of the proposed requirement that ``Any indicator or 
telltale not listed in Table 1 and any identification of that indicator 
or telltale must not be a color that masks the driver's ability to 
recognize any telltale, control, or indicator listed in Table 1'' 
(Proposed S5.4.2)? What colors mask the specified colors in the tables, 
and under what circumstances, i.e., is masking partly a function of the 
distance between two of these items and the relative brightness of the 
two items?

H. Common Space for Displaying Multiple Messages

    FMVSS 101 currently specifies that a common space may be used to 
display messages from any sources, subject to several requirements. One 
of the requirements is that the telltales for the brake, high beam, 
turn signal, and safety belt may not be shown in the common space. 
These telltales are of particular safety significance. This requirement 
ensures that these telltales, if activated, are always visible to the 
driver.
    We are proposing to modify this requirement in a way that will 
provide increased flexibility. Under our

[[Page 55222]]

proposal, an expanded list of telltales of particular safety 
significance--the telltales for any brake system malfunction, the air 
bag malfunction, the side air bag malfunction, low tire pressure, 
passenger air bag off, high beam, turn signal, and seat belt--could be 
in a common space but not with any other of these telltales. If one of 
these telltales were activated, it would be required to displace any 
other symbol or message in that common space while the underlying 
condition that caused the telltale's activation exists. This modified 
requirement would continue to ensure that these telltales, if 
activated, would always be visible to the driver.

I. Identification of Multi-Function Controls

    Over the past several years, we have addressed several requests for 
interpretation asking how FMVSS 101's requirements for identifying 
controls apply to advanced design concepts that use one control to 
access many vehicle functions, with the control's functions displayed 
on a screen remote from the control. These interpretations include a 
June 8, 2000 interpretation to a manufacturer whose identity is 
confidential, a February 28, 2001 interpretation to Mazda, and a 
January 10, 2002 interpretation to Porsche.
    In interpreting FMVSS 101 over the years, we have sought to 
interpret it in a broad manner in light of new technology. As we 
explained in our letter to Porsche, however, there is a limit to how 
much we can do by interpretation as opposed to conducting rulemaking to 
facilitate the use of new technology.
    We believe that FMVSS 101's current requirement that the 
identification for controls ``be placed on or adjacent to the control'' 
has a particular potential to restrict the use of advanced design 
concepts. The system that Porsche asked about included a ``combination 
multi-function switch/rotary dial,'' similar to a joystick, located on 
the center console between the driver's seat and the front passenger 
seat, and a small display screen on the dashboard. The display screen 
provided the identification for the various functions of the dial, 
which changed as different functions were selected. Thus, the dial 
needed to be operated in conjunction with the display screen. As we 
explained in our letter to Porsche, however, the dial (i.e., the 
control) and the related display (which provided the identification for 
functions of the control) could not be considered to be ``adjacent'' to 
each other, given the distance between them.
    We have tentatively concluded that FMVSS 101 is unnecessarily 
design restrictive with respect to multi-function controls that use 
remote displays to identify the various functions of the controls, such 
as Porsche's control. As we noted in our letter to Porsche, the use of 
this type of system may be intuitive to persons who are familiar with 
computers and/or video games, since use of the multi-function switch/
rotary dial is analogous to the use of a computer mouse or video game 
controller. Also, for reasons of ergonomics, there may be advantages to 
separating the control and the display. In the case of the system 
identified by Porsche, the control between the driver seat and front 
passenger seat is easily reached by the driver without having to lean 
forward, and the location of the display on the instrument panel 
enables the driver to see the identification for the multi-function 
system without having to look down to the console, away from the road.
    On November 23, 2001, the agency received a petition for rulemaking 
from the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers (the Alliance) to 
eliminate the adjacency requirement from the current 49 CFR 571.101, 
Section S5.2.1(a). The agency granted the petition and is taking up the 
issue in this rulemaking. The Alliance contends that the current 
language of S5.2.1(a) ``* * * has become an inadvertent design 
restriction on technologically advanced vehicle control and display 
systems. The Alliance believes that such an amendment is needed to 
facilitate the introduction of advanced vehicle control and display 
systems that can enhance vehicle safety by reducing the need for a 
driver to take his or her eyes of (sic) the roadway to operate multiple 
vehicle controls and by reducing the potential for driver confusion 
that could arise from `information overload' from multiple 
identification symbols on a single control.'' The Alliance proposed the 
following language to replace the current S5.2.1(a):

    (a)(1) Except as specified in Sec.  5.2.1(b), any vehicle system 
operated by a hand-operated control listed in column 1 of Table 1 
that has a symbol designated for it in column 3 of that table shall 
be identified by either the symbol designated in column 3 (or symbol 
substantially similar in form to that shown in column 3) or the word 
or abbreviation shown in column 2 of that table. Any such control 
for which no symbol is shown in Table 1 shall be identified by the 
word or abbreviation shown in column 2. Words or symbols in addition 
to the required symbol, word or abbreviation may be used at the 
manufacturer's discretion for the purpose of clarity. Any vehicle 
system operated by such a control for which column 2 of Table 1 and/
or column 3 of Table 1 specifies ``Mfr. Option'' shall be identified 
by the manufacturer's choice of a symbol, word or abbreviation, as 
indicated by that specification in column 2 and/or column 3.
    (2) Under the conditions of S6, each hand operated control 
listed in column 1 of Table 1 shall be visible to the driver and 
each identification required by subsection (a)(1) shall be visible 
to the driver when the control is operating the corresponding 
vehicle system. Hand-operated controls listed in column 1 of Table 1 
may be combined. Except as provided in S5.2.1.1, S5.2.1.2, and 
S5.2.1.3, when identification required by subsection (a)(1) is 
required by this section to be visible to the driver, it shall 
appear to the driver perceptually upright. The vehicle's owner's 
manual must explain the operation and identification of the hand 
operated controls listed in column 1 of Table 1.

It is not our desire to hinder technical advances in this area, if 
there are no safety concerns. However, we have the following concerns 
about the Alliance proposal:
    (1) We note that the Alliance did not provide data to support its 
claim that these ``advanced vehicle control and display systems'' can, 
in fact, reduce the amount of time the driver needs to look away from 
the road to locate and operate controls while driving;
    (2) Although it would drop the adjacency requirement, the proposal 
does not define what proper identification would be. Can a control be 
said to be truly identified if there is no visual clue as to which 
label belongs with which control?;
    (3) The Alliance's suggested requirement that the identification 
need only be visible to the driver when the control is operating the 
corresponding vehicle system raises the question of how the driver will 
be able to locate the control for a system that is not currently 
operating, but when the need for it arises, may be urgent. For example, 
access to windshield wiper controls becomes critical when a sudden 
rainstorm begins. Control identification is probably most important in 
terms of driver distraction when the vehicle system desired is not 
operating, but operation is desired to begin.
    (4) The Alliance's proposed explanatory text, ``* * *controls* * * 
may be combined'' is irrelevant since the current standard does not 
prohibit the combination of controls. However, it raises the question, 
are there controls that should not be combined? An example would be the 
headlight switch. If the headlight switch were part of a multi-function 
control, would it be too easy for the driver to inadvertently flash the 
headlights, or for the driver to have trouble locating the headlight 
switch quickly?

[[Page 55223]]

    In an attempt to address the petitioner's concerns, we have 
proposed limited exemption from the adjacency requirement if the 
control is associated with a display, located in the driver's view, 
which clearly shows all functions available from that control (see 
proposed regulatory text at S5.1.4). We have also added a definition 
for ``multi-function control'' to S4.
    We seek comment on the following issues related to the use of 
multi-function controls and multi-task displays as well as comment on 
the proposed regulatory language itself:
    (1) If a display screen shows all of the functions available from a 
multi-function control, as required by the proposed text, how important 
is it to vehicle safety that the control itself be labeled?
    (2) Please provide any data related to the safety of use of multi-
function controls, such as the number of times the driver looks away 
from the road, the length of these glances, etc., while using the 
control in different driving scenarios. Compare this to traditional 
single controls.
    (3) Are there controls that, for the sake of vehicle safety, should 
not be combined with any other controls, or should not be combined with 
certain other controls?
    We request comments on whether any other exceptions from the ``on 
or adjacent'' requirement would be appropriate. In providing comments 
on this issue and on the proposed language for the exceptions discussed 
above, we ask that manufacturers and other interested persons consider 
discussing future advanced design concepts \6\ that may now be 
foreseeable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ NHTSA's regulation at 49 CFR Part 512 Confidential Business 
Information, establishes procedures by which NHTSA will consider 
claims that information submitted to us is confidential business 
information, as described in 5 U.S.C. Section 552(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Other Issues

    We invite public comment on any other FMVSS 101 issue that the 
commenter may wish to raise. For example, we seek comment on whether 
the selection of some controller/multi-task display combinations are, 
or could become, too complex for some drivers.

K. Conforming Amendments to Other Standards

    Several other safety standards include requirements that are 
affected by the proposed changes to FMVSS 101, including FMVSS 105, 121 
and 135. While we are not specifying specific proposed regulatory text, 
we will make any necessary conforming amendments as part of the final 
rule.

VI. Leadtime and Cost

    We believe the controls, telltales and indicators that would be 
regulated by the proposed new version of FMVSS 101 are already 
identified by vehicle manufacturers. The primary cost of this 
rulemaking would therefore be changing the identification of those 
controls, telltales and indicators that are not already identified by 
the proposed symbols but are instead identified by words or some other 
symbol. To the extent that such changes are made in the course of 
normal vehicle redesigns, such costs would be negligible.
    Given that the benefits of this rulemaking are nonquantifiable and 
recognizing that it could be costly for some manufacturers to have to 
redesign their vehicles within a short time period to meet the proposed 
requirements, we tentatively conclude that it is in the public interest 
to provide a long leadtime for the proposed requirements. We are 
proposing a leadtime of five years for light vehicles and eight years 
for vehicles with a GVWR of 4,536 kg. or greater.
    The proposed leadtime would generally permit manufacturers to 
redesign their vehicles to meet the proposed requirements at the same 
time as they redesign their vehicles for other purposes. A longer 
leadtime is proposed for heavier vehicles because they are redesigned 
less often and because they have not previously been subject to FMVSS 
101's requirements for displays.

VII. Regulatory Analyses and Notices

A. Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures

    Executive Order 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and Review'' (58 FR 
51735, October 4, 1993), provides for making determinations whether a 
regulatory action is ``significant'' and therefore subject to Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) review and to the requirements of the 
Executive Order. The Order defines a ``significant regulatory action'' 
as one that is likely to result in a rule that may:
    (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or 
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the 
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public 
health or safety, or State, local, or Tribal governments or 
communities;
    (2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an 
action taken or planned by another agency;
    (3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, 
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients 
thereof; or
    (4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal 
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in 
the Executive Order.
    We have considered the impact of this rulemaking action under 
Executive Order 12866 and the Department of Transportation's regulatory 
policies and procedures. This rulemaking document was not reviewed by 
the Office of Management and Budget under E.O. 12866, ``Regulatory 
Planning and Review.'' The rulemaking action is also not considered to 
be significant under the Department's Regulatory Policies and 
Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979).
    For the following reasons, we believe that this proposal, if made 
final, would not have any quantifiable cost effect on motor vehicle 
manufacturers. We believe that all vehicle manufacturers already 
identify each control, telltale or indicator provided in vehicles that 
they manufacture. We believe that because we are providing five to 
eight years of leadtime, if this proposed rule is made final, there 
would be enough leadtime for manufacturers to make necessary vehicle 
changes that coincide with continuous design changes in motor vehicles 
for future model years.
    If this proposed rule is made final, we believe manufacturers would 
incur minuscule costs to make the identifications meet FMVSS 101. This 
rule, if made final, would specify the symbol that must be used to 
identify each control, telltale, or indicator in a motor vehicle. This 
requirement would only apply if that control, telltale or indicator 
were listed in one of the tables proposed in this NPRM.
    Because the economic impacts of this proposal are so minimal, no 
further regulatory evaluation is necessary.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., 
as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act 
(SBREFA) of 1996) whenever an agency is required to publish a notice of 
rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must prepare and make 
available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis that 
describes the effect of the rule on small entities (i.e., small 
businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions). 
However, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required if the head of 
an agency certifies the rule would not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities. SBREFA amended the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act to require

[[Page 55224]]

Federal agencies to provide a statement of the factual basis for 
certifying that a rule would not have a significant economic impact on 
a substantial number of small entities.
    The Administrator has considered the effects of this rulemaking 
action under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) and 
certifies that this proposal would not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities. We believe that if 
this proposed rule is made final, small motor vehicle manufacturers 
would incur minuscule costs to make the identifications of controls, 
telltales, and indicators in their vehicle meet FMVSS 101. The 
statement of the factual basis for the certification is that this 
proposed rule, if made final, would require specific symbols to be 
placed on a motor vehicle control, telltale, or indicator, if that 
control, indicator or telltale is listed in one of three tables in 
FMVSS 101, and is provided in that vehicle. If any such control, 
indicator or telltale already is provided in a motor vehicle, the 
vehicle manufacturer already provides some type of identification for 
it. The only change would be a substitution of existing symbols. We 
propose to give manufacturers lead time of five to eight years to 
provide the new symbols. Nothing in this proposed rule, if made final, 
would require that any telltale, indicator, or control be provided in a 
motor vehicle. For manufacturers of motor vehicles with multi-task 
controls, we propose to relieve a regulatory restriction. For these 
reasons, and for the reasons described in our discussion on Executive 
Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures, the agency 
believes that this proposal would, if made final, may have a minuscule, 
but not significant, cost effect on small motor vehicle manufacturers 
considered to be small business entities.

C. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

    Executive Order 13132 requires us to develop an accountable process 
to ensure ``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in 
the development of regulatory policies that have federalism 
implications.'' ``Policies that have federalism implications'' is 
defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that have 
``substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between 
the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power 
and responsibilities among the various levels of government.'' Under 
Executive Order 13132, we may not issue a regulation with Federalism 
implications, that imposes substantial direct compliance costs, and 
that is not required by statute, unless the Federal government provides 
the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by 
State and local governments, or unless we consult with State and local 
governments, or unless we consult with State and local officials early 
in the process of developing the proposed regulation. We also may not 
issue a regulation with Federalism implications and that preempts State 
law unless we consult with State and local officials early in the 
process of developing the proposed regulation.
    This proposed rule would not have substantial direct effects on the 
States, on the relationship between the national government and the 
States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the 
various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132. 
The reason is that this proposed rule, if made final, would apply to 
motor vehicle manufacturers, and not to the States or local 
governments. Thus, the requirements of Section 6 of the Executive Order 
do not apply to this proposed rule.

D. Executive Order 12778 (Civil Justice Reform)

    Pursuant to Executive Order 12778, ``Civil Justice Reform,'' we 
have considered whether this proposed rule would have any retroactive 
effect. We conclude that it would not have such an 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.

E. National Environmental Policy Act

    We have analyzed this proposal for the purposes of the National 
Environmental Policy Act and determined that it would not have any 
significant impact on the quality of the human environment.

F. Paperwork Reduction Act

    NHTSA has determined that, if made final, this proposed rule would 
impose no ``collection of information'' burdens on the public, within 
the meaning of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA). This 
rulemaking action would not impose any filing or recordkeeping 
requirements on any manufacturer or any other party. For this reason, 
we discuss neither electronic filing and recordkeeping nor a fully 
electronic reporting option by October 2003.

G. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272) 
directs us to use voluntary consensus standards in our regulatory 
activities unless doing so would be inconsistent with applicable law or 
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical 
standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling 
procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by 
voluntary consensus standards bodies, such as the Society of Automotive 
Engineers (SAE). The NTTAA directs us to provide Congress, through OMB, 
explanations when we decide not to use available and applicable 
voluntary consensus standards.
    After conducting a search of available sources, we have determined 
that there is an applicable voluntary consensus standard. That standard 
is the International Standards Organization's (ISO) Standard 2575:2000. 
We are using the symbols in that standard in Table 1 and Table 2 of 
this NPRM.

H. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) 
requires Federal agencies to prepare a written assessment of the costs, 
benefits and other effects of proposed or final rules that include a 
Federal mandate likely to result in the expenditure by State, local or 
tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of more 
than $100 million in any one year (adjusted for inflation with base 
year of 1995). Before promulgating a NHTSA rule for which a written 
statement is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires us to 
identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives 
and adopt the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome 
alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of 
section 205 do not apply

[[Page 55225]]

when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, section 205 
allows us to adopt an alternative other than the least costly, most 
cost-effective or least burdensome alternative if we publish with the 
final rule an explanation why that alternative was not adopted.
    This proposal would not result in costs of $100 million or more to 
either State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or to the 
private sector. Thus, this proposal is not subject to the requirements 
of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.

I. Plain Language

    Executive Order 12866 requires each agency to write all rules in 
plain language. Application of the principles of plain language 
includes consideration of the following questions:

--Have we organized the material to suit the public's needs?
--Are the requirements in the rule clearly stated?
--Does the rule contain technical language or jargon that is not clear?
--Would a different format (grouping and order of sections, use of 
headings, paragraphing) make the rule easier to understand?
--Would more (but shorter) sections be better?
--Could we improve clarity by adding tables, lists, or diagrams?
--What else could we do to make this rulemaking easier to understand?

    If you have any responses to these questions, please include them 
in your comments on this NPRM.

J. Regulation Identifier Number (RIN)

    The Department of Transportation assigns a regulation identifier 
number (RIN) to each regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of 
Federal Regulations. The Regulatory Information Service Center 
publishes the Unified Agenda in April and October of each year. You may 
use the RIN contained in the heading at the beginning of this document 
to find this action in the Unified Agenda.

VIII. Comments

How Do I Prepare and Submit Comments?

    Your comments must be written and in English. To ensure that your 
comments are correctly filed in the Docket, please include the docket 
number of this document in your comments.
    Your comments must not be more than 15 pages long. (49 CFR 553.21). 
We established this limit to encourage you to write your primary 
comments in a concise fashion. However, you may attach necessary 
additional documents to your comments. There is no limit on the length 
of the attachments.
    Please submit two copies of your comments, including the 
attachments, to Docket Management at the address given above under 
ADDRESSES.
    You may also submit your comments to the docket electronically by 
logging onto the Dockets Management System website at http://dms.dot.gov. Click on ``Help & Information'' or ``Help/Info'' to obtain 
instructions for filing the document electronically.

How Can I Be Sure That My Comments Were Received?

    If you wish Docket Management to notify you upon its receipt of 
your comments, enclose a self-addressed, stamped postcard in the 
envelope containing your comments. Upon receiving your comments, Docket 
Management will return the postcard by mail.

How Do I Submit Confidential Business Information?

    If you wish to submit any information under a claim of 
confidentiality, you should submit three copies of your complete 
submission, including the information you claim to be confidential 
business information, to the Chief Counsel, NHTSA, at the address given 
above under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. In addition, you should 
submit two copies, from which you have deleted the claimed confidential 
business information, to Docket Management at the address given above 
under ADDRESSES. When you send a comment containing information claimed 
to be confidential business information, you should include a cover 
letter setting forth the information specified in our confidential 
business information regulation. (49 CFR part 512.)

Will the Agency Consider Late Comments?

    We will consider all comments that Docket Management receives 
before the close of business on the comment closing date indicated 
above under DATES. To the extent possible, we will also consider 
comments that Docket Management receives after that date. If Docket 
Management receives a comment too late for us to consider it in 
developing a final rule (assuming that one is issued), we will consider 
that comment as an informal suggestion for future rulemaking action.

How Can I Read the Comments Submitted By Other People?

    You may read the comments received by Docket Management at the 
address given above under ADDRESSES. The hours of the Docket are 
indicated above in the same location.
    You may also see the comments on the Internet. To read the comments 
on the Internet, take the following steps:
    1. Go to the Docket Management System (DMS) Web page of the 
Department of Transportation (http://dms.dot.gov/).
    2. On that page, click on ``search.''
    3. On the next page (http://dms.dot.gov/search/), type in the four-
digit docket number shown at the beginning of this document. Example: 
If the docket number were ``NHTSA-1998-1234,'' you would type ``1234.'' 
After typing the docket number, click on ``search.''
    4. On the next page, which contains docket summary information for 
the docket you selected, click on the desired comments. You may 
download the comments. Although the comments are imaged documents, 
instead of word processing documents, the ``pdf'' versions of the 
documents are word searchable.
    Please note that even after the comment closing date, we will 
continue to file relevant information in the Docket as it becomes 
available. Further, some people may submit late comments. Accordingly, 
we recommend that you periodically check the Docket for new material.

How Does the Federal Privacy Act Apply to My Public Comments?

    Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments 
received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual 
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf 
of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's 
complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on 
April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70; pages 19477-78) or you may visit 
http://dms.dot.gov.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 571

    Imports, Motor vehicle safety, Motor vehicles, Rubber and rubber 
products, Tires.

    In consideration of the foregoing, it is proposed that the Federal 
Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (49 CFR part 571), be amended as set 
forth below.

[[Page 55226]]

PART 571--FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS

    1. The authority citation for part 571 would continue 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 would be revised to read as follows:


Sec.  571.101  Standard No. 101; Controls, telltales, and indicators.

    S1. Scope. This standard specifies performance requirements for 
location, identification, color, and illumination of motor vehicle 
controls, telltales and indicators.
    S2. Purpose. The purpose of this standard is to ensure the 
accessibility, visibility and recognition of motor vehicle controls, 
telltales and indicators, and to facilitate the proper selection of 
controls under daylight and nighttime conditions, in order to reduce 
the safety hazards caused by the diversion of the driver's attention 
from the driving task, and by mistakes in selecting controls.
    S3. Application. This standard applies to passenger cars, 
multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses.
    S4. Definitions.
    Adjacent, with respect to a symbol identifying a control, telltale 
or indicator, means:
    (a) The symbol is in close proximity to the control, telltale or 
indicator; and
    (b) No other control, telltale, indicator, identifying symbol or 
source of illumination appears between the identifying symbol and the 
telltale, indicator, or control that the symbol identifies.
    Common space means an area on which more than one telltale, 
indicator, identifier, or other message may be displayed, but not 
simultaneously.
    Control means the hand-operated part of a device that enables the 
driver to change the state or functioning of the vehicle or a vehicle 
subsystem.
    Indicator means a device that shows the magnitude of the physical 
characteristics that the instrument is designed to sense.
    Multi-function control means a control through which the driver may 
select, and affect the operation of, more than one vehicle function.
    Multi-task display means a display on which more than one message 
can be shown simultaneously.
    Telltale means an optical signal that, when illuminated, indicates 
the actuation of a device, a correct or improper functioning or 
condition, or a failure to function.
    S5. Requirements. Each passenger car, multipurpose passenger 
vehicle, truck and bus that is fitted with a control, a telltale or an 
indicator listed in Table 1 or Table 2 must meet the requirements of 
this standard for the location, identification, color, and illumination 
of that control, telltale or indicator. The standard's requirements for 
telltales and indicators do not apply to vehicles with a GVWR of 4,536 
kg. or greater if those vehicles are manufactured before [the date 
eight years after the publication date of the final rule would be 
inserted]. At the option of the manufacturer, vehicles with a GVWR less 
than 4,536 kg. manufactured before [the date five years after the 
publication date of the final rule would be inserted] may meet the 
requirements of the version of 49 CFR part 571.101 in effect on [the 
publication date of the final rule would be inserted] instead of the 
requirements of this version of the standard. At the option of the 
manufacturer, vehicles with a GVWR of 4,536 kg. or greater manufactured 
before [the date eight years after the publication date of the final 
rule would be inserted] may meet the requirements of the version of 49 
CFR part 571.101 in effect on [the publication date of the final rule 
would be inserted] instead of the requirements of this version of the 
standard.
    S5.1 Location.
    S5.1.1 The controls listed in Table 1 must be located so that they 
are operable by the driver under the conditions of S5.6.2.
    S5.1.2 The telltales and indicators listed in Table 1 and Table 2 
and their identification must be located so that, when activated, they 
are visible to a driver under the conditions of S5.6.1 and S5.6.2.
    S5.1.3 Except as provided in S5.1.4, the identification for 
controls, telltales and indicators must be placed on or adjacent to the 
telltale, indicator or control that it identifies.
    S5.1.4 The requirement of S5.1.3 does not apply to a multi-task 
control, provided:
    (a) The control is depicted in an associated multi-task display,
    (b) The associated multi-task display is visible to the driver 
under the conditions of S5.6.1 and S5.6.2, and
    (c) All of the vehicle systems for which control is possible from 
the multi-task control are identified in the associated multi-task 
display. Subfunctions of the available systems need not be shown on the 
top-most layer of the multi-task display.
    S5.2 Identification.
    S5.2.1 Each control, telltale and indicator that is listed in 
column 1 of Table 1 or Table 2 must be identified by the symbol 
specified for it in column 2 of Table 1 or Table 2. Each symbol 
provided pursuant to this paragraph must have the proportional 
dimensional characteristics of the symbol as it appears in Table 1 or 
Table 2. No identification is required for any horn (i.e., audible 
warning signal) that is activated by a lanyard or for a turn signal 
control that is operated in a plane essentially parallel to the face 
plane of the steering wheel in its normal driving position and which is 
located on the left side of the steering column so that it is the 
control on that side of the column nearest to the steering wheel face 
plane.
    S5.2.2 Any symbol not shown in Table 1 or Table 2 may be used to 
identify a control, a telltale or an indicator that is not listed in 
those tables.
    S5.2.3 Supplementary symbols or words may be used in conjunction 
with any symbol specified in Table 1 or Table 2.

S5.2.4 [Reserved]

    S5.2.5 A single symbol may be used to identify any combination of 
the control, indicator, and telltale for the same function.
    S5.2.6 Except as provided in S5.2.7, all identifications of 
telltales, indicators and controls listed in Table 1 or Table 2 must 
appear to the driver to be perceptually upright. For rotating controls 
that have an ``off'' position, this requirement applies to the control 
in the ``off'' position.
    S5.2.7 The identification of the following items need not appear to 
the driver to be perceptually upright:
    (a) A horn control;
    (b) Any control, telltale or indicator located on the steering 
wheel, when the steering wheel is positioned for the motor vehicle to 
travel in a direction other than straight forward; and
    (c) Any rotating control that does not have an ``off'' position.
    S5.2.8 Each control for an automatic vehicle speed system (cruise 
control) and each control for heating and air conditioning systems must 
have identification provided for each function of each such system.
    S5.2.9 Each control that regulates a system function over a 
continuous range must have identification provided for the limits of 
the adjustment range of that function. If color coding is used to 
identify the limits of the adjustment range of a temperature function, 
the hot limit must be identified by the color red and the cold limit by 
the color blue. If the status or limit of a function is shown by a 
display not adjacent to the control for that function, both the control 
and the display must be independently identified as to the function of 
the control, in compliance with S5.2.1, on

[[Page 55227]]

or adjacent to the control and on or adjacent to the display.
    S5.2.10 Motor vehicles manufactured on or after [the date 5 years 
after the effective date of the final rule would be inserted] need not 
have the word ``Brake'' on the brake malfunction symbol specified in 
Table 1.
    S5.2.11 Motor vehicles manufactured on or after [the date 5 years 
after the effective date of the final rule would be inserted] need not 
have the words ``Brake pressure'' on the low brake air/fluid pressure 
symbol specified in Table 1.
    S5.2.12 Motor vehicles manufactured on or after [the date 5 years 
after the effective date of the final rule would be inserted] need not 
have the words ``Brake fluid'' on the low brake fluid condition symbol 
specified in Table 1.
    S5.2.13 Motor vehicles manufactured on or after [the date 5 years 
after the effective date of the final rule would be inserted] need not 
have the English words ``Brake wear'' on the brake lining wear-out 
condition symbol specified in Table 1.
    S5.3 Illumination.
    S5.3.1 Timing of illumination.
    (a) Except as provided in S5.3.1(c), the identifications of 
controls for which the word ``Yes'' is specified in column 4 of Table 1 
must be capable of being illuminated whenever the headlamps are 
activated. This requirement does not apply to a control located on the 
floor, floor console, steering wheel, steering column, or in the area 
of windshield header, or to a control for a heating and air-
conditioning system that does not direct air upon the windshield.
    (b) Except as provided in S5.3.1(c), the indicators and their 
identifications for which the word ``Yes'' is specified in column 4 of 
Table 1 must be illuminated whenever the vehicle's propulsion system 
and headlamps are activated.
    (c) The indicators, their identifications and the identifications 
of controls need not be illuminated when the headlamps are being 
flashed or operated as daytime running lamps.
    (d) At the manufacturer's option, any control, indicator, or their 
identifications may be capable of being illuminated at any time.
    (e) A telltale must not emit light except when identifying the 
malfunction or vehicle condition it is designed to indicate, or during 
a bulb check, upon propulsion system activation.
    S5.3.2 Brightness of illumination of controls and indicators.
    S5.3.2.1 Means must be provided for illuminating the indicators, 
identifications of indicators and identifications of controls listed in 
Table 1 to make them visible to the driver under daylight and nighttime 
driving conditions.
    S5.3.2.2 The means of providing the visibility required by 
S5.3.2.1:
    (a) Must be adjustable to provide at least two levels of 
brightness;
    (b) At the lower level of brightness, the identification of 
controls, indicators and the identification of indicators must be 
barely discernible to the driver who has adapted to dark ambient 
roadway condition; and
    (c) May be operable manually or automatically.
    S5.3.3 Brightness of telltale illumination. Means must be provided 
for illuminating telltales and their identification sufficiently to 
make them visible to the driver under daylight and nighttime driving 
conditions.
    S5.3.4 Brightness of interior lamps. Any source of illumination 
that is:
    (a) Within the passenger compartment of a motor vehicle;
    (b) Located in front of a transverse vertical plane 110 mm behind 
the H-point of the driver's seat while in its rearmost driving 
position;
    (c) Capable of being activated while the motor vehicle is in 
motion; and
    (d) Neither a telltale nor a source of illumination used for the 
controls and indicators listed in Table 1 or Table 2, must have a means 
for the driver to turn off that source under the conditions of S5.6.2.
    S5.4 Color.
    S5.4.1 The light of each telltale listed in Table 1 must be of the 
color specified for that telltale in column 5 of that table.
    S5.4.2 Any indicator or telltale not listed in Table 1 and any 
identification of that indicator or telltale must not be a color that 
masks the driver's ability to recognize any telltale, control, or 
indicator listed in Table 1.
    S5.4.3 Each symbol used for the identification of a telltale, 
control or indicator must be in a color that stands out clearly against 
the background.
    S5.4.4 The filled-in part of any symbol in Table 1 or Table 2 may 
be replaced by its outline and the outline of any symbol in Table 1 or 
Table 2 may be filled in.
    S5.5 Common space for displaying multiple messages.
    S5.5.1 A common space may be used to show multiple messages from 
any source, subject to the requirements in S5.5.2 through S5.5.6.
    S5.5.2 The telltales for any brake system malfunction, the air bag 
malfunction, the side air bag malfunction, low tire pressure, passenger 
air bag off, high beam, turn signal, and seat belt must not be shown in 
the same common space.
    S5.5.3 The telltales and indicators that are listed in Table 1 and 
are shown in the common space must illuminate at the initiation of any 
underlying condition.
    S5.5.4 Except as provided in S5.5.5, when the underlying conditions 
exist for actuation of two or more telltales, the telltales must be 
either:
    (a) Repeated automatically in sequence, or
    (b) Indicated by visible means and capable of being selected for 
viewing by the driver under the conditions of S5.6.2.
    S5.5.5 In the case of the telltale for a brake system malfunction, 
air bag malfunction, side air bag malfunction, low tire pressure, 
passenger air bag off, high beam, turn signal, or seat belt that is 
designed to display in a common space, that telltale must displace any 
other symbol or message in that common space while the underlying 
condition for the telltale's activation exists.
    S5.5.6(a) Except as provided in S5.5.6(b), messages displayed in a 
common space may be cancelable automatically or by the driver.
    (b) Telltales for high beams, turn signal, low tire pressure, and 
passenger air bag off, and telltales for which the color red is 
required in Table 1 must not be cancelable while the underlying 
condition for their activation exists.
    (c) The color requirements regarding telltales for engine oil 
pressure and parking brake do not apply when those telltales appear in 
a common space.
    S5.6 Conditions.
    S5.6.1 The driver has adapted to the ambient light roadway 
conditions.
    S5.6.2 The driver is restrained by the seat belts installed in 
accordance with 49 CFR 571.208 and adjusted in accordance with the 
vehicle manufacturer's instructions.

BILLING CODE 4910-59-P

[[Page 55228]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP23SE03.000


[[Page 55229]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP23SE03.001


[[Page 55230]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP23SE03.002


[[Page 55231]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP23SE03.003


[[Page 55232]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP23SE03.004


[[Page 55233]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP23SE03.005


[[Page 55234]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP23SE03.006


[[Page 55235]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP23SE03.007


[[Page 55236]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP23SE03.008


[[Page 55237]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP23SE03.009


[[Page 55238]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP23SE03.010


[[Page 55239]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP23SE03.011


[[Page 55240]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP23SE03.012


    Issued on: September 17, 2003.
Stephen R. Kratzke,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 03-24145 Filed 9-22-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-C