Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Controls, Telltales and Indicators, 48295-48312 [05-16325]

Agencies

• National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
• DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 158 (Wednesday, August 17, 2005)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 48295-48312]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-16325]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 571

[Docket No. NHTSA-2005-22113]
RIN 2127-AI09


Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Controls, Telltales and 
Indicators

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: In this document, we update our standard regulating motor 
vehicle controls, telltales and indicators. The standard specifies 
requirements for the location, identification, and illumination of 
these items. This rule extends the standard's telltale and indicator 
requirements to vehicles with a Gross Vehicle Weight Rating (GVWR) of 
4,536 kg (10,000 pounds) and greater, updates the standard's 
requirements for multi-function controls and multi-task displays to 
make the requirements appropriate for advanced systems, and reorganizes 
the standard to make it easier to read. The standard requires, among 
other things, that certain controls, telltales and indicators be 
identified by specified symbols or words. While we proposed to expand 
the list of items for which specified identification is required, we 
decided, for purposes of this rule, to include only the items and 
identification previously specified in this standard or in another of 
our standards.

DATES: Effective date: The effective date for this final rule is 
February 13, 2006. Compliance date: The compliance date for the 
extension of the standard's telltale and indicator requirements to 
vehicles with a GVWR of 4,536 kg (10,000 pounds) or greater is 
September 1, 2013. The compliance date for all other requirements is 
February 13, 2006. Voluntary compliance is permitted immediately.
    Petitions for reconsideration: Petitions for reconsideration of the 
final rule must be received not later than October 3, 2005.

ADDRESSES: Petitions for reconsideration of the final rule must refer 
to the docket and notice number set forth above and be submitted to the 
Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 
Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590, with a copy to Docket 
Management, Room PL-

[[Page 48296]]

401, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For non-legal issues you may call Ms. 
Gayle Dalrymple, Office of Crash Avoidance Standards at (202) 366-5559. 
Her FAX number is (202) 366-7002. 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 both of these officials 
at National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh St., 
SW., Washington, DC, 20590.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Background
II. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking of September 2003
    A. Standardizing Identifying Symbols for Additional Controls and 
Displays
    B. Updating Identification Requirements for Advanced Multi-
Function Controls With Remote Displays
    C. Harmonizing With Canadian and International Standards
III. Public Comments and NHTSA's Response
    A. New Definitions
    1. ``Adjacent''
    2. ``Common space''
    3. ``Control''
    4. ``Indicator''
    5. ``Multi-function control'' and ``Multi-task display''
    6. ``Telltale''
    B. Applicability to Vehicles of 4,536 kg (10,000 lb) or Greater 
GVWR
    C. Illumination, and Visibility Requirements Under Daylight and 
Nighttime Conditions
    D. Proposed New Tables
    E. Common Space for Displaying Multiple Messages
    F. Identification of Multi-function Controls
    G. No Conforming Amendments to Other Standards
    H. Location and Visibility Requirements
    I. Other Issues
    1. Combining Controls
    2. Color
IV. Leadtime and Costs
V. Final Rule
VI. Statutory Bases for the Final Rule
VII. Regulatory Analyses and Notices
    A. Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and 
Procedures
    B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
    C. National Environmental Policy Act
    D. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)
    E. Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform)
    F. Paperwork Reduction Act
    G. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
    H. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
    I. Plain Language
    J. Regulation Identifier Number (RIN)
Final Regulatory Text

I. Background

    NHTSA issued the original version of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety 
Standard (FMVSS) No. 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 FMVSS No. 101 is to assure the accessibility and visibility 
of motor vehicle controls and displays 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ At present, the standard's requirements for displays do not 
apply to vehicles 4,536 kilograms (10,000 pounds) or more GVWR. 
However, this final rule extends the Standard's requirements for 
displays to those vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At present, FMVSS No. 101 specifies requirements for the location 
(S5.1), identification (S5.2), and illumination (S5.3) 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. NPRM of September 2003

    On September 23, 2003, NHTSA published in the Federal Register (68 
FR 55217) \2\ a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to modernize FMVSS 
No. 101. Two primary concerns were behind the proposal. The first was 
the standardization of identifying symbols for additional controls and 
displays, and the second was updating identification requirements for 
advanced multi-function controls with remote displays. In addition, the 
NPRM sought to harmonize FMVSS No. 101 with a draft Global Technical 
Regulation on controls and displays that the United States and Canada 
had sponsored jointly. Each of these issues is discussed below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ DOT Docket No. NHTSA-03-16194.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Standardizing Identifying Symbols for Additional Controls and 
Displays

    In the NPRM, we tentatively concluded 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. We believed that this was particularly important as the 
controls and displays in vehicles increase in number and complexity and 
that 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.
    The function of FMVSS No. 101 is not to limit or regulate the 
number of controls, telltales and indicators in vehicles but to ensure 
that when a regulated control, telltale, or indicator is provided, it 
is properly identified. 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 concluded 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. We believed that, after a period of learning by drivers, 
symbols would be generally recognized as to the function or condition 
they represent. The foregoing considerations led us to propose the use 
of graphic symbols that were, with a few exceptions (that were 
discussed in the NPRM), the same as that specifically established by 
the International Standards Organization (ISO) for controls and 
displays in motor vehicles, ISO 2575:2000.

B. Updating Identification Requirements for Multi-function Controls 
With Remote Displays

    In the NPRM, we tentatively concluded that there was a need to 
amend FMVSS No. 101 in response to the development and increased use of 
advanced 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. This 
was partially in response to a petition for rulemaking from the 
Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers (Alliance). We stated our belief 
that FMVSS 101's current requirement that the identification for 
controls ``be placed on or adjacent to the control'' restricts 
unnecessarily the design of these types of systems. Accordingly, we 
proposed two new definitions and a limited exclusion from the adjacency 
requirement to accommodate those systems. The proposed definitions 
were:
    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.
    The proposed exclusion to the adjacency requirement of S5.1.3 was:

[[Page 48297]]

    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.

C. Harmonizing With Canadian and International Standards

    Another topic of the NPRM was international harmonization of 
controls and displays standards. NHTSA consulted 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 develop potential revisions to 
their respective standards so that, consistent with safety needs, they 
would be better organized, easier to understand, and consistent with 
the positions of the U.S., Canada, and European standards 
organizations. The NPRM was based in part on that collaboration.
    The United States participates in the United Nations/Economic 
Commission for Europe World Forum for Harmonization of Vehicle 
Regulations (also known as Working Party 29 or WP. 29) under a 1998 
Agreement known as the 1998 Global Agreement. The 1998 Global Agreement 
provides for the establishment of global technical regulations (GTRs) 
regarding the safety, emissions, energy conservation and theft 
prevention of motorized 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 GTRs under the 
Agreement (65 FR 44565). One of NHTSA's preliminary recommendations in 
the notice concerned controls and displays. In March 2002, WP. 29 
adopted a work program of initial priorities for development of GTRs 
under the 1998 Global Agreement that included controls and displays. 
The regulatory text proposed in the NPRM was essentially the same as 
the draft GTR at that time.
    The United States continues to participate in the development of a 
GTR on controls and displays. At such time as there is a final GTR on 
controls and displays, we will consider it in accordance with the 1998 
agreement.

III. Public Comments and NHTSA's Response

    In response to the NPRM, NHTSA received comments from: AAA; 
Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety; Alliance of Automobile 
Manufacturers (Alliance); American Honda Motor Co., Inc.; American 
Trucking Associations (ATA); Applied Safety and Ergonomics, Inc.; 
Association of International Automobile Manufacturers, Inc. (AIAM); 
Bendix Commercial Vehicle Systems LLC; BMW Group; Blue Bird Company; 
Fed Ex; General Motors North America; Hino Motors, Ltd.; Honda Motor 
Company, Ltd. (in Tokyo); ISO TC22/SC13 WG5; Mr. Mac B. Johnson; 
National Automobile Dealers Association; Public Citizen; Ms. Barb 
Sachau; Truck Manufacturers Association (TMA); Mr. Frank D. Werner; and 
Western Ergonomics.
    Most of the commenters addressed the proposal to include an 
expanded set of controls, telltales, and indicators in Tables 1 and 2, 
and the identification to be used for those items. Many commenters 
opposed the proposed expansion of the items to be regulated and 
identifying symbols, and provided detailed comments on many of the 
proposed symbols. Comments were also received on the issue of 
regulating multi-function controls and multi-task displays, especially 
in relation to the S5.13 requirement that identifications for controls, 
telltales and indicators must be placed ``on or adjacent to the 
telltale, indicator or control that it identifies.'' The comments 
addressing this issue generally were in favor of it, with several 
recommending minor changes to the proposed regulatory text.
    After considering the public comments, we have decided to adopt a 
provision to provide a limited exclusion for multi-function controls 
from the standard's requirement that identification be ``on or 
adjacent'' to the control. We made some changes to the proposed 
provision in light of the comments.
    We are also extending FMVSS No. 101's display requirements to 
vehicles with GVWRs of 4,536 kg (10,000 pounds or greater). The 
compliance date for this extension is September 1, 2013.
    We decided not to expand at this time the symbols or other items 
listed in FMVSS No. 101, other than adding items already included in 
other FMVSSs. While we may revisit this issue in a future rulemaking, 
we would want to conduct additional analyses and possibly research 
relating to issues raised by the commenters. We will continue to 
regulate the same controls, telltales and indicators as are presently 
specified in Tables 1 and 2 in FMVSS No. 101 or in another Federal 
motor vehicle safety standard, and to specify the same symbols or 
words. The format of the tables is changed so that in this final rule, 
Table 1 specifies the identifiers for controls, telltales and 
indicators that have color or illumination requirements, while Table 2 
specifies the identifiers for controls, telltales and indicators that 
have no color or illumination requirements.
    The primary issues raised by NHTSA in the NPRM, the public 
comments, and NHTSA's response to the comments, are discussed below.

A. New Definitions

    In S4, Definitions, after considering all public comments received 
on each of the proposed new definitions, NHTSA has adopted as final the 
following new or amended definitions:
    1. ``Adjacent''--At present, the term ``adjacent'' appears in FMVSS 
No. 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 No. 101. In the past, the term 
``adjacent'' has been the subject of several requests for 
interpretation of what ``adjacent'' means for controls that are 
identified by images that appear on a digital display screen. In the 
September 2003 NPRM, we proposed to define ``adjacent'' as:
    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.
    We explained that this definition of ``adjacent'' would put into 
the regulatory text the definition of ``adjacent'' that we have used in 
FMVSS No. 101 interpretation letters such as a

[[Page 48298]]

June 8, 2000 letter to an unidentified company, and a February 27, 2001 
letter to Mazda North American Operations.
    In its comments, Western Ergonomics, Inc. (WEI) suggested that the 
term ``close proximity'' (used in paragraph (a) of the definition) be 
defined: ``* * *in terms of the visual angle between symbol and 
control, as defined relative to driver's eye location.'' We have 
decided not to adopt this suggestion. We believe the meaning of ``close 
proximity'' is sufficiently clear without additional language. 
Therefore, the definition of ``adjacent,'' as proposed in the NPRM, is 
adopted in the final rule.
    2. ``Common space''--At present, ``common space'' is used but not 
defined in FMVSS No. 101. In the September 2003 NPRM, we proposed to 
define ``common space'' as: ``an area on which more than one telltale, 
indicator, identifier or other message may be displayed, but not 
simultaneously.'' The proposed definition was intended to address 
designs in which a ``common space'' is used to display more than one 
warning, message or identification, but not simultaneously. No 
commenter commented on the proposed definition and, in this final rule, 
we adopt as final, the definition of ``common space'' proposed in the 
NPRM.
    3. ``Control''--At present, FMVSS No. 101 regulates both hand-
operated controls and foot-operated controls. However, the requirement 
for foot-operated controls are very limited. Specifically, FMVSS No. 
101 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.
    In the September 2003 NPRM, we proposed to limit the term 
``control'' (and thus FMVSS No. 101 itself), to hand-operated controls 
because we were unaware of any current vehicles whose high beam, or 
windshield washer or wiper controls are foot-operated and because we 
saw no need, as a practical matter, to include a requirement that 
service brakes, accelerators, and clutches be operable by the driver.
    Federal Express and the American Trucking Association (ATA) did not 
agree with NHTSA's distinguishing between hand and foot controls, as 
``a control is a control regardless of hand or foot activated.'' Noting 
that while accelerators and clutches do not always have indicators on 
the dash, ATA stated that a truck service brake does have an indicator 
light/release light on the dash--some are hand and some are foot-
activated, but both are activated by the driver and deactivated by the 
driver.
    NHTSA notes that there is a distinction between ``indicators'' and 
``controls.'' It is the service brake indicator that must always appear 
``in view of the driver.''
    We further note that defining ``controls'' as hand-operated makes 
repeating ``hand-operated'' unnecessary whenever the word ``control'' 
is used in FMVSS No. 101. We received no public comment informing us of 
any current vehicles with high beam, windshield washer or wiper 
controls that are foot operated. We continue to see no need, as a 
practical matter, to include a requirement that service brakes, 
accelerators, and clutches be operable by the driver. Therefore, in 
this final rule, NHTSA adopts the definition of ``control'' proposed in 
the NPRM.
    4. ``Indicator''--In the September 2003 NPRM, we proposed to use 
``indicator'' to replace the term ``gauge'' because ``gauge'' connotes 
an analog display whereas ``indicator'' does not. We proposed to define 
``indicator'' as ``a device that shows the magnitude of physical 
characteristics that the instrument is designed to sense.'' No 
commenter addressed the proposed definition, and in this final rule, 
NHTSA adopts the definition of ``indicator'' proposed in the NPRM.
    5. ``Multi-function control'' and ``multi-task display.'' As 
discussed earlier, in the September 2003 NPRM, we proposed definitions 
of ``multi-function control'' and ``multi-task display'' to address 
advanced vehicle designs that use controls that select several 
different vehicle functions and display information about those 
functions on a display that is remote from the control. A multi-
function control was proposed to be defined as: ``a control through 
which the driver may select, and affect the operation of, more than one 
vehicle function.'' A multi-task display was proposed to be defined as: 
``a display on which more than one message can be shown 
simultaneously.''
    6. ``Telltale''--In the September 2003 NPRM, we proposed to define 
``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.'' No commenter addresses the 
proposed definition, and in this final rule, NHTSA adopts the 
definition of ``telltale'' proposed in the NPRM.

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

    At present, S5 of FMVSS No. 101 excludes vehicles of 4,536 kg 
(10,000 pounds) or greater GVWR from its location, illumination, and 
color requirements for displays. We proposed to extend the standard's 
display requirements to these vehicles to ensure that drivers are able 
to see and identify their displays as easily as do drivers of lighter 
vehicles.
    In response to the NPRM, the American Trucking Association (ATA) 
recommended that vehicles with GVWRs of 4,536 kg (10,000 pounds) or 
greater continue to be excluded from the display requirements of FMVSS 
No. 101. ATA commented that NHTSA did not present data regarding the 
safety benefits of enacting the proposed rules and that the compliance 
costs are not trivial:

    Tooling and redesign costs of traditional switchgear, controls 
and displays are not amortized over the life of one model cycle. 
They continue to be used over many cycles and thus, by forcing 
manufacturers to redesign their controls it will increase the 
design, development, documentation, training, maintenance, and 
repair costs of all parties involved.

    While we have considered ATA's comment, we continue to believe that 
there is a safety need for drivers of heavier vehicles to see and 
identify their displays, just as there is for drivers of lighter 
vehicles.
    We note, however, that since (for reasons discussed below) Tables 1 
and 2 include far fewer controls, telltales and indicators than 
proposed in the NPRM (and none of the ones exclusive to vehicles of 
4,536 kg GVWR and over), the costs of meeting the requirements in this 
final rule are lessened considerably. Moreover, to address concerns 
about costs, since vehicles of 4,536 kg (10,000 pounds) or greater GVWR 
have longer redesign cycles than do lighter passenger vehicles, we are 
providing an eight-year lead time for heavy vehicle compliance with the 
requirements for telltales and indicators.

C. Illumination, and Visibility Requirements Under Daylight and 
Nighttime Conditions

    The present language of FMVSS No. 101 at S.5.3.3(a) states that 
means shall be provided for making controls, gauges, and the 
identification of those items ``visible to the driver under all driving 
conditions.'' In the September 2003 NPRM, we proposed the narrower 
language ``visible * * * under daylight and nighttime conditions'' 
because under some extreme lighting conditions (e.g. driving directly 
into a sunrise or sunset), it is virtually impossible to make 
illuminated items (even after adjusting the level of illumination) or 
non-illuminated items visible to the driver. NHTSA stated its belief 
that, for the most part, the instances in which the driver cannot see 
symbols are of

[[Page 48299]]

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.
    Commenting on the NPRM, and addressing illumination in general, Mr. 
Mac Johnson commented that paragraph (e) of S5.3.1 Timing of 
illumination should be ``liberalized'' to permit the telltales to be 
illuminated at more times than just the malfunctions or vehicle 
conditions the telltales are designed to indicate, or when the 
propulsion system is activated. According to Mr. Johnson, FMVSS No. 101 
should be expanded to allow the manufacturer the option of including a 
``manual test'' of any telltale or group of telltales while electrical 
power is on. Being able to test subsets of all the telltales allows the 
driver to see where each is located and what each looks like. NHTSA has 
accommodated Mr. Johnson's suggestion by deleting the words ``upon 
propulsion system activation'' from S5.3.1.(e).
    Hino Motors asked for an exclusion from illumination requirements 
when the control is ``located on the floor, floor console, steering 
wheel, or steering column, or in the area of windscreen [windshield] 
header, or to controls for heating and air conditioning system if the 
system * * * does not direct air directly upon the windscreen.'' We 
note that this exclusion was included in the NPRM at S5.3.1(a) at p. 
55227 in the Federal Register. In this final rule, Hino Motors will 
find the requested exemption for the specified controls from the 
illumination requirements at S5.3.1(a) in the second sentence.
    TMA asked NHTSA to clarify if it will continue to allow, for 
controls and indicators, adjustment of brightness to a level that is 
not visible to a seated driver. NHTSA's response is that the language 
at S5.3.3(b)(3) allowing ``levels of brightness at which [controls, 
gauges and the identification of those items] are not visible'' was 
removed to clean up the regulatory text. The language at S5.3.3(b)(3) 
requires two levels of brightness, and describes those required levels. 
It should be clear that the manufacturer may provide as many additional 
levels of brightness as it desires. However, the language was of long 
standing in FMVSS No. 101, so to avoid confusion, in this final rule, 
the language is restored at S5.3.2.2(d).
    Blue Bird recommended that ``every illumination system contain 
manual controllability, even though an automatic system is 
incorporated.'' We note that, as discussed above, we are including 
certain language in S5.3.2.2(d) that is currently part of the standard 
but was omitted from the proposal. S5.3.2.2(d)(1) states: ``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, 
means shall be provided to enable the driver to restore visibility.''
    After considering the comments, we are adopting the proposed 
language at S5.3.2.1 that means shall 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.''

D. Proposed New Tables

    In the NPRM we proposed two tables, each of which would include 
both controls and displays. In Table 1, we proposed to specify symbols, 
color requirements, and whether illumination is required for controls, 
telltales, and indicators for which we proposed illumination or color 
requirements. We noted that the proposed requirement reflected 
requirements already in FMVSS No. 101, Canadian Motor Vehicle Safety 
Standard No. 101, ECE 78/316, or are included in the draft GTR on 
``Hand controls, telltales, and indicators.''
    We also proposed Table 2, which would specify symbols for controls, 
telltales, and indicators other than those listed in proposed Table 1. 
Table 2 would not include color or illumination requirements. The 
symbols in each of the proposed tables were essentially identical to 
the ISO symbols, with a few exceptions. No English words or 
abbreviations appeared in the proposed tables, except that we proposed 
that the brake malfunction telltales include the word ``Brake'' for 
five years for light vehicles and eight years for heavy vehicles.
    The proposed expansion of the FMVSS No. 101 tables was the subject 
of most of the public comments. In general, the commenters addressing 
this issue recommended that the agency not expand Tables 1 and 2.
    Most of the commenters addressing the proposed tables generally 
stated the view that symbols would not be as well understood by the 
driver as English words. Some commenters objected to the number of 
vehicle functions for which we proposed to require a specific symbol.
    After considering the public comments for this final rule, we have 
decided not to expand at this time the symbols or other items listed in 
FMVSS No. 101, other than including some items already required by 
other FMVSSs. While we may revisit this issue in a future rulemaking, 
we would want to conduct additional analyses and possibly research 
relating to issues raised by the commenters.
    We have, however, decided to adopt the format of the tables 
proposed in the NPRM, to make identifiers easier to find in the tables. 
Therefore, in this final rule, for controls, telltales, and indicators, 
Table 1 specifies identifiers, color requirements and whether 
illumination is required for a control, telltale, or indicator, and 
specifies which have illumination or color requirements. Table 2 
specifies identifiers for controls, telltales, and indicators other 
than those listed in Table 1. No color or illumination requirements are 
specified in Table 2. The final rule at S5.2.3 states: ``Supplementary 
symbols, words, or abbreviations may be used at the manufacturer's 
discretion for the purpose of clarity in conjunction with any symbol, 
word, or abbreviation specified in Table 1 or Table 2.''
    In addition, we are addressing comments made about the following 
individual symbols proposed in Table 1 or Table 2 in the NPRM:
    TMA commented on the ``windshield defrosting and defogging system'' 
and ``rear window defrosting and defogging system'' icons. TMA stated 
that these ``illuminated telltale[s] should be green, not yellow.'' 
NHTSA notes that Table 1 of this final rule specifies identification 
requirements for controls for the windshield defrosting and defogging 
system and rear window defrosting and defogging system. (These controls 
are included in the existing FMVSS No. 101). For these controls, NHTSA 
specifies illumination, but not a color.
    TMA also commented on tire malfunction indicators, including ones 
indicating low pressure. It stated that provision should be made for a 
pictogram of a truck or tractor as well as a car.
    We note that as part of the agency's April 8, 2005 final rule (67 
FR 18136) on Tire Pressure Monitoring Systems (TPMS), we adopted a 
symbol depicting a car for low tire pressure telltales which identify 
which tire has low pressure. That rule requires TPMS on ``new passenger 
cars, multi-purpose passenger vehicles, trucks and buses with a gross 
vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 4,536 kg (10,000 pounds) or less, 
except those with dual wheels on an axle.'' Thus, there are presently 
no TPMS requirements for buses or trucks over 4,536 kg, although TPMS 
could be provided voluntarily for these vehicles. We agree that 
different identification might be appropriate for telltales for heavy 
vehicles. Accordingly, we are adding a footnote indicating that the

[[Page 48300]]

standard's requirements for telltales relating to TPMS apply only to 
vehicles subject to the TPMS standard.
    TMA commented that requiring the odometer to spell out ``MILES'' 
instead of ``Mi'' is overly restrictive. In this final rule, in Table 
2, the odometer must specify ``kilometers or km,'' if the unit of 
measurement is the kilometer. Otherwise, no identifier is required.
    The American Trucking Association (ATA) stated that the automatic 
vehicle speed indicator does not account for adaptive cruise control 
systems, which maintain headway in either time or distance from a lead 
vehicle. Automatic vehicle speed is a control specified in Table 1 of 
this final rule. The control must be illuminated. In some cases, 
adaptive cruise controls are not turned on or off by the driver, but 
are regulated by the vehicle's computer system. NHTSA believes that 
there is no ambiguity about the systems to which the automatic vehicle 
speed control entry applies, since the entry is of long standing. 
Adaptive cruise controls were developed after the automatic vehicle 
speed control entry was created. Thus, the automatic vehicle speed 
control entry in Table 1 does not apply to adaptive cruise controls.
    ATA also commented that the heating and/or air conditioning fan 
symbol does not address the need for engine fan switches, which can be 
controlled by the operator. NHTSA notes that in this final rule, the 
control is clearly specified in Table 1 as ``heating and/or air 
conditioning fan,'' not engine fan. Thus, the Table 1 requirements 
apply to controls for the fan regulating the vehicle interior's heating 
and/or air conditioning. The Table 1 requirements do not apply to 
engine fan controls. Nothing in this final rule prevents manufacturers 
from labeling the engine fan control as they see fit.
    Western Ergonomics, Inc. stated that allowing speedometers to be 
indicated in km/h as an option, rather than as a requirement (with MPH) 
is a ``mistake,'' since many American vehicles are driven in Canada 
where the speed limits are designated in km/h. We note that although 
many American cars are driven in Canada, most of them are not. Since 
speed limits in the U.S. are expressed in MPH, in this final rule we 
are only requiring speedometers to be indicated in MPH. However, the 
rule permits manufacturers, at their option, to designate speedometers 
in MPH and km/h. Americans who drive in Canada (and other parts of the 
world that use kilometers) can look for the km/h designation in the 
speedometers before purchasing, leasing, or renting motor vehicles.

E. Common Space for Displaying Multiple Messages

    At present, FMVSS No. 101 specifies that a common space may be used 
to display messages from any source, subject to several requirements. 
One of the current requirements is that the telltales for the brake, 
high beam, turn signal, and safety belt (telltales of particular safety 
significance) may not be shown in the ``common space.'' This 
requirement ensures that these telltales, if activated, are always 
visible to the driver.
    In the September 2003 NPRM, we proposed to expand the list of 
telltales (of particular safety significance) that could be in a common 
space, but could not share a common space with other specified 
telltales of particular safety significance, so the list of telltales 
would include: The telltales for any brake system malfunction; front 
air bag malfunction; side air bag malfunction; low tire pressure; 
passenger air bag off; high beam; turn signal; and seat belt. We 
proposed in the NPRM that if one of these telltales is activated, it is 
required to displace any other symbol or message in that common space 
while the underlying condition that caused the telltale's activation 
exists.
    We did not receive any public comments on the proposed changes to 
the common space for displaying multiple messages. Therefore, in this 
final rule, we are adding to S5.5.2 the specified telltales of 
particular safety significance that we proposed in the NPRM. S5.5.2 
will read: ``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.'' The changes adopted in this final 
rule continue to ensure that these telltales of particular safety 
significance, if activated, will always be visible to the driver, but 
give vehicle manufacturers increased flexibility in instrument panel 
design.

F. Identification of Multi-Function Controls

    As explained in detail in the September 2003 NPRM, over the past 
several years, we have addressed several requests for interpretation 
asking how FMVSS No. 101's requirements for identifying controls apply 
to advanced design concepts that use one control to access many vehicle 
functions, and that display those functions on a screen that is remote 
from the control. Our interpretations include one dated June 8, 2000 to 
a manufacturer whose identity is confidential, a February 28, 2001 
interpretation to Mazda, and a January 10, 2002 interpretation to 
Porsche.
    Over the years, we have sought to interpret FMVSS No. 101 in a 
broad manner, to accommodate 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.
    In the NPRM, we stated our belief that FMVSS No. 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 these 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,'' given the distance between them.
    On November 23, 2001, the agency received a petition for rulemaking 
from the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers (Alliance) to eliminate 
the adjacency requirement from the current FMVSS No. 101, S5.2.1(a). 
The agency granted the petition and, in the September 23, 2003 NPRM, 
addressed the issues raised in the Alliance petition. The Alliance 
stated the view 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 further stated that it 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 [off] 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 recommended particular language to be used to replace 
S5.2.1(a).
    In the NPRM, we noted several concerns about the Alliance 
recommendation and proposed language that would give a limited 
exclusion

[[Page 48301]]

from the adjacency requirement if the control is depicted in a display 
that is located in the driver's view and that clearly shows all 
functions available from that control. We also proposed a definition 
for ``multi-function control'' (as discussed above). Further, we sought 
comment on issues related to the use of multi-function controls and 
multi-task displays as well as comment on the proposed regulatory 
language itself.
    The Alliance and GM commented that a requirement that the control 
be ``depicted'' in the display (proposed at S5.1.4(a)) is too design 
restrictive and not technically consistent with the designs of advanced 
control and display systems. The Alliance stated that the control 
itself is not depicted in the multi-task display; rather, it is the 
function being displayed that is depicted.
    The Alliance and GM also expressed concern that the proposed 
language stated that ``all'' of the vehicle systems for which control 
is possible from the multi-task control must be identified in the 
associated multi-task display. They noted that this language appeared 
to extend to controls that NHTSA does not regulate, such as sound 
system controls.
    These commenters suggested the following language for S5.1.4:
    S5.1.4 The requirement of S5.1.3 does not apply to a multi-function 
control, provided:
    (a) The control is associated with a multi-task display,
    (b) The multi-task display is visible to the driver under the 
conditions of S5.6.1 and S5.6.2, and

    (c) Each system containing any control listed in column 1 of Table 
1 that can be selected from the multi-task control is 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.
    In response to these comments, we believe GM/Alliance's suggested 
language of ``associated with'' is insufficient. We believe that the 
driver must have some visual clue that the display contains information 
about the functions available from the multifunction control. However, 
while a depiction of the multi-function control would provide the 
driver the necessary information, we agree that it is unnecessary to 
limit the identification to such a depiction. Accordingly, the final 
rule provides, as one of the conditions that must be met in order for a 
multi-function control not to be subject to the identification 
adjacency requirement, that the associated multi-task display must 
identify the multi-function control with which it is associated 
graphically or using words. It is up to the manufacturer to decide 
which identifying graphics or words to use for its design.
    As to the identification of the functions operated by the multi-
function control, we note that there are many potential designs that 
manufacturers could use. Some but not all designs may involve multiple 
layers. A multi-layer design might include several vehicle systems that 
are depicted on the top-most layer, e.g., climate, navigation, and 
audio, whose specific control functions are operated by scrolling 
through one or more subsequent layers. For example, selection of 
``climate'' by a vehicle operator might lead to a second layer 
depicting heating and cooling, the selection of which leads to a third 
screen depicting temperature and fan speed.
    We agree with the Alliance that it would not be appropriate to 
require the various subsystems to be depicted on the top-most layer. 
There would often not be space to depict all such subsystems and, even 
if there were, identification of numerous subsystems might create a 
cluttered appearance and cause confusion. Also, recognizing the large 
variety of potential designs, we want to take care not to establish 
requirements that may be unnecessarily design-restrictive.
    We believe it is appropriate to focus on requirements for the 
identification to be provided in two situations: (1) the top-most layer 
of any multi-function control that has layers, and (2) the 
identification of active functions of controls listed in Tables 1 and 
2, i.e., functions that are immediately affected by operation of the 
control to change the state of the vehicle or subsystem.
    Accordingly, for the final rule, S5.1.4 states:
    S5.1.4 The requirement of S5.1.3 does not apply to a multi-function 
control, provided the multi-function control is associated with a 
multi-task display that:
    (a) Is visible to the driver under the conditions of S5.6.1 and 
S5.6.2,
    (b) Identifies the multi-function control with which it is 
associated graphically or using words,
    (c) For multi-task displays with layers, identifies on the top-most 
layer each system for which control is possible from the associated 
multi-function control, including systems not otherwise regulated by 
this standard. Subfunctions of the available systems need not be shown 
on the top-most layer of the multi-task display, and
    (d) Identifies the controls of Table 1 and Table 2 with the 
identification specified in those tables or otherwise required by this 
standard, whenever those are the active functions of the multi-function 
control. For lower levels of multi-task displays with layers, 
identification is permitted but not required for systems not otherwise 
regulated by this standard.
    As to the Alliance's concern that identification is required for 
controls that FMVSS No. 101 does not otherwise regulate, we note that, 
for the final rule, such additional identification is very limited. 
First, since S5.1.4 simply provides an exception to S5.1.3, it only has 
application for controls that include functions specifically regulated 
by FMVSS No. 101. Second, the rule only requires identification of 
additional items (not otherwise regulated by the standard) for the top-
most layer of the associated multi-task display.
    We believe that to the extent manufacturers include additional 
functions (not otherwise regulated by FMVSS No. 101) as part of the 
same multi-function control that includes items listed in the standard, 
it would be confusing if those additional functions were not 
identified. This could make it more difficult for users to operate the 
control for the items specifically addressed by FMVSS No. 101. However, 
under the final rule, manufacturers may identify the additional 
functions in any way they choose, and the requirement only applies to 
the top-most layer of the associated multi-task display. We do not 
believe this will be burdensome and, in fact, believe manufacturers 
would be highly likely to provide such identification in the absence of 
such a requirement.
    We are also requiring that the controls of Table 1 and Table 2 be 
identified with the identification specified in those tables or 
otherwise required by the standard, whenever those are the active 
functions of the multi-function control.
    We note that for a multi-task display with layers, paragraph (c) 
would require identification on the top-most layer of each system for 
which control is possible from the associated multi-function control, 
including systems not otherwise regulated by this standard. Paragraph 
(d) would then require any controls listed in Table 1 and Table 2 to be 
identified with the identification specified in those tables or 
otherwise required by this standard, whenever those are the active 
functions of the multi-function control.
    It is possible that there could be one or more intermediate layers 
that are not active, e.g., layers which are used not to immediately 
change the state of the vehicle or subsystem but instead take the user 
to a specific control that is active. We are not specifying

[[Page 48302]]

identification requirements for such intermediate, non-active layers.
    To illustrate this, we will consider the following example of a 
multi-function control with an associated multi-function display. The 
top-most layer of the display includes several systems, including 
climate control.

   Figure 1.--Illustrative Example of Systems and Controls Visible on
                Different Layers of a Multi-Task Display
------------------------------------------------------------------------
  System or function visible on display                Layer
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Climate..................................  1 (top-most)
Heat, Cool...............................  2
Temperature Setting Fan Speed............  3
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Paragraph (c) would require identification of the climate system on 
the top-most layer. Since heating and air conditioning system (as well 
as heating and/or air conditioning fan) are listed in Table 1, 
paragraph (d) would require the controls to be identified with the 
identification specified in the table or otherwise required by the 
standard, whenever they are the active functions of the multi-function 
control.
    As to the second layer, identification would be required if heat/
cool were active functions, e.g., if selection of heat/cool activated 
and deactivated the heating or air conditioning systems. Identification 
would not be required if selection of heat/cool did nothing more than 
move the multi-task display to the next level.
    As to layer 3, assuming that temperature setting and fan speed are 
active functions, paragraph (d) would require the controls to be 
identified with the identification specified in the table or otherwise 
required by the standard. The table specifies a symbol for heating and/
or air conditioning fan control. While the table doesn't specifically 
mention temperature setting, paragraph S5.2.8 requires identification 
to be provided for each function of any heating and air conditioning 
system control, and for the extreme positions of any such control that 
regulates a function over a quantitative range. If this identification 
is not specified in the tables, as in this case, it must be in word or 
symbol form unless color coding is used. If color coding is used to 
identify the extreme positions of a temperature control, the hot 
extreme must be identified by the color red and the cold extreme by the 
color blue.
    It is possible that there could be one or more intermediate layers 
that are not active, e.g., layers which are used not to immediately 
change the state of the vehicle or subsystem but instead take the user 
to a specific control that is active. We are not specifying 
identification requirements for such intermediate, non-active layers.
    In its comments, Western Ergonomics, Inc. (WEI) asked whether the 
multi-function control itself must be labeled if a screen shows all the 
functions. WEI expressed the view that it ``seems appropriate to label 
the control itself in order for the operator to know which of several 
controls it is. This is more the case in larger trucks.'' In response, 
NHTSA notes that in the final rule, S5.1.4 excludes all multi-function 
controls (including the main multi-function control) from the ``on or 
adjacent to'' requirement, as long as the control is associated with a 
multi-task display that meets the specified conditions. Nothing in 
S5.1.4 prohibits the manufacturer from labeling the main multi-function 
control to meet the ``on or adjacent to'' requirement.
    American Honda, addressing the issue of multi-function controls, 
stated that limiting FMVSS No. 101 to only those controls and displays 
that are related to motor vehicle safety, and are required by other 
FMVSSs would minimize the issues raised by regulating multi-function 
controls. American Honda also expressed the view that ``it remains 
important that critical controls, such as ignition switches, gear 
selection controls, headlight switches, windshield wipers, etc., must 
remain independent from multi-function controls and instantly 
accessible at all times.'' Regarding American Honda's suggestion that 
certain controls should not be permitted as part of a multi-function 
control system, NHTSA notes that since it did not propose, in the NPRM, 
to prohibit specific controls from being part of a multi-function 
control system, we are not addressing this issue by regulation at this 
time.
    Federal Express commented that a multi-task display or a multi-
function control must provide the driver audible or tactile feedback 
when a function occurs, so as to minimize the time a driver's focus is 
on the display. NHTSA notes that the issue of requiring audible or 
tactile feedback in conjunction with multi-function controls is outside 
the scope of this rulemaking. However, we note that nothing in FMVSS 
No. 101 prevents a manufacturer from providing such audible or tactile 
feedback on a multi-function control system.

G. No Conforming Amendments to Other Standards

    In the NPRM, we noted that several other safety standards include 
requirements that could be affected by the proposed changes to FMVSS 
No. 101. We stated that we would make any necessary conforming 
amendments to those standards as part of the final rule amending FMVSS 
No. 101. In this final rule, because we have decided to keep all the 
current identifiers for telltales, and have included no new controls, 
telltales or indicators in Table 1 or Table 2, no conforming amendments 
to other FMVSSs are necessary. Changes made to FMVSS No. 101 as a 
result of the April 8, 2005 (67 FR 18136) final rule on Tire Pressure 
Monitoring Systems (TPMS) are included in this final rule.

H. Location and Visibility Requirements

    In response to the NPRM, AIAM recommended that the requirements in 
FMVSS No. 101 be limited to ``safety critical'' controls, telltales, 
and indicators. AIAM stated that a more limited scope would still 
facilitate international harmonization since manufacturers would not be 
prohibited from using the international symbols if they chose to do so. 
AIAM also noted that each control listed in Table 1 must be located so 
as to be operable by the driver and that S5.1.2 requires that telltales 
and indicators listed in Table 1 or Table 2 must be visible to the 
driver. AIAM noted that certain proposed Table 1 or Table 2 items were 
not intended to be controlled by the driver while the vehicle is in 
motion. As examples, AIAM cited seat adjustment controls (not 
necessarily for the driver's seat), child lock controls, and controls 
for heating and air conditioning systems in the rear compartment areas.
    NHTSA notes that, as discussed above, we are limiting FMVSS No. 101 
controls to only those that are already specified in Tables 1 or 2, or 
in another FMVSS. Thus, AIAM's comments are made moot.

I. Other Issues

1. Combining Controls
    In the NPRM, NHTSA asked for comment on whether there are any 
controls which, for safety reasons, should not be combined with other 
controls. TMA recommended that the parking brake, horn and hood opener 
controls should not be combined with any other controls. The Alliance 
stated that it did not believe that there is any need to regulate or 
restrict the combination of controls unless NHTSA has evidence or 
reason to believe that the combination of any particular controls would 
introduce adverse safety consequences.
    As NHTSA stated earlier in Subsection F. on multi-function

[[Page 48303]]

controls, in the NPRM, it did not propose to prohibit the combination 
of specific controls. NHTSA is not adopting any requirements in this 
area.
2. Color
    In the NPRM, NHTSA proposed language at S5.4.2 that stated: ``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.'' TMA suggested the following alternative language: ``Any indicator 
or telltale not listed in Table 1 and any identification of that 
indicator or telltale must be in a color that cannot be confused with 
or that masks any other indicator or telltale listed in Table 1.''
    NHTSA notes that TMA's suggested language does not state that 
indicators or telltales must not be in a color that masks the driver's 
ability to recognize any telltale, control or indicator listed in Table 
1 (emphasis added). Since it believes in the importance of regulating 
the driver's ability to recognize telltales, controls and indicators, 
NHTSA will adopt as final the language it proposed at S5.4.2.

IV. Leadtime and Cost

    In response to the NPRM, TMA agreed that the proposed eight year 
lead time for heavy truck manufacturers is appropriate. The Alliance 
stated that it is ``premature'' to set an effective date for vehicles 
to comply with an amended FMVSS No. 101. It was concerned about the 
proposed requirements for expanded standardized control and display 
identifications.
    We are making the standard effective 180 days after publication, 
but providing a later compliance date for heavy vehicles.
    For light vehicles, the amendments will not require design changes 
but will instead relieve restrictions. An important purpose of this 
final rule is to update the standard so that it appropriately addresses 
advanced multi-function controls. Since NHTSA has ensured that the 
telltales, indicators and controls specified in Tables 1 and 2 are all 
presently specified in FMVSS No. 101 or are specified in other FMVSSs, 
amendments to Tables 1 and 2 should have no substantive effects for 
manufacturers of vehicles under 4,536 kg GVWR. Moreover, the other 
changes made to the standard will not require changes to current light 
vehicles.
    Design changes will be required for vehicles with GVWRs of 4,536 
kg. (10,000 pounds) or greater, since these vehicles have not 
previously been subject to FMVSS No. 101's requirements for 
identification and illumination of displays. In this final rule, we 
recognize that heavy vehicles have a longer redesign cycle than do 
passenger vehicles. Thus, for vehicles of 4,536 kg GVWR or greater, the 
compliance date for the new requirements for telltales and indicators 
is approximately eight years after publication.
    Early voluntary compliance with the provisions of this final rule 
is permitted immediately.

V. Final Rule

    In this final rule, NHTSA amends FMVSS No. 101 as described in the 
sections above. The new rule extends the standard's telltale and 
indicator requirements to vehicle of Gross Vehicle Weight Rating (GVWR) 
4,536 kilograms (10,000 pounds) and over, updates the standard's 
requirements for multi-function controls and multi-task displays to 
make the requirements appropriate for advanced systems, and reorganizes 
the standard to make it easier to read. Table 1 and Table 2 continue to 
include only those symbols and words previously specified in the 
controls and displays standard or in another Federal motor vehicle 
safety standard. However, both Tables 1 and 2 have been reorganized to 
make the symbols and words easier to find.

VI. Statutory Bases for the Rulemaking

    We have issued this final rule pursuant to our statutory authority. 
Under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, Motor Vehicle Safety (49 U.S.C. 30101 et 
seq.), the Secretary of Transportation is responsible for prescribing 
motor vehicle safety standards that are practicable, meet the need for 
motor vehicle safety, and are stated in objective terms. 49 U.S.C. 
30111(a). When prescribing such standards, the Secretary must consider 
all relevant, available motor vehicle safety information. 49 U.S.C. 
30111(b). The Secretary must also consider whether a proposed standard 
is reasonable, practicable, and appropriate for the type of motor 
vehicle or motor vehicle equipment for which it is prescribed and the 
extent to which the standard will further the statutory purpose of 
reducing traffic accidents and deaths and injuries resulting from 
traffic accidents. Id. Responsibility for promulgation of Federal motor 
vehicle safety standards was subsequently delegated to NHTSA. 49 U.S.C. 
105 and 322; delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.
    As a Federal agency, before promulgating changes to a Federal motor 
vehicle safety standard, NHTSA also has a statutory responsibility to 
follow the informal rulemaking procedures mandated in the 
Administrative Procedure Act at 5 U.S.C. Section 553. Among these 
requirements are Federal Register publication of a general notice of 
proposed rulemaking, and giving interested persons an opportunity to 
participate in the rulemaking through submission of written data, views 
or arguments. After consideration of the public comments, we must 
incorporate into the rules adopted, a concise general statement of the 
rule's basis and purpose.
    The agency has carefully considered these statutory requirements in 
promulgating this final rule to amend FMVSS No. 101. As previously 
discussed in detail, we have solicited public comment in an NPRM and 
have carefully considered the public comments before issuing this final 
rule. As a result, we believe that this final rule reflects 
consideration of all relevant available motor vehicle safety 
information. Consideration of all these statutory factors has resulted 
in the following decisions in this final rule.
    In the NPRM, we proposed to expand Tables 1 and 2 to make FMVSS No. 
101 include 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, to make FMVSS No. 101 
applicable to all ``vehicles'' of 4,536 kilograms (10,000 pounds) and 
greater, and to except multi-function controls and multi-task displays 
from the ``on or adjacent to'' requirement for identifying controls. 
Some commenters questioned the safety need to include all the ISO 
2575:2000 symbols in FMVSS No. 101, and whether FMVSS No. 101 should be 
made applicable to vehicles of 4,536 kg GVWR and greater. In this final 
rule, NHTSA stated that after considering the comments, we have decided 
to retain the content of Tables 1 and 2 as specified in the current 
FMVSS No. 101, and to specify no others. However, we have decided to 
adopt the format of the tables proposed in the NPRM, to make 
identifiers easier to find in the tables. Therefore, in this final 
rule, for controls, telltales, and indicators, Table 1 specifies 
identifiers, color requirements and whether illumination is required 
for a control, telltale, or indicator, and specifies which have 
illumination or color requirements. Table 2 specifies identifiers for 
controls, telltales, and indicators other than those listed in Table 1. 
No color or illumination requirements are specified in Table 2.

[[Page 48304]]

    We have also decided to extend the standard's telltale and 
indicator requirements to vehicles of 4,536 kg GVWRs and greater. We 
have also adopted a limited exclusion for multi-function controls and 
multi-task displays from FMVSS No. 101's ``on or adjacent to'' 
identification requirements for controls.
    As indicated, we have thoroughly reviewed the public comments and 
adopted a final rule in light of comments. In the instances where we 
did not adopt a comment, we explain why we did not adopt the comment. 
We believe that this final rule amending FMVSS No. 101 meets the need 
for safety.

VII. Rulemaking 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 or 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, `