Denial of Petition for Rulemaking Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 105 |
|---|
Topics: Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards
|
Barry Felrice
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
May 5, 1994
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 86 (Thursday, May 5, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-10862]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: May 5, 1994]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
49 CFR Part 571
Denial of Petition for Rulemaking Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
Standard No. 105
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT.
ACTION: Denial of petition for rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This notice denies a petition for rulemaking by Volkswagen of
America, Inc. (VW) to amend Standard No. 105 by reducing the required
height for lettering on antilock brake failure indicator lights. VW
wants the reduction to facilitate its efforts to develop a single
indicator light design that complies with both U.S. and Canadian
requirements. Standard 105 provides that if a separate indicator light
is provided for antilock brake failure, the indicator must bear one of
the following: ``Antilock,'' ``Anti-lock'' or ``ABS.'' Canada requires
use of the ISO brake failure symbol. VW's single design would consist
of the letters ``ABS'' placed inside the ISO symbol. A letter size
reduction would enable VW to avoid having to use what it regards as an
overly large ISO symbol.
NHTSA is denying this petition for two reasons. First, NHTSA
believes that reducing the minimum letter height would make it
impossible for many drivers, particularly elderly ones, to read the
words and thus discern when there is a brake system failure. Second,
the agency is not convinced that the international symbol, by itself,
is sufficiently recognizable to be understood as an indication of brake
failure by persons unfamiliar with that symbol.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Larry Cook, Office of Vehicle
Safety Standards, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400
Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC 20590, (202) 366-4803.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards
(FMVSS) 101 and 105, promulgated in 1978 and 1976, respectively,
establish requirements for vehicle panel displays, including indicators
warning of brake failure. The two FMVSS's prescribe the wording of the
failure warning displays, as well as their dimensions and colors.
S5.3.5(a) of FMVSS 105 (Hydraulic Brake Systems) requires that each
indicator lamp shall have letters which are not less than \1/8\-inch
high, and which must be visible and legible to a vehicle's driver in
daylight. In the case of brake warning displays, FMVSS 105 prescribes
that the word ``Brake'' be used. (S5.3.5(c)(1)). If a separate
indicator lamp is provided for an anti-lock brake system (ABS), the
word ``Antilock,'' ``Anti-lock'' or the abbreviation ``ABS'' must be
used (S5.3.5(c)(1)(C)). Table 2 of FMVSS 101 (Controls and Displays),
echoes FMVSS 105, permitting use of the words ``antilock,'' ``anti-
lock'' or ``ABS.''
On July 6, 1993, Volkswagen of America, Inc. (VW) petitioned the
agency to modify FMVSS 105 to require the letters in the word or
acronym on the ABS warning indicator to have a minimum height of 2.4 mm
(\3/32\-inch) instead of the current \1/8\ inch (3.2 mm). VW apparently
desires the reduction to facilitate its efforts to develop a single
dashboard indicator light design that complies with both U.S. and
Canadian requirements. VW stated that Transport Canada had amended
Canadian Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (CMVSS) 101 to require use of
the ISO symbol for brake failure. CMVSS 101 requires the ISO symbol to
be at least \1/8\-inch high. The amendment to CMVSS 101 becomes
effective on September 1, 1994.
VW's single design would consist of the letters ``ABS'' placed
inside the ISO symbol. VW wants the letter size reduction in order to
avoid having to use what it regards as an overly large ISO symbol. It
states that in order to put the currently required \1/8\-inch high
letters inside the ISO symbol, the latter would have to be 10.18 mm
(\2/5\ inch). VW states that such a size would be three times larger
than required for all other warning indicators. In the alternative, a
manufacturer would need two different designs: One for installation in
vehicles sold in Canada, and one for installation in vehicles sold in
the United States.
VW requested the agency to reduce the required minimum dimensions
for ``ABS,'' when used inside the ISO brake failure symbol, from 3.2 mm
(\1/8\-inch) high to 2.4 mm (\3/32\-inch) high. It admitted that
letters inside the symbol would be ``extremely small.'' VW suggested
that an ISO symbol 7 mm (\1/4\-inch) high could accommodate letters 2.2
mm (0.0866 inches) high. VW did not state how much larger the ISO
symbol would have to be to include letters 2.4 mm high, as requested in
its petition.
The agency has addressed the issue of the ISO symbol previously.
For instance, in a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM)
for proposed Standard No. 135, which provides for harmonization of
international standards for passenger car hydraulic brake systems (see
56 FR 30528, July 3, 1991), the agency stated that it had denied
several petitions for inconsequential noncompliance based on the use of
ISO symbols in place of words or symbols required by Standard No. 101.
In those cases, the agency stated in the SNPRM, it had believed the
meaning of the ISO symbols would be unclear or ambiguous to drivers.
Additionally, the agency conducted a rulemaking proceeding between
1982 and 1987 in which the agency amended Standard No. 101 by
permitting various words and symbols to be used, while rejecting
others. In a NPRM (47 FR 49994, November 4, 1982), the agency discussed
allowing the ISO symbol for brake failure, and sought comment. It noted
that the symbol for brakes was of ``particular safety importance'' to
drivers, and stated the agency's concern that ``the symbol may not be
immediately recognizable.'' Two years later, in a final rule (49 FR
30191, July 27, 1984), the agency expressed its concern that ``too many
symbols, or symbols that are not easily recognizable, are not in the
public's or industry's interest.'' The agency delayed a decision on
brake failure warning indicators in that final rule, addressing them
instead in another final rule issued a year later (50 FR 23426, June 4,
1985). The agency rejected use of the ISO symbol in the 1985 rule based
on a study published by the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE). That
study found the percentage recognition or understanding of the ISO
brake symbol among a survey sample of people unfamiliar with that
symbol to be very low (i.e., about one-quarter of the survey sample).
By comparison, 87 percent of the survey sample recognized the meaning
of the word ``brake'' when it was illuminated. In addition, a comment
from General Motors stated that the ISO was adopting new symbols by
consensus and without resort to its prior practice of extensive
international testing as to the symbol's recognizability and
suitability. In a final rule published on May 28, 1987 (52 FR 19872),
the agency declined to adopt the ISO symbol as an alternative to the
words ``Antilock'' or ``ABS'', once again citing the SAE study
discussed above. In all of the above final rules, the agency discussed
the desirability of increased harmonization of symbols and words as a
way to eliminate language barriers and decrease manufacturer costs.
However, notwithstanding its general wish to increase harmonization,
NHTSA has consistently deemed it prudent to reject symbols and words
that could have a negative safety impact, whether in the short run
during a transitional period of familiarization or in the long run.
In its petition, VW stated it was not aware of any definitive
studies showing the need for a \1/8\-inch minimum height requirement
for lettering on indicator lamps. VW maintained that the slightly
smaller letters it requested in its petition, combined with the
slightly larger ISO symbol, would be sufficient to convey the intended
meaning (i.e., brake failure) to the driver of a vehicle.
VW points to FMVSS 208 (Occupant Crash Protection), S4.5.1, which
requires occupant crash protection maintenance schedules to be
permanently affixed on a label inside the vehicle, as permitting
letters of \3/32\-inch high. \3/32\-inch (or 2.4 mm) is insignificantly
larger than the 2.2 mm letter height that VW says would fit inside the
7 mm ISO symbol.
NHTSA disagrees with VW's statement that decreasing the minimum
letter height would have no effect on a driver's ability to understand
the warning indicator. Contrary to VW's assertion that there is no
definitive study showing the need for a \1/8\-inch minimum height
requirement, NHTSA research report, ``Specification of Control
Illumination Limits'' (DOT-HS-4-00864, 1974) found that instrument-
panel labels consisting of .09 inch letters (2.3 mm, or 0.1 mm smaller
than that requested by VW) could not be read by older drivers,
regardless of letter brightness or background contrast. VW has provided
no data supporting its contention that a letter height of 2.4 mm would
be readable by all drivers, including older drivers.
The agency also takes issue with the comparison of the letter
height requirements of FMVSS 105 and those of FMVSS 208. The words
required under FMVSS 105 warn of an impending or actual failure in the
brake system of the vehicle. The indicator light in this situation must
be seen and understood by all drivers in all lighting conditions as
quickly as possible. In an emergency situation involving brake failure,
the agency believes that it would be the word, ``antilock'' or the
letters ``ABS'' that would convey the desired message. If the minimum
height of the letters were reduced to the point of illegibility, the
successful communication of the message would rest solely on the
accompanying ISO symbol. NHTSA believes that the symbol would not be
adequate by itself to alert many drivers to the occurrence of brake
failure.
The wording required by FMVSS 208 is a standard and permanent
notice of maintenance. It is a reminder to the vehicle owner when to
have the occupant crash protection system serviced. It need not be seen
and immediately understood, as with a warning indicator. The two
requirements are obviously for different purposes and to be read at
different times. Therefore, they need not have identical letter height
requirements.
NHTSA has no objection to use of the ISO symbol, per se. However,
the ISO symbol may only be used as an addition to the words or acronym
required by FMVSS's 101 and 105 and not as a substitute. VW may, if it
so chooses, meet the requirements of FMVSS 105 by including ``ABS''
inside the ISO symbol for brake failure, provided that the letters
``ABS'' are \1/8\-inch in height. Alternatively, it may place the word
``antilock'' or letters ``ABS'', in compliance with the requirements of
FMVSS's 101 and 105, next to a \1/8\-inch ISO symbol brake failure
indicator. Both options would meet the requirements of CMVSS 101 and
the FMVSS's 101 and 105, obviating the need for VW to install different
components in vehicles sold in the U.S. or Canada.
Based on the foregoing, NHTSA concludes that there is no reasonable
possibility that the requested amendment would be issued at the
conclusion of a rulemaking proceeding and therefore denies VW's
petition.
Authority: 15 U.S.C. 1410a, delegation of authority at 49 CFR
1.50 and 501.8.
Issued on: May 2, 1994.
Barry Felrice,
Associate Administrator.for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 94-10862 Filed 5-4-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE: 4910-59-P