[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 68 (Monday, April 8, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 15446-15449]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-8648]



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


DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
49 CFR Part 571

[Docket No. 96-30; Notice 1]
RIN 2127-AF88


Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Windshield Wiping and 
Washing Systems

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

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: In this document, NHTSA proposes changes to the Federal Motor 
Vehicle Safety Standard on windshield wiping and washing systems. The 
proposals range from applying performance requirements to the systems 
in light trucks and multipurpose passenger vehicles to rescinding the 
Standard. This proposed action is part of NHTSA's efforts to implement 
the President's Regulatory Reinvention Initiative.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before May 23, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Comments must refer to the docket and notice numbers cited 
at the beginning of this notice and be submitted to: Docket Section, 
Room 5109, NHTSA, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590. It is 
requested that 10 copies of the comments be provided. The Docket 
Section is open on weekdays from 9:30 a.m. to 4 p.m.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical issues: Mr. Richard Van 
Iderstine, Office of Vehicle Safety Standards, NPS-21, telephone (202) 
366-5280, FAX (202) 366-4329.
    For legal issues: Ms. Dorothy Nakama, Office of Chief Counsel, NCC-
20, telephone (202) 366-2992, FAX (202) 366-3820. Both may be reached 
at the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh 
Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590. Comments should not be sent or faxed 
to these persons, but should be sent to the Docket Section.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

President's Regulatory Reinvention Initiative

    Pursuant to the March 4, 1995 directive ``Regulatory Reinvention 
Initiative'' from the President to the heads of departments and 
agencies, NHTSA undertook a review of its regulations and directives. 
During the course of this review, NHTSA identified regulations that it 
could propose to eliminate as unnecessary or to amend to improve their 
comprehensibility, application, or appropriateness. Among these 
regulations is Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 104, 
Windshield wiping and washing systems (49 CFR Sec. 571.104). Based on 
its review of the standard, NHTSA is proposing three alternative 
approaches to amending Standard No. 104.

Background of Standard No. 104

    Standard No. 104 was issued in 1967 (32 FR 2408) as one of the 
initial Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSSs). At present, 
the standard applies to passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles 
(MPVs), trucks, and buses. Standard No. 104 specifies that each vehicle 
shall have a power-driven windshield wiping system that meets S4.1.1's 
requirement that each system shall have at least two speeds, each of 
which wipes at a different number of cycles per minute.
    Standard No. 104 specifies additional wiping requirements for 
passenger cars, but not for the other vehicle types subject to the 
standard. The passenger car windshield areas to be wiped are specified 
in paragraphs S4.1.2 and S4.1.2.1 of the standard. S4.1.2 specifies 
three areas for passenger car windshields, designated as areas ``A'',

[[Page 15447]]
``B'', and ``C.'' A specified percentage of the glazing in each area is 
required to be wiped, as shown in Figures 1 and 2 of SAE Recommended 
Practice J903a, May 1966, which the standard incorporates by reference. 
The location of those areas is determined using the angles specified in 
Tables I, II, III, and IV of Standard No. 104, as applicable. Those 
tables apply to passenger cars of varying overall widths, namely, from 
less than 60 inches to more than 68 inches. The angles set forth in the 
tables vary according to the overall width of the vehicle. Finally, 
paragraph S4.1.2 provides that all of the glazing counted toward 
meeting the percentage of each area required to be wiped must lie 
within the area bounded by a perimeter line on the glazing surface one 
inch from the edge of the daylight opening.
    Standard No. 104 also specifies requirements for windshield washing 
systems on passenger cars, MPVs, trucks, and buses. Each of those 
vehicles is required in S4.2.1 or S4.2.2 to have a windshield washing 
system that meets the requirements of SAE Recommended Practice J942 
(SAE J942), ``Passenger Car Windshield Washing Systems,'' November 
1965, with a few modifications.

NHTSA's Review of Standard No. 104 and Proposals for Change

    In reviewing Standard No. 104 under the President's Regulatory 
Reinvention Initiative, NHTSA identified three proposals for changes to 
the Standard and seeks public comment on each proposal. The proposals 
are: (1) Rescinding the Standard if a finding can be made that the 
motor vehicle industry would continue to provide the same level of 
washing and wiping performance in the absence of a standard; (2) 
upgrading the light truck and MPV windshield wiping requirements to 
make them equivalent to the passenger car requirements; and (3) 
eliminating duplicative language by combining Standards Nos. 103 and 
104 into a single safety standard and retitling it Windshield clearance 
systems, since Standard No. 103 presently references provisions in 
Standard No. 104.
    Due to the relative simplicity of the proposals, the agency is not 
setting forth precise regulatory language for implementing those 
proposals.
    In addition to seeking comments on each of the three proposals, the 
agency also seeks comment on the option of making no changes to the 
Standard.

1. Proposal One--Rescind Standard No. 104

    NHTSA's first alternative proposal is to rescind Standard No. 104. 
To adopt this proposal, NHTSA would conclude that even if Standard No. 
104 should be rescinded, manufacturers would continue to provide means 
to wipe and wash motor vehicle windshields. It is widely recognized 
that a motor vehicle must have some means for keeping the windshield 
wiped and washed so that the driver can view the road ahead. More 
important, the fact that light trucks and MPVs apparently provide 
wiping and washing performance comparable to that in passenger cars, 
despite the absence of performance requirements for light trucks and 
MPVs, indicates that passenger cars would continue to provide that 
level of performance in the absence of performance requirements.
    In addition, market forces (in the form of customer demand) would 
be highly likely to ensure that vehicle manufacturers continue to 
provide windshield wiping and washing systems in motor vehicles. 
Customer magazines and consumers themselves would be likely to react 
negatively to vehicles that do not have adequate windshield wiping and 
washing systems. The agency notes that more than 93 percent of all cars 
and light trucks have intermittent (i.e., variable speed) wipers even 
though only two wiper speeds are required by Standard No. 104 and that 
15 percent of cars have a rear window wiper, even though one is not 
required. These installations indicate market forces favoring wiping 
and washing devices.
    NHTSA notes that if Standard No. 104 were rescinded, some States 
might adopt regulations requiring windshield washing and wiping systems 
or even regulating their performance. Were the States to adopt such 
regulations, there would not be any express preemption under 49 U.S.C. 
30103(b), Preemption, of State requirements dissimilar to those 
currently in Standard No. 104. It also does not appear likely that a 
court would find any implied Federal preemption of State requirements, 
regardless of whether they are similar or dissimilar to those in the 
Standard. A State regulation addressing the same subject as a rescinded 
Federal regulation would be impliedly preempted only if the State 
regulation conflicted with or otherwise frustrated achieving the 
purposes of the Federal statute. Even if the agency were to conclude 
that no regulation, Federal or State, of windshield wiping and washing 
is necessary, it is not readily apparent how State regulations, even 
ones differing from those of another State, on this subject would 
conflict with Federal law or have a deleterious effect on motor vehicle 
safety.
    Finally, the agency notes that rescinding Standard No. 104 would 
also remove what may be unnecessarily restrictive specifications for 
windshield wiping and washing systems. For example, at present, S4.1 
specifies that a windshield wiping system must have at least two 
frequencies, one of which is at least 45 cycles per minute, and the 
other cycle must differ by at least 15 cycles per minute. Manufacturers 
might develop means to clean windshields that do not operate in cycles, 
or other means that do not involve the traditional two wiper blades 
rotating in synchronization.

2. Proposal Two--Upgrading the MPV and Light Truck Requirements to Make 
Them Equivalent to the Passenger Car Requirement

    In the last decade, sales of light trucks and multipurpose 
passenger vehicles (MPVs) have increased substantially. In addition, 
these vehicles have been increasingly used to transport passengers. As 
a result, the number of deaths and injuries associated with those 
vehicles have substantially increased.
    In response, NHTSA has amended certain FMVSSs to ensure that 
passengers are afforded the same level of protection whether they ride 
in a passenger car, light truck, or MPV. For example, by model year 
1998, the requirements for key FMVSSs such as Standard No. 208, 
Occupant crash protection and Standard No. 214, Side impact protection 
will be virtually identical for passenger cars, light trucks, and MPVs.
    Continuing the trend to make FMVSS requirements uniform for all 
three types of vehicles, this proposal would make similar upgrades in 
Standard No. 104. As noted above, Standard No. 104 presently specifies 
no windshield wiping requirements for light trucks and MPVs other than 
that they have a power-driven windshield wiping and washing system, 
with at least two speeds, each wiping at a different rate. NHTSA 
proposes minimum requirements regarding the portions of light truck and 
MPV windshields that must be wiped.
    To adopt equivalent requirements for light trucks and MPVs, whose 
windshields and driver seating positions may differ from those of 
passenger cars, this proposal would incorporate a different set of SAE

[[Page 15448]]
recommended practices than those applicable to passenger cars.
    For minimum windshield wiped area requirements for light trucks and 
MPVs, this proposal would incorporate relevant provisions of SAE 
Recommended Practice J198 (SAE J198) ``Windshield Wiper Systems--
Trucks, Buses, and Multipurpose Vehicles'' January 1971. In Paragraph 
3.1.1, SAE J198 describes the portions of the exterior windshield 
glazing surface that must be wiped as follows: area A (the largest 
area, encompassing both the driver's and front passenger's view), area 
B (an area somewhat smaller than area A) and area C (the smallest area, 
in front of the driver's view). Each area is established using angles 
in Table 1 of SAE J198 applied as shown in Figure 1 of SAE J198.
    NHTSA tentatively concludes that if minimum windshield wiped area 
requirements were to be adopted for light trucks and MPVs, the costs, 
if any, incurred by manufacturers would be slight. It appears that 
virtually all light trucks and MPVs already meet SAE J198's minimum 
wiped area requirements, thus minimizing the need for design changes. 
Nevertheless, NHTSA seeks public comment on cost increases. The 
potential for a slight cost increase comes from the possibility that 
the manufacturers may not currently be doing as much performance 
testing as they would if those requirements were adopted.
    As part of this proposal, the agency would adopt minimum 
performance requirements for windshield washer systems in trucks, buses 
and MPVs. The standard would be amended to reference the two SAE 
Recommended Practices addressing the performance of those systems in 
those vehicles.
    As noted above, Standard No. 104 references SAE J942 ``Passenger 
Car Windshield Washer Systems.'' Despite its title, SAE J942 specifies 
minimum performance requirements not only for windshield washer systems 
in passenger cars, but also for those in trucks, buses, and MPVs. Under 
this proposal, NHTSA would apply SAE J942 to trucks, buses and MPVs 
with a GVWR 10,000 lbs. and under.
    In addition, in May 1991, SAE Recommended Practice J1944 (SAE 
J1944) ``Truck & Bus Multipurpose Vehicle Windshield Washer System'' 
was established. SAE J1944 describes minimum performance requirements 
for windshield washing systems on trucks, buses, and MPVs with a gross 
vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 10,000 lbs. or greater. Under this 
proposal, NHTSA would incorporate SAE J1944's minimum performance 
requirements by reference and apply them to trucks, buses and MPVs with 
a GVWR of greater than 10,000 lbs. NHTSA seeks comments on whether this 
step would improve the safety of any of these vehicles and on the 
potential cost effects for vehicle or windshield washing system 
manufacturers.

3. Proposal Three--Combining Standards Nos. 103 and 104

    NHTSA's third alternative proposal is to combine Standards Nos. 103 
and 104 to make the standards easier to comprehend and apply. The two 
standards are already substantially interconnected. Standard No. 103 
references tables in Standard No. 104 to establish angles used in 
locating the defrosted areas. If the two standards were combined, the 
single standard would be titled as a standard on windshield clearance 
systems. In addition to seeking comments on this proposal, NHTSA would 
entertain comments on combining this proposal with the preceding 
proposal.

Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

1. Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures

    This notice of proposed rulemaking was not reviewed under Executive 
Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review). NHTSA has analyzed the 
impact of this rulemaking action and determined that it is not 
``significant'' within the meaning of the Department of 
Transportation's regulatory policies and procedures.
    For Proposal One, NHTSA tentatively concludes that if that proposal 
were adopted as a final rule, there may be slight cost savings to 
industry, since manufacturers would no longer need to test vehicles for 
compliance with Standard No. 104. The cost savings would be so minimal 
that NHTSA is unable to quantify them. NHTSA tentatively believes 
manufacturers likely would continue to provide essentially the same 
level of windshield wiping and washing capability as they currently 
provide.
    With respect to Proposal Two, it is NHTSA's tentative conclusion 
that adoption of that proposal might result in only slightly increased 
costs to industry, due to testing to new specifications. However, these 
potential increased costs are so minimal that NHTSA is unable to 
quantify them.
    If Proposal Three were adopted as a final rule, NHTSA anticipates 
no changes in costs to industry, since no substantive changes to 
Standard No. 104 would be made.
    Based on the foregoing, the agency concludes that the potential 
impacts are so minimal as not to warrant preparation of a full 
regulatory evaluation.

2. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    NHTSA has also considered the impacts of this rule under the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act. I hereby certify that this rule would not 
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities. As noted above, NHTSA tentatively concludes that only 
Proposal Two, if adopted as a final rule, might result in slightly 
increased costs to manufacturers, due to testing to new specifications. 
Since the cost of new motor vehicles would not be affected, small 
entities which purchase motor vehicles would similarly not be affected. 
Therefore, an initial regulatory flexibility analysis has not been 
prepared.

3. National Environmental Policy Act

    NHTSA has also analyzed this proposed rule under the National 
Environmental Policy Act and determined that it would not have any 
significant impact on the quality of the human environment.

4. Executive Order 12612 (Federalism)

    NHTSA has analyzed this proposed rule in accordance with the 
principles and criteria contained in E.O. 12612, and has determined 
that it would not have significant federalism implications to warrant 
the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.

5. Civil Justice Reform

    This proposed rule would not have any retroactive effect. Under 49 
U.S.C. 30103, whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard is in 
effect, a State may not adopt or maintain a safety standard applicable 
to the same aspect of performance which is not identical to the Federal 
standard, except to the extent that the 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.

Procedures for Submitting Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit comments on this advance 
notice of proposed rulemaking. It is requested but not required that 10 
copies be submitted.

[[Page 15449]]

    All comments must not exceed 15 pages in length. (49 CFR 553.21). 
Necessary attachments may be appended to these submissions without 
regard to the 15-page limit. This limitation is intended to encourage 
commenters to detail their primary arguments in a concise fashion.
    If a commenter wishes to submit certain information under a claim 
of confidentiality, three copies of the complete submission, including 
purportedly confidential business information, should be submitted to 
the Chief Counsel, NHTSA, at the street address given above, and seven 
copies from which the purportedly confidential information has been 
deleted should be submitted to the Docket Section. A request for 
confidentiality should be accompanied by a cover letter setting forth 
the information specified in the agency's confidential business 
information regulation. 49 CFR Part 512.
    All comments received before the close of business on the comment 
closing date indicated above for this notice will be considered, and 
will be available for examination in the docket at the above address 
both before and after that date. To the extent possible, comments filed 
after the closing date will also be considered. Comments received too 
late for consideration in regard to the final rule will be considered 
as suggestions for future rulemaking. Comments on the proposal will be 
available for inspection in the docket. The NHTSA will continue to file 
relevant information as it becomes available in the docket after the 
closing date, and it is recommended that interested persons continue to 
examine the docket for new material.
    Those persons desiring to be notified upon receipt of their 
comments in the rules docket should enclose a self-addressed, stamped 
postcard in the envelope with their comments. Upon receiving the 
comments, the docket supervisor will return the postcard by mail.

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117, and 30166; 
delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.

    Issued on: April 2, 1996.
Barry Felrice,
Associate Administrator for Safety Performance Standards.
[FR Doc. 96-8648 Filed 4-5-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P