[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 115 (Monday, June 16, 1997)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 32559-32562]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-15747]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 571

[Docket No. 97-40; Notice 1]
RIN 2127-AF87, 2127-AF88


Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Windshield Defrosting and 
Defogging Systems; Windshield Wiping and Washing Systems

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

ACTION: Terminations of rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: In April 1996, NHTSA set forth alternative proposals for 
amending the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards on windshield 
defrosting and defogging systems and on windshield washing and wiping. 
The proposals (61 FR 15446 and 15449, April 8, 1996) were undertaken as 
part of NHTSA's efforts to implement the President's Regulatory 
Reinvention Initiative to eliminate unnecessary Federal Regulations. In 
this notice, NHTSA terminates rulemaking on both Standards because the 
comments show that the current regulatory requirements are not imposing 
needless regulatory burdens.

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, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Requirements of Standard No. 103

    Standard No. 103's basic requirement, applicable to passenger cars, 
multipurpose passenger vehicles (MPVs), trucks, and buses, specifies 
that each vehicle shall have a windshield defrosting and defogging 
system.
    Standard No. 103 also specifies performance requirements for the 
windshield defrosting and defogging systems, but only those in 
passenger cars. S4.2 of Standard No. 103 specifies that each passenger 
car windshield defrosting and defogging system shall meet specified 
provisions of SAE Recommended Practice J902 (SAE J902), ``Passenger Car 
Windshield Defrosting Systems,'' August 1964.

[[Page 32560]]

    SAE J902 establishes uniform test procedures and minimum 
performance requirements for the ``critical area'' of the windshield 
and for the ``entire windshield.'' SAE J902 prescribes a laboratory 
evaluation of defroster systems during which a known quantity of water 
is sprayed on the windshield, forming an ice coating, to provide 
uniform and repeatable test results. However, while Standard No. 103 
incorporates the test procedures and performance requirements of SAE 
J902, it does not incorporate the SAE J902's definition of ``critical 
area'' and ``entire windshield.'' Instead, Standard No. 103 substitutes 
areas of the windshield determined in accordance with Standard No. 104, 
``Windshield Wiping and Washing Systems.'' It substitutes Area C from 
Standard No. 104 for the ``critical area'' and Area A for the ``entire 
windshield.''

Requirements of Standard No. 104

    Standard No. 104 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'', 
``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 Standards No. 103 and 104 and Proposals for 
Change

    Based on its review of Standards Nos. 103 and 104 under the 
President's Regulatory Reinvention Initiative, NHTSA sought public 
comments on three proposals for changes to each Standard. The proposals 
were: (1) rescinding each Standard; (2) upgrading the light truck and 
MPV requirements in each Standard to make them equivalent to the 
passenger car requirements; and (3) combining Standards Nos. 103 and 
104 into a single safety standard and titling it ``Windshield clearance 
systems.'' NHTSA stated that since each proposal was relatively simple, 
it was not setting forth precise regulatory language for implementing 
the proposals. In addition to seeking comments on each of the three 
proposals, NHTSA also sought comment on the option of making no changes 
to each Standard.
    The discussion for the three options for each of the Standards is 
summarized below.

1. Proposal One--Rescind Each Standard

    NHTSA indicated in the NPRM that if it were to adopt this proposal, 
it would likely conclude that even if the Standard should be rescinded, 
manufacturers would continue to provide the equipment and performance 
specified by the Standard.
    NHTSA noted that if Standard No. 103 or 104 were rescinded, the 
States could adopt regulations requiring windshield defrosting and 
defogging and/or wiping and washing systems or even regulate their 
performance. The States would be free to do so because the absence of a 
Standard would mean that there would no longer be any express 
preemption under 49 U.S.C. section 30103(b), Preemption, of State 
requirements different from those currently in Standards Nos. 103 or 
104.

2. Proposal Two--Upgrade the MPV and Light Truck Requirements in Each 
Standard To Make Them Equivalent to the Passenger Car Requirements

    NHTSA noted that it has amended some of its Standards to ensure 
that the public is afforded the same level of protection regardless of 
whether they ride in a passenger car, light truck, or MPV. For example, 
by model year 1998, the requirements for key Standards 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.
    In keeping with the trend to make Standard requirements uniform for 
all three of these types of vehicles, NHTSA would specify performance 
requirements in Standards No. 103 and 104 for light trucks and MPVs. As 
noted above, Standard No. 103 presently specifies no requirements for 
light trucks and MPVs, other than that they have a windshield 
defrosting and defogging system. 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.
    For each proposal, NHTSA would establish minimum performance 
requirements for windshield defrosting and defogging systems or wiping 
and washing systems in light trucks and MPVs, including minimum 
requirements regarding the portions of the windshield that must be 
cleared. The proposal for each Standard was as follows:
    Standard No. 103--The agency proposed to extend passenger car 
requirements in S4.3 to light trucks and MPVs. However, the minimum 
windshield areas to be defrosted for light trucks and MPVs might differ 
somewhat than those for passenger cars, since the windshields of these 
various vehicle types differ, and the driver views different windshield 
areas of each vehicle type while viewing the road ahead. Because of 
potential differences in windshield viewing areas between the passenger 
cars and other vehicle types, NHTSA sought public comment on extending 
S.4.3 to light trucks and MPVs.
    NHTSA stated any minimum requirements for windshield defrosting in 
light trucks and MPVs would likely be based on the defrosted areas 
specified in SAE Recommended Practice J382 (SAE J382) ``Windshield 
Defrosting Systems Performance Requirements--Trucks, Buses, and 
Multipurpose Vehicle'' (January 1971). Paragraph 3.1 of SAE J382 
describes the portions of the windshield that must be defrosted 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), described in 
Table 1 of SAE J382.
    NHTSA did not propose to extend Standard No. 103 to heavier trucks 
and

[[Page 32561]]

buses because it is not aware of an SAE or other standard for 
windshield defrosting and defogging systems on heavier trucks and 
buses. NHTSA therefore requested information whether there are any 
industry (or other) standards for windshield defrosting and defogging 
systems on trucks and buses with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) 
over 10,000 lbs. NHTSA asked whether, if such a standard exists, the 
standard should be included in Standard No. 103, making Standard No. 
103 apply to trucks and buses with a GVWR over 10,000 lbs.
    Standard No. 104--To adopt equivalent requirements for light trucks 
and MPVs, whose windshields and driver seating positions may differ 
from those of passenger cars, NHTSA proposed to incorporate a different 
set of SAE recommended practices than those applicable to passenger 
cars.
    For minimum windshield wiped area requirements for light trucks and 
MPVs, NHTSA proposed to 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.

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

    NHTSA's third proposal was to combine Standards Nos. 103 and 104 
since they are already substantially interconnected. Standard No. 103 
references tables in Standard No. 104 to establish the angles used in 
locating the defrosted areas. If the two standards were combined, the 
single standard would be titled ``windshield clearance systems.''

Summary of Public Comments

    NHTSA received comments from fifteen commenters. The following 
commented on both Standards: Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety 
(Advocates), the American Automobile Manufacturers Assn., the Center 
for Auto Safety (CAS), Chrysler Corporation, the Coalition of Small 
Volume Automobile Manufacturers (COSVAM), The Flxible Corporation, the 
Houston Texas Transit Authority, National Association of State 
Directors of Pupil Transportation Services (NASDPTS), Subaru, Truck 
Manufacturers Assn. (TMA), Volkswagen, and Volvo. In addition, Mr. Bob 
Morrow, and Standard Motor Products, Inc. provided comments regarding 
Standard No. 103.
    Advocates and CAS suggested that the NPRMs were in fact advance 
notices of proposed rulemaking because no proposed regulatory text for 
either Standard No. 103 or 104 was provided.
    On the issue of whether the Standards should be rescinded, most 
commenters' views were similar to TMA's. TMA stated that although there 
would be no degradation of safety if Standards Nos. 103 or 104 were 
rescinded, the Standards should be retained in order to preempt the 
States from regulating windshields. NASDPTS, Subaru, and Volkswagen 
favored rescinding both Standards.
    Advocates and the CAS opposed rescinding either Standard No. 103 or 
104. Houston opposed rescinding Standard No. 103, commenting that the 
Standard ``rank(s) high on the list of important safety items.''
    Advocates and CAS favored Proposal Two, i.e., upgrading the 
requirements for light trucks and MPVs so that they were equivalent to 
those for passenger cars. CAS further stated that Standards Nos. 103 
and 104 should be amended to regulate rear windows. Flxible favored 
Proposal Two for both Standards Nos. 103 and 104 insofar as they would 
apply to over 10,000 lb. gross vehicle weight rating vehicles. Houston 
recommended that both Standards be extended to ``heavier trucks and 
buses.'' Although Subaru produces no MPVs or light trucks, it had no 
objection to upgrading MPV and light truck requirements to make them 
equivalent to the passenger car requirements. AAMA did not support 
extending the performance requirements of either Standard to other 
vehicles. NASDPTS stated that there was ``no justification'' to upgrade 
either Standard 103 or 104.
    NHTSA received mixed comments on Proposal Three, i.e., combining 
Standards Nos. 103 and 104. For different reasons, NASDPTS, TMA, 
Flxible and Volkswagen opposed combining the two standards. NASDPTS 
stated that there would be no ``value added'' in combining the 
standards. TMA stated that combining the two standards would result in 
differences with the Canadian Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, and 
``require some totally unnecessary paperwork changes.'' Flxible did not 
favor combining the two standards because it contracts out testing for 
the two standards and keeping the two standards separate would ``remove 
the potential for any confusion between the contracting parties.'' 
Volkswagen stated that combining the two standards would involve NHTSA 
and industry time and effort without any safety benefit.
    CAS stated that whether it favors combining Standards Nos. 103 and 
104 would depend on NHTSA's draft language in combining the two. The 
following commenters either favored or did not oppose combining the two 
Standards: Houston, Standard Motor Products, Advocates, AAMA, Subaru 
(``. . . as long as no additional requirements are added''), and 
Chrysler (``combining the two Standards appears to offer the best 
overall approach because the focus of these two standards is so 
common.'')
    Finally, some commenters suggested that NHTSA should have raised 
the issue of harmonizing Standards Nos. 103 or 104 with international 
regulatory requirements. Volvo suggested changes to Standards Nos. 103 
and 104's regulatory texts that would make each Standard harmonize with 
international standards. AAMA, Volkswagen and COSVAM expressly favored 
harmonizing Standards Nos. 103 and 104 with international standards. 
AAMA cited the European and Japanese standards that are the 
counterparts of Standards Nos. 103 and 104. Chrysler noted its 
disappointment that NHTSA did not offer international harmonization as 
an option for Standards Nos. 103 and 104.

NHTSA's Decision To Terminate Standards No. 103 and 104 Rulemakings

    The purpose of the President's Regulatory Reinvention Initiative 
was to have the Federal government take a careful look at its 
regulations to identify and remove any unnecessary provisions. In 
response to that Initiative, NHTSA examined Standards No. 103 and 104. 
NHTSA was concerned that these standards might be imposing a needless 
regulatory burden on the public either by regulating in an area where 
no regulation was needed or by being needlessly complicated. To explore 
these concerns further, the agency proposed rescinding the standards or 
simplifying them, either by combining the two standards into one or by 
specifying performance requirements for multipurpose passenger vehicles 
and light trucks that are equivalent to those currently specified for 
passenger cars.
    The public comments on the proposal indicate that the current 
requirements are not imposing unnecessary regulatory burdens. Further, 
there was no broad consensus, even among the vehicle manufacturers, in 
support of any of the

[[Page 32562]]

proposals. Some commenters expressed disappointment that the agency had 
not raised the issue of harmonizing Standards No. 103 and 104 with the 
counterpart requirements in the European and Japanese standards. NHTSA 
wants to make clear that the agency is committed to exploring the 
possibilities of harmonizing its regulatory requirements with the 
regulatory requirements of other nations, provided that such 
harmonization does not reduce the safety protection afforded to the 
American public. As evidence of that commitment, the agency has held a 
public meeting on July 10 and July 11, 1996 and a public workshop on 
January 16, 1997 on the subject of harmonizing the requirements of the 
Federal motor vehicle safety standards with the counterpart 
requirements in other countries' safety standards. The agency used the 
meeting and workshop to explain to the public what factors the agency 
would consider in deciding whether the U.S. safety standard and some 
other nation's safety standard are ``functionally equivalent,'' and to 
get public comments on the process the agency proposes to use to make 
functional equivalence determinations.
    NHTSA believes it is more appropriate for the agency to establish a 
comprehensive approach and process for considering functional 
equivalence of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards and other 
nations' standards before the agency considers the functional 
equivalence of any standard or group of standards. Once the agency's 
comprehensive approach and process are in place for functional 
equivalence decisions, NHTSA will consider any requests for functional 
equivalence determinations of Standards No. 103 and 104 that are made 
according to the established process. Thus, the absence of a proposal 
for harmonization of Standards No. 103 and 104 with other national 
standards should be understood as an agency desire to avoid dealing 
with ``functional equivalence'' harmonization issues on an ad hoc, case 
by case basis, not as an absence of agency interest in pursuing 
international harmonization of motor vehicle safety standards.
    For these reasons, the proposed rulemaking to change Standards No. 
103 and 104 is hereby terminated.

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

    Issued on: June 10, 1997.
L. Robert Shelton,
Associate Administrator for Safety Performance Standards.
[FR Doc. 97-15747 Filed 6-13-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P