[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
