[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 68 (Monday, April 8, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 15449-15452]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-8647]



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


DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
49 CFR Part 571

[Docket No. 96-31; Notice 1]
RIN 2127-AF87


Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Windshield Defrosting and 
Defogging Systems

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

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: NHTSA sets forth alternative proposals for changing the 
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard on windshield defrosting and 
defogging systems. The proposals range from applying performance 
requirements to the systems in light trucks and multipurpose passenger 
vehicles to rescinding the Standard. This 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, S.W., Washington, D.C. 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, S.W., Washington, D.C. 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. 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. 103, 
Windshield defrosting and defogging systems 49 CFR 571.103). After 
reviewing below the background of the standard, NHTSA explains why it 
is proposing changes to Standard No. 103.

Background of Standard No. 103

    Standard No. 103 was issued in 1967 (32 FR 2408) as one of the 
initial Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSSs). The standard, 
applicable to passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles (MPVs), 
trucks, and buses, specifies in S4.1 that each of these vehicles shall 
have a windshield defrosting and defogging system.
    Standard No. 103 specifies performance requirements for the 
windshield defrosting and defogging systems in passenger cars, but not 
for the systems in the other types of vehicles covered by the Standard. 
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.
    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.''
    Vehicles manufactured for sale in the ``noncontinental United 
States,'' which have tropical climates and where snow and icing 
conditions are thus virtually unknown, have the option of either 
meeting S4.1 of Standard No. 103 (i.e., installing a windshield 
defrosting and defogging system) or installing a windshield defogging 
system which operates either by applying heat to the windshield or by 
dehumidifying the air inside the passenger compartment of the vehicle. 
Since air conditioners dehumidify the air in addition to cooling it, 
all vehicles with air conditioners have defogging capability,

[[Page 15450]]
whether or not they have a separate defrosting and defogging system.
    Standard No. 103 has had a fairly uneventful history. Very few 
changes have been made to it since its promulgation, other than an 
amendment in 1994 to accommodate electric- powered vehicles.

NHTSA's Review of Standard No. 103 and Proposals for Change

    Based on its review of Standard No. 103 under the President's 
Regulatory Reform Initiative, NHTSA offers three proposals for changes 
to the Standard and seeks public comment on each proposal. The 
proposals are: (1) Rescinding the Standard; (2) upgrading the light 
truck and MPV requirements to make them equivalent to the passenger car 
requirements; and (3) eliminating duplicative language by combining 
Standard 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 the 
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. 103

    NHTSA's first alternative proposal is to rescind Standard No. 103. 
To adopt this proposal, NHTSA would conclude that even if Standard No. 
103 should be rescinded, manufacturers would continue to provide means 
to defrost and defog windshields. It is widely recognized that, in 
icing or highly humid conditions, a motor vehicle must have some means 
for keeping the windshield clear so that the driver can view the road 
ahead. More important, the fact that light trucks and MPVs provide 
defrosting and defogging performance comparable to that in passenger 
cars, despite the absence of performance requirements for light trucks 
and MPVs, could be said to indicate that passenger cars would continue 
to provide that level of performance in the absence of performance 
requirements.
    Market forces (in the form of customer demand) would be highly 
likely to ensure that most vehicle manufacturers continue to provide 
windshield defrosting and defogging systems in motor vehicles. Customer 
magazines and consumers themselves would be likely to react negatively 
to vehicles that do not have adequate windshield defrosting and 
defogging systems. It should also be noted that nearly 75 percent of 
all cars have a rear defroster, although this is not required by 
Standard No. 103, indicating the working of market forces in this area.
    NHTSA notes that if Standard No. 103 were rescinded, some States 
might adopt regulations requiring windshield defrosting and defogging 
systems or even regulate their performance. Were the States to adopt 
such regulations, there would not be any express preemption under 49 
U.S.C. section 30103(b), Preemption, of State requirements dissimilar 
to those currently in Standard No. 103. 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 defrosting 
and defogging 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.

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

    In the last decade, sales of light trucks and multipurpose 
passenger vehicles (MPV) have increased substantially. In addition, 
these vehicles have been increasingly used to transport passengers. As 
a result, the numbers of deaths and injuries associated with those 
vehicles have substantially increased.
    In response, NHTSA has amended some FMVSSs to ensure that the 
public is 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.
    In keeping with the trend to make FMVSS requirements uniform for 
all three of these types of vehicles, under this proposal NHTSA would 
specify performance requirements in Standard No. 103 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. This proposal would 
establish minimum performance requirements for windshield defrosting 
and defogging systems in light trucks and MPVs, including minimum 
requirements regarding the portions of the windshield that must be 
defrosted.
    As part of this proposal, the agency would extend passenger car 
requirements for light trucks and MPVs, by extending S4.3's 
Demonstration procedure to light trucks and MPVs. However, the minimum 
windshield areas to be defrosted for light trucks and MPVs may 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 seeks public comment on extending 
S.4.3 to light trucks and MPVs.
    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 believes that if requirements concerning minimum windshield 
defrosted areas 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 J382's 
minimum defrosted area requirements, thus eliminating any possibility 
of a 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.
    The agency does not propose to extend Standard No. 103 to heavier 
trucks and buses, as it is not aware of an SAE or other standard for 
windshield

[[Page 15451]]

defrosting and defogging systems on heavier trucks and buses. NHTSA 
therefore requests 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. If such a standard exists, should NHTSA consider including it in 
Standard No. 103, making Standard No. 103 apply to trucks and buses 
with a GVWR over 10,000 lbs.?
    Consistent with the agency's intent to make Standard No. 103 as 
uniform as possible for all vehicle types, if Proposal Two is adopted, 
NHTSA also proposes to remove from Standard No. 103, S4.(b) that 
applies to vehicles sold in the ``noncontinental United States.'' As 
earlier described, S4.(b) provides that each passenger car, 
multipurpose passenger vehicle, truck and bus manufactured for sale in 
the noncontinental U.S. may, at the option of the manufacturer, have a 
windshield defogging system which operates differently than the 
generally applicable requirements. NHTSA requests public comment 
whether S4.(b) should be removed.

3. Proposal Three--Combining Standard 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 the 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. 103. 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 defrosting and defogging 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. 103 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 State 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 notice of 
proposed rulemaking. It is requested but not required that 10 copies be 
submitted.
    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 further 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.

[[Page 15452]]

    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. 96-8647 Filed 4-5-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P