[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 49 (Tuesday, March 14, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 13688-13691]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-6231]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
49 CFR Part 571
[Docket No. 95-13, Notice 01]
RIN 2127-AF28
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Glazing Materials
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Grant of petition for rulemaking; notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: NHTSA proposes to permit the installation of a new item of
motor vehicle glazing, Item 4A--Rigid Plastic for Use in Side Windows
Rearward of the ``C'' Pillar, in hatchbacks and station wagons. This
NPRM responds to a petition for rulemaking from General Motors. In
issuing this proposal, the agency seeks to provide greater flexibility
for manufacturers to develop and use more aerodynamic, lighter weight
glazing designs, resulting in lower fuel consumption.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before May 15, 1995.
ADDRESSES: All comments must refer to the docket number and notice
number of this notice and be submitted, preferably in ten copies, to:
Docket Section, Room 5109, National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590. Docket
hours are from 9:30 am to 4 pm, Monday through Friday.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Margaret Gill, Office of Vehicle
Safety Standards, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400
Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590. Ms. Gill's telephone number
is: (202) 366-6651.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 205, Glazing
Materials (49 CFR 571.205), specifies performance requirements for the
types of glazing that may be installed in motor vehicles. It also
specifies the vehicle locations in which the various types of glazing
may be installed. The standard incorporates, by reference, American
National Standards Institute (ANS) Standard Z26.1, ``Safety Code for
Safety Glazing Materials for Glazing Motor Vehicles Operating on Land
Highways,'' as amended through 1980 (Z26). The requirements in ANS
Z26.1 are specified in terms of performance tests that the various
types or ``items'' of glazing must pass. There are 20 ``items'' of
glazing for which requirements are currently specified in Standard No.
205.
To ensure the safety performance of vehicle glazing, Standard No.
205 includes a total of 31 specific tests. Each item of glazing is
subjected to a selected group of these tests. It is the particular
combination of tests that dictates the requisite properties of a
particular item of glazing, and where in a motor vehicle the glazing
may be installed.
Rigid plastic materials, such as those referenced in this
rulemaking, are considered to be Items 4 and 5 glazing. Since they are
more susceptible to abrasion than glass, these materials are currently
not permitted to be installed in those areas requisite for driving
visibility. All windows in a passenger car are considered requisite for
driving visibility. Therefore, Items 4 and 5 glazing may not be used in
those windows. Instead, they may be used for such things as internal
partitions and covers for openings in the car roof. More extensive use
is permitted in trucks (e.g., pickup trucks and cargo vans) since they
do not have designated seating positions rearward of the driver's
position. In those vehicles, Items 4 and 5 may be used in windows to
the rear of the driver if other means for affording visibility are
provided.
GM Petition
By letter dated December 15, 1993, General Motors (GM) petitioned
the agency to amend Standard No. 205 to relax the limitations on the
installation of Items 4 and 5 rigid plastic glazing so that they can be
installed in the side windows of station wagons and hatchbacks to the
rear of all designated seating positions. GM subsequently amended its
petition, limiting it to Item 4 glazing. (Item 4 glazing is required to
transmit at least 70 percent of the light striking it; Item 5 glazing
has no such requirement.) GM suggested further that Item 4 glazing be
used in only those station wagons and hatchbacks that provide means
(e.g., exterior passenger-side mirrors) of affording visibility of the
highway to the side and rear of the vehicle. The limitation of the
installation to locations rearward of any designated seating position
and to vehicles with exterior passenger side rearview mirrors was
intended to address agency concerns that led to the denial of an
earlier, somewhat similar petition by the American Automobile
Manufacturers' Association (AAMA) (April 6, 1993; 58 FR 17787). AAMA's
petition is discussed in detail later in this notice.
In support of its petition, GM stated that the potential benefits
of permitting plastic glazing in side windows would be reduced mass and
greater design flexibility. GM asserted that the weight of plastics
used in automotive glazing is about half that of tempered glass of the
same thickness. GM further asserted plastics, while retaining good
optical quality, can be molded into more complex shapes than glass. GM
concluded that the combined effect of the more aerodynamic designs
possible with plastic glazing and the reduced weight will lower a
vehicle's fuel consumption.
GM acknowledged that Tests 17, Abrasion Resistance (Plastics), and
18, Abrasion Resistance (Safety Glass), of ANS Z26 indicate that
plastics are not as abrasion resistant as glass. However, GM suggested
that concerns about the abrasion resistance of plastic glazing may not
be well founded, asserting that some evidence shows that Tests 17 and
18 ``are not necessarily predictive'' of how glazing will perform under
actual use conditions. In support of its assertion, GM attached a
summary of a study performed by a plastics supplier on a 1988 GM
Pontiac Fiero GT sail panel. The sail panel extends rearward from a
position between the rearmost side window and the rear or back window.
The panel was made of abrasion-resistant coated Plexiglas Resin. GM
stated that in the study the haze of a six year old sail panel was
measured and compared to the haze of a new replacement part. GM
concluded that after six years, during which time the Fiero was driven
over 41,000 miles, ``the haze increased from 0.49% to 0.87%, a
difference of only 0.38%.''
[[Page 13689]]
GM further asserted that permitting rigid plastic in side windows
would not affect visibility because it believed that some side windows
are not used for visibility. GM analogized station wagon and hatchback
side windows rearward of the ``C'' pillar to light truck windows
rearward of the ``B'' pillar. GM argued that light truck windows
rearward of the ``B'' pillar cannot be considered ``requisite for
operation of the vehicle'' for the following reasons: Other means,
typically outside rearview mirrors, are provided for affording
visibility to the side and rear of the vehicle; Standard No. 205 does
not require glazing be provided in these locations; and since light
trucks are often used to carry cargo, rear side windows can be obscured
by cargo.
GM argued similarly that station wagon and hatchback side windows
rearward of the ``C'' pillar, adjacent to the vehicle's cargo area,
provide no more than auxiliary visibility. Thus, GM argued station
wagon side windows rearward of the ``C'' pillar should no longer be
considered requisite for driving visibility if the driver is provided
other means, such as outside rearview mirrors, of viewing the highway
to the side and rear of the vehicle.
Comparison of GM and AAMA Petitions and Decision to Grant GM Petition
In considering whether to grant GM's petition, the agency reviewed
its 1993 decision to deny the AAMA petition mentioned above. In its
petition, the AAMA requested that Standard No. 205 be amended to permit
the installation of an existing item of plastic glazing in fixed or
hinged windows rearward of the ``B'' pillar. These windows are in areas
requisite for driving visibility. Some of these windows were also next
to designated seating positions. AAMA contended that coated plastic
glazing resists abrasion well enough to be permitted in those locations
and suggested hazing and weathering tests that would have had the
effect of requiring that the rigid plastic glazing be coated. In
denying AAMA's petition, NHTSA stated that permitting use of plastic
glazing in areas requisite for driving visibility raised potential
safety problems related to fracturing, abrasion resistance, strength,
and head contact. Further, the agency noted that the petitioner did not
provide any data addressing these safety concerns.
The agency's review of the two petitions revealed several
significant differences which are described below.
Danger of head injuries from broken rigid plastic glazing. In
denying the AAMA petition, NHTSA expressed concern that permitting
rigid plastics behind the ``B'' pillar, (a location in which rigid
plastics had never been permitted in passenger cars before) could
result in occupants' heads contacting rigid plastic windows. NHTSA
noted that tests indicated that the breaking of rigid plastic windows
could leave sharp, pointed shards in the window frame. These shards
could be easily contacted by an occupant's head in a crash. NHTSA also
expressed concern about occupant injury resulting from large shards of
rigid plastic glazing being propelled inward by vehicle impacts with
trees, poles, or other vehicles.
In contrast, GM seeks permission to use plastic glazing in
locations not adjacent to any outboard designated seating position. In
those locations, the plastic glazing is unlikely to be adjacent to
occupants. Limiting the use of plastic glazing in this manner would
considerably reduce the chances of occupant head injury.
Abrasion resistance and strength tests. In denying the AAMA
petition, NHTSA expressed concern that the rigid plastic glazing sought
by AAMA would result in the use of glazing with greater susceptibility
to reduced visibility and that would be weaker and thus have more
dangerous fracture characteristics than the glazing currently permitted
in areas requisite for driving visibility. In its petition, AAMA
requested that the exterior side of rigid plastics be subjected to
abrasion tests less stringent than Standard No. 205's present tests for
materials permitted in areas requisite for driving visibility. AAMA
also requested that rigid plastics be subjected to strength tests less
stringent than Standard No. 205's present tests for materials permitted
in those areas.
NHTSA believes that reasons for concern about strength would be
significantly diminished if the suggestions in GM's petition were
adopted in a final rule. Although the glazing sought by GM would not be
subject to strength tests that are more stringent than the strength
tests applicable to the AAMA glazing, the GM glazing would, as noted
above, be used in different locations than the AAMA glazing. Unlike the
AAMA glazing, the GM glazing would not be used adjacent to any seating
position. Thus, the GM glazing would be much less likely to pose any
risk to occupants in the event that it is broken in a crash.
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
On March 11, 1994, NHTSA granted GM's petition for rulemaking.
Pursuant to the granting of the petition, NHTSA issues this proposal.
As explained below, NHTSA proposes to amend Standard No. 205 by
permitting a new item of glazing, Item 4A. The most salient
characteristic of the glazing would be an abrasion resistant outer
coating. Item 4A glazing would be permitted in all areas where Item 4
glazing is permitted. In addition, the agency proposes to permit item
4A glazing to be installed in the side windows, rearward of the ``C''
pillar and forward of the ``D'' pillar, of station wagons and
hatchbacks, if those windows are not laterally adjacent to an outboard
designated seating position. NHTSA proposes these changes to Standard
No. 205 to provide greater flexibility to manufacturers in selecting
and shaping glazing. Use of the new glazing would permit more
aerodynamic and lighter weight designs and, in turn, would enhance fuel
economy.
NHTSA proposes to make Item 4A glazing subject to all the tests
applicable to Item 4 glazing: tests nos. 2 (Luminous Transmittance); 10
(Dart Test); 13 (Ball Test); 16 (Weathering); 17 Abrasion Resistance
(Plastics)(as modified); 19 Chemical Resistance (Nonstressed); 20
Chemical Resistance (Stressed); 21 Dimensional Stability (Warpage); and
24 Flammability.
Since Item 4A glazing is proposed for a location requisite for
driving visibility, the agency proposes to supplement Test No. 17
Abrasion Resistance (Plastics). NHTSA tentatively concludes the
additional requirements regarding abrasion are necessary because the
agency does not concur with GM's suggestion that the rearmost side
windows in station wagons and hatchback vehicles are not requisite for
driving safety. That the views through station wagon or hatchback side
windows on rare occasions may be obscured by cargo does not mean that
rearmost side windows on these passenger cars are not ``requisite for
driving visibility.'' Since the agency is proposing a more stringent
abrasion test, it concluded that it was not necessary to propose the
adoption of GM's suggestion that use of the rigid plastic glazing be
limited to vehicles that provide means (e.g., exterior passenger-side
mirrors) of affording visibility of the highway to the side and rear of
the vehicle.
Test 17 specifies that after measuring the initial or pre-abrasion
haze of three specimens of plastic glazing, those specimens are
subjected to an abrader for 100 cycles. The initial haze is subtracted
from the amount of haze measured after abrasion. The incremental haze
caused by the abrasion must not exceed 15 percent. [[Page 13690]]
NHTSA proposes that the interior side of Item 4A glazing be
subjected to Test 17, as modified in Standard No. 205 for the interior
side of glass-plastic glazing. As modified for that glazing, Test 17
does not regulate incremental haze. For that reason, it does not
provide for measuring the initial haze and subtracting that haze from
the post-abrasion haze. Instead, modified Test 17 regulates total haze.
That haze must not exceed 4 percent.
As to the exterior side of Item 4A glazing, NHTSA proposes that it
be subjected to Test 17, as modified for the interior side of glass-
plastic glazing, except that the haze on the exterior side must not
exceed 4.0 percent after 100 cycles and must not exceed 10.0 percent
after 500 cycles. Specimens used for testing the exterior side of the
glazing would not be used for testing the interior side.
The agency is proposing to regulate total haze and not just
incremental haze because of its concern that the initial haze of the
plastic glazing would not be as low as it is for glass. In the case of
glass-plastic glazing and the Fiero panel cited by GM as an example of
viable plastic glazing, the initial haze is very low. However, other
plastic glazings may have sufficiently higher levels of initial haze
that the amount of haze after abrasion would be unacceptably high for
visibility purposes.
NHTSA bases the proposed haze limitation of 4.0 percent after 100
cycles for Item 4A on the final rule that established Item 14 Glass-
Plastics glazing, permitted anywhere in a hardtop motor vehicle (See 48
FR 52061, November 16, 1983). Glass-plastic glazing consists of
laminated glass to which a layer of soft plastic is bonded on the side
facing the interior of the vehicle. In the final rule, NHTSA stated its
belief that available test data (based in part on Economic Commission
for Europe (ECE) Regulation 43) indicated that a 4 percent haze
limitation for the plastic (interior) side of glass-plastic glazing is
sufficient to minimize the loss of light transmittance and to provide
adequate driving visibility. In the 11 year period since Item 14
glazing was permitted, NHTSA has received no reports that the 4 percent
haze limitation level does not provide adequate driving visibility
through the windshield. Thus, based on that experience, NHTSA believes
that a limitation of 4 percent haze after 100 cycles would be
appropriate for both the interior and the exterior sides of Item 4A
glazing.
Since the 4 percent haze limitation may not ensure that Item 4A
glazing has the hard, abrasion resistant coating used by GM to achieve
good performance in its Fiero GT sail panel example, NHTSA believes it
is also necessary to test at least the exterior side of fixed glazing
for longer term resistance to abrasion. NHTSA therefore proposes to
subject the exterior side of item 4A glazing test specimens to an
additional 400 cycles of abrasion. Based in part on information from
the AAMA, NHTSA proposes 10 percent as the maximum permissible haze
after those additional cycles. This level of performance is thought to
be indicative of hard coated products. GM submitted data on the
performance of the coated glazing in the Fiero, but did not premise its
request regarding plastic glazing upon the use of coated plastic
glazing. Instead, it simply sought permission to use uncoated Item 4
glazing. The hard coating necessitated by the additional cycles of
abrasion would ensure that Item 4A glazing would have the level of
abrasion resistance demonstrated by the Fiero GT sail panel. No such
assurance exists for Item 4 glazing. The value of hard coatings has
been demonstrated in headlamp applications where plastic lenses have
been allowed to replace glass lenses. The agency believes that coating
technology should be equally suitable for glazing applications. Since
windows to the rear of the C pillar do not roll down, coating only the
exterior side should be sufficient.
Since NHTSA is proposing to permit a rigid plastic in a passenger
car side window for the first time, the agency solicits comments on the
sufficiency of the proposed provisions for supplementing Test 17. The
agency also welcomes any comments on the advisability of permitting
rigid plastics in station wagon side windows rearward of the ``C''
pillar and forward of the ``D'' pillar.
Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
1. Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures
This proposed rule 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. If made final, this proposed rule would not have any
``significant'' impact on passenger car and motor vehicle glazing
manufacturers. Installation of the new item of glazing would not be
required. Instead, manufacturers would be provided with more
flexibility in motor vehicle glazing because the new item of glazing
would be permitted in station wagons and hatchbacks, rearward of the
``C'' pillar and forward of the ``D'' pillar. It is believed that use
of this new item of glazing would make possible reduced weight and
better aerodynamic design of vehicles resulting in the use of less
fuel. However, the fuel savings would be slight. For these reasons,
NHTSA believes that this proposal would not impose any additional costs
and would not yield any significant savings. Thus, the impacts would be
minimal and would not warrant preparation of a full regulatory
evaluation.
2. Regulatory Flexibility Act
In accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, NHTSA has
evaluated the effects of this action on small entities. Based upon this
evaluation, I certify that the proposed rule would not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
This proposed rule, if made final, would not require the use of any
particular type of glazing, but would provide manufacturers with more
flexibility in the choice of glazing for station wagons and hatchbacks.
Accordingly, this proposal would not impose any added costs on new
motor vehicles.
3. Executive Order 12612 (Federalism)
This action has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and
criteria contained in Executive Order 12612, and it has been determined
that the proposed rule would not have sufficient Federalism
implications to warrant preparation of a Federalism Assessment. No
State laws would be affected.
4. National Environmental Policy Act
The agency has considered the environmental implications of this
proposed rule in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act
of 1969 and determined that the proposed rule would not significantly
affect the human environment.
5. Executive Order 12778 (Civil Justice Reform)
This final rule does 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 [[Page 13691]] 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.
Public Comments
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on the proposal.
It is requested, but not required, that 10 copies be submitted.
All comments must not exceed 15 pages in length. (49 CFR
Sec. 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 the proposal 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 comment 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 action. 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.
List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 571
Imports, Incorporation by reference, Motor vehicle safety, Motor
vehicles, Rubber and rubber products, Tires.
In consideration of the foregoing, the agency proposes to amend,
title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations at part 571 as follows:
PART 571--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 571 would continue to read as
follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117, and 30166;
delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.
Sec. 571.205 [Amended]
2. Section 571.205, would be amended by revising S5.1.2; revising
the first sentence of paragraph (a) of S5.1.2.10, adding S5.1.2.11, and
revising S6.1, to read as follows:
Sec. 571.205 Standard No. 205, glazing materials.
* * * * *
S5.1.2 In addition to the glazing materials specified in ANS Z26,
materials conforming to S5.1.2.1, S5.1.2.2, S5.1.2.3, S5.1.2.4,
S5.1.2.5, S5.1.2.6, S5.1.2.7, S5.1.2.8 and S5.1.2.11 may be used in the
locations of motor vehicles specified in those sections.
* * * * *
S5.1.2.10 Cleaning instructions. (a) Each manufacturer of glazing
materials designed to meet the requirements of S5.1.2.1, S5.1.2.2,
S5.1.2.3, S5.1.2.4, S5.1.2.5, S5.1.2.6, S5.1.2.7, S5.1.2.8, or
S5.1.2.11 shall affix a label, removable by hand without tools, to each
item of glazing materials. * * *
* * * * *
S5.1.2.11 Test Procedures for Item 4A--Rigid Plastic for Use in
Side Windows Rearward of the ``C'' pillar. (a) Glazing materials that
comply with Tests Nos. 2, 10, 13, 16, 17, as that test is modified in
S5.1.2.9(c) (on the interior side only), 17, as that test is modified
in paragraph (b) of this section (on the exterior side only), 19, 20,
21, and 24 of ANS Z26.1, may be used in all areas in which item 4
safety glazing may be used. It may also be used in side windows located
between the ``C'' pillars and ``D'' pillars in any station wagon and
hatchback, unless the area between those pillars is laterally adjacent
to an outboard designated seating position.
(b)(1) The specimens are subjected to abrasion for 100 cycles and
then carefully wiped with dry lens paper (or its equivalent). The light
scattered by the abraded track is measured in accordance with Test 17.
The arithmetic mean of the percentages of light scattered by the three
specimens as a result of abrasion shall not exceed 4.0 percent after
being subjected to abrasion for 100 cycles.
(2) The specimen is remounted on the specimen holder so that it
rotates substantially in a place and subjected to abrasion for an
additional 400 cycles on the same track already abraded for 100 cycles.
Specimens are carefully wiped after abrasion with dry lens paper (or
its equivalent). The light scattered by the abraded track is then
measured as specified in Test 17. The arithmetic mean of the
percentages of light scattered by the three specimens as a result of
abrasion shall not exceed 10.0 percent after being subjected to
abrasion for 500 cycles.
* * * * *
S6.1 Each prime glazing material manufacturer, except as specified
below, shall mark the glazing materials it manufactures in accordance
with section 6 of ANS Z26. The materials specified in S5.1.2.1,
S5.1.2.2, S5.1.2.3, S5.1.2.4, S5.1.2.5, S5.1.2.6, S5.1.2.7, S5.1.2.8,
and S5.1.2.11 shall be identified by the marks ``AS 11C'', ``AS 12'',
``AS 13'', ``AS 14'', ``AS 15A'', ``AS 15B'', ``AS 16A'', ``AS 16B'',
and ``AS 4A'', respectively. A prime glazing material manufacturer is
one which fabricates, laminates, or tempers the glazing material.
Issued on: March 8, 1995.
Barry Felrice,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 95-6231 Filed 3-13-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P