[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