[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 156 (Monday, August 12, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 41739-41744]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-20517]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 571

[Docket No. 95-13, Notice 02]
RIN 2127-AF28


Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Glazing Materials

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: In this final rule, NHTSA permits the installation of a new 
item of motor vehicle glazing, Item 4A--Rigid Plastic for Use in Side 
Windows, in motor vehicles. In issuing the final rule, 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: Effective date: This final rule is effective September 11, 1996.
    Petitions for reconsideration: Any petitions for reconsideration of 
this final rule must be received by NHTSA no later than September 30, 
1996.

ADDRESSES: Any petition for reconsideration of this final rule should 
refer to the docket and notice number set forth in the heading of this 
document and be submitted to:

[[Page 41740]]

Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 
Seventh Street, SW, Washington, DC, 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical information: Mr. John 
Lee, Office of Crashworthiness, NHTSA, telephone (202) 366-4924, FAX 
number (202) 366-4329. Mr. Lee's e-mail address is: [email protected].
    For legal information: Ms. Dorothy Nakama, Office of the Chief 
Counsel, NHTSA, telephone (202) 366-2992, FAX number (202) 366-3820.
    Both may be reached at: National Highway Traffic Safety 
Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW, Washington, DC 20590. Petitions 
should not be sent or faxed to these persons.

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 (not including the item that is the subject of this final rule) 
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 an appropriate selection 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. Prior to the 
issuance of this final rule, no rigid plastics were permitted to be 
installed in those areas requisite for driving visibility because rigid 
plastics are more susceptible to abrasion than glass. All windows in a 
passenger car are considered requisite for driving visibility.

GM Petition

    By letter dated December 15, 1993, General Motors (GM) petitioned 
NHTSA 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.)
    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 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. (A discussion of the sail panel study is 
provided at 60 FR 13688, March 14, 1995).
    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 and argued that station wagon and 
hatchback side windows rearward of the ``C'' pillar 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.
    On March 14, 1994, NHTSA granted GM's petition for rulemaking.

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

    On March 14, 1995, NHTSA published in the Federal Register (60 FR 
13688) a notice of proposed rulemaking 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. NHTSA proposed to permit Item 4A glazing in all areas where 
Item 4 glazing is permitted. In addition, the agency proposed 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 proposed 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 proposed 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 was proposed for a location requisite for 
driving visibility, the agency proposed to supplement Test No. 17 
Abrasion Resistance (Plastics). NHTSA tentatively concluded that 
additional requirements regarding abrasion were necessary because the 
agency did not concur with GM's suggestion that the rearmost side 
windows in station wagons and hatchback vehicles are not requisite for 
driving safety. Since the agency was 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.
    NHTSA proposed 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

[[Page 41741]]

haze separately. 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 the total amount of post-abrasion 
haze. NHTSA proposed that total post abrasion haze must not exceed 4 
percent.
    As to the exterior side of Item 4A glazing, NHTSA proposed 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 proposed to regulate total haze and not just incremental 
haze because of its concern that the initial haze of the plastic 
glazing would not be so 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 
glazing may have sufficiently higher levels of initial haze that the 
total amount of haze after abrasion would be unacceptably high for 
visibility purposes.
    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 believed it 
is also necessary to test at least the exterior side of fixed glazing 
for longer term resistance to abrasion. NHTSA therefore proposed 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 American Automobile Manufacturers Association, NHTSA proposed 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 stated its belief that coating technology 
should be equally suitable for glazing applications. NHTSA also stated 
its belief that since windows to the rear of the ``C'' pillar do not 
roll down, coating only the exterior side should be sufficient.
    Since NHTSA proposed to permit a rigid plastic in a passenger car 
side window for the first time, the agency solicited comments on the 
sufficiency of the proposed provisions for supplementing Test 17. The 
agency also said that it would welcome 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.

Public Comments on the NPRM and NHTSA Response

    In response to the NPRM, NHTSA received comments from the American 
Automobile Manufacturers Association, Bayer Corporation, Chrysler 
Corporation, Ford Motor Company, General Motors, Libbey-Owens-Ford, 
Perrone Forensic Consulting, Inc., S & S/Superior of Ohio, Inc., Safety 
Systems Company, and Sekurit. Each commenter either supported or did 
not oppose the proposed changes to Standard No. 205. The commenters 
raised issues that are addressed below.

Locations for Item 4A Glazing

    In response to the NPRM, Ford asked that Standard No. 205 be 
amended to permit rigid plastics ``in the ``C'' pillar of vehicles for 
ornamental/decorative purposes * * * in all vehicles.'' Adoption of 
Ford's suggestion would permit a portion of a vehicle's ``C'' pillar 
sheet metal to be replaced with a decorative applique or window made 
from rigid plastic. Ford stated that with the small surface area of the 
``C'' pillar and the rigid plastic surface affixed to the sheet metal 
structure, ``the resistance to fracture of a polycarbonate should not 
involve any unreasonable risk for safety.''
    S & S/Superior of Ohio, Inc. suggested NHTSA permit Item 4A glazing 
in hearses (funeral coaches) between the ``B'' pillar and ``D'' pillar. 
S & S stated that hearses ``are manufactured with a partition at the 
``B'' pillars--separating the driver's compartment from the rear 
compartment'' and noted there is no seating behind the ``B'' pillar.
    It has always been NHTSA's intent that Item 4A glazing not be 
permitted in areas where it may come into contact with an occupant's 
head. To accomplish this goal, NHTSA proposed that Item 4A be limited 
to glazing areas in station wagons and hatchbacks that are behind the 
``C'' pillar and behind the ``D'' pillar, if those areas are not 
``laterally adjacent to an outboard designated seating position.'' 
NHTSA did not discuss how much overlap between a window and a seating 
position is necessary before they are said to be laterally adjacent.
    The agency needs to provide guidance regarding the dividing line 
between windows that are laterally adjacent to a seat and windows that 
are behind a seat. The determination of lateral adjacency is 
particularly important to ensure proper classification of a window that 
is located largely, but not totally to the rear of the rearmost seat on 
the same side of the vehicle. An example of such a window is the window 
between the ``C'' and ``D'' pillars in some station wagons. The ``C'' 
pillar on those vehicles slants forward so that its upper end is 
forwardmost. The leading edge of the window is not laterally adjacent 
to the seat cushion of the rearmost seating position, but is laterally 
adjacent to the leading surface of the upper seat back of that 
position. Such a window is contactable by an occupant seated in that 
position, particularly in a crash in which the vehicle is struck in the 
rear at an angle.
    After considering several alternatives for giving more definitive 
guidance on determining which windows are eligible for Item 4A 
installation, NHTSA has decided to adopt an approach that, unlike the 
proposal, does not refer to any particular vehicle type. Instead, the 
approach is based on the relative location of a window in any vehicle 
and the occupant seats in that vehicle. The approach is further based 
on the procedure in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 210, Seat 
Belt Assembly Anchorages, and in Figure 1 thereof for locating the 
shoulder reference point. That point is used under that Standard to 
locate the acceptable range for the location of the upper torso 
anchorage for a type 2 safety belt.
    NHTSA is amending S5.1.2.11 of Standard No. 205 to permit Item 4A 
glazing in a motor vehicle window if the forwardmost point of the 
visible interior surface of the window is rearward of the vertical 
transverse plane that passes through the shoulder reference point (as 
described in Figure 1 of Standard No. 210) of the rearmost seating 
position in the vehicle, provided that that position is forward-facing 
and cannot be adjusted so that it is side or rear-facing. In this final 
rule, NHTSA has decided not to permit Item 4A glazing near rear-facing 
seats or side-facing seats in any motor vehicle because it is concerned 
that occupants (particularly unbelted ones) riding in those seating 
locations may be able to contact their heads against Item 4A glazing.
    Adoption of this approach has the advantage of permitting Item 4A 
glazing

[[Page 41742]]

in vehicles other than station wagons and hatchbacks, while assuring 
that it is very unlikely that the rigid plastic glazing will be 
contacted by any occupant's head. Since the adopted criteria do not 
limit Item 4A installation to locations between the ``C'' and ``D'' 
pillars in station wagons and hatchbacks, they permit Item 4A glazing 
installation in any vehicle location that can meet that approach. Thus, 
Item 4A glazing could be installed in the ``C'' pillar of vehicles and 
between the ``B'' and ``D'' pillars in hearses (funeral coaches) if 
those locations met the criteria.

Ejection Resistance Issues and Rigid Plastic Glazing

    Several commenters stated that rigid plastic windows have the 
potential to keep occupants in the vehicle in the event of a crash, 
rather than permitting their ejection through the window opening. 
Repeating an earlier comment, Sekurit urged NHTSA to adopt ``an overall 
policy and plan to address the role of glazing, including glass, glass-
plastic, and plastic, in crash prevention and crash injury 
prevention.'' Safety Systems Company noted that if, in the future, 
NHTSA should specify a head impact test and an ejection resistance test 
in Standard No. 205, that both tests be made applicable to Item 4A 
glazing.
    Perrone recommended that Item 4A be subject to an ejection 
resistance test in conjunction with the other tests (such as abrasion 
resistance) that would be used to define the item of glazing. This 
recommendation was based on Perrone's belief that plastic glazing can 
potentially keep ``occupants in the vehicle rather than permitting 
dangerous ejection.'' It cited a need to establish a test procedure to 
ensure ``that the end fixity of these various glazing materials is 
adequate around the periphery.''
    NHTSA agrees that there may be benefit in further investigating the 
ejection mitigation potential of plastic and other types of glazing. 
However, NHTSA does not yet have the necessary data to propose the 
changes that Perrone, Safety Systems, and Sekurit recommend. NHTSA 
intends to continue to examine the ejection mitigation potential of 
various types of glazing. NHTSA will consider the commenters' 
recommendations in any future rulemakings on the ejection resistance 
issue.

Haze and Abrasion Issues

    Libbey-Owens-Ford (LOF) recommended that Test No. 17, Abrasion 
Resistance, be modified to limit initial total haze to 1.0 percent, not 
just the amount of haze after completion of the abrasion test. LOF 
stated that initial haze should not exceed 1.0 percent to guarantee 
that the initial haze of the glazing is ``at an acceptable level.'' In 
support of the suggested 1.0 level, LOF stated that it reviewed its 
test records over 20 years and has not found any AS-1, AS-2, or AS-14 
products with an initial haze level over 1.0 percent. It further stated 
that studies done in Europe ``strongly suggested that high haze levels 
in windshields interfere with night driving visibility,'' and that some 
plastic materials have relatively high initial haze levels.
    NHTSA concurs with LOF's comment insofar as it applies to Item 4A 
glazing. Limiting the initial haze level would enhance safety by 
ensuring a maximum acceptable haze level that the unused rigid plastic 
glazing must meet. In light of the fact that the Pontiac Fiero sail 
panel cited in GM's test (see 60 FR 13688, March 14, 1995) had an 
initial haze level of 0.49 percent, and after testing (over six years, 
when the Fiero was driven ``over 41,000 miles''), had a 0.87 percent 
haze level, NHTSA believes that meeting an initial haze level limit of 
1.0 percent is practicable and appropriate. In the final rule, NHTSA 
amends the language of S5.1.2.11(b)(1) to establish an initial maximum 
haze level of 1.0 percent for Item 4A glazing.
    LOF also commented that since the long term durability of abrasion 
resistant exterior coatings, and of the adhesion between the coating 
and the substrate are a potential concern, a single sample of Item 4A 
glazing should be subjected to a weathering test and then an abrasion 
test. NHTSA believes it has addressed LOF's concerns in part by making 
Test 16 Weathering and Test 17, Abrasion Resistance applicable to Item 
4A glazing. NHTSA made changes to Test 17 to ensure that Test 17 
regulates total haze and to test the exterior side of plastic glazing 
to ensure longer term resistance to abrasion.
    However, NHTSA acknowledges that in this final rule, Tests 16 and 
17 would not be applied to the same sample of glazing. NHTSA does not 
have data to indicate that applying Tests 16 and 17 to the same piece 
of glazing would significantly enhance safety. However, NHTSA intends 
to monitor the performance of Item 4A glazing installed in motor 
vehicles. If NHTSA should obtain data indicating a safety value in 
performing Tests 16 and 17 (or other tests for weathering and abrasion 
resistance of plastics) on the same sample of glazing, NHTSA will 
consider initiating rulemaking to establish such tests.

Statistical Data on Item 4A Glazing

    Safety Systems Company recommended that the proposed rule be 
amended to require manufacturers to provide NHTSA with the makes, 
models and Vehicle Identification Numbers (VINs) of vehicles using the 
Item 4A glazing so that statistical data on Item 4A glazing can be 
collected. Safety Systems further recommended that the National 
Accident Sampling System crash data collection procedures be amended to 
provide for recording this new vehicle glazing element, and detect 
injuries due to possible fracture patterns of the glazing or other 
glazing problems.
    NHTSA believes there may be merit in adopting Safety System's 
suggestion for obtaining glazing information from vehicle 
manufacturers. However, adopting that suggestion would not necessitate 
changes in Standard No. 205, or any other NHTSA regulation. NHTSA 
intends to find means to collect the suggested information without 
imposing an undue collection of information burden on manufacturers.

Characterization of the New Item of Glazing

    Bayer Corporation objected to NHTSA's calling the new item of 
glazing ``Rigid Plastic'', since in its opinion, it ``sends an 
unfortunate message based on a misinterpretation of FMVSS 205 and 
creates a monopoly for glass in other items.'' NHTSA does not believe 
that the name of the new item of glazing will have the effect 
anticipated by Bayer. The opportunity to use rigid plastic in other 
areas of a passenger car is not limited by the names of the items of 
glazing that may be used in those areas but by the performance tests 
applicable to those items. Other glazing items for use in passenger car 
windows are not described with the term ``glass.'' Item 1 glazing is 
``Safety Material for Use Anywhere in Motor Vehicle'' and Item 2 is 
``Safety Material for Use Anywhere in Motor Vehicle Except 
Windshields.'' Naming Item 4A glazing ``Rigid Plastic'' simply calls 
attention to the fact that for the first time, there is an item of 
glazing permitted in passenger car side windows which is defined by 
tests that can be met by rigid plastic. Accordingly, NHTSA is calling 
Item 4A ``Rigid Plastics for Use in Side Windows.''

Final Rule

    With the exception that it adopts Standard No. 210's shoulder 
reference point as the basis for determining the windows in which Item 
4A glazing may be installed, restricts placement of Item 4A glazing 
near rear-facing and side-

[[Page 41743]]

facing seats, and establishes an initial maximum haze level of 1.0 
percent, NHTSA adopts its proposal without change.

Effective Date

    In response to the NPRM, Chrysler suggested that the agency 
establish an early effective date for the new glazing requirements so 
that vehicle manufacturers may take immediate advantage of Item 4A 
glazing. NHTSA agrees it would be beneficial for industry and consumers 
if Item 4A glazing is permitted in the near future.
    NHTSA finds that there is good cause for concluding that an 
effective date earlier than 180 days is in the public interest. The 
final rule will take effect 30 days after its publication in the 
Federal Register.

Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

1. Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures

    This final 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. Installation of the new item of glazing is not 
required. This final rule gives manufacturers more flexibility in the 
selection of motor vehicle glazing. NHTSA believes that installation of 
this new item of glazing makes possible reduced weight and better 
aerodynamic design of vehicles resulting in the use of less fuel. 
However, the fuel savings may be slight. For these reasons, NHTSA 
believes that this final rule does not impose any additional costs and 
does not yield any significant savings for vehicle manufacturers, 
glazing manufacturers, or consumers. The impacts are so minimal as not 
to 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 final rule will not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This final 
rule does not require use of any particular type of glazing, but 
provides manufacturers more flexibility in the choice of glazing 
primarily for station wagons and hatchbacks. This final rule will not 
affect the price of new motor vehicles. Accordingly, the agency has not 
prepared a regulatory flexibility analysis.

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 final rule does not have sufficient Federalism implications to 
warrant preparation of a Federalism Assessment. No State laws are 
affected.

4. National Environmental Policy Act

    The agency has considered the environmental implications of this 
final rule in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 
1969 and determines that the rule does 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 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.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 571

    Motor vehicle safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, 
Tires.

    In consideration of the foregoing, the agency amends part 571 of 
title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

PART 571--[AMENDED]

    1. The authority citation for part 571 continues to read as 
follows:

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

    2. Section 571.205, is 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 the following specific 
locations:
    (1) All areas in which Item 4 safety glazing may be used.
    (2) Any side window that meets the criteria in S5.1.2.11(a)(2)(i) 
and (ii):
    (i) Is in a vehicle whose rearmost designated seating position is 
forward-facing and cannot be adjusted so that it is side or rear-
facing; and
    (ii) The forwardmost point on its visible interior surface is 
rearward of the vertical transverse plane that passes through the 
shoulder reference point (as described in Figure 1 of Sec. 571.210 Seat 
belt assembly anchorages) of that rearmost seating position.
    (b)(1) The initial maximum haze level shall not exceed 1.0 percent. 
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 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 plane 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 shall not exceed 
10.0 percent after being subjected to abrasion for 500 cycles.
* * * * *

[[Page 41744]]

    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: August 7, 1996.
Ricardo Martinez,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 96-20517 Filed 8-9-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P