[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 2 (Monday, January 5, 2004)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 279-281]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-29]



[[Page 279]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 571

[Docket No. 03-15712; Notice 2]
RIN No. 2127-AJ25


Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Glazing Materials; Low 
Speed Vehicles

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

ACTION: Final rule, partial response to petitions for reconsideration.

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

SUMMARY: This final rule delays the effective date for compliance with 
the amended requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 
(FMVSS) No. 205, Glazing Materials. The final rule amending FMVSS No. 
205 was published on July 25, 2003.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See 68 FR 43964.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This final rule delays the date on which manufacturers must meet 
the amended requirements of FMVSS No. 205, from January 22, 2004, until 
September 1, 2004. The agency received six petitions for 
reconsideration, requesting that NHTSA consider modifying certain 
requirements of the amended FMVSS No. 205. Specifically, petitioners 
are asking that the agency reconsider: (a) The up-angle value of the 
windshield shade band; (b) the definition of the term ``most difficult 
part or pattern'' and the term ``day light opening;'' (c) the fracture 
testing procedure with respect to soldered terminals; (d) the effective 
date of the final rule; and (e) the applicability of the amended 
requirements to aftermarket parts. Petitioners have indicated that 
compliance with the amended requirements of FMVSS No. 205, prior to 
resolution of petitions for reconsideration, would cause substantial 
economic hardship to vehicle and glazing manufacturers. This rulemaking 
partially responds to the petitions for reconsideration by delaying the 
date on which the manufacturers must meet the amended requirements of 
FMVSS No. 205.

DATES: This final rule becomes effective January 5, 2004.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For non-legal issues, you may call 
John Lee, Office of Crashworthiness Standards, at (202) 366-2264, 
facsimile (202) 366-4329 or Patrick Boyd, Office of Crash Avoidance 
Standards, at (202) 366-6346, facsimile (202) 493-2739.
    For legal issues, you may call George Feygin, Office of the Chief 
Counsel, at (202) 366-2992, facsimile (202) 366-3820.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents

I. Background
II. Petitions For Reconsideration
III. Final Rule
IV. Regulatory Analyses and Notices

I. Background

    FMVSS No. 205 specifies performance requirements for glazing 
installed in motor vehicles. It also specifies the vehicle locations in 
which the various types of glazing may be installed. On July 25, 2003, 
NHTSA issued a final rule (July 25 final rule) updating FMVSS No. 205 
so that it incorporates by reference the 1996 version of the American 
Standards Institute (ANSI) standard on motor vehicle glazing. Prior to 
the July 25 final rule, FMVSS No. 205 referenced the 1977 version of 
ANSI Standard Z26.1, ``Safety Code for Safety Glazing Materials for 
Glazing Motor Vehicles Operating on Land Highways,'' and the 1980 
supplement to that standard.\2\ Since 1977, the ANSI Standard Z26.1 has 
been periodically revised, however the newer versions of the standard 
were not incorporated into the FMVSS No. 205.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The most recent revision we incorporated into FMVSS No. 205 
was ANSI Z26.1a-1980, which supplemented the 1977 version. It was 
incorporated by a final rule published in February 23, 1984 (49 FR 
6732).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The July 25 final rule has simplified and amended the glazing 
performance requirements. Amendments to the standard over the past 20 
years have resulted in a patchwork of requirements that must be read 
alongside the industry standard in order to gain a comprehensive 
understanding of the overall requirements of FMVSS No. 205. By 
incorporating by reference the 1996 version of the ANSI standard, the 
agency is now able to delete most of the existing text in FMVSS No. 
205.
    In addition to incorporating the 1996 ANSI standard, the final rule 
addressed several issues not covered by that standard. For example, the 
final rule limited the size of the shade band located at the top of the 
windshield and clarified the meaning of the term ``the most difficult 
part or pattern'' for the fracture test in the 1996 ANSI standard. The 
final rule also made minor conforming amendments to the standard on low 
speed vehicles. The July 25 final rule was to become effective on 
January 22, 2004.\3\ For further details on the subject final rule, 
please see 68 FR 43964 (July 25, 2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The effective date for the July 25 final rule was originally 
incorrectly stated as September 23, 2003. Subsequently, we published 
a correction indicating that the July 25 final rule would become 
effective on January 22, 2004 (68 FR 55544).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Petitions For Reconsideration

    In response to the July 25 final rule, the agency received six 
petitions for reconsideration. Petitions were submitted by 
DaimlerChrysler, General Motors (GM), Alliance for Automobile 
Manufacturers (Alliance), PPG Industries (PPG), Pilkington North 
America (PNA), and Visteon. Petitioners have asked the agency to 
reconsider the following issues.

1. The Up-Angle of the Windshield Shade Band

    DaimlerChrysler, GM, PPG, PNA, and Visteon have asked that the 
agency reconsider its decision to change the visibility up-angle from 5 
degrees to 7 degrees. Specifically, petitioners note that NHTSA has not 
demonstrated a safety need for this technical modification, and that 
the up-angle change was not discussed in the NPRM. DaimlerChrysler 
estimates that 25% of vehicles currently in production would not comply 
with the 7-degree up-angle requirement. Accordingly, petitioners 
contend that the change in the up-angle would place a significant 
burden on the manufacturers. Additionally, Visteon commented that the 
change in up-angle would necessitate a costly redesign of aftermarket 
replacement glazing.

2. The Terms ``Most Difficult Part or Pattern'' and ``Day Light 
Opening''

    GM, DaimlerChrysler, PPG and PNA have asked the agency to clarify 
or reconsider the meaning of the phrase ``most difficult part or 
pattern'' in the context of the fracture test provisions of ANSI Z26. 
Specifically, petitioners contend that the preamble to the final rule, 
S5.2 of the regulatory text, and NHTSA's previous interpretations on 
the issue, are inconsistent as to the use of the phrase.
    DaimlerChrysler and PPG have also asked the agency to formally 
define the term ``Day Light Opening'' and rescind a previously issued 
interpretation letter on the subject.

3. Soldered Terminals

    DaimlerChrysler, GM, PPG, PNA and Alliance have asked the agency to 
reconsider its position with respect to soldered terminals. 
Specifically, petitioners ask that compliance fracture testing be 
conducted without soldered terminals being attached to glazing. 
According to petitioners, a prior interpretation letter on the issue,

[[Page 280]]

coupled with the language in the final rule created confusion as to 
whether fracture testing would be conducted with the terminals 
attached. Petitioners ask that NHTSA clarify both the new testing 
procedure and also a distinction between conductors and terminals.

4. Effective Date

    Petitioners, including PNA, GM, DaimlerChrysler, PPG and Visteon, 
have asked the agency to delay the effective date of the updated FMVSS 
No. 205 by up to 3 years. In support of their request, DaimlerChrysler 
argued that glazing manufacturers would need to perform extensive 
testing to demonstrate compliance with the updated requirements of 
FMVSS No. 205. Further, some glazing manufacturers might need to add 
additional equipment in order to perform the necessary testing.
    Because NHTSA would not be able to respond to the petitions prior 
the January 22, 2004 effective date, petitioners requested that NHTSA 
extend the compliance deadline to a date after NHTSA completes the 
pending rulemaking.

5. Aftermarket Parts

    DaimlerChrysler, PNA, GM and PPG have asked that the agency also 
consider permitting compliance with the old requirements of FMVSS No. 
205 for the manufacture of aftermarket replacement glazing. According 
to the petitioners, it would not be feasible to redesign replacement 
glazing such that it would meet the updated requirements of FMVSS No. 
205. Similarly, Visteon commented that the final rule necessitates a 
redesign of aftermarket glazing that may be time-consuming because the 
necessary vehicle data is not readily available to glazing 
manufacturers.

III. Final Rule

    The agency has set a January 22, 2004, effective date for the July 
25 final rule. The petitions filed by DaimlerChrysler, GM, Alliance, 
PPG, PNA, and Visteon have asked the agency to reconsider several 
aspects of that rulemaking. NHTSA is currently considering all six 
petitions. Unfortunately, NHTSA's consideration of the petitions has 
not yet concluded. The effective date set by our July 25 final rule and 
subsequent correction (January 22, 2004) is now a month away.
    Given the imminence of the January 22, 2004, effective date, the 
agency has determined that it is appropriate to first partially respond 
to petitions concerning the effective date of the July 25 final rule. 
Accordingly, the agency is delaying the effective date of the July 25 
final rule until September 1, 2004, after which the manufacturers will 
be required to meet the new requirements of FMVSS No. 205. Other issues 
raised in the petitions for reconsideration will be addressed by the 
agency in a separate document.
    The agency believes that a partial response to the petitions for 
reconsideration is necessary to insure that glazing and automobile 
manufacturers do not face substantial economic hardship associated with 
certain new requirements of the amended FMVSS No. 205. As discussed in 
the petitions, the updated requirements of FMVSS No. 205 may 
necessitate extensive testing and retooling by glazing manufacturers. 
Given the number of issues raised in these petitions, NHTSA has 
determined that six months was an inadequate period of time to meet the 
new requirements. The agency also notes that extending the effective 
date to September 1, 2004, would permit vehicle manufacturers to avoid 
mid-model year product changes that would otherwise result from the 
July 25 final rule, coming into effect on January 22, 2004.
    NHTSA expects that all other issues raised in the petitions will be 
fully addressed prior to the new, September 1, 2004, effective date. In 
the event, however, that these issues have not been resolved, all 
affected manufacturers will be required to meet the new requirements. 
Effective dates of agency final rules are not stayed due to outstanding 
petitions for reconsideration of those rules.

IV. Regulatory Analyses and Notices

A. Economic Impacts

    Executive Order 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and Review'' (58 FR 
51735, October 4, 1993), provides for making determinations whether a 
regulatory action is ``significant'' and therefore subject to Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) review and to the requirements of the 
Executive Order. The Order defines a ``significant regulatory action'' 
as one that is likely to result in a rule that may:
    (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or 
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the 
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public 
health or safety, or State, local, or Tribal governments or 
communities;
    (2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an 
action taken or planned by another agency;
    (3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, 
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients 
thereof; or
    (4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal 
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in 
the Executive Order.
    This rulemaking document was not reviewed under Executive Order 
12866. It is not significant within the meaning of the DOT Regulatory 
Policies and Procedures. It does not impose any burden on manufacturers 
and extends the compliance date for existing regulatory requirements 
for an additional seven and a half months. The agency believes that 
this impact is so minimal as to not warrant the preparation of a full 
regulatory evaluation.

B. Environmental Impacts

    We have not conducted an evaluation of the impacts of this final 
rule under the National Environmental Policy Act. This rulemaking 
action extends the date by which the manufacturers must comply with the 
newly upgraded requirements of FMVSS No. 205. This rulemaking does not 
impose any change that would have any environmental impacts. 
Accordingly, no environmental assessment is required.

C. Impacts on Small Entities

    Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act, we have considered the 
impacts of this rulemaking action will have on small entities (5 U.S.C. 
601 et seq.). I certify that this rulemaking action will not have a 
significant economic impact upon a substantial number of small entities 
within the context of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    The following is our statement providing the factual basis for the 
certification (5 U.S.C. 605(b)). The final rule affects manufacturers 
of motor vehicles and motor vehicle glazing. According to the size 
standards of the Small Business Association (at 13 CFR part 121.601), 
manufacturers of glazing are considered manufacturers of ``Motor 
Vehicle Parts and Accessories'' (SIC Code 3714). The size standard for 
SIC Code 3714 is 750 employees or fewer. The size standard for 
manufacturers of ``Motor Vehicles and Passenger Car Bodies'' (SIC Code 
3711) is 1,000 employees or fewer. This Final Rule will not have any 
significant economic impact on a small business in these industries 
because it makes no significant substantive change to the requirements 
specified in FMVSS No. 205. Instead, this rulemaking delays the 
effective date of the previously published final rule by seven and a 
half

[[Page 281]]

months. Small organizations and governmental jurisdictions that 
purchase glazing will not be significantly affected because this 
rulemaking will not cause price increases. Accordingly, we have not 
prepared a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis.

D. Federalism

    E.O. 13132 requires NHTSA to develop an accountable process to 
ensure ``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in 
the development of regulatory policies that have federalism 
implications'' to include regulations that have ``substantial direct 
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national 
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and 
responsibilities among the various levels of government.'' Under E.O. 
13132, NHTSA may not issue a regulation that has federalism 
implication, that imposes substantial direct compliance costs, and that 
is not required by statute, unless the Federal government provides the 
funds necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by State 
and local governments, or NHTSA consults with State and local officials 
early in the process of developing the proposed regulation.
    This final rule will not have substantial direct effects on the 
States, on the relationship between the national government and the 
States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the 
various levels of government as specified in E.O. 13132. Thus, the 
requirements of section 6 of the Executive Order do not apply to this 
rule.

E. The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4) requires 
agencies to prepare a written assessment of the costs, benefits and 
other effects of proposed or final rules that include a Federal mandate 
likely to result in the expenditure by State, local or tribal 
governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of more than 
$100 million annually. This action, which extends the compliance date 
by which the manufacturers must meet the upgraded requirements of FMVSS 
No. 205, will not result in additional expenditures by state, local or 
tribal governments or by any members of the private sector. Therefore, 
the agency has not prepared an economic assessment pursuant to the 
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act.

F. Paperwork Reduction Act

    There are no information collection requirements in this rule.

G. Regulation Identifier Number (RIN)

    The Department of Transportation assigns a regulation identifier 
number (RIN) to each regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of 
Federal Regulations. The Regulatory Information Service Center 
publishes the Unified Agenda in April and October of each year. You may 
use the RIN contained in the heading at the beginning of this document 
to find this action in the Unified Agenda.

H. Plain Language

    Executive Order 12866 requires each agency to write all rules in 
plain language. Application of the principles of plain language 
includes consideration of the following questions:

    [sbull] Have we organized the material to suit the public's needs?
    [sbull] Are the requirements in the rule clearly stated?
    [sbull] Does the rule contain technical language or jargon that is 
not clear?
    [sbull] Would a different format (grouping and order of sections, 
use of headings, paragraphing) make the rule easier to understand?
    [sbull] Would more (but shorter) sections be better?
    [sbull] Could we improve clarity by adding tables, lists, or 
diagrams?
    [sbull] What else could we do to make the rule easier to 
understand?

    If you have any responses to these questions, please forward them 
to George Feygin, Office of Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic 
Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Under the National Technology and Transfer and Advancement Act of 
1995 (NTTAA) (Pub. L. 104-113), ``all Federal agencies and departments 
shall use technical standards that are developed or adopted by 
voluntary consensus standards bodies, using such technical standards as 
a means to carry out policy objectives or activities determined by the 
agencies and departments.''
    Certain technical standards developed by the American National 
Standards Institute (ANSI) and Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) 
have been considered and incorporated by reference in the final rule 
published on July 25, 2003, which upgraded the requirements of FMVSS 
No. 205. This final rule extends the effective date of that final rule 
to September 1, 2004.

J. Privacy Act

    Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments 
received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual 
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf 
of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's 
complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on 
April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages 19477-78) or you may visit 
http://dms.dot.gov.

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 21411, 21415, 21417, and 21466; 
delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.

    Issued on: December 29, 2003.
Otis G. Cox,
Deputy Administrator.
[FR Doc. 04-29 Filed 1-2-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-M