[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 159 (Wednesday, August 18, 2004)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 51188-51191]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-18209]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 571

[Docket No. NHTSA-2003-15712]


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

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

ACTION: Final rule; delay of compliance date.

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

SUMMARY: NHTSA published a final rule in July 2003 that amended the 
Federal motor vehicle safety standard on glazing materials. The agency 
received several petitions for reconsideration of the rule. At present, 
the rule is to take effect on September 1, 2004. To allow for more time 
to respond to the petitions, this document delays the compliance date 
of the final rule.

DATES: This final rule becomes effective August 18, 2004. The 
compliance date of the final rule published on July 25, 2003 (68 FR 
43964) and amended on September 26, 2003 (68 FR 55544) and on January 
5, 2004 (69 FR 279) is delayed until September 1, 2006. Any petitions 
for reconsideration of today's final rule must be received by NHTSA not 
later than October 4, 2004.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 
    For non-legal issues, you may call Mr. John Lee, Office of 
Crashworthiness Standards, at (202) 366-2264, facsimile (202) 366-4329 
or Mr. Patrick Boyd, Office of Crash Avoidance Standards, at (202) 366-
6346, facsimile (202) 493-2739.
    For legal issues, you may call Ms. Dorothy Nakama, Office of the 
Chief Counsel, at (202) 366-2992, facsimile (202) 366-3820.
    You may send mail to any of these officials at the National Highway 
Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 
20590.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents

I. Background
II. Petitions for Reconsideration
III. Today's Final Rule; Delay of Compliance Date
IV. Regulatory Analyses and Notices

I. Background

    Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 205 Glazing 
Materials specifies performance requirements for glazing installed in 
motor vehicles. It also specifies the

[[Page 51189]]

vehicle locations in which the various types of glazing may be 
installed. On July 25, 2003 (68 FR 43964)(DMS Docket No. NHTSA-2003-
15712), NHTSA published a final rule (July 25 final rule) updating 
FMVSS No. 205 by incorporating by reference the 1996 version of the 
American National 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.
    The July 25 final rule has simplified and amended the glazing 
performance requirements. By incorporating by reference the 1996 
version of the ANSI standard, the agency was able to remove 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.
    In a final rule of January 5, 2004 (69 FR 279)(DMS Docket No. 
NHTSA-2003-15712), NHTSA established September 1, 2004 as the effective 
date of the July 25, 2003 final rule. For further details on the 
subject final rule, please see 68 FR 43964 (July 25, 2003).

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, 
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.

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. Today's Final Rule; Delay of Compliance Date

    Previously, NHTSA has established September 1, 2004 as the 
compliance date for the July 25, 2003 final rule. In six petitions for 
reconsideration, NHTSA has been asked to reconsider several aspects of 
the July 25, 2003 final rule. NHTSA is in the process of considering 
all six petitions. Given the imminence of the September 1, 2004 
compliance date, the agency has decided to delay the compliance date of 
the July 25, 2003 final rule until September 1, 2006. The issues raised 
in the petitions for reconsideration will be addressed by the agency in 
a separate document.
    The agency believes that a delay is necessary to ensure 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 compliance costs by 
glazing manufacturers.
    NHTSA expects that all the issues raised in the petitions will be 
fully addressed prior to the new, September 1, 2006 compliance date. If 
these issues have not been resolved by the new compliance date, all 
affected manufacturers will be required to meet the new requirements. 
Compliance dates of agency final rules are not stayed due to 
outstanding petitions for reconsideration of those rules.

IV. Regulatory Analyses and Notices

A. Executive Order, 12866 Regulatory Planning and Review

    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

[[Page 51190]]

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 of a final rule amending 
FMVSS No. 205 for two years. 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. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    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 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 substantial number of small businesses 
in these industries because the rule only delays by two years, the 
compliance date of the previously published final rule. 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 Final Regulatory 
Flexibility Analysis.

D. Executive Order 13132, 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.'' E.O. 13132 defines the term ``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 
implications, 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 
of a final rule amending 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

    Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et 
seq.)(PRA), a person is not required to respond to a collection of 
information by a Federal agency unless the collection displays a valid 
OMB control number. Since it only delays the compliance date of a final 
rule, this final rule does not impose any new collection of information 
requirements for which a 5 CFR part 1320 clearance must be obtained.

G. Civil Justice Reform

    This final rule does not have any retroactive effect. Under 49 
U.S.C. 30103(b), whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard is in 
effect, a state or political subdivision may prescribe or continue in 
effect a standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of a 
Federal motor vehicle safety standard only if the standard is identical 
to the Federal standard. However, the United States Government, a 
state, or political subdivision of a state, may prescribe a standard 
for a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment obtained for its own use 
that imposes a higher performance requirement than that required by the 
Federal standard. 49 U.S.C. 30161 sets forth a procedure for judicial 
review of final rules establishing, amending, or revoking Federal motor 
vehicle safety standards. A petition for reconsideration or other 
administrative proceedings are not required before parties file suit in 
court.

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:

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

Comment is solicited on the extent to which this final rule effectively 
uses plain language principles.

[[Page 51191]]

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 compliance date of that final rule 
to September 1, 2006.

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.

K. Executive Order 13045, Economically Significant Rules 
Disproportionately Affecting Children

    This rule is not subject to E.O. 13045 because it is not 
``economically significant'' as defined under E.O. 12866, and does not 
concern an environmental, health or safety risk that NHTSA has reason 
to believe may have a disproportionate effect on children.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 571

    Imports, Motor vehicle safety, Motor vehicles.

PART 571--FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS

0
1. The authority citation for part 571 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117, 30166 and 30177; 
delegations of authority at 49 CFR 1.50 and 501.8.


0
2. Section 571.205 is amended by adding a second sentence to S3.1 to 
read as follows:


Sec.  571.205  Glazing Materials

* * * * *
    S3.1 Application. * * * For motor vehicles and glazing equipment 
manufactured before September 1, 2006, the manufacturer may, at its 
option, comply with 49 CFR 571.205 revised as of October 1, 2003 
instead of this version.
* * * * *

    Issued on: August 3, 2004.
Stephen R. Kratzke,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 04-18209 Filed 8-17-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P