13688 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 49 / Tuesday, March 14, 1995 / Proposed Rules

extension. Accordingly, for good cause

shown, it is ordered That the date for

filing comments in this matter is

extended to May 5, 1995, and the date

for filing reply comments is extended to

June 6, 1995.

5. This action is taken pursuant to

authority found in Sections 4 (i), 302

and 303 of the Communications Act of

1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 302,

303; and pursuant to Sections 0.31 and

1.46 of the Commission’s Rules, 47 CFR

0.31, 1.46. For further information

contact Sean White, Office of

Engineering and Technology, (202) 776–

1624.

Federal Communications Commission.

Bruce A. Franca,

Deputy Chief, Office of Engineering and

Technology.

[FR Doc. 95–6215 Filed 3–13–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712–01–M

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 passengerside 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%.’’
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 49 / Tuesday, March 14, 1995 / Proposed Rules 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 passengerside 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.
13690 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 49 / Tuesday, March 14, 1995 / Proposed Rules

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 postabrasion 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). Glassplastic 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
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 49 / Tuesday, March 14, 1995 / Proposed Rules 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 § 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 selfaddressed, 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.

§ 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:

§ 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