Opinion ID: 895280
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: FMVSS 205Federal Regulation of Glazing Materials

Text: FMVSS 205 specifies requirements for glazing materials for use in motor vehicles. 49 C.F.R. § 571.205, S1. It is intended to reduce injuries resulting from impact to glazing surfaces, to ensure a necessary degree of transparency in motor vehicle windows for driver visibility, and to minimize the possibility of occupants being thrown through the vehicle windows in collisions. Id. at S2. FMVSS 205 incorporates by reference the standards of the American National Standards Institute (ANSI), specifically the standard for Safety Glazing Materials Z26.1 [hereinafter ANSI/SAE Z26.1-1996]. [9] Id. at S3.2(a). The parties do not dispute that the standard permitted several kinds of glazing materials, including, as relevant here, laminated or tempered glass, [10] and that MCI complied with the standard in manufacturing the subject bus. See ANSI/SAE Z26.1-1996, T.1 (Items 1 & 2) (permitting laminated glass throughout a vehicle and tempered glass anywhere other than the windshield). The ANSI standard notes that [o]ne safety glazing material may be superior for protection against one type of hazard, whereas another may be superior against another type. Since accident conditions are not standardized, no one type of safety glazing material can be shown to possess the maximum degree of safety under all conditions, against all conceivable hazards. Id. § 2.2. In 1988, NHTSA proposed advanced glazing requirements for passenger vehicles and received numerous comments questioning, among other things, whether this material would actually increase injuries to belted occupants due to head injury, neck loading, and lacerations. Withdrawal of Advance Notices of Proposed Rulemaking, 67 Fed.Reg. 41,365, 41,366 (June 18, 2002). In 1991, Congress mandated that NHTSA initiate rulemaking on rollover protection. Id. As part of this study, NHTSA focused on advanced glazing research as a possible method to reduce passenger ejections. Id. In 2001, Congress directed NHTSA to complete its study of glazing materials, and NHTSA issued a final report on the use of glazing materials to mitigate ejections. Id. at 41,367. Based on this report, NHTSA decided to terminate rulemaking on the issue of advance glazing, citing safety and cost concerns. Id. Noting the advent of other ejection mitigation systems (such as side air curtains) and the possibility that advanced side glazing increased the risk of neck injuries in some cases, NHTSA determined that its time and resources were better spent on other projects that focused on developing more comprehensive, performance-based test procedures. Id. In the 2007 report on motorcoaches, NHTSA emphasized the importance of roof strength because deformations following a crash compromise the window's ability to prevent ejections. See NHTSA's APPROACH TO MOTORCOACH SAFETY, supra, at 20. For that reason, NHTSA concluded that purs[u]ing the seat belt and roof strength approaches has greater potential for providing improved motorcoach occupant protection than continuing only the glazing/window retention strategy. Id. In sum, FMVSS 205 reflects NHTSA's conclusion that no one type of glazing material is superior in all situations, and it leaves to the manufacturers the decision of what kind of materialso long as it is one of the required kindsto use in a particular setting.