[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 108 (Tuesday, June 4, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 28124-28131]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-13864]



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


DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
49 CFR Part 57l

[Docket No. 87-10; Notice 6]
RIN 2127-AF83


Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Power-Operated Window, 
Partition, and Roof Panel Systems

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

ACTION: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: In response to a petition from Prospects Corporation 
(Prospects), this document proposes to amend Standard 118, Power-
Operated Window, Partition, and Roof Panel Systems, to accommodate 
power windows, partitions, and roof panels which automatically reverse 
when closing if an infrared system detects an object in or near the 
path of the closing window, partition, or panel. Since infrared systems 
may fail to detect an object the size of a very young child's finger, 
but can detect the child's hand, the agency is proposing to test those 
systems using a rod representing the side profile of a child's hand. 
The proposal also specifies the infrared reflectance of the rods used 
for testing those systems. This document also proposes to amend the 
requirements for systems that stop the window, partition, or panel 
before an appendage or other body part could become trapped by it by 
eliminating the requirement that those systems reverse after stopping. 
Reversal is not necessary unless there is a risk that a person may 
become trapped. In addition, this document requests comment on the 
safety of express-up power windows (i.e., power windows that fully 
close after a single, momentary touching of the window switch), because 
numerous callers to NHTSA have alleged that express-up windows exist 
and are unsafe.

DATES: Comment Date: Comments must be received by August 5, 1996
    Effective and Compliance Dates: If adopted, the proposed amendments 
would become effective, and compliance required, 30 days following 
publication of the final rule.

ADDRESSES: Comments should refer to the docket and notice number of 
this notice and be submitted to: Docket Section, Room 5109, National 
Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW, 
Washington, DC 20590. (Docket Room hours are 9:30 a.m.-4 p.m., Monday 
through Friday.)

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The following persons by mail at the 
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW, 
Washington, DC 20590:
    For technical issues:
    Mr. Richard Van Iderstine, Office of Crash Avoidance Standards, 
NPS-21, telephone (202) 366-5280, facsimile (202) 366-4329, electronic 
mail ``[email protected]''.
    For legal issues:
    Mr. Paul Atelsek, Office of the Chief Counsel, NCC-20, telephone 
(202) 366-2992, facsimile (202) 366-3820, electronic mail 
``[email protected]''. Please note that comments should be sent to 
the docket section rather than faxed to the contact persons.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    Standard No. 118 regulates the safety of power windows, partitions, 
and roof panels. For the sake of simplicity, and because NHTSA 
anticipates that this proposal would primarily affect power windows, 
the agency collectively refers to these three systems as ``power 
windows'' in the preamble. However, the proposed changes apply equally 
to powered partitions and roofs. The standard addresses the threat to 
unsupervised children of being strangled or suffering limb-crushing 
injuries by closing power windows. Originally, the standard required 
that the activation of power windows be linked to an ignition 
interlock. The standard prohibited the activation of power windows 
unless the ignition key was in the ignition and turned to the ``on'', 
``start'' or ``accessory'' position, based on the presumption that this 
precondition would ensure that a driver

[[Page 28125]]

was present to supervise children. Making the presence of the ignition 
key a precondition to power window activation also ensured that the 
driver is provided with a simple means of disabling the power windows 
of a parked vehicle, i.e., key removal. The power windows of most 
vehicles are still linked to an ignition interlock.
    Over the years, the standard has been amended to permit power 
window closing in situations in which the key is not in the ignition, 
but the existence of adult supervision could be presumed for other 
reasons. In the most recent rulemaking, in 1991, NHTSA responded to the 
interest of manufacturers in offering remote controls for window 
closing. 56 FR 15290. In doing so, the agency was mindful that the 
unrestricted allowance of remote controls, especially ones that 
activated windows using radio frequency signals which can penetrate 
obstructing walls, could pose a danger to child occupants because the 
person activating the window might not be able to see a child in the 
window opening. Therefore, in an effort to ensure the presence of a 
supervising person, the agency amended the standard to permit power 
windows to be operable through the use of remote controls only if the 
controls had a very limited range, i.e., not more than 6 m. A longer 
range, up to 11 m, was permitted for controls that were operable only 
if there were an unobstructed line of sight between the control and the 
vehicle.
    In addition, the agency reasoned that its provisions permitting the 
remote control of a power window need not be premised on the likely 
existence of supervision if the window were equipped with an automatic 
reversal system. If the window closing system itself could sense the 
child's hand or head when it became trapped between the window and the 
window frame, and thereupon stop and reverse to release the child, then 
supervision would not be required. Therefore, the agency also 
established a provision permitting power windows equipped with an 
automatic reversal system to be closed in any manner (e.g., with or 
without a key) desired by the manufacturer. It also permitted remote 
controls of unrestricted range as well as new products, such as devices 
to open and close windows automatically in response to heat and rain, 
since they would be made safe by the automatic reversal system.
    To qualify as an automatic reversal system, a system had to reverse 
a power window, either before the window contacted, or before it 
exerted ``a squeezing force of 100 newtons on a semi-rigid cylindrical 
rod from 4 mm to 200 mm in diameter * * *'' The test procedure 
specified a range of rods to represent portions of a person's body, 
ranging in size from infant fingers to juvenile heads, inserted in the 
window openings. This procedure addressed the fundamental safety 
problem in terms of the level of squeezing force thought to be 
injurious. It allowed for contact with a test rod if reversal is 
triggered before the window exerts the injurious squeezing force on the 
test rod. Upon reversal, the window was required to open for the 
purpose of allowing easy extrication of a trapped head.
    At the time of the most recent amendment, automatic reversal 
systems for power windows did not exist on U.S. vehicles. The most 
detailed comments on the amendment seemed to indicate companies were 
contemplating reversal systems triggered by force measurement. NHTSA 
assumed that manufacturers would produce power window reversal systems 
based on force sensing technology.
    The development of automatic reversal systems has not proceeded as 
NHTSA anticipated. NHTSA currently is not aware of any force sensing 
systems currently being certified to meet FMVSS No. 118, suggesting 
that the manufacturers that had been considering force sensing systems 
may have found them to be undesirable or impractical.
    NHTSA also sought to allow the use of proximity sensing systems by 
allowing automatic reversal systems that reversed the power window at 
any time before contact with the test rods. The agency attempted to 
word carefully the provisions regarding non-contact systems so as to 
avoid discouraging their development. A commenter on the 1991 amendment 
also indicated interest in developing reversal systems triggered by the 
blockage of light by the child's body (the principle used by automatic 
reversal mechanisms on some garage doors with remote controls). 
Accordingly, the agency drafted a test procedure that satisfactorily 
tests non-contact systems based on this principle.
    The test procedure is less appropriate for non-contact systems 
based on other principles. Prospects Corporation has developed a non-
contact automatic window reversal system which can detect the proximity 
of some portion of a person's body by sensing the reflection (instead 
of the blockage) of infrared light by a passenger's body. In Prospect's 
system, there are an infrared emitter and a detector within the 
interior of the vehicle that are not aligned with one another. When no 
object is present in or near the plane of the window, the detector 
receives a constant background level of infrared radiation reflected by 
the inside of the vehicle. In this situation, the window may safely 
close. However, when a child's hand, for example, approaches the 
window, the hand reflects a certain amount of additional radiation from 
the emitter to the detector. The detector senses the increase and 
electronically reverses the window even before the child's hand reaches 
the plane of the window.
    To work well under the variety of foreseeable circumstances, an 
infrared reflectance system must be sufficiently sensitive to detect a 
variety of materials. Different materials (e.g., skin, hair, cloth, 
plastic) have characteristic abilities to reflect infrared radiation, a 
property called reflectance. The amount of radiation reflected is 
affected by the wavelength of the radiation, the angle of incidence of 
the radiation, the color and texture of the material, and the amount of 
surface area exposed.
    Since the standard currently does not specify the infrared 
reflectance of the test rods, it cannot adequately assess the safety of 
an automatic window reversal system based on infrared reflectance. Use 
of a test rod with a higher reflectance than that of a child's hand 
might allow a system to pass NHTSA's compliance test even though that 
system might not be sufficiently sensitive to detect a child's hand 
placed in or near the window opening. Therefore, the agency has 
tentatively decided that the test procedure should be changed to 
specify the aspects of the test rods that are necessary for testing the 
compliance of infrared reflectance-based systems.
    In proposing to amend the standard to provide for better testing of 
non-contact systems based on infrared reflectance, NHTSA recognizes 
that in the future there may be non-contact systems based on still 
other principles. However, the agency cannot propose to amend the 
standard to address those systems until their underlying principles are 
identified and adequately defined.

II. Size of the Target Inboard of the Window Plane

    The standard currently specifies information about the sizes of the 
test rods that are appropriate for testing contact-based systems for 
compliance. The standard requires that the reversal system protect 
portions of a person's body, as represented by test rods ranging from 4 
mm (about the size of an infant's finger) to 200 mm (about the size of 
a child's head) in diameter. Typical placements of the test rods are 
illustrated in drawings showing cylinders placed in various window and 
roof openings. The illustrations show

[[Page 28126]]

the portion of the rods inside the vehicle passenger compartment (the 
portion that would be used as a handle by the person conducting the 
test) as having the same diameter as the portion in the plane of the 
window. The standard requires that the part of the test rod exposed to 
window contact be protected over the full range of test diameters. 
There is no distinction made for the length or minimum diameter of the 
part of the test rod inboard of the window plane, even though the cross 
section of an infant's hand is larger than 4 mm.
    Because it does not specify the size of the portion of the test 
rods that is inboard of the window (the area in or near the plane of 
the window when it is closed), the existing standard does not specify 
one of the most important test conditions for the reflective proximity 
detection scheme used by the petitioner. The petitioner's system 
provides reflective proximity detection by projecting infrared light 
across the inboard surface of the window, and using a sensor to detect 
the amount of light that is reflected by objects in the zone 
immediately inboard of the window. In the case of a child's hand in or 
reaching toward the window, the smallest object from the standpoint of 
reflective detection would be the hand, and not one of the fingers.
    Prospects stated that its system may fail to detect the presence of 
the smallest rod, which is intended to represent an infant's finger. 
However, the petitioner believes that in reality its system would 
always protect infant fingers because it would detect the infant's 
hand. The petitioner suggested that the test rods be shaped like an 
infant's hand (measured across the palm) with a width of 28 mm.
    NHTSA agrees with the petitioner that it is not appropriate to test 
the petitioner's device with a finger-sized target that is not 
connected with a representation of a hand, but does not agree with the 
use of a full hand width-size target. The infant could hold the palm of 
its hand on edge, i.e., in a plane parallel to the direction of the 
infrared radiation, and extend its finger. Therefore, to provide the 
minimum realistic reflective cross section, the hand should be 
represented with its full thickness (measured from the palm to the back 
of the hand) providing reflection to the sensor.
    NHTSA tentatively concludes that a reasonable worst-case dimension 
for targets inboard of the plane of the window is 15 mm. The petitioner 
reports a thickness of at least 15 mm in the edge view of a 15 month 
old infant's hand. The agency considers this to be a reasonably 
conservative estimate. Newborn babies with somewhat smaller hands would 
be incapable of raising themselves up into an exposed position, and 
even the smallest hands would present a target wider than 15 mm in most 
orientations. Therefore, the test rods inside the window should not be 
less than 15 mm in diameter to provide a representative test of 
proximity sensing devices. Although the petitioner suggested a hand-
shaped test rod, the use of cylindrical rods as targets remains 
desirable because it is easier to manufacture and removes the need to 
consider the orientation of the target along its axis.

III. Reflectance of the Target

A. Testing Methods

    NHTSA also considered what level of reflectance would appropriately 
represent the clothed and unclothed hands and arms of young children. 
Reflectance is the ratio of the intensity of the light (measured by a 
detector as energy) reflected by the surface of a material to that of 
the light that strikes the surface of the material. An important 
objective of this proposal is to determine a reasonable value of 
reflectance for the test rods that NHTSA will use in compliance 
testing. The level of reflectance that NHTSA is proposing is based on 
experimental data the petitioner submitted (Prospects' report on the 
reflectance of skin and clothing is available in rulemaking docket 
number 87-10; Notice No. 6). NHTSA believes that the data generated by 
Prospect's laboratory test apparatus can be applied generally to in-
vehicle detection systems based on infrared reflectance, and requests 
comment on this assumption.
    Prospect's petition gave little detailed information on 
reflectance. Therefore, NHTSA asked the petitioner to address the 
question of reflectance in more detail. Because color affects 
reflectance, the reflective properties of skin of different shades and 
colors was of obvious importance, and the effect of color was also 
addressed by the petitioner. NHTSA also asked the petitioner to 
investigate whether gloves and other clothing would be more difficult 
to detect than bare skin.
    The petitioner responded by providing measurements of the infrared 
light reflected from human skin and a large variety of leathers and 
fabrics. The measurements were conducted with an apparatus 
incorporating an infrared light source (nominal wavelength 950 
nanometers (nm)) and a light sensor of the type used in the prototype 
window reversal system appearing in Appendix 1 of the petitioner's 
report. The apparatus projected infrared light on the skin or material 
sample and received the reflected (or scattered) light at an equal 
angle of reflection. The angle of incidence was 16 degrees. The 
distance from the source to the sample, and the distance from the 
sample to the light sensor, was the same, about 135 mm. The light 
reaching the sensor was measured with and without the sample in place, 
so that the light reflected from the sample holder could be discounted.
    Although the light reaching the sensor can be thought of as having 
been reflected by the sample, it arrives by the combination of 
reflection from the surface of the sample and scattering by the texture 
of the sample. Since both the test apparatus and any in-vehicle devices 
that might be produced measure the sum of reflection and scatter, there 
is no need to distinguish between the two mechanisms which result in 
light reaching the sensor. Therefore, the term ``reflection'' is used 
below in a broad sense to refer to all light reaching the sensor as a 
consequence of the presence of the sample.
    NHTSA's test procedures should be as general and as design-
independent as possible, to avoid restricting vehicle manufacturers' 
choices. Prospects' tests compared the infrared reflectance of various 
portions of a person's body and clothing materials and found relative 
reflectance relationships that ought to hold true for infrared 
reflectance-based detection systems in general. However, the absolute 
numerical results (in terms of microwatts of power received by the 
sensor) are specific to the particular test apparatus used by 
Prospects. NHTSA discussed with the petitioner the need to express the 
infrared reflective properties of skin and other material in terms that 
are not specific to a particular light source and sensor.
    A reasonable solution was found in the use of a high reflectance 
mirror as a comparison medium. A mirror that reflects 99.99 percent of 
infrared light was mounted in the apparatus as a sample. The presence 
of the mirror caused the infrared sensor to receive 47 microwatts. The 
power measured with the sample materials was divided by this power and 
the resulting ratio was multiplied by 100 percent to produce a value 
that is characteristic of each sample. When normalized by the mirror 
measurement in this way, the skin and material measurements become 
independent of the power, beam size and dispersion of the light source 
and the size and sensitivity of the infrared sensor.
    This method of normalizing the power measurements also has the

[[Page 28127]]

benefit of producing results of general utility, regardless of the size 
of the sample. The sensitivity of the reflectance determination to 
changes in the light path length of the apparatus is low because 
measurements using the sample and the mirror would be affected in the 
same proportion by a change in light path length. Therefore, the length 
of the light path need not be specified.
    However, NHTSA is specifying the angles of incidence and reflection 
to be used when determining the reflectance of test rods, in order to 
avoid changes in the relative composition of reflected and scattered 
light from textured samples. The agency notes that specifying these 
angles does not restrict vehicle design in any way, but only defines 
the parameters to be used when producing test rods.

B. Test Results

    In order to test skin for reflectance values, Prospects had 
different people place their hands against the back of the sample 
holder. The skin of White, Black and Asian persons was measured at the 
back of the hand and at the palm. Three individuals of each race were 
measured. The macro-texture of the palms and backs of hands can be 
presumed to affect the relative contribution of reflection and scatter. 
The range of reflectance from the palms of hands was from 2.43 to 2.96 
percent, and the range for the skin on the back of the hand was from 
2.04 to 2.83 percent. The total range of 2.04 to 2.96 percent for 
differences between races, individuals and hand orientation was very 
small compared to that of common fabrics, as can be seen from the 
following results.
    In response to NHTSA's concern about the reflectance of various 
skin coverings, Prospects tested thirty-seven samples comprising 
various colors, textures and types of fabric and leather, including 
wool, silk, cotton, polyester, and a 35 percent cotton/65 percent 
polyester blend. The range of reflectance of the fabric and leather 
samples was from 0.70 to 6.09 percent. With the exception of three 
samples, the fabrics and leathers were more reflective than skin. The 
worst case was a black cotton/polyester material which reflected about 
\1/3\ the amount of infrared light reflected by human skin. Figure 8 of 
the petitioner's report summarizes the range of material reflectance 
(Docket No. 87-10; Notice No. 6). The large variety of skin and 
potential skin-covering materials Prospects tested appears to provide a 
good representation of foreseeable detection targets.
    The narrow range of reflectance for skin despite differences in 
individuals, races, and part of body indicates that infrared skin 
reflection is not very sensitive to common variables including the lack 
of ``flatness'' of hand samples. This validates the ability of the 
infrared reflectance proximity sensor to detect its primary target, 
skin. It is also encouraging that most clothing materials appear to 
improve the infrared reflectance of the body. However, at least one 
common material would reduce the reflectance of the body by two thirds.
    NHTSA is proposing a minimum reflectance of 0.7 percent for the 
test rods. This is a conservative value which equals the minimum 
reflectance of black cotton/polyester. That material had the lowest 
reflectance in Prospects' experiment. Bare skin, at about 2-3 percent 
reflectance, is three times more detectable.
    Manufacturers should have little difficulty producing test rods 
with the proper reflectance. The reflectance of the surface material of 
NHTSA's test rods would be tested using an apparatus similar to the one 
used by Prospects. However, as discussed above, there is considerable 
flexibility in the construction of the test apparatus. Only the 
wavelength of the source and the angles of incidence and reflection 
would need to be kept constant.

IV. Protection of Persons Outside the Vehicle

    Since paragraph S5 of Standard No. 118 relieves power windows 
systems with automatic reversal from the presence-of-supervision-
assuring restrictions of S4, NHTSA should consider whether protection 
is provided for a person who is outside the vehicle and is reaching 
toward or into the vehicle. It cannot be assumed that an infrared 
proximity detector will operate on objects shielded by window glass, 
thus only portions of a person's body inside the window would be 
capable of triggering it under this proposal.
    There are a number of reasons to believe that this is not a great 
danger. Small children inside vehicles can reach the pinch points (the 
area where the window and window frame meet) by standing on the seat, 
but a child standing on the ground outside the vehicle must be 
considerably older and taller to reach most pinch points. The agency 
expects that even the single bare finger of a child of that size would 
be detected. Even if a bare finger is much smaller than the proposed 
test rod diameter of 15 mm, it would likely be detected because the 
reflectance of skin is so much greater than the proposed test rod. A 
child holding the edge of the window would offer an even larger target 
for detection, the width of his or her palm, and a child leaning into 
the vehicle so that his or her head is in the window would certainly be 
detected and protected.
    However, it would be possible for a person willfully to ``fool'' 
the detector by placing just the tip of a finger on the outside upper 
edge of the window as it shuts. In that location, the finger tip could 
be shielded from the infrared emitter. (Recall that this situation is 
possible only for persons outside the vehicle because fingers of a 
vehicle occupant cannot get to the pinch points without exposing the 
hand to detection.) The most likely occasion for such abuse involves a 
child inside the vehicle operating the windows in playing ``chicken'' 
with another child outside the vehicle.
    The agency recognizes the possibility of abuse of the system but 
believes that the possibility is not serious enough to warrant 
declining to facilitate the use of power window systems with infrared 
sensors. This belief is based on the assumption that manufacturers 
would not make automatic window closing possible in the absence of the 
ignition key except possibly for rain protection or for a limited time 
after key removal. NHTSA requests comments on the validity of this 
assumption. In addition, children who can reach the top of the window 
from the ground are old enough to possess some level of experience and 
judgment, and a very slight withdrawal motion is all that is necessary 
for self-protection.

V. Presumption of Supervision

    Although not raised in the petition submitted by Prospects, many 
callers to this agency have expressed certain reservations about the 
safety of the existing standard. Accordingly, NHTSA is using this 
document to take the opportunity to request comments on these concerns. 
This is especially appropriate in light of the consideration that the 
agency is giving to making the standard more permissive.
    The safety of children depends on driver supervision when power 
windows close in the modes permitted by section S4. However, there are 
some design possibilities not prohibited by S4 that can reduce either 
the likelihood or the effectiveness of driver supervision. The standard 
allows window closing with the ignition key in the ``accessory'', as 
well as in the ``on'' and ``start'' positions. Drivers may be tempted 
to leave unattended children in a vehicle with the key in the 
``accessory'' position in order to operate the vent fan or the radio, 
thus failing to maintain supervision of the power windows. Drivers need 
to supervise children in

[[Page 28128]]

the rear seat, but vehicles are not required to have a driver 
controlled lock-out of the rear power windows. Many vehicles are 
designed to avoid these potential problems, but designs that exceed the 
safety standard are not universal. Is the presumption of supervision a 
valid one?
    Some callers have questioned the safety of a convenience feature 
that they say some manufacturers are offering, i.e., an ``express up'' 
closing mode, which requires only a momentary switch contact rather 
than continuous activation to close the window. No caller reported any 
injuries associated with this feature. NHTSA is aware of such systems 
on a few of the most expensive German cars. In all of these cases, the 
express-up windows are also equipped with automatic reversal (although 
these reversal systems may not pass the requirements of FMVSS No. 118). 
It is possible that part of the interest by vehicle manufacturers in 
infrared proximity detectors is motivated by a desire to assure the 
safety of express-up windows. If the agency proceeds to a final rule, 
the agency will consider while writing the forthcoming final rule 
whether to propose that express-up operation of windows, other than the 
driver's, should be excluded from the closing modes of S4, which 
presume driver supervision and, by implication, some level of control. 
These thoughts are offered in the questions to commenters below to 
guide possible future rulemaking.

VI. Need for Reversal

    The existing standard requires that closing power windows halt to 
avoid applying excessive squeezing force on a passenger, and then 
reverse their travel to release the person. The reversing requirement 
is necessary when the halting of a window is triggered by a force 
measurement because, otherwise, the squeezed person might remain 
trapped by the window.
    Although the petitioner did not question the application of the 
reversal requirement to a window equipped with an infrared sensor, it 
appears that it may not be necessary to apply the requirement to all 
infrared sensing systems since most of these systems would detect 
objects in a large zone and would ensure safety by merely halting. 
Devices which halt power windows by detecting limbs and heads interior 
to the plane of the powered window opening and in a wide detection area 
around the pinch zone will halt the windows before the body enters the 
pinch zone, eliminating the possibility of trapping. A three-
dimensional detection zone extending from the window frame 100 mm into 
the opening and extending horizontally inboard into the interior of the 
vehicle 50 mm from the interior surface of the closed window would 
probably be sufficient to prevent trapping by halting the window alone. 
Therefore, NHTSA proposes that non-contact window systems which detect 
proximity of persons over such a large interior space, thereby halting 
the window before the person enters the pinch zone, be relieved of the 
necessity of reversing as well.
    It is not necessary for non-contact systems to detect the proximity 
of persons over such a large range of space to prevent injury. Even a 
system sensitive in a narrow zone only a few millimeters below the 
window frame would prevent contact. However, a window whose detection 
system has such limited sensitivity must be able to reverse to avoid 
the possibility of trapping a child's head.

VII. Questions for Commenters

    A. The proposed test rods would combine a reasonable worst case 
target size (15 mm) with a reasonable worst case reflectance (0.7 
percent). If there is an even more appropriate combination of factors, 
please explain what these factors are and why they are better than the 
proposed factors. If one considers the target size of 15 mm as 
indicative of bare limbs, would a maximum reflectance of 1 percent be 
adequate? A reflectance of 1 percent is half the reflectance of skin 
and thus would provide a factor of safety of 2 relative to bare skin. 
Is the proposed 0.7 percent reflectance (a factor of safety of 3) 
necessary to ensure that persons outside the vehicle are adequately 
protected?
    B. Can prototype infrared proximity systems detect a target 
combining the worst case size (15 mm) and worst case reflectance (0.7 
percent) at all points near the frame of a large side window? Would its 
performance be hindered by bright sunlight or other infrared sources? 
What other factors might limit the effectiveness of infrared systems? 
How should the agency guard against the effects of those factors?
    C. The information submitted to the agency concerning the 
reflectance of skin and the relative reflectance of skin and clothing 
was obtained using infrared light of a nominal 950 nm wavelength. While 
the agency endeavors to make standards as simple and general as 
possible, it has no basis to assume that this reflectance information 
is applicable to infrared light of significantly different wavelengths. 
Therefore, the proposed compliance tests are limited to infrared 
devices operating at wavelengths of 950 nm +/- 100 nm. Is there any 
evidence that significantly different reflectance properties would be 
manifested within that narrow range of infrared wavelengths? Would a 
two hundred nanometer range be sufficient to avoid unduly restricting 
manufacturer's choice of equipment? Is there any reason to believe that 
manufacturers would prefer to have infrared devices operating at 
different parts of the infrared spectrum? Are there any data showing 
that devices in other areas of the spectrum would provide an equivalent 
level of safety?
    D. Would the 16 degree angle of incidence/reflection used in the 
Prospects study be appropriate for testing the reflectance of 
materials? Are there any data indicating that the angle is critical to 
the strength of either the reflection or scattering components of the 
detected light? Are other angles more appropriate?
    E. NHTSA is proposing that compliance testing be done in direct 
sunlight so that the in-vehicle sensors are exposed to the highest 
possible background ``noise'' level of extraneous infrared light. This 
should make the test more demanding because small differences in the 
amount of infrared radiation reaching the detector should be harder to 
perceive against a higher background level. NHTSA requests comment on 
whether this is a valid assumption and whether other extraneous factors 
can affect the safe functioning of such in-vehicle infrared detection 
systems.
    F. The safety of children depends on driver supervision when power 
windows close in the modes permitted by section S4. The standard allows 
window closing with the ignition key in the ``accessory'', as well as 
in the ``on'' and ``start'' positions. Drivers may be tempted to leave 
unattended children in a vehicle with the key in the ``accessory'' 
position in order to operate the vent fan or the radio, failing to 
maintain supervision of the power windows. Drivers need to supervise 
children in the rear seat, but vehicles are not required to have a 
driver controlled lock-out of the rear power windows. Many vehicles are 
designed to avoid these potential problems. What current production 
vehicles have power window operation with the key in the ``accessory'' 
position or have rear power windows without a driver controlled lock-
out? Do they present safety problems needing regulatory attention? Is 
there any evidence of a safety problem?
    G. The standard does not regulate the express-up closing mode which 
requires

[[Page 28129]]

only a momentary switch contact rather than continuous activation to 
close the window. Should windows that have the express-up operation be 
prohibited from closing in the modes specified in S4, which presume 
driver supervision? What production vehicles, if any, have express-up 
window operation and on which windows is it applied? Is there any 
evidence that express-up windows represent a safety problem?
    NHTSA is proposing to make the proposed amendments effective 30 
days after publication of a final rule. Compliance with the 
requirements would be required by manufacturer's offering infrared 
reflectance-based window systems on the same date. NHTSA believes that 
there would be good cause for such an effective date since the 
amendments would not impose any new requirements but instead relieve a 
restriction.

VIII. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

A. Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures

    This rulemaking document was not reviewed under E.O. 12866, 
``Regulatory Planning and Review.'' This action has been determined to 
be ``non-significant'' under the Department of Transportation's 
regulatory policies and procedures. The proposed amendments would not 
impose any new requirements, but simply provide additional detail to 
the test procedures so that a new technology may be tested, thus 
allowing manufacturers to certify vehicles employing these technologies 
as meeting the existing requirements. Therefore, the impacts of the 
proposed amendments would be so minor that a full regulatory evaluation 
is not required.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    NHTSA has also considered the impacts of this notice under the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act. I hereby certify that this proposed rule 
would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of 
small entities. As explained above, the rule would not impose any new 
requirements but would instead relieve a restriction resulting from a 
lack of specificity in the current requirements. The infrared sensing 
technologies that may be permitted as a result of this proposal are 
only likely to be offered on a small number of vehicles produced by 
major automobile manufacturers.

C. Paperwork Reduction Act

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-
511), there are no requirements for information collection associated 
with this proposed rule.

D. Executive Order 12612 (Federalism)

    NHTSA has analyzed this proposal in accordance with the principles 
and criteria contained in E.O. 12612, and has determined that this 
proposed rule would not have sufficient federalism implications to 
warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.

E. Civil Justice Reform

    This proposed rule would 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.

IX. Submission of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit comments on the proposal. 
It is requested but not required that 10 copies be submitted.
    Comments must not exceed 15 pages in length (See 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. See 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 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. Comments on the proposal 
will be available for inspection in the docket. 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 self-addressed, 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, Motor vehicle safety, Motor vehicles.

    In consideration of the foregoing, it is proposed that 49 CFR part 
571 be amended as follows:

PART 571--FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS

    1. The authority citation for part 571 of Title 49 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.

    2. Section 571.118 would be amended as follows:
    a. S3 is amended by adding a new definition in alphabetical order.
    b. S5 is revised.
    c. S6 is added.
    d. Figure 2 is added to the end of the section, following Figure 1.
    The additions and revisions would read as follows:


Sec. 571.118  Standard No. 118; Power-operated window, partition, and 
roof panel systems.

* * * * *
    S3. Definitions.
* * * * *
    Infrared reflectance means the ratio of intensity of infrared light 
reflected and scattered by a flat sample of the test rod material, to 
the intensity of infrared light incident on that material, as measured 
by the apparatus shown in Figure 2.
* * * * *
    S5. (a) A power operated window, partition, or roof panel system 
that meets the requirements in paragraphs (1) through (2)(iii) may 
close in

[[Page 28130]]

circumstances other than those specified in S4--
    (1) Except as specified in S5(b), while closing, the window, 
partition or roof panel system must halt and reverse direction either 
before
    (i) Contacting, or
    (ii) Exerting a squeezing force of 100 newtons or more on a semi-
rigid cylindrical rod that has the properties described in S6(b), and 
that is placed through the window, partition or roof panel system 
opening at any location, in the manner described in S6(a); and
    (2) Upon such reversal, the window, partition or roof panel system 
must open to one of the following positions, at the manufacturer's 
option:
    (i) A position that is at least as open as the position at the time 
closing was initiated;
    (ii) A position that is not less than 125 millimeters more open 
than the position at the time the window reversed direction; or
    (iii) A position that permits a semi-rigid cylindrical rod that is 
200 mm in diameter to be placed through the opening at the same contact 
point(s) as the rod described in S5(a)(1).
    (b) A closing window, partition, or roof panel system need not 
reverse direction as required in S5(a)(1) if it can halt upon entry of 
any portion of a 15 mm cylindrical test rod at any location within a 
zone bounded by:
    (i) The interior surface of the closed window, partition, or roof 
panel,
    (ii) A surface 50 mm inboard of that surface,
    (iii) The portion of the window, partition, or roof panel frame 
that the window, partition, or roof panel closes against, and
    (iv) A surface 100 mm from that part of the frame.
    (c) If a vehicle uses the principle of proximity detection by 
infrared reflection to halt the powered window, partition, or roof 
panel before it contacts the test rod, the infrared source shall 
project infrared light at a nominal wavelength of not less than 850 and 
not more than 1050 nm.

S6. Test procedures for determining compliance with S5.

    (a)(1) For testing power window, partition, or sunroof systems 
designed to detect contact with the test rod, place the test rod 
through the window, partition, or roof panel opening from the inside of 
the vehicle such that the cylindrical surface of the rod contacts any 
part of the structure with which the window, partition, or roof panel 
mates. Typical placements of test rods are illustrated in Figure 1. 
Attempt to shut the power window, partition, or roof panel.
    (2) For testing power window, partition, or sunroof systems 
designed to detect the proximity of the test rod using infrared 
reflectance and to halt the powered window, partition, or roof panel 
before it contacts the test rod, this test is conducted with the 
vehicle in direct sunlight. Place a stationary test rod anywhere in the 
window, partition, or roof panel opening, with the window, partition, 
or roof panel in any position. Attempt to close the window, partition, 
or roof panel. Remove the test rod. Fully open the window, partition, 
or roof panel and then begin to close it. While the window, partition, 
or roof panel is closing, move a test rod so that it approaches the 
window, partition, or roof panel, or its frame, in any orientation from 
the interior of the vehicle.
    (b) Test rods.
    (1) Test rods are of cylindrical shape in the range of diameter 
from 4 mm to 200 mm, except that a single 15 mm diameter rod shall be 
used to test power window, partition, or sunroof systems that detect 
the proximity of a test rod using infrared reflectance.
    (2) For testing power window, partition, or sunroof systems that 
detect contact with the test rod, the force-deflection ratio of the 
test rod is not less than 65 N/mm for a rod 25 mm or smaller in 
diameter, and not less than 20 N/mm for a rod larger than 25 mm in 
diameter.
    (3) For testing power window, partition, or sunroof systems that 
detect the proximity of the test rod using infrared reflectance, the 
test rod shall meet the following requirements:
    (i) The infrared reflectance of the rod surface material is not 
less than 0.7 percent, when measured using the apparatus shown in 
Figure 2.
    (ii) The infrared reflectance of the rod surface material is 
measured using a flat sample and an infrared light source and sensor 
operating at a nominal wavelength of 950 nm.
    (iii) The intensity of incident infrared light is determined using 
a mirror of nominally 100 percent reflectance mounted in place of the 
sample.
    (iv) Measurements of the test rod surface sample and the mirror are 
corrected to remove the contribution of infrared light reflected and 
scattered from the sample holder and other parts of the apparatus 
before the computation of the ratio.
* * * * *
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P

[[Page 28131]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04JN96.008



    Issued on: May 29, 1996.
Barry Felrice,
Associate Administrator for Safety Performance Standards.
[FR Doc. 96-13864 Filed 6-3-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-C