[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 222 (Friday, November 15, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 58504-58507]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-29368]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 571

[Docket No. 96-117, N.1]


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

RIN 2127-AG36
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This document responds to a petition for rulemaking from 
Michael Garth Moore, Esq. requesting two amendments to Standard No. 
118, Power-operated window, partition, and roof panel systems. This 
document denies one request, but grants the other. It denies the 
petitioner's request to commence rulemaking to require that all power 
windows automatically reverse power when they encounter resistance 
because the agency has concluded that such a requirement would be 
unreasonably costly. This document grants the petitioner's other 
request and proposes to require each power operated window, interior 
partition, and roof panel in a motor vehicle to be equipped with a 
switch designed so that contact by a form representing a child's knee 
would not cause the window, partition or panel to close.

DATES: Comments are due January 14, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Comments should refer to the Docket Number referenced above 
and must be submitted to: Docket Section, Room 5109, 400 Seventh 
Street, SW, Washington, DC 20590. (Docket hours are from 9:30 a.m. to 
4:00 p.m.). Do not send originals of comments to any person named 
below.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

(Technical information) Richard Van Iderstine, Office of Safety 
Performance Standards, NHTSA (Phone: 202-366-5280; FAX: 202-366-4329);
    (Legal information) Paul Atelsek, Office of Chief Counsel, NHTSA 
(Phone: 202-366-2992; FAX: 202-366-3820).

[[Page 58505]]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background Information
II. Petition for Rulemaking
III. Agency Determination
    A. Mandatory Automatic Reversal Feature
    B. Special Switches

I. Background Information

    Standard No. 118 specifies requirements for power operated window, 
partition, and roof panel systems 1 to minimize the likelihood of 
death or injury from their accidental operation. It applies to 
passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, and trucks with a 
gross vehicle weight rating of 4536 kilograms or less.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The term ``power window'' is used throughout this document 
to include all power operated windows, interior partitions and roof 
panels.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Standard No. 118 has two sets of requirements: One addressing 
operating mechanisms whose design is such that one can presume they 
will be operated only when a driver is present or close enough to a 
vehicle to supervise children inside and another addressing mechanisms 
whose design is such that the presence of child supervision cannot be 
presumed. Paragraph S4 of the standard lists specific conditions under 
which power windows may close without further restriction because 
driver presence can be presumed. The most familiar condition is the 
presence of the ignition key in the ``on'', ``start'' or ``accessory'' 
position. The other listed conditions include actuation after the key 
is removed but before either front door has opened and the use of short 
range remote controls requiring continuous activation.
    Paragraph S5 addresses window operating mechanisms which can be 
operated in circumstances in which adult supervision cannot be presumed 
by requiring an automatic window reversal safety feature to prevent 
high squeezing forces on persons caught in a closing window. This 
paragraph responds to industry interest in using remote controls of 
unrestricted range and automatic window closing devices. It also 
contains a provision stating that windows using this feature are not 
subject to the window closing restrictions of paragraph S4. While the 
agency is not aware of any vehicle presently equipped with a window 
reversal system certified to comply with paragraph S5, it presumes that 
industry is designing practical systems that will be certified with 
this provision in the future.

II. Petition for Rulemaking

    On September 26, 1995, Michael Garth Moore, an attorney in 
Hilliard, OH, petitioned NHTSA to amend Standard No. 118 in two ways. 
First, the petitioner requested that the agency require all power 
windows be equipped with the automatic reversal safety feature of 
paragraph S5 of Standard No. 118. Currently, as noted above, the 
requirement for an automatic reversal safety feature applies only to 
power windows designed to be closed with remote controls of 
unrestricted range and to power windows equipped with automatic closing 
devices. Mr. Moore stated that automatic reversal features are proven 
technology and economically feasible for mandatory installation. The 
petitioner further stated that while it is difficult to determine the 
magnitude of the child injury/fatality problem, preventing even one 
catastrophic injury or fatality is warranted, given the minimal costs 
associated with such a requirement.
    Mr. Moore's second request was that the agency modify the Standard 
to prevent inadvertent closure of power windows. The petitioner 
believed that if its request were adopted, inadvertently placing 
pressure on the area of the controls would not cause power windows to 
close, unless the vehicle occupant applied the pressure with his or her 
fingers in a manner intended to operate the window. To accomplish this, 
Mr. Moore asked the agency to require that power window switches meet 
two requirements. First, he asked that manufacturers be required to 
protect the switches either by shielding them or by placing them in a 
less accessible location, such as in a recess. Second, he asked that 
the manufacturers design switches so that ``pressure on any control can 
only cause the window/partition/roof panel to open'' thereby preventing 
inadvertent window closure. The petitioner did not specify the 
circumstances about which he was concerned (i.e., when the key was in 
the accessory position). The petitioner claimed that such features 
would protect a child left in a vehicle with the engine running or with 
the key in the accessory position, since the child would no longer be 
able to inadvertently close a power window by kneeling or standing on 
the arm rest or console and contacting the switch. The petitioner was 
concerned that there was a risk of death or severe injury if the 
inadvertent closing occurs while a child's head or limb is protruding 
from the window or sunroof opening.

III. Agency Determination

A. Mandatory Automatic Reversal Feature

    After reviewing Mr. Moore's request to require that all powered 
windows be equipped with an automatic reversal feature, NHTSA has 
determined that such a requirement would be unreasonably expensive and 
not practicable with present technology. Based on discussions with 
manufacturers, the agency estimates that the consumer cost of the 
present automatic window reversal device is approximately $100 per 
window for force sensing technology. The cost for a vehicle with four 
power windows would thus be $400. The petitioner did not provide any 
information to substantiate his claim that such automatic reversal 
systems are less costly. Also, the present devices prevent reliable 
window closure in the presence of snow, ice, and even the friction of 
cold or tight weatherstripping. Consequently, the present window 
reversal safety devices operate only during express-up window closure 
and are overridden by the normal closure mode.
    The compliance costs of a performance requirement takes on greatly 
added significance when it is considered for adoption as a universal 
mandatory requirement as opposed to a requirement associated with a 
compliance option, especially a relatively rarely selected option. In 
the latter case, a manufacturer can decide whether to choose that 
option and assume the costs of the requirements associated with it. For 
example, Standard No. 118 permits manufacturers to design power windows 
to close through the operation of remote controls of unrestricted range 
or weather sensors if the manufacturers equip those windows with a 
complying automatic reversal system. When such a requirement is 
included in a standard as a condition to choosing a particular option, 
the cost effectiveness of the requirement is not a primary issue.
    In the former case, a manufacturer cannot choose not to bear the 
cost. Although manufacturers technically could choose not to provide 
power windows, the realities of the market are that this is not really 
a choice available to manufacturers with respect to many models, 
particularly the upper end ones. For those models, the petitioner's 
request to require that all power windows be equipped with automatic 
reversal systems is an example of a universal mandatory requirement. In 
the context of such a requirement, cost effectiveness is a primary 
issue as it bears on the requirement's satisfaction of the statutory 
requirements for practicability and reasonableness.
    The purpose of paragraph S5's automatic reversal requirement is to 
make it possible to provide

[[Page 58506]]

manufacturers with more design freedom regarding additional methods for 
closing power windows by ensuring that those methods meet minimum 
levels of safety. Manufacturers have been able to take only limited 
advantage of that freedom because of the technological limitations and 
high costs of currently developed automatic reversal systems. For 
example, the most expensive models of several German luxury automobiles 
have express-up power windows with an automatic reversal device, but 
these devices operate on the principle of force sensing and cannot 
satisfy the petitioner's expectations for several reasons.
    The devices cause the closure force of windows to be limited when 
they are in the express-up mode, but a force low enough to protect 
passengers is insufficient to close the windows reliably. Snow, ice, 
and even the friction of cold or tight weatherstripping can prevent 
window closure. Consequently, the reversal device is disabled during 
the normal speed operation of the window to ensure closure, and it is 
not used on rear side windows. Also, the automatic reversal devices in 
these German automobiles were designed to conform to a German 
performance standard that affords less protection to small limbs than 
does Section S5 of Standard No. 118, because it allows considerable 
window movement after an obstruction is encountered. Therefore, the 
present technology for window reversal fails to deliver both the safety 
performance desired by the petitioner and the practicability to close 
windows under common driving conditions.
    Based on the above considerations, NHTSA has concluded that the 
present technology for automatic window reversal does not provide the 
safety performance desired by the petitioner. Further, it would not be 
practicable to redesign that technology so as to provide that 
performance and retain the ability to close windows under certain 
common conditions, such as ice and snow. Finally, regardless of the 
performance limitations of the present technology, the cost of 
complying with a mandatory requirement is currently too great. 
Accordingly, the agency denies the request for rulemaking concerning 
automatic reversal systems.

B. Special Switches

    After reviewing Mr. Moore's request to amend Standard No. 118 with 
respect to shielding the switch which operates a power window, NHTSA 
has decided to propose amending the Standard. Specifically, the agency 
is proposing that, if a switch used to close a power operated window is 
contactable by a rigid spherical ball 25 mm (1'') in diameter, pressing 
that ball in a nondestructive way against the switch in any direction 
shall not cause the window to close. As detailed below, a 25 mm ball is 
considered by the agency to be generally representative of the bent 
knee of a child under the age of six. The agency believes that this 
proposed requirement would accomplish goals of the petitioner's request 
to protect against the inadvertent closure of powered windows. The 
agency requests comments about the appropriateness of this proposed 
requirement and whether a 25 mm ball is representative of the size and 
shape of a hard, rounded object such as a child's knee or flat softer 
tissue such as a foot sole, arm, or and leg.
    NHTSA believes that the proposal is appropriate because children by 
their nature are curious, and they often put limbs and heads through 
open windows, while leaning, sitting, standing or kneeling on arm rests 
and consoles containing switches that control power windows and 
sunroofs. A simple switch improvement would reduce accidental window 
raising by children. Nevertheless, it cannot protect unsupervised 
children from the consequences of willful window activation.
    NHTSA has only limited information about the number of unattended 
children injured by closing windows. NHTSA does periodically receive 
calls from lawyers, doctors, and the public describing deaths and 
serious injuries of unattended children in power window accidents. 
However, the agency has not been able to determine conclusively the 
number of such accidents since they are not reported in the traffic 
accident tracking systems maintained by NHTSA. A one year census 
performed by the United States Consumer Product Safety Commission of 
selected hospital emergency rooms for power window injuries identified 
only 10 cases in which people were injured by the unintentional closing 
of a powered window. Most were of minor severity, and none involved 
unattended children. While this number of reported cases may be 
extrapolated to an estimate of about 500 injuries annually nationwide, 
it provides no information to assess the benefits that shielded 
switches would provide unattended children.
    NHTSA believes that the proposed requirement is practicable since a 
large proportion of newly designed vehicles with power windows already 
have switches that are recessed or that must be lifted rather than 
pressed in order to actuate the system to close. Given adequate lead 
time, the agency believes that the cost to manufacturers and their 
customers of installing power window switches that comply with this 
requirement would be negligible. From a human factors perspective, such 
switches are a simple expedient to address the most preventable as well 
as potentially serious type of power window accident.
    Notwithstanding the petitioner's request to require both that the 
switches be redesigned so that their mode or direction of operation 
2 guards against inadvertent window closing and that switches be 
either shielded or recessed, NHTSA has decided not to propose that 
manufacturers take both approaches, since either approach would be 
sufficient by itself to minimize the incidence of unintentional 
closings of power windows.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     2  An example is a switch that must be pulled or lifted in 
a inward direction, roughly perpendicular to the inside plane of the 
door.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NHTSA recognizes that the automotive industry has equipped many new 
vehicle lines with switches designed to prevent inadvertent window 
closure, but it is unaware of any industry consensus standard or other 
performance standard which influences the design of such switches. 
Absent such information, the agency has decided to propose a 25 mm ball 
contact test as a simple but objective performance criterion which it 
believes distinguishes the new safety switches from the older designs 
criticized by the petitioner. The test ball's size and shape represents 
the portions of the body that might inadvertently come in contact with 
a power window switch, e.g., hard, rounded objects such as a child's 
knee or flat soft tissue such a foot soles, arms and legs. The ball 
test would enable the agency to distinguish between safe and unsafe 
switch designs. The intent of the proposal is to increase the 
incorporation of good switch designs already in use rather than to 
require further switch design changes that might be unreasonably 
costly.
    In general, the agency would prefer to establish performance 
requirements for power window safety switches on the basis of industry 
consensus standards reflecting the present trend toward their use in 
many vehicles of newer design. Federal law generally requires Federal 
agencies to use technical standards that are developed or adopted by 
voluntary consensus standards bodies when such technical standards are 
available; see section 12(d) of Pub. L. 104-113. If relevant standards 
exist or are under consideration by organizations such as the Society 
of Automotive Engineers

[[Page 58507]]

(SAE) and the Japanese Society of Automotive Engineers (JSAE), then 
NHTSA anticipates relying on those consensus requirements in its 
further consideration of this issue.
    While there would be additional compliance and certification cost 
resulting from this requirement, such costs are minimized by the 
simplicity of the test and would be an incidental increment to the cost 
of power windows.

Proposed Effective Date

    The amendments would be effective three years after publication of 
the final rule in the Federal Register. A long lead time is appropriate 
to allow power window safety switches to become part of vehicle 
redesign plans, thereby eliminating the cost of altering existing 
vehicle designs to the extent possible.

Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures

    This rulemaking action was not reviewed under Executive Order 
12866. Further, it has been determined that the rulemaking action is 
not significant under Department of Transportation regulatory policies 
and procedures. The purpose of the rulemaking action is to accelerate a 
design trend already under way to make power window switches safe 
against inadvertent closure by children. It is anticipated that the 
costs of the final rule would be so minimal as not to warrant 
preparation of a full regulatory evaluation, especially if the lead 
time were sufficient to avoid changes in vehicles whose designs have 
been finalized.

National Environmental Policy Act

    NHTSA has analyzed this rulemaking action for the purposes of the 
National Environmental Policy Act. It is not anticipated that a final 
rule based on this proposal would have a significant effect upon the 
environment. The composition of switches for power windows would not 
change from those presently in production.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The agency has also considered the impacts of this rulemaking 
action in relation to the Regulatory Flexibility Act. For the reasons 
stated above and below, I certify that this rulemaking action would not 
have a significant economic impact upon a substantial number of small 
entities. Accordingly, no regulatory flexibility analysis has been 
prepared. Manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment, 
those affected by the rulemaking action, are generally not small 
businesses within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. 
Further, the long leadtime is expected to reduce the costs to 
negligible levels.

Executive Order 12612 (Federalism)

    This rulemaking action has also been analyzed in accordance with 
the principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 12612, and 
NHTSA has determined that this rulemaking action does not have 
sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a 
Federalism Assessment.

Civil Justice

    A final rule based on this proposal 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. 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.

Request for Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit comments on the proposal. 
It is requested 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 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. The 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, Tires.

    In consideration of the foregoing, 49 CFR part 571 would be amended 
as follows:

PART 571--FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS

    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.

    2. Section 571.118 would be revised by adding new section S6, which 
would read as follows:


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

* * * * *
    S6. Switches. Any switch that can be used to close a power operated 
window, partition, or roof panel system shall not cause such window, 
partition or system to begin closing when the switch is contacted in 
any non-destructive manner by a rigid spherical ball of 25 mm diameter.
* * * * *
    Issued on November 8, 1996.
L. Robert Shelton,
Associate Administrator for Safety Performance Standards.
[FR Doc. 96-29368 Filed 11-14-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P