[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