[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 178 (Wednesday, September 15, 2004)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 55531-55546]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-20719]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 571

[Docket No. NHTSA 2004-19076]
RIN 2127-AF83


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

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This final rule amends the test procedures in our standard on 
power-operated window, partition, and roof panel systems to accommodate 
and ensure effective evaluation of new technology, specifically 
automatic reversal systems that operate by infrared reflectance. The 
standard's existing test procedures are more suitable for other types 
of technology (e.g., contact/force sensing systems and light beam 
interruption systems). In addition, the final rule clarifies the 
procedures for testing automatic reversal systems using a light beam 
interruption sensing method by specifying that rods used in testing 
such systems are not transparent.

DATES: Effective Date: The amendments made in this final rule are 
effective September 1, 2005. Voluntary compliance is permitted before 
that date.
    Petitions: If you wish to submit a petition for reconsideration for 
this rule, your petition must be received by November 1, 2004.

ADDRESSES: Petitions for reconsideration should refer to the docket 
number above and be submitted to: Administrator, Room 5220, National 
Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW., 
Washington, DC 20590.
    See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION portion of this document (Section 
IX; Rulemaking Analyses and Notice) for DOT's Privacy Act Statement 
regarding documents submitted to the agency's dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For non-legal issues, you may call Mr. 
Michael Pyne, Office of Crash Avoidance Standards (Telephone: 202-366-
2720) (Fax: 202-366-4329).

[[Page 55532]]

    For legal issues, you may call Mr. Eric Stas, Office of the Chief 
Counsel (Telephone: 202-366-2992) (Fax: 202-366-3820).
    You may send mail to these officials at National Highway Traffic 
Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Executive Summary
II. Background
III. Petition for Rulemaking from Prospects Corporation
IV. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Summary of Public Comments
V. The Final Rule
VI. Effective Date
VII. Benefits
VIII. Costs
IX. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

I. Executive Summary

    This final rule amends FMVSS No. 118, Power-Operated Window, 
Partition, and Roof Panel Systems, to specify test procedures for a new 
type of non-contact automatic reversal system. Specifically, these 
amendments accommodate and effectively evaluate automatic reversal 
systems based on infrared reflectance (IR) technology, which is capable 
of stopping and reversing a window prior to contacting an obstruction 
(e.g., a head or arm). NHTSA determined that the existing test 
procedures were inappropriate for IR-based systems.
    This rulemaking arose out of a petition for rulemaking submitted by 
Prospects Corporation, which the agency granted. Subsequently, NHTSA 
issued a notice of proposed rulemaking \1\ that proposed test 
procedures for testing of IR-based automatic reversal systems. We 
received seven public comments on this proposal. These comments were 
generally supportive of the rulemaking, but sought modification of 
certain technical aspects of the proposed amendments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 61 FR 28124 (June 4, 1996) (Docket No. NHSTA-2004-18944-6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based upon all available information, the agency has decided to 
issue a final rule that replaces the standard's current single set of 
test procedures for contact and non-contact reversal systems with one 
set for reversal systems designed to detect obstructions by physical 
contact or by light beam interruption and a second set for reversal 
systems designed to detect proximity of obstructions using infrared 
reflectance. The first set of requirements and procedures is the same 
as the current set; the second set is new.
    Thus, the final rule does not substantively modify or eliminate 
existing requirements in FMVSS No. 118 that relate to contact reversal 
systems based on force-sensing and non-contact reversal systems based 
on light beam interruption, nor does it change the circumstances under 
which power windows, roof panels, and partitions must automatically 
reverse direction, with one minor exception. This rulemaking amends the 
standard to specify that rods used for testing window reversal systems 
based on beam interruption are not transparent.
    Although a more detailed discussion is provided later in this 
notice, the following summarizes the provisions of this final rule 
related to IR-based automatic reversal systems. The final rule 
accommodates those systems by specifying that the agency will test them 
using a different rod than the ones used in testing other types of 
reversal systems. Instead of a rod with a constant diameter as small as 
4 mm, the agency will use a rod that has a tip with a length of 40 mm 
and a diameter of 10 mm, followed by a segment with a length of 300 mm 
and a diameter of 20 mm, followed by an additional length to permit the 
rod to be held during testing (see Figure 3).
    The final rule ensures the effective evaluation of IR-based 
reversal systems by specifying that the test rod will have a 
reflectance of 1 percent. We believe that these size and reflectance 
specifications are reasonably representative of a small child 
(approximately 15 months in age) whose arm is reaching for a window 
opening from inside a vehicle with hand held flat and on edge relative 
to the emitter/sensor of the IR system, and whose hand is covered by 
snug-fitting fabric. The covering of the hand represents, for example, 
the situation of a child whose sleeves are too long or who has pulled 
his or her sleeves down. When an IR system senses an obstacle with the 
above characteristics, it must halt the window's closing and reverse 
direction to one of the specified positions under S5.2 of the standard.
    These requirements apply to power-operated windows, roof panels, 
and interior partitions. However, we note that powered interior 
partitions represent a special case, because they can have occupant 
compartment space on both sides of the partition. Therefore, it is 
necessary that interior partitions be capable of reversing when 
obstacles enter from either side of the partition.
    We do not expect this final rule to have a significant impact on 
the standard's expected benefits and costs. Because these IR-based 
systems are required to meet the same performance requirements as other 
automatic reversal systems (although in a different manner), the level 
of benefits under the standard is expected to remain unchanged. As to 
costs, because IR-based automatic power window reversal systems are not 
required under FMVSS No. 118, there are not expected to be any 
compliance costs imposed by this final rule. Further, manufacturers may 
utilize any technology that meets the performance requirements in 
paragraph S5 of the standard as tested in accordance with the 
procedures in paragraph S7.

II. Background

    Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 118, Power-
Operated Window, Partition, and Roof Panel Systems, regulates power-
operated windows, partitions, and roof panels by specifying 
requirements for such systems designed to minimize the likelihood of 
death or injury from their inadvertent operation. Of particular 
concern, the standard addresses the threat to unsupervised children of 
being strangled or suffering limb-crushing injuries by closing power 
windows.\2\ The standard applies to passenger cars, multipurpose 
passenger vehicles, and trucks with a gross vehicle weight rating of 
4,536 kg (10,000 lbs.) or less.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ For the sake of simplicity, the preamble to this final rule 
collectively refers to these three types of systems as ``power 
windows.'' However, we note that amendments to the standard apply 
equally to powered partitions and roof panels as well.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FMVSS No. 118 has undergone periodic revision in order to 
accommodate technological developments related to power window systems. 
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 key was in the ignition and 
turned to the ``On,'' ``Start,'' or ``Accessory'' position, based upon 
the presumption that this precondition would ensure that a driver was 
present to supervise children. It also ensured that the driver is 
provided with a simple means of disabling the power windows of a parked 
vehicle (i.e., key removal).
    Over the years, however, paragraph S4 of the standard has been 
amended to permit power windows closing in situations in which the key 
is not in the ignition, but the existence of adult supervision could be 
presumed for other reasons. Most recently, in 1991, NHTSA issued a 
final rule that responded to the interest of manufacturers in offering 
remote controls for window closing (see 56 FR 15290 (April 16, 1991)). 
In doing so, the agency was mindful that the unrestricted allowance of 
remote

[[Page 55533]]

controls, especially ones that activated windows using radio frequency 
signals that 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 meters (m)). A longer range, up to 11 m, was permitted 
for remote controls that were operable only if there were an 
unobstructed line of sight between the control and the vehicle. (We 
note that the power windows of all vehicles sold in the U.S. are still 
linked to an ignition interlock or one of the exceptions under S4.)
    Further, in that rulemaking, the agency reasoned that the 
provisions permitting 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.\3\ If the system could 
sense a 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 necessary. Similarly, if the 
window closing system could sense a child's hand or head and reverse 
before making contact, supervision would not be necessary. Therefore, 
the agency also established a provision (S5) permitting power windows 
equipped with an automatic reversal system meeting certain performance 
requirements to be closed in any manner desired by the manufacturer 
(e.g., with or without a key). In addition, the rule permitted power 
windows equipped with such a system to be closed by remote controls of 
unrestricted range, as well as by sensors of adverse environmental 
conditions (e.g., devices to open and close windows automatically in 
response to heat and rain) because the automatic reversal system would 
provide protection in those situations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ At the time of the 1991 amendments to the standard, 
automatic reversal systems for power windows did not exist on U.S. 
vehicles. The most detailed comments on that rulemaking indicated 
that companies were contemplating reversal systems triggered by 
force measurement, and NHTSA assumed that manufacturers would 
produce power window automatic reversal systems based on force-
sensing technology. However, the development of automatic reversal 
systems has not proceeded as NHTSA has anticipated. NHTSA is not 
aware of any force-sensing systems currently being certified to meet 
FMVSS No. 118. Instead, manufacturers continue to certify their 
systems under paragraph S4 of the standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    S5 specifies a single set of performance requirements and test 
procedures for all automatic reversal systems. The systems must reverse 
a closing power window either before the window contacts a semi-rigid 
cylindrical rod from 4 mm to 200 mm in diameter or before it exerts a 
squeezing force of 100 Newtons on the rod. The rods represent portions 
of a person's body, ranging in size from infant fingers to juvenile 
heads, inserted in the window openings. Further, the systems are 
required to open the window to any one of several specified points for 
the purpose of enabling a child to remove his or her hand or head from 
the window opening.
    NHTSA worded S5 so as to allow the use of not only ``force-
sensing'' systems, but also ``proximity-sensing'' systems by allowing 
automatic reversal systems that reversed the power window at any time 
prior to contact with the test rods in response to a commenter on the 
proposed 1991 amendments. That commenter expressed interest in 
developing reversal systems triggered by the blockage of light by a 
child's body (the same principle used by automatic reversal mechanisms 
on some garage doors with remote controls).

III. Petition for Rulemaking From Prospects Corporation

    On November 4, 1994, Prospects Corporation (Prospects) submitted a 
petition for rulemaking \4\ to NHTSA requesting that the agency amend 
FMVSS No. 118 to provide alternative testing requirements for non-
contact automatic reversal systems. Prospects sought this change 
because the company had developed an automatic power window reversal 
system that operates on the principle of detecting the proximity of 
some portion of a person's body by sensing the reflection (instead of 
the blockage) of reflected infrared light. According to Prospects, the 
existing test procedure is inappropriate for non-contact automatic 
reversal systems that do not rely on light-blocking technology.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Docket No. NHTSA-2004-18944-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As described in its petition, the Prospects system employs an 
infrared emitter and a detector within the interior of the vehicle that 
are not aligned with one another. According to the petitioner, its 
system operates as follows. When no object is present in or near the 
plane of the window, the reflector receives a constant background level 
of infrared radiation reflected by the inside of the vehicle. In that 
situation, the window may close. However, when an occupant's head, hand 
or foot approaches the window, it will reflect a certain amount of 
additional radiation from the emitter to the detector. The detector 
senses the increase and electronically stops or reverses the window, 
even before the occupant's hand reaches the plane of the window.
    To work properly under a variety of circumstances, an IR system 
must be sufficiently sensitive to detect a variety of materials, such 
as skin, hair, and clothing fabrics. Different materials have different 
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.
    Prospects was correct that, in amending FMVSS No. 118, NHTSA had 
not contemplated non-contact reversal systems that use IR technology. 
As a result, the associated requirements and test procedures were not 
designed to accommodate and effectively evaluate such systems. For 
example, the standard currently does not specify the amount of 
reflectance of the test rods.
    NHTSA decided to grant the Prospects petition in order to 
facilitate the development and ensure the effective evaluation of 
automatic reversal systems based on IR principles, a potentially 
promising new technology. The agency believes that an IR system could 
provide safety benefits, because it does not require any contact 
between the window (or window frame) and an obstruction (e.g., a 
person's hand, arm, or head) in order to reverse.
    Because an IR-based system might not be able to detect a rod with 
constant diameter of 4 mm, and because such a system can detect light 
reflected from an area large enough to include a child's whole hand, 
the use of a rod representative of a child's hand would appropriately 
accommodate such a system. Because 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. To promote 
safety, test requirements should simulate unfavorable conditions that 
are likely to occur in a motor vehicle. Further, without a 
specification for test rod reflectance, results of tests conducted by

[[Page 55534]]

different laboratories or manufacturers are likely to be inconsistent. 
Therefore, the agency decided to initiate rulemaking to modify the test 
procedures for IR-based systems.

IV. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) and Response to Public 
Comments

The NPRM

    On June 4, 1996, NHTSA published a notice of proposed rulemaking 
(NPRM) in the Federal Register (61 FR 28124) proposing to amend FMVSS 
No. 118 to permit the use of an automatic reversal system based upon 
infrared reflectance technology. The NPRM was summarized in the NPRM 
itself as follows:

    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.

    The NPRM provided a detailed discussion of a number of relevant 
issues, including the size of the target inboard of the window plane, 
the reflectance of the target (discussing both testing methods and 
results), protection of persons outside the vehicle, the presumption of 
supervision, and the need for reversal. The notice also asked a series 
of seven questions, most of which related to the details for addressing 
the Prospects petition; however, two of the questions dealt with the 
topics of ``express-up'' operation (i.e., a closing mode which requires 
only momentary switch contact to close the window, rather than 
continuous activation) and the possibility of requiring a driver-
controlled rear lock-out of the rear power windows.
    Regarding the size of the target, the NPRM stated that because the 
existing standard does not specify the size of the portion of the test 
rod that is inboard of the window (i.e., the area in or near the plane 
of the window when it is closed), it does not specify one of the most 
important test conditions for the IR proximity detection system 
developed by the petitioner. The NPRM proposed 15 mm as a reasonable 
worst-case dimension for targets inboard of the plane of the window, 
which corresponds to the thickness of the edge view of a 15-month-old 
infant's hand, as reported by the petitioner. The agency considered 
this to be a reasonably conservative estimate, because newborn babies 
with somewhat smaller hands would be incapable of raising themselves up 
to an exposed position, and even the smallest hands would present a 
target wider than 15 mm in most orientations. Although the petitioner 
suggested a hand-shaped test rod, the agency tentatively decided that 
the use of cylindrical test rods remains preferable, because they are 
easier to manufacture and they remove the need to consider the 
orientation of the target along its axis.
    Regarding reflectance of the target, the agency proposed a minimum 
reflectance of 0.7 percent for the test rods, a conservative value that 
equals the minimum reflectance of black cotton/polyester. As discussed 
in the NPRM, ``reflectance'' is a critical concept for IR systems, with 
the term being defined as 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. 
As noted above, without a specification for test rod reflectance, the 
safety of an IR-based automatic reversal system could not be assessed, 
because use of a test rod with a higher reflectance than a child's hand 
might allow the system to pass NHTSA's compliance test even though the 
system might not be sufficiently sensitive to detect a child's hand 
placed in or near the window opening.
    The proposed value for test rod reflectance was based upon 
supplementary data provided by the petitioner. Because color affects 
reflectance, the reflective properties of skin of different shades and 
colors are important, as are the reflective properties of gloves and 
clothing, which may be more difficult to detect than bare skin. 
Consequently, the petitioner provided measurements of the infrared 
light reflected from human skin and a large variety of leathers and 
fabrics, using the following methodology.
    Measurements of reflectance were conducted by the petitioner 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.\5\ According to the petitioner, its reflectance 
testing was conducted as follows. 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, were 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.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Docket No. NHTSA-2004-18944-2.
    \6\ 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 that result in light reaching the sensor. Therefore, the 
term ``reflection'' is used in a broad sense to refer to all light 
reaching the sensor as a consequence of the presence of the sample.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In order to ensure that NHTSA's test procedures are as general and 
as design-independent as possible, the agency sought to propose 
requirements that express the infrared reflective properties of skin 
and other materials in terms that are not specific to a particular 
light source and sensor. Accordingly, we decided to propose 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 
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 specified a proposed angle of incidence and 
reflection (16 degrees) to be used when determining the reflectance of 
the test

[[Page 55535]]

rods, in order to avoid changes in the relative composition of 
reflected and scattered light from textured samples. We note that 
specifying these angles does not restrict vehicle design in any way, 
but only defines the parameters to be used when producing test rods.
    In conducting its testing, the petitioner measured the skin of 
Caucasian, African-American, and Asian persons at the back of the hand 
and at the palm, and the total range of reflectance was determined to 
be from 2.04 to 2.96 percent. The petitioner also tested 37 samples of 
potential skin coverings, including various colors, textures, and types 
of fabric and leather (e.g., wool, silk, cotton, polyester, and a 35% 
cotton/65% polyester blend). The range of reflectance for these samples 
was 0.70 to 6.09 percent, with the worst case being a black cotton/
polyester material. NHTSA's proposed reflectance level for the test 
rods was intended to provide protection in this worst-case scenario.
    In the NPRM, NHTSA also considered whether IR-based systems would 
provide protection to a person who is outside the vehicle and is 
reaching toward or into the vehicle. Such consideration is important 
because paragraph S5 of the Standard No. 118 relieves power window 
systems with automatic reversal from the presence-of-supervision-
assuring restrictions of S4. It cannot be assumed that an infrared 
proximity detector will operate on objects shielded by window glass, 
and thus, the proposal was drafted such that only portions of a 
person's body inside the window would be capable of triggering the 
system.
    However, the agency's analysis suggested that IR-based systems do 
not pose a great danger to persons outside of the vehicle. Although the 
agency recognized the possibility for abuse of the system (e.g., 
children on either side of the window playing ``chicken'' with the 
system), we stated our belief that that possibility is not serious 
enough to warrant declining to facilitate the use of power window 
systems with infrared sensors. This belief was 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. 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.
    In response to public concerns about the safety of the existing 
standard, we thought it appropriate to address such concerns in the 
NPRM, particularly because the proposal would make the standard more 
permissive. The agency expressed its intention, before proceeding to a 
final rule, to examine certain design possibilities, not prohibited by 
S4, that may reduce either the likelihood or the effectiveness of 
driver supervision. Specific examples include: (1) The possibility of 
windows closing when the ignition key is in the ``accessory,'' as well 
as the ``on'' and ``start'' positions, and (2) an ``express up'' 
closing mode, which requires only momentary switch contact rather than 
continuous activation to close the window.
    The NPRM also discussed the reversal requirement in the context of 
IR-based systems. 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 so that 
the person does not remain trapped by the window. However, because non-
contact window systems can detect the proximity of a person over a 
large interior space and can halt the window before the person enters 
the pinch zone, the NPRM proposed to exclude such systems from this 
reversal requirement. However, it was noted that systems with limited 
sensitivity must be able to reverse in order to avoid the possibility 
of trapping a child's head.
    Finally, NHTSA proposed to make the proposed amendments effective 
30 days after publication of a final rule, and manufacturers offering 
IR-based window systems would have to comply with the requirements on 
the same date. The agency stated that there would be good cause for 
such an effective date because the amendments would not impose any new 
requirements but would instead relieve a restriction.

Summary of Public Comments

Overview
    Comments on the NPRM were received from six organizations 
(Prospects Corporation, Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety, BMW of 
North America, Chrysler Corporation, Pektron Ltd., and Toyota Motor 
Corporate Services) and one individual (Mr. Thomas P. Flanagan).\7\ 
Issues raised by the commenters generally can be categorized into five 
key topics: (1) Size and shape of the test rods; (2) reflectance of the 
test rods; (3) material reflectance test methods; (4) sunlight and 
other ambient factors; and (5) need for reversal. These subject areas 
(corresponding to specific questions raised in the NPRM) each will be 
discussed in turn, along with a brief discussion of one or two 
unrelated comments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ All comments and other correspondence discussed in this 
notice are available under Docket No. NHTSA-2004-18944.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This notice also discusses additional clarifying information 
provided by the petitioner at the request of the agency after the 
comment period was over. That information was needed in order to 
supplement the petitioner's NPRM comments and to clarify a number of 
details.
Test Rod Size and Shape
    Only Prospects Corporation commented on the proposed size and shape 
of the test rods. In general, Prospects agreed with the intent of the 
NPRM to further refine the standard's test procedures to accommodate 
new types of detection systems, stating that requirements should focus 
on the safety of heads, necks, arms and hands. Prospects supported the 
agency's position in the NPRM that the smallest relevant obstruction 
that must be detected by an infrared reflectance system would not be a 
single finger, but a hand as a whole held on edge. Prospects again 
suggested that the agency should adopt a hand-shaped test device, but 
as we noted in the NPRM, in a worst-case scenario, a hand could be held 
flat and oriented to the sensor such that only the edge of the hand is 
exposed. Prospects acknowledged the possibility of a child's hand being 
oriented in this way, and it agreed that test rod orientation in 
compliance tests would be easier with a cylindrically shaped device.
    However, Prospects expressed concerns that the test requirements 
outlined in the proposal, in an attempt to be conservative, may be 
overly strict and could rule out further development of infrared 
reflection systems. Specifically, Prospects stated its belief that a 15 
mm test rod is conservative and that combined with a surface 
reflectance of 0.7 percent, the test would not be representative of any 
real world situation. The company stated that by combining the worst 
case values for the two key test rod characteristics (i.e., cross-
sectional diameter and IR) would make it nearly impossible for an IR-
based system to detect the test rod in all locations in a vehicle 
window opening. Further, Prospects argued that to the extent the 
proposed requirements retard the development of IR-based systems, the 
safety benefits of such non-contact systems may be lost (i.e., 
recognizing a person's head/neck/arm/hand before exerting a potentially 
injurious force).
    Ultimately, Prospects did incorporate the 15 mm cylindrical test 
rod size and

[[Page 55536]]

shape proposed in the NPRM into at least one of its own suggested 
options for amending FMVSS No. 118.
Infrared Reflectance of Test Rods
    The issue of test rod reflectance characteristics was discussed in 
the comments of both Prospects and Pektron. Pektron, a British firm 
that manufactures power window sensors, asked whether the petitioner 
had conducted exhaustive testing of materials to determine the lowest 
reflectance level. It also questioned whether it would be acceptable to 
use the petitioner's lowest measured reflectance level (0.7 percent, as 
proposed in the NPRM) without a safety factor.
    Prospects expressed concern about the low value of reflectance (0.7 
percent) proposed for the test rods in the NPRM. It instead suggested 
adoption of a test procedure incorporating a reflectance of 2.2 
percent, which was the lowest average reflectance measurement for a 
bare hand. Prospects reasoned that materials used for gloves would 
likely have an even higher reflective value.
    As mentioned above, Prospects stated that the material with a 0.7 
percent reflectance, on which the NPRM based its proposed reflectance 
value, was a very thin, 35 percent cotton/65 percent polyester blend 
that would not be appropriate for making gloves. Instead, the material 
was partially transparent, allowing infrared energy to pass through it 
easily. Prospects argued that the material with the second lowest 
reflectance (1.5 percent) also was not glove material.
    Prospects stated that the fabric used in gloves is thicker, and 
more importantly, has a more woven texture, especially on a microscopic 
level. For example, Prospects asserted that actual wool gloves would 
have reflectance signals that are approximately double the signal of 
the tested sample of thin, black wool. Color also makes a difference in 
terms of reflectance, as both of the above materials reported much 
higher reflectances for colors other than black.
    According to Prospects, the next lowest reflectance measurement was 
for a bare hand, which had a low value of 2.04 percent reflectance and 
a three-sample average of 2.2 percent. All of the other materials 
tested by the petitioner reported higher reflectance values. Based upon 
the above reasoning, Prospects expressed its belief that if the 
standard specifies a small diameter test rod designed to represent a 
child's finger or hand edge, then only the reflectance value of bare 
skin or materials likely to be worn on the hands should be considered 
when determining the reflectance of the test rods.
Test Rod Size and Reflectance Values in Combination
    The NPRM asked specific questions regarding whether the proposed 
test rod size and reflectance value are appropriate, when considered in 
combination. A follow-up question asked whether, under those 
circumstances, the prototype IR-based system developed by Prospects 
would be capable of detecting an obstruction at all points in a vehicle 
window opening.
    Prospects stated that under the proposed procedure (i.e., a 15 mm 
test rod combined with 0.7 percent surface reflectance), it would be 
nearly impossible for the system to detect an obstruction in all 
locations of a vehicle window opening. Specifically, Prospects stated 
that at the furthest corner from the IR sensor (i.e., an extreme 
standoff distance of 750 mm (30 inches)), the IR signal reflected from 
an obstruction would likely be too weak for the system to distinguish 
from background levels. Prospects argued that it is highly unlikely 
that these worst-case conditions of test rod size, reflectance, and 
location would occur simultaneously, and therefore, the test is 
unnecessarily strict.
    Prospects also stated that in a real world situation, it is 
unlikely that a hand would continuously be held in a worst-case 
orientation, and that eventually, the window itself is likely to push 
on the hand, change its orientation, and expose a larger profile to the 
sensor. As a result of such contact in such unusual situations, it is 
argued that the IR-based system would automatically reverse the window.
Reflectance Measurement Technique
    Prospects and Pektron both commented on the NPRM's proposed method 
for measuring the characteristic reflectance of the test rod material 
and whether a nominal test value of 950 nm wavelength (i.e., in a range 
of 950 nm +mn; 100 nm) is appropriate.
    Regarding wavelength test values, Prospects commented that it had 
chosen infrared devices operating at the 950 nm wavelength in order to 
maximize the sensitivity of its current system. However, the company 
expressed a willingness to test at other wavelengths outside this 
corridor, if the agency so requests.
    Regarding the 16-degree angle of incidence/reflection used to 
measure the IR of materials, Pektron commented that scatter effects 
might influence the validity of reflectance values measured by the 
techniques proposed under the NRPM. It stated that while the proposed 
technique might be acceptable for obtaining a reference level from a 
mirror, it may not adequately account for the differing scatter 
characteristics of tested materials. Pektron also argued that relative 
measurements could vary depending upon the absolute size of the exposed 
sample area in the test fixture as a result of scatter. However, 
Pektron did not provide any quantitative information to support its 
assertion, nor did it suggest an alternative test method.
    Pektron commented that the installed angle of the IR emitter and 
receiver may be important, but is currently undefined. However, 
Prospects stated that the 16-degree angle was not intended to represent 
the actual angle between the IR emitter and the sensor to be used in a 
vehicle. Although the system was initially tested at a 16-degree angle, 
Prospects stated that upon actual installation, the angle would be 
expected to be closer to zero degrees, thereby resulting in greater 
direct reflection from obstructions. Prospects added that it 
subsequently ran verification tests, during which the incidence/
reflection angle was adjusted to 10 degrees and 20 degrees. According 
to Prospects, while the absolute reflectance intensities did change, 
the relationship among the values of the various materials remained 
approximately the same.
Need for Reversal
    Both Advocates and Mr. Flanagan commented on the NPRM's proposed 
exclusion of IR reflectance systems from the automatic reversal 
requirement of paragraph S5 of the standard. The proposed exclusion was 
premised on the fact that an IR-based system could halt the closing 
motion of a power window prior to an obstruction entering the window 
opening. Because these systems can activate before entrapment can 
occur, it was tentatively decided that there would be no need for the 
window to reverse direction.
    Advocates generally supported the NPRM's position on reversal for 
IR-based systems, provided those systems operate with proven 
reliability. However, Advocates stated that for windows with express-up 
capability, the reversal requirement should be maintained, regardless 
of the type of obstacle sensing device installed on the vehicle.
    Mr. Flanagan opposed excluding IR-based systems from the reversal 
requirement of S5, arguing that such a

[[Page 55537]]

change could endanger children.\8\ He commented that the size of the 
100 mm vertical dimension of the detection zone specified in S5(b) of 
the proposed amendment is inadequate. To support his contention, Mr. 
Flanagan described two scenarios in which a child might still be 
injured unless IR-based systems are subject to a reversal requirement. 
In the first, he described a situation in which a child's head could 
become entrapped in a vehicle window opening, even if the window was 
equipped with an IR-based detection system that complied with the 
NPRM's proposed detection zone requirements. Mr. Flanagan also 
described a scenario in which a child sitting in the vehicle's window 
opening could be pushed backward out of the vehicle and onto the ground 
by the closing window.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Further, Mr. Flanagan commented that the agency should 
concentrate on requiring push-pull switches and eliminating the use 
of ``rocker'' or ``toggle'' type switches. NHTSA has addressed that 
topic in a separate rulemaking (see Docket No. NHTSA-2004-17216).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Testing in Sunlight
    BMW, Pektron, and Prospects all commented on the issue of testing 
of IR-based systems in sunlight. Generally, the commenters supported 
the idea of testing in sunlight, but they argued that the requirement, 
as presented in the NPRM, was not sufficiently objective and that test 
results could be influenced by a variety of factors.
    BMW stated that the proposed regulatory text regarding testing in 
sunlight is not specific enough to be objective. Instead, BMW 
recommended that the standard specify a uniform sunlight simulation in 
order to eliminate discrepancies in defining direct sunlight.
    Pektron stated that the proposed rule's test requirements do not 
offer sufficient detail, such as specifying the direction from which 
the sun would be coming. Pektron also commented that a constant, 
ambient level of sunlight is not as difficult for a system to cope with 
as a rapidly changing level as might occur when a vehicle is passing by 
trees or fences.
    Although Prospects agreed that testing should include the effect of 
sunlight, it stated that test results in natural sunlight may be 
inconsistent, because natural sunlight varies with incidence angle and 
intensity, which in turn, depends upon the time of year, time of day, 
longitude, and latitude. Prospects recommended that NHTSA solve these 
potential problems by defining a laboratory test using artificial 
sunlight. In its comments, Prospects stated that a repeatable test 
method could be developed by specifying light source intensity, 
incidence angle, and spectral content, although recommended values for 
these parameters were not provided.
    Regarding suitable specifications for indoor solar simulation when 
conducting testing, Prospects stated that the worst case for sunlight 
interference occurs when the sun's rays are perpendicular to the 
system's sensor, and it recommended a lighting simulation based on the 
following. First, Prospects stated that, at the longitude and latitude 
of its offices in Massachusetts, a worst-case angle occurs at 
approximately 5 p.m. (time of year unspecified). The measured solar 
intensity at that time was said to be 35,300 lux with a handheld meter. 
In its own laboratory experimentation, Prospects subjected its system 
to 35,000 lux by using two 1M candlepower lamps placed 2.5 meters from 
the sensor. (Prospects did not specify the type of lamps, nor did it 
mention what the spectral content of their lighting arrangement was 
compared to natural sunlight, particularly in the infrared range.)
Operation With Key in Accessory Position, Express-Up Operation, and 
Rear Window Lock-Out
    As discussed below, commenters generally opposed agency amendment 
of FMVSS No. 118 in the areas of power window operation with the key in 
the accessory position, express-up operation, and rear window lock-out, 
as part of this rulemaking. However, different reasons were offered, as 
discussed below.
    Advocates opposed operation of power windows when the ignition 
switch is in the accessory position, a feature that currently exists on 
some vehicle models. Further, Advocates stated that some vehicles 
permit power window operation for a period of time without a key in the 
ignition, providing the example of a Mitsubishi passenger car that has 
windows with retained power operation for thirty seconds after key 
removal (unless the passenger door is opened, at which time power 
window operation is immediately canceled).
    Regarding the NPRM's questions about rear window lock-out, 
Advocates strongly supported giving drivers the capability of locking 
out rear power windows to prevent use by children. However, Advocates 
stated that express-up power closure of side windows should be 
permitted only if the system can detect an intervening obstacle (even a 
small child's finger) and stop closure before contact is made.
    Advocates stated that the agency lacks appropriate safety 
information on which to base a specific proposal in the areas of 
ignition switch settings, lock-out of rear seat power windows, and 
express-up operation. Accordingly, Advocates argued that NHTSA should 
not move to a final rule in these areas without an adequate basis for 
rulemaking, including issuance of proposed regulatory text for public 
review and comment.
    Mr. Flanagan stated his opinion that the safety risk increases when 
an unsupervised child is no longer afforded the protection of an 
ignition lock-out, and he also argued that adequate child supervision 
should not be presumed, citing numerous cases of children being killed 
or injured by power windows, even with adults present. Mr. Flanagan 
stated his belief that remote operation of power windows is unsafe, and 
he advocated prohibiting express-up window operation because it is 
prone to inadvertent actuation, especially if operated by remote 
control.
    In their comments, vehicle manufacturers generally opposed 
regulation in the areas of ignition switch settings, lock-out of rear 
seat power windows, and express-up operation. BMW stated that there is 
not a recognized safety problem and that regulation in these areas 
would not produce any quantifiable safety benefits. BMW stated that its 
passenger cars have had rear power window lock-out for twenty years, 
and it commented that express-up operation is already adequately 
regulated under the existing conditions of S4 of the standard. Chrysler 
also commented that the express-up feature should be permitted as a 
manufacturer design option. Toyota also expressed opposition to any 
amendment of the standard that would prohibit either power window 
closure with the key in the accessory position or express-up closure, 
because Toyota believes that the standard currently permits and should 
continue to permit these two operations.
Other Comments and Issues
    Pektron commented that the fail-safe aspects of an IR reflectance 
system should be considered, and it stated that in order to achieve a 
fail-safe mode for the petitioner's system, it would be necessary to 
confirm the presence of an active beam. Pektron also commented 
regarding the potential for radio frequency interference and 
electromagnetic compatibility failures, and it recommended that a power 
window system should be required to tolerate a minimum level of ambient 
electromagnetic radiation.
    BMW stated that, under the current standard, any non-contact system 
could

[[Page 55538]]

be certified for compliance under S5 as long as the system could detect 
the test rods and reverse as required. However, BMW commented that, as 
proposed, the amendment to the standard would limit the applicability 
of the existing test procedures to contact detection systems, but at 
the same time, the new test procedures for non-contact detection 
systems would limit such systems to those using IR reflectance 
technology. Accordingly, BMW recommended that any new provisions added 
to the standard for non-contact systems should apply equally to all 
types of non-contact systems, whether or not they utilize IR 
reflectance technology. Pektron also urged the agency to afford equal 
treatment to other types of non-contact automatic reversal systems, 
including its beam blockage system.
    Pektron commented that any final rule amending FMVSS No. 118 should 
give equal consideration to other types of non-contact systems, such as 
its own IR beam interruption system. In addition, Prospects stated that 
the same test specified for IR reflectance systems should be required 
for systems with infrared emitters and receivers in line with each 
other (i.e., systems that use beam interruption rather than 
reflectance).

Subsequent Correspondence With Petitioner

    As mentioned earlier, the agency contacted Prospects after the 
close of the comment period to obtain additional information in order 
to clarify three unanswered questions related to testing of IR-based 
systems. Both the agency's letter and the company's response have been 
filed in the docket.\9\ The first question posed by the agency involved 
the influence of sunlight on testing of IR reflectance systems, a topic 
discussed earlier in this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Docket No. NHTSA-2004-18944-15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The agency's second question asked what the aggregate reflectance 
would be if a hand were covered by material with the lowest measured 
reflectance (i.e., 0.7 percent for the 35-percent cotton/65-percent 
polyester fabric). We sought this information because the fabric by 
itself, without a hand behind it, would never need to be detected. 
Therefore, the lowest reflectance value that is significant for 
occupant safety is that which represents a hand covered by the fabric. 
If the low reflectance of that fabric was due in part to its 
translucency, then the presence of a hand having higher reflectance 
behind the fabric might increase the measured value.
    According to Prospects' response, placing a hand behind the 35-
percent cotton/65-percent polyester fabric did result in an increase in 
measured reflectance from 0.7 percent to nearly 1.0 percent.
    The agency's third question asked what would be a reasonable safety 
factor for the reflectance value. According to available data, the 
lowest reflectance of human skin in a single measurement was reported 
as 2.04 percent. Consequently, we believe that two-percent reflectance 
for the test rods would be an inappropriate minimum value, because it 
would leave no margin of safety to account for the presence of gloves 
or clothing that might decrease overall reflectance.
    Prospects stated that it is very difficult to quantify a safety 
factor for an IR reflectance system, but the petitioner provided a 
number of reasons why it believes that a reasonable safety factor is 
already included in the test specifications included in its earlier 
comments (i.e., 15 mm test rod diameter with 2.2 percent test rod 
reflectance). It stated that the black 35-percent cotton/65-percent 
polyester fabric with a 0.7 percent reflectance was an outlier in the 
data compared to other materials tested. Samples of the same fabric in 
other colors had reflectances of 2.8 percent or more. Similarly, 
Prospects stated that its measurement of human skin reflectance ranged 
as high as 2.89 percent, with only one measurement as low as 2.04 
percent. According to Prospects, the next lowest skin reflectance 
measurement, 2.23 percent, was considerably higher than the 2.04 
percent low value, and the average for all the skin measurements was 
higher still. Thus, Prospects argued that 2.2 percent is a conservative 
reflectance value that would provide an adequate margin of safety.
    In its supplemental submission, Prospects also elaborated on the 
characteristics of the detection area covered by the IR sensor. 
Prospects had previously stated that the detection area of the IR-based 
system installed on a vehicle would be three dimensional rather than 
planar. The petitioner stated that the detection area would extend a 
considerable distance into the vehicle occupant compartment and that 
the system could detect objects anywhere inside of the three-
dimensional space.
    Information provided by Prospects suggests that the width of the 
detection zone would be substantial compared with the dimensions of a 
child's hand, and the detection capability would be greatest near the 
top of the window opening (farther from the sensor) where the pinch 
potential for small appendages is greatest. Prospects stated that the 
width of the detection zone for its system would be at least 15 cm (5.9 
inches).

V. The Final Rule 10
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Although there has been a long interval between the NPRM 
and the resulting final rule, we have decided to proceed now with 
issuing a final rule, instead of seeking new comments, for several 
reasons. First, the technology for automatic power window reversal 
systems based upon IR reflectance remains available in the 
marketplace, and amendments to the standard are still required to 
accommodate and effectively evaluate such systems. Second, we 
believe that IR-based systems have not changed appreciably in any 
way that would change our decisions about the nature of the 
amendments necessary to accommodate and effectively evaluate those 
systems. Third, other than relatively minor technical changes, the 
requirements of this rulemaking are largely the same as presented in 
the NPRM. For these reasons, we do not see any significant 
possibility that obtaining further public comment would change the 
information before this agency. Accordingly, we have decided that it 
is in the public interest to proceed at this time to a final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Overview

    After considering comments on the proposed rule and the information 
provided by the petitioner, we have decided to amend FMVSS No. 118 to 
specify test procedures for non-contact detection systems that use an 
infrared reflection technique.\11\ Accordingly, this notice modifies 
paragraph S5 of the standard and also adds new paragraphs S7, S8, and 
S9 to make explicit the test procedures and test rod characteristics 
that are applicable to different types of automatic reversal systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ NHTSA recognizes that in the future, there may be new power 
window systems based on still other principles, which use techniques 
for sensing obstacles different from those mentioned in this notice. 
However, although we strive to make our safety standards as general 
and widely applicable as possible, the agency cannot propose to 
amend the standard to regulate the safety of those systems until 
their underlying principles are identified and adequately defined. 
As a result, further amendment of FMVSS No. 118 may be required in 
the future in order to respond to additional new technology.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The final rule does not modify or eliminate existing requirements 
in FMVSS No. 118 which relate to contact/force sensing reversal systems 
and light beam interruption, nor does it change the circumstances under 
which power windows, roof panels, and partitions must automatically 
reverse direction, with the exception of the following change.
    In light of the comments submitted by Pektron and BMW about the 
need to accord fair treatment to other types of non-contact automatic 
reversal systems (e.g., light beam interruption systems), we decided to 
undertake a general review of the standard's test procedures in the 
course of modifying those procedures to accommodate systems using IR 
reflectance technology. After

[[Page 55539]]

conducting this review, we determined that one additional, minor 
modification to the standard was necessary, as follows. This rulemaking 
amends FMVSS No. 118 to require that test rods used for testing window 
reversal systems using a beam interruption sensing method not be 
transparent (i.e., made of a material that allows significant infrared, 
visible, or ultraviolet light to pass through).
    In actual use, these systems depend on blockage of a light beam by 
an obstruction in order to sense the obstruction, so it is possible 
that a transparent obstruction would not be detected. However, any 
obstruction relevant to safety (i.e., a human limb) will always be 
opaque. Prior to this rulemaking, FMVSS No. 118 had been silent as to 
test rod transparency. Therefore, if a transparent test rod were used 
and the system failed to activate as a result, this would not be an 
indication of an unsafe system, but merely an artifact in the standard. 
This amendment will ensure that FMVSS No. 118 test procedures better 
correspond to actual operating conditions and will prevent the 
discouragement of this technology.
    The following provides more in-depth discussion of the standard's 
new requirements and rationale related to automatic window reversal 
systems based on infrared reflectance technology.

Need for the Rulemaking

    In response to comments on the need for the present rulemaking 
action, we would clarify that the standard currently permits and 
specifies requirements for power window systems that reverse direction 
``before contacting, or before exerting a maximum squeezing force'' on 
an obstruction (see S5(a)(1)). Thus, the existing test procedures in 
the standard are applicable to non-contact systems using IR beam 
interruption technology.
    However, as discussed earlier, we have determined that the test 
procedures in the current standard are not appropriate for IR 
reflectance systems. While it is true that the amended standard will 
contain separate test procedures for different types of power window 
reversal systems, we do not see any problem with having two sets of 
test procedures, in light of the dissimilar technologies responsible 
for automatic reversal of the power windows. Accordingly, under the 
amended standard, one set of test procedures will apply to non-contact 
systems using IR reflection, and another set of test procedures (i.e., 
the procedures previously in S5) will apply to contact systems and non-
contact systems using beam interruption. Other than one clarification 
regarding test rod opaqueness, we are not requiring beam interruption 
systems to meet any requirements different from those that apply to 
contact systems.

Specifications for Test Rods

    After consideration of the public comments and new information 
presented to the agency, we believe that the NPRM's proposed test rod 
with a 15 mm diameter (equivalent to the size of the palm edge of a 15-
month-old) should be revised. We selected the proposed specifications 
for the proposed test rod based on the assumption that an IR-based 
system would need to detect an object as small as a small child's hand 
held on edge relative to the IR beam emitter. We assumed that only the 
hand of a small child would fall within the system's field of view and 
would be the only source of reflected IR energy in a worst case 
situation. However, it is evident from the information submitted by 
Prospects on the width of the detection zone, that a portion of the arm 
of a small child, in addition to the hand, would be exposed to the IR 
beam. Accordingly, in this final rule, we have decided to increase the 
test rod diameter to more adequately account for the wider cross-
sectional area contributed by the forearm.
    Therefore, we are specifying test rod dimensions as provided in 
Figure 3. Specifically, the tip of the test rod has a length of 40 mm 
and a diameter of 10 mm, and the next segment of the test rod has a 
length of 300 mm and a diameter of 20 mm. (Additional length is 
provided at the end of the test rod in order to hold and position the 
rod during testing.)
    We are also specifying that the test rods will have an IR 
reflectance of 1 percent. As discussed in further detail below, we 
believe that these specifications are reasonably representative of a 
small child (approximately 15 months in age) reaching for a window 
opening from inside a vehicle with hand held flat and on edge relative 
to the emitter/sensor of the IR reflectance system, and whose hand is 
covered by snug-fitting fabric such that the relative reflectance rate 
of the covered hand is 1 percent, as measured by the procedure set 
forth in this final rule. Although some commenters may believe that 
these requirements are overly conservative, we believe that a desire to 
accommodate new technologies does not justify safety trade-offs that 
might permit certain injuries to fingers, even in rare cases (such as 
when a child's hand is covered with low reflectance materials and is 
held in an unfavorable orientation).
    Testing is conducted at a 16-degree angle of incidence, using a 
flat sample, with an incandescent light source and sensor with a 
nominal wavelength of 950 nm (i.e., 950 nm  100 nm). In 
order to ensure an objective standard with repeatable test results, we 
believe that the test fixture incidence/reflection angle must be 
specified. Further, it is our understanding that bare skin and clothing 
materials are reasonably uniform, such that their measured reflectance 
should not be overly sensitive to whatever incidence/reflection angle 
is selected. This conclusion is supported by the results of the 
petitioner's experimentation using angles other than 16 degrees.
    We believe that the proposed method of infrared reflectance 
measurement will achieve the goal of comparing the relative (rather 
than absolute) reflectance of different materials for use in test rods 
and that it will provide the requisite level of repeatability. Because 
there was not any information provided that would indicate that another 
angle would better serve this purpose, the 16-degree test angle 
proposed in the NPRM has been adopted as part of this final rule (see 
S8). Further, since no other commenter besides Prospects addressed the 
wavelength issue, we believe that a 950 nm nominal value (range of 850-
1050 nm) is appropriate.
    Testing is conducted under simulated sunlight conditions using 
lighting which projects 64,500 lux (6,000 foot candles) onto the 
infrared sensor. We agree with the commenters that requiring a test in 
actual sunlight would create an unnecessary burden on manufacturers and 
test laboratories, particularly after considering the potential effects 
of background infrared energy from sunlight on an IR-based power window 
reversal system. Therefore, in order to reasonably duplicate ambient 
sunlight, we have decided to specify the amount of background light to 
which the IR reflectance system's sensor must be subjected during 
testing. The selected value is based upon actual measurements of 
horizontal luminance made at 5 p.m. in San Diego, California, in August 
1989 during evaluations of the conspicuity of daytime running 
lights.\12\ Although this value is higher than the value recommended by 
the petitioner, we believe that it is necessary for the system to 
operate

[[Page 55540]]

under such circumstances, which are foreseeable in many parts of the 
U.S.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ ``Evaluation of the Conspicuity of Daytime Running 
Lights,'' (DOT HS 807 613) (April 1990) (Docket No. NHTSA-2004-
18944-17).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The amended requirements also state that the lamps used for testing 
are arranged as close to perpendicular as possible to the plane of the 
lens of the IR sensor. This placement would account for the worst case 
test condition, which occurs when the sunlight is perpendicular to the 
IR emitter/sensor.
    The following rationale serves as the basis for selecting the 
parameters for the test rod and other test requirements.
1. Detection Zone Width
    As a preliminary matter, we note that the purpose of estimating a 
detection zone width is to facilitate the selection of an appropriate 
test rod diameter that would reasonably represent the limb of a small 
child in a worst-case scenario. This final rule does not impose any 
requirement for detection zone width as part of the standard.
    With that background, we note that Prospects indicated that the 
width of the three-dimensional detection zone covered by the IR 
reflection system (i.e., the distance from the plane of the window 
opening to a plane inside the vehicle representing the outer functional 
limit or edge of the detection zone) is at least 15 cm. Presumably, 
that width estimate corresponds to a location near the top of the 
window opening where the pinch potential is greatest.
    However, we have decided that for the purpose of selecting a test 
rod diameter, it is inappropriate to rely on that suggested 15 cm 
dimension for two reasons. First, the IR reflectance systems tested by 
Prospects were prototypes, so it is uncertain whether the performance 
of systems in actual production would have the same detection zone 
width. Second, the 15 cm value was the distance to the limit of the 
detection zone, not to some intermediate point within it. If the rod 
size were selected based upon the portion of a child's arm at the limit 
of the detection zone, it would probably overestimate the reflective 
area of the arm. Instead, the test rod diameter should emulate the 
portion of a small child's arm that is situated well within the 
detection zone when the fingertip just reaches the window opening. In 
this way, the test rod will represent the predominant reflective cross-
sectional area of the entire exposed forearm.
    In selecting a test rod diameter, we estimated that a point 10 cm 
from the window opening is an appropriate intermediate point in the 
detection zone. Thus, the test rod would need to have the same diameter 
as a 15-month-old child's arm measured at a distance of 10 cm from the 
fingertip. We believe that this value is a conservative estimate that 
will provide a substantial margin of safety under foreseeable 
conditions.
2. Child Anthropometry and the Relative Size of Hands and Arms
    With the above detection zone in mind, we then examined available 
information to determine the average size of a 15-month-old child's arm 
at a point 10 cm from the fingertip. Prospects provided anthropometric 
data on cross-sectional widths of the hands and arms of children of 
various ages, including those as young as two years of age. However, 
the petitioner's data did not include a value for the size of a 15-
month-old's forearm at the desired measurement point, and we were 
similarly unable to find an exact figure in any published reference 
materials. Instead, we extrapolated available data to arrive at a 
suitable dimensional specification, utilizing Prospect's data and a 
scientific paper published by the Society of Automotive Engineers 
(SAE).\13\ The SAE paper contains pertinent measurements of children's 
hands and arms which, when combined with data provided by Prospects for 
two-year-old children, gives a reasonable estimate of the appropriate 
test rod size.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See ``Anthropometry of U.S. Infants and Children,'' Society 
of Automotive Engineers (SAE) SP-394 (1975) (Instructions on how to 
view a copy of this document are provided at Docket No. NHTSA-2004-
18944-16).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    According to the SAE report, the difference in the maximum forearm 
diameters of a 15-month-old and a two-year-old is small (45 mm vs. 48 
mm, respectively), while the difference between the forearm lengths of 
those same children is more significant (203 mm vs. 237 mm). The report 
also states that the length of an outstretched hand of both a 15-month-
old and a two-year-old is approximately 10 cm (9.3 cm and 10 cm, 
respectively). Therefore, a point 15 cm from each child's fingertip 
would fall well onto the forearm of both, and we estimate that the 
diameter at 15 cm for the 15-month-old would be roughly the same as for 
the two-year-old (37 mm according to Prospect's data). We expect that 
the widths would also be very similar at a point 10 cm from the 
fingertip (19 mm according to Prospect's data). However, at the 10 cm 
distance, the 15-month-old's cross-sectional width could be estimated 
to be slightly greater than that of the two-year-old, because that 
point falls closer to the wrist of the older child, while falling 
somewhat beyond the wrist, on a thicker part of the forearm of the 
younger child, due to the somewhat shorter length of the younger 
child's hand and forearm. Based upon this information, we are adopting 
a dimension of 20 mm (measured at 10 cm from the fingertip) for the 
test rod as part of this final rule, which reflects our assumption that 
the cross-sectional width of a 15-month-old would be 1 mm greater than 
the 19 mm measurement provided by Prospects for a two-year-old.
    Although a test rod with a cylindrical shape and a continuous 
diameter of 20 mm is a reasonable representation of the predominant 
reflective area of a small child's hand and arm, we decided that 
unmodified, it would not be sufficiently realistic, because it would 
lack the dimensional features to represent a small child's fingers. A 
child's finger or, more appropriately, the cross-section of a child's 
hand profile measured at the fingers, is much smaller than 20 mm. 
Therefore, in order to better simulate a child's hand, we are 
specifying in the final rule that the test rod will have a smaller 
diameter at one end. The length of this reduced-diameter section is to 
be 40 mm, which is equivalent to the length of a 15-month-old's longest 
finger, according to the data provided by Prospects.
    However, further analysis was necessary to determine the diameter 
of that narrower section of the test rod. While the diameter of a 15-
month-old's finger averages 8 mm, we have decided that a somewhat 
larger diameter would be appropriate, taking into account the 
contribution of hand coverings (e.g., gloves) to the overall hand 
profile size. Our analysis of the effect of hand coverings is discussed 
immediately below.
3. Effect of Hand Coverings on Test Rod Size
    Our next step in determining the parameters of an appropriate test 
rod for testing IR-based automatic reversal systems involved taking 
into account the additional thickness resulting from fabric that might 
cover a child's arm or hand (e.g., gloves, long shirt sleeves). 
Previously discussed dimension represented values for bare skin, but 
added thickness could be substantial for loose-fitting articles of 
clothing. Even thin, snug-fitting fabrics could be expected to add 
between 2 mm to 3 mm of cross-sectional area.
    Based upon the information before us, we have decided to add 2 mm 
to the 8 mm width that is representative of a 15-month-old child's bare 
fingers. Thus, the resulting profile dimension of the smaller diameter 
portion of the test rod is set at 10 mm, as shown in Figure 3. We 
believe that such dimension would simulate the worst-case scenario of a

[[Page 55541]]

small child's hand covered in a thin fabric.
    Although these diameter measures are arguably the most critical 
aspect of the test rod's design, we have also specified length 
requirement for the various segments of the test rod as follows. We 
have determined that the length of small diameter section (representing 
the finger) should be 40 mm in length, which is derived from the data 
provided by the petitioner for a 15-month-old child. For the thicker 
part of the test rod (representing the arm), we have determined that 
the length should be 300 mm. An additional, undefined length would be 
permitted, in order for the test rod to be hand-held during a test 
without the test operator's own hand interfering with the test or 
influencing the amount of reflected infrared energy.
4. Other Test Rod Reflectance Considerations and the Effects of Hand 
Coverings
    In addition to the dimensions of the test rod, another factor that 
has a significant bearing on an IR-based system's detection 
capabilities is the infrared reflectance of the obstacle. As discussed 
previously, some fabrics that might cover hands may have a lower IR 
reflectance than bare skin. Therefore, in order to be representative of 
actual conditions, test rods would need to have reflectance 
corresponding to either an uncovered hand (i.e., bare skin) or a hand 
covered in fabric. The reflectance value of any fabric by itself is 
irrelevant, as power window on fabric alone would not be expected to 
result in injury.
    In setting a reflectance value for the test rod, we sought a value 
that represents the worst case likely to be encountered in the real 
world. When petitioner's test fabric with the lowest reflectance value 
(i.e., a black 35-percent cotton/65-percent polyester fabric with a 0.7 
percent reflectance) was measured over bare skin using the original 
test procedure and apparatus, the resulting combination had a 
reflectance of approximately 1 percent. Bare skin, in contrast, had 
about a 2-percent reflectance.
    Based upon this data, we are adopting a 1-percent surface 
reflectance as the minimum for rods used for testing IR reflectance 
systems. We have decided that the 1 percent value for the fabric-
covered hand constitutes the appropriate specification for the safety 
standard, because it represent the worst case scenario relevant to the 
injury prevention purpose of FMVSS No. 118.
    We disagree with Prospect's assertion that thin black polyester/
cotton fabric (0.7 percent reflectance) and thin black wool material 
are not appropriate choices in setting an appropriate lower limit on 
relative IR reflectance of test rod materials. Although evidence has 
not been presented regarding the likelihood of such materials being 
worn on the hands, the possibility exists. For example, such fabrics 
may be used in children's costumes or ``dress up'' clothing, or in 
other cases, sleeves may be worn long, draping over a child's hands. 
Accordingly, we believe that an IR-based system may encounter thin 
black polyester/cotton fabric, so the system should be sufficiently 
sensitive to detect a target with a 0.7 percent IR reflectance.
    It should be noted that we have decided to apply the 1 percent 
reflectance specification to the entire test rod, which would represent 
a forearm and hand covered by thin, low-reflectance fabric. We 
acknowledge that the diameter of the wider portion of the test rod 
assumed an uncovered forearm. However, for practical considerations, we 
have decided to adopt a 1 percent reflectance value for the entire test 
rod, without the slight size increase that the fabric would contribute.
    We reason that producing a test rod that has different reflectances 
for its larger and smaller diameter segments would be difficult and 
potentially costly. By contrast, test rods with uniform reflectance 
should be easily obtainable. Further, we believe that uniform test rod 
reflectance may enhance the margin of safety under the standard.
5. Need for Reversal
    We have decided to change our approach related to the need for 
reversal of IR reflectance-based systems under S5. Upon further 
consideration, we can envision certain worst-case situations, in which 
the size, orientation, reflectance, and location of a small child's 
hand could combine in a way that the IR-based system could potentially 
trap the hand, in which case it would be necessary for the window's 
motion to be reversed, rather than simply stopped. Therefore, we have 
decided that, as an extra safeguard, it would be advantageous to safety 
to require that all systems, regardless of detection method, reverse 
the window to one of the required positions upon detection of an 
obstacle. We believe that this change will not impose a significant 
burden on manufacturers, because reversal of the window, as opposed to 
halting it, should entail only minor changes in the power window 
circuitry. Further, this modification will simplify the standard by 
eliminating differences in performance requirements for different types 
of systems.
6. Powered Roof Panels and Partitions
    We note here that the same rationale discussed above also applies 
to powered roof panels (sun roofs) and interior partitions, which are 
similar to power windows in their operation. The primary difference is 
that they normally operate in planes of motion that are at right angles 
to powered side windows in motor vehicles.
    However, powered interior partitions present a special case, 
because they can have occupant compartment space on both sides of the 
partition. Therefore, it is necessary to require that interior 
partitions be capable of reversing when obstacles (e.g., test rods) 
enter from either side of the partition. Accordingly, we have decided 
to include a requirement as part of this final rule that would account 
for powered interior partitions equipped with IR reflection sensing.
7. Other Issues
    At least one commenter raised the issue of a fail-safe design 
requirement. Although fail-safe operation may be a useful aspect of 
power window design, we are not including a fail-safe requirement as 
part of this final rule. The standard does not currently contain a 
fail-safe requirement for any type of power window system, and there is 
not any specific reason to believe that the reliability of an IR 
reflectance automatic reversal system would be different from that of a 
contact/force sensing system. Thus, we believe that adopting a fail-
safe requirement would unnecessarily add to the scope of the standard 
and increase burdens.
    Regarding the issue of electromagnetic interference, we note that 
in theory, such interference has the potential to affect a variety of 
vehicle systems (e.g., the air bag system). However, the agency has not 
received any information that would support setting a specific 
tolerance level as part of this rulemaking.
    Regarding comments on the express-up operation of side windows, we 
believe that some of these comments demonstrate a misunderstanding of 
the current requirements of FMVSS No. 118. The current standard does 
not distinguish express-up operation from other permissible closure 
modes, except that S4 prohibits one-touch activation by remote or 
exterior controls. Currently, power windows equipped with an express-up 
feature must meet either the requirements of S4 or S5. The NPRM asked 
questions about ignition switch settings, lock-out of rear seat power 
windows, and express-up operation, in order to provide

[[Page 55542]]

information that may be relevant to future rulemakings. However, in 
issuing this final rule, we are not amending any of the existing 
requirements or establishing any new requirements related to ignition 
switch settings, driver-controlled lock-out, or express-up operation.

VI. Effective Date

    The amendments to FMVSS No. 118 contained within this final rule 
are effective September 1, 2005. Voluntary compliance is permitted 
before that date. We have determined that this timeframe is appropriate 
because this final rule does not change any substantive requirements of 
the standard, but instead, it offers an additional option for 
compliance under Standard No. 118 based upon new technology.
    We note that the NPRM originally contemplated an effective date 30 
days after publication of the final rule. However, in recognition of 
the fact that this final rule adopts new test procedures specific to 
power window automatic reversal systems based upon infrared reflectance 
technology, we have decided to grant lead time until September 1, 2005, 
for manufacturers who choose to equip vehicles with such systems. 
Accordingly, vehicles equipped with automatic reversal systems using IR 
reflectance technology that are certified under S5 must meet the 
requirements of S5.3 no later than that date. Voluntary compliance is 
permitted prior to that date.

VII. Benefits

    As noted above, this final rule amends FMVSS No. 118 to permit 
automatic reversal systems based upon infrared reflectance, a new 
technology. Because these IR-based systems are expected to meet the 
same functional requirements of other automatic reversal systems 
(although in a different manner), the standard's overall level of 
benefits is expected to remain unchanged. It is possible that there may 
be some marginal additional benefit provided by these systems, in that 
they may stop and reverse a window prior to any contact (thereby 
preventing any pinching), but such benefits are difficult to quantify.

VIII. Costs

    Because IR-based automatic power window reversal systems are not 
required under FMVSS No. 118, there are not expected to be any 
compliance costs associated with this final rule. Manufacturers are not 
required to install automatic reversal systems, and if they do, they 
are free to utilize any permissible technology under paragraph S5 of 
the standard.

IX. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

A. Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures

    Executive Order 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and Review'' (58 FR 
51735, October 4, 1993), provides for making determinations whether a 
regulatory action is ``significant'' and therefore subject to OMB 
review and to the requirements of the Executive Order. The Order 
defines a ``significant regulatory action'' as one that is likely to 
result in a rule that may:
    (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or 
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the 
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public 
health or safety, or State, local, or Tribal governments or 
communities;
    (2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an 
action taken or planned by another agency;
    (3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, 
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients 
thereof; or
    (4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal 
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in 
the Executive Order.
    This rulemaking document was not reviewed under E.O. 12866. 
Further, this action has been determined to be ``non-significant'' 
under the Department of Transportation's Regulatory Policies and 
Procedures. The amendments to FMVSS No. 118 contained in this final 
rule do not impose any new requirements, but simply provide appropriate 
test procedures for a new technology, thereby allowing manufacturers to 
certify vehicles employing that technology as meeting the existing 
requirements of the standard. Therefore, the impacts of these 
amendments are so minimal that a full regulatory evaluation is not 
required.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., 
as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act 
(SBREFA) of 1996), whenever an agency is required to publish a notice 
of rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must prepare and make 
available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis that 
describes the effect of the rule on small entities (i.e., small 
businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions). 
The Small Business Administration's regulations at 13 CFR part 121 
define a small business, in part, as a business entity ``which operates 
primarily within the United States.'' (13 CFR 121.105(a)). No 
regulatory flexibility analysis is required if the head of an agency 
certifies the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities. SBREFA amended the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act to require Federal agencies to provide a statement of 
the factual basis for certifying that a rule will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
    NHTSA has considered the effects of this final rule under the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act. I certify that this final rule will not 
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities. The rationale for this certification is that the rule does 
not impose any new requirements, but instead relieves a restriction 
resulting from a lack of specificity in the current requirement. 
Further, the infrared sensing technologies that will be permitted as a 
result of this final rule are only likely to be offered on a small 
number of vehicles produced by major automobile manufacturers.

C. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

    Executive Order 13132, ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August 10, 
1999), requires NHTSA to develop an accountable process to ensure 
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the 
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.'' 
``Policies that have federalism implications'' are defined in the 
Executive Order to include regulations that have ``substantial direct 
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national 
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and 
responsibilities among the various levels of government.'' Under 
Executive Order 13132, the agency may not issue a regulation with 
federalism implications, that imposes substantial direct compliance 
costs, and that is not required by statute, unless the Federal 
government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance 
costs incurred by State and local governments, the agency consults with 
State and local governments, or the agency consults with State and 
local officials early in the process of developing the proposed 
regulation. NHTSA also may not issue a regulation with federalism 
implications and that preempts a State law unless the agency consults 
with State and local officials

[[Page 55543]]

early in the process of developing the regulation.
    NHTSA has analyzed this final rule in accordance with the 
principles and criteria contained in E.O. 13132 and has determined that 
the rule will not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant 
consultations with State and local officials or the preparation of a 
federalism summary impact statement. This final rule will not have any 
substantial effects on the States, or on the current distribution of 
power and responsibilities among the various local officials.

D. Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform)

    Pursuant to Executive Order 12988, ``Civil Justice Reform'' (61 FR 
4729, February 7, 1996), the agency has considered whether this 
rulemaking will have any retroactive effect. This final rule does not 
have any retroactive effect. Under 49 U.S.C. 30103, whenever a Federal 
motor vehicle safety standard is in effect, a State may not adopt or 
maintain a safety standard applicable to the same aspect of performance 
which is not identical to the Federal standard, except to the extent 
that the State requirement imposes a higher level of performance and 
applies only to vehicles procured for the State's use. 49 U.S.C. 30161 
sets forth a procedure for judicial review of final rules establishing, 
amending, or 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 a suit in 
court.

E. Executive Order 13045 (Protection of Children From Environmental 
Health and Safety Risks)

    Executive Order 13045, ``Protection of Children from Environmental 
Health and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19855, April 23, 1997), applies to any 
rule that: (1) Is determined to be ``economically significant'' as 
defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental, 
health, or safety risk that the agency has reason to believe may have a 
disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets 
both criteria, the agency must evaluate the environmental health or 
safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the 
planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and 
reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the agency.
    Although this final rule is expected to have a positive safety 
impact on children, it is not an economically significant regulatory 
action under Executive Order 12866. Consequently, no further analysis 
is required under Executive Order 13045.

F. Paperwork Reduction Act

    Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), a person is not 
required to respond to a collection of information by a Federal agency 
unless the collection displays a valid OMB control number. There are 
not any information collection requirements associated with this final 
rule.

G. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, (15 U.S.C. 272) directs the 
agency to evaluate and use voluntary consensus standards in its 
regulatory activities unless doing so would be inconsistent with 
applicable law or is otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus 
standards are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test 
methods, sampling procedures, and business practices) that are 
developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies, such as 
the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE). The NTTAA directs us to 
provide Congress (through OMB) with explanations when the agency 
decides not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus 
standards. The NTTAA does not apply to symbols.
    Currently, there are no voluntary consensus standards specifically 
addressing infrared reflectance-based automatic reversal systems for 
power-operated window and their unique operating characteristics. 
However, NHTSA will consider any such standards as they become 
available.

H. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) 
requires federal agencies to prepare a written assessment of the costs, 
benefits, and other effects of proposed or final rules that include a 
Federal mandate likely to result in the expenditure by State, local, or 
tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of more 
than $100 million annually (adjusted for inflation with base year of 
1995). Before promulgating a NHTSA rule for which a written statement 
is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires the agency to 
identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives 
and adopt the least costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome 
alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of 
section 205 do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable 
law. Moreover, section 205 allows the agency to adopt an alternative 
other than the least costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome 
alternative if the agency publishes with the final rule an explanation 
of why that alternative was not adopted.
    This final rule will not result in the expenditure by State, local, 
or tribal governments or the private sector, in the aggregate, or more 
than $100 million annually. Thus, this final rule is not subject to the 
requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.

I. National Environmental Policy Act

    NHTSA has analyzed this rulemaking action for the purposes of the 
National Environmental Policy Act. The agency has determined that 
implementation of this action will not have any significant impact on 
the quality of the human environment.

J. Regulatory Identifier Number (RIN)

    The Department of Transportation assigns a regulation identifier 
number (RIN) to each regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of 
Federal Regulations. The Regulatory Information Service Center 
publishes the Unified Agenda in April and October of each year. You may 
use the RIN contained in the heading at the beginning of this document 
to find this action in the Unified Agenda.

K. Privacy Act

    Please note that anyone is able to search the electronic form of 
all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the 
individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted 
on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may 
review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register 
published on April 11, 2000 (volume 65, number 70; pages 19477-78), or 
you may visit http://dms.dot.gov.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 571

    Imports, Motor vehicle safety, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements, Tires.


0
In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA is amending 49 CFR part 571 as 
follows:

PART 571--FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS

0
1. The authority citation for Part 571 of Title 49 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117, and 30166; 
delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.


[[Page 55544]]



0
2. Section 571.118 is amended as follows:
0
A. In S3, by revising the heading and adding a definition for 
``infrared reflectance'' in alphabetical order;
0
B. By revising S5; and
0
C. By adding new paragraphs S5.1, S5.2, S5.3, S7, S7.1, S7.2, S8, S8.1, 
S8.2, S8.3, S9, Figure 2 and Figure 3.
    The revised and added text reads as follows:


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

* * * * *
    S3. Definitions.
* * * * *
    ``Infrared reflectance'' means the ratio of the intensity of 
infrared light reflected and scattered by a flat sample of the test rod 
material to the intensity of infrared light reflected and scattered by 
a mirror that reflects 99.99 percent of the infrared radiation incident 
on its surface as measured by the apparatus show in Figure 2.
* * * * *
    S5. Automatic reversal systems. A power-operated window, partition, 
or roof panel system that is capable of closing or of being closed 
under any circumstances other than those specified in S4 shall meet the 
requirements of S5.1, S5.2, and, if applicable, S5.3.
    S5.1. While closing, the power-operated window, partition, or roof 
panel shall stop and reverse direction either before contacting a test 
rod with properties described in S8.2 or S8.3, or before exerting a 
squeezing force of 100 newtons (N) or more on a semi-rigid cylindrical 
test rod with the properties described in S8.1, when such test rod is 
placed through the window, partition, or roof panel opening at any 
location in the manner described in the applicable test under S7.
    S5.2. Upon reversal, the power-operated window, partition, or roof 
panel system must open to one of the following positions, at the 
manufacturer's option:
    (a) A position that is at least as open as the position at the time 
closing was initiated;
    (b) A position that is not less than 125 millimeters (mm) more open 
than the position at the time the window reversed direction; or
    (c) A position that permits a semi-rigid cylindrical rod that is 
200 mm in diameter to be placed through the opening at the same 
location as the rod described in S7.1 or S7.2(b).
    S5.3. If a vehicle uses proximity detection by infrared reflection 
to stop and reverse a power-operated window, partition, or roof panel, 
the infrared source shall project infrared light at a wavelength of not 
less than 850 nm and not more than 1050 nm. The system shall meet the 
requirements in S5.1 and S5.2 in all ambient light conditions from 
total darkness to 64,500 lux (6,000 foot candles) incandescent light 
intensity.
* * * * *
    S7. Test procedures.
    S7.1. Test procedure for testing power-operated window, partition, 
or roof panel systems designed to detect obstructions by physical 
contact or by light beam interruption: Place the test rod of the type 
specified in S8.1 or S8.2, as appropriate, 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 
close the power window, partition, or roof panel by operating the 
actuation device provided in the vehicle for that purpose.
    S7.2. Test procedure for testing power-operated window, partition, 
or roof panel systems designed to detect the proximity of obstructions 
using infrared reflectance:
    (a) Place the vehicle under incandescent lighting that projects 
64,500 lux (6,000 foot candles) onto the infrared sensor. The light is 
projected onto the infrared sensor by aiming the optical axis of a 
light source outside the vehicle as perpendicular as possible to the 
lens of the infrared sensor. The intensity of light is measured 
perpendicular to the plane of the lens of the infrared sensor, as close 
as possible to the center of the lens of the infrared sensor.
    (b) Place a test rod of the type specified in S8.3 in the window, 
partition, or roof panel opening, with the window, partition, or roof 
panel in any position. While keeping the rod stationary, attempt to 
close the window, partition, or roof panel by operating the actuation 
device provided in the vehicle for that purpose. 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 and ultimately extends through (if 
necessary) the window, partition, or roof panel opening, or its frame, 
in any orientation from the interior of the vehicle. For power 
partitions that have occupant compartment space on both sides of the 
partition, move the test rod into the partition opening from either 
side of the partition.
    (c) Repeat the steps in S7.2(a) and (b) with other ambient light 
conditions within the range specified in S5.3.
    S8. Test rods.
    S8.1. Rods for testing systems designed to detect obstructions by 
physical contact:
    (a) Each test rod is of cylindrical shape with any diameter in the 
range from 4 mm to 200 mm and is of sufficient length that it can be 
hand-held during the test specified in S7 with only the test rod making 
any contact with any part of the window, partition, or roof panel or 
mating surfaces of the window, partition, or roof panel.
    (b) Each test rod has a force-deflection ratio of not less than 65 
N/mm for rods 25 mm or smaller in diameter, and not less than 20 N/mm 
for rods larger than 25 mm in diameter.
    S8.2. Rods for testing systems designed to detect obstructions by 
light beam interruption: Each test rod has the shape and dimensions 
specified in S8.1 and is, in addition, opaque to infrared, visible, and 
ultraviolet light.
    S8.3. Rods for testing systems designed to detect the proximity of 
obstructions using infrared reflection:
    (a) Each rod is constructed so that its surface has an infrared 
reflectance of not more than 1.0 percent when measured by the apparatus 
in Figure 2, in accordance with the procedure in S9.
    (b) Each rod has the shape and dimensions specified in Figure 3.
    S9. Procedure for measuring infrared reflectance of test rod 
surface material.
    (a) The infrared reflectance of the rod surface material is 
measured using a flat sample and an infrared light source and sensor 
operating at a wavelength of 950  100 nm.
    (b) The intensity of incident infrared light is determined using a 
reference mirror of nominally 100 percent reflectance mounted in place 
of the sample in the test apparatus in Figure 2.
    (c) Infrared reflectance measurements of each sample of test rod 
surface material and of the reference mirror are corrected to remove 
the contribution of infrared light reflected and scattered by the 
sample holder and other parts of the apparatus before computation of 
the infrared reflectance ratio.
* * * * *
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P

[[Page 55545]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR15SE04.020


[[Page 55546]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR15SE04.021


    Issued: September 8, 2004.
Jeffrey W. Runge,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 04-20719 Filed 9-14-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-C