28124 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 108 / Tuesday, June 4, 1996 / Proposed Rules

of periodic updating of its standards. In

fact, SAE J593 was updated in June

1987, February 1995, and October 1995,

three times in less than nine years.

Thus, unless SAE changes the policy of

regular updates, the value of the

rulemaking effort requested by this

petition soon would be negated by

another update. While the agency

acknowledges that industry standards

must be updated to assure their

relevance to technology and their value

to users, periodic updating where few if

any substantive changes are made may

be counterproductive for use as Federal

Motor Vehicle Safety Standards.

Allocation of agency resources and

agency priorities also must be

considered in processing what is the

second petition from the SAE to update

its standards directly or indirectly

referenced in FMVSS No. 108. All of

these standards have specific dated

versions referenced in FMVSS No. 108.

Because the SAE endeavors to update its

standards on a regular schedule, the

federal regulatory workload from such a

course of updating would be continuous

and drain resources from the Agency’s

identified priorities. This is not a

desirable course. Nonetheless, NHTSA

recognizes that the technical expertise

of engineers from around the world

participating in SAE Committee

activities is invaluable to NHTSA’s

mission, particularly when performance

requirements must be developed to

accommodate new technologies.

As stated in the recent denial (61 FR

14044) on the first SAE petition to

update references to SAE standards,

NHTSA is considering how best to

cooperate with SAE. The Agency has

compiled and will provide on request,

a reference document containing all the

SAE and other organizations’ standards

that are directly referenced in FMVSS

No. 108. The immediate effect is to

make it easier for all interested parties,

especially lighting and vehicle

personnel, to have available the

requirements in the Federal lighting

standard. The agency recognizes the

problem of finding older SAE standards,

and takes this action as a short term

solution to solve that problem. Together,

this document of referenced standards

and the current version of FMVSS No.

108 will provide our customers with as

current a version of the lighting

standard as is reasonable.

As a longer term solution, the Agency

looks to SAE and our regulated partners

to help find ways to make the more

recent SAE documents be more

acceptable from a regulatory burden and

motor vehicle safety perspective, and to

be longer lasting in their value. Thus,

the agency will be favorably inclined to

consider any future SAE or other

petitioner’s request that has significant

safety benefit or when such action

would remove impediments to the use

of new technologies.

In accordance with 49 CFR part 552,

this completes the agency’s review of

the petition. The agency has concluded

that there is no reasonable possibility

that the specific action requested by the

petitioner would be issued at the

conclusion of a rulemaking proceeding.

Accordingly, it denies the SAE’s

petition.

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30103, 30162;

delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50 and

501.8.

Issued on: May 29, 1996.

Barry Felrice,

Associate Administrator for Safety

Performance Standards.

[FR Doc. 96–13866 Filed 6–3–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P

49 CFR Part 57l

[Docket No. 87–10; Notice 6]

RIN 2127–AF83

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety

Standards; Power-Operated Window,

Partition, and Roof Panel Systems

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic

Safety Administration (NHTSA),

Department of Transportation.

ACTION: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

(NPRM).

SUMMARY: In response to a petition from

Prospects Corporation (Prospects), this

document proposes to amend Standard

118, Power-Operated Window,

Partition, and Roof Panel Systems, to

accommodate power windows,

partitions, and roof panels which

automatically reverse when closing if an

infrared system detects an object in or

near the path of the closing window,

partition, or panel. Since infrared

systems may fail to detect an object the

size of a very young child’s finger, but

can detect the child’s hand, the agency

is proposing to test those systems using

a rod representing the side profile of a

child’s hand. The proposal also

specifies the infrared reflectance of the

rods used for testing those systems. This

document also proposes to amend the

requirements for systems that stop the

window, partition, or panel before an

appendage or other body part could

become trapped by it by eliminating the

requirement that those systems reverse

after stopping. Reversal is not necessary

unless there is a risk that a person may

become trapped. In addition, this

document requests comment on the

safety of express-up power windows

(i.e., power windows that fully close

after a single, momentary touching of

the window switch), because numerous

callers to NHTSA have alleged that

express-up windows exist and are

unsafe.

DATES: Comment Date: Comments must

be received by August 5, 1996

Effective and Compliance Dates: If

adopted, the proposed amendments

would become effective, and

compliance required, 30 days following

publication of the final rule.

ADDRESSES: Comments should refer to

the docket and notice number of this

notice and be submitted to: Docket

Section, Room 5109, National Highway

Traffic Safety Administration, 400

Seventh Street, SW, Washington, DC

20590. (Docket Room hours are 9:30

a.m.–4 p.m., Monday through Friday.)

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The

following persons by mail at the

National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW,

Washington, DC 20590:

For technical issues:

Mr. Richard Van Iderstine, Office of

Crash Avoidance Standards, NPS–21,

telephone (202) 366–5280, facsimile

(202) 366–4329, electronic mail

‘‘rvaniderstine@nhtsa.dot.gov’’.

For legal issues:

Mr. Paul Atelsek, Office of the Chief

Counsel, NCC–20, telephone (202) 366–

2992, facsimile (202) 366–3820,

electronic mail

‘‘patelsek@nhtsa.dot.gov’’. Please note

that comments should be sent to the

docket section rather than faxed to the

contact persons.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

Standard No. 118 regulates the safety

of power windows, partitions, and roof

panels. For the sake of simplicity, and

because NHTSA anticipates that this

proposal would primarily affect power

windows, the agency collectively refers

to these three systems as ‘‘power

windows’’ in the preamble. However,

the proposed changes apply equally to

powered partitions and roofs. The

standard addresses the threat to

unsupervised children of being

strangled or suffering limb-crushing

injuries by closing power windows.

Originally, the standard required that

the activation of power windows be

linked to an ignition interlock. The

standard prohibited the activation of

power windows unless the ignition key

was in the ignition and turned to the

‘‘on’’, ‘‘start’’ or ‘‘accessory’’ position,

based on the presumption that this

precondition would ensure that a driver
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 108 / Tuesday, June 4, 1996 / Proposed Rules 28125

was present to supervise children.

Making the presence of the ignition key

a precondition to power window

activation also ensured that the driver is

provided with a simple means of

disabling the power windows of a

parked vehicle, i.e., key removal. The

power windows of most vehicles are

still linked to an ignition interlock.

Over the years, the standard has been

amended to permit power window

closing in situations in which the key is

not in the ignition, but the existence of

adult supervision could be presumed for

other reasons. In the most recent

rulemaking, in 1991, NHTSA responded

to the interest of manufacturers in

offering remote controls for window

closing. 56 FR 15290. In doing so, the

agency was mindful that the

unrestricted allowance of remote

controls, especially ones that activated

windows using radio frequency signals

which can penetrate obstructing walls,

could pose a danger to child occupants

because the person activating the

window might not be able to see a child

in the window opening. Therefore, in an

effort to ensure the presence of a

supervising person, the agency amended

the standard to permit power windows

to be operable through the use of remote

controls only if the controls had a very

limited range, i.e., not more than 6 m.

A longer range, up to 11 m, was

permitted for controls that were

operable only if there were an

unobstructed line of sight between the

control and the vehicle.

In addition, the agency reasoned that

its provisions permitting the remote

control of a power window need not be

premised on the likely existence of

supervision if the window were

equipped with an automatic reversal

system. If the window closing system

itself could sense the child’s hand or

head when it became trapped between

the window and the window frame, and

thereupon stop and reverse to release

the child, then supervision would not

be required. Therefore, the agency also

established a provision permitting

power windows equipped with an

automatic reversal system to be closed

in any manner (e.g., with or without a

key) desired by the manufacturer. It also

permitted remote controls of

unrestricted range as well as new

products, such as devices to open and

close windows automatically in

response to heat and rain, since they

would be made safe by the automatic

reversal system.

To qualify as an automatic reversal

system, a system had to reverse a power

window, either before the window

contacted, or before it exerted ‘‘a

squeezing force of 100 newtons on a

semi-rigid cylindrical rod from 4 mm to

200 mm in diameter * * *’’ The test

procedure specified a range of rods to

represent portions of a person’s body,

ranging in size from infant fingers to

juvenile heads, inserted in the window

openings. This procedure addressed the

fundamental safety problem in terms of

the level of squeezing force thought to

be injurious. It allowed for contact with

a test rod if reversal is triggered before

the window exerts the injurious

squeezing force on the test rod. Upon

reversal, the window was required to

open for the purpose of allowing easy

extrication of a trapped head.

At the time of the most recent

amendment, automatic reversal systems

for power windows did not exist on U.S.

vehicles. The most detailed comments

on the amendment seemed to indicate

companies were contemplating reversal

systems triggered by force measurement.

NHTSA assumed that manufacturers

would produce power window reversal

systems based on force sensing

technology.

The development of automatic

reversal systems has not proceeded as

NHTSA anticipated. NHTSA currently

is not aware of any force sensing

systems currently being certified to meet

FMVSS No. 118, suggesting that the

manufacturers that had been

considering force sensing systems may

have found them to be undesirable or

impractical.

NHTSA also sought to allow the use

of proximity sensing systems by

allowing automatic reversal systems that

reversed the power window at any time

before contact with the test rods. The

agency attempted to word carefully the

provisions regarding non-contact

systems so as to avoid discouraging

their development. A commenter on the

1991 amendment also indicated interest

in developing reversal systems triggered

by the blockage of light by the child’s

body (the principle used by automatic

reversal mechanisms on some garage

doors with remote controls).

Accordingly, the agency drafted a test

procedure that satisfactorily tests noncontact systems based on this principle.

The test procedure is less appropriate

for non-contact systems based on other

principles. Prospects Corporation has

developed a non-contact automatic

window reversal system which can

detect the proximity of some portion of

a person’s body by sensing the reflection

(instead of the blockage) of infrared light

by a passenger’s body. In Prospect’s

system, there are an infrared emitter and

a detector within the interior of the

vehicle that are not aligned with one

another. When no object is present in or

near the plane of the window, the

detector receives a constant background

level of infrared radiation reflected by

the inside of the vehicle. In this

situation, the window may safely close.

However, when a child’s hand, for

example, approaches the window, the

hand reflects a certain amount of

additional radiation from the emitter to

the detector. The detector senses the

increase and electronically reverses the

window even before the child’s hand

reaches the plane of the window.

To work well under the variety of

foreseeable circumstances, an infrared

reflectance system must be sufficiently

sensitive to detect a variety of materials.

Different materials (e.g., skin, hair,

cloth, plastic) have characteristic

abilities to reflect infrared radiation, a

property called reflectance. The amount

of radiation reflected is affected by the

wavelength of the radiation, the angle of

incidence of the radiation, the color and

texture of the material, and the amount

of surface area exposed.

Since the standard currently does not

specify the infrared reflectance of the

test rods, it cannot adequately assess the

safety of an automatic window reversal

system based on infrared reflectance.

Use of a test rod with a higher

reflectance than that of a child’s hand

might allow a system to pass NHTSA’s

compliance test even though that system

might not be sufficiently sensitive to

detect a child’s hand placed in or near

the window opening. Therefore, the

agency has tentatively decided that the

test procedure should be changed to

specify the aspects of the test rods that

are necessary for testing the compliance

of infrared reflectance-based systems.

In proposing to amend the standard to

provide for better testing of non-contact

systems based on infrared reflectance,

NHTSA recognizes that in the future

there may be non-contact systems based

on still other principles. However, the

agency cannot propose to amend the

standard to address those systems until

their underlying principles are

identified and adequately defined.

II. Size of the Target Inboard of the

Window Plane

The standard currently specifies

information about the sizes of the test

rods that are appropriate for testing

contact-based systems for compliance.

The standard requires that the reversal

system protect portions of a person’s

body, as represented by test rods

ranging from 4 mm (about the size of an

infant’s finger) to 200 mm (about the

size of a child’s head) in diameter.

Typical placements of the test rods are

illustrated in drawings showing

cylinders placed in various window and

roof openings. The illustrations show
28126 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 108 / Tuesday, June 4, 1996 / Proposed Rules

the portion of the rods inside the

vehicle passenger compartment (the

portion that would be used as a handle

by the person conducting the test) as

having the same diameter as the portion

in the plane of the window. The

standard requires that the part of the test

rod exposed to window contact be

protected over the full range of test

diameters. There is no distinction made

for the length or minimum diameter of

the part of the test rod inboard of the

window plane, even though the cross

section of an infant’s hand is larger than

4 mm.

Because it does not specify the size of

the portion of the test rods that is

inboard of the window (the area in or

near the plane of the window when it

is closed), the existing standard does not

specify one of the most important test

conditions for the reflective proximity

detection scheme used by the petitioner.

The petitioner’s system provides

reflective proximity detection by

projecting infrared light across the

inboard surface of the window, and

using a sensor to detect the amount of

light that is reflected by objects in the

zone immediately inboard of the

window. In the case of a child’s hand in

or reaching toward the window, the

smallest object from the standpoint of

reflective detection would be the hand,

and not one of the fingers.

Prospects stated that its system may

fail to detect the presence of the

smallest rod, which is intended to

represent an infant’s finger. However,

the petitioner believes that in reality its

system would always protect infant

fingers because it would detect the

infant’s hand. The petitioner suggested

that the test rods be shaped like an

infant’s hand (measured across the

palm) with a width of 28 mm.

NHTSA agrees with the petitioner that

it is not appropriate to test the

petitioner’s device with a finger-sized

target that is not connected with a

representation of a hand, but does not

agree with the use of a full hand widthsize target. The infant could hold the

palm of its hand on edge, i.e., in a plane

parallel to the direction of the infrared

radiation, and extend its finger.

Therefore, to provide the minimum

realistic reflective cross section, the

hand should be represented with its full

thickness (measured from the palm to

the back of the hand) providing

reflection to the sensor.

NHTSA tentatively concludes that a

reasonable worst-case dimension for

targets inboard of the plane of the

window is 15 mm. The petitioner

reports a thickness of at least 15 mm in

the edge view of a 15 month old infant’s

hand. The agency considers this to be a

reasonably conservative estimate.

Newborn babies with somewhat smaller

hands would be incapable of raising

themselves up into an exposed position,

and even the smallest hands would

present a target wider than 15 mm in

most orientations. Therefore, the test

rods inside the window should not be

less than 15 mm in diameter to provide

a representative test of proximity

sensing devices. Although the petitioner

suggested a hand-shaped test rod, the

use of cylindrical rods as targets

remains desirable because it is easier to

manufacture and removes the need to

consider the orientation of the target

along its axis.

III. Reflectance of the Target

A. Testing Methods

NHTSA also considered what level of

reflectance would appropriately

represent the clothed and unclothed

hands and arms of young children.

Reflectance is the ratio of the intensity

of the light (measured by a detector as

energy) reflected by the surface of a

material to that of the light that strikes

the surface of the material. An

important objective of this proposal is to

determine a reasonable value of

reflectance for the test rods that NHTSA

will use in compliance testing. The level

of reflectance that NHTSA is proposing

is based on experimental data the

petitioner submitted (Prospects’ report

on the reflectance of skin and clothing

is available in rulemaking docket

number 87–10; Notice No. 6). NHTSA

believes that the data generated by

Prospect’s laboratory test apparatus can

be applied generally to in-vehicle

detection systems based on infrared

reflectance, and requests comment on

this assumption.

Prospect’s petition gave little detailed

information on reflectance. Therefore,

NHTSA asked the petitioner to address

the question of reflectance in more

detail. Because color affects reflectance,

the reflective properties of skin of

different shades and colors was of

obvious importance, and the effect of

color was also addressed by the

petitioner. NHTSA also asked the

petitioner to investigate whether gloves

and other clothing would be more

difficult to detect than bare skin.

The petitioner responded by

providing measurements of the infrared

light reflected from human skin and a

large variety of leathers and fabrics. The

measurements were conducted with an

apparatus incorporating an infrared

light source (nominal wavelength 950

nanometers (nm)) and a light sensor of

the type used in the prototype window

reversal system appearing in Appendix

1 of the petitioner’s report. The

apparatus projected infrared light on the

skin or material sample and received the

reflected (or scattered) light at an equal

angle of reflection. The angle of

incidence was 16 degrees. The distance

from the source to the sample, and the

distance from the sample to the light

sensor, was the same, about 135 mm.

The light reaching the sensor was

measured with and without the sample

in place, so that the light reflected from

the sample holder could be discounted.

Although the light reaching the sensor

can be thought of as having been

reflected by the sample, it arrives by the

combination of reflection from the

surface of the sample and scattering by

the texture of the sample. Since both the

test apparatus and any in-vehicle

devices that might be produced measure

the sum of reflection and scatter, there

is no need to distinguish between the

two mechanisms which result in light

reaching the sensor. Therefore, the term

‘‘reflection’’ is used below in a broad

sense to refer to all light reaching the

sensor as a consequence of the presence

of the sample.

NHTSA’s test procedures should be as

general and as design-independent as

possible, to avoid restricting vehicle

manufacturers’ choices. Prospects’ tests

compared the infrared reflectance of

various portions of a person’s body and

clothing materials and found relative

reflectance relationships that ought to

hold true for infrared reflectance-based

detection systems in general. However,

the absolute numerical results (in terms

of microwatts of power received by the

sensor) are specific to the particular test

apparatus used by Prospects. NHTSA

discussed with the petitioner the need

to express the infrared reflective

properties of skin and other material in

terms that are not specific to a particular

light source and sensor.

A reasonable solution was found in

the use of a high reflectance mirror as

a comparison medium. A mirror that

reflects 99.99 percent of infrared light

was mounted in the apparatus as a

sample. The presence of the mirror

caused the infrared sensor to receive 47

microwatts. The power measured with

the sample materials was divided by

this power and the resulting ratio was

multiplied by 100 percent to produce a

value that is characteristic of each

sample. When normalized by the mirror

measurement in this way, the skin and

material measurements become

independent of the power, beam size

and dispersion of the light source and

the size and sensitivity of the infrared

sensor.

This method of normalizing the

power measurements also has the
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 108 / Tuesday, June 4, 1996 / Proposed Rules 28127

benefit of producing results of general

utility, regardless of the size of the

sample. The sensitivity of the

reflectance determination to changes in

the light path length of the apparatus is

low because measurements using the

sample and the mirror would be affected

in the same proportion by a change in

light path length. Therefore, the length

of the light path need not be specified.

However, NHTSA is specifying the

angles of incidence and reflection to be

used when determining the reflectance

of test rods, in order to avoid changes

in the relative composition of reflected

and scattered light from textured

samples. The agency notes that

specifying these angles does not restrict

vehicle design in any way, but only

defines the parameters to be used when

producing test rods.

B. Test Results

In order to test skin for reflectance

values, Prospects had different people

place their hands against the back of the

sample holder. The skin of White, Black

and Asian persons was measured at the

back of the hand and at the palm. Three

individuals of each race were measured.

The macro-texture of the palms and

backs of hands can be presumed to

affect the relative contribution of

reflection and scatter. The range of

reflectance from the palms of hands was

from 2.43 to 2.96 percent, and the range

for the skin on the back of the hand was

from 2.04 to 2.83 percent. The total

range of 2.04 to 2.96 percent for

differences between races, individuals

and hand orientation was very small

compared to that of common fabrics, as

can be seen from the following results.

In response to NHTSA’s concern

about the reflectance of various skin

coverings, Prospects tested thirty-seven

samples comprising various colors,

textures and types of fabric and leather,

including wool, silk, cotton, polyester,

and a 35 percent cotton/65 percent

polyester blend. The range of reflectance

of the fabric and leather samples was

from 0.70 to 6.09 percent. With the

exception of three samples, the fabrics

and leathers were more reflective than

skin. The worst case was a black cotton/

polyester material which reflected about

1⁄3 the amount of infrared light reflected

by human skin. Figure 8 of the

petitioner’s report summarizes the range

of material reflectance (Docket No. 87–

10; Notice No. 6). The large variety of

skin and potential skin-covering

materials Prospects tested appears to

provide a good representation of

foreseeable detection targets.

The narrow range of reflectance for

skin despite differences in individuals,

races, and part of body indicates that

infrared skin reflection is not very

sensitive to common variables including

the lack of ‘‘flatness’’ of hand samples.

This validates the ability of the infrared

reflectance proximity sensor to detect its

primary target, skin. It is also

encouraging that most clothing

materials appear to improve the infrared

reflectance of the body. However, at

least one common material would

reduce the reflectance of the body by

two thirds.

NHTSA is proposing a minimum

reflectance of 0.7 percent for the test

rods. This is a conservative value which

equals the minimum reflectance of black

cotton/polyester. That material had the

lowest reflectance in Prospects’

experiment. Bare skin, at about 2–3

percent reflectance, is three times more

detectable.

Manufacturers should have little

difficulty producing test rods with the

proper reflectance. The reflectance of

the surface material of NHTSA’s test

rods would be tested using an apparatus

similar to the one used by Prospects.

However, as discussed above, there is

considerable flexibility in the

construction of the test apparatus. Only

the wavelength of the source and the

angles of incidence and reflection

would need to be kept constant.

IV. Protection of Persons Outside the

Vehicle

Since paragraph S5 of Standard No.

118 relieves power windows systems

with automatic reversal from the

presence-of-supervision-assuring

restrictions of S4, NHTSA should

consider whether protection is provided

for a person who is outside the vehicle

and is reaching toward or into the

vehicle. It cannot be assumed that an

infrared proximity detector will operate

on objects shielded by window glass,

thus only portions of a person’s body

inside the window would be capable of

triggering it under this proposal.

There are a number of reasons to

believe that this is not a great danger.

Small children inside vehicles can reach

the pinch points (the area where the

window and window frame meet) by

standing on the seat, but a child

standing on the ground outside the

vehicle must be considerably older and

taller to reach most pinch points. The

agency expects that even the single bare

finger of a child of that size would be

detected. Even if a bare finger is much

smaller than the proposed test rod

diameter of 15 mm, it would likely be

detected because the reflectance of skin

is so much greater than the proposed

test rod. A child holding the edge of the

window would offer an even larger

target for detection, the width of his or

her palm, and a child leaning into the

vehicle so that his or her head is in the

window would certainly be detected

and protected.

However, it would be possible for a

person willfully to ‘‘fool’’ the detector

by placing just the tip of a finger on the

outside upper edge of the window as it

shuts. In that location, the finger tip

could be shielded from the infrared

emitter. (Recall that this situation is

possible only for persons outside the

vehicle because fingers of a vehicle

occupant cannot get to the pinch points

without exposing the hand to detection.)

The most likely occasion for such abuse

involves a child inside the vehicle

operating the windows in playing

‘‘chicken’’ with another child outside

the vehicle.

The agency recognizes the possibility

of abuse of the system but believes that

the possibility is not serious enough to

warrant declining to facilitate the use of

power window systems with infrared

sensors. This belief is based on the

assumption that manufacturers would

not make automatic window closing

possible in the absence of the ignition

key except possibly for rain protection

or for a limited time after key removal.

NHTSA requests comments on the

validity of this assumption. In addition,

children who can reach the top of the

window from the ground are old enough

to possess some level of experience and

judgment, and a very slight withdrawal

motion is all that is necessary for selfprotection.

V. Presumption of Supervision

Although not raised in the petition

submitted by Prospects, many callers to

this agency have expressed certain

reservations about the safety of the

existing standard. Accordingly, NHTSA

is using this document to take the

opportunity to request comments on

these concerns. This is especially

appropriate in light of the consideration

that the agency is giving to making the

standard more permissive.

The safety of children depends on

driver supervision when power

windows close in the modes permitted

by section S4. However, there are some

design possibilities not prohibited by S4

that can reduce either the likelihood or

the effectiveness of driver supervision.

The standard allows window closing

with the ignition key in the ‘‘accessory’’,

as well as in the ‘‘on’’ and ‘‘start’’

positions. Drivers may be tempted to

leave unattended children in a vehicle

with the key in the ‘‘accessory’’ position

in order to operate the vent fan or the

radio, thus failing to maintain

supervision of the power windows.

Drivers need to supervise children in
28128 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 108 / Tuesday, June 4, 1996 / Proposed Rules

the rear seat, but vehicles are not

required to have a driver controlled

lock-out of the rear power windows.

Many vehicles are designed to avoid

these potential problems, but designs

that exceed the safety standard are not

universal. Is the presumption of

supervision a valid one?

Some callers have questioned the

safety of a convenience feature that they

say some manufacturers are offering,

i.e., an ‘‘express up’’ closing mode,

which requires only a momentary

switch contact rather than continuous

activation to close the window. No

caller reported any injuries associated

with this feature. NHTSA is aware of

such systems on a few of the most

expensive German cars. In all of these

cases, the express-up windows are also

equipped with automatic reversal

(although these reversal systems may

not pass the requirements of FMVSS No.

118). It is possible that part of the

interest by vehicle manufacturers in

infrared proximity detectors is

motivated by a desire to assure the

safety of express-up windows. If the

agency proceeds to a final rule, the

agency will consider while writing the

forthcoming final rule whether to

propose that express-up operation of

windows, other than the driver’s,

should be excluded from the closing

modes of S4, which presume driver

supervision and, by implication, some

level of control. These thoughts are

offered in the questions to commenters

below to guide possible future

rulemaking.

VI. Need for Reversal

The existing standard requires that

closing power windows halt to avoid

applying excessive squeezing force on a

passenger, and then reverse their travel

to release the person. The reversing

requirement is necessary when the

halting of a window is triggered by a

force measurement because, otherwise,

the squeezed person might remain

trapped by the window.

Although the petitioner did not

question the application of the reversal

requirement to a window equipped with

an infrared sensor, it appears that it may

not be necessary to apply the

requirement to all infrared sensing

systems since most of these systems

would detect objects in a large zone and

would ensure safety by merely halting.

Devices which halt power windows by

detecting limbs and heads interior to the

plane of the powered window opening

and in a wide detection area around the

pinch zone will halt the windows before

the body enters the pinch zone,

eliminating the possibility of trapping.

A three-dimensional detection zone

extending from the window frame 100

mm into the opening and extending

horizontally inboard into the interior of

the vehicle 50 mm from the interior

surface of the closed window would

probably be sufficient to prevent

trapping by halting the window alone.

Therefore, NHTSA proposes that noncontact window systems which detect

proximity of persons over such a large

interior space, thereby halting the

window before the person enters the

pinch zone, be relieved of the necessity

of reversing as well.

It is not necessary for non-contact

systems to detect the proximity of

persons over such a large range of space

to prevent injury. Even a system

sensitive in a narrow zone only a few

millimeters below the window frame

would prevent contact. However, a

window whose detection system has

such limited sensitivity must be able to

reverse to avoid the possibility of

trapping a child’s head.

VII. Questions for Commenters

A. The proposed test rods would

combine a reasonable worst case target

size (15 mm) with a reasonable worst

case reflectance (0.7 percent). If there is

an even more appropriate combination

of factors, please explain what these

factors are and why they are better than

the proposed factors. If one considers

the target size of 15 mm as indicative of

bare limbs, would a maximum

reflectance of 1 percent be adequate? A

reflectance of 1 percent is half the

reflectance of skin and thus would

provide a factor of safety of 2 relative to

bare skin. Is the proposed 0.7 percent

reflectance (a factor of safety of 3)

necessary to ensure that persons outside

the vehicle are adequately protected?

B. Can prototype infrared proximity

systems detect a target combining the

worst case size (15 mm) and worst case

reflectance (0.7 percent) at all points

near the frame of a large side window?

Would its performance be hindered by

bright sunlight or other infrared

sources? What other factors might limit

the effectiveness of infrared systems?

How should the agency guard against

the effects of those factors?

C. The information submitted to the

agency concerning the reflectance of

skin and the relative reflectance of skin

and clothing was obtained using

infrared light of a nominal 950 nm

wavelength. While the agency

endeavors to make standards as simple

and general as possible, it has no basis

to assume that this reflectance

information is applicable to infrared

light of significantly different

wavelengths. Therefore, the proposed

compliance tests are limited to infrared

devices operating at wavelengths of 950

nm +/- 100 nm. Is there any evidence

that significantly different reflectance

properties would be manifested within

that narrow range of infrared

wavelengths? Would a two hundred

nanometer range be sufficient to avoid

unduly restricting manufacturer’s

choice of equipment? Is there any

reason to believe that manufacturers

would prefer to have infrared devices

operating at different parts of the

infrared spectrum? Are there any data

showing that devices in other areas of

the spectrum would provide an

equivalent level of safety?

D. Would the 16 degree angle of

incidence/reflection used in the

Prospects study be appropriate for

testing the reflectance of materials? Are

there any data indicating that the angle

is critical to the strength of either the

reflection or scattering components of

the detected light? Are other angles

more appropriate?

E. NHTSA is proposing that

compliance testing be done in direct

sunlight so that the in-vehicle sensors

are exposed to the highest possible

background ‘‘noise’’ level of extraneous

infrared light. This should make the test

more demanding because small

differences in the amount of infrared

radiation reaching the detector should

be harder to perceive against a higher

background level. NHTSA requests

comment on whether this is a valid

assumption and whether other

extraneous factors can affect the safe

functioning of such in-vehicle infrared

detection systems.

F. The safety of children depends on

driver supervision when power

windows close in the modes permitted

by section S4. The standard allows

window closing with the ignition key in

the ‘‘accessory’’, as well as in the ‘‘on’’

and ‘‘start’’ positions. Drivers may be

tempted to leave unattended children in

a vehicle with the key in the

‘‘accessory’’ position in order to operate

the vent fan or the radio, failing to

maintain supervision of the power

windows. Drivers need to supervise

children in the rear seat, but vehicles

are not required to have a driver

controlled lock-out of the rear power

windows. Many vehicles are designed to

avoid these potential problems. What

current production vehicles have power

window operation with the key in the

‘‘accessory’’ position or have rear power

windows without a driver controlled

lock-out? Do they present safety

problems needing regulatory attention?

Is there any evidence of a safety

problem?

G. The standard does not regulate the

express-up closing mode which requires
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 108 / Tuesday, June 4, 1996 / Proposed Rules 28129

only a momentary switch contact rather

than continuous activation to close the

window. Should windows that have the

express-up operation be prohibited from

closing in the modes specified in S4,

which presume driver supervision?

What production vehicles, if any, have

express-up window operation and on

which windows is it applied? Is there

any evidence that express-up windows

represent a safety problem?

NHTSA is proposing to make the

proposed amendments effective 30 days

after publication of a final rule.

Compliance with the requirements

would be required by manufacturer’s

offering infrared reflectance-based

window systems on the same date.

NHTSA believes that there would be

good cause for such an effective date

since the amendments would not

impose any new requirements but

instead relieve a restriction.

VIII. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

A. Executive Order 12866 and DOT

Regulatory Policies and Procedures

This rulemaking document was not

reviewed under E.O. 12866, ‘‘Regulatory

Planning and Review.’’ This action has

been determined to be ‘‘non-significant’’

under the Department of

Transportation’s regulatory policies and

procedures. The proposed amendments

would not impose any new

requirements, but simply provide

additional detail to the test procedures

so that a new technology may be tested,

thus allowing manufacturers to certify

vehicles employing these technologies

as meeting the existing requirements.

Therefore, the impacts of the proposed

amendments would be so minor that a

full regulatory evaluation is not

required.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

NHTSA has also considered the

impacts of this notice under the

Regulatory Flexibility Act. I hereby

certify that this proposed rule would not

have a significant economic impact on

a substantial number of small entities.

As explained above, the rule would not

impose any new requirements but

would instead relieve a restriction

resulting from a lack of specificity in the

current requirements. The infrared

sensing technologies that may be

permitted as a result of this proposal are

only likely to be offered on a small

number of vehicles produced by major

automobile manufacturers.

C. Paperwork Reduction Act

In accordance with the Paperwork

Reduction Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96–511),

there are no requirements for

information collection associated with

this proposed rule.

D. Executive Order 12612 (Federalism)

NHTSA has analyzed this proposal in

accordance with the principles and

criteria contained in E.O. 12612, and

has determined that this proposed rule

would not have sufficient federalism

implications to warrant the preparation

of a Federalism Assessment.

E. Civil Justice Reform

This proposed rule would not have

any retroactive effect. Under 49 U.S.C.

30103, whenever a Federal motor

vehicle safety standard is in effect, a

State may not adopt or maintain a safety

standard applicable to the same aspect

of performance which is not identical to

the Federal standard, except to the

extent that the state requirement

imposes a higher level of performance

and applies only to vehicles procured

for the State’s use. 49 U.S.C. 30161 sets

forth a procedure for judicial review of

final rules establishing, amending or

revoking Federal motor vehicle safety

standards. That section does not require

submission of a petition for

reconsideration or other administrative

proceedings before parties may file suit

in court.

IX. Submission of Comments

Interested persons are invited to

submit comments on the proposal. It is

requested but not required that 10

copies be submitted.

Comments must not exceed 15 pages

in length (See 49 CFR 553.21).

Necessary attachments may be

appended to these submissions without

regard to the 15-page limit. This

limitation is intended to encourage

commenters to detail their primary

arguments in a concise fashion.

If a commenter wishes to submit

certain information under a claim of

confidentiality, three copies of the

complete submission, including

purportedly confidential business

information, should be submitted to the

Chief Counsel, NHTSA, at the street

address given above, and seven copies

from which the purportedly confidential

information has been deleted should be

submitted to the Docket Section. A

request for confidentiality should be

accompanied by a cover letter setting

forth the information specified in the

agency’s confidential business

information regulation. See 49 CFR Part

512.

All comments received before the

close of business on the comment

closing date indicated above for the

proposal will be considered, and will be

available for examination in the docket

at the above address both before and

after that date. To the extent possible,

comments filed after the closing date

will also be considered. Comments

received too late for consideration in

regard to the final rule will be

considered as suggestions for further

rulemaking action. Comments on the

proposal will be available for inspection

in the docket. NHTSA will continue to

file relevant information as it becomes

available in the docket after the closing

date, and it is recommended that

interested persons continue to examine

the docket for new material.

Those persons desiring to be notified

upon receipt of their comments in the

rules docket should enclose a selfaddressed, stamped postcard in the

envelope with their comments. Upon

receiving the comments, the docket

supervisor will return the postcard by

mail.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 571

Imports, Motor vehicle safety, Motor

vehicles.

In consideration of the foregoing, it is

proposed that 49 CFR part 571 be

amended as follows:

PART 571—FEDERAL MOTOR

VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS

1. The authority citation for part 571

of Title 49 would continue to read as

follows:

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115,

30117, and 30166; delegation of authority at

49 CFR 1.50.

2. Section 571.118 would be amended

as follows:

a. S3 is amended by adding a new

definition in alphabetical order.

b. S5 is revised.

c. S6 is added.

d. Figure 2 is added to the end of the

section, following Figure 1.

The additions and revisions would

read as follows:

§ 571.118 Standard No. 118; Poweroperated window, partition, and roof panel

systems.

* * * * *

S3. Definitions.

* * * * *

Infrared reflectance means the ratio of

intensity of infrared light reflected and

scattered by a flat sample of the test rod

material, to the intensity of infrared

light incident on that material, as

measured by the apparatus shown in

Figure 2.

* * * * *

S5. (a) A power operated window,

partition, or roof panel system that

meets the requirements in paragraphs

(1) through (2)(iii) may close in
28130 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 108 / Tuesday, June 4, 1996 / Proposed Rules

circumstances other than those

specified in S4—

(1) Except as specified in S5(b), while

closing, the window, partition or roof

panel system must halt and reverse

direction either before

(i) Contacting, or

(ii) Exerting a squeezing force of 100

newtons or more on a semi-rigid

cylindrical rod that has the properties

described in S6(b), and that is placed

through the window, partition or roof

panel system opening at any location, in

the manner described in S6(a); and

(2) Upon such reversal, the window,

partition or roof panel system must

open to one of the following positions,

at the manufacturer’s option:

(i) A position that is at least as open

as the position at the time closing was

initiated;

(ii) A position that is not less than 125

millimeters more open than the position

at the time the window reversed

direction; or

(iii) A position that permits a semirigid cylindrical rod that is 200 mm in

diameter to be placed through the

opening at the same contact point(s) as

the rod described in S5(a)(1).

(b) A closing window, partition, or

roof panel system need not reverse

direction as required in S5(a)(1) if it can

halt upon entry of any portion of a 15

mm cylindrical test rod at any location

within a zone bounded by:

(i) The interior surface of the closed

window, partition, or roof panel,

(ii) A surface 50 mm inboard of that

surface,

(iii) The portion of the window,

partition, or roof panel frame that the

window, partition, or roof panel closes

against, and

(iv) A surface 100 mm from that part

of the frame.

(c) If a vehicle uses the principle of

proximity detection by infrared

reflection to halt the powered window,

partition, or roof panel before it contacts

the test rod, the infrared source shall

project infrared light at a nominal

wavelength of not less than 850 and not

more than 1050 nm.

S6. Test procedures for determining

compliance with S5.

(a)(1) For testing power window,

partition, or sunroof systems designed

to detect contact with the test rod, place

the test rod through the window,

partition, or roof panel opening from the

inside of the vehicle such that the

cylindrical surface of the rod contacts

any part of the structure with which the

window, partition, or roof panel mates.

Typical placements of test rods are

illustrated in Figure 1. Attempt to shut

the power window, partition, or roof

panel.

(2) For testing power window,

partition, or sunroof systems designed

to detect the proximity of the test rod

using infrared reflectance and to halt the

powered window, partition, or roof

panel before it contacts the test rod, this

test is conducted with the vehicle in

direct sunlight. Place a stationary test

rod anywhere in the window, partition,

or roof panel opening, with the window,

partition, or roof panel in any position.

Attempt to close the window, partition,

or roof panel. Remove the test rod. Fully

open the window, partition, or roof

panel and then begin to close it. While

the window, partition, or roof panel is

closing, move a test rod so that it

approaches the window, partition, or

roof panel, or its frame, in any

orientation from the interior of the

vehicle.

(b) Test rods.

(1) Test rods are of cylindrical shape

in the range of diameter from 4 mm to

200 mm, except that a single 15 mm

diameter rod shall be used to test power

window, partition, or sunroof systems

that detect the proximity of a test rod

using infrared reflectance.

(2) For testing power window,

partition, or sunroof systems that detect

contact with the test rod, the forcedeflection ratio of the test rod is not less

than 65 N/mm for a rod 25 mm or

smaller in diameter, and not less than

20 N/mm for a rod larger than 25 mm

in diameter.

(3) For testing power window,

partition, or sunroof systems that detect

the proximity of the test rod using

infrared reflectance, the test rod shall

meet the following requirements:

(i) The infrared reflectance of the rod

surface material is not less than 0.7

percent, when measured using the

apparatus shown in Figure 2.

(ii) The infrared reflectance of the rod

surface material is measured using a flat

sample and an infrared light source and

sensor operating at a nominal

wavelength of 950 nm.

(iii) The intensity of incident infrared

light is determined using a mirror of

nominally 100 percent reflectance

mounted in place of the sample.

(iv) Measurements of the test rod

surface sample and the mirror are

corrected to remove the contribution of

infrared light reflected and scattered

from the sample holder and other parts

of the apparatus before the computation

of the ratio.

* * * * *

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 108 / Tuesday, June 4, 1996 / Proposed Rules 28131

Issued on: May 29, 1996.

Barry Felrice,

Associate Administrator for Safety

Performance Standards.

[FR Doc. 96–13864 Filed 6–3–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–59–C