[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 108 (Tuesday, June 4, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 28124-28131]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-13864]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
49 CFR Part 57l
[Docket No. 87-10; Notice 6]
RIN 2127-AF83
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Power-Operated Window,
Partition, and Roof Panel Systems
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation.
ACTION: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In response to a petition from Prospects Corporation
(Prospects), this document proposes to amend Standard 118, Power-
Operated Window, Partition, and Roof Panel Systems, to accommodate
power windows, partitions, and roof panels which automatically reverse
when closing if an infrared system detects an object in or near the
path of the closing window, partition, or panel. Since infrared systems
may fail to detect an object the size of a very young child's finger,
but can detect the child's hand, the agency is proposing to test those
systems using a rod representing the side profile of a child's hand.
The proposal also specifies the infrared reflectance of the rods used
for testing those systems. This document also proposes to amend the
requirements for systems that stop the window, partition, or panel
before an appendage or other body part could become trapped by it by
eliminating the requirement that those systems reverse after stopping.
Reversal is not necessary unless there is a risk that a person may
become trapped. In addition, this document requests comment on the
safety of express-up power windows (i.e., power windows that fully
close after a single, momentary touching of the window switch), because
numerous callers to NHTSA have alleged that express-up windows exist
and are unsafe.
DATES: Comment Date: Comments must be received by August 5, 1996
Effective and Compliance Dates: If adopted, the proposed amendments
would become effective, and compliance required, 30 days following
publication of the final rule.
ADDRESSES: Comments should refer to the docket and notice number of
this notice and be submitted to: Docket Section, Room 5109, National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW,
Washington, DC 20590. (Docket Room hours are 9:30 a.m.-4 p.m., Monday
through Friday.)
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The following persons by mail at the
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW,
Washington, DC 20590:
For technical issues:
Mr. Richard Van Iderstine, Office of Crash Avoidance Standards,
NPS-21, telephone (202) 366-5280, facsimile (202) 366-4329, electronic
mail 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
[[Page 28125]]
was present to supervise children. Making the presence of the ignition
key a precondition to power window activation also ensured that the
driver is provided with a simple means of disabling the power windows
of a parked vehicle, i.e., key removal. The power windows of most
vehicles are still linked to an ignition interlock.
Over the years, the standard has been amended to permit power
window closing in situations in which the key is not in the ignition,
but the existence of adult supervision could be presumed for other
reasons. In the most recent rulemaking, in 1991, NHTSA responded to the
interest of manufacturers in offering remote controls for window
closing. 56 FR 15290. In doing so, the agency was mindful that the
unrestricted allowance of remote controls, especially ones that
activated windows using radio frequency signals which can penetrate
obstructing walls, could pose a danger to child occupants because the
person activating the window might not be able to see a child in the
window opening. Therefore, in an effort to ensure the presence of a
supervising person, the agency amended the standard to permit power
windows to be operable through the use of remote controls only if the
controls had a very limited range, i.e., not more than 6 m. A longer
range, up to 11 m, was permitted for controls that were operable only
if there were an unobstructed line of sight between the control and the
vehicle.
In addition, the agency reasoned that its provisions permitting the
remote control of a power window need not be premised on the likely
existence of supervision if the window were equipped with an automatic
reversal system. If the window closing system itself could sense the
child's hand or head when it became trapped between the window and the
window frame, and thereupon stop and reverse to release the child, then
supervision would not be required. Therefore, the agency also
established a provision permitting power windows equipped with an
automatic reversal system to be closed in any manner (e.g., with or
without a key) desired by the manufacturer. It also permitted remote
controls of unrestricted range as well as new products, such as devices
to open and close windows automatically in response to heat and rain,
since they would be made safe by the automatic reversal system.
To qualify as an automatic reversal system, a system had to reverse
a power window, either before the window contacted, or before it
exerted ``a squeezing force of 100 newtons on a semi-rigid cylindrical
rod from 4 mm to 200 mm in diameter * * *'' The test procedure
specified a range of rods to represent portions of a person's body,
ranging in size from infant fingers to juvenile heads, inserted in the
window openings. This procedure addressed the fundamental safety
problem in terms of the level of squeezing force thought to be
injurious. It allowed for contact with a test rod if reversal is
triggered before the window exerts the injurious squeezing force on the
test rod. Upon reversal, the window was required to open for the
purpose of allowing easy extrication of a trapped head.
At the time of the most recent amendment, automatic reversal
systems for power windows did not exist on U.S. vehicles. The most
detailed comments on the amendment seemed to indicate companies were
contemplating reversal systems triggered by force measurement. NHTSA
assumed that manufacturers would produce power window reversal systems
based on force sensing technology.
The development of automatic reversal systems has not proceeded as
NHTSA anticipated. NHTSA currently is not aware of any force sensing
systems currently being certified to meet FMVSS No. 118, suggesting
that the manufacturers that had been considering force sensing systems
may have found them to be undesirable or impractical.
NHTSA also sought to allow the use of proximity sensing systems by
allowing automatic reversal systems that reversed the power window at
any time before contact with the test rods. The agency attempted to
word carefully the provisions regarding non-contact systems so as to
avoid discouraging their development. A commenter on the 1991 amendment
also indicated interest in developing reversal systems triggered by the
blockage of light by the child's body (the principle used by automatic
reversal mechanisms on some garage doors with remote controls).
Accordingly, the agency drafted a test procedure that satisfactorily
tests non-contact systems based on this principle.
The test procedure is less appropriate for non-contact systems
based on other principles. Prospects Corporation has developed a non-
contact automatic window reversal system which can detect the proximity
of some portion of a person's body by sensing the reflection (instead
of the blockage) of infrared light by a passenger's body. In Prospect's
system, there are an infrared emitter and a detector within the
interior of the vehicle that are not aligned with one another. When no
object is present in or near the plane of the window, the detector
receives a constant background level of infrared radiation reflected by
the inside of the vehicle. In this situation, the window may safely
close. However, when a child's hand, for example, approaches the
window, the hand reflects a certain amount of additional radiation from
the emitter to the detector. The detector senses the increase and
electronically reverses the window even before the child's hand reaches
the plane of the window.
To work well under the variety of foreseeable circumstances, an
infrared reflectance system must be sufficiently sensitive to detect a
variety of materials. Different materials (e.g., skin, hair, cloth,
plastic) have characteristic abilities to reflect infrared radiation, a
property called reflectance. The amount of radiation reflected is
affected by the wavelength of the radiation, the angle of incidence of
the radiation, the color and texture of the material, and the amount of
surface area exposed.
Since the standard currently does not specify the infrared
reflectance of the test rods, it cannot adequately assess the safety of
an automatic window reversal system based on infrared reflectance. Use
of a test rod with a higher reflectance than that of a child's hand
might allow a system to pass NHTSA's compliance test even though that
system might not be sufficiently sensitive to detect a child's hand
placed in or near the window opening. Therefore, the agency has
tentatively decided that the test procedure should be changed to
specify the aspects of the test rods that are necessary for testing the
compliance of infrared reflectance-based systems.
In proposing to amend the standard to provide for better testing of
non-contact systems based on infrared reflectance, NHTSA recognizes
that in the future there may be non-contact systems based on still
other principles. However, the agency cannot propose to amend the
standard to address those systems until their underlying principles are
identified and adequately defined.
II. Size of the Target Inboard of the Window Plane
The standard currently specifies information about the sizes of the
test rods that are appropriate for testing contact-based systems for
compliance. The standard requires that the reversal system protect
portions of a person's body, as represented by test rods ranging from 4
mm (about the size of an infant's finger) to 200 mm (about the size of
a child's head) in diameter. Typical placements of the test rods are
illustrated in drawings showing cylinders placed in various window and
roof openings. The illustrations show
[[Page 28126]]
the portion of the rods inside the vehicle passenger compartment (the
portion that would be used as a handle by the person conducting the
test) as having the same diameter as the portion in the plane of the
window. The standard requires that the part of the test rod exposed to
window contact be protected over the full range of test diameters.
There is no distinction made for the length or minimum diameter of the
part of the test rod inboard of the window plane, even though the cross
section of an infant's hand is larger than 4 mm.
Because it does not specify the size of the portion of the test
rods that is inboard of the window (the area in or near the plane of
the window when it is closed), the existing standard does not specify
one of the most important test conditions for the reflective proximity
detection scheme used by the petitioner. The petitioner's system
provides reflective proximity detection by projecting infrared light
across the inboard surface of the window, and using a sensor to detect
the amount of light that is reflected by objects in the zone
immediately inboard of the window. In the case of a child's hand in or
reaching toward the window, the smallest object from the standpoint of
reflective detection would be the hand, and not one of the fingers.
Prospects stated that its system may fail to detect the presence of
the smallest rod, which is intended to represent an infant's finger.
However, the petitioner believes that in reality its system would
always protect infant fingers because it would detect the infant's
hand. The petitioner suggested that the test rods be shaped like an
infant's hand (measured across the palm) with a width of 28 mm.
NHTSA agrees with the petitioner that it is not appropriate to test
the petitioner's device with a finger-sized target that is not
connected with a representation of a hand, but does not agree with the
use of a full hand width-size target. The infant could hold the palm of
its hand on edge, i.e., in a plane parallel to the direction of the
infrared radiation, and extend its finger. Therefore, to provide the
minimum realistic reflective cross section, the hand should be
represented with its full thickness (measured from the palm to the back
of the hand) providing reflection to the sensor.
NHTSA tentatively concludes that a reasonable worst-case dimension
for targets inboard of the plane of the window is 15 mm. The petitioner
reports a thickness of at least 15 mm in the edge view of a 15 month
old infant's hand. The agency considers this to be a reasonably
conservative estimate. Newborn babies with somewhat smaller hands would
be incapable of raising themselves up into an exposed position, and
even the smallest hands would present a target wider than 15 mm in most
orientations. Therefore, the test rods inside the window should not be
less than 15 mm in diameter to provide a representative test of
proximity sensing devices. Although the petitioner suggested a hand-
shaped test rod, the use of cylindrical rods as targets remains
desirable because it is easier to manufacture and removes the need to
consider the orientation of the target along its axis.
III. Reflectance of the Target
A. Testing Methods
NHTSA also considered what level of reflectance would appropriately
represent the clothed and unclothed hands and arms of young children.
Reflectance is the ratio of the intensity of the light (measured by a
detector as energy) reflected by the surface of a material to that of
the light that strikes the surface of the material. An important
objective of this proposal is to determine a reasonable value of
reflectance for the test rods that NHTSA will use in compliance
testing. The level of reflectance that NHTSA is proposing is based on
experimental data the petitioner submitted (Prospects' report on the
reflectance of skin and clothing is available in rulemaking docket
number 87-10; Notice No. 6). NHTSA believes that the data generated by
Prospect's laboratory test apparatus can be applied generally to in-
vehicle detection systems based on infrared reflectance, and requests
comment on this assumption.
Prospect's petition gave little detailed information on
reflectance. Therefore, NHTSA asked the petitioner to address the
question of reflectance in more detail. Because color affects
reflectance, the reflective properties of skin of different shades and
colors was of obvious importance, and the effect of color was also
addressed by the petitioner. NHTSA also asked the petitioner to
investigate whether gloves and other clothing would be more difficult
to detect than bare skin.
The petitioner responded by providing measurements of the infrared
light reflected from human skin and a large variety of leathers and
fabrics. The measurements were conducted with an apparatus
incorporating an infrared light source (nominal wavelength 950
nanometers (nm)) and a light sensor of the type used in the prototype
window reversal system appearing in Appendix 1 of the petitioner's
report. The apparatus projected infrared light on the skin or material
sample and received the reflected (or scattered) light at an equal
angle of reflection. The angle of incidence was 16 degrees. The
distance from the source to the sample, and the distance from the
sample to the light sensor, was the same, about 135 mm. The light
reaching the sensor was measured with and without the sample in place,
so that the light reflected from the sample holder could be discounted.
Although the light reaching the sensor can be thought of as having
been reflected by the sample, it arrives by the combination of
reflection from the surface of the sample and scattering by the texture
of the sample. Since both the test apparatus and any in-vehicle devices
that might be produced measure the sum of reflection and scatter, there
is no need to distinguish between the two mechanisms which result in
light reaching the sensor. Therefore, the term ``reflection'' is used
below in a broad sense to refer to all light reaching the sensor as a
consequence of the presence of the sample.
NHTSA's test procedures should be as general and as design-
independent as possible, to avoid restricting vehicle manufacturers'
choices. Prospects' tests compared the infrared reflectance of various
portions of a person's body and clothing materials and found relative
reflectance relationships that ought to hold true for infrared
reflectance-based detection systems in general. However, the absolute
numerical results (in terms of microwatts of power received by the
sensor) are specific to the particular test apparatus used by
Prospects. NHTSA discussed with the petitioner the need to express the
infrared reflective properties of skin and other material in terms that
are not specific to a particular light source and sensor.
A reasonable solution was found in the use of a high reflectance
mirror as a comparison medium. A mirror that reflects 99.99 percent of
infrared light was mounted in the apparatus as a sample. The presence
of the mirror caused the infrared sensor to receive 47 microwatts. The
power measured with the sample materials was divided by this power and
the resulting ratio was multiplied by 100 percent to produce a value
that is characteristic of each sample. When normalized by the mirror
measurement in this way, the skin and material measurements become
independent of the power, beam size and dispersion of the light source
and the size and sensitivity of the infrared sensor.
This method of normalizing the power measurements also has the
[[Page 28127]]
benefit of producing results of general utility, regardless of the size
of the sample. The sensitivity of the reflectance determination to
changes in the light path length of the apparatus is low because
measurements using the sample and the mirror would be affected in the
same proportion by a change in light path length. Therefore, the length
of the light path need not be specified.
However, NHTSA is specifying the angles of incidence and reflection
to be used when determining the reflectance of test rods, in order to
avoid changes in the relative composition of reflected and scattered
light from textured samples. The agency notes that specifying these
angles does not restrict vehicle design in any way, but only defines
the parameters to be used when producing test rods.
B. Test Results
In order to test skin for reflectance values, Prospects had
different people place their hands against the back of the sample
holder. The skin of White, Black and Asian persons was measured at the
back of the hand and at the palm. Three individuals of each race were
measured. The macro-texture of the palms and backs of hands can be
presumed to affect the relative contribution of reflection and scatter.
The range of reflectance from the palms of hands was from 2.43 to 2.96
percent, and the range for the skin on the back of the hand was from
2.04 to 2.83 percent. The total range of 2.04 to 2.96 percent for
differences between races, individuals and hand orientation was very
small compared to that of common fabrics, as can be seen from the
following results.
In response to NHTSA's concern about the reflectance of various
skin coverings, Prospects tested thirty-seven samples comprising
various colors, textures and types of fabric and leather, including
wool, silk, cotton, polyester, and a 35 percent cotton/65 percent
polyester blend. The range of reflectance of the fabric and leather
samples was from 0.70 to 6.09 percent. With the exception of three
samples, the fabrics and leathers were more reflective than skin. The
worst case was a black cotton/polyester material which reflected about
\1/3\ the amount of infrared light reflected by human skin. Figure 8 of
the petitioner's report summarizes the range of material reflectance
(Docket No. 87-10; Notice No. 6). The large variety of skin and
potential skin-covering materials Prospects tested appears to provide a
good representation of foreseeable detection targets.
The narrow range of reflectance for skin despite differences in
individuals, races, and part of body indicates that infrared skin
reflection is not very sensitive to common variables including the lack
of ``flatness'' of hand samples. This validates the ability of the
infrared reflectance proximity sensor to detect its primary target,
skin. It is also encouraging that most clothing materials appear to
improve the infrared reflectance of the body. However, at least one
common material would reduce the reflectance of the body by two thirds.
NHTSA is proposing a minimum reflectance of 0.7 percent for the
test rods. This is a conservative value which equals the minimum
reflectance of black cotton/polyester. That material had the lowest
reflectance in Prospects' experiment. Bare skin, at about 2-3 percent
reflectance, is three times more detectable.
Manufacturers should have little difficulty producing test rods
with the proper reflectance. The reflectance of the surface material of
NHTSA's test rods would be tested using an apparatus similar to the one
used by Prospects. However, as discussed above, there is considerable
flexibility in the construction of the test apparatus. Only the
wavelength of the source and the angles of incidence and reflection
would need to be kept constant.
IV. Protection of Persons Outside the Vehicle
Since paragraph S5 of Standard No. 118 relieves power windows
systems with automatic reversal from the presence-of-supervision-
assuring restrictions of S4, NHTSA should consider whether protection
is provided for a person who is outside the vehicle and is reaching
toward or into the vehicle. It cannot be assumed that an infrared
proximity detector will operate on objects shielded by window glass,
thus only portions of a person's body inside the window would be
capable of triggering it under this proposal.
There are a number of reasons to believe that this is not a great
danger. Small children inside vehicles can reach the pinch points (the
area where the window and window frame meet) by standing on the seat,
but a child standing on the ground outside the vehicle must be
considerably older and taller to reach most pinch points. The agency
expects that even the single bare finger of a child of that size would
be detected. Even if a bare finger is much smaller than the proposed
test rod diameter of 15 mm, it would likely be detected because the
reflectance of skin is so much greater than the proposed test rod. A
child holding the edge of the window would offer an even larger target
for detection, the width of his or her palm, and a child leaning into
the vehicle so that his or her head is in the window would certainly be
detected and protected.
However, it would be possible for a person willfully to ``fool''
the detector by placing just the tip of a finger on the outside upper
edge of the window as it shuts. In that location, the finger tip could
be shielded from the infrared emitter. (Recall that this situation is
possible only for persons outside the vehicle because fingers of a
vehicle occupant cannot get to the pinch points without exposing the
hand to detection.) The most likely occasion for such abuse involves a
child inside the vehicle operating the windows in playing ``chicken''
with another child outside the vehicle.
The agency recognizes the possibility of abuse of the system but
believes that the possibility is not serious enough to warrant
declining to facilitate the use of power window systems with infrared
sensors. This belief is based on the assumption that manufacturers
would not make automatic window closing possible in the absence of the
ignition key except possibly for rain protection or for a limited time
after key removal. NHTSA requests comments on the validity of this
assumption. In addition, children who can reach the top of the window
from the ground are old enough to possess some level of experience and
judgment, and a very slight withdrawal motion is all that is necessary
for self-protection.
V. Presumption of Supervision
Although not raised in the petition submitted by Prospects, many
callers to this agency have expressed certain reservations about the
safety of the existing standard. Accordingly, NHTSA is using this
document to take the opportunity to request comments on these concerns.
This is especially appropriate in light of the consideration that the
agency is giving to making the standard more permissive.
The safety of children depends on driver supervision when power
windows close in the modes permitted by section S4. However, there are
some design possibilities not prohibited by S4 that can reduce either
the likelihood or the effectiveness of driver supervision. The standard
allows window closing with the ignition key in the ``accessory'', as
well as in the ``on'' and ``start'' positions. Drivers may be tempted
to leave unattended children in a vehicle with the key in the
``accessory'' position in order to operate the vent fan or the radio,
thus failing to maintain supervision of the power windows. Drivers need
to supervise children in
[[Page 28128]]
the rear seat, but vehicles are not required to have a driver
controlled lock-out of the rear power windows. Many vehicles are
designed to avoid these potential problems, but designs that exceed the
safety standard are not universal. Is the presumption of supervision a
valid one?
Some callers have questioned the safety of a convenience feature
that they say some manufacturers are offering, i.e., an ``express up''
closing mode, which requires only a momentary switch contact rather
than continuous activation to close the window. No caller reported any
injuries associated with this feature. NHTSA is aware of such systems
on a few of the most expensive German cars. In all of these cases, the
express-up windows are also equipped with automatic reversal (although
these reversal systems may not pass the requirements of FMVSS No. 118).
It is possible that part of the interest by vehicle manufacturers in
infrared proximity detectors is motivated by a desire to assure the
safety of express-up windows. If the agency proceeds to a final rule,
the agency will consider while writing the forthcoming final rule
whether to propose that express-up operation of windows, other than the
driver's, should be excluded from the closing modes of S4, which
presume driver supervision and, by implication, some level of control.
These thoughts are offered in the questions to commenters below to
guide possible future rulemaking.
VI. Need for Reversal
The existing standard requires that closing power windows halt to
avoid applying excessive squeezing force on a passenger, and then
reverse their travel to release the person. The reversing requirement
is necessary when the halting of a window is triggered by a force
measurement because, otherwise, the squeezed person might remain
trapped by the window.
Although the petitioner did not question the application of the
reversal requirement to a window equipped with an infrared sensor, it
appears that it may not be necessary to apply the requirement to all
infrared sensing systems since most of these systems would detect
objects in a large zone and would ensure safety by merely halting.
Devices which halt power windows by detecting limbs and heads interior
to the plane of the powered window opening and in a wide detection area
around the pinch zone will halt the windows before the body enters the
pinch zone, eliminating the possibility of trapping. A three-
dimensional detection zone extending from the window frame 100 mm into
the opening and extending horizontally inboard into the interior of the
vehicle 50 mm from the interior surface of the closed window would
probably be sufficient to prevent trapping by halting the window alone.
Therefore, NHTSA proposes that non-contact window systems which detect
proximity of persons over such a large interior space, thereby halting
the window before the person enters the pinch zone, be relieved of the
necessity of reversing as well.
It is not necessary for non-contact systems to detect the proximity
of persons over such a large range of space to prevent injury. Even a
system sensitive in a narrow zone only a few millimeters below the
window frame would prevent contact. However, a window whose detection
system has such limited sensitivity must be able to reverse to avoid
the possibility of trapping a child's head.
VII. Questions for Commenters
A. The proposed test rods would combine a reasonable worst case
target size (15 mm) with a reasonable worst case reflectance (0.7
percent). If there is an even more appropriate combination of factors,
please explain what these factors are and why they are better than the
proposed factors. If one considers the target size of 15 mm as
indicative of bare limbs, would a maximum reflectance of 1 percent be
adequate? A reflectance of 1 percent is half the reflectance of skin
and thus would provide a factor of safety of 2 relative to bare skin.
Is the proposed 0.7 percent reflectance (a factor of safety of 3)
necessary to ensure that persons outside the vehicle are adequately
protected?
B. Can prototype infrared proximity systems detect a target
combining the worst case size (15 mm) and worst case reflectance (0.7
percent) at all points near the frame of a large side window? Would its
performance be hindered by bright sunlight or other infrared sources?
What other factors might limit the effectiveness of infrared systems?
How should the agency guard against the effects of those factors?
C. The information submitted to the agency concerning the
reflectance of skin and the relative reflectance of skin and clothing
was obtained using infrared light of a nominal 950 nm wavelength. While
the agency endeavors to make standards as simple and general as
possible, it has no basis to assume that this reflectance information
is applicable to infrared light of significantly different wavelengths.
Therefore, the proposed compliance tests are limited to infrared
devices operating at wavelengths of 950 nm +/- 100 nm. Is there any
evidence that significantly different reflectance properties would be
manifested within that narrow range of infrared wavelengths? Would a
two hundred nanometer range be sufficient to avoid unduly restricting
manufacturer's choice of equipment? Is there any reason to believe that
manufacturers would prefer to have infrared devices operating at
different parts of the infrared spectrum? Are there any data showing
that devices in other areas of the spectrum would provide an equivalent
level of safety?
D. Would the 16 degree angle of incidence/reflection used in the
Prospects study be appropriate for testing the reflectance of
materials? Are there any data indicating that the angle is critical to
the strength of either the reflection or scattering components of the
detected light? Are other angles more appropriate?
E. NHTSA is proposing that compliance testing be done in direct
sunlight so that the in-vehicle sensors are exposed to the highest
possible background ``noise'' level of extraneous infrared light. This
should make the test more demanding because small differences in the
amount of infrared radiation reaching the detector should be harder to
perceive against a higher background level. NHTSA requests comment on
whether this is a valid assumption and whether other extraneous factors
can affect the safe functioning of such in-vehicle infrared detection
systems.
F. The safety of children depends on driver supervision when power
windows close in the modes permitted by section S4. The standard allows
window closing with the ignition key in the ``accessory'', as well as
in the ``on'' and ``start'' positions. Drivers may be tempted to leave
unattended children in a vehicle with the key in the ``accessory''
position in order to operate the vent fan or the radio, failing to
maintain supervision of the power windows. Drivers need to supervise
children in the rear seat, but vehicles are not required to have a
driver controlled lock-out of the rear power windows. Many vehicles are
designed to avoid these potential problems. What current production
vehicles have power window operation with the key in the ``accessory''
position or have rear power windows without a driver controlled lock-
out? Do they present safety problems needing regulatory attention? Is
there any evidence of a safety problem?
G. The standard does not regulate the express-up closing mode which
requires
[[Page 28129]]
only a momentary switch contact rather than continuous activation to
close the window. Should windows that have the express-up operation be
prohibited from closing in the modes specified in S4, which presume
driver supervision? What production vehicles, if any, have express-up
window operation and on which windows is it applied? Is there any
evidence that express-up windows represent a safety problem?
NHTSA is proposing to make the proposed amendments effective 30
days after publication of a final rule. Compliance with the
requirements would be required by manufacturer's offering infrared
reflectance-based window systems on the same date. NHTSA believes that
there would be good cause for such an effective date since the
amendments would not impose any new requirements but instead relieve a
restriction.
VIII. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
A. Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures
This rulemaking document was not reviewed under E.O. 12866,
``Regulatory Planning and Review.'' This action has been determined to
be ``non-significant'' under the Department of Transportation's
regulatory policies and procedures. The proposed amendments would not
impose any new requirements, but simply provide additional detail to
the test procedures so that a new technology may be tested, thus
allowing manufacturers to certify vehicles employing these technologies
as meeting the existing requirements. Therefore, the impacts of the
proposed amendments would be so minor that a full regulatory evaluation
is not required.
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
NHTSA has also considered the impacts of this notice under the
Regulatory Flexibility Act. I hereby certify that this proposed rule
would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities. As explained above, the rule would not impose any new
requirements but would instead relieve a restriction resulting from a
lack of specificity in the current requirements. The infrared sensing
technologies that may be permitted as a result of this proposal are
only likely to be offered on a small number of vehicles produced by
major automobile manufacturers.
C. Paperwork Reduction Act
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-
511), there are no requirements for information collection associated
with this proposed rule.
D. Executive Order 12612 (Federalism)
NHTSA has analyzed this proposal in accordance with the principles
and criteria contained in E.O. 12612, and has determined that this
proposed rule would not have sufficient federalism implications to
warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
E. Civil Justice Reform
This proposed rule would not have any retroactive effect. Under 49
U.S.C. 30103, whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard is in
effect, a State may not adopt or maintain a safety standard applicable
to the same aspect of performance which is not identical to the Federal
standard, except to the extent that the state requirement imposes a
higher level of performance and applies only to vehicles procured for
the State's use. 49 U.S.C. 30161 sets forth a procedure for judicial
review of final rules establishing, amending or revoking Federal motor
vehicle safety standards. That section does not require submission of a
petition for reconsideration or other administrative proceedings before
parties may file suit in court.
IX. Submission of Comments
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on the proposal.
It is requested but not required that 10 copies be submitted.
Comments must not exceed 15 pages in length (See 49 CFR 553.21).
Necessary attachments may be appended to these submissions without
regard to the 15-page limit. This limitation is intended to encourage
commenters to detail their primary arguments in a concise fashion.
If a commenter wishes to submit certain information under a claim
of confidentiality, three copies of the complete submission, including
purportedly confidential business information, should be submitted to
the Chief Counsel, NHTSA, at the street address given above, and seven
copies from which the purportedly confidential information has been
deleted should be submitted to the Docket Section. A request for
confidentiality should be accompanied by a cover letter setting forth
the information specified in the agency's confidential business
information regulation. See 49 CFR Part 512.
All comments received before the close of business on the comment
closing date indicated above for the proposal will be considered, and
will be available for examination in the docket at the above address
both before and after that date. To the extent possible, comments filed
after the closing date will also be considered. Comments received too
late for consideration in regard to the final rule will be considered
as suggestions for further rulemaking action. Comments on the proposal
will be available for inspection in the docket. NHTSA will continue to
file relevant information as it becomes available in the docket after
the closing date, and it is recommended that interested persons
continue to examine the docket for new material.
Those persons desiring to be notified upon receipt of their
comments in the rules docket should enclose a self-addressed, stamped
postcard in the envelope with their comments. Upon receiving the
comments, the docket supervisor will return the postcard by mail.
List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 571
Imports, Motor vehicle safety, Motor vehicles.
In consideration of the foregoing, it is proposed that 49 CFR part
571 be amended as follows:
PART 571--FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS
1. The authority citation for part 571 of Title 49 would continue
to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117, and 30166;
delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.
2. Section 571.118 would be amended as follows:
a. S3 is amended by adding a new definition in alphabetical order.
b. S5 is revised.
c. S6 is added.
d. Figure 2 is added to the end of the section, following Figure 1.
The additions and revisions would read as follows:
Sec. 571.118 Standard No. 118; Power-operated window, partition, and
roof panel systems.
* * * * *
S3. Definitions.
* * * * *
Infrared reflectance means the ratio of intensity of infrared light
reflected and scattered by a flat sample of the test rod material, to
the intensity of infrared light incident on that material, as measured
by the apparatus shown in Figure 2.
* * * * *
S5. (a) A power operated window, partition, or roof panel system
that meets the requirements in paragraphs (1) through (2)(iii) may
close in
[[Page 28130]]
circumstances other than those specified in S4--
(1) Except as specified in S5(b), while closing, the window,
partition or roof panel system must halt and reverse direction either
before
(i) Contacting, or
(ii) Exerting a squeezing force of 100 newtons or more on a semi-
rigid cylindrical rod that has the properties described in S6(b), and
that is placed through the window, partition or roof panel system
opening at any location, in the manner described in S6(a); and
(2) Upon such reversal, the window, partition or roof panel system
must open to one of the following positions, at the manufacturer's
option:
(i) A position that is at least as open as the position at the time
closing was initiated;
(ii) A position that is not less than 125 millimeters more open
than the position at the time the window reversed direction; or
(iii) A position that permits a semi-rigid cylindrical rod that is
200 mm in diameter to be placed through the opening at the same contact
point(s) as the rod described in S5(a)(1).
(b) A closing window, partition, or roof panel system need not
reverse direction as required in S5(a)(1) if it can halt upon entry of
any portion of a 15 mm cylindrical test rod at any location within a
zone bounded by:
(i) The interior surface of the closed window, partition, or roof
panel,
(ii) A surface 50 mm inboard of that surface,
(iii) The portion of the window, partition, or roof panel frame
that the window, partition, or roof panel closes against, and
(iv) A surface 100 mm from that part of the frame.
(c) If a vehicle uses the principle of proximity detection by
infrared reflection to halt the powered window, partition, or roof
panel before it contacts the test rod, the infrared source shall
project infrared light at a nominal wavelength of not less than 850 and
not more than 1050 nm.
S6. Test procedures for determining compliance with S5.
(a)(1) For testing power window, partition, or sunroof systems
designed to detect contact with the test rod, place the test rod
through the window, partition, or roof panel opening from the inside of
the vehicle such that the cylindrical surface of the rod contacts any
part of the structure with which the window, partition, or roof panel
mates. Typical placements of test rods are illustrated in Figure 1.
Attempt to shut the power window, partition, or roof panel.
(2) For testing power window, partition, or sunroof systems
designed to detect the proximity of the test rod using infrared
reflectance and to halt the powered window, partition, or roof panel
before it contacts the test rod, this test is conducted with the
vehicle in direct sunlight. Place a stationary test rod anywhere in the
window, partition, or roof panel opening, with the window, partition,
or roof panel in any position. Attempt to close the window, partition,
or roof panel. Remove the test rod. Fully open the window, partition,
or roof panel and then begin to close it. While the window, partition,
or roof panel is closing, move a test rod so that it approaches the
window, partition, or roof panel, or its frame, in any orientation from
the interior of the vehicle.
(b) Test rods.
(1) Test rods are of cylindrical shape in the range of diameter
from 4 mm to 200 mm, except that a single 15 mm diameter rod shall be
used to test power window, partition, or sunroof systems that detect
the proximity of a test rod using infrared reflectance.
(2) For testing power window, partition, or sunroof systems that
detect contact with the test rod, the force-deflection ratio of the
test rod is not less than 65 N/mm for a rod 25 mm or smaller in
diameter, and not less than 20 N/mm for a rod larger than 25 mm in
diameter.
(3) For testing power window, partition, or sunroof systems that
detect the proximity of the test rod using infrared reflectance, the
test rod shall meet the following requirements:
(i) The infrared reflectance of the rod surface material is not
less than 0.7 percent, when measured using the apparatus shown in
Figure 2.
(ii) The infrared reflectance of the rod surface material is
measured using a flat sample and an infrared light source and sensor
operating at a nominal wavelength of 950 nm.
(iii) The intensity of incident infrared light is determined using
a mirror of nominally 100 percent reflectance mounted in place of the
sample.
(iv) Measurements of the test rod surface sample and the mirror are
corrected to remove the contribution of infrared light reflected and
scattered from the sample holder and other parts of the apparatus
before the computation of the ratio.
* * * * *
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
[[Page 28131]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04JN96.008
Issued on: May 29, 1996.
Barry Felrice,
Associate Administrator for Safety Performance Standards.
[FR Doc. 96-13864 Filed 6-3-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-C
