Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Door Locks and Door Retention Components

Note: EPA no longer updates this information, but it may be useful as a reference or resource.
 [Federal Register: February 6, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 24)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 5385-5413]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr06fe07-19]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
49 CFR Part 571
[Docket No. NHTSA-2006-23882]
RIN 2127-AH34

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Door Locks and Door
Retention Components

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Department of
Transportation (NHTSA).
ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are amending our safety standard on door locks and door
retention components in order to add and update requirements and test
procedures and to harmonize with the world's first global technical
regulation for motor vehicles. Today's final rule adds test
requirements and test procedures for sliding doors, adds secondary
latched position requirements for doors other than hinged side doors
and back doors, provides a new optional test procedure for assessing
inertial forces, and extends the application of the standard to buses
with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of less than 10,000 pounds,
including 12-15 passenger vans. Today's final rule also eliminates an
exclusion from the requirements of the standard for doors equipped with
wheelchair platform lifts.

DATES: Today's final rule is effective September 1, 2009. Optional
early compliance is permitted on and after February 6, 2007. Petitions
for reconsideration must be received by March 23, 2007.

ADDRESSES: Petitions for reconsideration must be submitted to:
Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400
Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, Washington, DC 20590-0001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, CONTACT: For technical issues: Mr. Maurice
Hicks, Structures and Special Systems Division, Office of
Crashworthiness Standards, National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590;
telephone (202) 366-6345; telefax (202) 493-2739; 
Maurice.hicks@dot.gov.
    For legal issues: Ms. Rebecca Schade, Office of the Chief Counsel,
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20590; telephone (202) 366-2992; telefax (202) 366-3820.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Executive Summary
II. Background
    A. Safety Problem
    B. Harmonization Efforts and the Proposed Upgrade
    1. Global Technical Regulation (GTR)
    2. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
    3. Public Comments
III. SAFETEA-LU
IV. Upgrade to FMVSS No. 206
    A. The GTR Process
    B. Definitions
    C. Hinged Door Requirements
    1. Load Tests
    2. Inertial Test
    3. Door Hinges
    D. Side Sliding Door Requirements
    1. Side Sliding Door Latch Requirements
    2. Side Sliding Door Test Procedure
    a. Compression Versus Tension
    b. Test Device and Set-Up
    c. Application of Force
    d. Performance Requirement
    A. Door Locks
    B. Applicability
V. Certification Information
VI. Costs, Benefits, and the Effective Date
VII. Regulatory Analyses and Notices

I. Executive Summary

    Between 1995 and 2003, over 54,000 motor vehicle occupants were
ejected annually from their vehicles. Ejections through glazing (i.e.,
ejections through a vehicle window) comprised 59 percent of all
ejections. Twenty-six percent of all ejections occurred through
openings other than side glazing and doors, such as windshields, open
convertible tops, and open truck beds. The remaining 15 percent of
ejections occurred through a vehicle door. Given the sources and
magnitude of the overall safety problem posed by ejections from
vehicles, the agency is addressing the problem comprehensively,
focusing on ejections through glazing as well as ejections through
doors.\1\ This final rule focuses on those ejections that occur through
a vehicle door.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ On September 15, 2004, the agency proposed revisions to
FMVSS No. 214, Side impact protection, which would likely induce
vehicle manufacturers to use side curtains as a countermeasure (69
FR 55550). The Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation
Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) added a provision to 49
U.S.C. Chapter 301 which requires the agency to conduct a rulemaking
proceeding to establish performance standards to reduce complete and
partial ejections of vehicle occupants. See 49 U.S.C. 30128(c)(1).
Containment requirements for side curtains may be one of the
countermeasures to prevent ejections through side glazing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Currently, passenger cars, trucks, and multipurpose passenger
vehicles must comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS)
No. 206, Door locks and door retention components. Most of this
standard's requirements were established in the early 1970s, in

[[Page 5386]]

order to minimize the likelihood of occupant ejections through side
door openings. In 1995, these requirements were expanded to address
back doors. While these requirements have significantly improved door
performance over the level of pre-standard doors, occupants continue to
be ejected through doors.
    Crashes such as offset frontals, near side impacts, and especially
rollovers lead to complex loading conditions, which cause doors to
open. Additionally, less complex load conditions may occur in many non-
rollover conditions. While the agency is continuing to develop a
repeatable and practicable test procedure that will address complex
loading, today's final rule updates the existing requirements and test
procedures to ensure the strength of individual latch components for
load conditions that are less complex, such as those that occur in many
non-rollover collisions.
    The agency's efforts to improve the requirements and test
procedures of FMVSS No. 206 to address door ejections in a more
satisfactory way coincided with the adoption of the initial Program of
Work under the 1998 Global Agreement.\2\ The agency sought to work
collaboratively on door ejections with other contracting parties to the
1998 Global Agreement, particularly Transport Canada, the European
Union (EU), and Japan. Through the exchange of information on ongoing
research and testing and through the leveraging of resources for
testing and evaluations, the agency led successful efforts that
culminated in the establishment of the first global technical
regulation (GTR) under the 1998 Agreement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The 1998 Global Agreement was concluded under the auspices
of the United Nations and provides for the establishment of globally
harmonized vehicle regulations. This Agreement, whose conclusion was
spearheaded by the United States, entered into force in 2000 and is
administered by the UN Economic Commission for Europe's World Forum
for the Harmonization of Vehicle Regulations (WP.29).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This first GTR demonstrated that U.S./EU regulatory cooperation can
achieve increased safety and harmonized standards that are science-
based and free of unjustified requirements. If adopted into domestic
law by the U.S. and EU, the GTR on door locks and door retention
systems would essentially eliminate the differences between the U.S.
and EU standards for reducing the likelihood that a vehicle's doors
will open in a crash, thus allowing the ejection of the vehicle's
occupants. Adopting amendments based on the GTR will not only result in
improvements to the U.S. standard, but also to the EU standard. This
will also benefit other countries since the EU standard is the United
Nations' Economic Commission for Europe regulation (ECE R.11), which is
used by the majority of the world community.
    The U.S., as a Contracting Party of the 1998 Global Agreement that
voted in favor of establishing this GTR at the November 18, 2004
Session of the Executive Committee, was obligated under the Agreement
to initiate the process for adopting the provisions of the GTR.\3\ On
December 15, 2004, we issued a notice of proposed rulemaking closely
based on the GTR, which satisfied this obligation (69 FR 75020; Docket
No. NHTSA-2004-19840; NPRM). The provisions of the GTR proposed in the
NPRM and adopted in today's final rule will improve the current
requirements and test procedures of FMVSS No. 206, and reduce deaths
and injuries from door ejections.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ While the Agreement obligates such contracting parties to
begin their processes, it leaves the ultimate decision of whether to
adopt the GTR into their domestic law to the parties themselves.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This final rule improves the current FMVSS No. 206 requirements in
several areas. First and foremost, with respect to sliding doors, it
replaces the existing requirement with new requirements and an
associated full vehicle test procedure. It requires that sliding side
doors either have a secondary latched position, which serves as a
backup to the fully latched position and increases the likelihood that
a striker will remain engaged with the latch when the door is
incompletely closed, or a system to signal that the door is not fully
closed and latched. The fully latched and secondary latched positions
are also required to meet load test requirements and to meet inertial
requirements the same way as the latches on hinged doors.
    Second, this final rule requires a secondary latched position for a
latch system on double-doors (previously referred to as ``cargo-
doors''). Third, it adds a dynamic inertial test procedure to FMVSS No.
206 as an optional alternative to the current inertial calculation.
Such a test procedure has been conducted in Europe for type approval
purposes. Fourth, this document adds new requirements for side doors
with rear mounted hinges to prevent potential inadvertent openings
while the vehicle is moving. Fifth, this document adds minor
modifications to our door lock requirements.
    This document also extends the application of FMVSS No. 206 to
buses with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 4,536 kg (10,000
pounds) or less, including 12-15 passenger vans. Finally, today's final
rule eliminates an exclusion from the requirements of FMVSS No. 206
previously provided to vehicle doors that were equipped with wheelchair
platform lifts.
    With the improvements adopted in this rule to address non-rollover
door ejections, we estimate that we will prevent 7 deaths and 4 serious
injuries, annually. These benefits come primarily from the changes to
the sliding door requirements and test procedure. The total costs of
these improvements are estimated to be slightly over $8 million.
    Vehicle manufacturers, and ultimately, consumers, both here and
abroad, can expect to achieve cost savings through the harmonization of
differing sets of standards when the contracting parties to the 1998
Global Agreement implement the new GTR. Further, adopting amendments
based on the GTR not only result in improvements to the FMVSS No. 206,
but also to the door lock and door retention component regulation of
the United Nations' Economic Commission for Europe (ECE R.11), which is
used by the majority of the world community. In addition to the sliding
door test procedure, the side door with rear mounted hinge
requirements, and the inertial test procedure that are discussed above,
ECE R.11, when amended per the GTR, will benefit from the inclusion of
back door requirements and rear door locking requirements. To date,
those requirements have been in place only in the U.S. and Canada.

II. Background

A. Safety Problem

    As originally established, FMVSS No. 206 was intended to reduce the
likelihood of occupant deaths and injuries resulting from ejections
through door openings by keeping vehicle doors closed in crashes. The
opening of these doors was primarily due to structural failures in the
latch, striker, or hinges. Sheet metal failures in the door structure
or the B-pillar were rare. In crashes involving the opening of doors,
the latch, striker, and hinges were subjected to tensile and
compressive forces along the vehicle's longitudinal (forward-to-aft)
and lateral (side-to-side) axes. Based on these findings, the
automotive community concluded that the most effective means of
reducing door openings would be through increasing the strength of the
door retention components. In 1964, the

[[Page 5387]]

Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) developed and issued the first
test procedures designed to address door retention components: SAE
Recommended Practice J839, Passenger Car Side Door Latch Systems (SAE
J839); and SAE Recommended Practice J934, Vehicle Passenger Door Hinge
Systems (SAE J934).
    As initially issued in the early 1970s, FMVSS No. 206 was based, in
large part, on the SAE recommended practices in existence at that time,
except that NHTSA increased the test force requirement in the lateral
direction.\4\ Aside from the changes made in 1995 to address back door
openings, no significant changes have been made to the current
regulation since the early 1970s. Even with the strengthened door
retention components required by the standard, ejections due to door
openings still account for 15 percent of all ejections.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The force was increased to reduce the number of door openings
resulting from occupant impacts on the interior of the door. SAE responded
by adopting the same lateral force requirement in SAE J839.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In further analyzing the door ejections, the agency found that, on
an annual basis, during the study period, of the 15 percent (7,622) of
vehicle ejections that occurred through a door, 4,533 ejections
occurred in non-rollover crashes (i.e., frontal, side, and rear impact
crashes) versus 3,089 ejections in rollover crashes.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The rate for ejection through a door in rollover crashes
(0.75 percent) is higher than in non-rollover crashes (0.10
percent). However, the actual number of ejections in non-rollover
crashes is higher. For further discussion on rates of rollover and
ejection see Section IV. Scope of the Safety Problem, in the NPRM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A portion of door ejections due to non-rollover door openings
occurred through sliding door openings and from doors in 12-15
passenger vans. Of those ejected through a sliding door, approximately
20 people are killed and 30 people are seriously injured each year,
based on the 1995-2003 data from NASS. Based on the 2003 sales data,
about 85 percent of vans sold in the U.S. have sliding doors. Only 15
percent of vans sold have double doors.
    We are particularly concerned that the individuals with the
greatest exposure to sliding door failures are children. Children sit
in the back of vehicles in disproportionately high numbers.\6\ We do
not believe that this exposure is acceptable when measures can be taken
to minimize the likelihood that a sliding door would open in a crash.
With the increasing popularity of vehicles with sliding doors on both
the driver and passenger side of the vehicle, we expect the number of
overall sliding door failures to increase unless the doors are required
to be designed in a way that reduces the likelihood of a door opening.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ ``Child Restraint use in 2002: Results from the 2002 NOPUS
Controlled Intersection Study.'' 
http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nrd-30/NCSA/Rpts/2003/ChildRestraints.pdf.

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

B. Harmonization Efforts and the Proposed Upgrade

1. Global Technical Regulation (GTR)
    The agency's efforts to update the requirements and test procedures
of FMVSS No. 206 in order to address the safety issues elucidated above
coincided with the adoption of the initial Program of Work of the 1998
Global Agreement. Globally, there are several existing regulations,
directives, and standards that pertain to door lock and door retention
components. As all share similarities, the international motor vehicle
safety community tentatively determined that these components might be
amenable to the development of a GTR under the 1998 Agreement. The
Executive Committee of the 1998 Agreement charged the Working Party on
Passive Safety (GRSP) to form an informal working group to discuss and
evaluate relevant issues concerning requirements for door locks and
door retention components and to make recommendations regarding a
potential GTR.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The GRSP is made up of delegates from many countries around
the world, and who have voting privileges. Representatives from
manufacturing and consumer groups also attend and participate in the
GRSP and informal working groups that are developing GTRs. Those
that chose not to participate are kept apprised of the GTR progress
from progress reports presented at the GRSP meetings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The United States of America (U.S.) led the efforts to develop the
recommended requirements for the GTR. The U.S., through this agency,
sought to work collaboratively on door ejections with other contracting
parties to the 1998 Global Agreement, particularly Transport Canada,
the European Union, and Japan. The GRSP considered all relevant
standards, regulations, and directives and evaluated alternative
requirements and test procedures developed and presented by the U.S.
and Canada, as well as refinements suggested by other GRSP delegates
and representatives. The GRSP concluded its work and agreed to
recommend the establishment of a GTR to the Executive Committee. A
detailed discussion of the development of the GTR was provided in the NPRM.
    On November 18, 2004, the Executive Committee approved
establishment of the GTR. The established GTR includes improvements
over the current FMVSS No. 206. With respect to sliding doors, the GTR
provides a replacement for the existing U.S. requirements and a new
full vehicle test procedure. It also specifies that sliding doors
either have a secondary latched position or a door closure warning
system that signals if a door is not fully closed. For vehicles with
side doors with rear mounted hinge systems, the GTR adds new
requirements to prevent potential inadvertent openings while a vehicle
is moving. The U.S., as a Contracting Party of the 1998 Agreement that
voted in favor of establishing this global technical regulation, was
obligated to initiate rulemaking to adopt the provisions of the GTR.
2. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
    On December 15, 2004, the agency issued a notice of proposed
rulemaking proposing to update FMVSS No. 206 and provide consistency
with the GTR (69 FR 75020). First and foremost, with respect to sliding
doors, we proposed to replace the existing requirement with new
requirements and an associated full vehicle test procedure. We also
proposed to require sliding doors to have either a secondary latched
position or a door closure warning system to signal that a door is not
fully closed. Under the proposal, the fully latched and secondary
latched positions would also be required to meet load test requirements
and inertial requirements the same way as the latches on hinged doors.
    Second, we proposed to require a secondary latched position for
double-doors, currently referred to as ``cargo-doors.'' This
requirement already exists in the European and Japanese regulations.
Third, we proposed in the NPRM to add a dynamic inertial test procedure
to FMVSS No. 206 as an optional alternative to the current inertial
calculation. Such a test procedure has been conducted in Europe for
type approval purposes. Fourth, we proposed to add new requirements for
side doors with rear mounted hinges. Fifth, we proposed to revise the
requirements for door locks. Finally, we proposed to extend the
application of FMVSS No. 206 to buses with a GVWR of 4,536 kg (10,000
pounds) or less, including 12-15 passenger vans, and to remove an
exclusion for vehicles equipped with wheelchair platform lift systems.
3. Public Comments
    The agency received comments in response to the NPRM from motor
vehicle manufacturers, motor vehicle manufacturer trade associations,
vehicle component manufacturers, an advocacy

[[Page 5388]]

organization, and an individual citizen. Comments were submitted by:
Nissan North America (Nissan); Porsche Cars North America (Porsche);
America Honda Motor Company Limited (Honda); Blue Bird Body Company, a
bus manufacturer (Blue Bird); Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers
(Alliance); Association of International Automobile Manufacturers, Inc.
(AIAM); Truck Manufacturers Association (TMA); TriMark Corporation, a
door latch manufacturer (TriMark); Delphi, a vehicle component
manufacturer; Advocates for Highway Safety, an advocacy organization
(Advocates); and Barb Sachau, a private citizen.
    Vehicle component manufacturers, motor vehicle manufacturers, and
their representative associations generally supported the proposed
rulemaking as well as the GTR process. These commenters did raise
issues regarding some of the proposed test requirements and test
procedure specifications. Some of these commenters also requested
additional clarification of the proposed rule.
    Advocates generally opposed the GTR process as lacking an
opportunity for involvement from public interest groups. Advocates also
generally opposed the proposed rulemaking, stating that it was not
stringent enough and would not provide adequate protection against
passenger ejection. Ms. Sachau generally requested stronger standards
for vehicle doors.

III. SAFETEA-LU

    On August 10, 2005, the President signed into law the Safe,
Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy
for Users (SAFETEA-LU; Pub. L. 109-59; 119 Stat. 1144). SAFETEA-LU
contains a variety of provisions directing the Secretary of
Transportation to undertake rulemakings for the purpose of improving
motor vehicle safety. Specifically, Sec.  10301(a) requires that the
rulemaking proceeding initiated to upgrade FMVSS No. 206 be completed
no later than 30 months after the enactment of SAFETEA-LU. Today's
final rule fulfils that directive.

IV. Upgrade to FMVSS No. 206

A.The GTR Process

    As explained above, our proposal to revise and update FMVSS No. 206
was coincident to the international effort to establish a GTR for door
latch systems and locks. Advocates expressed concern that by
coordinating efforts to update FMVSSs with the GTR process, there would
be only marginal changes in vehicle safety protection and performance.
Advocates also expressed concern with the apparent lack of opportunity
for safety organizations to be involved in the GTR process, and that an
``after-the-fact'' presentation of a draft GTR threatens to abridge the
agency's authority.
    This comment by Advocates reflects a fundamental misunderstanding
of the GTR process. Contrary to Advocates' comment, consumer groups
have an opportunity to be involved in all aspects of the GTR process.
    The GTR process was transparent to country delegates, industry
representatives, and public interest groups. Information regarding the
meetings and negotiations was publicly available through notices
published periodically by the agency and the UNECE Web site.\8\
Consumer groups, through Consumer International, participated in the
debates and negotiations of GRSP. In the U.S., notice of the proposal
to develop a door lock and door retention GTR was published in the
Federal Register (68 FR 5333; February 3, 2003; Docket No. NHTSA-03-
14395). Comments were received and considered from Advocates and the
Insurance Institute of Highway Safety. On October 8, 2004, the agency
again discussed the GTR proposal (69 FR 60460; October 8, 2004; Docket
No. NHTSA-03-14395). No comments were received on this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See http://www.unece.org;  click on ``Meetings,'' and
Committee on Inland Transportation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, once the GTR is agreed upon, all contracting parties that
voted in favor of adopting it must then initiate their domestic
rulemaking process to adopt the GTR. NHTSA published a proposal to
implement the GTR and offered its justifications for adopting the
proposed changes. Those justifications were not simply a recitation
that the changes were in the GTR. Instead, NHTSA offered a point-by-
point explanation of why it believed the proposed changes were better
policy for the American public. The public was given the same
opportunity to comment and be involved in this proposed rulemaking as
any other NHTSA rulemaking.
    NHTSA then evaluates those comments and makes appropriate changes
to the proposal in response to the comments and other new information
that may become available. The fact that the proposal was developed
from a GTR doesn't free the agency of its legal obligations, including
the obligation to respond to all significant comments. Thus, it is not
apparent why Advocates suggested that comments on proposals based on
GTRs are ``after the fact.''
    Of course, when NHTSA does not adopt the proposed version of a GTR,
the agency will report the changes made in the United States back to
the Executive Committee of the 1998 Agreement. Based on comments to the
NPRM in this rulemaking, there are some minor differences between the
Final Rule and the GTR. With the acceptance of the GTR, the GRSP
recognized that further refinements and improvements to the language
and test procedures would be needed and planned to identify these
through the U.S. regulatory process. Over the last year, NHTSA has
reported to GRSP that, as a result of comments to the NPRM, we would be
making minor clarifications to the test procedures and the regulatory
language in the U.S. safety standard. Once the Final Rule is published,
the GRSP is expecting the U.S. proposal to amend the GTR to align the
text of both requirements.
    We repeat that the GTR process offers tangible benefits for the
American public. By participating in the GTR process, we were able to
develop a better regulation by advancing our research efforts and
leveraging resources through partnering with other countries. If we
were to have undertaken revisions to FMVSS No. 206 independent of the
GTR process, the agency would have incurred higher costs and would have
required additional time to move forward with the rulemaking. The
international effort helped identify concerns and difficulties that
were present in requirements and test procedures that NHTSA was
planning on proposing in the NPRM and resulted in improvements that the
agency could not have achieved on its own. Through this international
cooperation the sliding door test procedures were validated by another
country, which identified problems in the existing test procedures
which resulted in the improved procedure and regulatory language
adopted in this document. Additionally, from testing already conducted
in Europe, we were able to add a test procedure for the existing optional
dynamic inertial test for which NHTSA had no test procedure previously.

B. Definitions

    The agency is essentially adopting the definitions for FMVSS No.
206 as proposed, and with additional clarification of the definitions
for ``primary door latch'' and ``auxiliary door latch.'' Today's rule
requires that each hinged door system be equipped with at least one
primary door latch

[[Page 5389]]

system, which is defined as consisting of at a minimum, a primary door
latch and a striker. A primary latch was defined in the NPRM and GTR as
a latch equipped with both a fully latched and a secondary latched
position. Conversely, an auxiliary latch was defined as a latch
equipped with a fully latched position and fitted to a door or door
system equipped with a primary latch. An auxiliary latch may be
equipped with a secondary latched position, but it is not required to
meet the secondary latch requirements mandated for a primary latch.
    A problem occurs in identifying the primary latch on a door or door
system if the door or door system is also equipped with an auxiliary
latch that has a secondary latch position. If both latches have a
secondary latched position, it is not obvious which latch is the
primary latch. At the GRSP, the International Organizations of Motor
Vehicle Manufacturers (OICA) requested that the definitions of primary
and auxiliary latches be revised in order to differentiate between the
two types of latches for compliance purposes. Today's rule requires
manufacturers to designate one of the latches as the primary latch in
connection with their certification of compliance and to identify the
primary door latch when asked to do so by the agency. Such a request
would be made in connection with an agency inquiry regarding compliance
with the standard. Also the definition of ``auxiliary latch'' adopted
in today's document clarifies that an auxiliary latch may be equipped
with a secondary latched position. NHTSA has already proposed an
amendment to the GTR to reflect these clarifications, and the amendment
was accepted by GRSP.

C. Hinged Doors Requirements

1. Load Tests
    FMVSS No. 206 specifies load test requirements for latch and hinge
systems on hinged side doors in the longitudinal and transverse
directions. We did not propose significant changes to the existing
requirements for latches on hinged side doors. Consistent with the GTR,
we proposed regulatory text that removed any implication that the latch
load is applied relative to the vehicle orientation. In the NPRM, we
proposed to require a secondary latched position for ``double doors,''
which had been referred to as cargo-doors in FMVSS 206. To the extent a
requirement for the secondary positions may prevent inadvertent door
openings, we believe it would be beneficial for double doors. This
requirement already exists in the ECE standard. We also proposed for
the transverse requirement to apply to a primary door latch system in
the fully latched and secondary latch position and to an auxiliary door
latch system in the fully latched position. We are adopting the load
test requirements as proposed, but with corrections and clarifications
as suggested by commenters.
    Comments from manufacturers generally supported the side door hinge
system requirements as proposed. The Alliance generally agreed with the
proposed rule as applied to hinged doors but requested additional
clarification and corrections to the requirements as proposed. It
requested clarification that the vertical hinge load requirement at
S4.1.2.1(d) applies to back doors only. TMA requested clarification as
to whether the vertical load test procedure in S5.1.2.3(c) applies only
to back doors. The Alliance also requested that the sign conventions
used for the vehicle coordinate reference system be changed to
correspond to SAE J1100 Feb 2001 and SAE J211-1 Dec 2003. The Alliance
requested that the section titles for S4.1.1 and S5.1.1 be revised to
reflect that these sections apply to primary and auxiliary latches and
latch systems. It commented that the test plate specification for the
secondary latched position (S5.1.1.1(b)(4)) should also apply to the
fully latched position. The Alliance also noted that the reference to
S4.2.3 in S5.1.1.4 appears incorrect.
    The Alliance and TMA are correct in that the vertical load
requirement of S4.1.2.1(d) and the vertical load test procedure in
S5.1.2.3(c) apply only to back doors that open upward. The regulatory
text has been changed to clarify the application of these sections.
Today's rule also incorporates sign conventions for the vehicle
coordinate reference system consistent with SAE J1100 Feb 2001 and SAE
J211-1 Dec 2003. Consistent use of sign conventions between FMVSS No.
206 and the SAE standards will minimize any potential for confusion.
Today's rule also amends the headings for S4.1.1 and S5.1.1 to reflect
that these sections apply to primary and auxiliary latches and latch
systems. We are also revising S5.1.1.4 to correctly reference S4.2.1.3,
instead of S4.2.3. The above clarifications will also be included in
the U.S. proposal to amend the GTR.
    Advocates commented that the requirements for latch systems on
hinged side doors as proposed were not stringent enough and that
primary and auxiliary latch systems should be subject to the same
requirements. The commenter stated that the load requirements do not
replicate real world crash levels and continue to allow the use of the
forkbolt striker engagement design. Advocates also objected to double
door auxiliary latches not being subject to transverse load
requirements. Advocates further commented, that while it supported the
agency's proposal for secondary latching on double doors, the proposed
load test is incomplete and does not replicate real-world crash forces
that could result in the failure of the traditional fork/bolt and pin/
striker designs used for double door closures.
    NHTSA does not agree with Advocates' assertion that the proposed
requirements were not sufficiently stringent. NHTSA has done numerous
studies regarding real-world door latch loading. See Docket No. 3705.
The analyses of the data in those studies concluded that there is no
evidence that increased latch strength would reduce ejections through
the door. First door openings in a crash are an infrequent event. Using
the 1995 to 2003 NASS data, door openings occur in less than one
percent of all vehicle crashes. When door openings do occur, they are
overwhelmingly a result of a failure of the supporting structure, not
the latch mechanism. See Docket No. 3705-11.
    As discussed in the NPRM for this rulemaking, NHTSA has devoted its
efforts to developing a test that will assess the potential for
structural failure. This combination test procedure would be capable of
testing at higher and more complex loading conditions, and would better
simulate loading in rollover crashes. However, as also discussed in the
NPRM for this rulemaking, that test is not yet sufficiently developed
to allow us to propose it in this rulemaking. Nevertheless, NHTSA is
continuing its work on this test.
    The GRSP made the following commitments with respect to the
combination test:

    The adoption of the combination test into the GTR is not
supported at this time due to the technical difficulties in
conducting the test. Instead, the Working Party delegates and
representatives will continue to review work on the modification of
the United States of America-based procedure, or the development of
a new procedure, to capture the benefits associated with a test
addressing door failures due to simultaneous compressive
longitudinal and tensile lateral loading of latch systems in real
world crashes. Any acceptable procedure developed could then be
added to the GTR as an amendment. ECE/TRANS/180/Add.1; page 11.

    Thus, there is a consensus within GRSP that devoting resources to
developing a test that assesses the latch performance and includes an

[[Page 5390]]

assessment of structural failure is the approach that would reduce
ejections through the door. Advocates did not provide any new
information to explain why or how it has concluded that increasing the
stringency of the proposed requirements would further reduce door
ejections. Accordingly, NHTSA is not adopting this comment.
    With regard to Advocates' concern with auxiliary latches on double
doors, we recognize that there may have been some confusion with the
NPRM. The preamble discussion stated that the transverse requirement
would apply only to the primary and not the auxiliary door latches.
This differs from the current requirement in which the latches on a
single double door must jointly resist force loading in the lateral
direction, i.e., the transverse load requirement for each latch is
determined by dividing a 9,000 N load by the number of latches on a
single door. However, the proposed regulatory text would have
explicitly required each primary and auxiliary latch on a double door
to separately resist the entire transverse load requirement in the
fully latched position.
    We are adopting the transverse load requirement for latches on side
hinged doors as proposed in the regulatory text of the NPRM. This
revision establishes uniform latching requirements for all side hinged
door latches. Both primary and auxiliary latch systems are required to
comply with the entire load requirement in the fully latched position.
Also as proposed, this document requires primary latch systems on
hinged side doors to comply with a 4,500 N load requirement in the
secondary latched position.
2. Inertial Test
    FMVSS No. 206 requires that door latch systems on hinged doors and
sliding doors remain engaged when subject to an inertial force of 30 g
in the longitudinal and transverse directions. As FMVSS No. 206 was
originally established, the agency had specified demonstration of
compliance with the inertial requirement through a calculation in
accordance with Society of Automotive Engineers Recommended Practice
J839, or a NHTSA approved procedure.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ As discussed in the NPRM, NHTSA approved a GM test procedure
in the 1960s. Since that time, no other requests have been approved.
Such an approach is inconsistent with the agency's usual practice
over its history, which is to include test procedures in the regulatory
text of the standard, either directly or by incorporation by reference.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the NPRM we proposed a dynamic inertial test as an option to the
existing inertial calculation. As proposed, this provision would
replace the existing provision that manufacturers may certify to an
agency-approved test procedure. The proposed inertial test procedure
was based on the testing conducted for United Nations' Economic
Commission for Europe Regulation 11 (ECE R.11) type approval. It places
inertial forces on doors, either when installed in the vehicle (full
vehicle test) or when tested on a test fixture (in-frame test), in the
longitudinal and transverse directions. The proposed test procedure was
validated by the U.S. and Canada during the GTR process.\10\ In
proposing the procedure, we noted that the proposed test is similar to
the testing that has been relied upon in Europe for type-approval, but
that additional specificity may be required in characterizing the test
fixture.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See presentation from Transport Canada in the DOT Docket
NHTSA-1999-3705.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to the longitudinal and transverse tests, a test in the
vertical direction was proposed for back doors that open in an upward
direction. This was in response to a finding by Transport Canada that
the most common failure mode in the inertial tests conducted by Canada
was in the direction of door opening.\11\ We are adopting inertial load
requirements and test procedures generally as proposed, but with a
clarification regarding the force requirements under the dynamic
compliance options.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Today's final rule specifies that under the dynamic compliance
options, door latch systems must not disengage when subject to an
inertial force as specified in the relevant test procedure. Under the
proposal, the requirements for the dynamic options required that the
door latch system not disengage when subject to an inertial load of
30g. Today's final rule clarifies that door latch systems must not
disengage when subject to a 30g inertial force when applied as
specified in the test procedure. Further, the test procedure adopted
today specifies that the force is measured based on the acceleration of
the sled. This is consistent with the sled test procedure specified in
S13 of FMVSS No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. These clarifications
and those noted above will be included in the U.S. proposal to amend
the GTR.
    In its comments, Advocates claimed that vertical force inertial
testing should be required for side as well as rear doors, particularly
side sliding doors equipped with only a single latch system. Moreover,
Advocates contended that reliance on foreign test results is not
acceptable. With respect to the Transport Canada test, Advocates stated
that the testing did not rely on a demanding protocol and did not
reproduce vertical forces, including roof crush strength demands that
would be applied to vehicles in a roll-over.
    Advocates did not provide an explanation as to why it believes
reliance on foreign test results is not acceptable. The agency believes
that one of the benefits of establishing global technical regulations
is that it leverages available data from other countries, thereby
allowing better allocation of agency resources and establishment of
safety requirements more quickly than if the testing and development
were conducted solely by NHTSA.
    The inertial test requirements and procedures adopted today are
based upon those that have been used successfully for many years under
type-approval certification systems. However, further specifications
for self-certification systems were necessary. Based upon testing
performed by Transport Canada in association with NHTSA, we determined
that the results and protocol sufficiently validate the feasibility of
the procedure, and that the inertial test requirements adequately
reflect the crash conditions experienced by the U.S. fleet.
    As noted in the NPRM, we believe that secondary latches will be
necessary for sliding doors to pass the new test. The primary basis for
Advocates' argument for a vertical inertial test appears to be that
sliding doors have only one latch. However, we believe the sliding door
test requirement will nullify this argument. Furthermore, we at this
time have no testing or data to suggest effectiveness of a vertical
inertial test requirement, nor did Advocates provide any.
    As stated in the NPRM, the focus of the GTR and the NPRM were to
address door system failures in non-rollover crashes. As noted above, a
combination test procedure was developed to replicate more complex
loading experienced in frontal, rear and side offset and oblique
crashes. However, difficulties were encountered with the test procedure
due to the inability to conduct the test on some types of latches. This
inability precluded our adopting the procedure for this rulemaking.
    With regard to certification, the Alliance noted that manufacturers
often rely on testing a ``body-in-white'' vehicle (i.e., a pre-
production developmental vehicle), whereas the FMVSS No. 206 test
procedures specify testing on post-production vehicles. The Alliance
requested the agency to

[[Page 5391]]

confirm its understanding that manufacturers are not required to test
post production vehicles for purposes of certification.
    The Alliance is correct in that the test procedures in FMVSS No.
206 are not requirements. Manufacturers certifying compliance with the
safety standards are not required to follow exactly the compliance test
procedures set forth in the applicable standard. In fact, manufacturers
are not even required to conduct any actual testing before certifying
that their products comply with applicable safety standards. However,
to avoid liability for civil penalties in connection with any
noncompliance that may be determined to exist, manufacturers must
exercise ``reasonable care'' to assure compliance and in making its
certification (49 U.S.C. 30115). It may be simplest for a manufacturer
to establish that it exercised ``reasonable care'' if the manufacturer
has conducted testing that strictly followed the compliance test
procedures set forth in the standard. However, ``reasonable care''
might also be shown using modified test procedures, such as testing on
a body in white, if the manufacturer could demonstrate that the
modifications were not likely to have had a significant impact on the
test results. In addition, ``reasonable care'' might be shown using
engineering analyses, computer simulations, and the like.
3. Door Hinges
    The load testing requirements for door hinges in the GTR are the
same as those currently in FMVSS No. 206 and ECE R.11. The agency
believes that the side door requirements for hinges, which are based on
SAE Recommended Practice J934, Vehicle Passenger Door Hinge Systems,
adequately test the strength and design of door hinges. NHTSA has fully
analyzed its crash data and possible failure modes associated with the
failure of door retention components. We have not identified a
significant safety problem with door hinges currently installed in
vehicles. Accordingly, we are not changing the door hinge requirements
of FMVSS No. 206, although we are articulating the test procedure for
door hinges rather than relying on a modified incorporation by
reference of the applicable SAE J839 recommended practice.

D. Side Sliding Door Requirements

1. Side Sliding Door Latch Requirements
    In the NPRM, we proposed to require sliding doors to have either:
    1. A primary door latch system that meets the same requirements as
primary door latch systems on hinged side doors (i.e., has both a fully
and secondary latched position), or
    2. A system with a fully latched position and a door closure
warning system to alert the driver when the door is not in the fully
latched position.
    We stated that this second option would ``assure vehicle occupants
that a sliding door is completely closed.'' 69 FR 75026.
    Advocates objected to the option of equipping a sliding door with a
door closure warning system instead of requiring all sliding doors to
be equipped with a secondary latch position. Advocates also questioned
the effectiveness of a door closure warning system. That commenter
stated that the agency should not provide a compliance option that
relies on occupant behavior, as opposed to a mechanical solution, to
ensure that occupants will not be ejected through a door that is not
fully closed.
    It is appropriate to begin with the current requirements in FMVSS
No. 206 to consider this comment. At present, FMVSS No. 206 does not
require either a primary or a secondary latch system for sliding doors.
The only requirement currently applicable to sliding side doors in the
U.S. is set forth in S4.3, which provides that the track and slide
combination shall not separate when a total transverse load of 17,800
Newtons is applied. There are currently no requirements for the
individual latch components.
    The proposed GTR upgrades the U.S. requirements to require, in
addition to the existing loading requirement, a latch with a fully
latched position that meets additional loading requirements. We believe
these new requirements achieve Advocates' suggestion that a mechanical
solution is more dependable than one that requires some human behavior.
The fully latched position and the associated loading requirements are
vehicle attributes added in this rule.
    As a backup, the proposed rule also provided for some supplemental
protection. The first option is to permit a reduced level of protection
when the latch is not in the fully latched position. Under this
alternative, the latch must have a secondary latched position, which is
subject to loads 50% or less of what the fully latched position must
meet. The second option is to alert the driver that the latch is not in
the fully latched position, with the expectation that the driver will
close the sliding door so that it is fully latched and receive the
protection associated with the fully latched loading requirements.
    These options for backup protection for sliding door latches not in
the fully latched position have been permitted in the ECE regulations
for decades now. During the discussions of the GTR, the European
governments said there were no data showing better ejection prevention
with either of the options. NHTSA has no data showing a problem, since
neither has been required in the United States, and Advocates did not
provide any data in its comments. Given that the available data in
Europe do not show a problem with either approach, NHTSA has no reason
to change its proposed upgrade of the sliding door requirements in
Standard No. 206.
2. Side Sliding Door Test Procedure
    In addition to the new requirement for side sliding door latches,
the NPRM also proposed a sliding door test procedure that evaluates the
door as a complete system. FMVSS No. 206 currently does not include a
sliding side door test procedure. Since the test produces some level of
longitudinal force, in addition to the direct lateral loading, the door
components deform and twist. Therefore, compliant door latch systems
will be required to more robust than was required in the past.
    We proposed a full vehicle test in which a sliding door is tested
by applying force against the two edges of the door. The proposed test
setup is initiated by placing two loading plates against the interior
of the door. The loading plates are placed on top of the latch/striker
system located at the door edge. If the door edge has two latch/striker
systems along one edge, the loading plate is placed between the two
systems. If a door edge does not have a latch/striker system, the
loading plate is placed at a point midway along the length of the door
edge. An outward lateral force of 18,000 N total is then applied to the
loading plates (i.e., 9,000 N is applied to each plate).
    The proposed test procedure for the sliding door transverse loading
test specifies that the force application device would be mounted on
the vehicle floor. A test failure would be indicated by (1) A
separation which would permit a sphere with a diameter of 100 mm to
pass unobstructed between the interior of the vehicle to the exterior
at any point, or (2) the force application device reaching a total
displacement of 300 mm. The proposed 100 mm of separation requirement,
even if the latch system does not fail, accounts for partial ejections
through separation of sliding doors from the frame without the latch system
failing. The 100 mm limit is based on a commonly used measurement for

[[Page 5392]]

maximum allowable open space in the U.S. and Canada for school bus
opening requirements.
    In general, we are adopting the sliding door test procedure as
proposed. We are making several changes to the test procedure set-up
and the test procedure operation in response to concerns raised by
manufacturers. The changes noted below will also be included in the
U.S. proposal to amend the GTR.
a. Compression Verses Tension
    Motor vehicle manufacturers raised several concerns regarding the
sliding door test procedure, particularly with the test set-up. The
Alliance suggested applying the force loads in tension as opposed to
compression.
    The procedure adopted in this rule specifies that the force loads
are applied in compression. In early testing, Transport Canada applied
force loads in tension. However, Transport Canada abandoned this force
application method because of the extent of modifications needed to the
door being tested and the resulting deformation that occurred at the
attachment points. The necessary modifications and the deformation
resulted in unacceptable testing variability.
b. Test Device and Set-Up
    With regard to the force application device as specified in the
proposed test procedure, Nissan and the Alliance favored mounting the
device external to the vehicle, instead of on the vehicle floor. These
commenters expressed concern that mounting the force application device
inside the vehicle could deform the vehicle floor and allow the device
to move from its original position when applying a load. This, they
stated, would introduce a significant amount of test variability.
    The agency experienced similar concerns with the mounting of the
test device, but resolved the issue through use of reinforced plates.
The reinforcement plates provided a level surface for the support of
the loading device. The plates also distribute loading on the floor of
the test vehicle to reduce the movement of the device that could
otherwise occur due to localized deformation at the attachment points.
    During a May 11, 2005 meeting between the agency and the Alliance,
the Ford Motor Company presented the results of evaluation testing,
which demonstrated that use of the reinforcement plates on the vehicle
floor avoids problematic displacement while under loading.\12\
    Both the agency and commenters have demonstrated the ability to
apply the requisite load to a vehicle door without causing displacement
of the force application device. In order to minimize potential test
variability, the final rule specifies that a loading device is to be
rigidly mounted when applying a load.
    As proposed in the NPRM, the load is applied to a vehicle door
through force application plates attached to the ram arms of the force
application device. Nissan asked if the proposed sizes for the plates
are correlated with a potential load area resulting from an occupant
that impacts the interior of the door.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See, Docket No. NHTSA-2004-19840-14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NHTSA based the size of the force application plates on three
considerations. First, the width of each load plate, 50 mm (2 inches),
is designed to locate the center of the load application over the latch
on each door edge (a distance of 25 mm (1 inch) from the door edge).
Second, the length of the smaller plate (150 mm (6 inches)) is selected
to give an area large enough to prevent the loading rams from pushing
through the sheet metal of the door. In developmental testing, the 150
mm plate did not push through sheet metal.\13\ Third, the length of the
larger load plate (300 mm (12 inches)) is based upon a measurement that
is compatible to the interior contour of most door edges. The door edge
contours (especially along the top half of the door) of many of
vehicles tend to be highly curved, which dictates where the load plates
can be positioned. If a plate is too long, the contour of a door may
interfere with the load application.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See Docket No. NHTSA-2004-19840-14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We proposed that a force application plate 300 mm in length, 50 mm
in width, and 15 mm in thickness be placed equidistant between the
multiple latches on doors that have more than one latch system on a
single door edge, and this plate would be used to apply the load to any
tested door edge. The Alliance commented that the vertical distance
between the latches on a single door could exceed one meter in length.
The Alliance stated that applying force to such a door with a plate
that is shorter than the distance between the latches could cause the
door to bow outwards in a manner that does not directly apply loading
to the latches. The Alliance stated that this bowing is not
representative of a real-world crash event and recommended that the
load plates be extended to a length equal to the distance between the
latches plus 150 mm.
    The agency is not adopting the Alliance's suggestion with regard to
increasing the plate size used for testing sliding doors with more than
one latch/striker system. We have concluded that the force application
plate positioning proposed in the NPRM and adopted today is appropriate
for testing vehicle doors that have more than one latch system,
including door designs in which the latches are widely spaced.
    A door edge with latches separated by a large distance (such as up
to or greater than 1-meter) could increase the likelihood that an
occupant impacting the interior of the door during a crash would force
a gap separation. Latches with excessive separation may not provide as
much structural support along the length of the entire door edge. The
proposed procedure, which places the force application plate
equidistant between latches, identifies such weaknesses. Further, the
agency was unable to identify any vehicles that had sliding doors
equipped with latches systems on a door edge that were separated by a
distance comparable to that which concerned the Alliance. Therefore,
the sliding door test procedure is adopted as proposed.
    The Alliance also stated that vehicles are currently designed with
access holes in the door sheet metal, which may not provide practicable
surface area to place the force application plates in the location and
manner specified in the NPRM. The Alliance recommended the use of a
spreader device, which would bridge the access hole and contact the
door in a manner in an area capable of transferring the load to the latch.
    After reviewing the Alliance's request to specify the use of a
spreader device, we conclude that such a device would distribute the
load over a large section of a vehicle door instead of at the latch/
striker component, which is the intent of the test. Further, a spreader
device would act to reinforce a door and alter it from its original
manufactured condition.
    The agency considered other potential procedures to accommodate the
presence of access holes. We evaluated moving the force application
plate to accommodate an access hole, covering an access hole with a
steel plate, and increasing the length of the force application plate
to accommodate the access hole opening. However, each one of these
alternatives proved to be unfeasible.
    Each one of the considered options would create compliance testing
difficulties. Moving the plate to accommodate an access hole would
require us to specify an adequate alternative location. This may not be
the same location for every vehicle. For vehicles with an exceptionally
long access hole or multiple access holes, it

[[Page 5393]]

could be difficult or impossible to find a suitable location for the
plate. Covering an access hole changes the door from its original
manufactured condition, which is undesirable for compliance testing.
Increasing the length of the load plate to the size of the access hole
would create test variability given that not all access holes are
uniform in size and location.
    With respect to access holes, we are adopting the test procedure as
proposed. The Alliance did not provide test data to support an actual
problem existing with force application plate size or placement and
access holes. While the Alliance identified a vehicle that had access
holes located in the area that the load plates would be positioned, the
Alliance never conducted a test to demonstrate that the access holes
actually created a problem.
    Based on our examination of the vehicle identified by the Alliance,
we believe that if the vehicle had been tested, the lip of the access
hole (approximately, 250 mm in length) would serve to offer some
resistance to the plate and eventually, as with all sliding door tests,
the interior sheet metal would quickly deform until the plate was in
contact with the inside of the exterior door shell. Given this
condition, there should be no difference in how the test is conducted,
whether with or without an access hole present. If a latch or retention
component exists in the boundary of the access hole opening, we believe
that there should be no reason why the plate should not be allowed to
contact and to apply force loading to that component. In such an instance
the load plate would apply the force directly on the retention component.
    In its comments, Nissan questioned whether the procedure specified
in the NPRM allows for a rotational joint at the connection between the
plates and the loading arms. The Alliance noted that longitudinal
displacement of the door may occur during testing, causing rotational
forces and bending moments to occur between the load plates and the
hydraulic rams. The Alliance recommended the procedure specify the use
of socket/swivel joints at the end of the loading arms in order for the
load plate to translate longitudinally and to adjust for any contour of
the door. The Alliance also recommended that the procedure specify that
the plate edges be rounded to a 6 mm radius to avoid the edge of the
plate acting as a cutting edge that would potentially penetrate a
door's sheet metal.
    The procedure, as proposed, specified that the plates are permitted
to rotate in the longitudinal direction relative to the loading ram. As
proposed in the NPRM, the loading plates are fixed perpendicularly to
the hydraulic loading arms in a manner that does not allow for rotation
in a transverse direction. Additionally, the loading plates are
connected directly to the hydraulic ram shafts by a threaded stud
attached to the back of the plate that allows for longitudinal
rotation. This longitudinal rotation allowed for better adjustment of
the plates to the contour of a vehicle door and provided acceptable
results in testing performed by the agency.
    With regard to the permitted rotation of the force application
plates, we are adopting the procedure as proposed. The agency is not
adopting a procedure that would allow for rotation in a transverse
direction, such as that which could be experienced if a swivel joint
were used. Considerable difference in deformation patterns and in the
direction of the force application potentially could result from the
use of a swivel joint. The potential rotation from use of a swivel
joint, i.e., rotation in both the longitudinal and transverse
directions, would introduce an uncontrollable degree of freedom. Past
tests have demonstrated that use of a swivel joint causes extensive
variability and repeatability problems.\14\ Further, the test procedure
specifies that the force application plates are to maintain the
displacement of the force application device in the transverse
direction. This ensures that as force is applied, a door system
continues to experience a transverse load.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See Docket No. NHTSA-1998-3705-33.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although the agency did not experience penetration of door sheet
metal from the loading plates, we recognize that without rounded edges
on the plates, this may be a problem. Therefore, we are specifying that
the loading plates have edges rounded to a radius of 6 mm ± 1 mm.
    The proposed test procedure specified that the loading plates be
placed at the ``door edge'' (S5.2.2.3(f)(3), S5.2.2.3(g)(3), and
S5.2.2.3(h)(3)). The proposed test procedure also specified that all of
the door trim and decorative components are to be removed during the
test set-up.
    In its comments Nissan stated that the term ``door edge'' could be
prone to misinterpretation and asked that the term be further defined.
Nissan also stated that trim components on a door pillar that overlap a
sliding door could interfere with the test set-up.
    The agency agrees with both of these points. Therefore, the
procedure adopted today further specifies that the force application
plates are placed within 12.5 mm from the interior edge of a sliding
door. This specification will ensure that force is applied directly to
the portion of the door in which the latch mechanism is installed.
Typically, a latch mechanism is within 12.5 mm of the interior edge of
a vehicle door. Further, we are specifying that pillar trim and non-
structural components that overlap a door be removed to permit proper
placement of the loading plates.
    The Alliance commented that during its evaluation of the proposed
test procedure, the loading plates would slide as the door inner panel
deflected under loading. The Alliance recommended the addition of a
spreader bar with swivels to be used as a connection between the load
application devices. The Alliance contends that the spreader bar would:
(1) Limit the longitudinal motion of the loading plates while assuring
that the lateral load of 9000 N is attained at both the fore and aft
edges of the door; (2) reduce sliding of the loading plates and moments
into the load cells that lead to erroneous load measurements; (3)
reduce the bending moments sufficiently to make the test more
practicable; (4) reduce the likelihood of damage to the test equipment;
and (5) reduce the risk to laboratory technicians.
    Both NHTSA and Transport Canada have used a spreader bar, similar
to the one requested by the Alliance, in previous testing when
developing the sliding door test procedure. Based on these tests we
concluded that use of a spreader bar confines the movement of the force
application device, thus making it inappropriate for testing. Because
the fore and aft loading plates displace unequally, a spreader bar
causes the load plates to rotate and move towards one another. In
testing, this resulted in abnormal bending forces produced at the
connection between the plates and spreader.
    The force loading device specified in NHTSA Vehicle Research and
Test Center testing used to validate the proposed test procedure
incorporates 5 cm box beams for the support of the structure.\15\ The
box beams provide adequate support and are less prone to allow
displacement of the hydraulic rams. In its initial testing, the
Alliance did not incorporate supports that provide the same level of
support as the ones specified in today's test procedure. Therefore, we
are not amending the

[[Page 5394]]

procedure to include use of a spreader bar.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Docket No. NHTSA-1998-3705-33.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    However, to control for movement of the load application device in
order to further minimize test variability, the procedure adopted today
limits longitudinal and vertical movements of the force application
device by specifying that a device is to be rigidly mounted.
c. Application of Force
    The sliding test door procedure proposed in the NPRM specified that
each force application device be moved at a rate of 20-90 mm per minute
until a force of 9,000 N is achieved on each device, or until either
force application device reaches a total displacement of 300 mm. As
proposed, if the 9,000 N force is achieved, it is held for 10 seconds.
    The Alliance raised several concerns with the specified procedure
for operating the force application devices. First, the Alliance
requested that a 500 N pre-load be applied prior to determining the
initial position of the ram arms for the purpose of measuring the
transverse displacement of the ram arms. The Alliance stated that a
pre-load of 500 N would ensure that the loading plates are correctly
positioned and would improve repeatability of the test by eliminating
the effect of free play in the system. Specifying a pre-load is
consistent with the force application test procedure specified in S11
of FMVSS No. 225, Child restraint anchorage systems.
    We agree with the Alliance that a pre-load for the sliding door
test procedure would be appropriate. Therefore, we are specifying that
the test loading device achieve a pre-load of 500 N. Once the pre-load
is achieved the displacement measuring devices are then zeroed.
    The Alliance also requested that the test procedure define the
location and procedure for measuring the 300 mm of displacement. The
commenter recommended that the displacement of the loading device be
measured relative to an undisturbed part of the vehicle.
    As explained above, we are specifying that a pre-load be applied to
a sliding door, at which point the displacement measuring devices are
to be zeroed. Given that we establish the point at which the
displacement of the devices are zeroed and limit the movement of the
force application test device, we do not believe it further necessary
to measure displacement against an undisturbed portion of the vehicle.
The portion of a vehicle that remains undisturbed could be different
for each vehicle model, or even for each individual vehicle. By relying
on the pre-load to establish the initial position of ram arm, there is
no need to specify a portion of the vehicle against which to measure
displacement.
    Third, the Alliance recommended that the test procedure control the
load force application rather than displacement. As stated above, the
NPRM proposed to control the displacement (20-90 mm per minute) until a
load of 9000 N is reached, and then holding the resulting load for 10
seconds. The commenter stated that controllers currently in use do not
allow for simultaneous control of both displacement and load, and that
the procedure as specified would raise practicability concerns.
    In response to the Alliance's concern, the procedure adopted today
specifies that the load be controlled at a rate not to exceed 2,000 N
per minute. In the vehicle testing conducted by NHTSA, a load rate of
2,000 N per minute resulted in a displacement rate comparable to the
proposed 20-90 mm displacement rate. However, we recognize that given
the controllers currently in use, controlling for the load is a more
practical procedure.
    Additionally, we are revising the procedure to specify holding the
maximum load for 30 seconds. This duration was recommended by the
Alliance. We also agree that this is sufficient time to measure any gap
separations between the door and doorframe as specified by the procedure.
d. Performance Requirement
    The NPRM, consistent with the GTR, specified that a test failure is
indicated by a 100 mm separation of the interior of the door from the
exterior of the vehicle's doorframe at any point. There must not be
more than 100 mm of separation even if the latch holds, to protect
against partial ejections. The 100 mm limit is based on a commonly used
measurement for maximum allowable open space in the U.S. and Canada for
school bus opening requirements.
    The Alliance recommended that we specify the use of a 100 mm sphere
to on an extension rod to test the gap separation requirement. The
Alliance also requested eliminating S5.2.2.3(j) from the test
procedure. As proposed, this section specified that any equipment used
for measuring gap separations be attached to the vehicle prior to the
testing. The Alliance stated that this is not practical because a
manufacturer may not be able to predict where a separation will occur.
    We recognize that as a practical manner the agency and many
manufacturers likely will use a test method similar to that described
by the Alliance, i.e., through the use of a sphere with a 100 mm
diameter attached to a rod. The agency has used a similar procedure in
its sliding door evaluation testing as well as for compliance testing
under FMVSS No. 217, Bus emergency exit and window retention and
release. The agency has been able to perform this procedure while
maintaining the safety of the technicians. However, this is only one
method that could be used to measure a gap and other viable methods may
be developed, such as laser or telescoping measuring devices. While
compliance is described in terms of passing a sphere, we are not
adopting the sphere procedure as recommended by the Alliance. We are
eliminating the sphere specification in S5.2.2.3(j) to facilitate the
use of the sphere method or other similar techniques.
    Nissan requested clarification as to whether a noncompliance would
occur in a case in which a gap separation occurred where the gap
measured greater than 100 mm at the exterior opening, but less than 100
mm at the interior of the opening.
    We clarify that the separation throughout the gap must exceed 100
mm for a determination of noncompliance. The example provided by Nissan
would not be a noncompliance. This is consistent with the intent to
limit ejections through a separation.
    Both Nissan and the Alliance expressed concern that the specified
period of 10 seconds for maintaining the load was not adequate to
permit measurement of separations between a vehicle body and the
sliding door. Nissan stated that based on its experience it could take
up to a minute to make the necessary measurements. The Alliance
recommended a period of 30 seconds. The Alliance stated that this would
be adequate to limit deformation of the door sheet metal and still
provide enough time for the necessary measurements.
    The agency is revising the test procedure to specify that the load
be maintained for 30 seconds. As suggested by the Alliance, we believe
that it is practical to make the specified measurements in this time.
As stated above, we have successfully been able to perform this
measuring procedure for compliance testing under FMVSS No. 217.

E. Door Locks

    As proposed, we are adopting two minor changes to the door lock
requirements. First, we are distinguishing between exterior and
interior door locks. All exterior door

[[Page 5395]]

locks must be capable of being unlocked from the interior of the
vehicle by means of a lock release device which, when engaged, shall
prevent operation of the exterior door handle or other exterior latch
release control and which has an operating means and a lock release/
engagement device located within the interior of the vehicle. Interior
door locks are subject to the same requirements except that for rear
side doors and back doors, this release mechanism must require a
separate action distinct from the simple actuation of the door handle,
and the release device must be readily accessible to the driver of the
vehicle or an occupant seated adjacent to the door.
    The Alliance commented that the proposed door lock provision would
prohibit a common European rear door lock design that permits a vehicle
door to be unlocked and unlatched with a single pull of the handle so
long as the vehicle has a child safety lock or an automatic door
locking device. The Alliance stated that a requirement for a separate
action distinct from the simple actuation of the door handles to
release rear side door and back door interior locks effectively
precludes designs that have been in use for many years in Europe as
well as other markets. The Alliance stated that NHTSA did not provide
data demonstrating a negative effect of the GTR provision that permits
these designs on motor vehicle safety, and therefore did not provide
justification for not proposing the provision as contained in the GTR.
    This was a subject that was discussed extensively while developing
the GTR. The standard in the United States and Canada has always
mandated that the interior release mechanism for the door locks on side
and rear doors must require a separate action distinct from the simple
actuation of the door handle. This requirement is in place because of
our concern that children could inadvertently open the back door simply
by playing with the door handle. A system in which a child could open a
locked door with a single motion would almost certainly increase the
number of inadvertent door openings and place child occupants at
greater risk of ejection.
    The standard for Europe and Japan has always permitted rear vehicle
doors to be unlocked and unlatched with a single pull of the door
handle, provided that the vehicle has a child safety lock or an
automatic door locking device. This regulatory structure reflects a
concern that rescuers be able to quickly open rear doors to assist
passengers after a crash. These regions believe that the requirement
for child safety locks allows drivers to disable this feature when
children are riding in the rear seat.
    Both of these are plausible safety concerns. Neither side to the
dispute could provide data to resolve the problem. Absent a way to
resolve this difference, the parties agreed to address the problem of
inadvertent door openings by children by either the U.S./Canada
approach of requiring a separate action to release locked doors in the
rear or by the European/Japanese approach of requiring vehicles to have
child safety locks or automatic door locking.
    Against this background, the Alliance comment is not persuasive.
NHTSA agrees there are no data to show that drivers wouldn't always
engage the child safety locks in their vehicles. However, if even a few
drivers were to fail to engage their child safety locks and a few
children in the rear were to open a locked door simply by playing with
the door handle, those children would be at risk for ejection, even
absent a crash. This risk can be ameliorated simply by continuing to
follow the same requirements that have been in place for the interior
rear door locks of every new car and light truck sold in the United
States since 1968. Moreover, this approach is entirely consistent with
the GTR.

F. Applicability

    In the NPRM, the agency proposed expanding the applicability of the
standard to buses with a GVWR of less than 10,000 lb and removing an
exclusion for doors equipped with a wheelchair platform lift.
Historically, FMVSS No. 206 has not applied to buses in general because
the types of doors installed on buses in the 1960s were not amenable to
testing under the standard. The exclusion of wheelchair platform lift
equipped doors was originally adopted in 1985, at which time wheelchair
lift designs typically provided a barrier to occupant protection when
retracted. When retracted, wheelchair lift platforms typically covered
the doorway opening. Changes in the vehicle fleet and in technology
from the time of original adoption of these provisions necessitate
revisions to the applicability of FMVSS No. 206.
    The Alliance commented that the final rule should not expand
applicability of FMVSS No. 206 beyond that of the GTR. The Alliance
stated that expanding the applicability undermines the GTR and
mitigates the benefits of a common global technical requirement.
    The agency believes that all buses with a GVWR less than 10,000 lbs
should be subject to the requirements of FMVSS No. 206. These buses are
often equipped with traditional side-hinged doors as opposed to folding
doors. With the advent of 12- and 15-passenger vans, smaller buses are
now more frequently equipped with traditional side hinged doors. For
those buses that are equipped with folding doors, we are adopting a
definition of ``folding door'' that will accommodate those types of
doors that remain unsuitable for testing. Hinged doors on buses with a
GVWR less than 10,000 are the same door systems as those found on
smaller vans, which are required to comply with the standard.
Additionally, we anticipate that the impact of the extension will have
little additional cost to vehicle manufacturers. The agency is aware
that all 12-15 passengers vans, which are classified as buses,
currently share the same door system and latching components as other
smaller size vans, which already meet the requirements of our standard.
    Expanding the applicability of the standard to include these buses
is not inconsistent with the GTR process. The GTR preamble notes that,
``to address concerns about the applicability of door retention
requirements of heavier vehicles, it was proposed that the [GTR] only
apply to passenger cars, light commercial vehicles, and vans, and that
other vehicles be excluded initially, then added in the future after
further evaluation of various door designs.'' As buses with a GVWR of
less than 10,000 lbs have door designs identical to that of vehicles
subject to the GTR, there is no reason to delay the inclusion of these
vehicles under FMVSS No. 206. The agency intends to recommend that a
similar provision be adopted by the GTR in subsequent revisions.
    Today's rule also eliminates the exclusion of doors equipped with
platform lifts from the FMVSS No. 206 requirements. Blue Bird stated
that the elimination of this exclusion appeared only in the NPRM
regulatory text, but was not discussed in the preamble. Blue Bird
commented that the platform lift exclusion is important to the industry
and requested that it be retained in the final rule.
    As explained in the NPRM, the agency adopted the wheelchair
platform lift exclusion in 1985 in response to a petition from Thomas
Built Buses (50 FR 12029; March 27, 1985). At that time, wheelchair
platform lifts typically retracted so as to cover the doorway opening
and provide an adequate barrier to occupant ejections. When we established
the exclusion the agency stated that the barrier created by a retracted
wheelchair platform lift would be sufficient to prevent ejections.

[[Page 5396]]

    A 1998 evaluation revealed that wheelchair lift designs have
evolved such that they no longer provide adequate protection for
vehicle occupants as contemplated when the exclusion was adopted. The
intent of the exclusion was that doors could be modified for use with
wheelchair lifts and could have noncompliant latching systems, if the
wheelchair lift platform could be used to barricade the vehicle doorway
when in the retracted and stored position. This intent is no longer met
by current wheelchair lift systems, which have platforms not covering
or only partially covering the vehicle doorway. For example, some
wheelchair lift systems connect only to one side of a vehicle door
frame or have platforms that are stored horizontally above the vehicle
floor and not serving as a barricade to the vehicle doorway. Also, some
power-assisted door openers completely disable the OEM door latching
systems. Disabled door latches and a horizontal stored platform would
not provide an adequate barrier to preventing occupant ejection if the
door were to open during a crash. Further, current wheelchair lift
designs can be installed without modifying the OEM door system;
installation of a wheelchair platform lift does not necessitate removal
of a vehicle door from compliance with FMVSS No. 206. Vehicle
manufacturers are now providing power assisted components for the
installation of wheelchair adaptive equipment. Therefore, the exclusion
is not necessary for doors modified for use with wheelchair lift systems.

V. Certification Information

    Along with its comments, Trimark also submitted a series of
questions that while related to FMVSS No. 206, were not directly
related to the NPRM. Trimark's questions dealt more with compliance
testing procedures and self-certification requirements in general.
Trimark also asked about the agency's plans to address additional door
lock and door latch requirements in the future. We have addressed
Trimark's questions below.
    Trimark notes that S4.1.1.4 requires each primary door latch and
auxiliary door latch system to meet either the dynamic requirements
specified in paragraphs (a) and (b) of that section or the calculation
requirement. Trimark then asked a series of questions regarding the
calculation. What is the definition of the calculation?
    As explained in the NPRM and presented in the proposed regulatory
text, the agency uses the SAE J 839 definition for the calculation.
This is consistent with the current FMVSS No. 206 requirements.
    Trimark further asked if a computer simulation could be used, and could
a pulse be applied in the simulation as it is in the dynamic requirement?
    As explained above, FMVSS test procedures specify the procedures
that will be used by the agency to determine if a motor vehicle
complies with the appropriate requirements. We understand Trimark's
questions regarding the computer simulation to refer to a simulation of
the dynamic requirements. If using reasonable care, Trimark relies on
modeling to certify to the dynamic test, it may do so. However, if
Trimark were to certify to the dynamic test, the agency would perform
the appropriate dynamic test as specified in the standard to determine
if a vehicle complies.
    Trimark noted that in the NPRM the agency referenced a
comprehensive plan to address vehicle rollover. Trimark asked if the
plan was subject for public review.
    In June 2003 the agency released the report, ``Initiatives to
Address the Mitigation of Vehicle Rollover.'' This report is available at
http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/vrtc/ca/capubs/IPTRolloverMitigationReport/.
    Trimark also noted that the agency stated that we developed test
procedures for door closure and operability requirements, but that
these tests need to be validated before issuing a separate notice.
Trimark asked if these test procedures are available for public review.
    The agency has not yet proposed door closure and operability
requirements. Therefore, test procedures have not been published for
review and comment in a notice of proposed rulemaking. Research results
for the test procedures can be reviewed in Docket NHTSA-2004-19840.

VI. Costs, Benefits, and the Effective Date

    This document adds and updates test procedures for door latches. We
believe that only one of these, a new sliding door test procedure for
FMVSS No. 206, will add costs to vehicles and provide quantifiable
benefits for consumers. The agency determined that, aside from sliding
doors that require the addition of a second latch in order to comply
with the requirements as tested under the procedure adopted in the
final rule, the current fleet complies with the final rule adopted
today. Further, manufacturers failed to provide any data which
indicates that non-compliant vehicles will need significant changes or
extended timing to come into compliance with the proposed upgrades.
    The average annual ejections through sliding doors from 1995-2003
resulted in 20 fatalities and 30 injuries. When an occupant is retained
in a vehicle and the ejection is eliminated, it does not necessarily
mean that the occupant escapes injury. When all vehicles with sliding
doors meet this proposal, annually an estimated 7 fatalities and 4
occupants with serious to severe injuries will be reduced in severity
to minor injuries (AIS 1) as a result of remaining inside the vehicle.
    There were almost 1.4 million vans with sliding doors sold in 2003.
The total number of sliding doors (more than 2 million) of these vans
is higher because some of the vans have two sliding doors. The sliding
door requirement, as tested according to the new test procedure,
essentially requires sliding doors to have two latches. An estimated
1.2 million sliding doors (60%) on 660,000 vans (48%) need a second
latch to comply. Most of the affected vans have two sliding doors. The
incremental cost of adding a second latch is estimated to average $7.00
per door. Total costs are estimated at $8.4 million (in 2003 economics).
    The Alliance requested that manufacturers be permitted to comply
with the final rule according to a phase-in schedule consistent with
that proposed by the agency for the side impact upgrade (69 FR 27990;
May 17, 2004; Docket No. NHTSA-2004-17694). The Alliance stated that
vehicles which will require the addition of a second latch would
require major structural modifications to the B-pillars and doors to
accommodate a two-latch design.
    After considering the comments, the agency has decided to establish
an effective date of September 1, 2009. Optional early compliance is
permitted immediately. This provides manufacturers adequate time to
make the necessary design changes. We do not believe it would be
appropriate to tie the effective date for this rule with that of the
side impact upgrade, since that would result in unnecessary delay in
obtaining the benefits from this rule. The tests for the two
rulemakings are very different, and the test for this rule is not a
dynamic crash test. As mentioned above, the majority of vehicles
already comply with the proposed upgrades of this rulemaking, and those
not currently complying should not need significant changes to come
into compliance.

[[Page 5397]]

VII. Regulatory Analyses and Notices

A. Vehicle Safety Act

    Under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, Motor Vehicle Safety (49 U.S.C. 30101
et seq.), the Secretary of Transportation is responsible for
prescribing motor vehicle safety standards that are practicable, meet
the need for motor vehicle safety, and are stated in objective terms.
49 U.S.C. 30111(a). When prescribing such standards, the Secretary must
consider all relevant, available motor vehicle safety information. 49
U.S.C. 30111(b). The Secretary must also consider whether a proposed
standard is reasonable, practicable, and appropriate for the type of
motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment for which it is prescribed and
the extent to which the standard will further the statutory purpose of
reducing traffic accidents and associated deaths. Id. Responsibility
for promulgation of Federal motor vehicle safety standards was
subsequently delegated to NHTSA. 49 U.S.C. 105 and 322; delegation of
authority at 49 CFR 1.50.
    The agency carefully considered these statutory requirements in
adopting these amendments to FMVSS Nos. 206.
    The amendments to FMVSS No. 206 will be practicable. This document
does not adopt significant changes to the current requirements of FMVSS
No. 206. With regard to the sliding door requirement tested according
to the new test procedure, 40 percent of current sliding doors already
would comply. Additionally, the amendments harmonize the U.S.
requirements with the global technical regulation.
    These amendments are appropriate for the vehicles subject to the
requirements. Today's final rule continues to exclude vehicle doors for
which the requirements and test procedures are impractical or
unnecessary (e.g., folding doors, roll-up-doors).
    Finally, the agency has determined that the amendments provide
objective procedures for determining compliance. The test procedures
have been evaluated by the agency, and we have determined that they
produce repeatable and reproducible results. The sliding door load test
procedure and the inertial test procedure have also been evaluated by
the international automotive community, which has determined them to be
practicable. Further, we are adopting test procedures to provide
additional objectivity to existing requirements.

B. Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures

    Executive Order 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and Review'' (58 FR
51735, October 4, 1993), provides for making determinations whether a
regulatory action is ``significant'' and therefore subject to Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) review and to the requirements of the
Executive Order. The Order defines a ``significant regulatory action''
as one that is likely to result in a rule that may:
    (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public
health or safety, or State, local, or Tribal governments or communities;
    (2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an
action taken or planned by another agency;
    (3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants,
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients
thereof; or
    (4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in
the Executive Order.
    We have considered the impact of this rulemaking action under
Executive Order 12866 and the Department of Transportation's regulatory
policies and procedures. This rulemaking will not have an annual effect
on the economy of $100 million or more, but is significant due to
public interest in the issues. Therefore, this document was reviewed by
the Office of Management and Budget under E.O. 12866, ``Regulatory
Planning and Review.'' This document amends 49 CFR Part 571.206 by
adding new performance requirements for hinged side doors and a new
compliance test procedure for side sliding doors. These requirements
must be met by vehicle manufacturers. The reason for Federal regulation
is that consumers do not have any practical way of obtaining
information relating to the strength and safety of sliding doors.
    The cost of modifications for sliding doors with one latch is
estimated to be $7.00 per door, for a total cost to the entire fleet of
approximately $8.4 million (2003 dollars). For a further explanation of
the estimated costs, see the Final Regulatory Evaluation provided in
the docket for this rule.

C. Executive Order 13132

    NHTSA has examined today's final rule pursuant to Executive Order
13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) and concluded that no additional
consultation with States, local governments or their representatives is
mandated beyond the rulemaking process. The agency has concluded that
the rule does not have federalism implications because the rule does
not have ``substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship
between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of
power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.''
    Further, no consultation is needed to discuss the preemptive effect
of today's rule. NHTSA rules can have preemptive effect in at least two
ways. First, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act contains
an express preemptive provision: ``When a motor vehicle safety standard
is in effect under this chapter, a State or a political subdivision of
a State may prescribe or continue in effect a standard applicable to
the same aspect of performance of a motor vehicle or motor vehicle
equipment only if the standard is identical to the standard prescribed
under this chapter.'' 49 U.S.C. 30103(b)(1). It is this statutory
command that preempts State law, not today's rulemaking, so
consultation would be inappropriate.
    In addition to the express preemption noted above, the Supreme
Court has also recognized that State requirements imposed on motor
vehicle manufacturers, including sanctions imposed by State tort law,
can stand as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of a NHTSA
safety standard. When such a conflict is discerned, the Supremacy
Clause of the Constitution makes their State requirements
unenforceable. See Geier v. American Honda Motor Co., 529 U.S. 861
(2000). NHTSA has not outlined such potential State requirements in
today's rulemaking, however, in part because such conflicts can arise
in varied contexts, but it is conceivable that such a conflict may
become clear through subsequent experience with today's standard and
test regime. NHTSA may opine on such conflicts in the future, if
warranted. See id. at 883-86.

D. Executive Order 13045

    Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any
rulemaking that: (1) Is determined to be ``economically significant''
as defined under E.O. 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental, health
or safety risk that NHTSA has reason to believe may have a
disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets
both criteria, we must evaluate the environmental health or safety
effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the

[[Page 5398]]

planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and
reasonably feasible alternatives considered by us.
    This rulemaking is not subject to the Executive Order because it is
not economically significant as defined in E.O. 12866.

E. Executive Order 12988

    With respect to the review of the promulgation of a new regulation,
section 3(b) of Executive Order 12988, ``Civil Justice Reform'' (61 FR
4729, February 7, 1996) requires that Executive agencies make every
reasonable effort to ensure that the regulation: (1) Clearly specifies
the preemptive effect; (2) clearly specifies the effect on existing
Federal law or regulation; (3) provides a clear legal standard for
affected conduct, while promoting simplification and burden reduction;
(4) clearly specifies the retroactive effect, if any; (5) adequately
defines key terms; and (7) addresses other important issues affecting
clarity and general draftsmanship under any guidelines issued by the
Attorney General. This document is consistent with that requirement.
    Pursuant to this Order, NHTSA notes as follows. The preemptive
effect of this rule is discussed above. NHTSA notes further that there
is no requirement that individuals submit a petition for
reconsideration or pursue other administrative proceeding before they
may file suit in court.

F. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.,
as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
(SBREFA) of 1996) whenever an agency is required to publish a notice of
rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must prepare and make
available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis that
describes the effect of the rule on small entities (i.e., small
businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions).
However, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required if the head of
an agency certifies the rule would not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities. SBREFA amended the
Regulatory Flexibility Act to require Federal agencies to provide a
statement of the factual basis for certifying that a rule would not have
a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
    I certify that this final rule does not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities. The following is the
agency's statement providing the factual basis for the certification (5
U.S.C. 605(b)).
    The final rule directly affects motor vehicle manufacturers and
business that design and manufacture door latch systems. According to
the Small Business Administration's small business size standards (see
5 CFR 121.201), a motor vehicle manufacturer (NAICS code 336111,
Automobile Manufacturing) must have 1000 or fewer employees to qualify
as a small business. A business that designs and manufacturers door
latch systems (NAICS code 336399, All Other Motor Vehicle Parts
Manufacturing) must have 750 or fewer employees to qualify as a small
business. There are four motor vehicle manufacturers in the United
States which would qualify as a small business for the purpose of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act. None of these manufacturers make vehicles
with sliding doors. Vehicle manufacturers typically have their door
latches designed and produced by wholly-owned subsidiaries, and would
not be small businesses for the purpose of the Regulatory Flexibility
Act. Accordingly, there are very few independent vehicle door latch
manufacturers.

G. National Environmental Policy Act

    We have analyzed this final rule for the purposes of the National
Environmental Policy Act and determined that it does not have any
significant impact on the quality of the human environment.

H. Paperwork Reduction Act

    Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, a person is not required
to respond to a collection of information by a Federal agency unless
the collection displays a valid OMB control number. The final rule does
not contain any new information collection requirements.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272)
directs us to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory
activities unless doing so would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling
procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by
voluntary consensus standards bodies, such as the Society of Automotive
Engineers (SAE). The NTTAA directs us to provide Congress, through OMB,
explanations when we decide not to use available and applicable
voluntary consensus standards.
    No voluntary consensus standards were used in developing the
requirements because no voluntary standards exist that address the
subject of this rulemaking. However, the SAE Recommended Practice J934,
September 1998, Vehicle Passenger Door Hinge Systems and SAE
Recommended Practice J839, September 1998, Passenger Car Side Door Latch
Systems continue to be incorporated by reference in the regulatory text.

J. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA)
requires Federal agencies to prepare a written assessment of the costs,
benefits and other effects of proposed or final rules that include a
Federal mandate likely to result in the expenditure by State, local or
tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of more
than $100 million in any one year (adjusted for inflation with base
year of 1995). Before promulgating a NHTSA rule for which a written
statement is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires us to
identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives
and adopt the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome
alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of
section 205 do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable
law. Moreover, section 205 allows us to adopt an alternative other than
the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative
if we publish with the final rule an explanation why that alternative
was not adopted.
    The final rule will not impose any unfunded mandates under the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995. This rulemaking does not meet the
definition of a Federal mandate because it would not result in costs of
$100 million (adjusted annually for inflation with a base year of 1995
or 116 million in 2003 dollars) or more to either State, local, or
tribal governments, in the aggregate, or to the private sector. Thus,
this rulemaking is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and
205 of the UMRA.

K. Regulation Identifier Number (RIN)

    The Department of Transportation assigns a regulation identifier
number (RIN) to each regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of
Federal Regulations. The Regulatory Information Service Center
publishes the Unified

[[Page 5399]]

Agenda in April and October of each year. You may use the RIN contained
in the heading at the beginning of this document to find this action in
the Unified Agenda.

L. Privacy Act

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

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 571

    Motor vehicle safety, Reporting and Recordkeeping requirements, and
Tires.

    In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA amends 49 CFR 571.206 as
follows:

PART 571--FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS

    1. The authority citation for Part 571 continues 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 571.206 is amended by:
    (a) Revising S1; S2; the definitions of ``auxiliary door latch,''
``back door,'' ``fork-bolt,'' ``primary door latch,'' ``side front
door,'' ``side rear door,'' and ``trunk lid'' in S3; S4 through
S4.1.1.3; S4.1.2; S4.2 through S4.2.1.2; S4.2.2; S4.3; S5.1 through
S5.1.1.2; S5.1.2; S5.2; S5.2.1; S5.2.2; Figure 1; and
    (b) Adding ``auxiliary door latch system,'' ``body member,'' ``door
closure warning system,'' ``door hinge system,'' ``door latch system,''
``door member,'' ``door system,'' ``double door,'' ``folding door,''
``fork-bolt opening direction,'' ``fully-latched position,'' ``hinge,''
``hinge pin,'' ``latch,'' ``primary door latch system,'' ``secondary
latched position,'' ``striker,'' to the definitions in S3; S4.1.1.4;
S4.1.2.1 through S4.1.2.3; S4.2.1.3; S4.2.2.1; S4.2.2.2; S4.3.1;
S4.3.2; S5; S5.1.1.3; S5.1.1.4; S5.1.2.1 through S5.1.2.4; S5.2.1.1
through S5.2.1.4; S5.2.2.1 through S5.2.2.4; S5.3; Figures 2 through 4;
Table 1; Figures 5 through 9; and
    (c) Removing ``cargo-type door'' and ``fork-bolt opening'' from the
definitions in S3, S4.1.3, S4.1.3.1, S4.4 through S4.5, and S5.4
through S5.5, to read as follows:

Sec.  571.206  Standard 206; Door locks and door retention components.

    S1. Scope and Purpose. This standard specifies requirements for
vehicle door locks and door retention components, including latches,
hinges, and other supporting means, to minimize the likelihood of
occupants being ejected from a vehicle as a result of impact.
    S2. Application. This standard applies to passenger cars,
multipurpose passenger vehicles, and trucks, and buses with a gross
vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 4,536 kg or less.
    S3. Definitions.
    Auxiliary Door Latch is a latch equipped with a fully latched
position, with or without a secondary latched position, and fitted to a
door or door system equipped with a primary door latch system.
    Auxiliary Door Latch System consists of door latches and strikers
other than those associated with the primary door latch system.
    Back Door is a door or door system on the back end of a motor
vehicle through which passengers can enter or depart the vehicle or
cargo can be loaded or unloaded. It does not include:
    (a) A trunk lid; or
    (b) A door or window composed entirely of glazing material and
whose latches and/or hinge systems are attached directly to the glazing
material.
    Body Member is that portion of the hinge normally affixed to the
body structure.
    Door Closure Warning System is a system that will activate a visual
signal when a door latch system is not in its fully latched position
and the vehicle ignition is activated.
    Door Hinge System is one or more hinges used to support a door.
    Door Latch System consists of latches and strikers installed on a
door system.
    Door Member is that portion of the hinge normally affixed to the
door structure and constituting the swinging member.
    Door System is the door, latch, striker, hinges, sliding track
combinations and other door retention components on a door and its
surrounding doorframe. The door system of a double door includes both doors.
    Double Door is a system of two doors where the front door or wing
door opens first and connects to the rear door or bolted door, which
opens second.
    Folding Door is a movable barrier, which will close off an
entranceway to a bus, multipurpose passenger vehicle or truck,
consisting of two or more hinge panels that swing, slide, or rotate;
does not have a striker and latch assembly.
    Fork-bolt is the part of the latch that engages and retains the
striker when in a latched position.
    Fork-bolt Opening Direction is the direction opposite to that in
which the striker enters the latch to engage the fork-bolt.
    Fully Latched Position is the coupling condition of the latch that
retains the door in a completely closed position.
    Hinge is a device system used to position the door relative to the
body structure and control the path of the door swing for passenger
ingress and egress.
    Hinge Pin is that portion of the hinge normally interconnecting the
body and door members and establishing the swing axis.
    Latch is a device employed to maintain the door in a closed
position relative to the vehicle body with provisions for deliberate
release (or operation).
    Primary Door Latch is a latch equipped with both a fully latched
position and a secondary latched position and is designated as a
``primary door latch'' by the manufacturer.
    Primary Door Latch System consists of a primary door latch(s) and a
striker(s).
    Secondary Latched Position refers to the coupling condition of the
latch that retains the door in a partially closed position.
    Side Front Door is a door that, in a side view, has 50 percent or
more of its opening area forward of the rearmost point on the driver's
seat back, when the seat back is adjusted to its most vertical and
rearward position.
    Side Rear Door is a door that, in a side view, has 50 percent or
more of its opening area to the rear of the rearmost point on the
driver's seat back, when the driver's seat is adjusted to its most
vertical and rearward position.
    Striker is a device with which the latch engages to maintain the
door in the fully latched or secondary latched position.
    Trunk Lid is a movable body panel that provides access from outside
the vehicle to a space wholly partitioned from the occupant compartment
by a permanently attached partition or fixed or fold-down seat back.
    S4. Requirements. The requirements apply to all side and back
doors, that lead directly into a compartment that contains one or more
seating accommodations and the associated door components, except for
those on folding doors, roll-up doors, detachable doors, and on bus
doors used only for emergency egress purposes and labeled accordingly.
S4.1 Hinged Doors
    S4.1.1 Primary and Auxiliary Door Latch Systems. Each hinged door
system shall be equipped with at least one

[[Page 5400]]

primary door latch system. By the time a vehicle is certified a
manufacturer shall designate the door latch system(s) that is the
``primary door latch system(s).'' Upon certification, a manufacturer
may not thereafter alter the designation of a primary door latch
system. Each manufacturer shall, upon request from the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration, provide information regarding such
designation.
    S4.1.1.1 Load Test One.
    (a) Each primary door latch system and auxiliary door latch system,
when in the fully latched position, shall not separate when a load of
11,000 N is applied in the direction perpendicular to the face of the
latch such that the latch and the striker anchorage are not compressed
against each other, when tested in accordance with S5.1.1.1.
    (b) When in the secondary latched position, the primary door latch
system shall not separate when a load of 4,500 N is applied in the same
direction specified in paragraph (a) of this section when tested in
accordance with S5.1.1.1.
    S4.1.1.2 Load Test Two.
    (a) Each primary door latch system and auxiliary door latch system,
when in the fully latched position, shall not separate when a load of
9,000 N is applied in the fork-bolt opening direction and parallel to
the face of the latch, when tested in accordance with S5.1.1.2.
    (b) When in the secondary latched position, the primary door latch
system shall not separate when a load of 4,500 N is applied in the same
direction specified in paragraph (a) of this section when tested in
accordance with S5.1.1.2.
    S4.1.1.3 Load Test Three. (Applicable only to back doors that open
in a vertical direction). Each primary door latch system on back doors,
when in the fully latched position, shall not separate when a load of
9,000 N is applied in a direction orthogonal to the directions
specified in S4.1.1.1 and S4.1.1.2 when tested in accordance with S5.1.1.3.
    S4.1.1.4 Inertial Load. Each primary door latch system and
auxiliary door latch system shall meet either the dynamic requirements
specified in paragraphs (a) and (b) of S4.1.1.4 or the calculation of
inertial load resistance specified in paragraph (c) of S4.1.1.4.
    (a) Each primary door latch and auxiliary door latch on each hinged
door shall not disengage from the fully latched position when an
inertia load is applied to the door latch system, including the latch
and its activation device, in the directions parallel to the vehicle's
longitudinal and transverse axes with the locking device disengaged,
when tested as specified in S5.1.1.4(b).
    (b) Each primary door latch and auxiliary door latch on each hinged
back door shall also not disengage from the fully latched position when
an inertia load is applied to the door latch system, including the
latch and its activation device, in the direction parallel to the
vehicle's vertical axis with the locking device disengaged, when tested
as specified in S5.1.1.4(b).
    (c) Each component or subassembly is calculated for its minimum
inertial load resistance in a particular direction. The combined
resistance to the unlatching operation must assure that the door latch
system, when properly assembled in the vehicle door, will remain
latched when subjected to an inertial load of 30 g in the vehicle
directions specified in paragraph (a) of this section or paragraph (b)
of this section, as applicable, when calculated in accordance with
S5.1.1.4 (a).
    S4.1.2 Door Hinges.
    S4.1.2.1 When tested in accordance with S5.1.2, each door hinge
system shall:
    (a) Support the door,
    (b) Not separate when a longitudinal load of 11,000 N is applied,
    (c) Not separate when a transverse load of 9,000 N is applied, and
    (d) For back doors,
    (1) Not separate when a load of 11,000 N is applied perpendicular
to the hinge face plate (longitudinal load test) such that the hinge
plates are not compressed against each other (Load Test One).
    (2) Not separate when a load of 9,000 N is applied perpendicular to
the axis of the hinge pin and parallel to the hinge face plate
(transverse load test) such that the hinge plates are not compressed
against each other (Load Test Two).
    (3) Not separate when a load of 9,000 N is applied in the direction
of the axis of the hinge pin (Load Test Three--only for back doors that
open in a vertical direction).
    S4.1.2.2 If a single hinge within the hinge system is tested
instead of the entire hinge system, the hinge must bear a load
proportional to the total number of hinges in the hinge system. (For
example, an individual hinge in a two-hinge system must be capable of
withstanding 50% of the load requirements of the total system.)
    S4.1.2.3 On side doors with rear mounted hinges that can be
operated independently of other doors,
    (a) The interior door handle shall be inoperative when the speed of
the vehicle is greater than or equal to 4 km/h, and
    (b) A door closure warning system shall be provided for those
doors. The door closure warning system shall be located where it can be
clearly seen by the driver.
    S4.2 Sliding Side Doors.
    S4.2.1 Latch System. Each sliding door system shall be equipped
with either:
    (a) At least one primary door latch system, or
    (b) A door latch system with a fully latched position and a door
closure warning system. The door closure warning system shall be
located where it can be clearly seen by the driver. Upon certification
a manufacturer may not thereafter alter the designation of a primary
latch. Each manufacturer shall, upon request from the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration, provide information regarding such
designation.
    S4.2.1.1 Load Test One.
    (a) At least one door latch system, when in the fully latched
position, shall not separate when a load of 11,000 N is applied in the
direction perpendicular to the face of the latch such that the latch
and the striker anchorage are not compressed against each other, when
tested in accordance with S5.2.1.1.
    (b) In the case of a primary door latch system, when in the
secondary latched position, the door latch system shall not separate
when a load of 4,500 N is applied in the same direction specified in
paragraph (a) of this section when tested in accordance with S5.2.1.1.
    S4.2.1.2 Load Test Two.
    (a) At least one door latch system, when in the fully latched
position, shall not separate when a load of 9,000 N is applied in the
fork-bolt opening direction and parallel to the face of the latch when
tested in accordance with S5.2.1.2.
    (b) In the case of a primary door latch system, when in the
secondary latched position, the door latch system shall not separate
when a load of 4,500 N is applied in the same direction specified in
paragraph (a) of this section when tested in accordance with S5.2.1.2.
    S4.2.1.3 Inertial Load. Each door latch system certified as meeting
the requirements of S4.2.1.1 and S4.2.1.2 shall meet either the dynamic
requirements specified in paragraph (a) of this section or the calculation
of inertial load resistance specified in paragraph (b) of this section.
    (a) The door latch system shall not disengage from the fully
latched position when an inertial load is applied to the door latch
system, including the latch and its activation mechanism, in the
directions parallel to the vehicle's longitudinal and

[[Page 5401]]

transversal axes with the locking mechanism disengaged, and when tested
in accordance with S5.1.1.4(b).
    (b) The minimum inertial load resistance can be calculated for each
component or subassembly. Their combined resistance to the unlatching
operation must assure that the door latch system, when properly
assembled in the vehicle door, will remain latched when subjected to an
inertia load of 30 g in the vehicle directions specified in paragraph
(a) of this section, when calculated in accordance with S5.1.1.4(a).
    S4.2.2 Door System.
    S4.2.2.1 The track and slide combination or other supporting means
for each sliding door, while in the closed fully latched position,
shall not separate from the door frame when a total force of 18,000 N
along the vehicle transverse axis is applied to the door as specified
in S5.2.2.
    S4.2.2.2 When a sliding door system is tested in accordance with
S5.2.2, the following conditions shall not occur:
    (a) A separation which permits a sphere with a diameter of 100 mm
to pass unobstructed between the exterior of the vehicle to the
interior of the vehicle, while the required force is maintained as
shown in Figure 1.
    (b) Either force application device reaches a total displacement of
300 mm.
    S4.3 Door Locks. Each door shall be equipped with at least one
locking device which, when engaged, shall prevent operation of the
exterior door handle or other exterior latch release control and which
has an operating means and a lock release/engagement device located
within the interior of the vehicle.
    S4.3.1 Rear side doors. Each rear side door shall be equipped with
at least one locking device which has a lock release/engagement
mechanism located within the interior of the vehicle and readily
accessible to the driver of the vehicle or an occupant seated adjacent
to the door, and which, when engaged, prevents operation of the
interior door handle or other interior latch release control and
requires separate actions to unlock the door and operate the interior
door handle or other interior latch release control.
    S4.3.2 Back doors. Each back door equipped with an interior door
handle or other interior latch release control, shall be equipped with
at least one locking device that meets the requirements of S4.3.1.
    S5 Test Procedures.
    S5.1 Hinged Doors.
    S5.1.1 Primary and Auxiliary Door Latches.
    S5.1.1.1 Load Test One Force Application. The test procedures for
S4.1.1.1 and S4.2.1.1 are as follows:
    (a) Fully latched position.
    (1) Attach the test fixture shown in Figure 2 to the mounting
provisions of the latch and striker. Align the direction of engagement
parallel to the linkage of the fixture. Mount the fixture with latch
and striker in the fully latched position in the test machine so as to
apply a load perpendicular to the face of the latch.
    (2) Locate weights so as to apply a 900 N load tending to separate
the latch and striker in the direction of the latch opening.
    (3) Apply the test load, in the direction specified in S4.1.1.1 and
Figure 5, at a rate not to exceed 5 mm/min until the required load has
been achieved. Record the maximum load achieved.
    (b) Secondary Latched Position.
    (1) Attach the test fixture shown in Figure 2 to the mounting
provisions of the latch and striker. Align the direction of engagement
parallel to the linkage of the fixture. Mount the fixture with latch
and striker in the secondary position in the test machine so as to
apply a load perpendicular to the face of the latch.
    (2) Locate weights so as to apply a 900 N load tending to separate
the latch and striker in the direction of the latch opening.
    (3) Apply the test load, in the direction specified in S4.1.1.1 and
Figure 5, at a rate not to exceed 5 mm/min until the required load has
been achieved. Record maximum load achieved.
    (4) The test plate to which the door latch is mounted will have a
striker cut-out configuration similar to the environment in which the
door latch will be mounted on normal vehicle doors.
    S5.1.1.2 Load Test Two Force Application. The test procedures for
S4.1.1.2 and S4.2.1.2 are as follows:
    (a) Fully Latched Position.
    (1) Adapt the test fixture shown in Figure 3 to the mounting
provisions of the latch and striker. Mount the fixture with latch and
striker in the fully latched position in the test machine so to apply a
load in the direction of latch opening.
    (2) Apply the test load, in the direction specified in S4.1.1.2 and
Figure 5, at a rate not to exceed 5 mm/min until the required load has
been achieved. Record the maximum load achieved.
    (b) Secondary Latched Position.
    (1) Adapt the test fixture shown in Figure 3 to the mounting
provisions of the latch and striker. Mount the fixture with latch and
striker in the secondary latched position in the test machine so as to
apply a load in the direction of latch opening.
    (2) Apply the test load, in the direction specified in S4.1.1.2 and
Figure 5, at a rate not to exceed 5 mm/min until the required load has
been achieved. Record the maximum load achieved.
    S5.1.1.3 Load Test Three Force Application. The test procedures for
S4.1.1.3 are as follows:
    (a) Adapt the test fixture shown in Figure 4 to the mounting
provisions of the latch and striker. Mount the fixture with latch and
striker in the fully latched position in the test machine so as to
apply a load in the direction specified in S4.1.1.3 and Figure 5.
    (b) Apply the test load, in the direction specified in S4.1.1.3 and
Figure 5, at a rate not to exceed 5 mm/min until the required load has
been achieved. Record the maximum load required.
    S5.1.1.4 Inertial Force Application. The test procedures for
S4.1.1.4 and S4.2.1.3 are as follows:
    (a) Calculation. The calculation is performed in accordance with
paragraph 6 of Society of Automotive Engineers Recommended Practice
J839, Passenger Car Side Door Latch Systems, June 1991.
    (b) Dynamic Test. The dynamic inertial force application is tested
according to the setup specified in paragraph (1) or (2) of this section.
    (1) Test Setup and Directions for Full Vehicle Test.
    (i) Test Setup.
    (A) Rigidly secure the full vehicle to an acceleration device that,
when accelerated together, will assure that all points on the crash
pulse curve are within the corridor defined in Table 1 and Figure 6.
    (B) Install the equipment used to record door opening (doors may be
tethered to avoid damaging the recording equipment).
    (C) Close the door(s) to be tested and ensure that the door
latch(es) is in the fully-latched position, that the door(s) is
unlocked, and that all windows, if provided, on the door(s) are closed.
    (ii) Test Directions. (See Figure 7)
    (A) Longitudinal Setup 1. Orient the vehicle so that its
longitudinal axis is aligned with the axis of the acceleration device,
simulating a frontal impact.
    (B) Longitudinal Setup 2. Orient the vehicle so that its
longitudinal axis is aligned with the axis of the acceleration device,
simulating a rear impact.
    (C) Transverse Setup 1. Orient the vehicle so that its transverse
axis is aligned with the axis of the acceleration device, simulating a
driver-side impact.

[[Page 5402]]

    (D) Transverse Setup 2. (Only for vehicles having different door
arrangements on each side.) Orient the vehicle so that its transverse
axis is aligned with the axis of the acceleration device, simulating a
side impact in the direction opposite to that described in b(1)(ii)(C)
of this paragraph.
    (2) Test Setup and Directions for Door Test.
    (i) Test Setup.
    (A) Mount the door assemblies, consisting of at least the door
latch(es), exterior door handle(s) with mechanical latch operation,
interior door opening lever(s), and locking device(s), either
separately or combined to a test fixture. Each door and striker is
mounted to the test fixture to correspond to its orientation on the
vehicle and to the directions specified in b(1)(ii) of this paragraph.
    (B) Mount the test fixture to the acceleration device, and install
the equipment used to record door opening.
    (C) Ensure that the door latch is in the fully-latched position,
that the door is tethered and unlocked, and that any windows are closed.
    (ii) Test Directions. (See Figure 7)
    (A) Longitudinal Setup 1. Orient the door subsystem(s) on the
acceleration device in the direction of a frontal impact.
    (B) Longitudinal Setup 2. Orient the door subsystem(s) on the
acceleration device in the direction of a rear impact.
    (C) Transverse Setup 1. Orient the door subsystem(s) on the
acceleration device in the direction of a driver-side impact.
    (D) Transverse Setup 2. Orient the door subsystem(s) on the
acceleration device in the direction opposite to that described in
(b)(2)(ii)(C) of this paragraph.
    (E) Vertical Setup 1 (applicable only to back doors that open in a
vertical direction). Orient the door subsystem(s) on the acceleration
device so that its vertical axis (when mounted in the vehicle) is
aligned with the axis of the acceleration device, simulating a rollover
impact where the force is applied in the direction from the top to the
bottom of the door (when mounted in a vehicle).
    (F) Vertical Setup 2 (applicable only to back doors that open in a
vertical direction). Orient the door subsystem(s) on the acceleration
device so that its vertical axis (when mounted in the vehicle) is
aligned with the axis of the acceleration device, simulating a rollover
impact where the force is applied in the direction opposite to that
described in (b)(2)(ii)(E) of this paragraph.
    (3) Test Operation.
    (i) The acceleration device platform shall be instrumented with an
accelerometer and data processing system that conforms to the
requirements specified in Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE)
Recommended Practice J211 December 2003, ``Instrumentation for Impact
Test--Part 1--Electronic Instrumentation'', Channel Class 60. The
accelerometer sensitive axis is parallel to the direction of test
platform travel.
    (ii) Maintaining a minimum acceleration level of 30 g for a period
of at least 30 ms, while keeping the recorded acceleration within the
pulse corridor defined in Table 1 and Figure 6, accelerate the
acceleration device in the following directions:
    (A) For Full Vehicle Tests, in the directions specified in
S5.1.1.4(b)(1)(ii)(A) through S5.1.1.4(b)(1)(ii)(D).
    (B) For Door Tests, in the directions specified in
S5.1.1.4(b)(2)(ii)(A) through S5.1.1.4(b)(2)(ii)(F).
    (iii) Check recording device for door opening and/or closure during
the test.
    (iv) If at any point in time, the pulse exceeds 36 g and the test
specifications are met, the test shall be considered valid.
    S5.1.2 Door Hinges. The test procedures for S4.1.2 are as follows:
    S5.1.2.1 Multiple Hinge Evaluation;
    S5.1.2.1.1 Longitudinal Load Test.
    (a) Attach the test fixture illustrated in Figure 8 to the mounting
provisions of the hinge system. Hinge attitude is configured to
simulate vehicle position (door fully closed) relative to the hinge
centerline. For test purposes, the distance between the extreme end of
one hinge in the system to the extreme end of another hinge in the
system is to be set at 406 mm ± 4 mm. The load is to be
applied equidistant between the linear center of the engaged portions
of the hinge pins and through the centerline of the hinge pin in the
longitudinal vehicle direction (see Figure 8).
    (b) Apply the test load at a rate not to exceed 5 mm/min until the
required load has been achieved. Record maximum load achieved.
    S5.1.2.1.2 Transverse Load Test
    (a) Attach the test fixture shown in Figure 8 to the mounting
provisions of the hinge system. Hinge attitude is configured to
simulate vehicle position (door fully closed) relative to the hinge
centerline. For test purposes, the distance between the extreme end of
one hinge in the system to the extreme opposite end of another hinge in
the system is to be set at 406 mm ± 4 mm. The load is to be
applied equidistant between the linear center of the engaged portions
of the hinge pins and through the centerline of the hinge pin in the
transverse vehicle direction (see Figure 8).
    (b) Apply the test load at a rate not to exceed 5 mm/min until the
required load has been achieved. Record maximum load achieved.
    S5.1.2.2 Back Door Hinge Load Test
    (a) Load Test One
    (1) Attach the test fixture illustrated in Figure 8 to the mounting
provisions of the hinge system. Hinge attitude is configured to
simulate vehicle position (door fully closed) relative to the hinge
centerline. For test purposes, the distance between the extreme end of
one hinge system in the system to the extreme opposite end of another
hinge system is to be set at 406 ± 4 mm. The load is to be
applied equidistant between the linear center of the engaged portions
of the hinge pins and through the centerline of the hinge pin, and as
specified in S4.1.2.1(d)(1). (See Figure 9).
    (2) Apply the test load at a rate not to exceed 5 mm/min until the
required load has been achieved. Failure consists of a separation of
either hinge. Record the maximum load achieved.
    (b) Load Test Two
    (1) Attach the test fixture illustrated in Figure 8 to the mounting
provisions of the hinge system. Hinge attitude is configured to
simulate vehicle position (door fully closed) relative to the hinge
centerline. For test purposes, the distance between the extreme end of
one hinge system in the system to the extreme opposite end of another
hinge system is to be set at 406 ± 4 mm. The load is to be
applied equidistant between the linear center of the engaged portions
of the hinge pins and through the centerline of the hinge pin, and as
specified in S4.1.2.1(d)(2). (See Figure 9).
    (2) Apply the test load at a rate not to exceed 5 mm/min until the
required load has been achieved. Failure consists of a separation of
either hinge. Record the maximum load achieved.
    (c) Load Test Three
    (1) Attach the test fixture illustrated in Figure 8 to the mounting
provisions of the hinge system. Hinge attitude is configured to
simulate vehicle position (door fully closed) relative to the hinge
centerline. For test purposes, the distance between the extreme end of
one hinge system in the system to the extreme opposite end of another
hinge system is to be set at 406 ± 4 mm. The load is to be
applied through the centerline of the hinge pin, and as specified in
S4.1.2.1(d)(3). (See Figure 9).

[[Page 5403]]

    (2) Apply the test load at a rate not to exceed 5 mm/min until the
required load has been achieved. Failure consists of a separation of
either hinge. Record the maximum load achieved.
    S5.1.2.3 Single Hinge Evaluation. Individual hinges of a hinge
system are tested in accordance with the procedures below:
    (a) Longitudinal Load. Attach the test fixture illustrated in
Figure 8 to the mounting provisions of the hinge. Hinge attitude is
configured to simulate the vehicle position (door fully closed)
relative to the hinge centerline. For test purposes, the load is to be
applied equidistant between the linear center of the engaged portions
of the hinge pin and through the centerline of the hinge pin in the
longitudinal vehicle direction. Apply the test load at a rate not to
exceed 5 mm/min until the required load has been achieved. Failure
consists of a separation of either hinge. Record maximum load achieved.
    (b) Transverse Load. Attach the test fixture illustrated in Figure
8 to the mounting provisions of the hinge. Hinge attitude is configured
to simulate the vehicle position (door fully closed) relative to the
hinge centerline. For test purposes, the load is to be applied
equidistant between the linear center of the engaged portions of the
hinge pin and through the centerline of the hinge pin in the transverse
vehicle direction. Apply the test load at a rate not to exceed 5 mm/min
until the required load has been achieved. Failure consists of a
separation of either hinge. Record maximum load achieved.
    (c) Back Door Hinge Load Tests.
    (1) Load Test One. Attach the test fixture illustrated in Figure 8
to the mounting provisions of the hinge. Hinge attitude is configured
to simulate the vehicle position (door fully closed) relative to the
hinge centerline. For test purposes, the load is to be applied
equidistant between the linear center of the engaged portions of the
hinge pin and through the centerline of the hinge pin, and as specified
in S4.1.2.1(d)(1). (See Figure 9). Apply the test load at a rate not to
exceed 5 mm/min until the required load has been achieved. Failure
consists of a separation of either hinge. Record maximum load achieved.
    (2) Load Test Two. Attach the test fixture illustrated in Figure 8
to the mounting provisions of the hinge. Hinge attitude is configured
to simulate the vehicle position (door fully closed) relative to the
hinge centerline. For test purposes, the load is to be applied
equidistant between the linear center of the engaged portions of the
hinge pin and through the centerline of the hinge pin, and as specified
in S4.1.2.1(d)(2). (See Figure 9). Apply the test load at a rate not to
exceed 5 mm/min until the required load has been achieved. Failure
consists of a separation of either hinge. Record maximum load achieved.
    (3) Load Test Three. Attach the test fixture illustrated in Figure
8 to the mounting provisions of the hinge. Hinge attitude is configured
to simulate the vehicle position (door fully closed) relative to the
hinge centerline. For test purposes, the load is to be applied through
the centerline of the hinge pin, and as specified in S4.1.2.1(d)(3).
(See Figure 9). Apply the test load at a rate not to exceed 5 mm/min
until the required load has been achieved. Failure consists of a
separation of either hinge. Record maximum load achieved.
    S5.1.2.4 For piano-type hinges, the hinge spacing requirements are
not applicable and arrangement of the test fixture is altered so that
the test forces are applied to the complete hinge.
    S5.2 Sliding Side Doors.
    S5.2.1 Door Latches.
    S5.2.1.1 Load Test One Force Application. The requirements of
S4.2.1.1 are tested in accordance with the procedures specified in S5.1.1.1.
    S5.2.1.2 Load Test Two Force Application. The requirements of
S4.2.1.2 are tested in accordance with the procedures specified in
S5.1.1.2.
    S5.2.1.3 [Reserved.]
    S5.2.1.4 [Reserved.]
    S5.2.2 Door System. The test procedures for S4.2.2 are as follows:
    S5.2.2.1 Tests are conducted using a full vehicle with the sliding
door and its retention components.
    S5.2.2.2 The test is conducted using two force application devices
capable of applying the outward transverse forces specified in
S5.2.2.4. The test setup is shown in Figure 10. The force application
system shall include the following:
    (a) Two force application plates, (b) Two force application devices
capable of applying the outward transverse load requirements for a
minimum displacement of 300 mm.
    (c) Two load cells of sufficient capacity to measure the applied
loads specified in S5.2.2.4.
    (d) Two linear displacement measurement devices required for
measuring force application device displacement during the test.
    (e) Equipment to measure for a 100 mm separation as specified in
S4.2.2.2(a), while respecting all relevant safety and health requirements.
    S5.2.2.3 Test Setup.
    (a) Remove all interior trim and decorative components from the
sliding door assembly.
    (b) Remove seats and any interior components that may interfere
with the mounting and operation of the test equipment and all pillar
trim and any non-structural components that overlap the door and cause
improper placement of the force application plates.
    (c) Each force application device and associated support structure
is rigidly fixed on a horizontal surface on the vehicle floor, while
applying the loads.
    (d) Determine the forward and aft edge of the sliding door, or its
adjoining vehicle structure, that contains a latch/striker.
    (e) Close the sliding door, ensuring that all door retention
components are fully engaged.
    (f) For any tested door edge that contains one latch/striker, the
following set-up procedures are used:
    (1)(i) The force application plate is 150 mm in length, 50 mm in
width, and at least 15 mm in thickness. The plate edges are rounded to
a radius of 6 mm ± 1 mm.
    (ii) The plates are rigidly fixed perpendicular to the force
application devices to maintain the displacement of the force
application plate in the transverse direction. The plates allow for
longitudinal rotation with respect to the vehicle's centerline axis.
The plates do not allow for rotation in the vehicle's transverse direction.
    (2) Place the force application device and force application plate
against the door so that the applied force is perpendicular to the
vertical longitudinal plane that passes through the vehicle's
longitudinal centerline, and vertically centered on the door-mounted
portion of the latch/striker.
    (3) The force application plate is positioned such that the long
edge of the plate is as close to the edge of the interior edge of the
door as possible, but not such that the forward edge of plate is more
than 12.5 mm from the interior edge.
    (g) For any tested door edge that contains more than one latch/
striker, the following setup procedures are used:
    (1)(i) The force application plate is 300 mm in length, 50 mm in
width, and at least 15 mm in thickness. The plate edges are rounded to
a radius of 6 mm ± 1 mm.
    (ii) The plates are rigidly fixed perpendicular to the force
application devices to maintain the displacement of the force
application plate in the transverse direction. The plates allow for
longitudinal rotation with respect to the vehicle's centerline axis.
The plates do not allow for rotation in the vehicle's transverse direction.
    (2) Place the force application device and force application plate
against the door so that the applied force is perpendicular to the vertical

[[Page 5404]]

longitudinal plane that passes through the vehicle's longitudinal
centerline, and vertically centered on a point mid-way between the
outermost edges of the latch/striker assemblies.
    (3) The force application plate is positioned such that the long
edge of the plate is as close to the edge of the interior edge of the
door as possible, but not such that the forward edge of plate is more
than 12.5 mm from the interior edge.
    (h) For any tested door edge that does not contain at least one
latch/striker, the following set-up procedures are used:
    (1)(i) The force application plate is 300 mm in length, 50 mm in
width, and at least 15 mm in thickness. The plate edges are rounded to
a radius of 6 mm ± 1 mm.
    (ii) The plates are rigidly fixed perpendicular to the force
application devices to maintain the displacement of the force
application plate in the transverse direction. The plates allow for
longitudinal rotation with respect to the vehicle's centerline axis.
The plates do not allow for rotation in the vehicle's transverse direction.
    (2) Place the force application device and force application plate
against the door so that the applied force is perpendicular to the
vertical longitudinal plane that passes through the vehicle's
longitudinal centerline, and vertically centered on a point mid-way
along the length of the door edge ensuring that the loading device
avoids contact with the window glazing.
    (3) The force application plate is positioned such that the long
edge of the plate is as close to the edge of the interior edge of the
door as possible, but not such that the forward edge of plate is more
than 12.5 mm from the interior edge.
    (i) The door is unlocked. No extra fixtures or components may be
welded or affixed to the sliding door or any of its components.
    (j) Place the load application structure so that the force
application plates are in contact with the interior of the sliding door.
    (k) Apply a preload of 500 N to each actuator and ``zero'' the
displacement measuring device.
    S5.2.2.4 Test Procedure.
    (a) Move each force application device at any rate up to 2000 N per
minute until a force of 9,000 N is achieved on each force application
device or until either force application device reaches a total
displacement of 300 mm.
    (b) If one of the force application devices reaches the target
force of 9,000 N prior to the other, maintain the 9,000 N force with
that force application device until the second force application device
reaches the 9,000 N force.
    (c) Once both force application devices have achieved 9,000 N each
hold the resulting load.
    (d) Maintain each force application device load as specified in
paragraph (c) and within 30 seconds measure the separation between the
exterior edge of the doorframe and the interior of the door along the
perimeter of the door.
    S5.3 [Reserved].
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P

[[Page 5405]]
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED] TP06FE07.006
[[Page 5406]]
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED] TP06FE07.007
[[Page 5407]]
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED] TP06FE07.008
[[Page 5408]]
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED] TP06FE07.009
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED] TP06FE07.010
[[Page 5409]]
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED] TP06FE07.011
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED] TP06FE07.012
[[Page 5410]]
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED] TP06FE07.013
[[Page 5411]]
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED] TP06FE07.014
[[Page 5412]]
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED] TP06FE07.015
[[Page 5413]]
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED] TP06FE07.016

    Issued on: January 30, 2007.
Nicole R. Nason,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 07-517 Filed 2-5-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-C
Notices For
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998
1997
1996
1995
1994
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Door Locks and Door Retention Components

Local Navigation
