`[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 240 (Wednesday, December 15, 2004)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 75020-75042]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-27215]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 571

[Docket No. NHTSA-2004-19840]
RIN 2127-AH34


Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Door Locks and Door 
Retention Components and Side Impact Protection

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Department of 
Transportation.

[[Page 75021]]


ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We are proposing to amend Federal Motor Vehicle Safety 
Standard (FMVSS) No. 206, 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. If adopted, today's proposal would add test requirements and 
test procedures for sliding doors, add secondary latched position 
requirements for doors other than hinged side doors and back doors, 
provide a new test procedure for assessing inertial forces, and extend 
the application of FMVSS No. 206 to buses with a Gross Vehicle Weight 
Rating (GVWR) of less than 10,000 pounds, including 12-15 passenger 
vans.

DATES: Comment closing date: You should submit your comments early 
enough to ensure that Document Management receives them not later than 
February 14, 2005. See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for proposed 
effective date.

ADDRESSES: For purposes of identification, please mention the docket 
number of this document in your comments. You may submit those comments 
by any of the following methods:
     Web Site: http://dms.dot.gov. Follow the instructions for 
submitting comments on the DOT electronic docket site.
     Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of 
Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, Room PL-401, 
Washington, DC 20590-001.
     Hand Delivery: Room PL-401 on the plaza level of the 
Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC, between 9 
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays.
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting 
comments.
    Instructions: All submissions must include the agency name and 
docket number or Regulatory Identification Number (RIN) for this 
rulemaking. For detailed instructions on submitting comments and 
additional information on the rulemaking process, see the Public 
Comments heading of the Supplementary Information section of this 
document. Note that all comments received will be posted without change 
to http://dms.dot.gov, including any personal information provided. 
Please see the discussion of the Privacy Act under the Public Comments 
section.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or 
comments received, go to http://dms.dot.gov at any time or to Room PL-
401 on the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., 
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, 
except Federal Holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
    For technical issues: Dr. George Mouchahoir, Chief Structures and 
Special Systems Division, Office of Crashworthiness Standards, National 
Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW., 
Washington, DC 20590; telephone (202) 366-4919; telefax (202) 493-2739; 
[email protected].
    For legal issues: Mr. Christopher Calamita, 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: Proposed effective date: If adopted, the 
amendments proposed in this rulemaking action would become effective 
September 1, two years following the next model year after the date of 
publication of a final rule in the Federal Register. For example, if a 
final rule were adopted on December 1, 2005, the rule would be 
effective beginning September 1, 2008. Optional early compliance would 
be permitted on and after the date of publication of the final rule in 
the Federal Register.

Table of Contents

I. Executive Summary
II. Background
III. Current Requirements of FMVSS No. 206
IV. Scope of the Safety Problem
V. Harmonization Efforts
VI. Proposed Improvements to FMVSS No. 206
    A. Hinged Door Issues
    1. Load Tests
    2. Inertial Test
    3. Door Hinges
    B. Side Sliding Door Issues
    C. Door Locks
    D. Applicability to Buses
    E. Summary of Improvements
VII. Alternative Approaches to Testing Retention Components on 
Hinged Doors That Were Considered but Are Not Proposed
    A. Hinged Side Door System Tests (Full Door Tests)
    B. Combination Component Test
VIII. Door Closure and Operability Requirements
IX. Costs, Benefits, and the Proposed Effective Date
X. Differences Between the GTR and the NPRM
XI. Effective Date
XII. Regulatory Analysis and Notices
XIII. Public Comments

I. Executive Summary

    Currently, door lock systems and door retention components on 
passenger cars, trucks, and multipurpose passenger vehicles must comply 
with a series of requirements established in FMVSS No. 206 in the early 
1970s in order to minimize the ejections of occupants 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.
    Given the sources and magnitude of the overall safety problem posed 
by ejections from vehicles, the agency intends to address the problem 
comprehensively, focusing on ejections through glazing as well as 
ejections through doors. Ejections through glazing (i.e., ejections 
through a vehicle window) comprise 59 percent of all ejections and the 
data show that the greatest potential ejection mitigation benefits will 
come from reducing these ejections.\1\ To address ejections through 
glazing, the agency has a multi-phase approach. The first phase is an 
upgrade to FMVSS No. 214, Side impact protection, which would likely 
induce vehicle manufacturers to use side curtains as a countermeasure. 
A proposal for that upgrade was issued earlier this year. In the next 
phase, we plan to propose occupant containment requirements for those 
side curtains in non-rollover crashes. Additional phases could include 
a study of the benefits of rollover sensors that would deploy the 
curtains when they sense an impending rollover.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The scope of the safety problem is described in greater 
detail in section IV of this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Ejections through openings other than side glazing and doors, such 
as windshields, open convertible tops, and open truck beds comprise 26% 
of the ejections. It is hard for NHTSA to evaluate countermeasures 
designed to reduce ejections through these various paths, since the 
paths are through openings that are not on all vehicles, thus making it 
harder to obtain data. Further, there are not any potential 
countermeasures for the vehicles that have these openings. The 
remaining ejections are ejections through doors, which constitute the 
other 15 percent of the ejection problem, and are the focus of this 
proposal.
    Crashes such as offset frontals, near side impacts, and especially 
rollovers,

[[Page 75022]]

which pose the greatest risk of ejection for occupants, may lead to 
complex loading conditions to the vehicle door structure. In 
recognition of this, the agency tried to develop a new combination test 
that would subject the door latch components to simultaneously applied 
loads from different directions as occurs in rollover and other crashes 
in order to reduce related door ejections. We also wanted to update the 
existing requirements and test procedures established 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 206 in order to address door ejections coincided 
with the adoption of the initial Program of Work under the 1998 Global 
Agreement.\2\ That program includes door lock and door retention 
systems as one of the promising areas for the establishment of a global 
technical regulation (GTR). The agency sought to work collaboratively 
on door ejections with other contracting parties to the 1998 Global 
Agreement, particularly the European Union 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 
GTR under the 1998 Agreement. We believe that the provisions of the 
GTR, if adopted at the domestic level, would improve the current 
requirements and test procedures of FMVSS 206 and improve the door 
retention regulations of other countries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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, is obligated under the Agreement to 
initiate the process for adopting the provisions of the GTR.\3\ This 
proposal is closely based on the GTR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NHTSA had anticipated that the GTR and this proposal would address 
both rollover related door ejections as well as non-rollover related 
door ejections. The problem of rollover related door ejections is 
significantly greater in the United States than in other countries. 
This is primarily due to the fact that light trucks, vans, and sport 
utility vehicles, which have a greater propensity for rollover than 
passenger cars, together comprise a larger portion of the U.S. vehicle 
fleet than they do of the vehicle fleets in other countries. 
Differences in safety belt use rates also play a role. Thus, other 
countries have not focused on developing and issuing regulations 
designed to prevent ejections through the door in rollover crashes. 
Nevertheless, the world community was willing to investigate ways to 
address complex loading conditions, as occur in rollover related door 
ejections. Specifically, countries participating in the development of 
the GTR helped to evaluate the new combination test procedure, which is 
intended to replicate the application of forces in the real world and 
in part address the rollover related door ejections. However, 
difficulties were encountered with following the test procedure due to 
the inability to conduct the test on some types of latches, thus 
rendering the procedure unusable. Our inability to proceed at this time 
with a combination test limited our focus in this rulemaking on 
improving non-rollover door ejections. However, the agency expects 
continued efforts to develop an alternative procedure for complex 
loading conditions, and hopes to be able to propose a requirement and 
procedure in the future. The agency will also continue to study the 
overall problem of rollover related ejections under its comprehensive 
rollover plan and will address them accordingly.
    Non-rollover door ejections are the type of door ejections that the 
GTR, this proposal and the regulations of other countries are seeking 
to prevent. Even though non-rollover door ejections occur at a lower 
rate than rollover door ejections, the non-rollover door ejections 
account for 59 percent of all door ejections.
    This proposal, if made final, would improve the current FMVSS No. 
206 requirements in several areas. First and foremost, with respect to 
sliding doors, given that the existing standard has a door-in-frame 
requirement to test sliding door retention strength, but does not 
provide a test procedure, it would replace the existing requirement 
with new requirements and an associated full vehicle test procedure. It 
would also require 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 
visual telltale signaling that the door is not fully closed. The fully 
latched and secondary latched positions would also be load tested and 
would be required to meet inertial requirements the same way as the 
latches on hinged doors. Second, it would 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, it would add a dynamic inertial test procedure to 
FMVSS No. 206 as an optional alternative to the current inertial 
calculation. Such a test procedure is more representative of the real 
world and has been conducted in Europe for type approval purposes. 
Fourth, it would add new requirements for rear-hinged side doors to 
prevent potential inadvertent openings while the vehicle is moving. 
Finally, it would extend 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. This last requirement addresses a 
uniquely U.S. issue and thus is not included in the GTR.
    With the improvements proposed in this notice to address non-
rollover door ejections, we estimate that we would 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 proposals are estimated to be slightly 
over $8 million. All of those costs are associated with adding a second 
latch to those sliding doors that do not currently have one. Adding a 
second latch is necessary in order for sliding doors to meet the 
existing sliding door requirements when tested according to the new 
sliding door test procedure. The door retention components would need 
only small changes, if any. Vans currently meet the proposed secondary 
latch position requirement for double doors. We do not anticipate that 
the proposed inertial load test would add significant cost on 
manufacturing operations, particularly given that it would be an 
optional alternative.
    Vehicle manufacturers, and ultimately, consumers, both here and 
abroad, can expect to achieve cost savings through the formal 
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 will not only result in 
improvements to the FMVSS No. 206, but also to the door

[[Page 75023]]

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 rear-hinged side door 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

    As originally conceived, 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. These force directions could cause the 
latch or striker to fail under as little as 5,000 newtons (N) of force. 
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 
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 1970's, FMVSS No. 206 was based, 
in large part, on the SAE recommended practices in existence at that 
time, except that we increased the recommended 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 1970's. While these regulations 
were proven to be largely effective in the 1970's, ejections due to 
door openings continue to 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Current Requirements of FMVSS No. 206

    FMVSS No. 206 applies to all passenger cars, trucks and 
multipurpose passenger vehicles, regardless of their GVWR, and provides 
that certain door retention components on any door leading directly 
into an occupant compartment, i.e., a compartment containing seating 
accommodations for one or more occupants, must comply with the 
requirements of the standard. The standard excludes folding doors, 
roll-up doors, doors that are designed to be easily attached to or 
removed from vehicles manufactured for operation without doors, and 
side doors that are equipped with wheelchair lifts and that are linked 
to either an audible or visible alarm system that is activated when the 
doors are open.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Door retention components on side doors equipped with 
wheelchair lifts that are linked to either a visual or audible 
warning were excluded from the standard in 1985. 50 FR 12029 March 
27, 1985.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Hinged side door requirements. The standard requires that each 
latch on hinged side doors have both a fully latched and a secondary 
latched position.\6\ In this notice, a latch with both a fully latched 
and a secondary latched position will be referred to as a ``primary 
door latch.'' As currently required, a primary door latch and striker 
cannot separate when a longitudinal force of 11,000 N (2,500 lb) or a 
lateral force of 8,900 N (2,000 lb) is applied while the components are 
fully engaged.\7\ Also, a primary door latch with a striker will be 
referred to as a primary door latch system. During testing, the 
longitudinal force is applied to the primary door latch system 
perpendicular to the latch face. For conventional door latch 
systems,\8\ this force is applied parallel to the vehicle's 
longitudinal axis. The longitudinal test is designed to simulate door 
openings in which the striker is pulled away from the latch faceplate. 
The lateral force is applied in the direction in which the door opens. 
The lateral procedure is intended to simulate door openings in which 
the striker is pulled away from the latch in that direction. The 
standard also requires that the coupled latch and striker may not 
separate when a longitudinal or a lateral force of 4,450 N (1,000 lb) 
is applied to the primary door latch system while in its secondary 
closure position.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The fully latched position keeps the striker, which is 
typically attached to the vehicle structure, firmly coupled with the 
latch, which is typically incorporated into the door. The secondary 
latched position serves as a backup to the fully latched position, 
increasing the likelihood that the striker will remain engaged with 
the latch when the door is incompletely closed.
    \7\ The latch is designed with a cam that has two closure 
positions. When the latch is fully engaged or fully closed, the 
opening in the latch is at its furthest position away from the 
striker.
    \8\ A conventional door latch system is one that is located at 
the rear portion of the door opening, as opposed to a system that is 
located at the bottom of the door opening.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, a hinged side door latch must not disengage from the fully 
latched position when an inertial force of 30 g is applied to the latch 
system in either the vehicle's longitudinal or the lateral axes.\9\ 
Latch systems are subjected to inertial loading when the vehicle comes 
to an abrupt stop. This type of loading has the potential to release 
the latch even though the door latch may be undamaged. FMVSS No. 206 
provides that demonstration of compliance with this requirement is to 
be accomplished either by following an agency-approved test procedure 
or by completing a mathematical formula specified in SAE J839. While 
NHTSA approved an inertial loading test procedure submitted by General 
Motors (GM) in 1967, it has never adopted such a procedure into the 
standard and no other test procedures were approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Inertia is the property of matter that requires that a force 
be applied on a body to accelerate it. An inertial force is a force 
resulting from acceleration of mass and is calculated by multiplying 
the mass of a body by its acceleration. In this instance, the 
inertial force relates to the force produced by accelerating the 
mass of the latching system and its components to an acceleration of 
30 g.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The standard also requires each hinge system\10\ to support the 
door, and not separate when separate longitudinal (11,000 N (2,500 lb)) 
and lateral (8,900 N (2,000 lb)) forces are applied to the system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ A hinge system is a system of one or more hinges. Under the 
standard, all hinges on a single door can be tested together to meet 
the required load.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Hinged side cargo doors. With slight modifications, hinged side 
door requirements are specified for the latch and hinge systems on 
hinged side cargo doors. Cargo door latch systems need not currently 
have a secondary latching system. A ``cargo-type door'' is defined in 
the standard as ``a door designed primarily to accommodate cargo 
loading including, but not limited to, a two-part door that latches to 
itself,'' and is typically designed with two doors that attach to one 
another. Because of the design of these doors, cargo door systems 
typically have more than one door latch. The standard requires that 
latches on a single door jointly resist the force loading in the 
lateral direction.
    Back doors. Back door latches are tested in three directions: (1) 
The

[[Page 75024]]

direction of door opening, (2) perpendicular to the latch face and (3) 
orthogonal to the first two directions. By referencing the direction of 
the test loads to the latch instead of the vehicle, it allows the 
appropriate test load to be applied despite differences in orientation 
for back door latches. Also, while back doors are required to have at 
least one primary door latch, they may have other latches that do not 
have both a fully and secondary latched position.
    Sliding doors. Unlike the types of doors described above, sliding 
doors are regulated under the current standard as integrated systems. 
All sliding door retention components, including the door, track and 
slide combination, or other supporting means, may not separate when a 
total lateral force of 17,792 N (4,000 lb) is applied to the entire 
system with the door in the closed position. There is no requirement 
that the door have a primary door latch system, or even a latch system 
with only a fully latched position. Rather, the entire door, with its 
door retention components, is tested. While vehicle manufacturers are 
required to certify compliance to this requirement, NHTSA has not 
conducted compliance tests on sliding doors because the standard does 
not have a test procedure for these doors.

IV. Scope of the Safety Problem

    Based on a review of NASS and FARS data from 1995-2003, there were 
5,023,879 vehicle occupants involved in tow away vehicle crashes on an 
annual basis; 54,082 of those occupants were ejected from their 
vehicle. See Table 1. In ejections in which the route of ejection is 
known, 59 percent of ejections occur through side glazing and 26 
percent of the ejections occur through openings other than side glazing 
or doors (i.e., convertible tops, sunroofs, windshields, open truck 
beds). The remaining, 15 percent of ejections occurred through a 
vehicle door. The rate of ejections through doors is heavily dependent 
on belt use. Of the serious injuries and fatalities attributable to 
ejections through doors in the U.S., 94 percent involve unbelted 
occupants.
    To address the ejections through side glazing, the agency has 
indicated that we will initiate rulemaking within the next couple of 
years to establish occupant containment performance requirements for 
side air bags and side curtains now being incorporated into the vehicle 
fleet for side impact occupant protection. Ejections through openings 
other than side glazing and doors, such as windshields, open 
convertible tops, and open truck beds comprise 26 percent of the 
ejections. It is hard for NHTSA to evaluate countermeasures designed to 
reduce ejections through these various paths, since the path is through 
openings that are not on all vehicles and potential countermeasures are 
not apparent for the particular vehicle classification and use.

  Table 1.--Total Ejections: 1995-2003 NASS and FARS Occupants in Towed Light Duty Vehicle Crashes Adjusted for
                                   Fatality and Damage Area on an Annual Basis
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                             Ejection   Ejection
                                               Total                     All        Rate       with       with
                                             occupants    Unejected    ejection  (percent)   unknown     known
                                                                                              routes     routes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All crashes...............................    5,023,879    4,969,797     54,082       1.08      3,078     51,004
Rollovers.................................      444,267      410,420     33,847       7.62      2,399     31,448
Non-rollovers.............................    4,579,612    4,559,377     20,235       0.44        680     19,555
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                                                Table 2.--Ejection Routes
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Side
                                         Door       Rate 1*      Rate 2**     glazing      Rate 1*      Rate 2**      Other       Rate 1*      Rate 2**
                                      ejections    (percent)    (percent)    ejections    (percent)    (percent)    ejections    (percent)    (percent)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All crashes........................        7,622         0.16        14.94       29,877         0.63        58.58       13,505         0.29        26.48
Rollovers..........................        3,089         0.75         9.82       19,098         4.63        60.73        9,261         2.24        29.45
Non-rollovers......................        4,533         0.10        23.18       10,779         0.24        55.12        4,243         0.10        21.70
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\*\ Rate 1 = [Rate 2 for (Ejections for Door, Glazing, or Other Route)] * [Rate for All Ejections].
[Example: For all crashes, the rate for Door Ejection = 14.94%*1.08% = 0.16%].
\**\ Rate 2 = [(Ejections for Door, Glazing, or Other) / (All Ejections-Unknown Ejection Routes)].
[Example: For all crashes, the rate for Door Ejection with respect to Ejection with Known Routes = 7,622/51,004 = 14.94%].

    In further analyzing the door ejections, the agency found that of 
the 15 percent (7,622) vehicle ejections that occurred through a door, 
4,533 ejections occurred in non-rollover crashes (i.e., frontal, side, 
and rear impact crashes) verses 3,089 ejections in rollover crashes. 
See Table 2. However, the data indicate that rollover crashes have a 
higher rate of ejection than non-rollover crashes, and that the rate 
for ejection through a vehicle door is also higher for rollover 
crashes, as opposed to non-rollover crashes. For all crashes, the rate 
for ejection in rollover crashes is 7.62 percent, verses 0.44 percent 
for non-rollover crashes. See Table 1. The rate for ejection through a 
door in rollover crashes is 0.75 percent.\11\ Conversely, the rate for 
ejection through a door in non-rollover crashes is 0.10 percent\12\. 
See Table 2. The agency tried to address complex loading conditions 
such as those which can occur in rollover related door ejections by 
developing a new combination test that would subject the door latch 
components to simultaneously applied loads from different 
directions.\13\ Further discussion of this test and the reasons it was 
not adopted are discussed in section VII.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ [door ejections in rollovers (3,089) / all door ejections 
through known routes in rollovers (31,448)] * [rate for all 
ejections in rollovers (7.62%)]
    \12\ [door ejections in non-rollovers (4,533) / all door 
ejections through known routes in non-rollovers (19,555)] * [rate 
for all ejections in rollovers (7.62%)]
    \13\ Complex combination loadings also occur in other, non-
rollover crashes, for which the combination test was also intended 
to apply.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Door ejections, due to non-rollover door openings, account for 23 
percent of the total non-rollover ejections with known routes. A 
portion of these ejections occurs through sliding door openings and 
from doors in 12-15

[[Page 75025]]

passenger vans. Of those ejected through a sliding door, each year 
approximately 20 people are killed and 30 people are seriously injured, 
based on the 1995-2003 data from NASS. In fact, 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. Additionally, we are 
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.\14\ 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. Finally, 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 they are required to be 
designed in a way that reduces the likelihood of a door opening.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ ``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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Harmonization Efforts

    The agency's efforts to update the requirements and test procedures 
of FMVSS No. 206 in order to address these safety issues 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 Global Agreement 
(1998 Agreement). During the 126th session of WP.29 of March 2002, the 
Executive Committee of the 1998 Agreement adopted a Program of Work, 
which included the development of a GTR to address inadvertent door 
opening in crashes. The Executive Committee also 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.\15\ The informal working group was 
established in September 2002.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 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.) volunteered to lead the group's 
efforts and develop a document detailing 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 the European Union and Japan. The 
U.S. presented a formal proposal to develop the GTR to the Executive 
Committee of the 1998 Agreement, which was adopted in June 2003 (TRANS/
WP.29/2003/49, this document has been placed in the docket). The GRSP 
then drafted the door locks and door retention GTR. The draft GTR was 
discussed in full at the December 2003 and the May 2004 GRSP meetings.
    In developing language for the draft GTR, the GRSP considered all 
relevant standards, regulations, and directives. An analysis was made 
to identify the differences in the application, requirements, and test 
procedures of the North American and UNECE Regulations (TRANS/WP.29/
2003/49).
    The following regulations, directives and international voluntary 
standards were considered in drafting the GTR:
     UN/ECE Regulation 11--Uniform provisions concerning the 
approval of vehicles with regard to door latches and door retention 
components.
     U.S. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 206, Door 
locks and door retention components. (FMVSS No. 206)
     EU Directive 70/387/EEC, concerning the doors of motor 
vehicles and their trailers.
     Canada Motor Vehicle Safety Regulation No. 206--Door locks 
and door retention components. (CMVSS No. 206). [Note: The North 
American regulations FMVSS and CMVSS No. 206 are substantially 
similar].
     Japan Safety regulation for Road Vehicle Article 25.
     Australian Design Rule 2/00--Side Door Latches and Hinges.
     SAE J839, September 1998--Passenger Car Side Door Latch 
Systems.
     SAE J934, September 1998--Vehicle Passenger Door Hinge 
Systems.
    The only significant differences between the sets of standards were 
found in FMVSS No. 206 and UN/ECE Regulation 11 (ECE R11). This is 
because the U.S. and Canadian standards mirror each other, as do the 
ECE and Japanese regulations. The Australian regulation combines 
elements of both sets of regulations. All regulations are largely based 
on SAE J839 and SAE J934.
    In addition, the GRSP 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. 
Details of the discussions can be found in the final progress report of 
the working group (TRANS/WP29/2004/70, http://www.unece.org/trans/main/wp29/wp29wgs/wp29gen/gen2004.html, document 2004/70, this document can 
be found in the docket). A draft GTR for door retention components was 
presented to the GRSP on May 3, 2004. The GRSP thoroughly discussed the 
draft and an amended copy was developed into a formal document (TRANS/
WP29/2004/69, http://www.unece.org/trans/main/wp29/wp29wgs/wp29gen/gen2004.html, document 2004/69, this document can be found in the 
docket).
    The GRSP concluded its work and agreed to recommend the 
establishment of this GTR to the Executive Committee. On November 18, 
2004, the Executive Committee approved establishment of the GTR. The 
U.S., as a Contracting Party of the 1998 Agreement and voting in favor 
of establishing this global technical regulation, is obligated to 
initiate rulemaking to adopt the provisions of the GTR.
    The established GTR provides improvements over the current FMVSS 
No. 206, as well as those regulations of other countries. With respect 
to sliding doors, given that the existing standards have a door-in-
frame requirement to test sliding door retention strength but do not 
provide a test procedure, the GTR provides a replacement for the 
existing requirements and a new associated full vehicle test procedure. 
It also provides that sliding doors either have a secondary latched 
position or a visual telltale signalling that the door is not fully 
closed. For doors with rear mounted hinge systems, it would add new 
requirements to prevent potential inadvertent openings while a vehicle 
is moving. In addition, the GTR ensured that existing requirements that 
were either in the FMVSS or the ECE were included, such as back door, 
double doors and door lock requirements.

VI. Proposed Improvements to FMVSS No. 206

A. Hinged Doors Issues

1. Load Tests
    We are not proposing significant changes to the existing 
requirements for latches on hinged side doors. FMVSS No. 206 requires 
load tests of the hinge systems in the longitudinal and transverse 
directions. In the GTR, these

[[Page 75026]]

tests were retained, but the regulatory text was reworded to remove any 
implication that the load is applied relative to the vehicle 
orientation. In addition, the force levels specified in the GTR are the 
result of harmonization of FMVSS 206 and ECE R11 to eliminate 
variations due to rounding of unit conversions. Finally, the GTR 
requires a secondary latched position for ``double doors'', which are 
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. Currently, all vans 
with such doors have cargo doors with primary door latch systems, which 
includes secondary positions. Double doors generally have more than one 
latch system; the GTR also requires that the transverse requirement 
apply only to the primary door latch system and not auxiliary door 
latch systems. We are proposing that FMVSS 206 be amended to include 
these GTR requirements.
2. Inertial Test
    The GTR has a provision for a full vehicle dynamic inertial test 
procedure, as an option to the inertial calculation. Currently, the 
FMVSS 206 has a provision that manufacturers may certify to an agency-
approved test procedure. As discussed earlier, 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 manner in which the 
agency has historically operated. Accordingly, we propose to replace 
the current ``agency-approved'' provision with the specified test 
procedure from the GTR that manufacturers may use for certification.
    As in FMVSS No. 206, ECE R11 has a provision for a dynamic inertial 
loading test, but there is no specified test procedure. In the process 
of drafting the GTR, it was recommended that the test procedure be 
developed based on one type of testing currently conducted for ECE R11 
type approval. The GTR test procedure was validated by the U.S. and 
Canada.\16\ It places inertial forces on doors, either when installed 
in the vehicle or when tested on a test fixture, in the longitudinal 
and transverse directions. The agency is aware additional specificity 
may be required in characterizing the test fixture in order to avoid 
issues with the enforceability of the proposed procedure. The agency 
intends to discuss this issue with Transport Canada and the European 
laboratories that have conducted this test. The U.S. plans to adopt 
requirements and a procedure to accommodate this optional dynamic test 
and will incorporate in its compliance procedure a tolerance for the 
inertial load limits to account for minor deviations in conducting full 
vehicle or sled testing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See presentation from Transport Canada in the DOT Docket 
NHTSA-1999-3705.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to the longitudinal and transverse tests, tests in the 
vertical direction were considered. Conducting the inertial test in the 
vertical direction is feasible, but is much more difficult to conduct 
than the tests in the longitudinal and transverse directions. Since the 
most common failure mode demonstrated in the inertial tests conducted 
by Canada was in the direction of door opening,\17\ the GRSP determined 
that a test in the vertical direction appeared to be beneficial only 
for back door designs, which commonly open in the vertical direction. 
Therefore, we are only proposing this optional test procedure in the 
vertical direction for back doors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Door Hinges
    The load testing requirements for door hinges in the GTR are the 
same as those currently in FMVSS 206 and ECE R11. The side door 
requirements for hinges, which are based on SAE Recommended Practice 
J934, Vehicle Passenger Door Hinge Systems, appear to test adequately 
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 proposing to change the requirements of FMVSS No. 206, 
although we are proposing to articulate the test procedure for door 
hinges rather than relying on a modified incorporation by reference of 
the applicable SAE J839 recommended practice.

B. Side Sliding Doors Issues

    We are also proposing to amend the current sliding door requirement 
and add a sliding door test procedure to improve the standard and 
harmonize with the GTR. The current requirements and test procedures in 
both ECE R11 and the North American standards were incorporated in the 
GTR. This includes the ECE R11 requirements for the latch/striker 
systems. However, neither ECE R11 nor FMVSS No. 206 have a detailed 
full vehicle sliding door test procedure that simulates real world door 
openings in crashes.
    The GTR requires that sliding doors have either a primary door 
latch system that meets the same requirements as primary door latch 
systems on hinged side doors, or a system with a fully latched position 
and a mechanism for determining when a sliding door is not fully 
latched. We propose to adopt the same latch system requirement. We are 
unaware of any sliding door designs that do not use some type of latch 
system. Accordingly, FMVSS No. 206 already has a mechanism for testing 
these latches. If the sliding door is not equipped with a primary door 
latch system, a latch system without a secondary latched position is 
permitted as long as the vehicle is equipped with a telltale that 
informs the driver of the vehicle that the door is not fully latched. 
We are proposing this requirement because we believe this approach will 
assure vehicle occupants that a sliding door is completely closed. We 
are unaware of any systems that do not already meet this requirement.
    The absence of a test procedure for the current FMVSS No. 206 
sliding side door requirements is an obvious area for revision. Both 
NHTSA and Transport Canada had been working on the development of this 
test procedure for some time. The procedure that was adopted in the GTR 
is based on a procedure that Transport Canada had developed. The test 
is intended to address door failures that occur in front, rear, and 
rollover crashes. Since the test produces some level of longitudinal 
force, in addition to the direct lateral loading, the door components 
deform and twist. Therefore it is likely that compliant door latch 
systems will be more robust than in the past.
    The procedure involves a full vehicle test in which a sliding door 
is tested by applying force against the two edges of the door. The test 
setup is initiated by placing two loading plates against the interior 
of the door. The loading plates are placed adjacent to 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.
    The proposed test procedure for the sliding door transverse loading 
test specifies that the force application device would be mounted on 
the vehicle floor. We are requesting comments on the appropriateness 
and feasibility of mounting the force

[[Page 75027]]

application device external to the vehicle being tested.
    A test failure would be indicated by (1) a 100 mm separation of the 
interior of the door from the exterior of the vehicle's doorframe at 
any point, or (2) either force application device's reaching a total 
displacement of 300 mm. The GTR requires that there be no more than 100 
mm of separation, even if the latch system does not fail, to account 
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 maximum allowable open space in the U.S. 
and Canada for school bus opening requirements.

C. Door Locks

    We are proposing to retain the existing requirements for door locks 
largely as is. However, two minor changes are proposed. First, we are 
distinguishing between exterior and interior door locks. All exterior 
door 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 reason for 
differentiating between interior and exterior locks is that automatic 
door locks actually have two separate door lock devices, which may or 
may not use the same release device. For manual locks, there would be 
only one lock that secures the latch from both the interior and the 
exterior of the vehicle.

D. Applicability to Buses

    We are proposing to extend the applicability of FMVSS No. 206 to 
buses with a GVWR of less than 10,000 lb. Historically, FMVSS No. 206 
has not applied to buses because the types of doors installed on buses 
in the 1960s were not amenable to testing under the standard. However, 
with the advent of 12- and 15-passenger vans, smaller buses may now be 
equipped with traditional side hinged doors. There does not appear to 
be any reason not to subject these doors to the requirements of FMVSS 
No. 206, just as the doors on passenger cars and all trucks, regardless 
of weight, are currently regulated. We have developed a definition of a 
folding door that we believe will accommodate those types of bus doors 
that remain unsuitable for testing. While the standard has always 
exempted folding doors, it has never defined them. We anticipate that 
the impact of the extension will have little additional cost to vehicle 
manufacturers in meeting compliance. The agency is aware that all 12-15 
passenger vans currently share the same door system and latching 
components as other smaller size vans, which already meet the 
requirements of our standard.

E. Summary of Improvements

    This proposal, if made final, would improve the current FMVSS No. 
206 requirements in several areas. First and foremost, with respect to 
sliding doors, given that the existing standard has a door in frame 
requirement to test sliding door retention strength but does not 
provide a test procedure, it would replace the existing requirement 
with new requirements and an associated full vehicle test procedure. It 
would also require that sliding doors either have a secondary latched 
position or a visual telltale signaling that the door is not fully 
closed. The fully latched and secondary latched positions would also be 
load tested and would be required to meet inertial requirements the 
same way as the latches on hinged doors. Second, it would 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, it would add a dynamic inertial test 
procedure to FMVSS No. 206 as an optional alternative to the current 
inertial calculation. Such a test procedure is more representative of 
the real world and has been conducted in Europe for type approval 
purposes. Fourth, it would add new requirements for rear-hinged side 
doors to prevent potential inadvertent opening while a vehicle is 
moving. Finally, it would extend 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.

VII. Alternative Approaches to Testing Retention Components on Hinged 
Doors That Were Considered but Are Not Proposed

    The agency has developed a series of new test procedures designed 
to simulate real world door opening in crashes. These tests consist of 
two door-in-frame quasi-static (full door) tests and a bench-type 
component test, known as the combination test. However, because of 
issues regarding (1) the practicability of the tests, and (2) 
complications in developing the compliance tests, we are not proposing 
them in this document.

A. Hinged Side Door System Tests (Full Door Tests)

    The agency has designed lateral and longitudinal full door tests in 
which a vehicle door is placed in a test frame as opposed to remaining 
on the vehicle. The lateral full door test is designed to simulate 
latch failures in crashes that produce outward forces on the door 
(i.e., through occupant loading or inertial loading) such as side 
crashes that result in vehicle spin and rollover. The longitudinal full 
door test is designed to simulate a collision in which the side of the 
vehicle is stretched, leading to the possibility that the striker could 
be torn from its mated latch (i.e., far side door in side impacts, and 
front and rear offset crashes on the opposite side door).
    We have decided against proposing these full door tests because 
they create undue restrictions on certain door designs and have an 
unenforceable test procedure. Additionally, we have determined that 
even if the problems could be resolved, it is unlikely that the full 
door tests would provide additional value over the existing component 
tests.
    In addition, as part of the GTR drafting process, some GSRP 
delegates and representatives independently evaluated the contemplated 
test procedures. They expressed concern that the new procedure would be 
unduly design restrictive, given the limitations of the test frame. For 
example, it could be complicated to construct test frames 
individualized to each available door system design. A test frame may 
not be representative of real world conditions, in which a door system 
design may incorporate advanced devices such as door clips or door 
interlocks.\18\ Additionally, building a test frame to adequately 
address new latch designs that may be mounted in non-traditional 
locations may be difficult. Likewise, the procedures do not allow 
manufacturers to use door trim that provides structural support to the 
door because of the need to remove the trim to accommodate placement of 
the loading device.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ Door clips and interlocks are devices that are built into 
the door frame and attach to the door to retain and prevent the door 
from intruding into the vehicle when impacted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    By the same token, conducting the proposed tests on the full 
vehicle may

[[Page 75028]]

be impractical because not all loads can be applied to a closed door. 
Alternatively, it may be possible to cut away the door frame and attach 
it to the test frame. However, such an approach may not fully replicate 
the actual door-in-frame as installed in the vehicle since cutting the 
door frame may change its characteristics. This approach would require 
that the agency develop an acceptable procedure for cutting away the 
vehicle door system in such a way to address the fit between the latch 
and striker, as well as the physical characteristics of the door and 
the doorframe. The agency decided that expending additional effort on 
this was not warranted given the small number of potential benefits.

B. Combination Component Test

    NHTSA also developed a new component test that would require 
simultaneous application of two loads. In theory, the combination test 
procedure is representative of the combination of longitudinal 
compressive and lateral tensile forces that occur in real-world latch 
failures. Currently, no regulation, directive, or international 
voluntary standard has such a requirement. Examples of the types of 
crashes in which such forces could occur are rollover crashes and 
crashes in which either the front or the rear of the vehicle is 
impacted (including in an offset mode). The combination test procedure 
is a static bench test that may be capable of evaluating the strength 
of the latching systems.
    Unlike the full door tests discussed immediately above, NHTSA's 
initial and current evaluation of the combination test procedure and 
existing crash data indicate that the procedure may reduce a 
substantial number of door openings at a level that is statistically 
significant. No other test procedure within FMVSS No. 206 or ECE R11 
simulates these types of latch failure conditions. For these reasons, 
the combination test procedure was considered for inclusion in the GTR. 
There was significant support from GRSP delegates and representatives 
for a test that addresses the door failure modes represented by this 
test. However, in some vehicles, the test setup is such that the 
striker cannot interface with the faceplate of the latch, rendering the 
test meaningless.\19\ While it is possible to (1) modify the striker 
portion of the latch system so that the test can be conducted, or (2) 
test using a full vehicle, the GRSP delegates and representatives 
expressed strong concern regarding the adoption of this type of 
procedure and its potential for enforceability questions. NHTSA shares 
these concerns. A test procedure that cannot be conducted in an 
objective manner from vehicle to vehicle is problematic in terms of 
enforcement. Thus, while NHTSA expects a test procedure that addresses 
the retention failures identified by the combination test to be 
pursued, we do not presently believe we have a test procedure that can 
be incorporated into a motor vehicle safety standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See Transport Canada presentation on testing in Docket 
NHTSA-1999-3705 and VRTC report second series (in preparation).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    However, there is widespread support in the international community 
for a test that addresses the door failure modes and potential benefits 
represented by the combination test. Therefore, the GRSP delegates and 
representatives agreed to continue to review work on the modification 
of the U.S.-based procedure, as well as to look for other new 
procedures to capture the benefits associated with door failures due to 
simultaneous compressive longitudinal and tensile lateral loading of 
latch systems in real world crashes. Any acceptable procedure 
developed, if practicable and enforceable, could then be added to the 
GTR as an amendment. We seek comments on other viable procedures that 
could be considered for simultaneous combination of loading of the 
latch systems. Please provide sufficient detail on the procedure(s) and 
support test data.

VIII. Door Closure and Operability Requirements

    Currently, FMVSS No. 206 does not have door retention and door 
operability requirements in dynamic crash tests. At present, the agency 
has door retention requirements and evaluates door closure as part of 
FMVSS No. 208, ``Frontal Occupant Protection,'' which requires that the 
doors be retained and the test dummies remain in the vehicle until both 
the vehicle and the dummies have ceased moving after the test. FMVSS 
No. 214 also contains retention requirements for doors struck by a 
movable deformable barrier in testing under the standard to remain 
attached to the vehicle, as well as a requirement for non-struck doors 
to remain closed during and after crashes. However, the standards do 
not have a test procedure for evaluating these requirements in dynamic 
crash testing.
    The GTR and ECE R11 do not contain requirements for door retention 
and door operability. The European Union has requirements to evaluate 
door retention and door operability in their frontal and side impact 
standards (ECE R94 and ECE R95). However, as in the U.S., the European 
Union also does not have established compliance procedures for 
compliance with these requirements.
    The agency has developed test procedures for evaluating door 
retention and door operability requirements for dynamically tested 
vehicles in frontal and side impacts. Following validation of these 
procedures, the agency plans address the door operability and retention 
issues in a separate notice.

IX. Costs, Benefits, and the Proposed Effective Date

    This proposal, if made final, would add and update test procedures 
for door latches. We believe that only one of these, a new sliding door 
test procedure for FMVSS No. 206 would add costs to vehicles and 
provide quantifiable benefits for consumers. There were almost 1.4 
million vans sold in 2003 that had sliding doors. The sliding door test 
procedure essentially requires sliding doors to have two latches. An 
estimated 660,000 vans with 1.2 million sliding doors need a second 
latch to comply. 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 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 would be reduced in severity 
to minor injuries (AIS 1) as a result of remaining inside the vehicle.
    The agency has tentatively determined that, aside from sliding 
doors that will require the addition of a second latch, the current 
vehicle fleet would comply with the proposal, if made final. Therefore, 
we are proposing a lead time of two complete model years from when a 
final rule is published. For example, if a final rule were adopted on 
December 1, 2005, the rule would be effective beginning September 1, 
2008. We believe that this would provide manufacturers adequate time to 
make the necessary design changes. Optional early compliance would be 
permitted on and after the date of publication of the final rule in the 
Federal Register.

X. Differences Between the GTR and the NPRM

    This NPRM fulfills our obligation to initiate domestic rulemaking 
to adopt the provisions of the GTR. With the exception of minor 
differences, the

[[Page 75029]]

NPRM is based closely on the GTR. These minor differences are as 
follows:
     The NPRM proposes application to 12- and 15-passenger vans 
and smaller buses under 10,000 lb with hinged or sliding doors; the GTR 
does not. This reflects the fact that these vehicles comprise a larger 
portion of the U.S. vehicle fleet than when compared globally.
     The NPRM proposes to maintain, but clarify the language of 
the current requirements of FMVSS No. 206 for rear side door locks. The 
GTR allows for an option of the rear door lock system meeting either 
the current FMVSS No. 206 requirement or requiring a system that allows 
the door to be unlocked and opened with a simple actuation of the 
interior door handle as long as there is a child safety lock. These 
options for the rear side door lock system in the GTR address the need 
for egress from a rear seat, while respecting the need to prevent 
children from opening a locked door. In the GTR, neither type of system 
is prohibited as a supplemental safety device. It was left to a 
country's discretion which system would be required as the primary 
safety device. The NPRM does not prohibit child safety locks as a 
supplemental system.
     The GTR also allows the option of the sliding door tests 
to be performed on either a vehicle or door body-in-white (i.e., pre-
production), or the post-production door or vehicle. The body-in-white 
option is important for countries that certify components and vehicles 
under a type approval system. Since the U.S. does not use a type 
approval system and conducting these tests on body-in-white vehicles or 
doors would create enforceability issues, the NPRM specifies that the 
tests be conducted on the post-production vehicle or door.
    The GRSP and the WP.29 are aware that the U.S. intended to deviate 
from the GTR in these areas. Regardless of these minor differences, we 
believe that the provisions of the GTR, if adopted, would improve 
vehicle safety here in the United States and abroad.

XI. 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 
proposing these amendments to FMVSS Nos. 206 and 214.
    We believe that the proposed amendments to FMVSS No. 206 will be 
practicable. This document does not propose significant changes to the 
current requirements of FMVSS No. 206. Currently, 40 percent of the 
sliding doors will pass the proposed test. Additionally, if made final, 
the amendments would harmonize the U.S. requirements with the global 
technical regulation.
    We believe that this proposed rule would be appropriate for the 
vehicles subject to the requirements. If adopted, the proposal would 
continue 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 tentatively determined that the proposed 
amendments would provide objective procedures for determining 
compliance. The proposed test procedures have been evaluated by the 
agency, and we have tentatively determined that they produce repeatable 
and reproducible results. The sliding door load test procedure and the 
inertial test procedure have been vetted by the international 
automotive community, which has determined them to be acceptable. 
Further, we are proposing 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 would 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 would amend 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 
would have to be met by vehicle manufacturers.
    The estimated cost of the new requirements, if adopted, would be 
minor. We have estimated the cost of modifications for sliding doors 
with one latch at $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 Preliminary Regulatory Evaluation 
provided in the docket for this proposal.

C. Executive Order 13132

    Executive Order 13132 requires NHTSA to develop an accountable 
process to ensure ``meaningful and timely input by State and local 
officials in the development of regulatory policies that have 
federalism implications.'' ``Policies that have federalism 
implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations 
that have ``substantial direct effects on the States, on the 
relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the 
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of 
government.'' Under Executive Order 13132, the agency may not issue a 
regulation with federalism implications, that imposes substantial 
direct compliance costs, and that is not

[[Page 75030]]

required by statute, unless the Federal Government provides the funds 
necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by State and 
local governments, the agency consults with State and local 
governments, or the agency consults with State and local officials 
early in the process of developing the proposed regulation. NHTSA also 
may not issue a regulation with federalism implications and that 
preempts State law unless the agency consults with State and local 
officials early in the process of developing the proposed regulation.
    We have analyzed this rule in accordance with the principles and 
criteria set forth in Executive Order 13132 and have determined that 
this rule does not have sufficient Federal implications to warrant 
consultation with State and local officials or the preparation of a 
federalism summary impact statement. The rule would not have any 
substantial impact on the States, or on the current Federal-State 
relationship, or on the current distribution of power and 
responsibilities among the various local officials.

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 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. It also does not 
involve decisions based on health risks that disproportionately affect 
children.

E. Executive Order 12778

    Pursuant to Executive Order 12778, ``Civil Justice Reform,'' we 
have considered whether this proposed rule would have any retroactive 
effect. This proposed rule, if adopted, would not have any retroactive 
effect. A petition for reconsideration or other administrative 
proceeding will not be a prerequisite to an action seeking judicial 
review of this rule if it is adopted. This proposed rule would not 
preempt the states from adopting laws or regulations on the same 
subject, except that it would preempt a State regulation that is in 
actual conflict with the Federal regulation or makes compliance with 
the Federal regulation impossible or interferes with the implementation 
of the Federal statute.

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 have considered the effects of this rulemaking action under the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) and certify that this 
proposal would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities. Vehicle manufacturers typically have their 
door latches designed and produced by wholly-owned subsidiaries. 
Accordingly, there are very few independent vehicle door latch 
manufacturers.

G. National Environmental Policy Act

    We have analyzed this proposed amendment for the purposes of the 
National Environmental Policy Act and determined that it would 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 proposed 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 
proposed 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 would 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 proposed rule would 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 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

[[Page 75031]]

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 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.

XII. Public Comments

How Do I Prepare and Submit Comments?

    Your comments must be written and in English. To ensure that your 
comments are correctly filed in the Docket, please include the docket 
number of this document in your comments.
    Your comments must not be more than 15 pages long. (49 CFR 553.21). 
We established this limit to encourage you to write your primary 
comments in a concise fashion. However, you may attach necessary 
additional documents to your comments. There is no limit on the length 
of the attachments.
    Please submit two copies of your comments, including the 
attachments, to Docket Management at the address given above under 
ADDRESSES.

How Can I Be Sure That My Comments Were Received?

    If you wish Docket Management to notify you upon its receipt of 
your comments, enclose a self-addressed, stamped postcard in the 
envelope containing your comments. Upon receiving your comments, Docket 
Management will return the postcard by mail.

How Do I Submit Confidential Business Information?

    If you wish to submit any information under a claim of 
confidentiality, you should submit three copies of your complete 
submission, including the information you claim to be confidential 
business information, to the Chief Counsel, NHTSA, at the address given 
above under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. In addition, you should 
submit two copies, from which you have deleted the claimed confidential 
business information, to Docket Management at the address given above 
under ADDRESSES. When you send a comment containing information claimed 
to be confidential business information, you should include a cover 
letter setting forth the information specified in our confidential 
business information regulation. (49 CFR part 512.)

Will the Agency Consider Late Comments?

    We will consider all comments that Docket Management receives 
before the close of business on the comment closing date indicated 
above under DATES. To the extent possible, we will also consider 
comments that Docket Management receives after that date. If Docket 
Management receives a comment too late for us to consider it in 
developing a final rule (assuming that one is issued), we will consider 
that comment as an informal suggestion for future rulemaking action.

How Can I Read the Comments Submitted by Other People?

    You may read the comments received by Docket Management at the 
address given above under ADDRESSES. The hours of the Docket are 
indicated above in the same location.
    You may also see the comments on the Internet. To read the comments 
on the Internet, take the following steps:
     Go to the Docket Management System (DMS) Web page of the 
Department of Transportation (http://dms.dot.gov/).
     On that page, click on ``search.''
     On the next page (http://dms.dot.gov/search/), type in the 
four-digit docket number shown at the beginning of this document. 
Example: If the docket number were ``NHTSA-1998-1234,'' you would type 
``1234.'' After typing the docket number, click on ``search.''
     On the next page, which contains docket summary 
information for the docket you selected, click on the desired comments. 
You may download the comments.
    Please note that even after the comment closing date, we will 
continue to file relevant information in the Docket as it becomes 
available. Further, some people may submit late comments. Accordingly, 
we recommend that you periodically check the Docket for new material.
    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 proposes to amend 49 CFR 
part 571.206 as follows:

PART 571--FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS

    1. The authority citation for part 571 would continue to read as 
follows:

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

    2. 49 CFR 571.206 would be 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,'' 
``force application zone,'' ``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, S5.4 through 
S5.5.
    The revisions and additions read as follows:


Sec.  571.206  Standard No. 206; Door locks and door retention 
components.

    S1. Scope and Purpose. This regulation 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 regulation applies to vehicle door locks and 
door retention components on side or back doors that lead directly into 
a compartment that contains one or more seating accommodations in 
passenger cars, multipurpose vehicles, and trucks and in buses with a 
gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 4,536 kg or less.

[[Page 75032]]

    S3. Definitions.
    Auxiliary door latch is a latch equipped with a fully latched 
position and fitted to a door or door system equipped with a primary 
door latch system.
    Auxiliary door latch system consists, at a minimum, of an auxiliary 
door latch and a striker.
    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 located where it can be clearly seen by the driver when a door 
latch system is not in its fully latched position and while the vehicle 
ignition is activated.
    Door hinge system is one or more hinges used to support a door.
    Door latch system consists, at a minimum, of a latch and a striker.
    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; and is normally controlled 
from a location adjacent to the vehicle's driver seat.
    Force application zone is defined by a rectangular area on the door 
or rear hatch bounded by the projection onto the door or hatch exterior 
of two vertical lines, 25 mm on either side of the right or left edges 
of the exterior handle or the latch release handle, and the projection 
of two horizontal lines 10 mm and 110 mm below the lowest point of the 
exterior door handle or the latch release handle. In the event there is 
insufficient space below the release handle the force application zone 
shall be located above the release handle.
    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.
    Primary door latch system consists, at a minimum, of a primary door 
latch and a striker.
    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 
and door components except for those on folding doors, roll-up doors, 
detachable doors, and doors that are designated to provide emergency 
egress.
    S4.1 Hinged Doors.
    S4.1.1 Primary Door Latch System. Each hinged door system shall be 
equipped with at least one primary door latch system.
    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 demonstrated 
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 demonstrated 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 (a) when demonstrated in accordance with 
S5.1.1.2.
    S4.1.1.3 Load Test Three. Each primary door latch system on back 
doors shall not disengage from the fully latched position 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 this section or the calculation 
of inertial load resistance specified in paragraph (c) of this section.
    (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 of 30 g 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 and demonstrated in accordance with S5.1.1.4.
    (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 of 30g 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 and

[[Page 75033]]

when demonstrated in accordance with S5.1.1.4.
    (c) Each component or subassembly can be calculated for its minimum 
inertia 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 inertia load of 30 g in the vehicle 
directions specified in paragraph (a) or (b) of this section, as 
applicable, when demonstrated 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) Not separate when a vertical load of 9,000 N is applied.
    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.
    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.
    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.
    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 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 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 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 of 30g is applied to the door 
latch system, including the latch and its activation mechanism, in the 
directions parallel to the vehicle's longitudinal and transversal axes 
with the locking mechanism disengaged and when tested in accordance 
with 5.2.1.4.
    (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 S4.2.1.1 or 
S4.2.1.2, as applicable, in accordance with S5.1.1.4.
    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 in accordance 
with S5.2.2.
    S4.2.2.2 The sliding door, when tested in accordance with S5.2.2, 
fails the requirement of S4.2.2.1 if any one of the following occurs:
    (a) A separation between the interior of the door and the exterior 
edge of the doorframe exceeds 100 mm, while the required force is 
maintained.
    (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 Door Latches.
    S5.1.1.1 Load Test One Force Application. Compliance with S4.1.1.1 
and S4.2.1 is demonstrated in accordance with the following:
    (a) Fully Latched Position.
    (1) Adapt the test fixture shown in Figure 1 to the mounting 
provisions of the latch and striker. Align the direction of engagement 
parallel to the linkage of the fixture. Mount the latch and striker in 
the fully latched position to the test fixture.
    (2) Locate weights to apply a 900 N load tending to separate the 
latch and striker in the direction of the door opening.
    (3) Apply the test load, in the direction specified in S4.1.1.1 and 
Figure 4, 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 1 to the mounting 
provisions of the latch and striker. Align the direction of engagement 
parallel to the linkage of the fixture. Mount the latch and striker in 
the secondary latched position to the test fixture.
    (2) Locate weights to apply a 900 N load tending to separate the 
latch and striker in the direction of the door opening.
    (3) Apply the test load, in the direction specified in S4.1.1.1 and 
Figure 4, at a rate not to exceed 5 mm/min until the required load has 
been achieved. Record maximum load achieved.
    (4) The test plate on 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. Compliance with S4.1.1.2 
and S4.2.2 is demonstrated in accordance with the following:
    (a) Fully Latched Position.
    (1) Adapt the test fixture shown in Figure 2 to the mounting 
provisions of

[[Page 75034]]

the latch and striker. Mount the latch and striker in the fully latched 
position to the test fixture.
    (2) Apply the test load, in the direction specified in S4.1.1.2 and 
Figure 4, 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 2 to the mounting 
provisions of the latch and striker. Mount the latch and striker in 
secondary latched position to the test fixture.
    (2) Apply the test load, in the direction specified in S4.1.1.2 and 
Figure 4, 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. Compliance with 
S4.1.1.3 is demonstrated in accordance with the following:
    (a) Adapt the test fixture shown in Figure 3 to the mounting 
provisions of the latch and striker. Mount the latch and striker in 
fully latched position to the test fixture.
    (b) Apply the test load, in the directions specified in S4.1.1.3 
and Figure 4, 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 Inertia Force Application. Compliance with S4.1.1.4 and 
S4.2.3 is demonstrated in accordance with either paragraph (a) or (b) 
of this section.
    (a) Calculation. Compliance shall be demonstrated in accordance 
with paragraph 6 of Society of Automotive Engineers Recommended 
Practice J839, Passenger Car Side Door Latch Systems, June 1991.
    (b) Dynamic Test.
    (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 5.
    (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 6).
    (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.
    (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 paragraph 
(C).
    (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 shall 
be mounted to the test fixture to correspond to its orientation on the 
vehicle and to the directions specified in paragraph (b)(1)(ii) of this 
section.
    (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 6)
    (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 
paragraph (C).
    (E) Vertical Setup 1 (back doors only). 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 (back doors only). 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 paragraph (b)(2)(ii)(E) of this 
section.
    (3) Test Operation.
    (i) Maintaining a minimum acceleration level of 30 g for a period 
of at least 30 ms, while keeping the acceleration within the pulse 
corridor defined in Table 1 and Figure 5, 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).
    (ii) Check recording device for door opening and/or closure during 
the test.
    (iii) If at any point in time, the pulse exceeds 36 g and the test 
requirements are fulfilled, the test shall be considered valid.
    S5.1.2 Door Hinges. Compliance with S4.1.2 is demonstrated in 
accordance with the following:
    S5.1.2.1 Multiple Hinge Evaluation.
    S5.1.2.1.1 Longitudinal Load Test.
    (a) Attach the hinge system to the mounting provision of the test 
fixture illustrated in Figure 7. Hinge attitude must simulate vehicle 
position (door fully closed) relative to the hinge centerline. For test 
purposes, the distance between the extreme ends 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 pin 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 hinge system to the mounting provisions of the test 
fixture illustrated in figure 7. Hinge attitude must simulate vehicle 
position (door fully closed) relative to the hinge centerline. For test 
purposes, the distance between the extreme ends of one hinge in the 
system to the extreme opposite end of another hinge in the system is to 
be set at 406 mm  4mm. 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.

[[Page 75035]]

    S5.1.2.2 Vertical Load Test (back doors only).
    (a) Attach the hinge system to the mounting provisions of the test 
fixture illustrated in figure 7. Hinge attitude must simulate vehicle 
position (door fully closed) relative to the hinge centerline. For test 
purposes, the distance between the extreme ends of one hinge system in 
the system to the extreme opposite end of another hinge system is to be 
set at 406 mm  4 mm. The load is to be applied through the 
centerline of the hinge pin in a direction orthogonal to the 
longitudinal and transverse loads (see figure 8).
    (b) 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. In some circumstances, it may be 
necessary to test the individual hinges of a hinge system. In such 
cases, the results for an individual hinge, when tested in accordance 
with the procedures below, shall be such as to indicate that system 
requirements in S4.1.2 are met. (For example, an individual hinge in a 
two-hinge system must be capable of withstanding 50 percent of the load 
requirements of the total system.)
    (a) Longitudinal Load. Attach the hinge system to the mounting 
provision of the test fixture illustrated in figure 7. Hinge attitude 
must 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 hinge system to the mounting 
provision of the test fixture illustrated in figure 7. Hinge attitude 
must 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) Vertical Load. Attach the hinge system to the mounting 
provision of the test fixture illustrated in figure 7. Hinge attitude 
must simulate the vehicle position (door fully closed) relative to the 
hinge centerline. For test purposes, the load is to be applied 
centerline of the hinge pin in a direction orthogonal to the 
longitudinal and transverse loads. 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. Compliance with S4.2.1.1 
is demonstrated in accordance with the test procedures specified in 
S5.1.1.1.
    S5.2.1.2 Load Test Two Force Application. Compliance with S4.2.1.2 
is demonstrated in accordance with the test procedures specified in 
S5.1.1.2.
    S5.2.1.3 [Reserved]
    S5.2.1.4 Inertial Force Application. Compliance with 4.2.1.3 is 
demonstrated in accordance with the test procedures specified in 
S5.1.1.4.
    S5.2.2 Door System. Compliance with S4.2.2 is demonstrated in 
accordance with the following:
    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 9. 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 for measuring at least 100 mm of separation between 
the interior of the door and the exterior edge of the doorframe, 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.
    (c) Mount the force application devices and associated support 
structure to the floor of the test vehicle.
    (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) The force application plate is 150 mm in length, 50 mm in 
width, and at least 15 mm in thickness.
    (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 as close to the edge 
of the door as possible. It is not necessary for the force application 
plate to be vertical.
    (g) For any tested door edge that contains more than one latch/
striker, the following setup procedures are used:
    (1) The force application plate is 300 mm in length, 50 mm in 
width, and at least 15 mm in thickness.
    (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 
between the outermost edges of the latch/striker assemblies.
    (3) The force application plate is positioned as close to the edge 
of the door as possible. It is not necessary for the force application 
plate to be vertical.
    (h) For any tested door edge that does not contain at least one 
latch/striker, the following set-up procedures are used:
    (1) The force application plate is 300 mm in length, 50 mm in 
width, and at least 15 mm in thickness.
    (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 horizontal 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 as close to the edge 
of the door as possible. It is not necessary for the force application 
plate to be vertical.

[[Page 75036]]

    (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) Attach any equipment used for measuring door separation that 
will be used to determine separation levels during the test procedure.
    (k) Place the load application structure so that the force 
application plates are in contact with the interior of the sliding 
door.
    S5.2.2.4 Test Procedure.
    (a) Move each force application device at a rate of 20-90 mm 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, 
stop forward movement of the force application devices and hold the 
resulting load for a minimum of 10 seconds.
    (d) Maintain the force application device position of paragraph (c) 
and 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
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15DE04.029


[[Page 75037]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15DE04.030


[[Page 75038]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15DE04.031

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15DE04.032


[[Page 75039]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15DE04.033


[[Page 75040]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15DE04.034

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15DE04.035


[[Page 75041]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15DE04.036


[[Page 75042]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15DE04.037


    Issued on: December 7, 2004.
Stephen R. Kratzke,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 04-27215 Filed 12-14-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-C`