75020 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 240 / Wednesday, December 15, 2004 / Proposed Rules 

G. Review Under the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 1995

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4) requires a 

Federal agency to perform a detailed 

assessment of costs and benefits of any 

rule imposing a Federal Mandate with 

costs to State, local or tribal 

governments, or to the private sector, of 

$100 million or more in any single year. 

This rulemaking does not impose a 

Federal mandate on State, local or tribal 

governments or on the private sector. 

H. Review Under the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations 

Act, 1999 

Section 654 of the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations 

Act, 1999 (Pub. L. 105–277), requires 

Federal agencies to issue a Family 

Policymaking Assessment for any rule 

or policy that may affect family wellbeing. This rule will have no impact on 

family well being. 

I. Review Under Executive Order 13211 

Executive Order 13211, Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use, (66 FR 28355, May 

22, 2001) requires Federal agencies to 

prepare and submit to the OIRA, Office 

of Management and Budget, a Statement 

of Energy Effects for any significant 

energy action. A ‘‘significant energy 

action’’ is defined as any action by an 

agency that promulgates or is expected 

to lead to promulgation of a final rule, 

and that: (1) Is a significant regulatory 

action under Executive Order 12866, or 

any successor order; and (2) is likely to 

have a significant adverse effect on the 

supply, distribution, or use of energy, or 

(3) is designated by the Administrator of 

OIRA as a significant energy action. For 

any significant energy action, the agency 

must give a detailed statement of any 

adverse effects on energy supply, 

distribution, or use should the proposal 

be implemented, and of reasonable 

alternatives to the action and their 

expected benefits on energy supply, 

distribution, and use. 

Today’s rule is not a significant 

energy action. Accordingly, DOE has not 

prepared a Statement of Energy Effects. 

J. Review Under the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations 

Act, 2001 

The Treasury and General 

Government Appropriations Act, 2001, 

44 U.S.C. 3516, note, provides for 

agencies to review most disseminations 

of information to the public under 

implementing guidelines established by 

each agency pursuant to general 

guidelines issued by OMB. OMB’s 

guidelines were published at 67 FR 

8452 (February 22, 2002), and DOE’s 

guidelines were published at 67 FR 

62446 (October 7, 2002). DOE has 

reviewed today’s notice under the OMB 

and DOE guidelines and has concluded 

that it is consistent with applicable 

policies in those guidelines. 

K. Approval by the Office of the 

Secretary of Energy 

The Office of the Secretary of Energy 

has approved issuance of this proposed 

rule.

List of Subjects in 48 CFR Parts 901 and 

970 

Government procurement.

Issued in Washington, DC, on December 8, 

2004. 

Richard H. Hopf, 

Director, Office of Procurement and 

Assistance Management, Office of 

Management, Budget and Evaluation, 

Department of Energy.

Robert C. Braden, Jr., 

Director, Office of Acquisition and Supply 

Management, National Nuclear Security 

Administration.

For the reasons set out in the 

preamble, DOE proposes to amend 

Chapter 9 of Title 48 of the Code of 

Federal Regulations as set forth below: 

1. The authority citation for part 901 

is revised to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 2201; 2282a; 2282b; 

2282c; 42 U.S.C. 7101, et. seq.; 41 U.S.C. 

418b; 50 U.S.C. 2401, et seq.

PART 901—FEDERAL ACQUISITION 

REGULATIONS SYSTEM 

2. Section 901.105 is amended by 

revising the second sentence to read as 

follows:

901.105 OMB control numbers. 

* * * The OMB control number for 

the collection of information under 48 

CFR chapter 9 is 1910–4100 except for 

Reporting and Recordkeeping 

Requirements for Safety Management 

(see 48 CFR 970.5223–1) which is 1910–

5103. 

3. The authority citation for part 970 

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 2201; 2282a; 2282b; 

2282c; 42 U.S.C. 7101, et. seq.; 41 U.S.C. 

418b; 50 U.S.C. 2401, et seq.

PART 970—DOE MANAGEMENT AND 

OPERATING CONTRACTS

970.1504–4–1–970.1504–4–3 [Removed 

and Reserved] 

4. Sections 970.1504–4–1 through 

970.1504–4–3 are removed and 

reserved.

970.1504–5 [Amended] 

5. Section 970.1504–5 is amended by 

removing paragraph (b), and 

redesignating paragraphs (c), (d) and (e) 

as paragraphs (b), (c) and (d) 

respectively.

970.5203–1 [Amended] 

6. Section 970.5203–1 is amended by 

revising the clause date to read [Date 

(Month and Year) 30 days following the 

date of publication of the final rule in 

the Federal Register] and by adding in 

paragraph (a)(1), second sentence, the 

words ‘‘including consideration of 

outsourcing of functions’’ after the word 

‘‘promoted’’.

970.5203–2 [Amended] 

7. Section 970.5203–2, is amended by 

revising the clause date to read [Date 

(Month and Year) 30 days following the 

date of publication of the final rule in 

the Federal Register] and by adding in 

paragraph (a), last sentence, the words 

‘‘outsourcing decisions,’’ after the words 

‘‘changes in organization.’’

970.5215–2 [Removed and Reserved] 

8. Section 970.5215–2, Make-or-Buy 

plan, is removed and reserved. 

9. Section 970.5244–1 is amended by 

revising the clause date and by 

removing and reserving paragraph (n) to 

read as follows:

970.5244–1 Contractor purchasing 

system. 

***

Contractor Purchasing System 

[Date (Month and Year) 30 days 

following date of publication of the final 

rule in the Federal Register]

* * * * *

(n) [Removed and Reserved].

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 04–27417 Filed 12–14–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P

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.

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 240 / Wednesday, December 15, 2004 / Proposed Rules 75021

1The scope of the safety problem is described in 

greater detail in section IV of this notice.

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; 

gmouchahoir@nhtsa.dot.gov.

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.

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, 

75022 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 240 / Wednesday, December 15, 2004 / Proposed Rules 

2The 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).

3While 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.

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.

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.

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 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 240 / Wednesday, December 15, 2004 / Proposed Rules 75023

4The 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.

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. 6The 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.

7The 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.

8A 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.

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.

10A 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.

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 rearhinged 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.

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

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.

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.

The standard also requires each hinge 

system10 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.

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 

75024 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 240 / Wednesday, December 15, 2004 / Proposed Rules 

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 nonrollovers (19,555)] * [rate for all ejections in 

rollovers (7.62%)]

13Complex combination loadings also occur in 

other, non-rollover crashes, for which the 

combination test was also intended to apply.

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

Total

occupants Unejected Allejection 

Rate

(percent) 

Ejection 

with unknown 

routes 

Ejection 

with 

known 

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

Door

ejections 

Rate 1*

(percent) 

Rate 2**

(percent) 

Side glazing 

ejections 

Rate 1*

(percent) 

Rate 2**

(percent) 

Other

ejections 

Rate 1*

(percent) 

Rate 2**

(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 nonrollover crashes. For all crashes, the rate 

for ejection in rollover crashes is 7.62 

percent, verses 0.44 percent for nonrollover 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 percent12. 

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.

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 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 240 / Wednesday, December 15, 2004 / Proposed Rules 75025

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.

15The 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.

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.

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.

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 

75026 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 240 / Wednesday, December 15, 2004 / Proposed Rules 

16See presentation from Transport Canada in the 

DOT Docket NHTSA–1999–3705. 17 Id.

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 cargodoors 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.

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.

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 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 240 / Wednesday, December 15, 2004 / Proposed Rules 75027

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.

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 doorin-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.

By the same token, conducting the 

proposed tests on the full vehicle may 

75028 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 240 / Wednesday, December 15, 2004 / Proposed Rules 

19See Transport Canada presentation on testing 

in Docket NHTSA–1999–3705 and VRTC report 

second series (in preparation).

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 doorin-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.

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 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 240 / Wednesday, December 15, 2004 / Proposed Rules 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 postproduction door or vehicle. The bodyin-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 

75030 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 240 / Wednesday, December 15, 2004 / Proposed Rules 

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 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 240 / Wednesday, December 15, 2004 / Proposed Rules 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 fourdigit 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,’’ ‘‘forkbolt 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:

§ 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. 

75032 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 240 / Wednesday, December 15, 2004 / Proposed Rules 

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 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 240 / Wednesday, December 15, 2004 / Proposed Rules 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 cutout 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 

75034 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 240 / Wednesday, December 15, 2004 / Proposed Rules 

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. 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 240 / Wednesday, December 15, 2004 / Proposed Rules 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 doormounted 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 midway 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.

75036 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 240 / Wednesday, December 15, 2004 / Proposed Rules 

(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


EP15de04.029</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 240 / Wednesday, December 15, 2004 / Proposed Rules 75037


EP15de04.030</GPH>
75038 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 240 / Wednesday, December 15, 2004 / Proposed Rules 


EP15de04.031</GPH> EP15de04.032</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 240 / Wednesday, December 15, 2004 / Proposed Rules 75039


EP15de04.033</GPH>
75040 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 240 / Wednesday, December 15, 2004 / Proposed Rules 


EP15de04.034</GPH> EP15de04.035</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 240 / Wednesday, December 15, 2004 / Proposed Rules 75041


EP15de04.036</GPH>
75042 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 240 / Wednesday, December 15, 2004 / Proposed Rules 

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


EP15de04.037</GPH>