7370 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 33 / Friday, February 19, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

Ordering Clause 

Pursuant to 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 303(r) 

and 613, the Order Suspending Effective 

Date is adopted. 

Federal Communications Commission. 

Marlene H. Dortch, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2010–3267 Filed 2–18–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 79 

[CG Docket No. 05–231; ET Docket No. 99– 

254; FCC 08–255] 

Closed Captioning of Video 

Programming; Closed Captioning 

Requirements for Digital Television 

Receivers 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Final rule; announcement of 

effective date. 

SUMMARY: In this document, the 

Commission announces that the Office 

of Management and Budget (OMB) has 

approved, for a period of three years, the 

information collection associated with 

the Commission’s Closed Captioning of 

Video Programming; Closed Captioning 

Requirements for Digital Television 

Receivers, Declaratory Ruling and Order 

(2008 Closed Captioning Order). This 

notice is consistent with the 2008 

Closed Captioning Order, which stated 

that the Commission would publish a 

document in the Federal Register 

announcing the effective date of those 

rules. 

DATES: 47 CFR 79.1(g)(1) through (5), (i), 

published at 74 FR 1594, January 13, 

2009, is effective February 19, 2010. 

Video programming distributors must 

comply with 47 CFR 79.1(i) by March 

22, 2010. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Amelia Brown, Disabilities Rights 

Office, Consumer and Governmental 

Affairs Bureau, at (202) 418–2799 

(voice) or (202) 418–7804 (TTY). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This 

document announces that, on July 27, 

2009, OMB approved, for a period of 

three years, the information collection 

requirements contained in the 

Commission’s 2008 Closed Captioning 

Order, FCC 08–255, published at 74 FR 

1594, January 13, 2009. The OMB 

Control Number is 3060–0761. The 

Commission publishes this notice as an 

announcement of the effective date of 

the rules. If you have any comments on 

the burden estimates listed below, or 

how the Commission can improve the 

collections and reduce any burdens 

caused thereby, please contact Cathy 

Williams, Federal Communications 

Commission, Room 1–C823, 445 12th 

Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. 

Please include the OMB Control 

Number, 3060–0761, in your 

correspondence. The Commission will 

also accept your comments via the 

Internet if you send them to 

PRA@fcc.gov. To request materials in 

accessible formats for people with 

disabilities (braille, large print, 

electronic files, audio format), send an 

e-mail to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the 

Consumer and Governmental Affairs 

Bureau at (202) 418–0530 (voice), (202) 

418–0432 (TTY). 

Synopsis 

As required by the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507), 

the FCC is notifying the public that it 

received OMB approval on July 27, 

2009, for the information collection 

requirements contained in the 

Commission’s rules at 47 CFR 79.1(g)(1) 

through (5) and 47 CFR 79.1(i). The 

OMB Control Number is 3060–0761. 

The total annual reporting burden for 

respondents for these collections of 

information, including the time for 

gathering and maintaining the collection 

of information, is estimated to be: 

14,283 respondents, 111,247 responses, 

a total annual hourly burden of 226,452 

hours, and $38,283,630 in total annual 

costs. 

Under 5 CFR 1320, an agency may not 

conduct or sponsor a collection of 

information unless it displays a current, 

valid OMB Control Number. 

No person shall be subject to any 

penalty for failing to comply with a 

collection of information subject to the 

Paperwork Reduction Act, that does not 

display a current, valid OMB Control 

Number. The foregoing notice is 

required by the Paperwork Reduction 

Act of 1995, Public Law 104–13, 

October 1, 1995, and 44 U.S.C. 3507. 

Federal Communications Commission. 

Marlene H. Dortch, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2010–3265 Filed 2–18–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

49 CFR Part 571 

[Docket No. NHTSA–2010–0015 

RIN 2127–AK60 

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety 

Standards; Door Locks and Door 

Retention Components 

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration (NHTSA), 

Department of Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Final rule; response to petitions 

for reconsideration; technical 

amendments. 

SUMMARY: This final rule responds to 

petitions for reconsideration of a 

February 6, 2007 final rule that 

amended Federal Motor Vehicle Safety 

Standard No. 206 to add and update 

requirements and test procedures and to 

harmonize with the world’s first global 

technical regulation for motor vehicles. 

This is the second of two documents 

responding to the petitions; an earlier 

final rule delayed the compliance date 

of the sliding door provisions for a year. 

In today’s document, the agency is 

granting some aspects of the petitions 

while denying other aspects, and makes 

several technical amendments to the 

regulatory text. 

DATES: This rule is effective February 

19, 2010. Any petitions for 

reconsideration of today’s final rule 

must be received by NHTSA not later 

than April 5, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: If you wish to petition for 

reconsideration of this rule, your 

petition should refer to the docket 

number and be submitted to: 

Administrator, National Highway 

Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New 

Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building, 4th 

Floor, Washington, DC 20590. Note that 

all documents received will be posted 

without change to the docket, including 

any personal information provided. 

Please see the Privacy Act discussion 

under the section entitled, Rulemaking 

Analyses and Notices. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

technical issues, contact Ms. Shashi 

Kuppa, Office of Crashworthiness 

Standards, by telephone at (202) 366– 

4902, or by fax at (202) 366–2990. For 

legal issues, contact Ms. Sarah Alves, 

Office of the Chief Counsel, by 

telephone at (202) 366–2992, or by fax 

at (202) 366–3820. 

Both persons may be reached by mail 

at the following address: National 

Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 33 / Friday, February 19, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 7371 

1The U.S. is a Contracting Party of the 1998 

Global Agreement which is administered by the 

U.N. Economic Commission for Europe’s World 

Forum for the Harmonization of Vehicle 

Regulations (WP.29). The U.S. voted in favor of 

establishing the GTR at the November 18, 2004 

Session of the Executive Committee and was 

obligated under the Agreement to initiate the 

process for adopting the provisions of the GTR. 

U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 

New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, 

DC 20590. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Background 

II. Summary of Responses to Petitions for 

Reconsideration 

a. NHTSA’s Part I Response 

b. Today’s Part II Response 

III. Technical Issues 

a. Sliding Door Requirements and Test 

Procedures 

1. Test Force Application Duration 

2. Test Force Application Load Plate 

Positioning 

3. Test Force Application Load Plate 

Rotation 

4. Closure Warning Devices 

b. Exclusion of Wheelchair Lift Doors 

IV. Other Issues 

a. Correction of S5.1.1.4(b)(2) 

b. Technical Amendment to Figure 7 

c. Distinguishing Between Primary and 

Auxiliary Door Latches 

d. Certification Information 

e. Applicability of the Standard to Vehicles 

Over 10,000 lb GVWR 

V. GTR Process 

VI. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices 

I. Background 

Summary of 2007 Final Rule 

In this document, NHTSA responds to 

petitions for reconsideration of its 

February 6, 2007 final rule adding and 

updating requirements and test 

procedures for Federal Motor Vehicle 

Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 206, Door 

Locks and Door Retention Components 

(49 CFR 571.206) (72 FR 5385; Docket 

No. NHTSA–2006–23882). That rule 

improved FMVSS No. 206 in several 

areas, and harmonized with the world’s 

first global technical regulation (GTR) 

for motor vehicles.1 Consistent with the 

GTR, the final rule retained all 

previously existing provisions in the 

standard, but added a new full vehicle 

test procedure for sliding doors, added 

secondary latched position 

requirements for doors other than 

hinged side doors and back doors, 

provided a new optional test procedure 

for assessing inertial forces, and 

extended the application of FMVSS No. 

206 to buses with a gross vehicle weight 

rating (GVWR) of 10,000 pounds (lb) or 

less, including 12–15 passenger vans. 

The final rule also eliminated an 

exclusion from the requirements of the 

standard for doors equipped with 

wheelchair platform lifts. The effective 

date for the final rule was September 1, 

2009. 

Petitions for Reconsideration 

In response to the February 2007 final 

rule, NHTSA received petitions for 

reconsideration from the Alliance of 

Automobile Manufacturers (the 

Alliance), Ford Motor Company (Ford), 

Advocates for Highway Safety 

(Advocates), and Thomas Built Buses, 

Inc. (Thomas Built Buses). The 

suggestions of each of the petitioners are 

summarized below: 

• The Alliance petitioned to change 

the requirements and test procedures for 

sliding doors and to extend the effective 

date of the final rule. 

• Ford petitioned NHTSA to extend 

the effective date of the final rule or at 

a minimum change the date as it 

pertains to sliding doors. 

• Advocates questioned the GTR 

procedure under which the February 

2007 final rule was developed. It also 

petitioned the agency to require sliding 

doors latches to have secondary latching 

positions and to remove the option for 

a visual door closure warning system. 

• Thomas Built Buses petitioned the 

agency to reinstate the exclusion for 

wheelchair lift doors on buses with lift 

platforms that retracts to provide a 

barrier to occupants being ejected. 

The agency also received a letter from 

the TriMark Corporation (TriMark), 

which sought clarification of some 

provisions of the February 2007 final 

rule. 

II. Summary of Responses to Petitions 

for Reconsideration 

a. NHTSA’s Part I Response 

To accommodate manufacturers’ 

design and production cycles while 

allowing the agency more time to 

analyze the petitions in regards to other 

issues, the agency published a final rule 

on July 20, 2009 that delayed the 

compliance date of the sliding door 

provisions of S4.2.2 from September 1, 

2009, to September 1, 2010. (74 FR 

35131; Docket No. NHTSA 2009–0116.) 

The original effective date of September 

1, 2009 for all other provisions was 

retained. In that final rule, the agency 

explained that the other issues raised in 

the petitions for reconsideration would 

be addressed by the agency in a 

subsequent document, which we are 

issuing today. 

b. Today’s Part II Response 

Today’s final rule makes the following 

technical changes to the 2007 final rule. 

This final rule amends— 

• S5.2.2.4(a), to specify a time 

requirement instead of a load 

application rate of the sliding door test, 

which considers the Alliance request 

while paralleling the GTR requirements; 

• S5.2.2.3(f), S5.2.2.3(g)(3), and 

S5.2.2.3(h)(3), to more accurately 

specify sliding door test force 

application load plate positioning; 

• S5.2.2.3(f)(1)(ii), S5.2.2.3(g)(1)(ii), 

and S5.2.2.3(h)(1)(ii), to better define 

the allowable rotation for test plates; 

and, 

• S4, to reinstate an exclusion of 

doors equipped with wheelchair lift 

systems. 

• This final rule also corrects 

provisions in the standard for closing 

windows and tethering doors during the 

test (S5.1.1.4(b)(2)(i)(C)), and amends 

Figure 7 to make the vehicle coordinate 

reference system for inertial testing 

consistent with Society of Automotive 

Engineers (SAE) Standard J211 

(Instrumentation for Impact Test) and 

with the sign conventions used in other 

Federal motor vehicle safety standards 

such as FMVSS No. 208, Occupant 

Crash Protection, and FMVSS No. 214, 

Side Impact Protection. 

In addition to the above, this final 

rule responds to the petitions by 

clarifying or explaining provisions of 

the 2007 final rule. We also respond to, 

and deny, Advocates’ request that 

sought a determination that the GTR 

process under which the final rule was 

developed is flawed and contrary to the 

rulemaking procedures required by the 

Administrative Procedure Act. 

III. Technical Issues 

a. Sliding Door Requirements and Test 

Procedures 

1. Test Force Application Duration 

The February 2007 final rule required 

that the sliding door test procedure load 

rate application be applied at any rate 

not to exceed 2,000 newtons (N) per 

minute (N/min), 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 (S5.2.2.4(a)). The maximum 

load is held for 30 seconds. 

In its petition for reconsideration, the 

Alliance requested that NHTSA shorten 

the load application rate for the sliding 

door system test procedure. The 

Alliance stated that testing in 

accordance with the specifications in 

S5.2.2.4(a) will require a minimum of 

4.5 minutes, because S4.2.2.1 specifies 

that 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 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES
7372 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 33 / Friday, February 19, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

2Metals do not ‘‘creep’’ at room temperature. We 

assume ‘‘creep’’ describes a yielding or deformation 

of the material. 

N [9,000 N on each side of the door] 

along the vehicle transverse axis is 

applied to the door as specified in 

S5.2.2.’’ (Dividing the test load, 9,000 N, 

by the maximum allowable rate of 2,000 

N/min produces a duration of 

approximately 4.5 minutes for each 

test.) The Alliance requested shortening 

the test duration to achieve the required 

force loading in 30 seconds. 

The Alliance provided several reasons 

for its request. The petitioner stated that 

longer test durations introduce ‘‘creep,’’ 

or minor sheet metal deformations, that 

are not representative of the loading that 

might be experienced in a dynamic 

crash situation where loads are applied 

for a fraction of a second.2 To illustrate 

the occurrence of these deformations 

under sustained load, the Alliance 

provided the results of a developmental 

sliding door test that was conducted 

using a 29-second load application, 

followed by a 28-second hold, and then 

a ramp to overload (see Graphs A, B and 

C in the Alliance petition, Docket No. 

NHTSA–2006–23882–0007). The figures 

show that, after the load was stabilized, 

29 seconds into the test (33 seconds 

after the start of data collection as 

shown in Graph A of the petition) and 

during the period while the load was 

held constant, the rear load actuator 

displaced transversely 6 millimeters 

(mm) (Graph B) and the upper rear point 

on the door displaced transversely 8 

mm (Graph C). 

In its petition, the Alliance stated its 

belief that because most of the testing 

that supported the development of the 

GTR was performed using 10-second 

load applications, ‘‘[m]odifying the 

procedure in a manner that lengthens 

the load application duration by a factor 

of 27 may call into question the costbenefit analysis’’ in NHTSA’s Final 

Regulatory Evaluation (FRE) (Docket No. 

NHTSA–2006–23882–0002). The 

Alliance stated that this is because the 

FRE estimated benefits by comparing 

the occupant ejection rate through 

sliding doors equipped with one versus 

two latches, and estimated costs as 

those of adding a second latch and 

striker to vehicles equipped with a 

single latch. The Alliance implies that 

the FRE costs may be too low or 

incomplete because, the petitioner 

believes, supporting the test loads over 

a longer period of time may ultimately 

require additional structure in the 

vehicle, and such changes were not 

addressed in NHTSA’s FRE. 

On May 22, 2007, the Alliance met 

with NHTSA to discuss the latter’s 

concerns with the test force application 

duration (Docket No. NHTSA–2006– 

23882–0012). A presentation was given 

by General Motors (GM) to help explain 

how ‘‘creep’’ can occur with longer force 

application durations. The Alliance and 

GM believed that the creep (yielding) 

that occurs while maintaining the load 

could be used to predict the amount of 

creep (yielding) that will occur while 

applying the force loads for longer force 

applications. GM claimed that the 

increase in deformation that occurs for 

longer force application durations could 

be the difference between passing or 

failing the test. GM also claimed that a 

load duration of 30 seconds is justified 

because in tests conducted by Transport 

Canada and NHTSA’s Vehicle Research 

& Test Center (VRTC), the peak loads, or 

the required load limit of 18,000 N 

(9,000 N of each loading device), could 

be achieved within this time period. 

The Alliance further stated that 

requiring a load application time of at 

least 4.5 minutes diverges from the GTR 

requirement and the GTR’s 

developmental testing. The GTR 

specifies a load rate between 20 to 90 

mm/min. The Alliance stated that 

manufacturers will likely specify 

maximum allowable speed, and that full 

load will be reached in considerably 

less than 4.5 minutes. Thus, the 

Alliance claims that the differences in 

load duration now make it possible for 

a vehicle certified to the GTR in other 

countries to not comply in the United 

States. 

Agency Response 

We are denying the request to shorten 

the time duration to 30 seconds. A 30- 

second load rate would unreasonably 

diminish the stringency of the sliding 

door load test. However, after 

considering the Alliance’s petition, the 

agency has decided that the load 

application rate up to 2,000 N/min 

resulted in an unnecessarily long 

duration for the test. Rather than 

specifying a force application rate 

(apply the force at any rate not to exceed 

2,000 N/min until a force of 9,000 N is 

achieved on each force application 

device), to simplify the test procedure 

we are amending S5.2.2.4(a) to specify 

that the 9,000 N force is achieved in not 

less than 90 seconds and not more than 

120 seconds. The 90 to 120 second 

duration corresponds to loading rates of 

4,500 N/min to 6,000 N/min, which 

according to data from the tests 

conducted at VRTC is comparable to the 

loading rates of 20 to 90 mm/min 

specified in the GTR. 

The agency developed the test 

parameters for the sliding door test 

specified in the February 2007 final rule 

based on the results of eight tests 

conducted by Transport Canada and 

seven conducted by VRTC. Table 1 

below, ‘‘Transport Canada and VRTC 

Sliding Door Evaluation Test Results,’’ 

summarizes the results of Transport 

Canada’s and VRTC’s sliding door tests 

used to develop the February 2007 final 

rule. The table identifies the makes and 

models of the vehicles tested, the 

number of sliding door latches, the peak 

loads applied during the test, the 

approximate time (in seconds) to 

achieve either 8,900 N or the peak load, 

the approximate displacement rate (in 

mm/min) at the peak load, and the 

approximate loading rate (in N/min). 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 33 / Friday, February 19, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 7373 

3The NPRM and the GTR prescribed a load rate 

application of 20–90 mm/min until a force of 9,000 

N is achieved on each of the loading devices, 

followed by a 10-second hold. In response to the 

NPRM, the Alliance commented that the test 

procedure should be controlled using a force 

application rate rather than a displacement rate, 

because controllers currently in use do not allow for 

simultaneous control of both displacement and 

load, and that the procedure as specified would 

raise practicability concerns. NHTSA agreed with 

the comment and adopted in the February 2007 

final rule that the load be controlled at a rate not 

to exceed 2,000 N/min. 

TABLE 1—TRANSPORT CANADA AND VRTC SLIDING DOOR EVALUATION TEST RESULTS

Model year Make Model Number 

of 

latches 

Peak loads 

(N) 

Approx. duration to 

achieve 8,900 N or 

peak load (sec)* 

Approx. displacement rate at peak 

load (mm/min)* 

Approx. loading rate 

(N/min)* 

Transport Canada Test Results (F) (R) (F) (R) (F) (R) 

1995 ............. Dodge ......... Caravan ...... 1 (F) 9526 ......

(R) 10008 

10 10 150 240 53400 53400 

1998 ............. Dodge ......... Caravan ...... 1 (F) 7239 ......

(R) 11142 

13 40 2031 315 33411 16713 

2000 ............. Mazda ......... MPV ............ 1 (F) 10895 ....

(R) 10810 

14 14 NA NA 38143 38143 

1999 ............. Honda ......... Odyssey ..... 1 (F) 6451 ......

(R) 13334 

7 13 NA NA 55294 41077 

1997 ............. Chevy ......... Venture ....... 2 (F) 11129 ....

(R) 11155 

12 12 0.59 350 44500 44500 

2000 ............. Pontiac ....... Transport .... 2 (F) 11148 ....

(R) 11108 

14 14 NA NA 38143 38143 

1998 ............. Ford ............ Windstar ..... 2 (F) 11119 ....

(R) 11088 

12 12 NA NA 44500 44500 

1999 ............. Ford ............ Windstar ..... 2 (F) 11144 ....

(R) 11095 

14 14 NA NA 38143 38143 

Averages ........................................................................................... 12 16 727 302 43129 39327 

NHTSA (VRTC) Test Results (F) (R) (F) (R) (F) (R) 

1993 ............. Dodge ......... Caravan ...... 1 (F) 9009 ......

(R) 9018 

38.5 38.9 225 315 14040 13909 

2001 ............. Dodge ......... Caravan ...... 1 (F) 7162 ......

(R) 8900 

387 260 19.74 18.46 1110 2053 

1992 ............. Chevy ......... Lumina ........ 1 (F) 6266 ......

(R) 6266 

21.4 21.4 196 393 17568 17568 

2002 ............. Honda ......... Odyssey .....

(Drv. dr) 

1 (F) 7875 ......

(R) 8900 

980 340 19.9 19.06 482 1571 

2002 ............. Honda ......... Odyssey .....

(Pass dr.) 

1 (F) 7749 ......

(R) 8900 

520 300 19.62 20 894 1780 

2001 ............. Ford ............ Windstar .....

(Drv. dr) 

2 (F) 8900 ......

(R) 8900 

150 340 20 19.4 3560 1571 

2001 ............. Ford ............ Windstar .....

(Pass dr.) 

2 (F) 8900 ......

(R) 8900 

120 320 22 18.8 4450 1685 

Averages ........................................................................................... 317 231 75 115 6015 5734 

* In the column, the first number represents readings for the front force application device (F) and the second represents the rear force application device (R). 

Note that the force application rate for 

the sliding door test specified in the 

February 2007 final rule was 

determined using only the data from the 

VRTC tests. The average time to attain 

8,900 N, or peak load, in the VRTC tests 

was 274 (= (317+231)/2) seconds. This 

corresponds to the approximate loading 

rate of 2,000 N/min specified in the 

final rule.3

In view of the petition for 

reconsideration, we have reexamined 

the VRTC test data to review the time 

durations for conducting the test. We 

have determined that the average force 

application rate in the sliding door test 

at VRTC presented in Table 1 was 

approximately 6,000 N/min 

((6,015+5,734)/2 = 5,874 N/min). This 

corresponds approximately to an 

average displacement rate of 95 mm/ 

min ((75+115)/2 = 95 mm/min) which is 

close to the upper limit of the 

displacement rate specified in the GTR 

(90 mm/min). Regarding the lower limit, 

of the VRTC tests in Table 1 that 

exhibited displacement rates of 

approximately 20 mm/min 

(corresponding to the lower limit of the 

displacement rate specified in the GTR), 

the highest corresponding force 

application rate was approximately 

4,500 N/min. Force application rates 

between 4,500 to 6,000 N/min in the 

sliding door test correspond to test 

durations between 90 and 120 seconds. 

In short, when we calculated the time 

duration to achieve the test force of 

9,000 N when applying the loads at 

4,500 N/min and 6,000 N/min (the 

loading rates resulting in the 

displacements of 20 mm to 90 mm/min, 

respectively), we found durations of 

between 90 and 120 seconds. The 90 to 

120 second duration better parallels the 

GTR requirements. Accordingly, we are 

modifying the load application rate for 

the sliding door system test procedure 

by specifying in S5.2.2.4(a) to increase 

the force, as linearly as possible, until 

a force of 9,000 N is achieved on each 

force application device in not less than 

90 seconds and not more than 120 

seconds. 

We disagree with the petitioner’s 

belief that, because Transport Canada 

had used the 10-second load application 

in developing data supporting the GTR, 

a 10-second load application should be 

used. The Transport Canada tests were 

only used to develop the initial 

procedural aspects of the sliding door 

tests. We excluded these test results in 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES
7374 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 33 / Friday, February 19, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

4The Alliance points out in its petition that tests 

conducted by Transport Canada and by VRTC on 

the Dodge Caravan and Chevy Lumina were 

performed within 30 seconds or less. However, 

these tests were not used for determining the 

application rate adopted in the final rule since door 

separation exceeded the limit before a force of 9,000 

N was achieved on each force application device. 

5Under the first option, the secondary latched 

position is subject to loads 50% or less of what the 

fully latched position must meet. The second 

option contemplates that the driver will close the 

sliding door so that it is fully latched, thus 

providing occupants the protection associated with 

the fully latched loading requirements. 

calculating the appropriate force 

application rates for the February 2007 

final rule because the test setup was not 

identical to that specified in the 

February 2007 final rule. The Transport 

Canada tests were conducted with the 

load plates joined by a connecting bar 

that caused the result of one door edge 

to affect the other. In addition, the force 

application device in the Transport 

Canada tests lacked sufficient structural 

reinforcement to prevent displacements 

on the vehicle floor and off-axis loading 

that could cause the loads to be applied 

in directions other than transverse. 

NHTSA is concerned that testing at 

exceptionally fast force application 

rates, such as a 30-second force 

application rate, will unacceptably 

reduce the stringency of the sliding door 

test. Table 1 shows that testing 

conducted on similar Dodge Caravans 

(with only one latch system and 

manufactured from 1992–1995) showed 

that one vehicle was able to achieve the 

required loads on both door edges 

during Transport Canada testing when 

tested within 10 seconds and at a rate 

of 53,400 N/min, while the other failed 

the load requirement when tested by 

VRTC within 40 seconds and at a rate 

of approximately 14,000 N/min.4

As for the Alliance’s concern about 

the yielding of the metal it saw during 

the hold period in the Alliance 

developmental test, we were not 

persuaded that there was a problem 

with the test. Yielding in and of itself 

does not invalidate a test. The yielding 

could have resulted from a 

redistribution of loads in the door 

structure. The petitioner did not provide 

any specifics of the door used in this 

developmental sliding door test. We 

believe that the door was equipped with 

only a single latch system since the door 

deformations in this test were in excess 

of 100 mm, and that the yielding noted 

by the Alliance could have been 

avoided had the door been equipped 

with two latch systems. In any event, 

because the test duration has been 

amended by this final rule, the issue is 

moot. 

With regard to the Alliance’s concern 

that the FRE did not include vehicle 

structural changes, the Alliance 

comment was not supported by either 

analysis or data. Although the earlier 

model year vehicles tested at VRTC 

failed the sliding door test requirements, 

more recent model year vehicles, which 

had the addition of another door 

latching system, were able to meet the 

requirements. In addition, we are not 

aware of any vehicle requiring 

significant structural changes to meet 

the requirements of the sliding door test. 

Thus, we disagree with the Alliance’s 

assertion that supporting the test loads 

over a period of time longer than the 

petitioner’s suggested 30-second 

duration will require additional 

structure in the vehicle. 

2. Test Force Application Load Plate 

Positioning 

The February 2007 final rule specified 

that ‘‘the force application plate is 

positioned such that the long edge of the 

plate is as close to the interior edge of 

the door as possible, but not such that 

the forward edge of plate is more than 

12.5 mm from the interior edge’’ 

(S5.2.2.3(f)(3), S5.2.2.3(g)(3), and 

S5.2.2.3(h)(3)). 

The Alliance petitioned NHTSA to 

slightly revise the wording of the 

provision because it believes that 

NHTSA intended to apply this 

requirement to both the forward edge of 

the forward plate as well as the 

rearward edge of the rear plate. 

Accordingly, the Alliance recommended 

NHTSA revise the above-mentioned 

sections to read: ‘‘The force application 

plate is positioned such that the long 

edge of the plate is as close to the 

interior edge of the door as possible, but 

not such that the forward edge of 

forward plate and the rear edge of the 

rear plate are more than 12.5 mm from 

the respective interior edges.’’ 

Agency Response 

We are granting this request. The 

Alliance’s suggested wording more 

accurately reflects the intent of the 

requirement; the suggested wording is 

clearer that the specification applies to 

the positioning of both plates. 

Therefore, we are modifying the 

specifications for load plate positioning 

for the sliding door system force 

application test specified in sections 

S5.2.2.3(f)(3), S5.2.2.3(g)(3), and 

S5.2.2.3(h)(3), as suggested by the 

Alliance. 

3. Test Force Application Load Plate 

Rotation 

The February 2007 final rule specified 

that the force application plates used for 

applying the force in the sliding door 

test may ‘‘allow for longitudinal rotation 

with respect to the vehicle’s centerline 

axis’’ (S5.2.2.3(f)(1)(ii), S5.2.2.3(g)(1)(ii) 

and S5.2.2.3(h)(1)(ii)). In its petition for 

reconsideration, the Alliance stated that 

the final rule’s description of the force 

application plate rotation is unclear. 

The Alliance petitioned NHTSA to 

amend S5.2.2.3(f)(1)(ii), 

S5.2.2.3(g)(1)(ii), and S5.2.2.3(h)(1)(ii) to 

read as follows: 

The plates are fixed perpendicular to the 

force application devices and move in the 

transverse direction. For alignment purposes, 

each plate is attached to the application 

device in a manner that allows for rotation 

about the vehicle’s y-axis. In this manner, the 

face of each plate remains parallel to the 

vertical plane which passes through the 

vehicle’s longitudinal centerline. 

Agency Response 

We are granting this request. The 

Alliance’s suggested clarification better 

defines the allowable rotation for the 

test plates. The specification as written 

in the February 2007 final rule does not 

clearly distinguish which vehicle 

centerline is being referenced. 

Therefore, we are modifying the 

specifications for permissible load plate 

rotation for the sliding door system 

force application test in sections 

S5.2.2.3(f)(1)(ii), S5.2.2.3(g)(1)(ii), and 

S5.2.2.3(h)(1)(ii), as the petitioner 

suggested. 

4. Closure Warning Devices 

In the February 2007 final rule, 

NHTSA required sliding doors to have 

either: (1) a primary door latch system 

that meets the same requirements as 

primary door latch systems on hinged 

side doors (i.e., has both a fully and 

secondary latched position); or (2) a 

system with a fully latched position and 

a door closure warning system to alert 

the driver when the door is not in the 

fully latched position.5 NHTSA 

explained that FMVSS No. 206 did not 

previously require either a primary or a 

secondary latch system for sliding 

doors; the fully latched position and the 

associated loading requirements were 

newly required by the final rule. 

The final rule explained that these 

options for backup protection for sliding 

door latches have been permitted in the 

Economic Commission of Europe (ECE) 

regulations for decades. Further, during 

the discussions of the GTR, the 

European governments said there were 

no data showing better ejection 

prevention with either of the options. 

Since NHTSA did not have any data 

showing a problem with either approach 

and no commenter provided data 

showing a problem, NHTSA adopted the 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 33 / Friday, February 19, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 7375 

6The petitioner also believed that the difference 

in outcomes between the two situations can be 

explained by NHTSA’s participation in the GTR 

process. ‘‘Having forged its position in the 

international setting, the agency is reluctant to 

reverse its views it previously espoused in the 

domestic rulemaking proceeding. This specific 

instance illustrates the disadvantage at which 

participants in the domestic APA [Administrative 

Procedure Act] rulemaking process are placed when 

that proceeding is superceded [sic] by the prior 

global rulemaking process under the 1998 Global 

Agreement.’’ March 23, 2007 petition, page 10. 

NHTSA seeks to reassure that the GTR process does 

not detract from or contravene agency rulemaking 

under the APA and the National Traffic and Motor 

Vehicle Safety Act (49 U.S.C. 30101 et seq.). The 

discussion in this section responds to the 

petitioner’s specific concerns about the door closing 

system for side sliding doors and explains why we 

disagree that a mechanical secondary latching 

system should be required. In a separate section of 

this preamble, we respond to the petitioner’s overall 

objections to the GTR process. 

7A system with a fully latched position and a 

door closure warning system. 

8Advocates also believed that a response by the 

agency to its comment on the NPRM opposing the 

second option was ‘‘inapposite’’ to the comment. 

The agency had stated in the final rule: ‘‘We believe 

these new requirements achieve Advocates’ 

suggestion that a mechanical solution is more 

dependable than one that requires some human 

behavior.’’ 72 FR at 5391. In its petition, Advocates 

stated that its NPRM comments had advocated the 

need to have a mechanical secondary latching 

system, and that the primary system is mechanical 

has no relevance to the issue of what means are 

used to provide the backup system. 

A clarification of NHTSA’s statement in the final 

rule would be helpful. The agency was explaining 

that the February 2007 final rule upgraded the 

current FMVSS No. 206 such that, among other 

matters, a latch will have to be provided that has 

a fully latched position that meets more stringent 

Continued 

options in the upgraded FMVSS No. 

206. 

In its petition for reconsideration of 

the February 2007 final rule, Advocates 

objected to the option that allows 

sliding door latches to be equipped with 

only a primary latching position if a 

door closure warning system is present. 

The petitioner had similarly objected to 

the option in its comments to the 

NPRM. In its petition, Advocates 

requested NHTSA to require that all 

sliding door latches be equipped with 

both primary and secondary latching 

positions. 

The petitioner believed that the 

arguments presented by NHTSA in the 

February 2007 final rule did not 

sufficiently support NHTSA’s decision 

to oppose Advocates’ comment seeking 

a mandatory secondary latching 

position on sliding door latches. 

Advocates stated that lack of clear data 

was insufficient for denying its request, 

since door closure warning systems do 

not ensure the same degree of fail-safe 

redundancy as would a mechanical 

secondary latching system. The 

petitioner argued that ‘‘common sense’’ 

supports the view that not all drivers 

will notice or react appropriately to a 

warning that the primary latching 

system is not functioning properly. 

The petitioner also believed that 

NHTSA’s not requiring a secondary 

latching position is contradictory to the 

agency’s decision in the final rule with 

regard to hinged side door locks and 

was thus ‘‘arbitrary and capricious.’’ For 

hinged side door locks, we require two 

separate actions to unlatch and then 

unlock a door from the inside of the 

vehicle, in part to prevent children from 

easily opening a door while the vehicle 

is in motion. Advocates stated that 

‘‘[e]ven though the agency admitted [in 

the hinged side door lock situation] that 

there are no definitive data on the use 

of child door safety locks, the agency 

decided that reliance on human 

behavior would pose a risk to the safety 

of children.’’ The petitioner believed 

that the two situations address nearly 

identical issues of vehicle safety and 

should be addressed by NHTSA 

consistently, by requiring a mechanical 

secondary latching system for side 

sliding doors.6

Agency Response 

We are denying Advocates’ request to 

require that all sliding door latches be 

equipped with both primary and 

secondary latching positions. We 

reiterate our determination in the final 

rule that the lack of data showing the 

superiority of one system over the other 

is noteworthy and important, when the 

one system at issue 7 has been in 

existence for decades in Europe. This is 

not a situation where we are 

deliberating whether to permit a system 

that has been unproven in the real 

world. The European governments have 

permitted the system for decades, and 

available data from Europe do not show 

better ejection prevention with either of 

the options. Data also do not show a 

problem with the systems. Based on the 

best available information, NHTSA has 

determined that the systems performed 

equally. With performance being equal, 

the agency has concluded that both 

systems should be permitted. Today’s 

final rule confirms that determination. 

This is also not a situation where we 

relaxed an existing requirement but 

failed to analyze the basis for changing 

our previous decisions underlying the 

requirement. Currently, the only 

requirement applicable to sliding side 

doors in FMVSS No. 206 is that the 

entire door, track and slide entire 

system must not separate when a total 

transverse load of 18,000 N is applied. 

There are no requirements for the 

individual latch components for sliding 

doors. The February 2007 final rule 

newly required the doors to have a 

backup system for supplemental 

protection. As to the requirements that 

should apply to the backup, as 

explained above, information available 

to NHTSA from Europe indicates that 

having either a secondary latched 

position or a door closure warning 

system was equivalent. Accordingly, the 

decision was made to permit either 

system. 

We do not believe we were arbitrary 

and capricious in not requiring a 

secondary latching position. The 

decision not to require a mechanical 

secondary latching system for side 

sliding doors was based on different 

considerations than the decision to 

require an action distinct from 

activation of the door handle to open a 

door. In the latter situation, NHTSA 

rejected the Alliance request to permit 

a door to be unlocked and unlatched 

with a single pull of the handle when 

the door is equipped with a child safety 

lock. The Alliance request pertained to 

the primary locking mechanism, not to 

a backup system. There was no alarm or 

warning provided to the driver 

informing him or her that the child lock 

was not engaged. If two distinct actions 

were not provided to open a rear door, 

a child could open the door and tumble 

out by a single pull of the door handle. 

The safety of the primary system would 

be too easily overridden by allowing a 

door to open by a single pull of a 

handle. Stated differently, the safety of 

the primary system could be too easily 

thwarted by human inattention. Further, 

the requirement for a distinct action to 

unlock and to open the door has been 

in FMVSS No. 206 since 1968, and the 

agency was not convinced there was 

reason to lessen the requirement. 

In contrast, Advocates’ request related 

to a supplemental backup system that 

has never before been required by the 

standard. Based on available 

information, NHTSA selected 

appropriate requirements for the backup 

system. Similar to its decision on the 

child lock issue, the agency did not 

adopt any requirement for the backup 

system that would lessen the 

performance of the primary latching 

system. We did not allow the backup 

system to make it easier for a properly 

latched sliding door to be inadvertently 

opened. In this regard, the agency’s 

decisions regarding the requirements for 

the side sliding doors and for the child 

safety locks are reasonable and 

consistent. For the reasons stated above, 

NHTSA denies Advocates’ petition to 

require all sliding door latches to have 

both primary and secondary latching 

positions.8


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES
7376 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 33 / Friday, February 19, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

loading requirements than now required. To 

comply with the final rule’s sliding door 

requirements and test procedure, we believe that 

manufacturers may have to install two latching 

systems—on the front and rear edges of the door— 

rather than only one latching system in only one 

location. The ‘‘mechanical solution’’ to which the 

agency referred was to the two-latch system, or an 

otherwise mechanically enhanced latch system, that 

would have to be installed to meet the upgraded 

strength requirements. Further, the agency was 

acknowledging the final rule’s adoption into 

FMVSS No. 206 a requirement that did not exist 

before in the standard. That requirement for a 

backup system (either having a secondary latching 

position for each of the two sliding door latches or 

having the vehicle have an alert that the latches are 

not in the fully latched position) was seen by the 

agency to further supplement safety by providing a 

vehicle-based attribute that addressed partial 

latching of the door. 

9The door must also be linked to an alarm system 

consisting of either a flashing visible signal located 

in the driver’s compartment or an alarm audible to 

the driver that is activated when the door is open. 

See S4(c) of FMVSS No. 206. 

b. Exclusion of Wheelchair Lift Doors 

The February 2007 final rule removed 

a provision that had been in the 

standard since 1985, which excluded 

from the standard doors equipped with 

wheelchair lifts.9 The doors have been 

excluded because the agency 

determined, in response to a petition for 

rulemaking submitted in the early 

1980’s from Thomas Built Buses, that a 

wheelchair lift platform acted as a 

barricade in the doorway when it was 

stored. When stored, the platform 

retracted to a vertical orientation 

parallel to and in close proximity with 

the interior surface of the lift door, and 

covered the complete opening. The 2007 

final rule stated that ‘‘wheelchair lift 

designs have evolved such that they no 

longer provide adequate protection for 

vehicle occupants as contemplated 

when the exclusion was adopted,’’ 

according to a 1998 evaluation. 72 FR at 

5396. The agency believed that current 

lift system have platforms not covering 

or only partially covering the vehicle 

doorway, e.g., some have platforms that 

are stored horizontally above the vehicle 

floor. Id. NHTSA further noted that 

current wheelchair lift designs can be 

installed without modifying an OEM 

door system, so that ‘‘installation of a 

wheelchair platform lift does not 

necessitate removal of a vehicle door 

from compliance with FMVSS No. 206.’’ 

Id. 

In response to the February 2007 final 

rule, Thomas Built Buses petitioned 

NHTSA to reinstate the exclusion. The 

petitioner stated that it uses single panel 

lift doors that provide a barrier to 

ejection. It requested excluding a door 

that ‘‘has a wheelchair lift that sets in 

the wheelchair lift door opening when 

retracted adequately providing a barrier 

to bus occupants from being ejected.’’ 

Agency Response 

We are granting this request. The 

agency was not aware that lift platforms 

continued to be manufactured that 

completely cover the door opening 

when retracted and act to barricade the 

doorway. While the former exclusion of 

all doors equipped with a wheelchair 

lift was too broad given that some lifts 

made today do not completely block the 

door when retracted, the agency sees no 

reason to subject to FMVSS No. 206 

doors with lifts that do block the 

doorway, as reasoned in the 1985 

rulemaking. The agency is amending the 

February 2009 final rule to exclude 

doors equipped with a permanently 

attached wheelchair lift system meeting 

the following criteria: (a) When the lift 

is in the retracted position, the lift 

platform retracts to a vertical orientation 

parallel to and in close proximity with 

the interior surface of the lift door; (b) 

in that position, the platform completely 

covers the doorway opening and 

provides a barricade to the doorway; 

and, (c) the wheelchair lift door is 

linked to an alarm system consisting of 

either a flashing visible signal located in 

the driver’s compartment or an alarm 

audible to the driver that is activated 

when the door is not fully closed and 

the vehicle ignition is activated. 

IV. Other Issues 

a. Correction of S5.1.1.4(b)(2) 

In its petition for reconsideration of 

the February 2007 final rule, the 

Alliance suggested that the words ‘‘if 

provided’’ should be included in 

S5.1.1.4(b)(2) (one of the provisions 

specifying the test procedure for a 

hinged door test). The petitioner 

correctly noted that there is a 

corresponding section, 

S5.1.1.4(b)(1)(i)(C), which includes that 

phrase. We agree to include the phrase, 

‘‘if provided,’’ in S5.1.1.4(b)(2). The 

phrase is appropriate for both sections, 

and the amendment makes the 

procedures consistent. Also, for 

additional consistency, we will clarify 

in this section that doors ‘‘may’’ be 

tethered to avoid damaging recording 

equipment. 

b. Technical Amendment to Figure 7 

Prior to the February 2007 final rule, 

FMVSS No. 206 did not have a figure 

that graphically displayed the vehicle 

coordinate reference system to be used 

for inertial testing. The GTR provided 

such a figure because part of the GTR 

referenced various directions with 

respect to different vehicle axes. The 

NPRM proposed, and the February 2007 

final rule adopted, this same GTR figure 

as Figure 7. 

Although the agency did not receive 

any comment regarding Figure 7 in 

response to both the NPRM and the 

February 2007 final rule, after 

publication of the final rule NHTSA 

realized that x-axis and the z-axis in 

Figure 7 were not consistent with SAE 

J211 (Instrumentation for Impact Test) 

or with the sign conventions used in 

other Federal motor vehicle safety 

standards such as FMVSS No. 208 and 

FMVSS No. 214. Therefore, NHTSA is 

making a technical amendment to 

FMVSS No. 206 by modifying Figure 7 

to be consistent with SAE J211 and the 

sign convention for other Federal motor 

vehicle safety standards as follows: 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 33 / Friday, February 19, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 7377 

10 ‘‘Auxiliary door latch’’ was defined as a latch 

equipped with a fully latched position, with or 

without a secondary latched position, and fitted to 

a door or door system equipped with a primary 

door latch system. 

11Such a request would be made in connection 

with an agency inquiry regarding compliance with 

the standard. 

c. Distinguishing Between Primary and 

Auxiliary Door Latches 

The February 2007 final rule 

mandated that each hinged door system 

be equipped with at least one ‘‘primary 

door latch system’’ (S4.1.1). ‘‘Primary 

door latch system’’ was defined as 

consisting of a ‘‘primary door latch(s) 

and a striker(s).’’ A ‘‘primary door latch’’ 

was defined as ‘‘a latch equipped with 

both a fully latched position and a 

secondary latched position and is 

designated as a ‘primary door latch’ by 

the manufacturer.’’ The reason for the 

phrase ‘‘and is designated as a ‘primary 

door latch’ by the manufacturer’’ was to 

deal with a potential problem for 

NHTSA in identifying, for compliance 

testing purposes, the ‘‘primary latch’’ of 

a door or door system if the door or door 

system is also equipped with an 

auxiliary latch that has a secondary 

latch position.10 If both the primary 

door latch and the auxiliary latch have 

a secondary latched position, it is not 

obvious which latch is the primary 

latch. 

TriMark requested that NHTSA not 

have ‘‘a physical identification of the 

primary and auxiliary latch because of 

the cost involved and ability to use a 

similar/identical latch in both primary 

and auxiliary applications.’’ TriMark 

asked how the agency envisioned that 

this requirement for latch designation be 

addressed from a practical matter. 

Agency Response 

The final rule required the vehicle 

manufacturer to designate one of the 

latches as the primary latch in 

connection with the manufacturer’s 

certification of compliance, and to 

identify the primary door latch when 

asked to do so by the agency.11 We did 

not intend, and the final rule did not 

require, that the primary door latch be 

physically marked differently on the 

vehicle than the auxiliary door latch. 

Door latch suppliers may provide the 

same latch for both primary and 

auxiliary applications, if the 

performance requirements are satisfied. 

NHTSA continues to believe the 

approach used in the February 2007 

final rule will not be unduly 

burdensome to latch suppliers. Vehicle 

manufacturers simply must identify the 

primary door latch at the time of 

certification of the vehicle. In practice, 

prior to conducting a compliance test on 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULESER19FE10.003</GPH>
7378 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 33 / Friday, February 19, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

12 ‘‘Multipurpose passenger vehicle’’ means a 

motor vehicle with motive power, except a lowspeed vehicle or trailer, designed to carry 10 

persons or less which is constructed either on a 

truck chassis or with special features for occasional 

off-road operation.’’ 49 CFR 571.3. 

13See KKK-A-1822F (Aug. 1, 2007), available at 

http://www.deltaveh.com/KKK-A-1822F.htm. This 

standard was created by the U.S. General Services 

Administration as a guideline for the proper 

construction of an ambulance. 

14The preamble of the final rule explained that 

it ‘‘extends the application of FMVSS No. 206 to 

buses with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 

4,536 kg (10,000 pounds) or less, including 12–15 

passenger vans.’’ 72 FR 5385, 5386. 

a vehicle, NHTSA will ask the 

manufacturer which is the primary door 

latch for that vehicle and will test the 

vehicle in accordance with the 

manufacturer’s response. 

d. Certification Information 

The February 2007 final rule specifies 

that each primary and auxiliary door 

latch system shall meet either dynamic 

requirements or a calculation of inertial 

load resistance developed to ensure that 

the door latch system will remain 

latched when properly assembled in the 

vehicle door (S4.1.1.4). TriMark asked if 

a computer simulation could be used as 

a method of evaluation for the inertial 

analysis. 

Agency Response 

NHTSA does not prohibit a 

manufacturer from certifying its vehicle 

based on a method that is different than 

that specified in the FMVSS. As 

explained in the final rule, FMVSS test 

procedures specify the procedures that 

will be used by the agency to determine 

if a motor vehicle complies with the 

applicable requirements. A 

manufacturer is not required to use the 

procedures to certify its vehicle. 

However, NHTSA may ask the vehicle 

manufacturer for the basis for its 

certification. In the event of a 

noncompliance with an FMVSS, a 

manufacturer may defend itself against 

civil penalties for violating the National 

Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act if 

it could show that it exercised due care 

in making its certification. Whether a 

manufacturer exercised due care in 

basing a certification on a computer 

simulation depends on the 

particularities of the case, including the 

characteristics of the computer 

simulation, and is determined in the 

context of a particular compliance 

proceeding. 

e. Applicability of the Standard to 

Vehicles Over 10,000 lb GVWR 

The February 2007 final rule applies 

to passenger cars, multipurpose 

passenger vehicles, and trucks. It also 

applies to buses with a gross vehicle 

weight rating (GVWR) of 4,536 kg 

(10,000 lbs) or less. In response to the 

final rule, Trimark asked NHTSA to 

comment on the applicability of this 

standard to motor homes, fire trucks, 

ambulances, and Class 7/8 heavy trucks 

in excess of a GVWR of 4,536 kg (10,000 

lbs). 

Agency Response 

With regard to applicability, note 49 

CFR 571.3, which provides specific 

definitions for the vehicle types of 

concern in the Trimark comment. 

Specifically, a motor home is defined as 

‘‘a multi-purpose vehicle with motive 

power that is designed to provide 

temporary residential accommodations, 

as evidenced by the presence of at least 

four of the following facilities: Cooking; 

refrigeration or ice box; self-contained 

toilet; heating and/or air conditioning; a 

potable water supply system including 

a faucet and a sink; and a separate 110– 

125 volt electrical power supply and/or 

propane.’’ Paragraph S2 of the February 

2007 final rule states applicability to 

multipurpose passenger vehicles; 12

therefore, the 2007 final rule applies to 

motor homes. 

NHTSA considers fire trucks to be a 

type of truck, which is defined in 49 

CFR 571.3 as ‘‘a motor vehicle with 

motive power, except a trailer, designed 

primarily for the transportation of 

property or special purpose equipment.’’ 

Since paragraph S2 of the February 2007 

final rule states its applicability to 

trucks, the final rule applies to fire 

trucks. 

Ambulances are typically 

multipurpose passenger vehicles (MPVs) 

for purposes of the FMVSSs, and thus 

must meet the standards for MPVs 

(including FMVSS No. 206). In addition, 

ambulances are also subject to 

regulation through separate standards 

administered by the General Services 

Administration (GSA) in the Federal 

Specifications for the Star-of-Life 

Ambulance.13 Section 3.10.9 of the GSA 

standard states, ‘‘Door latches, hinges, 

and hardware furnished by original 

equipment manufacturers and final 

stage ambulance manufacturers shall 

comply with FMVSS 206.’’ 

Regarding Class 7/8 heavy trucks, 

these vehicles fall under the definition 

of truck as defined in 49 CFR 571.3. 

FMVSS No. 206 applied to trucks, 

regardless of their GVWR, prior to the 

February 2007 final rule, as does the 

amended FMVSS No. 206. S2 of 

amended FMVSS No. 206 states that the 

standard applies to ‘‘passenger cars, 

multipurpose passenger vehicles, and 

trucks, and buses with a gross vehicle 

weight rating (GVWR) of 4,536 kg or 

less’’ (emphasis added). In other words, 

the February 2007 final rule applies to 

all passenger cars, multipurpose 

passenger vehicles, and trucks, 

regardless of their GVWR, and is also 

applicable to buses with a GVWR of 

4,536 kg (10,000 lb) or less.14

V. GTR Process 

The February 2007 final rule 

responded to a comment from 

Advocates that had expressed concern 

about the opportunity for consumer 

organizations to be involved in the GTR 

process, and about what Advocates had 

said was an ‘‘after-the-fact’’ presentation 

of a draft GTR which, the commenter 

believed, threatened to abridge the 

agency’s authority. In responding to the 

comment, the final rule sought to 

address what appeared to be Advocates’ 

fundamental misunderstanding of the 

GTR process. NHTSA clarified in the 

final rule that consumer groups have an 

opportunity to be involved in all aspects 

of the GTR process, and explained how 

the process is transparent and inviting 

of public participation in the formation 

of draft proposals. 72 FR at 5388. The 

final rule explained how information 

regarding the meetings and negotiations 

was made publicly available through 

Federal Register notices, and that 

meeting agendas, presentations, reports 

and test results were made available to 

the public on the UNECE Web site after 

each international meeting. The final 

rule pointed out that public comment 

on the GTR discussions were requested 

multiple times, and that domestic 

consumer organizations were able to 

participate in the GTR negotiations as a 

part of Consumer International. 

Importantly, the final rule explained 

that under the GTR process, countries 

voting ‘‘yes’’ on a GTR have only agreed 

to begin their processes for adopting the 

provisions of the GTR, i.e., to issue an 

NPRM or Advance NPRM. The GTR 

process leaves the ultimate decision to 

each country of whether to adopt the 

GTR into their domestic law. That is, 

the process leaves it up to NHTSA to 

decide whether to issue a final rule 

adopting the proposed requirements 

into the FMVSS, after receiving and 

considering comments on the NPRM. 

In its petition for reconsideration, 

Advocates repeated many of the 

concerns it had expressed in its 

comment on the NPRM. The petitioner 

again described its belief that the 

procedure under which the final rule 

was developed was flawed. The 

petitioner believed that the final rule 

was negotiated in proceedings with 

foreign stakeholders since, Advocates 

stated, only international organizations 

having standing to participate at UNECE 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 33 / Friday, February 19, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 7379 

15See, 49 CFR Part 553, Appendix C, ‘‘Statement 

of Policy: Implementation of the United Nations/ 

Economic Commission for Europe (UN/ECE) 1998 

Agreement on Global Technical Regulations— 

Agency Policy Goals and Public Participation.’’ 

16 Id., col. 2. 

17Advocates did participate in the GTR process 

via the opportunity to submit comments to several 

notices published by NHTSA concerning the GTR 

process. Advocates did in fact take advantage of this 

opportunity by submitting comments in response to 

a 2003 notice NHTSA issued regarding activities 

under the UNECE 1998 Agreement. See Docket No. 

NHTSA–2003–14395–0005 (March 5, 2003) 

(submitted in response to Notice of activities under 

the 1998 Global Agreement and request for 

comments, 68 FR 5333, February 3, 2003). 

Advocates also submitted comments to other 

notices announcing information on other 

international negotiations. See Docket No. NHTSA– 

2000–7638–0014 (Sept. 11, 2000) (submitted in 

response to NHTSA’s Recommendations for Global 

Technical Regulations Under the UNECE 1998 

Global Agreement, 65 FR 44565, July 18, 2000). 

18The APA further requires that the NPRM must 

also include (1) a statement of the time, place, and 

nature of public rulemaking proceedings; (2) 

reference to the legal authority under which the 

rule is proposed; and (3) either the terms or 

substance of the proposed rule or a description of 

the subjects and issues involved. Id. 

19Advocates cites to the Negotiated Rulemaking 

Procedure provisions, 5 U.S.C. 561–570a, as 

authority that those prescribed procedures are the 

only permissible method by which agencies can 

consult with outside parties in establishing the 

content of proposed rules. In fact, the stated 

purpose of the Negotiated Rulemaking Procedure 

subchapter is ‘‘to encourage the agencies to use the 

process when it enhances the informal rulemaking 

process.’’ 5 U.S.C. 561. Significantly, ‘‘[n]othing in 

this subchapter should be construed as an attempt 

to limit innovation and experimentation with the 

negotiated rulemaking process or with other 

innovative rulemaking procedures otherwise 

authorized by law.’’ Id. 

20 49 CFR Part 553, Appendix C. 

21 Id. 

sponsored Working Party on Passive 

Safety committee meetings are allowed 

to ‘‘influence’’ the GTR negotiations. 

(Advocates stated that U.S. consumer 

groups were unable to participate in the 

GTR negotiations as a part of Consumer 

International, a group with standing, 

because of cost and location 

constraints.) 

The petitioner also believed that by 

participating in the GTR process and 

adopting the GTR, NHTSA subverted 

the rulemaking procedures required by 

the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) 

(5 U.S.C. 553). Advocates stated that the 

purpose of the APA notice and 

comment rulemaking requirement is to 

ensure that the U.S. public is able to 

comment on the rule while it is still in 

the formative or proposed stage. The 

petitioner believed that, because the 

U.S. will have already voted for the GTR 

when NHTSA presents it as a proposed 

rule, the APA proceeding is tainted 

because the agency has put its 

credibility on the line in adopting the 

GTR. Advocates contended that as a 

result of this, the agency’s commitment 

to the international process and the 

GTR/proposed rule makes the agency 

more resistant to adopting changes and 

alternatives and prejudices Advocates’ 

participation in the rulemaking 

proceeding. 

Agency Response 

We appreciate this opportunity to 

explain again the GTR process and to 

address the petitioner’s reservations 

about the process. The GTR process 

under the UN/ECE 1998 Agreement on 

Global Technical Regulations provides 

opportunities for NHTSA to enhance 

vehicle safety and improve government 

efficiency. It assists us in adopting best 

safety practices from around the world, 

identifying and reducing unwarranted 

regulatory requirements, and leveraging 

scarce government resources for 

research and regulation. The process 

facilitates our effort to continuously 

improve and seek high levels of safety, 

particularly by helping us develop 

regulations that reflect a global 

consideration of current and anticipated 

technology and safety problems.15

The final rule described in detail the 

benefits that the GTR process afforded 

the American public in the development 

of the upgraded FMVSS No. 206. 72 FR 

5388, col. 3. It also explained the high 

degree to which public participation 

was pursued and encouraged by NHTSA 

in developing the NPRM and final 

rule.16 Advocates is concerned about its 

inability to be directly involved at 

international meetings. Attendance at 

the meetings by non-governmental 

parties is not crucial to the process. 

Alternative opportunities are provided 

for participation, such as by 

commenting to agency notices of WP.29 

programs of work.17 Moreover, the point 

at which public participation is crucial, 

and where Advocates is wholly able to 

participate, is subsequent and in 

response to publication of NHTSA’s 

NPRM. The GTR process recognizes and 

embraces that participation and fully 

accords with the requirements of the 

APA. 

Under the APA, an administrative 

agency must issue a notice of the 

intention to adopt rules, which must 

contain either the terms or substance of 

the proposed rule or a description of the 

subjects and issues involved. See 5 

U.S.C. 553. The APA requires that an 

agency must issue an NPRM that must 

be published in the Federal Register, 

unless persons subject thereto are 

named and either personally served or 

otherwise have actual notice thereof in 

accordance with law. Id. at § 553(b). 

Notice under § 553(b) is sufficient if it 

affords interested parties a reasonable 

and meaningful opportunity to 

participate in the rulemaking process by 

providing a description of the subjects 

and issues involved.18 Under the APA, 

following publication of an NPRM a 

Federal agency must give interested 

persons an opportunity to participate in 

the rulemaking through submission of 

written data, views, or arguments. Id. at 

§ 553(c). There is no requirement in the 

APA for public participation in 

formation of the NPRM.19

The GTR process and NHTSA’s policy 

implementing the process 20 were 

developed with these APA requirements 

for notice and opportunity to comment 

foremost in mind. Following a vote by 

the U.S. for establishment of a GTR, our 

procedure entails publishing an NPRM 

requesting public comment on adopting 

the regulation as a U.S. standard. Any 

decision by us as to the next agency 

action with regard to the NPRM 

(whether to issue a final rule adopting 

the regulation, a supplemental NPRM, 

or a notice terminating the rulemaking 

action) is made in accordance with 

applicable U.S. law, after careful 

consideration and analysis of public 

comments.21 With regard to the 

rulemaking at issue, NHTSA met the 

APA with the NPRM (December 15, 

2004) and the subsequent final rule 

(February 7, 2007). We thoroughly 

analyzed and considered Advocates’ 

comments to the NPRM (see 72 FR 5385, 

5388–5391). Our disagreement with the 

petitioner’s comments was based upon 

our analysis of the issues presented and 

our conclusion that the views expressed 

by the commenter were unpersuasive. 

Advocates believes that NHTSA failed 

to accept its suggestions because 

NHTSA would lose face in the 

international community. This is an 

erroneous and unfortunate view of the 

agency and the GTR process. When the 

agency meets with international parties 

to consider current and anticipated 

technology and safety problems, 

NHTSA is seeking to learn from the 

expertise and experience of 

governmental bodies and consumer and 

industry groups worldwide at a 

preliminary stage in the rulemaking. 

The agency determines in that dialogue 

the best practices of other countries or 

regions, and whether there is a bases 

and rationale for those practices. When 

the agency votes for establishment of the 

GTR, the agency is acknowledging that 

it has made an initial determination that 

there appears to be a technical basis for 

the regulation and that the motor 

vehicle problem the agency seeks to 

address in the U.S. could possibly be 

addressed by the GTR. A similar kind of 

determination is made when we decide, 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES
7380 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 33 / Friday, February 19, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

22To illustrate, in response to comments on the 

NPRM, NHTSA’s February 2007 final rule changed 

some of the requirements that had been proposed. 

In accordance with Alliance’s comments to the 

NPRM, the load application in the sliding door test 

that was specified in the NPRM in terms of the 

displacement rate of the load application device 

was modified in the final rule to be specified in 

terms of the rate of load application. Along those 

lines, today’s final rule has also amended 

provisions of the GTR in response to petitions for 

reconsideration. 

in our non-GTR rulemakings, to go 

forward and publish a proposal or 

advance notice of proposed rulemaking 

in the Federal Register. We fully 

acknowledge and hold in high 

consideration that ‘‘the decision to issue 

a final rule will be made in accordance 

with the U.S. law and only after careful 

consideration and analysis of public 

comments.’’ 49 CFR Part 553, Subpart C. 

NHTSA values and learns from public 

comment on its NPRMs and shapes its 

decisions on rulemaking proposals 

based on those comments.22

The APA does not prohibit Federal 

agencies from developing proposals or 

having dialogues with any particular 

group (including international 

communities) prior to the issuance of a 

notice of proposed rulemaking. To the 

extent the petitioner asks us to refrain 

from such dialogue, we do not believe 

that public policy would be served by 

limiting the GTR’s pre-proposal 

proceedings. The GTR provides a forum 

to share information and resources that 

could facilitate the development of a 

possible rulemaking initiative that 

might address a motor vehicle safety 

problem in the U.S. The process 

advances our research and rulemaking 

efforts and enables us to better leverage 

scarce agency resources through 

partnering with other countries. It 

provides us an opportunity and means 

to better manage our resources and 

address more motor vehicle safety harm, 

and more rapidly, than would be 

possible by NHTSA acting alone. 

Advocates correctly states that the 

legal standard for sufficiency of APA 

notice is that ‘‘parties be able to 

comment on the rule while it is still in 

the formative or ‘proposed’ stage.’’ See, 

National Tour Brokers Ass’n v. US, 591 

F.2d 896, 902 (D.C. Cir. 1978). Yet, the 

petitioner does not believe that NHTSA 

can maintain a flexible and openminded attitude towards an NPRM 

developed in the GTR process. We 

strongly disagree, and note that 

Advocates has made no showing that 

the agency has been closed-minded to 

the comments other than to assert that 

as the cause underlying the agency’s 

decision not to concur with its 

suggestions. The NPRM laid out in 

detail reasons in support of each GTR 

provision, and NHTSA thoroughly 

considered and addressed all comments 

in the final rule. Also, as mentioned 

previously, the final rule (and today’s 

document) changed some provisions of 

the GTR, which demonstrates the 

agency’s flexibility in reconsidering 

tentative decisions made in the NPRM 

stage. To the extent that NHTSA did not 

adopt provisions that Advocates 

supported or suggested, that is a 

reflection of the agency’s determination 

that those provisions were not the best 

way to proceed. 

Comments were requested on the 

NPRM when the rule was still in the 

proposed stage. When NHTSA issues an 

NPRM, including those formed in the 

GTR process, the agency is seeking to 

enhance its knowledge of the subject 

matter. We know there may be issues 

bearing on the substance of the 

rulemaking that the agency has not fully 

understood or perhaps whose 

significance the agency may not have 

even recognized. We seek to be as 

informed as possible, so as to make the 

best decisions possible armed with all 

available information. NHTSA’s 

implementation of the GTR process 

recognizes the crucial role of public 

participation in the development of 

regulations. At the same time, however, 

the GTR process enhances NHTSA’s 

knowledge about safety problems and 

possible solutions by facilitating the 

interaction of the agency with safety 

specialists from around the world at the 

pre-NPRM stage. This knowledge 

improves our efficiency and enhances 

the quality of the FMVSS that may be 

ultimately proposed. For the 

aforementioned reasons, we are denying 

Advocates’ request to reconsider the 

final rule based upon its view that the 

GTR process is flawed or that NHTSA 

violated APA rulemaking procedures. 

VI. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices 

Executive Order 12866 and DOT 

Regulatory Policies and Procedures 

This rulemaking document was not 

reviewed by the Office of Management 

and Budget under E.O. 12866. It is not 

considered to be significant under E.O. 

12866 or the Department’s Regulatory 

Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; 

February 26, 1979). Although the 

February 6, 2007 final rule was 

significant due to public interest in the 

issues, today’s document makes minor 

amendments to the regulatory text of 

that final rule. The minimal impacts of 

today’s amendment do not warrant 

preparation of a regulatory evaluation. 

Executive Order 13132 (Federalism) 

NHTSA has examined today’s final 

rule pursuant to Executive Order 13132 

(64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) and 

concluded that no additional 

consultation with States, local 

governments or their representatives is 

mandated beyond the rulemaking 

process. The agency has concluded that 

the rule does not have federalism 

implications because the rule does not 

have ‘‘substantial direct effects on the 

States, on the relationship between the 

national government and the States, or 

on the distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government.’’ 

Further, no consultation is needed to 

discuss the issue of preemption in 

connection with today’s rule. The issue 

of preemption can arise in connection 

with NHTSA rules in at least two ways. 

First, the National Traffic and Motor 

Vehicle Safety Act contains an express 

preemptive provision: ‘‘When a motor 

vehicle safety standard is in effect under 

this chapter, a State or a political 

subdivision of a State may prescribe or 

continue in effect a standard applicable 

to the same aspect of performance of a 

motor vehicle or motor vehicle 

equipment only if the standard is 

identical to the standard prescribed 

under this chapter.’’ 49 U.S.C. 

30103(b)(1). It is this statutory command 

that preempts State law, not today’s 

rulemaking, so consultation would be 

unnecessary. 

Second, the Supreme Court has 

recognized the possibility of implied 

preemption: in some instances, State 

requirements imposed on motor vehicle 

manufacturers, including sanctions 

imposed by State tort law, can stand as 

an obstacle to the accomplishment and 

execution of a NHTSA safety standard. 

When such a conflict is discerned, the 

Supremacy Clause of the Constitution 

makes the State requirements 

unenforceable. See Geier v. American 

Honda Motor Co., 529 U.S. 861 (2000). 

However, NHTSA has considered the 

nature and purpose of today’s final rule 

and does not currently foresee any 

potential State requirements that might 

conflict with it. Without any conflict, 

there could not be any implied 

preemption. 

Executive Order 13045 

E.O. 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. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 33 / Friday, February 19, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 7381 

This rulemaking is not subject to the 

Executive Order because it is not 

economically significant as defined in 

E.O. 12866. 

Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice 

Reform) 

With respect to the review of the 

promulgation of a new regulation, 

section 3(b) of Executive Order 12988, 

‘‘Civil Justice Reform’’ (61 FR 4729, 

February 7, 1996) requires that 

Executive agencies make every 

reasonable effort to ensure that the 

regulation: (1) Clearly specifies the 

preemptive effect; (2) clearly specifies 

the effect on existing Federal law or 

regulation; (3) provides a clear legal 

standard for affected conduct, while 

promoting simplification and burden 

reduction; (4) clearly specifies the 

retroactive effect, if any; (5) adequately 

defines key terms; and (6) addresses 

other important issues affecting clarity 

and general draftsmanship under any 

guidelines issued by the Attorney 

General. This document is consistent 

with that requirement. 

Pursuant to this Order, NHTSA notes 

as follows. The issue of preemption is 

discussed above in connection with E.O. 

13132. NHTSA notes further that there 

is no requirement that individuals 

submit a petition for reconsideration or 

pursue other administrative proceeding 

before they may file suit in court. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., as amended by 

the Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 

1996) whenever an agency is required to 

publish a notice of rulemaking for any 

proposed or final rule, it must prepare 

and make available for public comment 

a regulatory flexibility analysis that 

describes the effect of the rule on small 

entities (i.e., small businesses, small 

organizations, and small governmental 

jurisdictions). However, no regulatory 

flexibility analysis is required if the 

head of an agency certifies the rule 

would not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. SBREFA amended the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act to require 

Federal agencies to provide a statement 

of the factual basis for certifying that a 

rule would not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. 

I certify that this final rule does not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

This rule affects motor vehicle 

manufacturers, multistage 

manufacturers and alterers. To the 

extent some of these entities qualify as 

small businesses, they will not be 

significantly affected by this 

rulemaking. This final rule does not 

establish new requirements, but instead 

only adjusts some test procedures and 

makes minor technical amendments to 

the February 2007 final rule. 

National Environmental Policy Act 

We have analyzed this final rule for 

the purposes of the National 

Environmental Policy Act and 

determined that it does not have any 

significant impact on the quality of the 

human environment. 

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 Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) control 

number. The final rule does not have 

any requirements that are considered to 

be information collection requirements 

as defined by OMB in 5 CFR part 1320. 

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 today’s final 

rule. This final rule only adjusts some 

test procedures and makes minor 

technical amendments to the February 

2007 final rule. There are no voluntary 

standards that address the subject of this 

rulemaking. 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

Section 202 of the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) 

requires Federal agencies to prepare a 

written assessment of the costs, benefits 

and other effects of proposed or final 

rules that include a Federal mandate 

likely to result in the expenditure by 

State, local or tribal governments, in the 

aggregate, or by the private sector, of 

more than $100 million in any one year 

(adjusted for inflation with base year of 

1995). Before promulgating a NHTSA 

rule for which a written statement is 

needed, section 205 of the UMRA 

generally requires us to identify and 

consider a reasonable number of 

regulatory alternatives and adopt the 

least costly, most cost-effective or least 

burdensome alternative that achieves 

the objectives of the rule. The 

provisions of section 205 do not apply 

when they are inconsistent with 

applicable law. Moreover, section 205 

allows us to adopt an alternative other 

than the least costly, most cost-effective 

or least burdensome alternative if we 

publish with the final rule an 

explanation why that alternative was 

not adopted. 

The final rule will not impose any 

unfunded mandates under the 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 

1995. This rulemaking does not meet 

the definition of a Federal mandate 

because it would not result in costs of 

$100 million (adjusted annually for 

inflation with a base year of 1995 or 116 

million in 2003 dollars) or more to 

either State, local, or tribal governments, 

in the aggregate, or to the private sector. 

Thus, this rulemaking is not subject to 

the requirements of sections 202 and 

205 of the UMRA. 

Plain Language 

Executive Order 12866 requires each 

agency to write all rules in plain 

language. Application of the principles 

of plain language includes consideration 

of the following questions: 

• Has the agency organized the 

material to suit the public’s needs? 

• Are the requirements in the rule 

clearly stated? 

• Does the rule contain technical 

language or jargon that is not clear? 

• Would a different format (grouping 

and order of sections, use of headings, 

paragraphing) make the rule easier to 

understand? 

• Would more (but shorter) sections 

be better? 

• Could we improve clarity by adding 

tables, lists, or diagrams? 

• What else could we do to make the 

rule easier to understand? 

If you have any responses to these 

questions, please write to us about 

them. 

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 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES
7382 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 33 / Friday, February 19, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

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. 

Privacy Act 

Please note that anyone is able to 

search the electronic form of all 

documents received into any of our 

dockets by the name of the individual 

submitting the document (or signing the 

document, 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 

(65 FR 19477–78) or you may visit 

http://www.dot.gov/privacy.html. 

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 571 

Motor vehicle safety, Report and 

recordkeeping requirements, Tires. 

■ In consideration of the foregoing, 

NHTSA amends 49 CFR part 571 as 

follows: 

PART 571—FEDERAL MOTOR 

VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 571 

continues to read as follows: 

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

30117, and 30166; delegation of authority at 

49 CFR 1.50. 

■ 2. Section 571.206 is amended by 

revising paragraphs S4, 

S5.1.1.4(b)(2)(i)(C), S5.2.2.3(f)(1)(ii), 

S5.2.2.3(f)(3), S5.2.2.3(g)(1)(ii), 

S5.2.2.3(g)(3), S5.2.2.3(h)(1)(ii), 

S5.2.2.3(h)(3), S5.2.2.4(a), and Figure 7 

to read as follows: 

§ 571.206 Standard No. 206; Door locks 

and door retention components. 

* * * * * 

S4. Requirements. The requirements 

apply to all side and back doors, that 

lead directly into a compartment that 

contains one or more seating 

accommodations and the associated 

door components, except for those on 

folding doors, roll-up doors, detachable 

doors, bus doors used only for 

emergency egress purposes and labeled 

accordingly and on bus doors to 

accommodate a permanently attached 

wheelchair lift system that when the 

device is in the retracted position, the 

lift platform retracts to a vertical 

orientation parallel to and in close 

proximity with the interior surface of 

the lift door and in that position, the 

platform completely covers the doorway 

opening, has fixed attachments to the 

vehicle and provides a barricade to the 

doorway. The bus wheelchair lift door 

must be linked to an alarm system 

consisting of either a flashing visible 

signal located in the driver’s 

compartment or an alarm audible to the 

driver that is activated when the door is 

not fully closed and the vehicle ignition 

is activated. 

* * * * * 

S5.1.1.4 * * * 

(b) * * * 

(2) * * * 

(i) * * * 

(C) Ensure that the door latch is in the 

fully-latched position, that the door is 

unlocked (doors may be tethered to 

avoid damaging the recording 

equipment), and that any windows, if 

provided, are closed. 

* * * * * 

S5.2.2.3 * * * 

(f) * * * 

(1) * * * 

(ii) The plates are fixed perpendicular 

to the force application devices and 

move in the transverse direction. For 

alignment purposes, each plate is 

attached to the application device in a 

manner that allows for rotation about 

the vehicle’s y-axis. In this manner, the 

face of each plate remains parallel to the 

vertical plane which passes through the 

vehicle’s longitudinal centerline. 

* * * * * 

(3) The force application plate is 

positioned such that the long edge of the 

plate is as close to the interior edge of 

the door as possible, but not such that 

the forward edge of forward plate and 

the rear edge of the rear plate are more 

than 12.5 mm from the respective 

interior edges. 

(g) * * * 

(1) * * * 

(ii) The plates are fixed perpendicular 

to the force application devices and 

move in the transverse direction. For 

alignment purposes, each plate is 

attached to the application device in a 

manner that allows for rotation about 

the vehicle’s y-axis. In this manner, the 

face of each plate remains parallel to the 

vertical plane which passes through the 

vehicle’s longitudinal centerline. 

* * * * * 

(3) The force application plate is 

positioned such that the long edge of the 

plate is as close to the interior edge of 

the door as possible, but not such that 

the forward edge of forward plate and 

the rear edge of the rear plate are more 

than 12.5 mm from the respective 

interior edges. 

(h) * * * 

(1) * * * 

(ii) The plates are fixed perpendicular 

to the force application devices and 

move in the transverse direction. For 

alignment purposes, each plate is 

attached to the application device in a 

manner that allows for rotation about 

the vehicle’s y-axis. In this manner, the 

face of each plate remains parallel to the 

vertical plane which passes through the 

vehicle’s longitudinal centerline. 

* * * * * 

(3) The force application plate is 

positioned such that the long edge of the 

plate is as close to the interior edge of 

the door as possible, but not such that 

the forward edge of forward plate and 

the rear edge of the rear plate are more 

than 12.5 mm from the respective 

interior edges. 

* * * * * 

S5.2.2.4 Test Procedure. 

(a) Increase the force on each force 

application device as linearly as 

practicable until a force of 9,000 N is 

achieved on each force application 

device in not less than 90 seconds and 

not more than 120 seconds, or until 

either force application device reaches a 

total displacement of 300 mm. 

* * * * * 

TABLES AND FIGURES TO § 571.206 

* * * * * 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 33 / Friday, February 19, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 7383 

* * * * * 

Issued: February 4, 2010. 

David L. Strickland, 

Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2010–2837 Filed 2–18–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 229 

[Docket No. 080721862–8864–01] 

RIN 0648–AW51 

Taking of Marine Mammals Incidental 

to Commercial Fishing Operations; 

Harbor Porpoise Take Reduction Plan 

Regulations 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: NMFS issues this final rule to 

amend the regulations implementing the 

Harbor Porpoise Take Reduction Plan 

(HPTRP) to address the increased 

incidental mortality and serious injury 

of the Gulf of Maine/Bay of Fundy 

(GOM/BOF) stock of harbor porpoises 

(Phocoena phocoena) in gillnet fisheries 

throughout the stock’s U.S. range. 

DATES: Effective March 22, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: Copies of the final 

Environmental Assessment (EA) and 

Regulatory Impact Review/Final 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (RIR/ 

FRFA) for this action, as well as the 

Harbor Porpoise Take Reduction Team 

(HPTRT) meeting summaries and 

supporting documents, may be obtained 

from the HPTRP Web site (http:// 

www.nero.noaa.gov/hptrp) or by writing 

to Diane Borggaard, NMFS, Northeast 

Region, Protected Resources Division, 

55 Great Republic Drive, Suite 04–400, 

Gloucester, MA 01930. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Amanda Johnson, NMFS, Northeast 

Region, 978–282–8463, 

amanda.johnson@noaa.gov; or Melissa 

Andersen, NMFS, Office of Protected 

Resources, 301–713–2322, 

melissa.andersen@noaa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The HPTRP was developed pursuant 

to section 118(f) of the Marine Mammal 

Protection Act (MMPA), 16 U.S.C. 

1361–1423h, to reduce the level of 

serious injury and mortality of the 

GOM/BOF stock of harbor porpoises. 

This final rule implements 

modifications to the HPTRP to address 

increased mortalities of harbor 

porpoises in commercial gillnet 

fisheries due to non-compliance with 

the HPTRP requirements and observed 

interactions occurring outside of 

existing HPTRP management areas. 

These modifications implement 

measures that apply to both the New 

England and Mid-Atlantic portions of 

the HPTRP. 

Recent harbor porpoise bycatch 

estimates indicate that, when 

calculating the average estimated 

mortality for the period between 2002 

and 2006, bycatch exceeded the stock’s 

potential biological removal level (PBR). 

The 2008 Stock Assessment Report 

(SAR) indicates that the current annual 

estimated harbor porpoise incidental 

bycatch is 866 animals per year, which 

exceeds the current PBR of 610 animals 

(Waring et al., 2009). In December 2007, 

NMFS reconvened the HPTRT to 

discuss the most recent harbor porpoise 

abundance and bycatch information for 

gillnet fisheries from Maine through 

North Carolina. The HPTRT used this 

information to develop a suite of 

recommended modifications to the 

HPTRP that would reduce takes to 

below the stock’s PBR level and to a rate 

approaching a zero mortality and 

serious injury rate, known as the zero 

mortality rate goal (ZMRG), which is 

defined as 10 percent of PBR. The 

recommendations included expanding 

seasonal and temporal requirements 

within the HPTRP management areas, 

incorporating additional management 

areas, and creating areas that would 

seasonally close to gillnet fisheries if 

certain levels of harbor porpoise bycatch 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULESER19FE10.004</GPH>