[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 24 (Tuesday, February 6, 2007)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 5385-5413]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-517]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 571

[Docket No. NHTSA-2006-23882]
RIN 2127-AH34


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

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

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

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

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, CONTACT: For technical issues: Mr. Maurice 
Hicks, Structures and Special Systems Division, Office of 
Crashworthiness Standards, National Highway Traffic Safety 
Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590; 
telephone (202) 366-6345; telefax (202) 493-2739; 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#b3fed2c6c1dad0d69ddbdad0d8c0f3d7dcc79dd4dcc5"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="1954786c6b707a7c3771707a726a597d766d377e766f">[email protected]</span></a>.
    For legal issues: Ms. Rebecca Schade, Office of the Chief Counsel, 
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, 
SW., Washington, DC 20590; telephone (202) 366-2992; telefax (202) 366-
3820.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

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

I. Executive Summary

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

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

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

[[Page 5386]]

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

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

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

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

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

II. Background

A. Safety Problem

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

[[Page 5387]]

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

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

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

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

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

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

B. Harmonization Efforts and the Proposed Upgrade

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

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

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

[[Page 5388]]

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

III. SAFETEA-LU

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

IV. Upgrade to FMVSS No. 206

A.The GTR Process

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

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

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

B. Definitions

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

[[Page 5389]]

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

C. Hinged Doors Requirements

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

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

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

[[Page 5390]]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page 5391]]

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

D. Side Sliding Door Requirements

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

[[Page 5392]]

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page 5393]]

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

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

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

[[Page 5394]]

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

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

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

E. Door Locks

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

[[Page 5395]]

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

F. Applicability

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

[[Page 5396]]

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

V. Certification Information

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

VI. Costs, Benefits, and the Effective Date

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

[[Page 5397]]

VII. Regulatory Analyses and Notices

A. Vehicle Safety Act

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

B. Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures

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

C. Executive Order 13132

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

D. Executive Order 13045

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

[[Page 5398]]

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

E. Executive Order 12988

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

F. Regulatory Flexibility Act

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

G. National Environmental Policy Act

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

H. Paperwork Reduction Act

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

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

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

J. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

K. Regulation Identifier Number (RIN)

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

[[Page 5399]]

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

L. Privacy Act

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

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 571

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

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

PART 571--FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS

    1. The authority citation for Part 571 continues to read as 
follows:

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

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


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

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

[[Page 5400]]

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

[[Page 5401]]

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

[[Page 5402]]

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

[[Page 5403]]

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

[[Page 5404]]

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

[[Page 5405]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06FE07.006


[[Page 5406]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06FE07.007


[[Page 5407]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06FE07.008


[[Page 5408]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06FE07.009

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06FE07.010


[[Page 5409]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06FE07.011

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06FE07.012


[[Page 5410]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06FE07.013


[[Page 5411]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06FE07.014


[[Page 5412]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06FE07.015


[[Page 5413]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06FE07.016


    Issued on: January 30, 2007.
Nicole R. Nason,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 07-517 Filed 2-5-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-C


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>