Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 137 / Monday, July 20, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 35131 

1World Forum for Harmonization of Vehicle 

Regulations (WP.29), Global Technical Regulation 

No. 1 Door Locks and Door Retention Components, 

U.N. Doc. ECE/TRANS/180/Add.1 (Nov. 18, 2004), 

Continued 

Appendix B to Part 300 [Amended] 

■ 2. Table 1 of Appendix B to Part 300 

is amended under Louisiana by 

removing ‘‘Central Wood Preserving 

Co’’, ‘‘Slaughter, LA’’. 

[FR Doc. E9–17169 Filed 7–17–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Railroad Administration 

49 CFR Parts 209 and 211 

[Docket No. FRA–2009–0006; Notice No. 2] 

RIN 2130–AC02 

Miscellaneous Revisions to the 

Procedures for Handling Petitions for 

Emergency Waiver of Safety 

Regulations and the Procedures for 

Disqualifying Individuals From 

Performing Safety-Sensitive Functions 

AGENCY: Federal Railroad 

Administration (FRA), Department of 

Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Direct final rule; confirmation of 

effective date. 

SUMMARY: On May 19, 2009, FRA 

published a direct final rule in the 

Federal Register which made 

miscellaneous revisions to the 

procedures for obtaining waivers from a 

safety rule, regulation, or standard 

during an emergency situation or an 

emergency event, and the procedures for 

disqualifying individuals from 

performing safety-sensitive functions. 

FRA did not receive any comments or 

requests for an oral hearing on the direct 

final rule. Therefore, FRA is issuing this 

document to confirm that the direct 

final rule will take effect on July 20, 

2009, the date specified in the rule. 

DATES: The direct final rule published at 

74 FR 23329, May 19, 2009, is 

confirmed effective on July 20, 2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Grady C. Cothen, Jr., Deputy Associate 

Administrator for Safety Standards and 

Program Development, FRA, 1200 New 

Jersey Ave., SE., RRS–2, Mail Stop 25, 

Washington, DC 20590 (Telephone 202– 

493–6302), or Zeb Schorr, Trial 

Attorney, Office of Chief Counsel, FRA, 

1200 New Jersey Ave., SE., Mail Stop 

10, Washington, DC 20590 (Telephone 

202–493–6072). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant 

to FRA’s direct final rulemaking 

procedures set forth at 49 CFR 211.33, 

FRA is issuing this document to inform 

the public that it has not received any 

comments or requests for an oral 

hearing on the direct final rule that was 

published in the Federal Register on 

May 19, 2009 (74 FR 23329). The direct 

final rule made miscellaneous revisions 

to the procedures for obtaining waivers 

from a safety rule, regulation, or 

standard during an emergency situation 

or an emergency event, and the 

procedures for disqualifying individuals 

from performing safety-sensitive 

functions. As no comments or requests 

for an oral hearing were received by 

FRA, this document informs the public 

that the effective date of the direct final 

rule is July 20, 2009, the date specified 

in the rule. 

Privacy Act Information 

Interested parties should be aware 

that anyone is able to search the 

electronic form of all comments 

received into any agency docket 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://www.regulations.gov. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on July 15, 

2009. 

Karen J. Rae, 

Deputy Administrator, Federal Railroad 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E9–17187 Filed 7–17–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–06–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

49 CFR Parts 571 

[Docket No. NHTSA–2009–0116] 

RIN 2127–AK35 

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety 

Standards; Door Locks and Door 

Retention Components 

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration (NHTSA), 

Department of Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Final rule, response to petitions 

for reconsideration. 

SUMMARY: This final rule delays the 

compliance date of the sliding door 

provisions of a February 6, 2007 final 

rule, from September 1, 2009 to 

September 1, 2010. The February 6, 

2007, final rule amended the Federal 

motor vehicle safety standard on door 

locks and door retention components to 

add and update requirements and test 

procedures and to harmonize with the 

world’s first global technical regulation 

for motor vehicles. NHTSA received 

four petitions for reconsideration of that 

final rule, including two that requested 

a delay in the effective date of the 

sliding door provisions of the rule, and 

others which raised concerns about 

some of the new test requirements and 

procedures. To accommodate 

manufacturers’ design and production 

cycles while allowing the agency more 

time to analyze the petitions in regards 

to other issues, the agency is delaying 

the compliance date of the sliding door 

provisions of S4.2.2 until September 1, 

2010. 

DATES: This final rule is effective 

September 1, 2009. Any petitions for 

reconsideration of today’s final rule 

must be received by NHTSA not later 

than September 3, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: Any petitions for 

reconsideration should refer to the 

docket number of this document and be 

submitted to: Administrator, National 

Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West 

Building, Washington, DC 20590. Note 

that all documents received will be 

posted without change to the docket, 

including any personal information 

provided. Please see the Privacy Act 

discussion under the Rulemaking 

Analyses and Notices section below. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

non-legal issues, contact Ms. Shashi 

Kuppa, Office of Crashworthiness 

Standards, by telephone at (202) 366– 

4909, or by fax at (202) 366–2990. For 

legal issues, contact Ms. Sarah Alves, 

Office of the Chief Counsel, by 

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

at (202) 366–3820. 

Both persons may be reached by mail 

at the following address: National 

Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 

U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 

New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, 

DC 20590. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

On November 18, 2004, the Executive 

Committee of the United Nations 

Economic Commission for Europe 

(UNECE) approved the world’s first 

global technical regulation (GTR) for 

motor vehicles, a GTR on door locks and 

door retention components which 

addressed inadvertent door openings in 

crashes.1 With the establishment of a 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
35132 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 137 / Monday, July 20, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

available at http://www.unece.org/trans/main/ 

wp29/wp29wgs/wp29gen/wp29registry/gtr1.html. 

2The 1998 UNECE Agreement Concerning the 

Establishment of Global and Technical Regulations 

for Wheeled Vehicles, Equipment and Parts Which 

Can Be Fitted And/Or Be Used On Wheeled 

Vehicles (1998 Agreement) was concluded under 

the auspices of the United Nations and provides for 

the establishment of globally harmonized vehicle 

regulations. This 1998 Agreement, whose 

conclusion was spearheaded by the United States, 

entered into force in 2000 and is administered by 

the UNECE’s World Forum for the Harmonization 

of Vehicle Regulations (WP.29). See http:// 

www.unece.org/trans/main/wp29/wp29wgs/ 

wp29gen/wp29glob.html. 

3While the 1998 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. 

4 Docket No. NHTSA–2006–23882; 72 FR 5385 

(Feb. 6, 2007). 

5See Docket No. NHTSA–2006–23882–0011 (Apr. 

22, 2007). 

6 In its petitions for reconsideration, Ford 

requested confidential treatment for certain pages 

labeled ‘‘Confidential’’ Or ‘‘Entire Page 

Confidential.’’ The agency granted confidentiality to 

these pages through a letter dated April 4, 2007 

from the Office of Chief Counsel. 

7NHTSA amended FMVSS No. 214 by 

incorporating a dynamic pole test into the standard 

(among other updates), which will require vehicle 

manufacturers to assure head and improved chest 

protection in side crashes, by installing new 

technologies such as side curtain air bags and torso 

side air bags. See 72 FR 51908 (Sept. 11, 2007); 

response to petitions for reconsideration, 73 FR 

32473 (June 9, 2008). 

GTR and having voted in favor of it, the 

U.S., as a contracting party to the 1998 

Agreement,2 initiated rulemaking to 

adopt the provisions of the global 

standard.3 On December 15, 2004, 

NHTSA issued a notice of proposed 

rulemaking (NPRM) proposing to update 

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 

(FMVSS) No. 206, Door locks and door 

retention components, and provide 

consistency with the GTR (69 FR 75021; 

Docket No. NHTSA–2004–19840–1). 

The NPRM comment period closed on 

February 14, 2005 and 11 commenters 

provided responses. 

Following the NPRM, on February 6, 

2007, NHTSA published a final rule 

amending FMVSS No. 206.4 Consistent 

with the GTR and the NPRM, the final 

rule added test requirements and test 

procedures for sliding doors, added 

secondary latched position 

requirements for doors other than 

hinged side doors and back doors, 

provided a new optional test procedure 

for assessing inertial forces, and 

extended the application of FMVSS No. 

206 to buses with a gross vehicle weight 

rating of less than 4,536 kilograms 

(10,000 pounds), including 12–15 

passenger vans. The final rule also 

eliminated an exclusion from the 

requirements of the standard for doors 

equipped with wheelchair platform lifts. 

After considering the comments, the 

agency decided on an effective date of 

September 1, 2009 for the amendments 

established by the February 2007 final 

rule. Optional early compliance was 

permitted. NHTSA stated in the 

February 2007 final rule that the agency 

believed this effective date provided 

manufacturers adequate time to make 

the necessary design changes. NHTSA 

also believed that the majority of 

vehicles already comply with the 

upgrades of the rulemaking, and that 

those not currently complying should 

not need significant changes to come 

into compliance. In addition, the agency 

stated that we did not believe it was 

necessary or appropriate to tie the 

effective date for the February 2007 final 

rule with that of a then-pending upgrade 

of FMVSS No. 214, Side impact 

protection, since that would result in 

unnecessary delay in obtaining the 

benefits from the February 2007 final 

rule. 

II. Overview of Petitions for 

Reconsideration and Agency Response 

In response to the February 2007 final 

rule, NHTSA received petitions for 

reconsideration from: the Alliance of 

Automobile Manufacturers (Alliance), 

the Ford Motor Company (Ford), 

Advocates for Highway Safety, and 

Thomas Built Buses, Inc. The petitions 

addressed a wide range of FMVSS No. 

206 issues, including technical issues 

and requests to change the effective date 

of the final rule. The Alliance petitioned 

to make changes to the requirements 

and test procedures for sliding doors 

and either to phase in the entire final 

rule with full implementation in 2012 or 

to delay the effective date of just the 

sliding door test requirements until 

2012. Ford petitioned to extend the 

effective date of the entire final rule or 

at a minimum change the date as it 

pertained to sliding doors. 

The petitions for reconsideration have 

asked the agency to reconsider many 

technical aspects of that rulemaking 

relating to specifics of test procedures, 

which were for the most part not 

significant issues. However, NHTSA’s 

response to the petitions is not yet 

complete, and given the approach of the 

September 1, 2009 effective date, the 

agency wishes to respond to the issues 

of the petitions in parts, with a response 

today to the effective date issue. Today’s 

final rule delays the compliance date of 

the sliding door provisions of S4.2.2 of 

the February 2007 final rule until 

September 1, 2010, while retaining the 

original effective date of September 1, 

2009 for all other provisions of the final 

rule. Other issues raised in the petitions 

for reconsideration will be addressed by 

the agency in a subsequent document. 

III. Discussion 

In the February 2007 final rule, after 

considering the comments and other 

information, the agency decided on an 

effective date of September 1, 2009 for 

the new FMVSS No. 206 requirements. 

NHTSA believed this effective date 

provided manufacturers adequate time 

to make the necessary design changes. 

Both the Alliance and Ford petitioned 

NHTSA to extend the effective date of 

the February 2007 final rule until 2012. 

Several reasons were suggested by the 

petitioners. 

The first related to the technical basis 

for the agency’s decision. In the final 

rule, the agency determined that the 

effective date of September 1, 2009 was 

reasonable based on tests conducted by 

NHTSA’s Vehicle Research & Test 

Center (VRTC) and by Transport Canada 

indicating that the vehicles tested 

would meet the requirements under 

consideration. In its petition for 

reconsideration, Ford stated that the 

sample evaluation of vehicles tested by 

VRTC was not all inclusive and did not 

reflect the complete status of today’s 

fleet. In its March 23, 2007 petition for 

reconsideration, and in an April 4, 2007 

meeting with NHTSA to discuss its 

petition for reconsideration,5 Ford 

expressed concern with its inability to 

meet the new requirements for sliding 

doors for large vans by the effective date 

specified in the February 2007 final rule 

(September 1, 2009).6 Ford presented 

test data demonstrating its position that 

not all large vans are equipped with two 

latch systems on their sliding doors and 

that these vans do not comply with the 

sliding door test requirements. Based on 

the test data, Ford contends that 

significant redesign efforts will be 

needed to comply with the new sliding 

door specifications in the February 2007 

final rule. In addition, in its petition for 

reconsideration the Alliance stated that 

its member companies have not yet 

tested or certified their sliding doorequipped vehicles to the new test 

procedure and needed more time to 

evaluate their vehicles. 

Second, both the Alliance and Ford 

believed that NHTSA should align the 

February 2007 final rule effective date 

with that of the new pole test for 

FMVSS No. 214, Side Impact 

Protection,7 because the same area of the 

vehicle must be modified to meet the 

requirements for both FMVSS Nos. 206 

and 214. This is a view that the Alliance 

had expressed in its comment to the 

NPRM, to which the agency had 

responded in the final rule. In its 

petition for reconsideration, the 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 137 / Monday, July 20, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 35133 

8The Alliance’s revised petition for 

reconsideration (based on its projections about the 

then-pending FMVSS No. 214 final rule) requested 

a change in the effective date schedule as follows: 

September 1, 2011—20%; September 1, 2012— 

50%; September 1, 2013—100%. NHTSA published 

the FMVSS No. 214 final rule and response to 

petitions for reconsideration after submission of the 

petition. Under these final rules, the phase in 

schedule for FMVSS No. 214 begins September 1, 

2010 and ends for vehicles made in one stage 

September 1, 2015. 73 FR 32473, supra. 

9The table indicates that generally, all early 

model minivans are equipped with one sliding door 

latching systems while newer minivans have two 

latching systems. 

Alliance stated that all current vehicles 

with a sliding door having a single 

latching system design will require 

major structural modifications to the Bpillar(s) and door(s) to accommodate a 

two-latch design. The petitioner 

believed that, since both standard 

upgrades require major structural 

modifications on the same areas of the 

vehicle, it would be most efficient to 

coordinate these changes to meet both 

requirements simultaneously.8

Third, the petitioners believed that 

the effective date as is pertains to 

sliding doors should be postponed until 

2012, to coincide with the 

implementation of the door locks and 

door retention components GTR in 

Europe. Ford believed that the February 

2007 final rule is primarily intended to 

harmonize requirements internationally 

and does not add to real world safety 

benefits, so therefore an implementation 

date consistent with GTR 

implementation timing in Europe is 

reasonable and warranted. 

Agency Response 

The petitioners are correct that the 

agency’s determination of an effective 

date of September 1, 2009 was based on 

tests of only smaller vans. Table 1 

below, ‘‘Transport Canada and VRTC 

Sliding Door Evaluation Test Results,’’ 

provides a summary of Transport 

Canada’s and VRTC’s tests used to 

develop the February 2007 final rule. 

The table identifies the makes and 

models of the vehicles tested, the 

number of sliding door latches, and 

whether the vehicle passed the required 

load and allowable door separation 

requirements. 

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

Model year Make Model Number of 

latches 

Pass/fail 

load and 4′′ 

gap proposal 

Transport Canada Test Results 

1995 ................................................ Dodge ............................................. Caravan .......................................... 1 Fail. 

1998 ................................................ Dodge ............................................. Caravan .......................................... 1 Fail. 

2000 ................................................ Mazda ............................................. MPV ................................................ 1 Fail. 

1999 ................................................ Honda ............................................. Odyssey .......................................... 1 Fail. 

1997 ................................................ Chevy ............................................. Venture ........................................... 2 Pass. 

2000 ................................................ Pontiac ............................................ Transport ........................................ 2 Pass. 

1998 ................................................ Ford ................................................ Windstar ......................................... 2 Pass. 

1999 ................................................ Ford ................................................ Windstar ......................................... 2 Pass. 

VRTC Test Results 

1993 ................................................ Dodge ............................................. Caravan .......................................... 1 Fail. 

2001 ................................................ Dodge ............................................. Caravan .......................................... 1 Fail. 

1992 ................................................ Chevy ............................................. Lumina ............................................ 1 Fail. 

2002 ................................................ Honda ............................................. Odyssey .......................................... 1 Fail. 

2001 ................................................ Ford ................................................ Windstar ......................................... 2 Pass. 

Table 1 shows that evaluation testing 

was only conducted on mini-vans. Table 

1 also indicates that all the vehicles that 

passed the 100 millimeter (mm) limit of 

door separation specified in the sliding 

door test requirement were equipped 

with two latch systems while all those 

that failed were equipped with one latch 

system.9 As shown in Table 1, large 

vans were excluded from evaluation 

testing. The agency did not test large 

vans sliding doors because it believed at 

the time that these doors were equipped 

with two latching systems. 

The agency has reconsidered the 

Transport Canada and VRTC test data in 

light of the information from Ford. We 

continue to believe that the majority of 

the current fleet already complies with 

the sliding door test. Most sliding doors 

in the fleet have two latching systems, 

with a latching system on the front and 

the rear edges of the door, and are 

capable of meeting the sliding door 

requirements in the final rule without 

design modifications. However, we 

recognize that vehicles with one 

latching system are generally unable to 

meet the force load requirement or the 

allowable door separation limitation 

and that information from Ford 

indicates that many large van sliding 

doors currently have only one latch. 

Thus, many large vehicles will need to 

have an additional latch installed on the 

sliding doors. While this design change 

to vehicles with one latching system is 

not significant, an additional year to 

meet S4.2.2 of the 2007 final rule will 

better enable manufacturers to assess 

their vehicles and accommodate needed 

changes within design and production 

cycles. Accordingly, we are delaying the 

compliance date of the sliding door 

provisions of S4.2.2 of the February 

2007 final rule until September 1, 2010, 

to provide manufacturers another year 

of lead time. 

However, we are retaining the original 

effective date of September 1, 2009 for 

all other provisions of the final rule. We 

do not agree that significant design 

changes will be needed to comply with 

the requirements of FMVSS No. 206. 

Ford stated that vehicles not meeting 

the upgraded standard experienced 

deformation and damage to the sheet 

metal of the B and C-Pillar, the door 

sliding track, and the latch. We also 

observed similar sheet metal and track 

damage as that reported by Ford in the 

minivans with a single latching system 

that failed the sliding door test 

requirements. However, vehicles with 

sliding doors equipped with two latch 

systems were able to meet the sliding 

door test requirements in the standard 

without extensive damage to the sheet 

metal, door track or latch. Thus, NHTSA 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
35134 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 137 / Monday, July 20, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

10 72 FR at 5396. 

believes that it is likely that if Ford’s 

large van sliding door were equipped 

with two latch systems, the vehicle 

would pass the requirements without a 

significant redesign of the surrounding 

structure. 

We reiterate our conclusion in the 

February 2007 final rule that aligning 

the effective date of the FMVSS No. 206 

final rule with that of the FMVSS No. 

214 upgrade is unwarranted.10 The door 

lock and door retention components 

requirements do not affect the same 

vehicle structural components that may 

require modification to meet the FMVSS 

No. 214 upgrade requirements. The tests 

for the two rulemakings are very 

different, and the test for this rule is not 

a dynamic crash test. Since vehicles 

with two latch systems were able to 

meet the standard’s requirements 

without extensive damage to the sheet 

metal, door track, or other components, 

we believe that the sheet metal damage 

cited by Ford is not determinative for 

complying with the FMVSS No. 206 

requirements. As such, 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. 

As for the arguments to align the 

effective date to the implementation of 

the GTR in Europe, NHTSA is not 

obligated by the 1998 Agreement to 

harmonize effective dates of GTRs with 

other countries. The GTR process allows 

each country to develop its own 

implementation schedule of the rule. 

Therefore, we reject Ford’s assertion 

that ‘‘an effective date consistent with 

GTR implementation timing in Europe 

is reasonable and warranted.’’ Extending 

the compliance date of the sliding door 

provisions until September 1, 2010 

gives sufficient time for necessary 

modifications to comply with the new 

test requirements while ensuring that 

the benefits from the rule will be 

achieved in the U.S. as quickly as 

possible. Therefore, we are retaining the 

final rule effective date of September 1, 

2009, with the exception of extending 

the effective date of the sliding door 

provisions of S4.2.2 to September 1, 

2010 to accommodate manufacturers’ 

design and production cycles. 

IV. Effective Date of This Document 

Because September 1, 2009 (the 

original effective date for the February 

2007 final rule) is fast approaching, 

NHTSA finds for good cause that this 

action delaying the compliance date 

should take effect immediately. Today’s 

final rule makes no substantive changes 

to FMVSS No. 206, but delays the 

compliance date of the sliding door 

provisions of S4.2.2 of the February 6, 

2007 final rule until September 1, 2010 

while the agency responds to the 

petitions for reconsideration of the rule. 

V. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices 

Executive Order 12866 and DOT 

Regulatory Policies and Procedures 

This rulemaking document was not 

reviewed by the Office of Management 

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

considered to be significant under E.O. 

12866 or the Department’s Regulatory 

Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; 

February 26, 1979). Although the 

February 6, 2007 final rule was 

significant due to public interest in the 

issues, this postponement of the 

compliance date of the sliding door 

provisions of S4.2.2 of the February 6, 

2007 final rule until September 1, 2010 

is not significant. This final rule does 

not impose any requirements on any 

manufacturer. The minimal impacts of 

today’s amendment do not warrant 

preparation of a regulatory evaluation. 

Executive Order 13132 (Federalism) 

NHTSA has examined today’s final 

rule pursuant to Executive Order 13132 

(64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) and 

concluded that no additional 

consultation with States, local 

governments or their representatives is 

mandated beyond the rulemaking 

process. The agency has concluded that 

the rule does not have federalism 

implications because the rule does not 

have ‘‘substantial direct effects on the 

States, on the relationship between the 

national government and the States, or 

on the distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government.’’ 

Further, no consultation is needed to 

discuss the 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 

unnecessary. 

Second, the Supreme Court has 

recognized the possibility of implied 

preemption. State requirements 

imposed on motor vehicle 

manufacturers, including sanctions 

imposed by State tort law, can stand as 

an obstacle to the accomplishment and 

execution of a NHTSA safety standard. 

When such a conflict is discerned, the 

Supremacy Clause of the Constitution 

makes the State requirements 

unenforceable. See Geier v. American 

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

NHTSA has considered today’s final 

rule and does not currently foresee any 

potential State requirements that might 

conflict with it. Without any conflict, 

there could not be any implied 

preemption. 

Executive Order 13045 

Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, 

April 23, 1997) applies to any 

rulemaking that: (1) Is determined to be 

‘‘economically significant’’ as defined 

under E.O. 12866, and (2) concerns an 

environmental, health or safety risk that 

NHTSA has reason to believe may have 

a disproportionate effect on children. If 

the regulatory action meets both criteria, 

we must evaluate the environmental 

health or safety effects of the planned 

rule on children, and explain why the 

planned regulation is preferable to other 

potentially effective and reasonably 

feasible alternatives considered by us. 

This rulemaking is not subject to the 

Executive Order because it is not 

economically significant as defined in 

E.O. 12866. 

Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice 

Reform) 

With respect to the review of the 

promulgation of a new regulation, 

section 3(b) of Executive Order 12988, 

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

February 7, 1996) requires that 

Executive agencies make every 

reasonable effort to ensure that the 

regulation: (1) Clearly specifies the 

preemptive effect; (2) clearly specifies 

the effect on existing Federal law or 

regulation; (3) provides a clear legal 

standard for affected conduct, while 

promoting simplification and burden 

reduction; (4) clearly specifies the 

retroactive effect, if any; (5) adequately 

defines key terms; and (6) addresses 

other important issues affecting clarity 

and general draftsmanship under any 

guidelines issued by the Attorney 

General. This document is consistent 

with that requirement. 

Pursuant to this Order, NHTSA notes 

as follows. The 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 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 137 / Monday, July 20, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 35135 

administrative proceeding before they 

may file suit in court. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility 

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

the Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 

1996) whenever an agency is required to 

publish a notice of rulemaking for any 

proposed or final rule, it must prepare 

and make available for public comment 

a regulatory flexibility analysis that 

describes the effect of the rule on small 

entities (i.e., small businesses, small 

organizations, and small governmental 

jurisdictions). However, no regulatory 

flexibility analysis is required if the 

head of an agency certifies the rule 

would not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. SBREFA amended the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act to require 

Federal agencies to provide a statement 

of the factual basis for certifying that a 

rule would not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. 

I certify that this final rule does not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

This rule affects motor vehicle 

manufacturers, multistage 

manufacturers and alterers, but the 

entities that qualify as small businesses 

will not be significantly affected by this 

rulemaking. This final rule does not 

establish new requirements, but instead 

only adjusts an effective date of one of 

the provisions of the February 2007 

final rule. 

National Environmental Policy Act 

We have analyzed this final rule for 

the purposes of the National 

Environmental Policy Act and 

determined that it does not have any 

significant impact on the quality of the 

human environment. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act 

of 1995, a person is not required to 

respond to a collection of information 

by a Federal agency unless the 

collection displays a valid OMB control 

number. The final rule does not contain 

any new information collection 

requirements. 

National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104– 

113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272) 

directs us to use voluntary consensus 

standards in its regulatory activities 

unless doing so would be inconsistent 

with applicable law or otherwise 

impractical. Voluntary consensus 

standards are technical standards (e.g., 

materials specifications, test methods, 

sampling procedures, and business 

practices) that are developed or adopted 

by voluntary consensus standards 

bodies, such as the Society of 

Automotive Engineers (SAE). The 

NTTAA directs us to provide Congress, 

through OMB, explanations when we 

decide not to use available and 

applicable voluntary consensus 

standards. 

No voluntary consensus standards 

were used in developing today’s final 

rule because this final rule only adjusts 

an effective date of one of the provisions 

of the standard. There are no voluntary 

standards that address the subject of this 

rulemaking. 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

Section 202 of the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) 

requires Federal agencies to prepare a 

written assessment of the costs, benefits 

and other effects of proposed or final 

rules that include a Federal mandate 

likely to result in the expenditure by 

State, local or tribal governments, in the 

aggregate, or by the private sector, of 

more than $100 million in any one year 

(adjusted for inflation with base year of 

1995). Before promulgating a NHTSA 

rule for which a written statement is 

needed, section 205 of the UMRA 

generally requires us to identify and 

consider a reasonable number of 

regulatory alternatives and adopt the 

least costly, most cost-effective or least 

burdensome alternative that achieves 

the objectives of the rule. The 

provisions of section 205 do not apply 

when they are inconsistent with 

applicable law. Moreover, section 205 

allows us to adopt an alternative other 

than the least costly, most cost-effective 

or least burdensome alternative if we 

publish with the final rule an 

explanation why that alternative was 

not adopted. 

The final rule will not impose any 

unfunded mandates under the 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 

1995. This rulemaking does not meet 

the definition of a Federal mandate 

because it would not result in costs of 

$100 million (adjusted annually for 

inflation with a base year of 1995 or 116 

million in 2003 dollars) or more to 

either State, local, or tribal governments, 

in the aggregate, or to the private sector. 

Thus, this rulemaking is not subject to 

the requirements of sections 202 and 

205 of the UMRA. 

Regulation Identifier Number (RIN) 

The Department of Transportation 

assigns a regulation identifier number 

(RIN) to each regulatory action listed in 

the Unified Agenda of Federal 

Regulations. The Regulatory Information 

Service Center publishes the Unified 

Agenda in April and October of each 

year. You may use the RIN contained in 

the heading at the beginning of this 

document to find this action in the 

Unified Agenda. 

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 (65 FR 

19477–78) or you may visit http:// 

www.dot.gov/privacy.html. 

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 571 

Motor vehicle safety, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, 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 

adding S4.2.2.3, to read as follows: 

§ 571.206 Standard 206; Door locks and 

door retention components. 

* * * * * 

S4.2.2.3 This S4.2.2.3 applies to 

vehicle manufactured on or after 

September 1, 2010. 

* * * * * 

Issued on: July 14, 2009. 

Ronald L. Medford, 

Acting Deputy Administrator. 

[FR Doc. E9–17078 Filed 7–17–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES