Document ID: NHTSA-2009-0116-0001
Agency: nhtsa
Document Type: Rule
Title: Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Door Locks and Door Retention Components
Posted Date: 2009-07-20T04:00Z

[Federal Register: July 20, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 137)]
[Rules and Regulations]               
[Page 35131-35135]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr20jy09-13]                         

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

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

[[Page 35132]]

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ World 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), 
available at http://www.unece.org/trans/main/wp29/wp29wgs/wp29gen/
wp29registry/gtr1.html.
    \2\ The 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.
    \3\ While 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Docket No. NHTSA-2006-23882; 72 FR 5385 (Feb. 6, 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 door-equipped vehicles to the new test 
procedure and needed more time to evaluate their vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 35133]]

Alliance stated that all current vehicles with a sliding door having a 
single latching system design will require major structural 
modifications to the B-pillar(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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ NHTSA 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).
    \8\ The 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                               Number of     Pass/fail  load and
           Model year                     Make                Model             latches       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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The table indicates that generally, all early model minivans 
are equipped with one sliding door latching systems while newer 
minivans have 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

[[Page 35134]]

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 72 FR at 5396.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 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.

0
In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA amends 49 CFR 571.206 as 
follows:

PART 571--FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS

0
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.

0
2. Section 571.206 is amended by adding S4.2.2.3, to read as follows:

Sec.  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