[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 188 (Thursday, September 28, 1995)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 50124-50137]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-23986]



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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 571

[Docket No. 94-70, Notice 3]
RIN 2127-AF35


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.

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

SUMMARY: This final rule amends the Federal motor vehicle safety 
standard pertaining to door locks and door retention components. This 
rule extends the standard's requirements, currently applicable only to 
side doors, to the back doors of passenger cars and multipurpose 
passenger vehicles (MPV) so equipped, including hatchbacks, station 
wagons, sport utility vehicles, and passenger vans, with a gross 
vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 4,536 kilograms (kg) (10,000 pounds) or 
less. Further, to allow for differences between side doors and back 
doors, including the different directions in which they open in 
relation to the vehicle, this rule amends certain performance 
requirements and test procedures to make them appropriate for back 
doors. Extension of the standard to back doors will reduce the 
likelihood of occupants being ejected through the back doors of 
vehicles in the event of a crash, thereby reducing fatalities and 
serious injuries.

DATES: This final rule is effective September 1, 1997.
    The incorporation by reference of the Society of Automotive 
Engineers material listed in this document is approved by the Director 
of the Federal Register.
    Any petition for reconsideration of this rule must be received by 
NHTSA not later than October 30, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Petitions for reconsideration should refer to the docket and 
notice numbers noted above for this rule and be submitted to Docket 
Section, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh 
Street, S.W., Room 5109, Washington, DC 20590. Docket hours are from 
9:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. Telephone (202) 366-
4949.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For other than legal issues: Dr. 
William Fan, Office of Vehicle Safety Standards, National Highway 
Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW, Washington, DC 
20590. Telephone (202) 366-4922; FAX (202) 366-4329.
    For legal issues: Walter Myers, Office of Chief Counsel, National 
Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW, 
Washington, DC 20590. Telephone (202) 366-2992; FAX (202) 366-3820.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Background
    (a) Current Provisions
    (1) Full requirements
    (i) Latch/striker assemblies
    (ii) Hinges
    (iii) Locks
    (2) Abbreviated requirements
    (i) Hinged cargo doors
    (ii) Sliding doors
    (3) Test procedures
    (b) Agency Review of Back Door Openings
    (c) Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
    (1) Rationale
    (2) Proposed Test Procedures for Back Door Latches
    (i) Load Test One
    (ii) Load Test Two
    (iii) Load Test Three
    (iv) Inertia load
    (3) Proposed Test Procedures for Back Door Hinges
    (i) Load Test One
    (ii) Load Test Two
    (iii) Load Test Three
    (4) Back Door Locks
    (5) Additional Considerations
    (6) Costs and Benefits
II. Overview
III. Public Comments and Agency Responses
    (a) Vehicle Population Trends
    (b) Load Requirements and Test Procedures
    (1) Magnitude of test loads.
    (2) Directions of Test Loads One and Two
    (3) Test Load Three
    (4) Inertia load requirements.
    (5) Abbreviated requirements for back doors
    (6) Secondary latched position
    (7) Incorporating latch/hinge tests with others
    (c) Interior Lock Mechanisms
    (d) Vehicle and Other Exclusions
    (e) Lead Time
    (f) Definitions
    (g) Belt Use
IV. Cost/Benefit Analysis
    (a) Projected Vehicle Fleet
    (b) Costs and Potential Benefits
    (1) Agency analysis of cost data
    (2) Estimated lives saved
    (3) Estimated cost/benefit ratio
V. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices.
    (a) E.O. 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures
    (b) Regulatory Flexibility Act
    (c) E.O. 12612 (Federalism)
    (d) National Environmental Policy Act
    (e) Paperwork Reduction Act
    (f) Civil Justice Reform

I. Background

(a) Current Provisions

    Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (Standard) No. 206, Door 
locks and door retention components (49 CFR 571.206), specifies 
performance requirements for side door locks and retention components 
including latches, hinges, and other supporting means. These 
requirements are intended to minimize the likelihood of occupants being 
ejected from the vehicle in the event of a crash. The standard applies 
to passenger cars, MPVs, and trucks, and provides that components on 
any side door leading directly into a compartment containing one or 
more seating accommodations must comply with the standard. The full 
requirements of the standard apply to side doors other than sliding 
doors and cargo-type doors, to which more abbreviated requirements 
apply, as discussed below.
    Excluded from the standard are folding doors, roll-up doors, doors 
designed to be easily attached to or removed from vehicles manufactured 
for operation without doors, and side doors equipped with wheelchair 
lifts that are linked to either an audible or visible alarm system that 
is activated when the door is open.

[[Page 50125]]

(1) Full Requirements
    (i) Latch/striker assemblies. Each door latch and striker assembly 
must have a fully latched position and a secondary latched position. 
The secondary latched position serves as a backup to the fully latched 
position in the event the fully latched position is not properly 
engaged.
    The standard requires that the latch and striker assembly, when in 
the fully latched position, must not separate when a longitudinal load 
of 11,000 Newtons (2,500 pounds) or a transverse load of 8,900 Newtons 
(2,000 pounds) is applied to the latch. A ``longitudinal'' load is 
applied parallel to the vehicle's longitudinal, or lengthwise, 
centerline and perpendicular to the latch face. A ``transverse'' load 
is applied perpendicular to the vehicle's longitudinal centerline, in 
the direction of door opening. Further, a door latch must not disengage 
from the fully latched position when an inertia load of 30g is applied 
to the latch/striker system in either the longitudinal or the 
transverse direction.1 Finally, the standard requires that the 
latch/striker assembly must not separate when a longitudinal or a 
transverse load of 4,450 Newtons (1,000 pounds) is applied to the latch 
while in the secondary latched position.

    \1\ ``Inertia'' is the property of matter that requires that a 
load be applied on a body to accelerate it, calculated by 
multiplying the mass of a body by its acceleration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (ii) Hinges. The standard requires each hinge system to support the 
door and not separate when a longitudinal load of 11,000 Newtons (2,500 
pounds) is applied. Further, each hinge system must not separate when a 
transverse load of 8,900 Newtons (2,000 pounds) is applied.
    (iii) Locks. Each door must be equipped with a locking mechanism 
that has an operating means on the interior of the vehicle. Further, 
when the locking mechanism is engaged in front side door locks, the 
outside handle or other outside latch release mechanism must be 
inoperative. In passenger cars and MPVs, when the locking mechanisms 
are engaged in rear side door locks, both the inside and outside door 
handles or other latch release mechanisms must be inoperative.
(2) Abbreviated Requirements
    (i) Hinged cargo-type doors. ``Cargo-type door'' is defined in the 
standard as ``a door designed primarily to accommodate cargo loading 
including, but not limited to, a two-part door that latches to 
itself.'' These doors are required to have only the fully latched 
position, not the secondary latched position. Each latch system must 
not separate when a longitudinal load of 11,000 Newtons (2,500 pounds) 
or a transverse load of 8,900 Newtons (2,000 pounds) is applied. The 
hinges on these doors are required to support the door and shall not 
separate when a longitudinal load of 11,000 Newtons or a transverse 
load of 8,900 Newtons is applied.
    (ii) Sliding doors. The track and slide combination or other 
supporting means for each sliding door shall not separate when a total 
transverse load of 17,792 Newtons (4,000 pounds) is applied with the 
door in the closed position.
(3) Test Procedures
    Under Standard No. 206, latch and hinge assemblies are tested 
individually as components and not as part of the vehicle structure to 
which they are attached. The standard incorporates the test procedures 
set forth in Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) Recommended Practice 
J839b, Passenger Car Side Door Latch Systems, May 1965 (SAE J839b), and 
SAE Recommended Practice J934, Vehicle Passenger Door Hinge Systems, 
July 1965 (SAE J934). The provisions of SAE J934 do not apply to piano-
type hinges, however. For those hinges, the arrangement of the test 
fixture shall be altered as required so that the test load will be 
applied to the complete hinge.

(b) Agency Review of Back Door Openings

    Although Standard No. 206 applies only to side doors of passenger 
cars, MPVs, and trucks, NHTSA has reviewed the potential safety 
problems associated with back door openings on vehicles so equipped 
several times in recent years. An agency report entitled Hatchback, 
Tailgate, and Back Door Opening in Crashes and Occupant Ejection 
through the Back Area issued on April 5, 1990 (1990 report) (NHTSA 
docket no. 90-08-GR-001) concluded that the back doors of vehicles so 
equipped opened in 5-6 percent of crashes that required towing from the 
scene (hereinafter referred to as ``towaway crashes''), while side 
doors opened in 1-3 percent of such crashes. The report was based on 
1982-1986 and 1988 data from the National Accident Sampling System 
(NASS) and the 1988 Fatal Accident Reporting System (FARS). Further, a 
hatchback or tailgate was found to be about 3 times as likely to open 
as one of the front side doors and 7-8 times as likely to open as one 
of the rear side doors. The data also showed that rollovers accounted 
for about 53 percent of back door openings, 23 percent of left front 
door openings and 40 percent of right front door openings. However, 
although back doors opened more frequently than side doors, only 1 
percent of back door openings resulted in occupant ejection, as opposed 
to 8-13 percent occupant ejections through front side door openings. 
Finally, depending on the methodology used to analyze the data, NHTSA 
calculated the fatalities due to back door ejections in 1988 to be 
between 93 and 130.
    Also on April 5, 1990, NHTSA wrote to 9 manufacturers: Chrysler, 
Ford, General Motors, Honda, Mazda, Nissan, Toyota, Volkswagen, and 
Volvo asking their comments on the issue of back door openings and 
requesting information on their back door latch/lock designs. Of the 8 
that responded, only Mazda reported that some of its models had back 
doors that met the requirements of Standard No. 206. All indicated, 
however, that they did not consider back door openings to be a 
significant safety problem and argued that the proper use of seat belts 
is the best way to prevent occupant ejections.
    By Federal Register notice dated November 20, 1990 (55 FR 48261), 
the agency denied a June 19, 1990 petition for rulemaking from the 
Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) to extend the 
requirements of Standard No. 206 to back doors. Citing the 1990 report 
and the comments of the 8 manufacturers responding to NHTSA's April 5, 
1990 letter, the agency stated that of the 25 people ejected through 
back doors as reported in the 1982-1988 NASS data, only one was using a 
seat belt. Thus, the agency agreed at that time that the increased use 
of seat belts in rear seats would be a more effective means of reducing 
back door ejections. The agency determined, therefore, that there was 
not a safety need significant enough to justify the suggested 
rulemaking, and that extending the then-current side door requirements 
to back doors would not be the most effective means of reducing back 
door ejections.
    On January 21, 1994, the agency issued a report entitled Door 
Opening and Occupant Ejection through Rear Hatches, Tailgates, and 
Other Back Doors (1994 report) (NHTSA docket no. 90-06-N03-001), which 
updated the 1990 report. Based on NASS and FARS data from 1988-1992, 
NHTSA estimated that there are 147 fatalities and 189 serious injuries 
annually resulting from ejections through hatches, tailgates, and other 
back doors. About 95 percent of those victims were not properly belted 
and about 10 percent of the improperly belted victims were children 
under 10. 

[[Page 50126]]
Rollovers accounted for about 35 percent of left front door openings, 
40 percent of right front door openings, and 42 percent of back door 
openings. Finally, the data showed that the most common damage 
associated with door openings was damage to the latch/striker 
assemblies: 60 percent for left front door openings, 50 percent for 
right front door openings, and 71 percent for back door openings.

(c) Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

(1) Rationale
    In view of the number of fatalities and injuries resulting from 
back door ejections, NHTSA published a Notice of proposed rulemaking 
(NPRM) on August 30, 1994, proposing to extend the requirements of 
Standard No. 206 to the back doors of passenger cars and MPVs with a 
GVWR of 4,536 kg (10,000 pounds) or less, including hatchbacks, 
passenger vans, station wagons, and sport utility vehicles. In 
addition, the agency proposed certain modifications to the test 
procedures applicable to back doors.
    Based on agency data, NHTSA believes that its side door latch 
requirements for passenger cars reduce the risk of ejection in rollover 
crashes by 15 percent, thereby saving an estimated 400 lives per year. 
Thus, although the agency has acknowledged that increased use of safety 
belts is effective in reducing vehicle ejections, extending Standard 
No. 206 requirements to back doors would help reduce injuries and 
fatalities resulting from back door ejections of unbelted occupants. 
Further, because of the increasing popularity of vehicles equipped with 
back doors, especially passenger vans, this safety problem may become 
more serious unless preventive measures are taken.
    As noted in the NPRM, there is a greater variety of designs of back 
doors than of side doors. While most side doors open to the side and 
have hinges on their front and latches on the rear, back doors may open 
upward, rearward or to the side, and have latches and hinges on the 
top, bottom or side. In addition, back doors may be vertical or sloped 
when viewed from the side.
    Nevertheless, the NPRM pointed out four basic designs of back doors 
typically used in production vehicles:
    (i) Door opens upward, with a single latch (or striker) centered at 
the bottom of the door with a single striker (or latch) on the back 
door sill or floor panel;
    (ii) Door opens sideways, with latch on the door and striker on the 
door frame, such as back doors on large station wagons;
    (iii) Split doors with top, typically of glass, opening upward and 
bottom tailgate opening downward, with striker at the bottom of the top 
door and latches or rod/pin connectors at the top and sides of the 
tailgate, such as back doors of sport utility vehicles; and
    (iv) Double cargo-type doors, a 2-part door that latches to itself 
with one latch located at the center between the doors, such as the 
back doors of some cargo vans.
    Because of the wide variety of back door designs and the variation 
in latch and hinge orientations in relation to the vehicle, NHTSA 
indicated in the NPRM that directions in which test loads are applied 
should be specified in relation to the orientation of each latch and 
hinge. The agency further indicated that latches and hinges on doors 
that open upward should meet load requirements in 3 rather than in 2 
directions. For those reasons, NHTSA proposed to modify the test 
procedures applicable to back door latches and hinges, as discussed 
below.
    In addition to proposing modifications to the existing latch/
striker test procedures, the agency announced that it was considering 
applying the secondary latched position requirement currently 
applicable to side door latches to some or all back door latches. The 
agency therefore requested comments on what types of back doors should 
be included or excluded from this requirement and why.
(2) Proposed Test Procedures for Back Door Latches
    (i) Load Test One. For back doors, NHTSA proposed basically the 
same test as the longitudinal test, that is, applying a load 
perpendicular to the face of the latch, utilizing the same test loads. 
Rather than refer to the test as ``longitudinal load,'' however, NHTSA 
proposed to refer to it as ``Load Test One,'' since most back door 
latches are oriented so that a load applied parallel to the vehicle 
longitudinal centerline would not be equivalent to the longitudinal 
test of side door latches.
    (ii) Load Test Two. The agency proposed to apply to back doors a 
test corresponding to the transverse load test for side doors, but 
rather than apply the load in the direction of door opening, NHTSA 
would apply the load in the direction of the fork-bolt opening and 
parallel to the plane of the latch face. The agency proposed to use the 
same test loads as in the transverse load test, but would refer to this 
test as ``Load Test Two.''
    (iii) Load Test Three. NHTSA proposed to require latches on doors 
that open upward to meet load requirements in a third direction that is 
orthogonal, i.e. perpendicular, to both of the directions in which 
loads are applied in Load Tests One and Two. The set-up for Load Tests 
Two and Three would be identical, except that in Load Test Three, the 
latch would be mounted in a position perpendicular to those in Load 
Tests One and Two. The agency requested comments on whether a load of 
11,000 Newtons (2,500 pounds) or 8,900 Newtons (2,000 pounds) should 
apply to Load Test Three.
    (iv) Inertia load. In view of the many orientations of back doors, 
NHTSA proposed that back door latches meet the 30g inertia load 
requirement in any direction, as opposed to a limited number of 
directions for side door latches. The agency requested comments on the 
appropriateness of that proposal.
(3) Proposed Test Procedures for Back Door Hinges
    The agency stated that the same considerations concerning load 
orientations apply to back door hinges as to back door latches. 
Accordingly, the agency proposed the following 3 load tests for hinges:
    (i) Load Test One. Load is applied perpendicular to the hinge face 
plate;
    (ii) Load Test Two. Load is applied perpendicular to the axis of 
the hinge pin and parallel to the hinge face plate; and
    (iii) Load Test Three. In this test, which is applicable to the 
hinges on doors that open upward, the load is applied parallel to the 
axis of the hinge pin.
    The agency requested comments whether the load for the three hinge 
tests should be 8,900 Newtons (2,000 pounds) or 11,000 Newtons (2,500 
pounds).
(4) Back Door Locks
    The agency stated that it was considering extending the door lock 
requirements of Standard No. 206 to some or all back door locks, and 
requested comments on that issue.
(5) Additional Considerations
    The agency requested comments on the following issues:
    (i) To what extent should full versus abbreviated requirements 
apply to back doors?
    (ii) Are the proposed test requirements clear and appropriate for 
all back doors?

[[Page 50127]]

    (iii) Which and how many hatchbacks, station wagons, passenger 
vans, and sport utility vehicles would need to be upgraded to meet the 
proposed requirements? What is the consumer cost and relative strength 
increase for each upgrade?
    (iv) Identify and/or provide the agency with any data that would 
assist the agency in quantifying the safety or other benefits of the 
proposed requirements.
(6) Costs and Benefits
    Assuming an effective date on or before September 1, 1997, the 
agency estimated that about 1.5 million hatchbacks, 0.4 million station 
wagons, 1.6 million sport utility vehicles, and 1.8 million passenger 
vans, for a total of 5.3 million vehicles expected to be produced 
during model year 1998, could be affected by these amendments. In a 
NHTSA evaluation of 8 passenger minivan back door latches (docket No. 
97-70-N 01), representing about 1 million vehicles sold in 1993, 2 
failed the longitudinal load test (equivalent to Load Test One) and 
another failed the transverse load test (equivalent to Load Test Two). 
All the others exceeded the proposed load requirements. The 5 complying 
latches represent about 50 percent (0.5 million) of the 1993 minivan 
sales. The agency concluded, therefore, that about half the minivan 
fleet already meets or exceeds the requirements proposed in the NPRM. 
Although the back door latch assemblies of hatchbacks, station wagons 
and sport utility vehicles were not tested, NHTSA considered that since 
most of the 1.6 million sport utility vehicles have back door latch 
systems similar to those of minivans, about 50 percent (0.8 million) of 
sport utility vehicles would also meet the proposed requirements. 
Although the remaining vehicles could require some upgrading of their 
current back door locks and retention components, the agency estimated 
that the proposed requirements would not require more than minor 
changes in either latch, hinge, or locking mechanisms.
    The retail costs of the tested latches ranged from $22.03 to 
$81.74. The costs of the 3 failing latches were $23.52, $63.19, and 
$81.74. The tests showed that a latch that complies with Standard No. 
206 need not be more expensive than one that does not. Assuming, 
therefore, that no more than 4.0 million vehicles may require upgrades 
and that the cost of the upgrades may not be higher than that of 
current designs, NHTSA estimated that the cost of extending the 
requirements of Standard No. 206 to the back doors of the proposed 
vehicles would be minimal.
    Compliance tests for back door locks and retention components would 
typically be conducted with similar, but perhaps slightly modified, 
test equipment of the type currently used to evaluate side door locks 
and retention components. NHTSA estimated, therefore, that no 
significant test equipment costs should be incurred by manufacturers.
    The agency pointed out that of the deaths and injuries that occur 
annually involving occupant ejection through back doors, over 80 
percent involve hinge or latch damage. The agency anticipated, 
therefore, that the proposed upgrades should reduce such deaths and 
injuries, although the agency is not able to quantify such benefits or 
costs. Accordingly, the agency solicited comments and data on that 
issue.

II. Overview

    Today's final rule is based on the NPRM of August 30, 1994, 
summarized above. This final rule:
    * Extends the motor vehicle door latch, hinge, and lock 
requirements of Standard No. 206 to the back doors of passenger cars 
and MPVs so equipped, including hatchbacks, station wagons, sport 
utility vehicles, and passenger vans with a GVWR of 4,536 kg (10,000 
pounds) or less;
    * Revises existing performance requirements and test procedures, 
insofar as they apply to back doors, and establishes an additional test 
for back door latches and hinges;
    * Requires inertia load testing of back door latches in 3 
directions instead of in any direction, as proposed in the NPRM;
    * Requires door locks and interior and exterior release mechanisms 
only for back doors equipped with interior door handles or that lead 
directly into compartments containing one or more seating 
accommodations, instead of all back doors as proposed in the NPRM;
    * Revises definition of ``back door'' from that proposed in the 
NPRM to exclude passenger car trunk lids as well as doors and windows 
composed entirely of glazing materials where the latches and/or hinges 
are mounted directly onto the glazing;
    * In addition to adding a definition of ``back door,'' adds 
definitions of ``auxiliary door latch,'' ``fork-bolt,'' ``fork-bolt 
opening,'' and ``primary door latch'' to the standard; and
    * Replaces the reference to Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) 
Recommended Practices J839b, Passenger Car Side Door Latch Systems, May 
1965, in S5.1.1.1, S5.1.1.2, and S5.2.1 with reference to the revised 
version of J839, which is dated June 1991; and the reference in S5.1.2 
and S5.2.2 to SAE J934, Vehicle Passenger Door Hinge Systems, July 
1965, with reference to the revised version of J934, which is dated 
July 1982.

III. Public Comments and Agency Responses

    Fourteen interested parties submitted comments in response to the 
NPRM, including 2 private citizens, 2 safety organizations, 2 
automotive trade associations, and 8 motor vehicle manufacturers. A 
summary of their significant comments and the agency's responses are 
set forth below.

(a) Vehicle Population Trends

    The American Automobile Manufacturers Association (AAMA) commented 
that, since 1989, sales of hatchback style vehicles have been steadily 
declining, being replaced by sales of passenger minivans and sport 
utility vehicles. Referring to NHTSA's 1994 report, AAMA stated that 
back door openings in towaway crashes were the highest for hatchback 
cars (18,059) and lowest for minivans (767). AAMA argued that minivan 
and sport utility vehicles are rapidly replacing hatchback style 
vehicles and that the already low incidence of door openings and 
ejections should further decline as the vehicle mix changes in the 
future.
    While NHTSA does not dispute the fact that the total number of back 
door openings in minivans is lower than in hatchback cars, the agency 
believes this discrepancy to be due primarily to the larger number of 
hatchbacks on the road compared to minivans. In its 1994 report, NHTSA 
analyzed the incidence of back door openings as a rate per 100 towaway 
crashes for minivans, utility vehicles, and hatchback cars. The 
agency's analysis shows that back door openings for minivans is about 
1.9 compared to 3.6 for hatchback cars. The back door opening rates for 
utility vehicles were 2.6 and 4.1 for large and compact utility 
vehicles respectively. The overall rate for all light trucks equipped 
with back doors and hatches is 2.7 percent. Based on this data, AAMA's 
contention that increasing numbers of minivans in the fleet will reduce 
the number of back door openings and ejections in future crashes is not 
well founded, although if the observed rates continue into the future, 
the problem size could diminish somewhat.

(b) Load Requirements and Test Procedures

(1) Magnitude of Test Load
    Toyota Motor Corporate Services of North America, Inc. (Toyota) 
suggested 

[[Page 50128]]
that a test load of 8,900 Newtons (2,000 pounds), as proposed for Load 
Test Two, be applied to all back doors. Toyota further suggested that 
since the NPRM made no reference to doors equipped with more than one 
latch/striker set, the specified load be divided by the number of 
latch/striker sets fitted to a single door, and that the load so 
divided be applied simultaneously to each latch/striker set. Advocates 
for Highway and Auto Safety (Advocates) suggested that a load of 11,000 
Newtons (2,500 pounds) be applied in all tests. Mazda (North America), 
Inc. (Mazda) believed that NHTSA simply proposed the same test loads as 
presently specified in Standard No. 206 and, along with Rockwell, 
suggested that the test loads for back doors be based on real world 
test data.
    In 1989, NHTSA published a study entitled An Evaluation of Door 
Locks and Roof Crush Resistance of Passenger Cars--FMVSS Nos. 206 and 
216 (1989 study). That study, based on actual crash data, showed that 
the requirements of Standard No. 206 are responsible for a 15 percent 
reduction in side door ejections in rollover accidents. Real world 
crash data also showed that latches that met the 11,000 (2,500 pounds) 
and 8,900 Newton (2,000 pounds) loads in the longitudinal and 
transverse directions respectively were effective in preventing door 
openings while latches that did not meet those test requirements were 
not effective in preventing door openings. NHTSA believes, therefore, 
that the extension of the requirements of Standard No. 206 to back 
doors as proposed, including the test loads proposed in the NPRM, would 
be effective in preventing back door openings and occupant ejection 
through that route.
    Based on the real world crash data discussed above, NHTSA has also 
concluded that the appropriate test load for Load Test Three is 8,900 
Newtons (2,000 pounds). In most production back door latch designs, the 
latch would fail only if the striker disengages. This is seldom likely 
when loads are applied in the third direction perpendicular to the 
directions of Load Tests One and Two. In this test, the striker is 
usually pressing against the side of the fork bolt and the latch 
casing. If properly designed, a latch should be able to sustain a large 
force in this third direction. The results of the agency's back door 
latch tests showed that most latches tested can sustain a load of 8,900 
Newtons (2,000 pounds).
    NHTSA does not agree with Toyota's suggestion that the specified 
test load should be divided by the number of latches fitted to a single 
door. Real world crash data show that latch failures are the dominant 
cause of door openings and that they are seldom loaded symmetrically. 
Since side door latches that individually meet the requirements of 
Standard No. 206 have significantly reduced side door openings in 
crashes and have saved an estimated 400 lives per year, NHTSA has 
decided that the proposed requirements should be applied to each back 
door latch tested. However, this final rule does specify separate 
requirements for the primary and auxiliary latches, as discussed in 
III(b)(5) below.
(2) Directions of Load Tests One and Two
    AAMA commented that the proposed load test directions of Load Tests 
One and Two need clarification. AAMA argued that while side door 
latches and hinges are typically mounted in body and door planes that 
intersect at approximately 90 deg. to each other, back door latches and 
hinges may be at angles other than 90 deg.. Nissan stated that NHTSA's 
proposed definition of ``hinge face plate'' does not adequately 
describe certain hinge systems. Specifically, Nissan stated that in 
some vehicle back doors, when closed, their hinges are positioned such 
that the faces do not bear load perpendicular to the mounting surfaces. 
Nissan further stated that some hinge systems may not even have an 
actual ``face.'' Thus, for a more objective test procedure, Nissan 
suggested applying Load Test One at the intersection of a line along 
the longitudinal vertical plane that passes through the center points 
of 2 hinges and the plane passing through 2 hinges and the latch. Load 
Test Two would then be applied along the longitudinal vertical plane in 
a direction perpendicular to Load Test One. AAMA stated that the 
addition of a definition of ``latch face'' is necessary to determine 
the surfaces to which the test loads must be perpendicular or parallel. 
Nissan stated that it interprets the term ``face plate'' to mean the 
area of the hinge that is mounted to the body and to the door and that 
acts as the load-bearing surface that supports the weight of the door.
    NHTSA believes that Nissan's suggested loading directions will not, 
in many cases, be consistent with the loading directions of the hinges 
in actual crashes and that a new set of test devices other than those 
called for in J934 might be necessary to conduct Nissan's tests. NHTSA 
believes that its 3 orthogonal tests will cover all loading directions 
experienced in real world tests, irrespective of the configuration or 
orientation of the back doors. The agency continues to believe that the 
hinge tests should be conducted in accordance with SAE J934 and that 
Load Tests One and Two correspond to the longitudinal and transverse 
loads, respectively, as called for in SAE J934. The third direction is 
orthogonal to the other two. The agency believes, therefore, that the 
proposed test procedures are appropriate.
    NHTSA acknowledges that the NPRM did not contain definitions of 
``face plate'' and ``latch face.'' The NPRM did, however, refer in 
proposed Load Test One to SAE J839 where details of load directions are 
given. NHTSA believes that SAE J839 provides sufficient explanation of 
those terms and that no further definition is necessary in this rule.
(3) Load Test Three
    Toyota, AAMA, and Rockwell Automotive (Rockwell) opposed Load Test 
Three for doors that open upward. These commenters stated, without 
explaining the basis for their position, that Load Test Three is 
unnecessary, and that NHTSA has not demonstrated any benefits that 
support the need for the test. Rockwell commented that a third load 
test is not the most effective means of reducing occupant ejections. 
That commenter suggested instead that a systems approach be taken in 
which the vehicle body together with the door system, taken as a whole, 
should be required to pass load tests. Conversely, the Insurance 
Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) and Advocates both supported Load 
Test Three and urged that a load of 11,000 Newtons (2,500 pounds) be 
applied. IIHS suggested that Load Test Three be applied to all doors, 
including side doors.
    NHTSA does not agree with Toyota, AAMA, and Rockwell that Load Test 
Three is not necessary. NHTSA notes that there are many design 
differences between side doors and back doors with regard to their 
mounting locations and orientations. Except for cargo-type doors and 
side-swing station wagon doors, most back doors open either in the 
rearward (longitudinal) or upward (vertical) directions. Those 
directions correspond generally to the longitudinal and transverse 
loading directions of side doors. As opposed to side doors, however, 
latch/hinge failure can occur in upward or rearward-opening back doors 
due to force in the third direction orthogonal to those directions. For 
example, in the event of a rear side impact, the back door latches and 
hinges are subject to a large force perpendicular to the upward and 
rearward-opening directions. Agency tests showed that the back doors of 


[[Page 50129]]
some minivans opened when struck at the rear quarter panel. NHTSA 
believes that this happens when the door panel is displaced sideways, 
away from the plane of the door frame, forcing the latch to disengage. 
NHTSA believes, therefore, that in view of the loads to which back 
doors are subjected in some crashes, it is necessary to test back door 
latches and hinges in a third direction, orthogonal to the directions 
of loading to which side doors are normally subjected.
    NHTSA declines to adopt the suggestion of IIHS that Load Test Three 
be applied to all doors. It is beyond the scope of the NPRM and this 
final rule to amend the requirements applicable to side doors, since 
this rulemaking action applies only to back doors. In any case, since 
side doors of production vehicles normally do not open in a vertical 
direction, NHTSA sees no need at this time to require side door latch 
and hinge tests in the direction of Load Test Three.
    When proposing in the NPRM to apply Load Test Three to doors that 
open upward, it was NHTSA's belief that such doors were equipped with 
latch/striker assemblies only on the bottoms of the doors (see II.A.(1) 
of the NPRM, 59 FR 44694). NHTSA has learned, however, that the upward-
swinging back doors of certain models of MPVs are equipped with latch/
striker assemblies on the sides of the doors. Testing those latches in 
the direction of Load Test Three would be meaningless because in that 
test the load is applied in a direction in which such doors are not 
likely to open in a crash. This is the same reason Load Test Three does 
not apply to side doors. Accordingly, NHTSA has decided to apply Load 
Test Three to the hinges of back doors that swing upward to open, and 
to the latch/striker assemblies of upward-swinging doors that are 
equipped with a single latch/striker assembly.
(4) Inertia Load Requirements
    As previously noted (see section I(a) above), Standard No. 206 
currently provides that side door latches shall not disengage when an 
inertia load of 30g is applied in the longitudinal and transverse 
directions. The NPRM proposed to require back doors to withstand an 
inertia load of 30g in any direction. Nine commenters addressed this 
issue, 7 of whom opposed and 2 supported the proposal.
    Toyota and Nissan stated that the omni-directional inertia load 
requirement is unnecessary and impractical, and that the current 
requirements applicable to side doors are sufficient to simulate real 
world crash experience. AAMA, Rockwell, and Volkswagen of America, Inc. 
(VW) stated that the omni-directional inertia load requirement is not 
practical and suggested instead that the load be applied in not more 
than 3 directions. Isuzu Motors Limited, Japan (Isuzu) argued that 
there is no need for an inertia load test for back doors. Mitsubishi 
Motors America, Inc (Mitsubishi) stated that the requirement, as 
proposed, would create repeatability problems. On the other hand, 
Advocates and IIHS supported the proposal, IIHS stating that the 
proposal is reasonable because inertia loads can occur in any direction 
in real world crashes.
    NHTSA proposed the inertia load test requirement in the NPRM in the 
belief that in view of the many different orientations of back door 
latches and because real-world inertia forces are omni-directional, a 
large number of inertia load tests in various directions would be 
required to ensure adequate latch performance. However, in view of the 
manufacturers' comments that the requirement to test in any direction 
would be impractical and almost impossible to achieve, NHTSA is 
persuaded that, for practicability reasons, the number of inertia tests 
needs to be limited. Manufacturers argued that a requirement to test in 
any direction would require testing in theoretically infinite 
directions, which not only is not practical, but may not give 
sufficient emphasis on the worst case loading directions in real-world 
crashes. While it is difficult to predict inertial loading directions 
in real-world crashes, test requirements in the 3 principal directions 
would suffice to ensure that the latch would be unlikely to fail in 
many of the crash modes. In view of this, NHTSA concludes that 3 test 
load directions are adequate to ensure acceptable latch performance in 
the various loading conditions experienced in real world crashes. NHTSA 
has decided, therefore, to require inertia loads of 30g be applied to 
back door latch systems in the 3 directions specified in Load Tests 
One, Two, and Three.
(5) Abbreviated Requirements for Back Doors
    As stated in the summary of current provisions in section (I(a)) 
above, Standard No. 206 specifies a set of full requirements for 
regular side doors and abbreviated requirements for cargo-type and 
sliding side doors. Ford Motor Company (Ford) and Isuzu argued that 
back doors and hatches are used primarily for cargo area access rather 
than for passenger access, therefore the abbreviated requirements 
applicable to hinged cargo-type and sliding side doors would likewise 
be appropriate for all back doors.
    The agency has evaluated this suggestion and disagrees that only 
the abbreviated requirements should be applicable to all back doors. 
The agency's intent in this rulemaking action is to prevent the back 
door ejection of occupants by upgrading the latch/striker and hinge 
systems of back doors to reduce the incidence of unintended back door 
opening. NHTSA believes that this cannot be achieved by applying only 
the abbreviated requirements of Standard No. 206 to all back doors. 
Accordingly, the agency has decided that the primary latches of all 
back doors must meet the requirements of both the fully latched and the 
secondary latched positions. Auxiliary latches, if any, defined as a 
latch other than the primary latch of a multi-latch door system, need 
only meet the abbreviated requirements, that is, the requirements for 
the fully latched position (they need not have a secondary latch 
position or meet the strength requirements for the secondary latch).
    On a related issue, AAMA commented that certain vehicle models are 
manufactured with more than one back door latch/striker set. AAMA 
suggested that, in that situation, it should be sufficient that one 
latch include both a fully latched and a secondary latched position 
while the others, designated as auxiliary latches, have a fully latched 
position only. NHTSA considers the AAMA suggestion to be reasonable 
because typically, the primary latch/striker assembly directly connects 
the left and the right segments of a double cargo type door system to 
each other while the auxiliary latches connect one segment of the door 
system to the roof and/or floor of the vehicle. In a crash, door 
openings would occur as a result of primary latch failure. Thus, even 
if the auxiliary latch(es) failed, the door segments could still be 
held together by the primary latch set because the loading on the 
different latches is in different directions. For that reason, 
simultaneous failure of the primary and auxiliary latches is highly 
unlikely, occurring only in very severe crashes. Accordingly, only the 
primary latch system in multiple-latch door systems is required to meet 
both the fully latched and the secondary latched position requirements 
of Standard No. 206. Auxiliary latches are required to meet the fully 
latched requirements only. They are not required to have a secondary 
latch position or meet the strength requirements for a secondary latch. 
``Primary'' and ``auxiliary'' latches 

[[Page 50130]]
are defined in the regulatory text of this final rule.
(6) Secondary Latched Position
    AAMA, Mazda, Nissan, and Toyota opposed the proposal to require a 
secondary latched position in back doors on the basis that such a 
requirement would increase costs to manufacturers. Advocates and 
Rockwell, on the other hand, supported the proposal. NHTSA disagrees 
that this proposal would increase costs. On current designs, both the 
fully latched and secondary latched positions are provided by the same 
fork bolt detent lever. Typically, side door latches have two teeth on 
the detent lever with one tooth corresponding to the fully latched 
position and the other to the secondary latched position. The design 
load specifications for the latch assembly must be based on the load 
requirements for the fully latched position. Since the test load for 
the secondary latched position is less than that for the fully latched 
position, NHTSA believes the incremental cost for providing an 
additional tooth on the fork bolt detent lever to be negligible. This 
belief is based on a NHTSA cost/weight study, Cost Comparison--Two MY 
93 Rear Door Latch and Striker Sets, NHTSA docket no. 94-70, Notice 01-
001, in which the agency examined the costs of the 2 least expensive 
back door latches from the 8 latches it evaluated. One of the latches 
complied with the current requirements of Standard No. 206, while the 
other did not. The better latch had the lowest production and purchase 
prices. In addition, the better latch had both the fully latched and 
the secondary latched positions, while the inferior latch had only the 
fully latched position. As previously noted, NHTSA believes that the 
back door latches of most current production minivans and station 
wagons already have 2 latch positions. Accordingly, the agency does not 
believe that back door latches would require any major design changes 
in order to comply with the proposed fully latched and secondary 
latched position requirements.
(7) Incorporating Latch/Hinge Tests With Other Tests
    Rockwell commented that NHTSA should consider incorporating latch/
hinge tests into an existing crash test or a modified existing crash 
test. Advocates suggested that NHTSA consider roof strength performance 
standards in determining how roof strength in full rollover crashes 
affects back door retention.
    The agency agrees with the concept of combining tests where 
possible, and has done so in certain recent rules (see, for example, 
S5.3.1 and S5.3.2, Standard No. 214, Side impact protection. S5.3.1 
requires that any side door struck by the moving deformable barrier 
shall not totally separate from the vehicle. S5.3.2 requires that any 
door, including a rear hatchback or tailgate, not struck by the moving 
deformable barrier shall not disengage from the latched position, nor 
shall the latches or hinges separate or pull out of their anchorages). 
Taking such a step would not eliminate the necessity of bench testing 
of latches as components, however, since the agency wishes to assure 
the safety of latches under all possible crash conditions and loadings. 
To ensure that latches are safe in all crash modes, a system level test 
would require several tests which would be impractical and costly. In 
addition, if such an approach were used, the agency would need to 
develop new test procedures for such latch evaluation.

(c) Interior Lock Mechanisms

    Except for most station wagons with third seats in the rear of the 
vehicle, many production vehicles have neither locking mechanisms nor 
inside door handles on their back doors. Thus, unlatching cannot be 
accomplished from the inside. The agency has received several 
complaints about this, citing the potential danger of being trapped in 
the rear compartment area of a vehicle, especially young children, in 
fire or submersion situations. While agency accident data do not show 
this as a significant safety problem, NHTSA nevertheless requested 
comments in the NPRM on whether the requirements for front and/or rear 
side door locks should be extended to back doors.
    Four commenters opposed requiring door locks on the back doors, one 
supported it, and one (Mitsubishi) requested clarification of the term 
``locking mechanism with an operating means in the interior of the 
vehicle'' (S4.1.3, Standard No. 206). AAMA, Toyota, and VW argued that 
there is no need or justification for back door locks. AAMA and Toyota 
repeated their assertions that back doors are not intended for 
passengers, and Rockwell stated that a properly designed system does 
not need a lock. Nevertheless, Toyota stated that lock requirements 
would be appropriate for back doors designed for passenger ingress and 
egress. VW stated that if a back door locking requirement were adopted, 
both the inside and outside door handles or other release mechanism 
should be inoperative when the locking mechanism is engaged. Rockwell 
stated that if a locking requirement were adopted, the inside handle 
should be disengaged either electrically or manually when the vehicle 
is moving. Rockwell also stated that if a lock were required, an inside 
handle should also be required. Advocates stated that locking 
requirements should be prescribed for all back doors, regardless of 
design, in view of increased risk of multiple back door ejections 
because of back door lock disengagements.
    Standard No. 206 requires door locks in order to reduce 
unintentional door openings due to impact upon or movement of the 
inside or outside door handles (see 33 FR 6465, April 27, 1968). The 
standard requires the locks to engage so as to render the exterior 
front door handles inoperative and both the exterior and interior rear 
side door handles inoperative. Standard No. 206 does not specifically 
require doors to have door handles. However, many manufacturers already 
voluntarily provide inside handles on back doors of station wagons with 
third seats.
    NHTSA concludes that back doors that lead directly into a passenger 
compartment or that are otherwise already equipped with an interior 
door handle shall be equipped with a locking mechanism with operating 
means in both the interior and exterior of the door. The reason for 
this is similar to the reason door locks are required for side doors, 
i.e., to prevent inadvertent door openings due to impact upon or 
movement of the interior or exterior door handles. NHTSA acknowledges 
that the back doors of some vehicles so equipped are designed for 
loading and unloading cargo rather than passengers. Nevertheless, 
sometimes those doors are also used for ingress and egress of back seat 
occupants. Therefore, if doors designed primarily for loading and 
unloading cargo lack an interior door handle, no door lock is required. 
If an interior door handle is present, this rule requires a means for 
making the door handle (a door release mechanism) inoperative when the 
locking mechanism is engaged. Further, when the locking mechanism is 
engaged, both the inside and outside door handles or other latch 
release controls must be inoperative.

(d) Vehicle and Other Exclusions

    Five commenters addressed the applicability of the proposal to 
passenger motor vehicles with a GVWR of 4,536 kg (10,000 pounds) or 
less. The National Truck Equipment Association (NTEA) stated that most 
multi-stage produced vehicles can demonstrate compliance with safety 
standards only to the extent that the chassis manufacturer passes 
through its 

[[Page 50131]]
certification. NTEA stated further that many such manufacturers will 
permit their certification to pass through only if no changes or 
alterations are made to their components by the final-stage 
manufacturer. Thus, NTEA argued that in cases where doors are widened 
or lengthened, such as for ambulances and vehicles for physically 
challenged persons, there can be no pass-through. In those situations, 
NTEA said that final-stage manufacturers, most of which are small 
businesses, would be obliged to assume the burden and expense of 
compliance testing themselves. NTEA suggested, therefore, that NHTSA 
either lower the GVWR level for this rule to 2,721 kg (6,000 pounds) or 
exclude all vehicles built on a truck type chassis in 2 or more stages 
and equipped with a body designed for carrying cargo, or work-
performing or specialty equipment such as that found on ambulances, 
fire trucks, and the like.
    AAMA suggested that hinged windows, liftglass, and glass hatches 
should be exempt from the proposed requirements because glazing in 
those configurations typically would yield in a crash before the hinges 
and latches would fail. Similarly, Isuzu suggested that the glass top 
portion of split doors on which the striker and hinges are installed on 
the glass itself should be exempt. Mazda stated that extending Standard 
No. 206 requirements to back doors that have large window openings or 
large glass areas will have little or no effect in reducing unbelted 
back door ejections since occupants could be ejected through the window 
opening. Finally, similar to NTEA's suggestion, Nissan suggested that 
back doors designed for loading and unloading cargo be excluded from 
the rule.
    NHTSA recognizes that there is a substantial number of vehicles 
produced by businesses involved in manufacturing vehicles in more than 
one stage, and in converting or altering MPVs (e.g., van converters). 
Many of these are small businesses. Final-stage manufacturers typically 
install truck bodies and/or work-related equipment on chassis. Alterers 
modify the structure of new, completed vehicles. Under NHTSA's 
regulations, a final-stage manufacturer must certify that the completed 
vehicle conforms to all applicable safety standards, and alterers must 
certify that the altered vehicle continues to comply with all 
applicable safety standards.
    The impact of this rule on commercial vehicles will not be 
significant. This rulemaking does not apply to buses or trucks such as 
cargo vans and many specially-designed and equipped commercial 
vehicles. The proposal only applied to passenger motor vehicles such as 
station wagons, hatchbacks, and MPVs with a GVWR of 4,536 kg (10,000 
pounds) or less. An MPV is defined in 49 CFR 571.3 as a motor vehicle 
``designed to carry 10 persons or less'' (emphasis added). Examples of 
MPVs include passenger vans and sport utility vehicles. MPVs also 
include motor homes, ambulances, and other customized passenger 
vehicles. Except for ambulances, some of those vehicles do not have 
back doors and will therefore not be affected by this rule.
    In response to NTEA's concerns, as to final-stage manufacturers and 
alterers that produce vehicles that are subject to today's rule, it 
should not be difficult for those entities to satisfy their 
certification responsibilities with respect to Standard No. 206. NHTSA 
believes that many final-stage manufacturers should be able to meet the 
requirements of Standard No. 206 by utilizing the latch and hinge 
systems that were originally certified by the incomplete vehicle 
manufacturer as complying with the standard. Even if the final-stage 
manufacturer or alterer cannot use the original latch and hinge 
systems, it should not be unduly burdensome for those entities to 
obtain back door latch systems that comply with Standard No. 206 and 
certify compliance of their vehicles with the standard. Latch designs 
similar to those used for side doors can be used for back doors in many 
MPVs and are commercially available at low cost. Side doors of new 
vehicles are currently subject to Standard No. 206, and this rule 
essentially only extends those side door requirements to back doors. 
Thus, the certification responsibilities of final- stage manufacturers 
and alterers under Standard No. 206 with respect to back doors should 
be very similar to their current responsibilities under Standard No. 
206 with respect to side doors. Moreover, the test burdens associated 
with this final rule are not significant.
    This rule specifies a relatively simple component test that 
provides for bench testing of latches and hinges. It does not specify a 
dynamic test requirement. Manufacturers and alterers may, but are not 
required, to test their vehicles using the test procedures specified by 
Standard No. 206. The test procedures of Standard No. 206, like those 
of all other Federal motor vehicle safety standards, set forth the test 
procedures NHTSA uses in its compliance testing. In view of the 
standards to which manufacturers and alterers already certify and the 
manufacturing operations they undertake, final-stage manufacturers and 
alterers should have the necessary technical expertise and resources to 
certify to the back door standards. Alternatively, those final-stage 
manufacturers and alterers who install back door latches could require 
that their suppliers provide certification that their back door latch 
systems comply with the requirements of the standard. NHTSA does not 
require final-stage manufacturers and alterers themselves to conduct 
the testing specified in this final rule.
    NHTSA agrees with the suggestions of AAMA and Isuzu that windows 
and doors on which latch/hinge systems are mounted directly onto the 
glazing (glass, glass/plastic, or plastic) should be excluded from the 
standard. In virtually all such cases, the glazing would fail before 
the latch and/or hinge fails. Thus, strengthening the latches and 
hinges on those doors would not prevent them from opening. The agency 
disagrees, however, with Mazda's suggestion that doors containing large 
glass areas be excluded. While it may be true that occupants could be 
ejected through large windows in back doors, the agency believes that 
ejection is less likely when the doors remain closed than if they 
opened. With a closed door, the occupant may be retained by the door 
structure and not ejected through the window. Thus, the agency has 
included back doors in this final rule, regardless of the size of the 
windows in those doors, because upgrading the strength of latches and 
hinges is needed to better ensure that those doors remain closed in a 
crash.
    Finally, the agency does not agree with Nissan's suggestion that 
back doors designed for loading and unloading cargo be excluded from 
the rule. Even though back doors in many vehicles may be designed 
primarily for cargo loading and unloading, an unbelted occupant can be 
ejected through those doors in a crash. NHTSA's data show that back 
doors in general open more frequently than side doors, and that the 
majority of back door ejections occurred from hatchback cars, passenger 
vans, and utility vehicles. The back doors of those vehicles are 
designed primarily for cargo loading and unloading. However, occupant 
ejections through those doors, especially unbelted occupants, are a 
serious safety problem. Accordingly, by this final rule the agency 
extends the requirements of Standard No. 206 to the latch and hinge 
assemblies of back doors of passenger cars and MPVs, and to the locks 
and interior release mechanisms of back doors equipped with interior 
door handles or that are designed for passenger ingress and egress. 
Nissan's suggestion, therefore, is not adopted. 

[[Page 50132]]


(e) Lead Time

    NHTSA proposed in the NPRM a lead time of 2 years following the 
first September 1 after publication of a final rule, i.e., a lead time 
of 2-3 years. Six comments were received on this proposal. AAMA stated 
that more lead time and an appropriate phase-in period would be 
necessary to allow the time to evaluate and make necessary changes. 
Nissan and Mazda urged an effective date of 3 and 4 years, 
respectively, after the issuance of the final rule to allow for 
revisions, possibly extensive, of function and styling of body 
structures. Ford commented that it could not meet the proposed date 
because of the testing necessary to determine what changes would be 
needed, and suggested a phase-in period starting with model year 1998. 
VW stated that it could meet the proposed 2-year lead time if NHTSA 
adopted the substantive suggestions in their comments. Advocates 
commented that the proposed effective date was reasonable.
    The agency continues to believe that most of the latches and hinges 
currently installed in back doors would meet the requirements of this 
final rule with little or no design changes, as discussed above. 
Manufacturers did not provide an analysis of why they could not comply 
with the proposed lead time. They only requested generally more time, 
without explaining why more time was necessary. Therefore, in the 
absence of data to the contrary, the agency considers September 1, 1997 
to be sufficient lead time to meet the new requirements.

(f) Definitions

    AAMA, Toyota, Nissan, and Mitsubishi commented that the proposed 
definition of ``back door'' is not clear because it neither 
distinguishes between doors and cargo compartment covers such as trunk 
lids of passenger cars, nor between doors and hinged windows. AAMA also 
stated that latch ``face'' needs to be defined to facilitate 
identification of the surface to which the test load must be parallel 
or perpendicular. AAMA also said that while door latches typically have 
planar (flat 2-dimensional characteristic) mounting surfaces, some 
designs may have mounting surfaces which are not planar or which are 
multi-planar. Toyota and Nissan stated that ``hinge face plate'' needs 
to be defined, Toyota suggesting that it should be defined as the 
mounting side of the hinge on the body of the vehicle.
    The agency has decided, in response to these comments, to modify 
the definition of ``back door'' so that it clearly excludes trunk lids 
on passenger cars. The agency does not, however, adopt Toyota's and 
Nissan's suggestions to define ``latch face'' and ``hinge face plate'' 
since SAE J839 and SAE J934 provide detailed drawings showing how to 
mount the component on the test fixture and how and where to apply the 
required test loads.

(g) Belt Use

    AAMA, Mazda, and Rockwell referred to NHTSA's 1990 denial of the 
IIHS petition, commenting that the situation has not changed that much 
since then, and that the agency's current analysis still has not shown 
that upgrading latch and hinge performance will reduce back door 
ejections. IIHS expressed approval that NHTSA is conducting this 
rulemaking at this time.
    The commenters are correct that seat belts are effective in 
preventing ejections. However, as explained above, more than 95 percent 
of the back door ejections are passengers who were unbelted at the time 
of the crash. Since NHTSA's data show that fatalities from back door 
ejections have increased from an estimated 93 to 130 in the time period 
1982-1988 to an estimated 147 in the time period 1988 to 1992, finding 
innovative ways to encourage seat belt use, as suggested by Mazda, is 
not by itself sufficient to address the problem of unbelted occupants. 
Thus, the agency believes that the significant increase in fatalities 
through back door ejections now justifies rulemaking action to upgrade 
the performance requirements of back door latches, hinges, and locks.

IV. Cost/Benefit Analysis

(a) Projected Vehicle Fleet

    According to 1992 data available to NHTSA, 20 percent of passenger 
cars were hatchbacks and station wagons, while approximately 54 percent 
of all light trucks and vans (LTVs) were sport utility vehicles and 
passenger vans. Also, based on available data, the agency estimates 
that approximately 9.4 million passenger cars and 6.2 million LTVs will 
be sold in 1997. Applying the 1992 percentages to those figures, NHTSA 
estimates that of the 15.6 million vehicles predicted to be sold in 
1997, approximately 5.2 million will be equipped with back doors, 
compared to 4.2 million in 1992. This represents an estimated 24 
percent increase in the number of model year 1997 vehicles potentially 
affected by this rule compared to the number of model year 1992 
vehicles that could have been so affected.
    Similarly, the total vehicle population has increased since 1990 
and is expected to continue to increase in the future. While the 
passenger car fleet has held relatively steady since 1990, the LTV 
fleet has increased by 17 percent. Assuming the continuation of those 
trends, NHTSA estimates a total vehicle fleet of approximately 194 
million passenger cars and LTVs in the 1998-1999 period, up from a 
total vehicle fleet of 181.5 million in 1992. This represents an 
increase of about 7 percent. Assuming a similar increase in the target 
vehicle population, the agency estimates that in 1998 and beyond there 
will be approximately 160 fatalities and 200 serious injuries annually 
resulting from back door ejections.

(b) Costs and Potential Benefits

(1) Agency Analysis of Cost Data
    As discussed above in section I(c)(6) regarding the costs and 
benefits of the proposal, NHTSA tested the back door latches of eight 
1993 model year minivans for compliance with the current requirements 
of Standard No. 206 for the fully latched position. Two failed the 
longitudinal load test (equivalent to proposed Load Test One) and 1 
failed the transverse load test (equivalent to Load Test Two), while 
the remaining latches complied with the standard's current 
requirements. The 3 failing latches had the highest, second highest and 
second lowest purchase prices. The lowest price latch gave a 
performance superior to the others and included both the fully latched 
and the secondary latched positions. In addition, the agency conducted 
a cost/weight study using 2 minivan latches that had the lowest and the 
second lowest prices among the 8 latches tested. The results showed 
that the estimated production cost for those 2 latches was less than 
$4.00, which is less than 15 percent of the consumer replacement cost 
charged by dealers. All latches, except the one that failed the Load 
Test Two requirement, had secondary latched positions. That latch has 
since been modified. The 1995 model year latch complies with all three 
load tests.
    The agency also conducted latch tests on 12 different model year 
1995 vehicles, using Load Tests One, Two, and Three. A total of 6 tests 
were conducted, composed of Load Test One in the fully and secondary 
latched positions; Load Test Two in the fully and secondary latched 
positions; and Load Test Three in the left and right loading 
directions. The test vehicles included 5 hatchbacks, 2 station wagons, 
and 5 MPVs. The 5 hatchbacks and 1 MPV did not have the secondary 
latched position. Among the 5 

[[Page 50133]]
hatchback latches tested, 1 failed all tests, another failed Load Test 
One in both positions and Load Test Two in the secondary latched 
position. The remaining 3 hatchback latches failed Load Tests One and 
Two in the secondary latched position. Two station wagons passed all 6 
tests. The MPV which did not have a secondary latched position failed 
Load Test Two in the fully latched position. One MPV failed Load Tests 
One and Two in the secondary latched position, another failed Load Test 
One in the fully latched position. Finally, a sport van failed 4 of the 
6 tests. These tests showed again that latch price is not directly 
related to the latch's level of performance. The tests also showed that 
many of the current production light passenger vehicles already comply 
with the back door latch requirements of this rule. NHTSA believes that 
all production latches could comply with the requirements of this rule 
with only minor modifications, and that the costs of complying with the 
secondary latched position requirement are negligible to none. Thus, 
NHTSA believes that extending the requirements of Standard No. 206, 
including the addition of Load Test Three, will not result in any 
significant increase in production costs. The agency also concludes 
that the cost of complying with the secondary latched position 
requirement, if needed, could cost up to $1.00 per latch.
    The agency also tested the back door hinge systems of 11 production 
vehicles. Load Test Two was not conducted on one vehicle hinge and Load 
Test Three was not conducted on 2 others. Those three components were 
judged to be strong, however, and their ultimate strength is expected 
to exceed the requirements as proposed. Aside from those 3, all hinges 
passed all the tests to which they were subjected.
    To estimate the incremental new vehicle costs from upgrading 
hinges, the agency began by examining the replacement part costs of 
both the side door and back door hinges of a series of production 
vehicles. All vehicles had side doors with 2 hinges, but some of their 
back doors had auxiliary hinges that allowed those doors to open in 
different directions. The consumer replacement prices for primary 
hinges ranged from $40 to $120 for a pair of side door hinges and $20 
to $100 for a pair of back door hinges. The agency calculated that the 
weighted average consumer price of replacement side and back door 
hinges would be about the same, approximately $53 per pair. Thus, NHTSA 
estimates that the incremental consumer cost to upgrade back door 
hinges, if improvements were required, would range from $0 to $20 with 
an average of about $10 per pair of replacement hinges. NHTSA 
emphasizes that those prices are estimated consumer replacement costs 
which are usually much higher than new vehicle consumer costs. Thus, 
based on NHTSA's estimates that incremental production costs are less 
than 15 percent of retail consumer costs, NHTSA estimates that the 
incremental production costs for necessary hinge improvements, if 
needed, would range from $0 to $3.00.
    With respect to the issue of back door locks and interior release 
handles, NHTSA examined 24 station wagons, some with back doors 
designed for passenger ingress. Fourteen had either rear or side-facing 
third seats in the rear of the vehicles, the other 10 did not have the 
third row of seats. Twelve of the 14 vehicles in the former group had 
inside door handles, while none in the latter group did. It appears, 
therefore, that most manufacturers have already voluntarily addressed 
the issue of occupant ingress and egress through back doors by 
providing inside door handles on their station wagons equipped with a 
third row of seats. Accordingly, since most mid and large size station 
wagons already have a locking system similar to that specified in this 
final rule, as do ambulances and motor homes, NHTSA estimates that 
incremental costs for lock improvements needed to comply with the 
requirements of this final rule are minimal, no more than $1.00 per 
vehicle.
(2) Estimated Lives Saved
    NHTSA has previously noted that the door latch requirements of 
Standard No. 206 have reduced the risk of side door ejections in 
rollover crashes by at least 15 percent, saving at least 400 lives per 
year (see section I(c)(6) above on costs and benefits of the proposal). 
The 1990 report concluded that a hatchback or tailgate was 3 times as 
likely to open in a crash as one of the front doors and 7-8 times as 
likely to open as one of the rear side doors. Further, the back door of 
a van is 4 times as likely to open as one of the front doors and twice 
as likely to open as the right rear side door (passenger vans seldom 
have a left side rear door). NHTSA believes, therefore, that extending 
the requirements of Standard No. 206 to back doors will be as effective 
in reducing back door openings as the standard's requirements have been 
in reducing side door openings. This is because the back door 
requirements will include 3 tests instead of the 2 currently required. 
Accordingly, by applying that effectiveness value to the estimated 
noncomplying target vehicle population, NHTSA estimates that 13 lives 
will be saved and 17 serious injuries prevented annually by extending 
the requirements of Standard No. 206 to back doors.
(3) Estimated Cost/Benefit Ratio
    As discussed in section IV(a) above on the projected vehicle fleet, 
NHTSA projects that approximately 5.2 million vehicles equipped with 
back doors will be produced in 1997. This target vehicle fleet is 
expected to consist of 1.9 million passenger cars and 3.3 million other 
types of light passenger vehicles. NHTSA further estimates that 
approximately 0.4 of the 1.9 million passenger cars will be station 
wagons (0.24 million mid and large size station wagons and 0.16 small 
station wagons) and 1.5 million will be hatchbacks. Based on the 
agency's test results, NHTSA estimates that approximately 190,000 of 
the mid and large size station wagons and approximately 20,000 small 
station wagons will be equipped with third seats and, therefore, 
required to meet the proposed door lock requirements. In addition to 
station wagons, an estimated 2,500 ambulances, mostly with 2 back 
doors, and 20,000 motor homes, mostly with 1 back door, will be 
produced in 1997. The agency estimates, therefore, that approximately 
240,000 vehicles produced in 1997 will be required to be equipped with 
back door locks. The agency also estimates that 1.5 million hatchbacks 
and 1.1 million MPVs produced in 1997 may require some minor latch 
modifications other than providing a secondary latched position at 
minimal cost. In all, NHTSA estimates that about 55 percent of the 
vehicles expected to be produced in 1997 will require some minor 
improvements in their latch and/or lock designs under this rule at a 
total estimated cost of up to $1,740,000, not including potential costs 
for compliance testing. The agency also concludes that hinge 
improvements will not be necessary. Accordingly, using the projected 
safety benefits of this final rule, that is, prevention of 
approximately 13 fatalities and 17 serious injuries annually, the 
annual cost of this rulemaking action is estimated to be approximately 
$112,000 per equivalent life saved.

V. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

(a) Executive Order No. 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and 
Procedures

    This rulemaking document was not reviewed under E.O. 12866, 
Regulatory 

[[Page 50134]]
Planning and Review. NHTSA has considered the impact of this rulemaking 
action under the DOT's regulatory policies and procedures and has 
determined that it is not ``significant'' within the meaning of those 
policies and procedures.
    The amendments promulgated by this final rule extend the 
requirements of Standard No. 206 to back doors of passenger cars and 
MPVs, including hatchbacks, passenger vans, station wagons and sport 
utility vehicles with a GVWR of 4,536 kg (10,000 pounds) or less that 
are so equipped. The agency believes that the economic impact of this 
rulemaking action is minimal both to manufacturers and consumers since 
agency data indicate that many back door latches, hinges, and locks 
already comply with the requirements of this rule. If any changes must 
be made by manufacturers to comply with this rule, the agency believes 
that such changes will be minor in nature, of very little or no cost, 
and easily capable of being accomplished within the lead time provided. 
As noted above, the total cost of bringing the remaining noncompliant 
vehicles into compliance is estimated to be up to a total of 
$1,740,000. Accordingly, a full regulatory evaluation was not prepared.

(b) Regulatory Flexibility Act

    NHTSA has considered the effects of this rulemaking action under 
the Regulatory Flexibility Act. I hereby certify that the amendments 
promulgated by this final rule will not have a significant impact on a 
substantial number of small entities. Accordingly, a regulatory 
flexibility analysis has not been prepared.
    The agency believes that few, if any, motor vehicle manufacturers 
qualify as small businesses. Small businesses, small organizations, and 
small governmental units may be affected by this rulemaking action only 
to the extent that they could pay a few dollars more for the vehicles 
that they purchase with the complying back door latches, hinges, and 
locks.

(c) Executive Order 12612, Federalism

    NHTSA has analyzed this rulemaking action in accordance with the 
principles and criteria of Executive Order No. 12612 and has determined 
that this rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to 
warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.

(d) National Environmental Policy Act

    NHTSA has analyzed this rulemaking action for the purposes of the 
National Environmental Policy Act and has determined that 
implementation of this rulemaking action will not have any significant 
impact on the quality of the human environment.

(e) Paperwork Reduction Act

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, P.L. 96-
511, NHTSA states that there are no information collection requirements 
associated with this rulemaking action.

(f) Civil Justice Reform

    This rule does not have any retroactive effect. Under 49 U.S.C. 
30103(b), whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard is in 
effect, a state or political subdivision thereof may prescribe or 
continue in effect a standard applicable to the same aspect of 
performance of a motor vehicle only if the standard is identical to the 
Federal standard. However, a state may prescribe a standard for a motor 
vehicle or equipment obtained for its own use that imposes a higher 
performance requirement than the Federal standard. 49 U.S.C. 30161 sets 
forth a procedure for judicial review of final rules establishing, 
amending or revoking Federal motor vehicle safety standards. A petition 
for reconsideration or other administrative proceedings is not required 
before parties may file suit in court.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 571

    Imports, Motor vehicle safety, Motor vehicles, Rubber and rubber 
products, Tires, Incorporation by reference.

PART 571--FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS

    In consideration of the foregoing, 49 CFR Part 571 is amended as 
follows:
    1. The authority citation for Part 571 continues to read as 
follows:

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

    2. Section 571.206 is amended by revising S1; adding the 
definitions of ``auxiliary door latch,'' ``back door,'' ``fork-bolt,'' 
``fork-bolt opening,'' and ``primary door latch'', in alphabetical 
order, to S3; revising S4, S4.1.1.1, S4.1.1.2, S4.1.2, S4.2.1.1, 
S4.2.1.2, S4.2.2, and S4.3; adding S4.4 through S4.5; revising the 
heading of S5.1; revising S5.1.1.1, S5.1.1.2, S5.1.2, S5.2.1, S5.2.2, 
and S5.3; revising the heading of S5.2; adding S5.4 through S5.5; and 
adding Figure 1 to the end of the section, to read as follows:


Sec. 571.206  Standard No. 206, Door locks and door retention 
components.

    S1. Purpose and Scope. This standard specifies requirements for 
door locks and door retention components including latches, hinges, and 
other supporting means, to minimize the likelihood of occupants being 
thrown from the vehicle as a result of impact.
* * * * *
    S3. Definitions.
    Auxiliary door latch means a latch or latches, other than the 
primary latch or latches, fitted to a back door or back door system 
that is equipped with more than one latch.
    Back door means a door or door system on the back end of a vehicle 
through which passengers can enter or depart the vehicle, or cargo can 
be loaded or unloaded, except--
    (1) the trunk lid of a passenger car whose trunk is separated from 
the passenger compartment by a partition; and
    (2) a door or window composed entirely of glazing material whose 
latches and/or hinges are attached directly onto the glazing material.
* * * * *
    Fork-bolt means the part of the door latch that engages the striker 
when in a latched position.
    Fork-bolt opening means the direction opposite to that in which the 
striker enters to engage the fork-bolt.
    Primary door latch means, with respect to a back door or back door 
system, the latch or latches equipped with both the fully latched 
position and the secondary latched position.
* * * * *
    S4. Requirements. Components on any side door leading directly into 
a compartment that contains one or more seating accommodations, and 
components on any back door of a passenger car or multipurpose 
passenger vehicle manufactured on or after September 1, 1997 with a 
gross vehicle weight rating of 4,536 kilograms (10,000 pounds) or less 
shall conform to this standard. A particular latch or hinge assembly 
(i.e., test specimen) need not meet further requirements after having 
been subject to and having met any one of the requirements of S4 or 
S5.1 through S5.4. Components on folding doors, roll-up doors, doors 
that are designed to be easily attached to or removed from motor 
vehicles manufactured for operation without doors, and doors that are 
equipped with wheelchair lifts and that are linked to an alarm system 
consisting of either a flashing visible signal located in the driver's 
compartment or an alarm audible to the driver that is activated when 
the door is open, need not conform to this standard. 

[[Page 50135]]

    S4.1  Hinged Side Doors, Except Cargo-Type Doors.
* * * * *
    S4.1.1.1  Longitudinal Load. The door latch and striker assembly, 
when in the fully latched position, shall not separate when a 
longitudinal load of 11,000 Newtons (2,500 pounds) is applied. When in 
the secondary latched position, the door latch and striker assembly 
shall not separate when a longitudinal load of 4,450 Newtons (1,000 
pounds) is applied.
    S4.1.1.2  Transverse Load. The door latch and striker assembly, 
when in the fully latched position, shall not separate when a 
transverse load of 8,900 Newtons (2,000 pounds) is applied. When in the 
secondary latched position, the door latch and striker assembly shall 
not separate when a transverse load of 4,450 Newtons (1,000 pounds) is 
applied.
* * * * *
    S4.1.2  Door Hinges. Each door hinge system shall support the door 
and shall not separate when a longitudinal load of 11,000 Newtons 
(2,500 pounds) is applied. Similarly, each door hinge system shall not 
separate when a transverse load of 8,900 Newtons (2,000 pounds) is 
applied.
* * * * *
    S4.2  Hinged Cargo-Type Side Doors.
    S4.2.1 Door Latches.
    S4.2.1.1  Longitudinal Load. Each latch system, when in the latched 
position, shall not separate when a longitudinal load of 11,000 Newtons 
(2,500 pounds) is applied.
    S4.2.1.2  Transverse Load. Each latch system, when in the latched 
position, shall not separate when a transverse load of 8,900 Newtons 
(2,000 pounds) is applied. When more than one latch system is used on a 
single door, the load requirement may be divided among the total number 
of latch systems.
    S4.2.2  Door Hinges. Each door hinge system shall support the door 
and shall not separate when a longitudinal load of 11,000 Newtons 
(2,500 pounds) is applied, and when a transverse load of 8,900 Newtons 
(2,000 pounds) is applied.
    S4.3  Sliding Side Doors. The track and slide combination or other 
supporting means for each sliding door shall not separate when a total 
transverse load of 17,800 Newtons (4,000 pounds) is applied, with the 
door in the closed position.
* * * * *
    S4.4. Hinged Back Doors.
    S4.4.1  Door Latches. Each back door system shall be equipped with 
at least one primary latch and striker assembly.
    S4.4.1.1  Load Test One. The primary door latch and striker 
assembly, when in the fully latched position, shall not separate when a 
load of 11,000 Newtons (2,500 pounds) is applied in the direction 
perpendicular to the face of the latch (corresponding to the 
longitudinal load test for side door latches) such that the latch and 
the striker anchorage are not compressed against each other. When in 
the secondary latched position, the primary latch and striker assembly 
shall not separate when a load of 4,450 Newtons (1,000 pounds) is 
applied in the same direction.
    S4.4.1.2  Load Test Two. The primary door latch and striker 
assembly, when in the fully latched position, shall not separate when a 
load of 8,900 Newtons (2,000 pounds) is applied in the direction of the 
fork-bolt opening and parallel to the face of the latch (corresponding 
to the transverse load test). Figure 1 depicts the loading direction 
for this test. When in the secondary latched position, the primary 
latch and striker assembly shall not separate when a load of 4,450 
Newtons (1,000 pounds) is applied in the same direction.
    S4.4.1.3  Load Test Three. The primary door latch and striker 
assembly on back doors equipped with a latch and striker assembly at 
the bottom of the door and that open upward shall not disengage from 
the fully latched position when a load of 8,900 Newtons (2,000 pounds) 
is applied in a direction orthogonal to the directions specified in 
S4.4.1.1 and S4.4.1.2 above.
    S4.4.1.4  Inertia Load. The primary door latch shall not disengage 
from the fully latched position when an inertia load of 30g is applied 
to the door latch system, including the latch and its activation 
mechanism with the locking mechanism disengaged, in the directions 
specified in S4.4.1.1, S4.4.1.2, and S4.4.1.3.
    S4.4.1.5  Auxiliary Door Latches. Each auxiliary back door latch 
and striker assembly shall be provided with a fully latched position 
and shall comply with the requirements specified in S4.4.1.1, S4.4.1.2, 
and S4.4.1.4.
    S4.4.2  Door Locks. Each back door system equipped with interior 
door handles or that leads directly into a compartment that contains 
one or more seating accommodations shall be equipped with a locking 
mechanism with operating means in both the interior and exterior of the 
vehicle. When the locking mechanism is engaged, both the inside and 
outside door handles or other latch release controls shall be 
inoperative.
    S4.4.3  Door Hinges.
    S4.4.3.1  Load Test One. Each back door hinge system shall support 
the door and shall not separate when a load of 11,000 Newtons (2,500 
pounds) is applied perpendicular to the hinge face plate (longitudinal 
load test) such that the hinge plates are not compressed against each 
other.
    S4.4.3.2  Load Test Two. Each back door hinge system shall not 
separate when a load of 8,900 Newtons (2,000 pounds) 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.
    S4.4.3.3  Load Test Three. Each hinge system on back doors that 
open upward shall not separate when a load of 8,900 Newtons (2,000 
pounds) is applied in the direction of the axis of the hinge pin.
    S4.5  Sliding Back Doors. The track and slide combination or other 
supporting means for each sliding door shall not separate when a total 
longitudinal load of 17,800 Newtons (4,000 pounds) is applied, with the 
door in the closed position. * * *
    S5.1. Hinged Side Doors, Except Cargo-Type Doors. * * *
    S5.1.1.1  Longitudinal and Transverse Loads. Compliance with 
paragraphs S4.1.1.1 and S4.1.1.2 shall be demonstrated in accordance 
with paragraph 5 of Society of Automotive Engineers Recommended 
Practice J839, Passenger Car Side Door Latch Systems, June 1991.
    S5.1.1.2  Inertia Load. Compliance with S4.1.1.3 shall be 
demonstrated by approved tests or in accordance with paragraph 6 of 
Society of Automotive Engineers Recommended Practice J839, Passenger 
Car Side Door Latch Systems, June 1991.
    S5.1.2  Door Hinges. Compliance with S4.1.2 shall be demonstrated 
in accordance with paragraph 4 or 5, as appropriate, of Society of 
Automotive Engineers Recommended Practice J934, Vehicle Passenger Door 
Hinge Systems, July 1982. For piano-type hinges, the hinge spacing 
requirements of SAE J934 shall not be applicable and arrangement of the 
test fixture shall be altered as required so that the test load will be 
applied to the complete hinge.
    S5.2  Hinged Cargo-Type Side Doors.
    S5.2.1  Door Latches. Compliance with S4.2.1 shall be demonstrated 
in accordance with paragraphs 5.1 and 5.3, SAE Recommended Practice 
J839, Passenger Car Side Door Latch Systems, June 1991. An equivalent 
static test fixture may be substituted for that shown in Figure 2 of 
SAE J839, if required. 

[[Page 50136]]

    S5.2.2  Door Hinges. Compliance with S4.2.2 shall be demonstrated 
in accordance with paragraph 4 or 5, as appropriate, of SAE Recommended 
Practice J934, Vehicle Passenger Door Hinge Systems, July 1982. For 
piano-type hinges, the hinge spacing requirement of SAE J934 shall not 
be applicable and arrangement of the test fixture shall be altered as 
required so that the test load will be applied to the complete hinge.
    S5.3  Sliding Side Doors. Compliance with S4.3 shall be 
demonstrated by applying an outward transverse load of 8,900 Newtons 
(2,000 pounds) to the load-bearing members at the opposite edges of the 
door (17,800 Newtons (4,000 pounds) total). The demonstration may be 
performed either in the vehicle or with the door retention components 
in a bench test fixture.
    S5.4  Hinged Back Doors.
    S5.4.1  Door Latches.
    S5.4.1.1  Load Tests One, Two, and Three. Compliance with S4.4.1.1, 
S4.4.1.2, and S4.4.1.3 shall be demonstrated in the same manner as 
specified in S5.1.1.1, except that the loads shall be in the directions 
specified in S4.4.1.1, S4.4.1.2, and S4.4.1.3. The same test device may 
be used for Load Tests Two and Three.
    S5.4.1.2  Inertia Load. Compliance with S4.4.1.4 shall be 
demonstrated in the same manner as specified in S5.1.1.2.
    S5.4.2  Door Hinges. Compliance with S4.4.3.1, S4.4.3.2, and 
S4.4.3.3 shall be demonstrated in the same manner as specified in 
S5.1.2, except that the loads shall be in the directions specified in 
S4.4.3.1, S4.4.3.2, and S4.4.3.3. The same test device may be used for 
Load Tests Two and Three.
    S5.5  Sliding Back Doors. Compliance with S4.5 shall be 
demonstrated by applying an outward longitudinal load of 8,900 Newtons 
(2,000 pounds) to the load bearing members at the opposite edges of the 
door (17,000 Newtons (4,000 pounds) total). The demonstration may be 
performed either in the vehicle or with the door retention components 
in a bench test fixture.
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P

[[Page 50137]]
[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TR28SE95.010



    Issued on: September 22, 1995.
Ricardo Martinez,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 95-23986 Filed 9-27-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-C