[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 224 (Thursday, November 20, 2003)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 65431-65433]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-28941]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 571

[Docket No. NHTSA-2002-11321; Notice 1]


Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards

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

ACTION: Denial of petition for rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: This document denies a petition for rulemaking submitted by 
General Motors Corporation (GM) on October 19, 2001. The petitioner 
requested that NHTSA initiate rulemaking to amend the test conditions 
specified in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 208, 
``Occupant crash protection,'' and FMVSS No. 214, ``Side impact 
protection,'' allowing vehicles equipped with automatic door locks 
(ADLs) to be tested with the doors locked. In its petition for 
rulemaking, GM stated that the proposed changes would allow vehicles 
equipped with ADLs to be tested according to their designed condition, 
better reflecting field performance. Further, GM stated that initiating 
such a rulemaking would encourage manufacturers to equip their vehicles 
with ADLs, resulting in better occupant protection.
    After examining four ADL designs and our crash test data, the 
agency is denying the petition for rulemaking for several reasons. Some 
ADL systems can be readily disabled, there is no evidence that ADLs 
provide a safety benefit, and testing ADL-equipped vehicles with all 
doors locked could degrade the minimum performance requirements 
specified in FMVSS Nos. 208 and 214.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The following persons at NHTSA, 400 
Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590:
    For non-legal issues: Dr. William Fan, Office of Crashworthiness 
Standards, NVS-112, telephone (202) 366-4922, facsimile (202) 366-4329.
    For legal issues: Deirdre Fujita, Esq., Office of Chief Counsel, 
NCC-112, telephone (202) 366-2992, facsimile (202) 366-3820.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

1. Background

a. The Provision

    Sections S8.1.7 and S16.2.4 of FMVSS No. 208, ``Occupant crash 
protection,'' specify that in frontal crash tests, all vehicle doors 
are fully closed and latched but not locked. In addition, FMVSS No. 208 
requires that all portions of the test dummy shall be contained within 
the outer surfaces of the vehicle passenger compartment throughout the 
test. Section S6.8 of FMVSS No. 214, ``Side impact protection,'' 
specifies that in side impact tests, all doors, including any rear 
hatch and tailgate doors, are fully closed and latched but not locked. 
In addition, FMVSS No. 214 requires that any side door on the struck 
side shall not separate totally from the vehicle, and that any door on 
the non-struck side shall meet the following requirements:
    1. The door shall not disengage from the latched position,
    2. The latch shall not separate from the striker, and the hinge 
components shall not separate from each other or from their attachment 
to the vehicle, and
    3. Neither the latch nor the hinge systems of the door shall pull 
out of their anchorages.
    The above test requirements and procedures simulate a worst-case 
crash condition for real crashes with respect to the door latch/lock.

[[Page 65432]]

b. Safety Problem

    Crash data indicate that 9,303 out of 33,387 fatally injured 
occupants in motor vehicle crashes were ejected or partially ejected 
from their vehicles in the year 2000. Among these, 8,847 were light 
vehicle occupants, and the remaining 456 were occupants of large 
trucks, buses, and other vehicles. According to annualized national 
estimates derived from the 1991-2000 National Automotive Sampling 
System investigated cases, an average of approximately 8,464 light 
vehicle occupants are ejected and killed annually, and 1,272 of the 
8,464 fatal ejections occur through a side or rear door. (The majority 
of the remaining fatal ejections occur through the side window 
glazing.) Based on the annualized national estimates, we estimate that 
approximately 1,330 light vehicle occupants were ejected through an 
open door and killed in the year 2000. An estimated 1,227 of the 
occupants went through a side door opening and the remainder went 
through a rear door opening. Approximately 47 percent and 18 percent of 
the 1,330 fatal ejections occurred in side and frontal crashes, 
respectively. The remaining 35 percent occurred in rollover and other 
crashes.
    Currently, both FMVSS Nos. 208 and 214 specify that the vehicle 
doors are fully closed and latched, but not locked when tested. With 
respect to the lock position, this procedure simulates a worst-case 
crash condition for real-world crashes. By specifying a worst-case test 
condition, these requirements lead to stronger door latches, providing 
better occupant ejection safety protection.

c. Automatic Door Locks (ADLs)

    Recently, many passenger vehicles have been equipped with ADLs. 
Four basic ADL designs currently exist: (1) Gear-based, (2) speed-
based, (3) ignition-based, and (4) brake-based locking. Three of the 
designs are not sensitive to vehicle traveling speed. The following are 
general descriptions of these ADLs.
    1. Gear-based ADLs: All vehicle doors will automatically lock when 
the vehicle transmission is shifted out of the ``park'' position when 
all doors are closed and the engine running.
    2. Speed-based ADLs: All vehicle doors will automatically lock 
when:
    [sbull] All doors are closed while the transmission is in any 
position other than ``park'' and the vehicle brake pedal is inactive, 
and
    [sbull] The engine is running and the vehicle speed exceeds a pre-
defined limit.
    3. Ignition-based ADLs: All vehicle doors will automatically lock 
when the vehicle ignition is turned on (regardless of whether the door 
is open).
    4. Brake-based ADLs: All vehicle doors will automatically lock 
when:
    [sbull] All doors become closed while the transmission is in any 
position other than ``park'' and the brake pedal is active, and
    [sbull] The engine is running, and the brake pedal becomes 
inactive.
    An ADL-equipped vehicle will automatically lock the doors whenever 
the driver completes the said procedures during a trip. Judging from 
the above general descriptions, NHTSA believes that only ADLs equipped 
with speed-based locking can assure that the doors will lock 
continuously when the vehicle is moving above a certain speed. However, 
there are instances when an ADL could be broken, disabled, defeated or 
unlocked manually before and/or during a crash. The other three ADL 
systems cannot assure that the doors will lock continuously when the 
vehicle is moving. Also, the owner's manuals of some vehicles explain 
how the owner can disable and/or modify the ADLs.

2. Discussion

a. The Petition for Rulemaking

    On October 19, 2001, GM submitted a petition for rulemaking (Docket 
No. NHTSA-02-11321-1) requesting that NHTSA initiate rulemaking to 
amend the test conditions of FMVSS Nos. 208 and 214 allowing vehicles 
equipped with ADLs to be tested with all doors locked. Currently, 
S8.1.7 and S16.2.4 of FMVSS No. 208 specify that in a frontal crash 
test, all vehicle doors are fully closed and latched but not locked. 
Similarly, S6.8 of FMVSS No. 214 specifies that in a side impact test, 
all doors, including any rear hatch or tailgate, are fully closed and 
latched but not locked. The petition for rulemaking indicates that GM 
has decided to equip all its future passenger cars and light trucks 
with ADLs that are programmed to lock while the vehicle is moving, and 
that the requested amendment would allow vehicles equipped with ADLs to 
be tested according to their designed condition. GM claims that this 
test condition would better reflect and predict field performance. In 
addition, GM claims that initiating such a rulemaking would encourage 
manufacturers to equip their vehicles with ADLs, and that this would 
result in better occupant protection.

b. Agency Analysis

    Crash experience prior to the issuance of FMVSS Nos. 208 and 214 
and subsequent analyses of the crash data indicate that vehicle doors 
can open in crashes due to the failure of hinge/latch/lock assembly 
systems, and that this can result in occupant ejections. In 
promulgating FMVSS Nos. 208 and 214, NHTSA decided to specify test 
conditions simulating a worst-case condition observed in real crashes 
with respect to the door lock position. Therefore, the test conditions 
of both standards currently require that all vehicle doors are fully 
closed and latched but not locked in a dynamic impact test. The goal is 
to require the installation of better door hinge/latch assemblies, thus 
minimizing side/rear door ejections.
    The agency recognizes that many late model year passenger cars and 
light trucks are equipped with ADLs. However, we have no data to 
indicate whether or not ADL-equipped vehicles have a reduced likelihood 
of opening in a real crash or to indicate consumer acceptance of ADLs. 
NHTSA is also concerned that there are many different ADL design 
concepts, and that there may be situations in which an ADL could be 
broken, disabled, or unlocked at the time of a crash. The test 
conditions currently specified in FMVSS Nos. 208 and 214 replicate 
these real world situations.
    As noted previously, there are four basic ADL designs: (1) Gear-
based, (2) speed-based, (3) ignition-based, and (4) brake-based. Three 
of these designs are not sensitive to the traveling velocity of the 
vehicle. Many ADL systems have a manual control button on the driver 
side as a convenience feature. Drivers can unlock the doors of ADL-
equipped vehicles, and the door will not necessarily relock. For 
instance, drivers can stop some ADL-equipped vehicles, unlock the doors 
by pushing the button, and discharge occupants. In this particular 
case, the gear-based ADLs would not relock the doors unless the driver 
shifted the transmission back to and then out of the ``park'' position. 
In addition, the brake-based ADLs would not relock the doors if the 
vehicle accelerated before all doors were fully closed. Therefore, 
there is no guarantee that ADLs will assure that the doors will be 
locked continuously when the vehicle is moving. While the speed-based 
ADLs may have the most potential for reducing unlocked doors in the 
real world, there is no indication that all ADLs produced in the 
immediate future would be of this type. Therefore, based on the reasons 
above, we believe that the test conditions specified in FMVSS Nos. 208 
and 214 are appropriate for ADL-equipped vehicles. Allowing ADL-
equipped

[[Page 65433]]

vehicles to be tested with all doors locked could result in a reduction 
of the stringency of the test conditions and detract from safety.
    Finally, GM did not present any technical data in support of its 
assertion that allowing doors to be locked in the impact tests of FMVSS 
Nos. 208 and 214 would encourage manufacturers to install ADLs in their 
vehicles. Moreover, there is no evidence that ADLs will necessarily 
result in better occupant protection. Manufacturers have been complying 
with FMVSS Nos. 208 and 214 with the doors closed and latched, but not 
locked. Therefore, there is no reason to believe that manufacturers 
would be motivated to install ADLs based upon the requested amendment 
to these standards, particularly if there were an additional associated 
cost. ADL components are likely to be more expensive than standard 
mechanical locks, and electrical ADL circuitry in the vehicle 
environment could be more vulnerable to damage/repair/recall issues. 
Based on the foregoing reasons, the agency is not convinced that such 
an amendment by NHTSA would accelerate the installation of ADLs in 
future vehicles, nor that such acceleration would yield a safety 
benefit.
    Conclusion: Based upon the above analyses, we do not believe that 
there is sufficient reason to conclude that amending FMVSS Nos. 208 and 
214 as petitioned would be appropriate or provide a safety benefit. 
Conducting research to determine whether or not ADLs could provide a 
safety benefit, to develop performance requirements for the various ADL 
designs, and to establish consumer acceptance of the various designs 
would take considerable time and is not included in the agency's 
current research plan.
    In accordance with 49 CFR part 552, this completes the agency's 
review of the petition for rulemaking. The agency has concluded that 
there is no reasonable possibility that the amendments requested by the 
petitioner would be issued at the conclusion of the rulemaking 
proceeding. Accordingly, the petition for rulemaking is denied.

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30103, 30162; delegation of authority at 49 
CFR 1.50 and 501.8.

    Issued on: November 13, 2003.
Stephen R. Kratzke,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 03-28941 Filed 11-19-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P