[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 33 (Friday, February 19, 2010)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 7370-7383]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-2837]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 571

[Docket No. NHTSA-2010-0015
RIN 2127-AK60


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

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

ACTION: Final rule; response to petitions for reconsideration; 
technical amendments.

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

SUMMARY: This final rule responds to petitions for reconsideration of a 
February 6, 2007 final rule that amended Federal Motor Vehicle Safety 
Standard No. 206 to add and update requirements and test procedures and 
to harmonize with the world's first global technical regulation for 
motor vehicles. This is the second of two documents responding to the 
petitions; an earlier final rule delayed the compliance date of the 
sliding door provisions for a year. In today's document, the agency is 
granting some aspects of the petitions while denying other aspects, and 
makes several technical amendments to the regulatory text.

DATES: This rule is effective February 19, 2010. Any petitions for 
reconsideration of today's final rule must be received by NHTSA not 
later than April 5, 2010.

ADDRESSES: If you wish to petition for reconsideration of this rule, 
your petition should refer to the docket number and be submitted to: 
Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New 
Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building, 4th Floor, Washington, DC 20590. 
Note that all documents received will be posted without change to the 
docket, including any personal information provided. Please see the 
Privacy Act discussion under the section entitled, Rulemaking Analyses 
and Notices.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical issues, contact Ms. 
Shashi Kuppa, Office of Crashworthiness Standards, by telephone at 
(202) 366-4902, or by fax at (202) 366-2990. For legal issues, contact 
Ms. Sarah Alves, Office of the Chief Counsel, by telephone at (202) 
366-2992, or by fax at (202) 366-3820.
    Both persons may be reached by mail at the following address: 
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration,

[[Page 7371]]

U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., 
Washington, DC 20590.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Background
II. Summary of Responses to Petitions for Reconsideration
    a. NHTSA's Part I Response
    b. Today's Part II Response
III. Technical Issues
    a. Sliding Door Requirements and Test Procedures
    1. Test Force Application Duration
    2. Test Force Application Load Plate Positioning
    3. Test Force Application Load Plate Rotation
    4. Closure Warning Devices
    b. Exclusion of Wheelchair Lift Doors
IV. Other Issues
    a. Correction of S5.1.1.4(b)(2)
    b. Technical Amendment to Figure 7
    c. Distinguishing Between Primary and Auxiliary Door Latches
    d. Certification Information
    e. Applicability of the Standard to Vehicles Over 10,000 lb GVWR
V. GTR Process
VI. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

I. Background

Summary of 2007 Final Rule

    In this document, NHTSA responds to petitions for reconsideration 
of its February 6, 2007 final rule adding and updating requirements and 
test procedures for Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 
206, Door Locks and Door Retention Components (49 CFR 571.206) (72 FR 
5385; Docket No. NHTSA-2006-23882). That rule improved FMVSS No. 206 in 
several areas, and harmonized with the world's first global technical 
regulation (GTR) for motor vehicles.\1\ Consistent with the GTR, the 
final rule retained all previously existing provisions in the standard, 
but added a new full vehicle test procedure for sliding doors, added 
secondary latched position requirements for doors other than hinged 
side doors and back doors, provided a new optional test procedure for 
assessing inertial forces, and extended the application of FMVSS No. 
206 to buses with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 10,000 pounds 
(lb) or less, including 12-15 passenger vans. The final rule also 
eliminated an exclusion from the requirements of the standard for doors 
equipped with wheelchair platform lifts. The effective date for the 
final rule was September 1, 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The U.S. is a Contracting Party of the 1998 Global Agreement 
which is administered by the U.N. Economic Commission for Europe's 
World Forum for the Harmonization of Vehicle Regulations (WP.29). 
The U.S. voted in favor of establishing the GTR at the November 18, 
2004 Session of the Executive Committee and was obligated under the 
Agreement to initiate the process for adopting the provisions of the 
GTR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Petitions for Reconsideration

    In response to the February 2007 final rule, NHTSA received 
petitions for reconsideration from the Alliance of Automobile 
Manufacturers (the Alliance), Ford Motor Company (Ford), Advocates for 
Highway Safety (Advocates), and Thomas Built Buses, Inc. (Thomas Built 
Buses). The suggestions of each of the petitioners are summarized 
below:
     The Alliance petitioned to change the requirements and 
test procedures for sliding doors and to extend the effective date of 
the final rule.
     Ford petitioned NHTSA to extend the effective date of the 
final rule or at a minimum change the date as it pertains to sliding 
doors.
     Advocates questioned the GTR procedure under which the 
February 2007 final rule was developed. It also petitioned the agency 
to require sliding doors latches to have secondary latching positions 
and to remove the option for a visual door closure warning system.
     Thomas Built Buses petitioned the agency to reinstate the 
exclusion for wheelchair lift doors on buses with lift platforms that 
retracts to provide a barrier to occupants being ejected.
    The agency also received a letter from the TriMark Corporation 
(TriMark), which sought clarification of some provisions of the 
February 2007 final rule.

II. Summary of Responses to Petitions for Reconsideration

a. NHTSA's Part I Response

    To accommodate manufacturers' design and production cycles while 
allowing the agency more time to analyze the petitions in regards to 
other issues, the agency published a final rule on July 20, 2009 that 
delayed the compliance date of the sliding door provisions of S4.2.2 
from September 1, 2009, to September 1, 2010. (74 FR 35131; Docket No. 
NHTSA 2009-0116.) The original effective date of September 1, 2009 for 
all other provisions was retained. In that final rule, the agency 
explained that the other issues raised in the petitions for 
reconsideration would be addressed by the agency in a subsequent 
document, which we are issuing today.

b. Today's Part II Response

    Today's final rule makes the following technical changes to the 
2007 final rule. This final rule amends--
     S5.2.2.4(a), to specify a time requirement instead of a 
load application rate of the sliding door test, which considers the 
Alliance request while paralleling the GTR requirements;
     S5.2.2.3(f), S5.2.2.3(g)(3), and S5.2.2.3(h)(3), to more 
accurately specify sliding door test force application load plate 
positioning;
     S5.2.2.3(f)(1)(ii), S5.2.2.3(g)(1)(ii), and 
S5.2.2.3(h)(1)(ii), to better define the allowable rotation for test 
plates; and,
     S4, to reinstate an exclusion of doors equipped with 
wheelchair lift systems.
     This final rule also corrects provisions in the standard 
for closing windows and tethering doors during the test 
(S5.1.1.4(b)(2)(i)(C)), and amends Figure 7 to make the vehicle 
coordinate reference system for inertial testing consistent with 
Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) Standard J211 (Instrumentation 
for Impact Test) and with the sign conventions used in other Federal 
motor vehicle safety standards such as FMVSS No. 208, Occupant Crash 
Protection, and FMVSS No. 214, Side Impact Protection.
    In addition to the above, this final rule responds to the petitions 
by clarifying or explaining provisions of the 2007 final rule. We also 
respond to, and deny, Advocates' request that sought a determination 
that the GTR process under which the final rule was developed is flawed 
and contrary to the rulemaking procedures required by the 
Administrative Procedure Act.

III. Technical Issues

a. Sliding Door Requirements and Test Procedures

1. Test Force Application Duration
    The February 2007 final rule required that the sliding door test 
procedure load rate application be applied at any rate not to exceed 
2,000 newtons (N) per minute (N/min), until a force of 9,000 N is 
achieved on each force application device or until either force 
application device reaches a total displacement of 300 mm 
(S5.2.2.4(a)). The maximum load is held for 30 seconds.
    In its petition for reconsideration, the Alliance requested that 
NHTSA shorten the load application rate for the sliding door system 
test procedure. The Alliance stated that testing in accordance with the 
specifications in S5.2.2.4(a) will require a minimum of 4.5 minutes, 
because S4.2.2.1 specifies that the ``track and slide combination or 
other supporting means for each sliding door, while in the closed fully 
latched position, shall not separate from the door frame when a total 
force of 18,000

[[Page 7372]]

N [9,000 N on each side of the door] along the vehicle transverse axis 
is applied to the door as specified in S5.2.2.'' (Dividing the test 
load, 9,000 N, by the maximum allowable rate of 2,000 N/min produces a 
duration of approximately 4.5 minutes for each test.) The Alliance 
requested shortening the test duration to achieve the required force 
loading in 30 seconds.
    The Alliance provided several reasons for its request. The 
petitioner stated that longer test durations introduce ``creep,'' or 
minor sheet metal deformations, that are not representative of the 
loading that might be experienced in a dynamic crash situation where 
loads are applied for a fraction of a second.\2\ To illustrate the 
occurrence of these deformations under sustained load, the Alliance 
provided the results of a developmental sliding door test that was 
conducted using a 29-second load application, followed by a 28-second 
hold, and then a ramp to overload (see Graphs A, B and C in the 
Alliance petition, Docket No. NHTSA-2006-23882-0007). The figures show 
that, after the load was stabilized, 29 seconds into the test (33 
seconds after the start of data collection as shown in Graph A of the 
petition) and during the period while the load was held constant, the 
rear load actuator displaced transversely 6 millimeters (mm) (Graph B) 
and the upper rear point on the door displaced transversely 8 mm (Graph 
C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Metals do not ``creep'' at room temperature. We assume 
``creep'' describes a yielding or deformation of the material.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In its petition, the Alliance stated its belief that because most 
of the testing that supported the development of the GTR was performed 
using 10-second load applications, ``[m]odifying the procedure in a 
manner that lengthens the load application duration by a factor of 27 
may call into question the cost-benefit analysis'' in NHTSA's Final 
Regulatory Evaluation (FRE) (Docket No. NHTSA-2006-23882-0002). The 
Alliance stated that this is because the FRE estimated benefits by 
comparing the occupant ejection rate through sliding doors equipped 
with one versus two latches, and estimated costs as those of adding a 
second latch and striker to vehicles equipped with a single latch. The 
Alliance implies that the FRE costs may be too low or incomplete 
because, the petitioner believes, supporting the test loads over a 
longer period of time may ultimately require additional structure in 
the vehicle, and such changes were not addressed in NHTSA's FRE.
    On May 22, 2007, the Alliance met with NHTSA to discuss the 
latter's concerns with the test force application duration (Docket No. 
NHTSA-2006-23882-0012). A presentation was given by General Motors (GM) 
to help explain how ``creep'' can occur with longer force application 
durations. The Alliance and GM believed that the creep (yielding) that 
occurs while maintaining the load could be used to predict the amount 
of creep (yielding) that will occur while applying the force loads for 
longer force applications. GM claimed that the increase in deformation 
that occurs for longer force application durations could be the 
difference between passing or failing the test. GM also claimed that a 
load duration of 30 seconds is justified because in tests conducted by 
Transport Canada and NHTSA's Vehicle Research & Test Center (VRTC), the 
peak loads, or the required load limit of 18,000 N (9,000 N of each 
loading device), could be achieved within this time period.
    The Alliance further stated that requiring a load application time 
of at least 4.5 minutes diverges from the GTR requirement and the GTR's 
developmental testing. The GTR specifies a load rate between 20 to 90 
mm/min. The Alliance stated that manufacturers will likely specify 
maximum allowable speed, and that full load will be reached in 
considerably less than 4.5 minutes. Thus, the Alliance claims that the 
differences in load duration now make it possible for a vehicle 
certified to the GTR in other countries to not comply in the United 
States.

Agency Response

    We are denying the request to shorten the time duration to 30 
seconds. A 30-second load rate would unreasonably diminish the 
stringency of the sliding door load test. However, after considering 
the Alliance's petition, the agency has decided that the load 
application rate up to 2,000 N/min resulted in an unnecessarily long 
duration for the test. Rather than specifying a force application rate 
(apply the force at any rate not to exceed 2,000 N/min until a force of 
9,000 N is achieved on each force application device), to simplify the 
test procedure we are amending S5.2.2.4(a) to specify that the 9,000 N 
force is achieved in not less than 90 seconds and not more than 120 
seconds. The 90 to 120 second duration corresponds to loading rates of 
4,500 N/min to 6,000 N/min, which according to data from the tests 
conducted at VRTC is comparable to the loading rates of 20 to 90 mm/min 
specified in the GTR.
    The agency developed the test parameters for the sliding door test 
specified in the February 2007 final rule based on the results of eight 
tests conducted by Transport Canada and seven conducted by VRTC. Table 
1 below, ``Transport Canada and VRTC Sliding Door Evaluation Test 
Results,'' summarizes the results of Transport Canada's and VRTC's 
sliding door tests used to develop the February 2007 final rule. The 
table identifies the makes and models of the vehicles tested, the 
number of sliding door latches, the peak loads applied during the test, 
the approximate time (in seconds) to achieve either 8,900 N or the peak 
load, the approximate displacement rate (in mm/min) at the peak load, 
and the approximate loading rate (in N/min).

[[Page 7373]]



                                                             Table 1--Transport Canada and VRTC Sliding Door Evaluation Test Results
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Model year                          Make                      Model            Number          Peak loads          Approx. duration to
                                                                                               of     (N).....................   achieve 8,900 N or
                                                                                             latches                              peak load (sec)*
                                         Approx. displacement rate at peak load (mm/min)*
                                                   Approx. loading rate (N/min)*
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Transport Canada Test Results                                                                                                         (F)        (R)        (F)        (R)        (F)        (R)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1995..................................  Dodge...................  Caravan.................         1  (F) 9526................         10         10        150        240      53400      53400
                                                                                                      (R) 10008...............
1998..................................  Dodge...................  Caravan.................         1  (F) 7239................         13         40       2031        315      33411      16713
                                                                                                      (R) 11142...............
2000..................................  Mazda...................  MPV.....................         1  (F) 10895...............         14         14         NA         NA      38143      38143
                                                                                                      (R) 10810...............
1999..................................  Honda...................  Odyssey.................         1  (F) 6451................          7         13         NA         NA      55294      41077
                                                                                                      (R) 13334...............
1997..................................  Chevy...................  Venture.................         2  (F) 11129...............         12         12       0.59        350      44500      44500
                                                                                                      (R) 11155...............
2000..................................  Pontiac.................  Transport...............         2  (F) 11148...............         14         14         NA         NA      38143      38143
                                                                                                      (R) 11108...............
1998..................................  Ford....................  Windstar................         2  (F) 11119...............         12         12         NA         NA      44500      44500
                                                                                                      (R) 11088...............
1999..................................  Ford....................  Windstar................         2  (F) 11144...............         14         14         NA         NA      38143      38143
                                                                                                      (R) 11095...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Averages..................................................................................................................         12         16        727        302      43129      39327
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NHTSA (VRTC) Test Results                                                                                                             (F)        (R)        (F)        (R)        (F)        (R)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1993..................................  Dodge...................  Caravan.................         1  (F) 9009................       38.5       38.9        225        315      14040      13909
                                                                                                      (R) 9018................
2001..................................  Dodge...................  Caravan.................         1  (F) 7162................        387        260      19.74      18.46       1110       2053
                                                                                                      (R) 8900................
1992..................................  Chevy...................  Lumina..................         1  (F) 6266................       21.4       21.4        196        393      17568      17568
                                                                                                      (R) 6266................
2002..................................  Honda...................  Odyssey.................         1  (F) 7875................        980        340       19.9      19.06        482       1571
                                                                  (Drv. dr)...............            (R) 8900................
2002..................................  Honda...................  Odyssey.................         1  (F) 7749................        520        300      19.62         20        894       1780
                                                                  (Pass dr.)..............            (R) 8900................
2001..................................  Ford....................  Windstar................         2  (F) 8900................        150        340         20       19.4       3560       1571
                                                                  (Drv. dr)...............            (R) 8900................
2001..................................  Ford....................  Windstar................         2  (F) 8900................        120        320         22       18.8       4450       1685
                                                                  (Pass dr.)..............            (R) 8900................
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Averages..................................................................................................................        317        231         75        115       6015       5734
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* In the column, the first number represents readings for the front force application device (F) and the second represents the rear force application device (R).

    Note that the force application rate for the sliding door test 
specified in the February 2007 final rule was determined using only the 
data from the VRTC tests. The average time to attain 8,900 N, or peak 
load, in the VRTC tests was 274 (= (317+231)/2) seconds. This 
corresponds to the approximate loading rate of 2,000 N/min specified in 
the final rule.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The NPRM and the GTR prescribed a load rate application of 
20-90 mm/min until a force of 9,000 N is achieved on each of the 
loading devices, followed by a 10-second hold. In response to the 
NPRM, the Alliance commented that the test procedure should be 
controlled using a force application rate rather than a displacement 
rate, because controllers currently in use do not allow for 
simultaneous control of both displacement and load, and that the 
procedure as specified would raise practicability concerns. NHTSA 
agreed with the comment and adopted in the February 2007 final rule 
that the load be controlled at a rate not to exceed 2,000 N/min.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In view of the petition for reconsideration, we have reexamined the 
VRTC test data to review the time durations for conducting the test. We 
have determined that the average force application rate in the sliding 
door test at VRTC presented in Table 1 was approximately 6,000 N/min 
((6,015+5,734)/2 = 5,874 N/min). This corresponds approximately to an 
average displacement rate of 95 mm/min ((75+115)/2 = 95 mm/min) which 
is close to the upper limit of the displacement rate specified in the 
GTR (90 mm/min). Regarding the lower limit, of the VRTC tests in Table 
1 that exhibited displacement rates of approximately 20 mm/min 
(corresponding to the lower limit of the displacement rate specified in 
the GTR), the highest corresponding force application rate was 
approximately 4,500 N/min. Force application rates between 4,500 to 
6,000 N/min in the sliding door test correspond to test durations 
between 90 and 120 seconds. In short, when we calculated the time 
duration to achieve the test force of 9,000 N when applying the loads 
at 4,500 N/min and 6,000 N/min (the loading rates resulting in the 
displacements of 20 mm to 90 mm/min, respectively), we found durations 
of between 90 and 120 seconds. The 90 to 120 second duration better 
parallels the GTR requirements. Accordingly, we are modifying the load 
application rate for the sliding door system test procedure by 
specifying in S5.2.2.4(a) to increase the force, as linearly as 
possible, until a force of 9,000 N is achieved on each force 
application device in not less than 90 seconds and not more than 120 
seconds.
    We disagree with the petitioner's belief that, because Transport 
Canada had used the 10-second load application in developing data 
supporting the GTR, a 10-second load application should be used. The 
Transport Canada tests were only used to develop the initial procedural 
aspects of the sliding door tests. We excluded these test results in

[[Page 7374]]

calculating the appropriate force application rates for the February 
2007 final rule because the test setup was not identical to that 
specified in the February 2007 final rule. The Transport Canada tests 
were conducted with the load plates joined by a connecting bar that 
caused the result of one door edge to affect the other. In addition, 
the force application device in the Transport Canada tests lacked 
sufficient structural reinforcement to prevent displacements on the 
vehicle floor and off-axis loading that could cause the loads to be 
applied in directions other than transverse.
    NHTSA is concerned that testing at exceptionally fast force 
application rates, such as a 30-second force application rate, will 
unacceptably reduce the stringency of the sliding door test. Table 1 
shows that testing conducted on similar Dodge Caravans (with only one 
latch system and manufactured from 1992-1995) showed that one vehicle 
was able to achieve the required loads on both door edges during 
Transport Canada testing when tested within 10 seconds and at a rate of 
53,400 N/min, while the other failed the load requirement when tested 
by VRTC within 40 seconds and at a rate of approximately 14,000 N/
min.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The Alliance points out in its petition that tests conducted 
by Transport Canada and by VRTC on the Dodge Caravan and Chevy 
Lumina were performed within 30 seconds or less. However, these 
tests were not used for determining the application rate adopted in 
the final rule since door separation exceeded the limit before a 
force of 9,000 N was achieved on each force application device.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As for the Alliance's concern about the yielding of the metal it 
saw during the hold period in the Alliance developmental test, we were 
not persuaded that there was a problem with the test. Yielding in and 
of itself does not invalidate a test. The yielding could have resulted 
from a redistribution of loads in the door structure. The petitioner 
did not provide any specifics of the door used in this developmental 
sliding door test. We believe that the door was equipped with only a 
single latch system since the door deformations in this test were in 
excess of 100 mm, and that the yielding noted by the Alliance could 
have been avoided had the door been equipped with two latch systems. In 
any event, because the test duration has been amended by this final 
rule, the issue is moot.
    With regard to the Alliance's concern that the FRE did not include 
vehicle structural changes, the Alliance comment was not supported by 
either analysis or data. Although the earlier model year vehicles 
tested at VRTC failed the sliding door test requirements, more recent 
model year vehicles, which had the addition of another door latching 
system, were able to meet the requirements. In addition, we are not 
aware of any vehicle requiring significant structural changes to meet 
the requirements of the sliding door test. Thus, we disagree with the 
Alliance's assertion that supporting the test loads over a period of 
time longer than the petitioner's suggested 30-second duration will 
require additional structure in the vehicle.
2. Test Force Application Load Plate Positioning
    The February 2007 final rule specified that ``the force application 
plate is positioned such that the long edge of the plate is as close to 
the interior edge of the door as possible, but not such that the 
forward edge of plate is more than 12.5 mm from the interior edge'' 
(S5.2.2.3(f)(3), S5.2.2.3(g)(3), and S5.2.2.3(h)(3)).
    The Alliance petitioned NHTSA to slightly revise the wording of the 
provision because it believes that NHTSA intended to apply this 
requirement to both the forward edge of the forward plate as well as 
the rearward edge of the rear plate. Accordingly, the Alliance 
recommended NHTSA revise the above-mentioned sections to read: ``The 
force application plate is positioned such that the long edge of the 
plate is as close to the interior edge of the door as possible, but not 
such that the forward edge of forward plate and the rear edge of the 
rear plate are more than 12.5 mm from the respective interior edges.''

Agency Response

    We are granting this request. The Alliance's suggested wording more 
accurately reflects the intent of the requirement; the suggested 
wording is clearer that the specification applies to the positioning of 
both plates. Therefore, we are modifying the specifications for load 
plate positioning for the sliding door system force application test 
specified in sections S5.2.2.3(f)(3), S5.2.2.3(g)(3), and 
S5.2.2.3(h)(3), as suggested by the Alliance.
3. Test Force Application Load Plate Rotation
    The February 2007 final rule specified that the force application 
plates used for applying the force in the sliding door test may ``allow 
for longitudinal rotation with respect to the vehicle's centerline 
axis'' (S5.2.2.3(f)(1)(ii), S5.2.2.3(g)(1)(ii) and S5.2.2.3(h)(1)(ii)). 
In its petition for reconsideration, the Alliance stated that the final 
rule's description of the force application plate rotation is unclear. 
The Alliance petitioned NHTSA to amend S5.2.2.3(f)(1)(ii), 
S5.2.2.3(g)(1)(ii), and S5.2.2.3(h)(1)(ii) to read as follows:

    The plates are fixed perpendicular to the force application 
devices and move in the transverse direction. For alignment 
purposes, each plate is attached to the application device in a 
manner that allows for rotation about the vehicle's y-axis. In this 
manner, the face of each plate remains parallel to the vertical 
plane which passes through the vehicle's longitudinal centerline.

Agency Response

    We are granting this request. The Alliance's suggested 
clarification better defines the allowable rotation for the test 
plates. The specification as written in the February 2007 final rule 
does not clearly distinguish which vehicle centerline is being 
referenced. Therefore, we are modifying the specifications for 
permissible load plate rotation for the sliding door system force 
application test in sections S5.2.2.3(f)(1)(ii), S5.2.2.3(g)(1)(ii), 
and S5.2.2.3(h)(1)(ii), as the petitioner suggested.
4. Closure Warning Devices
    In the February 2007 final rule, NHTSA required sliding doors to 
have either: (1) a primary door latch system that meets the same 
requirements as primary door latch systems on hinged side doors (i.e., 
has both a fully and secondary latched position); or (2) a system with 
a fully latched position and a door closure warning system to alert the 
driver when the door is not in the fully latched position.\5\ NHTSA 
explained that FMVSS No. 206 did not previously require either a 
primary or a secondary latch system for sliding doors; the fully 
latched position and the associated loading requirements were newly 
required by the final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Under the first option, the secondary latched position is 
subject to loads 50% or less of what the fully latched position must 
meet. The second option contemplates that the driver will close the 
sliding door so that it is fully latched, thus providing occupants 
the protection associated with the fully latched loading 
requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The final rule explained that these options for backup protection 
for sliding door latches have been permitted in the Economic Commission 
of Europe (ECE) regulations for decades. Further, during the 
discussions of the GTR, the European governments said there were no 
data showing better ejection prevention with either of the options. 
Since NHTSA did not have any data showing a problem with either 
approach and no commenter provided data showing a problem, NHTSA 
adopted the

[[Page 7375]]

options in the upgraded FMVSS No. 206.
    In its petition for reconsideration of the February 2007 final 
rule, Advocates objected to the option that allows sliding door latches 
to be equipped with only a primary latching position if a door closure 
warning system is present. The petitioner had similarly objected to the 
option in its comments to the NPRM. In its petition, Advocates 
requested NHTSA to require that all sliding door latches be equipped 
with both primary and secondary latching positions.
    The petitioner believed that the arguments presented by NHTSA in 
the February 2007 final rule did not sufficiently support NHTSA's 
decision to oppose Advocates' comment seeking a mandatory secondary 
latching position on sliding door latches. Advocates stated that lack 
of clear data was insufficient for denying its request, since door 
closure warning systems do not ensure the same degree of fail-safe 
redundancy as would a mechanical secondary latching system. The 
petitioner argued that ``common sense'' supports the view that not all 
drivers will notice or react appropriately to a warning that the 
primary latching system is not functioning properly.
    The petitioner also believed that NHTSA's not requiring a secondary 
latching position is contradictory to the agency's decision in the 
final rule with regard to hinged side door locks and was thus 
``arbitrary and capricious.'' For hinged side door locks, we require 
two separate actions to unlatch and then unlock a door from the inside 
of the vehicle, in part to prevent children from easily opening a door 
while the vehicle is in motion. Advocates stated that ``[e]ven though 
the agency admitted [in the hinged side door lock situation] that there 
are no definitive data on the use of child door safety locks, the 
agency decided that reliance on human behavior would pose a risk to the 
safety of children.'' The petitioner believed that the two situations 
address nearly identical issues of vehicle safety and should be 
addressed by NHTSA consistently, by requiring a mechanical secondary 
latching system for side sliding doors.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The petitioner also believed that the difference in outcomes 
between the two situations can be explained by NHTSA's participation 
in the GTR process. ``Having forged its position in the 
international setting, the agency is reluctant to reverse its views 
it previously espoused in the domestic rulemaking proceeding. This 
specific instance illustrates the disadvantage at which participants 
in the domestic APA [Administrative Procedure Act] rulemaking 
process are placed when that proceeding is superceded [sic] by the 
prior global rulemaking process under the 1998 Global Agreement.'' 
March 23, 2007 petition, page 10. NHTSA seeks to reassure that the 
GTR process does not detract from or contravene agency rulemaking 
under the APA and the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act 
(49 U.S.C. 30101 et seq.). The discussion in this section responds 
to the petitioner's specific concerns about the door closing system 
for side sliding doors and explains why we disagree that a 
mechanical secondary latching system should be required. In a 
separate section of this preamble, we respond to the petitioner's 
overall objections to the GTR process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Agency Response

    We are denying Advocates' request to require that all sliding door 
latches be equipped with both primary and secondary latching positions. 
We reiterate our determination in the final rule that the lack of data 
showing the superiority of one system over the other is noteworthy and 
important, when the one system at issue \7\ has been in existence for 
decades in Europe. This is not a situation where we are deliberating 
whether to permit a system that has been unproven in the real world. 
The European governments have permitted the system for decades, and 
available data from Europe do not show better ejection prevention with 
either of the options. Data also do not show a problem with the 
systems. Based on the best available information, NHTSA has determined 
that the systems performed equally. With performance being equal, the 
agency has concluded that both systems should be permitted. Today's 
final rule confirms that determination.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ A system with a fully latched position and a door closure 
warning system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This is also not a situation where we relaxed an existing 
requirement but failed to analyze the basis for changing our previous 
decisions underlying the requirement. Currently, the only requirement 
applicable to sliding side doors in FMVSS No. 206 is that the entire 
door, track and slide entire system must not separate when a total 
transverse load of 18,000 N is applied. There are no requirements for 
the individual latch components for sliding doors. The February 2007 
final rule newly required the doors to have a backup system for 
supplemental protection. As to the requirements that should apply to 
the backup, as explained above, information available to NHTSA from 
Europe indicates that having either a secondary latched position or a 
door closure warning system was equivalent. Accordingly, the decision 
was made to permit either system.
    We do not believe we were arbitrary and capricious in not requiring 
a secondary latching position. The decision not to require a mechanical 
secondary latching system for side sliding doors was based on different 
considerations than the decision to require an action distinct from 
activation of the door handle to open a door. In the latter situation, 
NHTSA rejected the Alliance request to permit a door to be unlocked and 
unlatched with a single pull of the handle when the door is equipped 
with a child safety lock. The Alliance request pertained to the primary 
locking mechanism, not to a backup system. There was no alarm or 
warning provided to the driver informing him or her that the child lock 
was not engaged. If two distinct actions were not provided to open a 
rear door, a child could open the door and tumble out by a single pull 
of the door handle. The safety of the primary system would be too 
easily overridden by allowing a door to open by a single pull of a 
handle. Stated differently, the safety of the primary system could be 
too easily thwarted by human inattention. Further, the requirement for 
a distinct action to unlock and to open the door has been in FMVSS No. 
206 since 1968, and the agency was not convinced there was reason to 
lessen the requirement.
    In contrast, Advocates' request related to a supplemental backup 
system that has never before been required by the standard. Based on 
available information, NHTSA selected appropriate requirements for the 
backup system. Similar to its decision on the child lock issue, the 
agency did not adopt any requirement for the backup system that would 
lessen the performance of the primary latching system. We did not allow 
the backup system to make it easier for a properly latched sliding door 
to be inadvertently opened. In this regard, the agency's decisions 
regarding the requirements for the side sliding doors and for the child 
safety locks are reasonable and consistent. For the reasons stated 
above, NHTSA denies Advocates' petition to require all sliding door 
latches to have both primary and secondary latching positions.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Advocates also believed that a response by the agency to its 
comment on the NPRM opposing the second option was ``inapposite'' to 
the comment. The agency had stated in the final rule: ``We believe 
these new requirements achieve Advocates' suggestion that a 
mechanical solution is more dependable than one that requires some 
human behavior.'' 72 FR at 5391. In its petition, Advocates stated 
that its NPRM comments had advocated the need to have a mechanical 
secondary latching system, and that the primary system is mechanical 
has no relevance to the issue of what means are used to provide the 
backup system.
     A clarification of NHTSA's statement in the final rule would be 
helpful. The agency was explaining that the February 2007 final rule 
upgraded the current FMVSS No. 206 such that, among other matters, a 
latch will have to be provided that has a fully latched position 
that meets more stringent loading requirements than now required. To 
comply with the final rule's sliding door requirements and test 
procedure, we believe that manufacturers may have to install two 
latching systems--on the front and rear edges of the door--rather 
than only one latching system in only one location. The ``mechanical 
solution'' to which the agency referred was to the two-latch system, 
or an otherwise mechanically enhanced latch system, that would have 
to be installed to meet the upgraded strength requirements. Further, 
the agency was acknowledging the final rule's adoption into FMVSS 
No. 206 a requirement that did not exist before in the standard. 
That requirement for a backup system (either having a secondary 
latching position for each of the two sliding door latches or having 
the vehicle have an alert that the latches are not in the fully 
latched position) was seen by the agency to further supplement 
safety by providing a vehicle-based attribute that addressed partial 
latching of the door.

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

[[Page 7376]]

b. Exclusion of Wheelchair Lift Doors

    The February 2007 final rule removed a provision that had been in 
the standard since 1985, which excluded from the standard doors 
equipped with wheelchair lifts.\9\ The doors have been excluded because 
the agency determined, in response to a petition for rulemaking 
submitted in the early 1980's from Thomas Built Buses, that a 
wheelchair lift platform acted as a barricade in the doorway when it 
was stored. When stored, the platform retracted to a vertical 
orientation parallel to and in close proximity with the interior 
surface of the lift door, and covered the complete opening. The 2007 
final rule stated that ``wheelchair lift designs have evolved such that 
they no longer provide adequate protection for vehicle occupants as 
contemplated when the exclusion was adopted,'' according to a 1998 
evaluation. 72 FR at 5396. The agency believed that current lift system 
have platforms not covering or only partially covering the vehicle 
doorway, e.g., some have platforms that are stored horizontally above 
the vehicle floor. Id. NHTSA further noted that current wheelchair lift 
designs can be installed without modifying an OEM door system, so that 
``installation of a wheelchair platform lift does not necessitate 
removal of a vehicle door from compliance with FMVSS No. 206.'' Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The door must also be 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. See S4(c) of FMVSS No. 206.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response to the February 2007 final rule, Thomas Built Buses 
petitioned NHTSA to reinstate the exclusion. The petitioner stated that 
it uses single panel lift doors that provide a barrier to ejection. It 
requested excluding a door that ``has a wheelchair lift that sets in 
the wheelchair lift door opening when retracted adequately providing a 
barrier to bus occupants from being ejected.''

Agency Response

    We are granting this request. The agency was not aware that lift 
platforms continued to be manufactured that completely cover the door 
opening when retracted and act to barricade the doorway. While the 
former exclusion of all doors equipped with a wheelchair lift was too 
broad given that some lifts made today do not completely block the door 
when retracted, the agency sees no reason to subject to FMVSS No. 206 
doors with lifts that do block the doorway, as reasoned in the 1985 
rulemaking. The agency is amending the February 2009 final rule to 
exclude doors equipped with a permanently attached wheelchair lift 
system meeting the following criteria: (a) When the lift is in the 
retracted position, the lift platform retracts to a vertical 
orientation parallel to and in close proximity with the interior 
surface of the lift door; (b) in that position, the platform completely 
covers the doorway opening and provides a barricade to the doorway; 
and, (c) the wheelchair lift door is 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 not fully closed and the vehicle ignition is activated.

IV. Other Issues

a. Correction of S5.1.1.4(b)(2)

    In its petition for reconsideration of the February 2007 final 
rule, the Alliance suggested that the words ``if provided'' should be 
included in S5.1.1.4(b)(2) (one of the provisions specifying the test 
procedure for a hinged door test). The petitioner correctly noted that 
there is a corresponding section, S5.1.1.4(b)(1)(i)(C), which includes 
that phrase. We agree to include the phrase, ``if provided,'' in 
S5.1.1.4(b)(2). The phrase is appropriate for both sections, and the 
amendment makes the procedures consistent. Also, for additional 
consistency, we will clarify in this section that doors ``may'' be 
tethered to avoid damaging recording equipment.

b. Technical Amendment to Figure 7

    Prior to the February 2007 final rule, FMVSS No. 206 did not have a 
figure that graphically displayed the vehicle coordinate reference 
system to be used for inertial testing. The GTR provided such a figure 
because part of the GTR referenced various directions with respect to 
different vehicle axes. The NPRM proposed, and the February 2007 final 
rule adopted, this same GTR figure as Figure 7.
    Although the agency did not receive any comment regarding Figure 7 
in response to both the NPRM and the February 2007 final rule, after 
publication of the final rule NHTSA realized that x-axis and the z-axis 
in Figure 7 were not consistent with SAE J211 (Instrumentation for 
Impact Test) or with the sign conventions used in other Federal motor 
vehicle safety standards such as FMVSS No. 208 and FMVSS No. 214. 
Therefore, NHTSA is making a technical amendment to FMVSS No. 206 by 
modifying Figure 7 to be consistent with SAE J211 and the sign 
convention for other Federal motor vehicle safety standards as follows:

[[Page 7377]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR19FE10.003

c. Distinguishing Between Primary and Auxiliary Door Latches

    The February 2007 final rule mandated that each hinged door system 
be equipped with at least one ``primary door latch system'' (S4.1.1). 
``Primary door latch system'' was defined as consisting of a ``primary 
door latch(s) and a striker(s).'' A ``primary door latch'' was defined 
as ``a latch equipped with both a fully latched position and a 
secondary latched position and is designated as a `primary door latch' 
by the manufacturer.'' The reason for the phrase ``and is designated as 
a `primary door latch' by the manufacturer'' was to deal with a 
potential problem for NHTSA in identifying, for compliance testing 
purposes, the ``primary latch'' of a door or door system if the door or 
door system is also equipped with an auxiliary latch that has a 
secondary latch position.\10\ If both the primary door latch and the 
auxiliary latch have a secondary latched position, it is not obvious 
which latch is the primary latch.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ ``Auxiliary door latch'' was defined as a latch equipped 
with a fully latched position, with or without a secondary latched 
position, and fitted to a door or door system equipped with a 
primary door latch system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    TriMark requested that NHTSA not have ``a physical identification 
of the primary and auxiliary latch because of the cost involved and 
ability to use a similar/identical latch in both primary and auxiliary 
applications.'' TriMark asked how the agency envisioned that this 
requirement for latch designation be addressed from a practical matter.
Agency Response
    The final rule required the vehicle manufacturer to designate one 
of the latches as the primary latch in connection with the 
manufacturer's certification of compliance, and to identify the primary 
door latch when asked to do so by the agency.\11\ We did not intend, 
and the final rule did not require, that the primary door latch be 
physically marked differently on the vehicle than the auxiliary door 
latch. Door latch suppliers may provide the same latch for both primary 
and auxiliary applications, if the performance requirements are 
satisfied. NHTSA continues to believe the approach used in the February 
2007 final rule will not be unduly burdensome to latch suppliers. 
Vehicle manufacturers simply must identify the primary door latch at 
the time of certification of the vehicle. In practice, prior to 
conducting a compliance test on

[[Page 7378]]

a vehicle, NHTSA will ask the manufacturer which is the primary door 
latch for that vehicle and will test the vehicle in accordance with the 
manufacturer's response.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Such a request would be made in connection with an agency 
inquiry regarding compliance with the standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

d. Certification Information

    The February 2007 final rule specifies that each primary and 
auxiliary door latch system shall meet either dynamic requirements or a 
calculation of inertial load resistance developed to ensure that the 
door latch system will remain latched when properly assembled in the 
vehicle door (S4.1.1.4). TriMark asked if a computer simulation could 
be used as a method of evaluation for the inertial analysis.
Agency Response
    NHTSA does not prohibit a manufacturer from certifying its vehicle 
based on a method that is different than that specified in the FMVSS. 
As explained in the final rule, FMVSS test procedures specify the 
procedures that will be used by the agency to determine if a motor 
vehicle complies with the applicable requirements. A manufacturer is 
not required to use the procedures to certify its vehicle. However, 
NHTSA may ask the vehicle manufacturer for the basis for its 
certification. In the event of a noncompliance with an FMVSS, a 
manufacturer may defend itself against civil penalties for violating 
the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act if it could show that 
it exercised due care in making its certification. Whether a 
manufacturer exercised due care in basing a certification on a computer 
simulation depends on the particularities of the case, including the 
characteristics of the computer simulation, and is determined in the 
context of a particular compliance proceeding.

e. Applicability of the Standard to Vehicles Over 10,000 lb GVWR

    The February 2007 final rule applies to passenger cars, 
multipurpose passenger vehicles, and trucks. It also applies to buses 
with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 4,536 kg (10,000 lbs) or 
less. In response to the final rule, Trimark asked NHTSA to comment on 
the applicability of this standard to motor homes, fire trucks, 
ambulances, and Class 7/8 heavy trucks in excess of a GVWR of 4,536 kg 
(10,000 lbs).
Agency Response
    With regard to applicability, note 49 CFR 571.3, which provides 
specific definitions for the vehicle types of concern in the Trimark 
comment. Specifically, a motor home is defined as ``a multi-purpose 
vehicle with motive power that is designed to provide temporary 
residential accommodations, as evidenced by the presence of at least 
four of the following facilities: Cooking; refrigeration or ice box; 
self-contained toilet; heating and/or air conditioning; a potable water 
supply system including a faucet and a sink; and a separate 110-125 
volt electrical power supply and/or propane.'' Paragraph S2 of the 
February 2007 final rule states applicability to multipurpose passenger 
vehicles; \12\ therefore, the 2007 final rule applies to motor homes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ ``Multipurpose passenger vehicle'' means a motor vehicle 
with motive power, except a low-speed vehicle or trailer, designed 
to carry 10 persons or less which is constructed either on a truck 
chassis or with special features for occasional off-road 
operation.'' 49 CFR 571.3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NHTSA considers fire trucks to be a type of truck, which is defined 
in 49 CFR 571.3 as ``a motor vehicle with motive power, except a 
trailer, designed primarily for the transportation of property or 
special purpose equipment.'' Since paragraph S2 of the February 2007 
final rule states its applicability to trucks, the final rule applies 
to fire trucks.
    Ambulances are typically multipurpose passenger vehicles (MPVs) for 
purposes of the FMVSSs, and thus must meet the standards for MPVs 
(including FMVSS No. 206). In addition, ambulances are also subject to 
regulation through separate standards administered by the General 
Services Administration (GSA) in the Federal Specifications for the 
Star-of-Life Ambulance.\13\ Section 3.10.9 of the GSA standard states, 
``Door latches, hinges, and hardware furnished by original equipment 
manufacturers and final stage ambulance manufacturers shall comply with 
FMVSS 206.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See KKK-A-1822F (Aug. 1, 2007), available at http://www.deltaveh.com/KKK-A-1822F.htm. This standard was created by the 
U.S. General Services Administration as a guideline for the proper 
construction of an ambulance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regarding Class 7/8 heavy trucks, these vehicles fall under the 
definition of truck as defined in 49 CFR 571.3. FMVSS No. 206 applied 
to trucks, regardless of their GVWR, prior to the February 2007 final 
rule, as does the amended FMVSS No. 206. S2 of amended FMVSS No. 206 
states that the standard applies to ``passenger cars, multipurpose 
passenger vehicles, and trucks, and buses with a gross vehicle weight 
rating (GVWR) of 4,536 kg or less'' (emphasis added). In other words, 
the February 2007 final rule applies to all passenger cars, 
multipurpose passenger vehicles, and trucks, regardless of their GVWR, 
and is also applicable to buses with a GVWR of 4,536 kg (10,000 lb) or 
less.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ The preamble of the final rule explained that it ``extends 
the application of FMVSS No. 206 to buses with a gross vehicle 
weight rating (GVWR) of 4,536 kg (10,000 pounds) or less, including 
12-15 passenger vans.'' 72 FR 5385, 5386.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. GTR Process

    The February 2007 final rule responded to a comment from Advocates 
that had expressed concern about the opportunity for consumer 
organizations to be involved in the GTR process, and about what 
Advocates had said was an ``after-the-fact'' presentation of a draft 
GTR which, the commenter believed, threatened to abridge the agency's 
authority. In responding to the comment, the final rule sought to 
address what appeared to be Advocates' fundamental misunderstanding of 
the GTR process. NHTSA clarified in the final rule that consumer groups 
have an opportunity to be involved in all aspects of the GTR process, 
and explained how the process is transparent and inviting of public 
participation in the formation of draft proposals. 72 FR at 5388. The 
final rule explained how information regarding the meetings and 
negotiations was made publicly available through Federal Register 
notices, and that meeting agendas, presentations, reports and test 
results were made available to the public on the UNECE Web site after 
each international meeting. The final rule pointed out that public 
comment on the GTR discussions were requested multiple times, and that 
domestic consumer organizations were able to participate in the GTR 
negotiations as a part of Consumer International. Importantly, the 
final rule explained that under the GTR process, countries voting 
``yes'' on a GTR have only agreed to begin their processes for adopting 
the provisions of the GTR, i.e., to issue an NPRM or Advance NPRM. The 
GTR process leaves the ultimate decision to each country of whether to 
adopt the GTR into their domestic law. That is, the process leaves it 
up to NHTSA to decide whether to issue a final rule adopting the 
proposed requirements into the FMVSS, after receiving and considering 
comments on the NPRM.
    In its petition for reconsideration, Advocates repeated many of the 
concerns it had expressed in its comment on the NPRM. The petitioner 
again described its belief that the procedure under which the final 
rule was developed was flawed. The petitioner believed that the final 
rule was negotiated in proceedings with foreign stakeholders since, 
Advocates stated, only international organizations having standing to 
participate at UNECE

[[Page 7379]]

sponsored Working Party on Passive Safety committee meetings are 
allowed to ``influence'' the GTR negotiations. (Advocates stated that 
U.S. consumer groups were unable to participate in the GTR negotiations 
as a part of Consumer International, a group with standing, because of 
cost and location constraints.)
    The petitioner also believed that by participating in the GTR 
process and adopting the GTR, NHTSA subverted the rulemaking procedures 
required by the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553). 
Advocates stated that the purpose of the APA notice and comment 
rulemaking requirement is to ensure that the U.S. public is able to 
comment on the rule while it is still in the formative or proposed 
stage. The petitioner believed that, because the U.S. will have already 
voted for the GTR when NHTSA presents it as a proposed rule, the APA 
proceeding is tainted because the agency has put its credibility on the 
line in adopting the GTR. Advocates contended that as a result of this, 
the agency's commitment to the international process and the GTR/
proposed rule makes the agency more resistant to adopting changes and 
alternatives and prejudices Advocates' participation in the rulemaking 
proceeding.
Agency Response
    We appreciate this opportunity to explain again the GTR process and 
to address the petitioner's reservations about the process. The GTR 
process under the UN/ECE 1998 Agreement on Global Technical Regulations 
provides opportunities for NHTSA to enhance vehicle safety and improve 
government efficiency. It assists us in adopting best safety practices 
from around the world, identifying and reducing unwarranted regulatory 
requirements, and leveraging scarce government resources for research 
and regulation. The process facilitates our effort to continuously 
improve and seek high levels of safety, particularly by helping us 
develop regulations that reflect a global consideration of current and 
anticipated technology and safety problems.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See, 49 CFR Part 553, Appendix C, ``Statement of Policy: 
Implementation of the United Nations/Economic Commission for Europe 
(UN/ECE) 1998 Agreement on Global Technical Regulations--Agency 
Policy Goals and Public Participation.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The final rule described in detail the benefits that the GTR 
process afforded the American public in the development of the upgraded 
FMVSS No. 206. 72 FR 5388, col. 3. It also explained the high degree to 
which public participation was pursued and encouraged by NHTSA in 
developing the NPRM and final rule.\16\ Advocates is concerned about 
its inability to be directly involved at international meetings. 
Attendance at the meetings by non-governmental parties is not crucial 
to the process. Alternative opportunities are provided for 
participation, such as by commenting to agency notices of WP.29 
programs of work.\17\ Moreover, the point at which public participation 
is crucial, and where Advocates is wholly able to participate, is 
subsequent and in response to publication of NHTSA's NPRM. The GTR 
process recognizes and embraces that participation and fully accords 
with the requirements of the APA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ Id., col. 2.
    \17\ Advocates did participate in the GTR process via the 
opportunity to submit comments to several notices published by NHTSA 
concerning the GTR process. Advocates did in fact take advantage of 
this opportunity by submitting comments in response to a 2003 notice 
NHTSA issued regarding activities under the UNECE 1998 Agreement. 
See Docket No. NHTSA-2003-14395-0005 (March 5, 2003) (submitted in 
response to Notice of activities under the 1998 Global Agreement and 
request for comments, 68 FR 5333, February 3, 2003). Advocates also 
submitted comments to other notices announcing information on other 
international negotiations. See Docket No. NHTSA-2000-7638-0014 
(Sept. 11, 2000) (submitted in response to NHTSA's Recommendations 
for Global Technical Regulations Under the UNECE 1998 Global 
Agreement, 65 FR 44565, July 18, 2000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the APA, an administrative agency must issue a notice of the 
intention to adopt rules, which must contain either the terms or 
substance of the proposed rule or a description of the subjects and 
issues involved. See 5 U.S.C. 553. The APA requires that an agency must 
issue an NPRM that must be published in the Federal Register, unless 
persons subject thereto are named and either personally served or 
otherwise have actual notice thereof in accordance with law. Id. at 
Sec.  553(b). Notice under Sec.  553(b) is sufficient if it affords 
interested parties a reasonable and meaningful opportunity to 
participate in the rulemaking process by providing a description of the 
subjects and issues involved.\18\ Under the APA, following publication 
of an NPRM a Federal agency must give interested persons an opportunity 
to participate in the rulemaking through submission of written data, 
views, or arguments. Id. at Sec.  553(c). There is no requirement in 
the APA for public participation in formation of the NPRM.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ The APA further requires that the NPRM must also include 
(1) a statement of the time, place, and nature of public rulemaking 
proceedings; (2) reference to the legal authority under which the 
rule is proposed; and (3) either the terms or substance of the 
proposed rule or a description of the subjects and issues involved. 
Id.
    \19\ Advocates cites to the Negotiated Rulemaking Procedure 
provisions, 5 U.S.C. 561-570a, as authority that those prescribed 
procedures are the only permissible method by which agencies can 
consult with outside parties in establishing the content of proposed 
rules. In fact, the stated purpose of the Negotiated Rulemaking 
Procedure subchapter is ``to encourage the agencies to use the 
process when it enhances the informal rulemaking process.'' 5 U.S.C. 
561. Significantly, ``[n]othing in this subchapter should be 
construed as an attempt to limit innovation and experimentation with 
the negotiated rulemaking process or with other innovative 
rulemaking procedures otherwise authorized by law.'' Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The GTR process and NHTSA's policy implementing the process \20\ 
were developed with these APA requirements for notice and opportunity 
to comment foremost in mind. Following a vote by the U.S. for 
establishment of a GTR, our procedure entails publishing an NPRM 
requesting public comment on adopting the regulation as a U.S. 
standard. Any decision by us as to the next agency action with regard 
to the NPRM (whether to issue a final rule adopting the regulation, a 
supplemental NPRM, or a notice terminating the rulemaking action) is 
made in accordance with applicable U.S. law, after careful 
consideration and analysis of public comments.\21\ With regard to the 
rulemaking at issue, NHTSA met the APA with the NPRM (December 15, 
2004) and the subsequent final rule (February 7, 2007). We thoroughly 
analyzed and considered Advocates' comments to the NPRM (see 72 FR 
5385, 5388-5391). Our disagreement with the petitioner's comments was 
based upon our analysis of the issues presented and our conclusion that 
the views expressed by the commenter were unpersuasive.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 49 CFR Part 553, Appendix C.
    \21\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Advocates believes that NHTSA failed to accept its suggestions 
because NHTSA would lose face in the international community. This is 
an erroneous and unfortunate view of the agency and the GTR process. 
When the agency meets with international parties to consider current 
and anticipated technology and safety problems, NHTSA is seeking to 
learn from the expertise and experience of governmental bodies and 
consumer and industry groups worldwide at a preliminary stage in the 
rulemaking. The agency determines in that dialogue the best practices 
of other countries or regions, and whether there is a bases and 
rationale for those practices. When the agency votes for establishment 
of the GTR, the agency is acknowledging that it has made an initial 
determination that there appears to be a technical basis for the 
regulation and that the motor vehicle problem the agency seeks to 
address in the U.S. could possibly be addressed by the GTR. A similar 
kind of determination is made when we decide,

[[Page 7380]]

in our non-GTR rulemakings, to go forward and publish a proposal or 
advance notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal Register. We fully 
acknowledge and hold in high consideration that ``the decision to issue 
a final rule will be made in accordance with the U.S. law and only 
after careful consideration and analysis of public comments.'' 49 CFR 
Part 553, Subpart C. NHTSA values and learns from public comment on its 
NPRMs and shapes its decisions on rulemaking proposals based on those 
comments.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ To illustrate, in response to comments on the NPRM, NHTSA's 
February 2007 final rule changed some of the requirements that had 
been proposed. In accordance with Alliance's comments to the NPRM, 
the load application in the sliding door test that was specified in 
the NPRM in terms of the displacement rate of the load application 
device was modified in the final rule to be specified in terms of 
the rate of load application. Along those lines, today's final rule 
has also amended provisions of the GTR in response to petitions for 
reconsideration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The APA does not prohibit Federal agencies from developing 
proposals or having dialogues with any particular group (including 
international communities) prior to the issuance of a notice of 
proposed rulemaking. To the extent the petitioner asks us to refrain 
from such dialogue, we do not believe that public policy would be 
served by limiting the GTR's pre-proposal proceedings. The GTR provides 
a forum to share information and resources that could facilitate the 
development of a possible rulemaking initiative that might address a 
motor vehicle safety problem in the U.S. The process advances our 
research and rulemaking efforts and enables us to better leverage 
scarce agency resources through partnering with other countries. It 
provides us an opportunity and means to better manage our resources and 
address more motor vehicle safety harm, and more rapidly, than would be 
possible by NHTSA acting alone.
    Advocates correctly states that the legal standard for sufficiency 
of APA notice is that ``parties be able to comment on the rule while it 
is still in the formative or `proposed' stage.'' See, National Tour 
Brokers Ass'n v. US, 591 F.2d 896, 902 (D.C. Cir. 1978). Yet, the 
petitioner does not believe that NHTSA can maintain a flexible and 
open-minded attitude towards an NPRM developed in the GTR process. We 
strongly disagree, and note that Advocates has made no showing that the 
agency has been closed-minded to the comments other than to assert that 
as the cause underlying the agency's decision not to concur with its 
suggestions. The NPRM laid out in detail reasons in support of each GTR 
provision, and NHTSA thoroughly considered and addressed all comments 
in the final rule. Also, as mentioned previously, the final rule (and 
today's document) changed some provisions of the GTR, which 
demonstrates the agency's flexibility in reconsidering tentative 
decisions made in the NPRM stage. To the extent that NHTSA did not 
adopt provisions that Advocates supported or suggested, that is a 
reflection of the agency's determination that those provisions were not 
the best way to proceed.
    Comments were requested on the NPRM when the rule was still in the 
proposed stage. When NHTSA issues an NPRM, including those formed in 
the GTR process, the agency is seeking to enhance its knowledge of the 
subject matter. We know there may be issues bearing on the substance of 
the rulemaking that the agency has not fully understood or perhaps 
whose significance the agency may not have even recognized. We seek to 
be as informed as possible, so as to make the best decisions possible 
armed with all available information. NHTSA's implementation of the GTR 
process recognizes the crucial role of public participation in the 
development of regulations. At the same time, however, the GTR process 
enhances NHTSA's knowledge about safety problems and possible solutions 
by facilitating the interaction of the agency with safety specialists 
from around the world at the pre-NPRM stage. This knowledge improves 
our efficiency and enhances the quality of the FMVSS that may be 
ultimately proposed. For the aforementioned reasons, we are denying 
Advocates' request to reconsider the final rule based upon its view 
that the GTR process is flawed or that NHTSA violated APA rulemaking 
procedures.

VI. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures

    This rulemaking document was not reviewed by the Office of 
Management and Budget under E.O. 12866. It is not considered to be 
significant under E.O. 12866 or the Department's Regulatory Policies 
and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979). Although the February 
6, 2007 final rule was significant due to public interest in the 
issues, today's document makes minor amendments to the regulatory text 
of that final rule. The minimal impacts of today's amendment do not 
warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation.

Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

    NHTSA has examined today's final rule pursuant to Executive Order 
13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) and concluded that no additional 
consultation with States, local governments or their representatives is 
mandated beyond the rulemaking process. The agency has concluded that 
the rule does not have federalism implications because the rule does 
not have ``substantial direct effects on the States, on the 
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the 
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of 
government.''
    Further, no consultation is needed to discuss the issue of 
preemption in connection with today's rule. The issue of preemption can 
arise in connection with NHTSA rules in at least two ways. First, the 
National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act contains an express 
preemptive provision: ``When a motor vehicle safety standard is in 
effect under this chapter, a State or a political subdivision of a 
State may prescribe or continue in effect a standard applicable to the 
same aspect of performance of a motor vehicle or motor vehicle 
equipment only if the standard is identical to the standard prescribed 
under this chapter.'' 49 U.S.C. 30103(b)(1). It is this statutory 
command that preempts State law, not today's rulemaking, so 
consultation would be unnecessary.
    Second, the Supreme Court has recognized the possibility of implied 
preemption: in some instances, State requirements imposed on motor 
vehicle manufacturers, including sanctions imposed by State tort law, 
can stand as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of a NHTSA 
safety standard. When such a conflict is discerned, the Supremacy 
Clause of the Constitution makes the State requirements unenforceable. 
See Geier v. American Honda Motor Co., 529 U.S. 861 (2000). However, 
NHTSA has considered the nature and purpose of today's final rule and 
does not currently foresee any potential State requirements that might 
conflict with it. Without any conflict, there could not be any implied 
preemption.

Executive Order 13045

    E.O. 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any rulemaking 
that: (1) is determined to be ``economically significant'' as defined 
under E.O. 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental, health or safety 
risk that NHTSA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate 
effect on children.

[[Page 7381]]

This rulemaking is not subject to the Executive Order because it is not 
economically significant as defined in E.O. 12866.

Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform)

    With respect to the review of the promulgation of a new regulation, 
section 3(b) of Executive Order 12988, ``Civil Justice Reform'' (61 FR 
4729, February 7, 1996) requires that Executive agencies make every 
reasonable effort to ensure that the regulation: (1) Clearly specifies 
the preemptive effect; (2) clearly specifies the effect on existing 
Federal law or regulation; (3) provides a clear legal standard for 
affected conduct, while promoting simplification and burden reduction; 
(4) clearly specifies the retroactive effect, if any; (5) adequately 
defines key terms; and (6) addresses other important issues affecting 
clarity and general draftsmanship under any guidelines issued by the 
Attorney General. This document is consistent with that requirement.
    Pursuant to this Order, NHTSA notes as follows. The issue of 
preemption is discussed above in connection with E.O. 13132. NHTSA 
notes further that there is no requirement that individuals submit a 
petition for reconsideration or pursue other administrative proceeding 
before they may file suit in court.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., 
as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act 
(SBREFA) of 1996) whenever an agency is required to publish a notice of 
rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must prepare and make 
available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis that 
describes the effect of the rule on small entities (i.e., small 
businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions). 
However, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required if the head of 
an agency certifies the rule would not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities. SBREFA amended the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act to require Federal agencies to provide a 
statement of the factual basis for certifying that a rule would not 
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities.
    I certify that this final rule does not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule affects 
motor vehicle manufacturers, multistage manufacturers and alterers. To 
the extent some of these entities qualify as small businesses, they 
will not be significantly affected by this rulemaking. This final rule 
does not establish new requirements, but instead only adjusts some test 
procedures and makes minor technical amendments to the February 2007 
final rule.

National Environmental Policy Act

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

Paperwork Reduction Act

    Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, a person is not required 
to respond to a collection of information by a Federal agency unless 
the collection displays a valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) 
control number. The final rule does not have any requirements that are 
considered to be information collection requirements as defined by OMB 
in 5 CFR part 1320.

National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272) 
directs us to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory 
activities unless doing so would be inconsistent with applicable law or 
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical 
standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling 
procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by 
voluntary consensus standards bodies, such as the Society of Automotive 
Engineers (SAE). The NTTAA directs us to provide Congress, through OMB, 
explanations when we decide not to use available and applicable 
voluntary consensus standards.
    No voluntary consensus standards were used in developing today's 
final rule. This final rule only adjusts some test procedures and makes 
minor technical amendments to the February 2007 final rule. There are 
no voluntary standards that address the subject of this rulemaking.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

Plain Language

    Executive Order 12866 requires each agency to write all rules in 
plain language. Application of the principles of plain language 
includes consideration of the following questions:
     Has the agency organized the material to suit the public's 
needs?
     Are the requirements in the rule clearly stated?
     Does the rule contain technical language or jargon that is 
not clear?
     Would a different format (grouping and order of sections, 
use of headings, paragraphing) make the rule easier to understand?
     Would more (but shorter) sections be better?
     Could we improve clarity by adding tables, lists, or 
diagrams?
     What else could we do to make the rule easier to 
understand?
    If you have any responses to these questions, please write to us 
about them.

Regulation Identifier Number (RIN)

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

[[Page 7382]]

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

Privacy Act

    Please note that anyone is able to search the electronic form of 
all documents received into any of our dockets by the name of the 
individual submitting the document (or signing the document, if 
submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). 
You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal 
Register published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78) or you may visit 
http://www.dot.gov/privacy.html.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 571

    Motor vehicle safety, Report and recordkeeping requirements, Tires.

0
In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA amends 49 CFR part 571 as 
follows:

PART 571--FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS

0
1. The authority citation for part 571 continues to read as follows:

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


0
2. Section 571.206 is amended by revising paragraphs S4, 
S5.1.1.4(b)(2)(i)(C), S5.2.2.3(f)(1)(ii), S5.2.2.3(f)(3), 
S5.2.2.3(g)(1)(ii), S5.2.2.3(g)(3), S5.2.2.3(h)(1)(ii), S5.2.2.3(h)(3), 
S5.2.2.4(a), and Figure 7 to read as follows:


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

* * * * *
    S4. Requirements. The requirements apply to all side and back 
doors, that lead directly into a compartment that contains one or more 
seating accommodations and the associated door components, except for 
those on folding doors, roll-up doors, detachable doors, bus doors used 
only for emergency egress purposes and labeled accordingly and on bus 
doors to accommodate a permanently attached wheelchair lift system that 
when the device is in the retracted position, the lift platform 
retracts to a vertical orientation parallel to and in close proximity 
with the interior surface of the lift door and in that position, the 
platform completely covers the doorway opening, has fixed attachments 
to the vehicle and provides a barricade to the doorway. The bus 
wheelchair lift door must be 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 not 
fully closed and the vehicle ignition is activated.
* * * * *
    S5.1.1.4 * * *
    (b) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (i) * * *
    (C) Ensure that the door latch is in the fully-latched position, 
that the door is unlocked (doors may be tethered to avoid damaging the 
recording equipment), and that any windows, if provided, are closed.
* * * * *
    S5.2.2.3 * * *
    (f) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (ii) The plates are fixed perpendicular to the force application 
devices and move in the transverse direction. For alignment purposes, 
each plate is attached to the application device in a manner that 
allows for rotation about the vehicle's y-axis. In this manner, the 
face of each plate remains parallel to the vertical plane which passes 
through the vehicle's longitudinal centerline.
* * * * *
    (3) The force application plate is positioned such that the long 
edge of the plate is as close to the interior edge of the door as 
possible, but not such that the forward edge of forward plate and the 
rear edge of the rear plate are more than 12.5 mm from the respective 
interior edges.
    (g) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (ii) The plates are fixed perpendicular to the force application 
devices and move in the transverse direction. For alignment purposes, 
each plate is attached to the application device in a manner that 
allows for rotation about the vehicle's y-axis. In this manner, the 
face of each plate remains parallel to the vertical plane which passes 
through the vehicle's longitudinal centerline.
* * * * *
    (3) The force application plate is positioned such that the long 
edge of the plate is as close to the interior edge of the door as 
possible, but not such that the forward edge of forward plate and the 
rear edge of the rear plate are more than 12.5 mm from the respective 
interior edges.
    (h) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (ii) The plates are fixed perpendicular to the force application 
devices and move in the transverse direction. For alignment purposes, 
each plate is attached to the application device in a manner that 
allows for rotation about the vehicle's y-axis. In this manner, the 
face of each plate remains parallel to the vertical plane which passes 
through the vehicle's longitudinal centerline.
* * * * *
    (3) The force application plate is positioned such that the long 
edge of the plate is as close to the interior edge of the door as 
possible, but not such that the forward edge of forward plate and the 
rear edge of the rear plate are more than 12.5 mm from the respective 
interior edges.
* * * * *
    S5.2.2.4 Test Procedure.
    (a) Increase the force on each force application device as linearly 
as practicable until a force of 9,000 N is achieved on each force 
application device in not less than 90 seconds and not more than 120 
seconds, or until either force application device reaches a total 
displacement of 300 mm.
* * * * *

TABLES AND FIGURES TO Sec.  571.206

* * * * *

[[Page 7383]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR19FE10.004

* * * * *

    Issued: February 4, 2010.
David L. Strickland,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2010-2837 Filed 2-18-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P