[Federal Register: February 19, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 33)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 7370-7383]
[DOCID:fr19fe10-11]

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

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<PHONE_NUMBER>. For legal issues, contact
Ms. Sarah Alves, Office of the Chief Counsel, by telephone at (202)
366-2992, or by fax at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Both persons may be reached by mail at the following address:
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration,

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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 S<IP_ADDRESS>(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--
     S<IP_ADDRESS>(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;
     S<IP_ADDRESS>(f), S<IP_ADDRESS>(g)(3), and S<IP_ADDRESS>(h)(3), to more
accurately specify sliding door test force application load plate
positioning;
     S<IP_ADDRESS>(f)(1)(ii), S<IP_ADDRESS>(g)(1)(ii), and
S<IP_ADDRESS>(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
(S<IP_ADDRESS>(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
(S<IP_ADDRESS>(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 S<IP_ADDRESS>(a) will require a minimum of 4.5 minutes,
because S<IP_ADDRESS> 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

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 S<IP_ADDRESS>(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).

                                                             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 S<IP_ADDRESS>(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

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''
(S<IP_ADDRESS>(f)(3), S<IP_ADDRESS>(g)(3), and S<IP_ADDRESS>(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 S<IP_ADDRESS>(f)(3), S<IP_ADDRESS>(g)(3), and
S<IP_ADDRESS>(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'' (S<IP_ADDRESS>(f)(1)(ii), S<IP_ADDRESS>(g)(1)(ii) and S<IP_ADDRESS>(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 S<IP_ADDRESS>(f)(1)(ii),
S<IP_ADDRESS>(g)(1)(ii), and S<IP_ADDRESS>(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 S<IP_ADDRESS>(f)(1)(ii), S<IP_ADDRESS>(g)(1)(ii),
and S<IP_ADDRESS>(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

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.

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

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 S<IP_ADDRESS>(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 S<IP_ADDRESS>(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, S<IP_ADDRESS>(b)(1)(i)(C), which includes
that phrase. We agree to include the phrase, ``if provided,'' in
S<IP_ADDRESS>(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:

[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

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 (S<IP_ADDRESS>). 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

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,

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.

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

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,
S<IP_ADDRESS>(b)(2)(i)(C), S<IP_ADDRESS>(f)(1)(ii), S<IP_ADDRESS>(f)(3),
S<IP_ADDRESS>(g)(1)(ii), S<IP_ADDRESS>(g)(3), S<IP_ADDRESS>(h)(1)(ii), S<IP_ADDRESS>(h)(3),
S<IP_ADDRESS>(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.
* * * * *
    S<IP_ADDRESS> * * *
    (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.
* * * * *
    S<IP_ADDRESS> * * *
    (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.
* * * * *
    S<IP_ADDRESS> 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

* * * * *

[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