Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Door Locks and Door Retention Components, 35131-35135 [E9-17078]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 137 / Monday, July 20, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
Appendix B to Part 300 [Amended]
2. Table 1 of Appendix B to Part 300
is amended under Louisiana by
removing ‘‘Central Wood Preserving
Co’’, ‘‘Slaughter, LA’’.
■
[FR Doc. E9–17169 Filed 7–17–09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Railroad Administration
49 CFR Parts 209 and 211
[Docket No. FRA–2009–0006; Notice No. 2]
RIN 2130–AC02
Miscellaneous Revisions to the
Procedures for Handling Petitions for
Emergency Waiver of Safety
Regulations and the Procedures for
Disqualifying Individuals From
Performing Safety-Sensitive Functions
AGENCY: Federal Railroad
Administration (FRA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Direct final rule; confirmation of
effective date.
On May 19, 2009, FRA
published a direct final rule in the
Federal Register which made
miscellaneous revisions to the
procedures for obtaining waivers from a
safety rule, regulation, or standard
during an emergency situation or an
emergency event, and the procedures for
disqualifying individuals from
performing safety-sensitive functions.
FRA did not receive any comments or
requests for an oral hearing on the direct
final rule. Therefore, FRA is issuing this
document to confirm that the direct
final rule will take effect on July 20,
2009, the date specified in the rule.
DATES: The direct final rule published at
74 FR 23329, May 19, 2009, is
confirmed effective on July 20, 2009.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Grady C. Cothen, Jr., Deputy Associate
Administrator for Safety Standards and
Program Development, FRA, 1200 New
Jersey Ave., SE., RRS–2, Mail Stop 25,
Washington, DC 20590 (Telephone 202–
493–6302), or Zeb Schorr, Trial
Attorney, Office of Chief Counsel, FRA,
1200 New Jersey Ave., SE., Mail Stop
10, Washington, DC 20590 (Telephone
202–493–6072).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant
to FRA’s direct final rulemaking
procedures set forth at 49 CFR 211.33,
FRA is issuing this document to inform
the public that it has not received any
comments or requests for an oral
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Nov<24>2008
15:17 Jul 17, 2009
Jkt 217001
hearing on the direct final rule that was
published in the Federal Register on
May 19, 2009 (74 FR 23329). The direct
final rule made miscellaneous revisions
to the procedures for obtaining waivers
from a safety rule, regulation, or
standard during an emergency situation
or an emergency event, and the
procedures for disqualifying individuals
from performing safety-sensitive
functions. As no comments or requests
for an oral hearing were received by
FRA, this document informs the public
that the effective date of the direct final
rule is July 20, 2009, the date specified
in the rule.
Privacy Act Information
Interested parties should be aware
that anyone is able to search the
electronic form of all comments
received into any agency docket by the
name of the individual submitting the
comment (or signing the comment, if
submitted on behalf of an association,
business, labor union, etc.). You may
review DOT’s complete Privacy Act
Statement in the Federal Register
published on April 11, 2000 (Volume
65, Number 70; Pages 19477–78) or you
may visit https://www.regulations.gov.
Issued in Washington, DC, on July 15,
2009.
Karen J. Rae,
Deputy Administrator, Federal Railroad
Administration.
[FR Doc. E9–17187 Filed 7–17–09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–06–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration
49 CFR Parts 571
[Docket No. NHTSA–2009–0116]
RIN 2127–AK35
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
Standards; Door Locks and Door
Retention Components
National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Final rule, response to petitions
for reconsideration.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: This final rule delays the
compliance date of the sliding door
provisions of a February 6, 2007 final
rule, from September 1, 2009 to
September 1, 2010. The February 6,
2007, final rule amended the Federal
motor vehicle safety standard on door
locks and door retention components to
add and update requirements and test
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
35131
procedures and to harmonize with the
world’s first global technical regulation
for motor vehicles. NHTSA received
four petitions for reconsideration of that
final rule, including two that requested
a delay in the effective date of the
sliding door provisions of the rule, and
others which raised concerns about
some of the new test requirements and
procedures. To accommodate
manufacturers’ design and production
cycles while allowing the agency more
time to analyze the petitions in regards
to other issues, the agency is delaying
the compliance date of the sliding door
provisions of S4.2.2 until September 1,
2010.
DATES: This final rule is effective
September 1, 2009. Any petitions for
reconsideration of today’s final rule
must be received by NHTSA not later
than September 3, 2009.
ADDRESSES: Any petitions for
reconsideration should refer to the
docket number of this document and be
submitted to: Administrator, National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration,
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West
Building, Washington, DC 20590. Note
that all documents received will be
posted without change to the docket,
including any personal information
provided. Please see the Privacy Act
discussion under the Rulemaking
Analyses and Notices section below.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For
non-legal issues, contact Ms. Shashi
Kuppa, Office of Crashworthiness
Standards, by telephone at (202) 366–
4909, or by fax at (202) 366–2990. For
legal issues, contact Ms. Sarah Alves,
Office of the Chief Counsel, by
telephone at (202) 366–2992, or by fax
at (202) 366–3820.
Both persons may be reached by mail
at the following address: National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration,
U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200
New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington,
DC 20590.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
On November 18, 2004, the Executive
Committee of the United Nations
Economic Commission for Europe
(UNECE) approved the world’s first
global technical regulation (GTR) for
motor vehicles, a GTR on door locks and
door retention components which
addressed inadvertent door openings in
crashes.1 With the establishment of a
1 World Forum for Harmonization of Vehicle
Regulations (WP.29), Global Technical Regulation
No. 1 Door Locks and Door Retention Components,
U.N. Doc. ECE/TRANS/180/Add.1 (Nov. 18, 2004),
E:\FR\FM\20JYR1.SGM
Continued
20JYR1
35132
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 137 / Monday, July 20, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
GTR and having voted in favor of it, the
U.S., as a contracting party to the 1998
Agreement,2 initiated rulemaking to
adopt the provisions of the global
standard.3 On December 15, 2004,
NHTSA issued a notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPRM) proposing to update
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard
(FMVSS) No. 206, Door locks and door
retention components, and provide
consistency with the GTR (69 FR 75021;
Docket No. NHTSA–2004–19840–1).
The NPRM comment period closed on
February 14, 2005 and 11 commenters
provided responses.
Following the NPRM, on February 6,
2007, NHTSA published a final rule
amending FMVSS No. 206.4 Consistent
with the GTR and the NPRM, the final
rule added test requirements and test
procedures for sliding doors, added
secondary latched position
requirements for doors other than
hinged side doors and back doors,
provided a new optional test procedure
for assessing inertial forces, and
extended the application of FMVSS No.
206 to buses with a gross vehicle weight
rating of less than 4,536 kilograms
(10,000 pounds), including 12–15
passenger vans. The final rule also
eliminated an exclusion from the
requirements of the standard for doors
equipped with wheelchair platform lifts.
After considering the comments, the
agency decided on an effective date of
September 1, 2009 for the amendments
established by the February 2007 final
rule. Optional early compliance was
permitted. NHTSA stated in the
February 2007 final rule that the agency
believed this effective date provided
manufacturers adequate time to make
the necessary design changes. NHTSA
also believed that the majority of
vehicles already comply with the
upgrades of the rulemaking, and that
those not currently complying should
not need significant changes to come
available at https://www.unece.org/trans/main/
wp29/wp29wgs/wp29gen/wp29registry/gtr1.html.
2 The 1998 UNECE Agreement Concerning the
Establishment of Global and Technical Regulations
for Wheeled Vehicles, Equipment and Parts Which
Can Be Fitted And/Or Be Used On Wheeled
Vehicles (1998 Agreement) was concluded under
the auspices of the United Nations and provides for
the establishment of globally harmonized vehicle
regulations. This 1998 Agreement, whose
conclusion was spearheaded by the United States,
entered into force in 2000 and is administered by
the UNECE’s World Forum for the Harmonization
of Vehicle Regulations (WP.29). See https://
www.unece.org/trans/main/wp29/wp29wgs/
wp29gen/wp29glob.html.
3 While the 1998 Agreement obligates such
Contracting Parties to begin their processes, it
leaves the ultimate decision of whether to adopt the
GTR into their domestic law to the parties
themselves.
4 Docket No. NHTSA–2006–23882; 72 FR 5385
(Feb. 6, 2007).
VerDate Nov<24>2008
15:17 Jul 17, 2009
Jkt 217001
into compliance. In addition, the agency
stated that we did not believe it was
necessary or appropriate to tie the
effective date for the February 2007 final
rule with that of a then-pending upgrade
of FMVSS No. 214, Side impact
protection, since that would result in
unnecessary delay in obtaining the
benefits from the February 2007 final
rule.
II. Overview of Petitions for
Reconsideration and Agency Response
In response to the February 2007 final
rule, NHTSA received petitions for
reconsideration from: the Alliance of
Automobile Manufacturers (Alliance),
the Ford Motor Company (Ford),
Advocates for Highway Safety, and
Thomas Built Buses, Inc. The petitions
addressed a wide range of FMVSS No.
206 issues, including technical issues
and requests to change the effective date
of the final rule. The Alliance petitioned
to make changes to the requirements
and test procedures for sliding doors
and either to phase in the entire final
rule with full implementation in 2012 or
to delay the effective date of just the
sliding door test requirements until
2012. Ford petitioned to extend the
effective date of the entire final rule or
at a minimum change the date as it
pertained to sliding doors.
The petitions for reconsideration have
asked the agency to reconsider many
technical aspects of that rulemaking
relating to specifics of test procedures,
which were for the most part not
significant issues. However, NHTSA’s
response to the petitions is not yet
complete, and given the approach of the
September 1, 2009 effective date, the
agency wishes to respond to the issues
of the petitions in parts, with a response
today to the effective date issue. Today’s
final rule delays the compliance date of
the sliding door provisions of S4.2.2 of
the February 2007 final rule until
September 1, 2010, while retaining the
original effective date of September 1,
2009 for all other provisions of the final
rule. Other issues raised in the petitions
for reconsideration will be addressed by
the agency in a subsequent document.
III. Discussion
In the February 2007 final rule, after
considering the comments and other
information, the agency decided on an
effective date of September 1, 2009 for
the new FMVSS No. 206 requirements.
NHTSA believed this effective date
provided manufacturers adequate time
to make the necessary design changes.
Both the Alliance and Ford petitioned
NHTSA to extend the effective date of
the February 2007 final rule until 2012.
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Several reasons were suggested by the
petitioners.
The first related to the technical basis
for the agency’s decision. In the final
rule, the agency determined that the
effective date of September 1, 2009 was
reasonable based on tests conducted by
NHTSA’s Vehicle Research & Test
Center (VRTC) and by Transport Canada
indicating that the vehicles tested
would meet the requirements under
consideration. In its petition for
reconsideration, Ford stated that the
sample evaluation of vehicles tested by
VRTC was not all inclusive and did not
reflect the complete status of today’s
fleet. In its March 23, 2007 petition for
reconsideration, and in an April 4, 2007
meeting with NHTSA to discuss its
petition for reconsideration,5 Ford
expressed concern with its inability to
meet the new requirements for sliding
doors for large vans by the effective date
specified in the February 2007 final rule
(September 1, 2009).6 Ford presented
test data demonstrating its position that
not all large vans are equipped with two
latch systems on their sliding doors and
that these vans do not comply with the
sliding door test requirements. Based on
the test data, Ford contends that
significant redesign efforts will be
needed to comply with the new sliding
door specifications in the February 2007
final rule. In addition, in its petition for
reconsideration the Alliance stated that
its member companies have not yet
tested or certified their sliding doorequipped vehicles to the new test
procedure and needed more time to
evaluate their vehicles.
Second, both the Alliance and Ford
believed that NHTSA should align the
February 2007 final rule effective date
with that of the new pole test for
FMVSS No. 214, Side Impact
Protection,7 because the same area of the
vehicle must be modified to meet the
requirements for both FMVSS Nos. 206
and 214. This is a view that the Alliance
had expressed in its comment to the
NPRM, to which the agency had
responded in the final rule. In its
petition for reconsideration, the
5 See Docket No. NHTSA–2006–23882–0011 (Apr.
22, 2007).
6 In its petitions for reconsideration, Ford
requested confidential treatment for certain pages
labeled ‘‘Confidential’’ Or ‘‘Entire Page
Confidential.’’ The agency granted confidentiality to
these pages through a letter dated April 4, 2007
from the Office of Chief Counsel.
7 NHTSA amended FMVSS No. 214 by
incorporating a dynamic pole test into the standard
(among other updates), which will require vehicle
manufacturers to assure head and improved chest
protection in side crashes, by installing new
technologies such as side curtain air bags and torso
side air bags. See 72 FR 51908 (Sept. 11, 2007);
response to petitions for reconsideration, 73 FR
32473 (June 9, 2008).
E:\FR\FM\20JYR1.SGM
20JYR1
35133
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 137 / Monday, July 20, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
Alliance stated that all current vehicles
with a sliding door having a single
latching system design will require
major structural modifications to the Bpillar(s) and door(s) to accommodate a
two-latch design. The petitioner
believed that, since both standard
upgrades require major structural
modifications on the same areas of the
vehicle, it would be most efficient to
coordinate these changes to meet both
requirements simultaneously.8
Third, the petitioners believed that
the effective date as is pertains to
sliding doors should be postponed until
2012, to coincide with the
implementation of the door locks and
door retention components GTR in
Europe. Ford believed that the February
2007 final rule is primarily intended to
harmonize requirements internationally
and does not add to real world safety
benefits, so therefore an implementation
date consistent with GTR
implementation timing in Europe is
reasonable and warranted.
Agency Response
The petitioners are correct that the
agency’s determination of an effective
date of September 1, 2009 was based on
tests of only smaller vans. Table 1
below, ‘‘Transport Canada and VRTC
Sliding Door Evaluation Test Results,’’
provides a summary of Transport
Canada’s and VRTC’s tests used to
develop the February 2007 final rule.
The table identifies the makes and
models of the vehicles tested, the
number of sliding door latches, and
whether the vehicle passed the required
load and allowable door separation
requirements.
TABLE 1—TRANSPORT CANADA AND VRTC SLIDING DOOR EVALUATION TEST RESULTS
Model year
Make
Pass/fail
load and 4″
gap proposal
Number of
latches
Model
Transport Canada Test Results
1995
1998
2000
1999
1997
2000
1998
1999
................................................
................................................
................................................
................................................
................................................
................................................
................................................
................................................
Dodge .............................................
Dodge .............................................
Mazda .............................................
Honda .............................................
Chevy .............................................
Pontiac ............................................
Ford ................................................
Ford ................................................
Caravan ..........................................
Caravan ..........................................
MPV ................................................
Odyssey ..........................................
Venture ...........................................
Transport ........................................
Windstar .........................................
Windstar .........................................
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
Fail.
Fail.
Fail.
Fail.
Pass.
Pass.
Pass.
Pass.
1
1
1
1
2
Fail.
Fail.
Fail.
Fail.
Pass.
VRTC Test Results
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
1993
2001
1992
2002
2001
................................................
................................................
................................................
................................................
................................................
Dodge .............................................
Dodge .............................................
Chevy .............................................
Honda .............................................
Ford ................................................
Caravan ..........................................
Caravan ..........................................
Lumina ............................................
Odyssey ..........................................
Windstar .........................................
Table 1 shows that evaluation testing
was only conducted on mini-vans. Table
1 also indicates that all the vehicles that
passed the 100 millimeter (mm) limit of
door separation specified in the sliding
door test requirement were equipped
with two latch systems while all those
that failed were equipped with one latch
system.9 As shown in Table 1, large
vans were excluded from evaluation
testing. The agency did not test large
vans sliding doors because it believed at
the time that these doors were equipped
with two latching systems.
The agency has reconsidered the
Transport Canada and VRTC test data in
light of the information from Ford. We
continue to believe that the majority of
the current fleet already complies with
the sliding door test. Most sliding doors
in the fleet have two latching systems,
with a latching system on the front and
the rear edges of the door, and are
capable of meeting the sliding door
requirements in the final rule without
design modifications. However, we
recognize that vehicles with one
latching system are generally unable to
meet the force load requirement or the
allowable door separation limitation
and that information from Ford
indicates that many large van sliding
doors currently have only one latch.
Thus, many large vehicles will need to
have an additional latch installed on the
sliding doors. While this design change
to vehicles with one latching system is
not significant, an additional year to
meet S4.2.2 of the 2007 final rule will
better enable manufacturers to assess
their vehicles and accommodate needed
changes within design and production
cycles. Accordingly, we are delaying the
compliance date of the sliding door
provisions of S4.2.2 of the February
2007 final rule until September 1, 2010,
to provide manufacturers another year
of lead time.
However, we are retaining the original
effective date of September 1, 2009 for
all other provisions of the final rule. We
do not agree that significant design
changes will be needed to comply with
the requirements of FMVSS No. 206.
Ford stated that vehicles not meeting
the upgraded standard experienced
deformation and damage to the sheet
metal of the B and C-Pillar, the door
sliding track, and the latch. We also
observed similar sheet metal and track
damage as that reported by Ford in the
minivans with a single latching system
that failed the sliding door test
requirements. However, vehicles with
sliding doors equipped with two latch
systems were able to meet the sliding
door test requirements in the standard
without extensive damage to the sheet
metal, door track or latch. Thus, NHTSA
8 The Alliance’s revised petition for
reconsideration (based on its projections about the
then-pending FMVSS No. 214 final rule) requested
a change in the effective date schedule as follows:
September 1, 2011—20%; September 1, 2012—
50%; September 1, 2013—100%. NHTSA published
the FMVSS No. 214 final rule and response to
petitions for reconsideration after submission of the
petition. Under these final rules, the phase in
schedule for FMVSS No. 214 begins September 1,
2010 and ends for vehicles made in one stage
September 1, 2015. 73 FR 32473, supra.
9 The table indicates that generally, all early
model minivans are equipped with one sliding door
latching systems while newer minivans have two
latching systems.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
15:17 Jul 17, 2009
Jkt 217001
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\20JYR1.SGM
20JYR1
35134
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 137 / Monday, July 20, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
believes that it is likely that if Ford’s
large van sliding door were equipped
with two latch systems, the vehicle
would pass the requirements without a
significant redesign of the surrounding
structure.
We reiterate our conclusion in the
February 2007 final rule that aligning
the effective date of the FMVSS No. 206
final rule with that of the FMVSS No.
214 upgrade is unwarranted.10 The door
lock and door retention components
requirements do not affect the same
vehicle structural components that may
require modification to meet the FMVSS
No. 214 upgrade requirements. The tests
for the two rulemakings are very
different, and the test for this rule is not
a dynamic crash test. Since vehicles
with two latch systems were able to
meet the standard’s requirements
without extensive damage to the sheet
metal, door track, or other components,
we believe that the sheet metal damage
cited by Ford is not determinative for
complying with the FMVSS No. 206
requirements. As such, we do not
believe it would be appropriate to tie
the effective date for this rule with that
of the side impact upgrade, since that
would result in unnecessary delay in
obtaining the benefits from this rule.
As for the arguments to align the
effective date to the implementation of
the GTR in Europe, NHTSA is not
obligated by the 1998 Agreement to
harmonize effective dates of GTRs with
other countries. The GTR process allows
each country to develop its own
implementation schedule of the rule.
Therefore, we reject Ford’s assertion
that ‘‘an effective date consistent with
GTR implementation timing in Europe
is reasonable and warranted.’’ Extending
the compliance date of the sliding door
provisions until September 1, 2010
gives sufficient time for necessary
modifications to comply with the new
test requirements while ensuring that
the benefits from the rule will be
achieved in the U.S. as quickly as
possible. Therefore, we are retaining the
final rule effective date of September 1,
2009, with the exception of extending
the effective date of the sliding door
provisions of S4.2.2 to September 1,
2010 to accommodate manufacturers’
design and production cycles.
IV. Effective Date of This Document
Because September 1, 2009 (the
original effective date for the February
2007 final rule) is fast approaching,
NHTSA finds for good cause that this
action delaying the compliance date
should take effect immediately. Today’s
final rule makes no substantive changes
10 72
FR at 5396.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
15:17 Jul 17, 2009
Jkt 217001
to FMVSS No. 206, but delays the
compliance date of the sliding door
provisions of S4.2.2 of the February 6,
2007 final rule until September 1, 2010
while the agency responds to the
petitions for reconsideration of the rule.
V. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
Executive Order 12866 and DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures
This rulemaking document was not
reviewed by the Office of Management
and Budget under E.O. 12866. It is not
considered to be significant under E.O.
12866 or the Department’s Regulatory
Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034;
February 26, 1979). Although the
February 6, 2007 final rule was
significant due to public interest in the
issues, this postponement of the
compliance date of the sliding door
provisions of S4.2.2 of the February 6,
2007 final rule until September 1, 2010
is not significant. This final rule does
not impose any requirements on any
manufacturer. The minimal impacts of
today’s amendment do not warrant
preparation of a regulatory evaluation.
Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)
NHTSA has examined today’s final
rule pursuant to Executive Order 13132
(64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) and
concluded that no additional
consultation with States, local
governments or their representatives is
mandated beyond the rulemaking
process. The agency has concluded that
the rule does not have federalism
implications because the rule does not
have ‘‘substantial direct effects on the
States, on the relationship between the
national government and the States, or
on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government.’’
Further, no consultation is needed to
discuss the preemptive effect of today’s
rule. NHTSA rules can have preemptive
effect in at least two ways. First, the
National Traffic and Motor Vehicle
Safety Act contains an express
preemptive provision: ‘‘When a motor
vehicle safety standard is in effect under
this chapter, a State or a political
subdivision of a State may prescribe or
continue in effect a standard applicable
to the same aspect of performance of a
motor vehicle or motor vehicle
equipment only if the standard is
identical to the standard prescribed
under this chapter.’’ 49 U.S.C.
30103(b)(1). It is this statutory command
that preempts State law, not today’s
rulemaking, so consultation would be
unnecessary.
Second, the Supreme Court has
recognized the possibility of implied
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
preemption. State requirements
imposed on motor vehicle
manufacturers, including sanctions
imposed by State tort law, can stand as
an obstacle to the accomplishment and
execution of a NHTSA safety standard.
When such a conflict is discerned, the
Supremacy Clause of the Constitution
makes the State requirements
unenforceable. See Geier v. American
Honda Motor Co., 529 U.S. 861 (2000).
NHTSA has considered today’s final
rule and does not currently foresee any
potential State requirements that might
conflict with it. Without any conflict,
there could not be any implied
preemption.
Executive Order 13045
Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885,
April 23, 1997) applies to any
rulemaking that: (1) Is determined to be
‘‘economically significant’’ as defined
under E.O. 12866, and (2) concerns an
environmental, health or safety risk that
NHTSA has reason to believe may have
a disproportionate effect on children. If
the regulatory action meets both criteria,
we must evaluate the environmental
health or safety effects of the planned
rule on children, and explain why the
planned regulation is preferable to other
potentially effective and reasonably
feasible alternatives considered by us.
This rulemaking is not subject to the
Executive Order because it is not
economically significant as defined in
E.O. 12866.
Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice
Reform)
With respect to the review of the
promulgation of a new regulation,
section 3(b) of Executive Order 12988,
‘‘Civil Justice Reform’’ (61 FR 4729,
February 7, 1996) requires that
Executive agencies make every
reasonable effort to ensure that the
regulation: (1) Clearly specifies the
preemptive effect; (2) clearly specifies
the effect on existing Federal law or
regulation; (3) provides a clear legal
standard for affected conduct, while
promoting simplification and burden
reduction; (4) clearly specifies the
retroactive effect, if any; (5) adequately
defines key terms; and (6) addresses
other important issues affecting clarity
and general draftsmanship under any
guidelines issued by the Attorney
General. This document is consistent
with that requirement.
Pursuant to this Order, NHTSA notes
as follows. The preemptive effect of this
rule is discussed above. NHTSA notes
further that there is no requirement that
individuals submit a petition for
reconsideration or pursue other
E:\FR\FM\20JYR1.SGM
20JYR1
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 137 / Monday, July 20, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
administrative proceeding before they
may file suit in court.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility
Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., as amended by
the Small Business Regulatory
Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of
1996) whenever an agency is required to
publish a notice of rulemaking for any
proposed or final rule, it must prepare
and make available for public comment
a regulatory flexibility analysis that
describes the effect of the rule on small
entities (i.e., small businesses, small
organizations, and small governmental
jurisdictions). However, no regulatory
flexibility analysis is required if the
head of an agency certifies the rule
would not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small
entities. SBREFA amended the
Regulatory Flexibility Act to require
Federal agencies to provide a statement
of the factual basis for certifying that a
rule would not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities.
I certify that this final rule does not
have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities.
This rule affects motor vehicle
manufacturers, multistage
manufacturers and alterers, but the
entities that qualify as small businesses
will not be significantly affected by this
rulemaking. This final rule does not
establish new requirements, but instead
only adjusts an effective date of one of
the provisions of the February 2007
final rule.
National Environmental Policy Act
We have analyzed this final rule for
the purposes of the National
Environmental Policy Act and
determined that it does not have any
significant impact on the quality of the
human environment.
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
Paperwork Reduction Act
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995, a person is not required to
respond to a collection of information
by a Federal agency unless the
collection displays a valid OMB control
number. The final rule does not contain
any new information collection
requirements.
National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act
Section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104–
113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272)
directs us to use voluntary consensus
standards in its regulatory activities
unless doing so would be inconsistent
VerDate Nov<24>2008
15:17 Jul 17, 2009
Jkt 217001
with applicable law or otherwise
impractical. Voluntary consensus
standards are technical standards (e.g.,
materials specifications, test methods,
sampling procedures, and business
practices) that are developed or adopted
by voluntary consensus standards
bodies, such as the Society of
Automotive Engineers (SAE). The
NTTAA directs us to provide Congress,
through OMB, explanations when we
decide not to use available and
applicable voluntary consensus
standards.
No voluntary consensus standards
were used in developing today’s final
rule because this final rule only adjusts
an effective date of one of the provisions
of the standard. There are no voluntary
standards that address the subject of this
rulemaking.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Section 202 of the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA)
requires Federal agencies to prepare a
written assessment of the costs, benefits
and other effects of proposed or final
rules that include a Federal mandate
likely to result in the expenditure by
State, local or tribal governments, in the
aggregate, or by the private sector, of
more than $100 million in any one year
(adjusted for inflation with base year of
1995). Before promulgating a NHTSA
rule for which a written statement is
needed, section 205 of the UMRA
generally requires us to identify and
consider a reasonable number of
regulatory alternatives and adopt the
least costly, most cost-effective or least
burdensome alternative that achieves
the objectives of the rule. The
provisions of section 205 do not apply
when they are inconsistent with
applicable law. Moreover, section 205
allows us to adopt an alternative other
than the least costly, most cost-effective
or least burdensome alternative if we
publish with the final rule an
explanation why that alternative was
not adopted.
The final rule will not impose any
unfunded mandates under the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of
1995. This rulemaking does not meet
the definition of a Federal mandate
because it would not result in costs of
$100 million (adjusted annually for
inflation with a base year of 1995 or 116
million in 2003 dollars) or more to
either State, local, or tribal governments,
in the aggregate, or to the private sector.
Thus, this rulemaking is not subject to
the requirements of sections 202 and
205 of the UMRA.
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
35135
Regulation Identifier Number (RIN)
The Department of Transportation
assigns a regulation identifier number
(RIN) to each regulatory action listed in
the Unified Agenda of Federal
Regulations. The Regulatory Information
Service Center publishes the Unified
Agenda in April and October of each
year. You may use the RIN contained in
the heading at the beginning of this
document to find this action in the
Unified Agenda.
Privacy Act
Anyone is able to search the
electronic form of all comments
received into any of our dockets by the
name of the individual submitting the
comment (or signing the comment, if
submitted on behalf of an association,
business, labor union, etc.). You may
review DOT’s complete Privacy Act
Statement in the Federal Register
published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR
19477–78) or you may visit https://
www.dot.gov/privacy.html.
List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 571
Motor vehicle safety, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Tires.
In consideration of the foregoing,
NHTSA amends 49 CFR 571.206 as
follows:
■
PART 571—FEDERAL MOTOR
VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS
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.
2. Section 571.206 is amended by
adding S4.2.2.3, to read as follows:
■
§ 571.206 Standard 206; Door locks and
door retention components.
*
*
*
*
*
S4.2.2.3 This S4.2.2.3 applies to
vehicle manufactured on or after
September 1, 2010.
*
*
*
*
*
Issued on: July 14, 2009.
Ronald L. Medford,
Acting Deputy Administrator.
[FR Doc. E9–17078 Filed 7–17–09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–59–P
E:\FR\FM\20JYR1.SGM
20JYR1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 137 (Monday, July 20, 2009)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 35131-35135]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-17078]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
49 CFR Parts 571
[Docket No. NHTSA-2009-0116]
RIN 2127-AK35
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Door Locks and Door
Retention Components
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Final rule, response to petitions for reconsideration.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This final rule delays the compliance date of the sliding door
provisions of a February 6, 2007 final rule, from September 1, 2009 to
September 1, 2010. The February 6, 2007, final rule amended the Federal
motor vehicle safety standard on door locks and door retention
components to add and update requirements and test procedures and to
harmonize with the world's first global technical regulation for motor
vehicles. NHTSA received four petitions for reconsideration of that
final rule, including two that requested a delay in the effective date
of the sliding door provisions of the rule, and others which raised
concerns about some of the new test requirements and procedures. To
accommodate manufacturers' design and production cycles while allowing
the agency more time to analyze the petitions in regards to other
issues, the agency is delaying the compliance date of the sliding door
provisions of S4.2.2 until September 1, 2010.
DATES: This final rule is effective September 1, 2009. Any petitions
for reconsideration of today's final rule must be received by NHTSA not
later than September 3, 2009.
ADDRESSES: Any petitions for reconsideration should refer to the docket
number of this document and be submitted to: Administrator, National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE.,
West Building, Washington, DC 20590. Note that all documents received
will be posted without change to the docket, including any personal
information provided. Please see the Privacy Act discussion under the
Rulemaking Analyses and Notices section below.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For non-legal issues, contact Ms.
Shashi Kuppa, Office of Crashworthiness Standards, by telephone at
(202) 366-4909, or by fax at (202) 366-2990. For legal issues, contact
Ms. Sarah Alves, Office of the Chief Counsel, by telephone at (202)
366-2992, or by fax at (202) 366-3820.
Both persons may be reached by mail at the following address:
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
On November 18, 2004, the Executive Committee of the United Nations
Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) approved the world's first
global technical regulation (GTR) for motor vehicles, a GTR on door
locks and door retention components which addressed inadvertent door
openings in crashes.\1\ With the establishment of a
[[Page 35132]]
GTR and having voted in favor of it, the U.S., as a contracting party
to the 1998 Agreement,\2\ initiated rulemaking to adopt the provisions
of the global standard.\3\ On December 15, 2004, NHTSA issued a notice
of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) proposing to update Federal Motor Vehicle
Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 206, Door locks and door retention
components, and provide consistency with the GTR (69 FR 75021; Docket
No. NHTSA-2004-19840-1). The NPRM comment period closed on February 14,
2005 and 11 commenters provided responses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ World Forum for Harmonization of Vehicle Regulations
(WP.29), Global Technical Regulation No. 1 Door Locks and Door
Retention Components, U.N. Doc. ECE/TRANS/180/Add.1 (Nov. 18, 2004),
available at https://www.unece.org/trans/main/wp29/wp29wgs/wp29gen/wp29registry/gtr1.html.
\2\ The 1998 UNECE Agreement Concerning the Establishment of
Global and Technical Regulations for Wheeled Vehicles, Equipment and
Parts Which Can Be Fitted And/Or Be Used On Wheeled Vehicles (1998
Agreement) was concluded under the auspices of the United Nations
and provides for the establishment of globally harmonized vehicle
regulations. This 1998 Agreement, whose conclusion was spearheaded
by the United States, entered into force in 2000 and is administered
by the UNECE's World Forum for the Harmonization of Vehicle
Regulations (WP.29). See https://www.unece.org/trans/main/wp29/wp29wgs/wp29gen/wp29glob.html.
\3\ While the 1998 Agreement obligates such Contracting Parties
to begin their processes, it leaves the ultimate decision of whether
to adopt the GTR into their domestic law to the parties themselves.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Following the NPRM, on February 6, 2007, NHTSA published a final
rule amending FMVSS No. 206.\4\ Consistent with the GTR and the NPRM,
the final rule added test requirements and test procedures for sliding
doors, added secondary latched position requirements for doors other
than hinged side doors and back doors, provided a new optional test
procedure for assessing inertial forces, and extended the application
of FMVSS No. 206 to buses with a gross vehicle weight rating of less
than 4,536 kilograms (10,000 pounds), including 12-15 passenger vans.
The final rule also eliminated an exclusion from the requirements of
the standard for doors equipped with wheelchair platform lifts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Docket No. NHTSA-2006-23882; 72 FR 5385 (Feb. 6, 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
After considering the comments, the agency decided on an effective
date of September 1, 2009 for the amendments established by the
February 2007 final rule. Optional early compliance was permitted.
NHTSA stated in the February 2007 final rule that the agency believed
this effective date provided manufacturers adequate time to make the
necessary design changes. NHTSA also believed that the majority of
vehicles already comply with the upgrades of the rulemaking, and that
those not currently complying should not need significant changes to
come into compliance. In addition, the agency stated that we did not
believe it was necessary or appropriate to tie the effective date for
the February 2007 final rule with that of a then-pending upgrade of
FMVSS No. 214, Side impact protection, since that would result in
unnecessary delay in obtaining the benefits from the February 2007
final rule.
II. Overview of Petitions for Reconsideration and Agency Response
In response to the February 2007 final rule, NHTSA received
petitions for reconsideration from: the Alliance of Automobile
Manufacturers (Alliance), the Ford Motor Company (Ford), Advocates for
Highway Safety, and Thomas Built Buses, Inc. The petitions addressed a
wide range of FMVSS No. 206 issues, including technical issues and
requests to change the effective date of the final rule. The Alliance
petitioned to make changes to the requirements and test procedures for
sliding doors and either to phase in the entire final rule with full
implementation in 2012 or to delay the effective date of just the
sliding door test requirements until 2012. Ford petitioned to extend
the effective date of the entire final rule or at a minimum change the
date as it pertained to sliding doors.
The petitions for reconsideration have asked the agency to
reconsider many technical aspects of that rulemaking relating to
specifics of test procedures, which were for the most part not
significant issues. However, NHTSA's response to the petitions is not
yet complete, and given the approach of the September 1, 2009 effective
date, the agency wishes to respond to the issues of the petitions in
parts, with a response today to the effective date issue. Today's final
rule delays the compliance date of the sliding door provisions of
S4.2.2 of the February 2007 final rule until September 1, 2010, while
retaining the original effective date of September 1, 2009 for all
other provisions of the final rule. Other issues raised in the
petitions for reconsideration will be addressed by the agency in a
subsequent document.
III. Discussion
In the February 2007 final rule, after considering the comments and
other information, the agency decided on an effective date of September
1, 2009 for the new FMVSS No. 206 requirements. NHTSA believed this
effective date provided manufacturers adequate time to make the
necessary design changes. Both the Alliance and Ford petitioned NHTSA
to extend the effective date of the February 2007 final rule until
2012. Several reasons were suggested by the petitioners.
The first related to the technical basis for the agency's decision.
In the final rule, the agency determined that the effective date of
September 1, 2009 was reasonable based on tests conducted by NHTSA's
Vehicle Research & Test Center (VRTC) and by Transport Canada
indicating that the vehicles tested would meet the requirements under
consideration. In its petition for reconsideration, Ford stated that
the sample evaluation of vehicles tested by VRTC was not all inclusive
and did not reflect the complete status of today's fleet. In its March
23, 2007 petition for reconsideration, and in an April 4, 2007 meeting
with NHTSA to discuss its petition for reconsideration,\5\ Ford
expressed concern with its inability to meet the new requirements for
sliding doors for large vans by the effective date specified in the
February 2007 final rule (September 1, 2009).\6\ Ford presented test
data demonstrating its position that not all large vans are equipped
with two latch systems on their sliding doors and that these vans do
not comply with the sliding door test requirements. Based on the test
data, Ford contends that significant redesign efforts will be needed to
comply with the new sliding door specifications in the February 2007
final rule. In addition, in its petition for reconsideration the
Alliance stated that its member companies have not yet tested or
certified their sliding door-equipped vehicles to the new test
procedure and needed more time to evaluate their vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ See Docket No. NHTSA-2006-23882-0011 (Apr. 22, 2007).
\6\ In its petitions for reconsideration, Ford requested
confidential treatment for certain pages labeled ``Confidential'' Or
``Entire Page Confidential.'' The agency granted confidentiality to
these pages through a letter dated April 4, 2007 from the Office of
Chief Counsel.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Second, both the Alliance and Ford believed that NHTSA should align
the February 2007 final rule effective date with that of the new pole
test for FMVSS No. 214, Side Impact Protection,\7\ because the same
area of the vehicle must be modified to meet the requirements for both
FMVSS Nos. 206 and 214. This is a view that the Alliance had expressed
in its comment to the NPRM, to which the agency had responded in the
final rule. In its petition for reconsideration, the
[[Page 35133]]
Alliance stated that all current vehicles with a sliding door having a
single latching system design will require major structural
modifications to the B-pillar(s) and door(s) to accommodate a two-latch
design. The petitioner believed that, since both standard upgrades
require major structural modifications on the same areas of the
vehicle, it would be most efficient to coordinate these changes to meet
both requirements simultaneously.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ NHTSA amended FMVSS No. 214 by incorporating a dynamic pole
test into the standard (among other updates), which will require
vehicle manufacturers to assure head and improved chest protection
in side crashes, by installing new technologies such as side curtain
air bags and torso side air bags. See 72 FR 51908 (Sept. 11, 2007);
response to petitions for reconsideration, 73 FR 32473 (June 9,
2008).
\8\ The Alliance's revised petition for reconsideration (based
on its projections about the then-pending FMVSS No. 214 final rule)
requested a change in the effective date schedule as follows:
September 1, 2011--20%; September 1, 2012--50%; September 1, 2013--
100%. NHTSA published the FMVSS No. 214 final rule and response to
petitions for reconsideration after submission of the petition.
Under these final rules, the phase in schedule for FMVSS No. 214
begins September 1, 2010 and ends for vehicles made in one stage
September 1, 2015. 73 FR 32473, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Third, the petitioners believed that the effective date as is
pertains to sliding doors should be postponed until 2012, to coincide
with the implementation of the door locks and door retention components
GTR in Europe. Ford believed that the February 2007 final rule is
primarily intended to harmonize requirements internationally and does
not add to real world safety benefits, so therefore an implementation
date consistent with GTR implementation timing in Europe is reasonable
and warranted.
Agency Response
The petitioners are correct that the agency's determination of an
effective date of September 1, 2009 was based on tests of only smaller
vans. Table 1 below, ``Transport Canada and VRTC Sliding Door
Evaluation Test Results,'' provides a summary of Transport Canada's and
VRTC's tests used to develop the February 2007 final rule. The table
identifies the makes and models of the vehicles tested, the number of
sliding door latches, and whether the vehicle passed the required load
and allowable door separation requirements.
Table 1--Transport Canada and VRTC Sliding Door Evaluation Test Results
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of Pass/fail load and
Model year Make Model latches 4'' gap proposal
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Transport Canada Test Results
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1995............................ Dodge.............. Caravan............ 1 Fail.
1998............................ Dodge.............. Caravan............ 1 Fail.
2000............................ Mazda.............. MPV................ 1 Fail.
1999............................ Honda.............. Odyssey............ 1 Fail.
1997............................ Chevy.............. Venture............ 2 Pass.
2000............................ Pontiac............ Transport.......... 2 Pass.
1998............................ Ford............... Windstar........... 2 Pass.
1999............................ Ford............... Windstar........... 2 Pass.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VRTC Test Results
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1993............................ Dodge.............. Caravan............ 1 Fail.
2001............................ Dodge.............. Caravan............ 1 Fail.
1992............................ Chevy.............. Lumina............. 1 Fail.
2002............................ Honda.............. Odyssey............ 1 Fail.
2001............................ Ford............... Windstar........... 2 Pass.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 1 shows that evaluation testing was only conducted on mini-
vans. Table 1 also indicates that all the vehicles that passed the 100
millimeter (mm) limit of door separation specified in the sliding door
test requirement were equipped with two latch systems while all those
that failed were equipped with one latch system.\9\ As shown in Table
1, large vans were excluded from evaluation testing. The agency did not
test large vans sliding doors because it believed at the time that
these doors were equipped with two latching systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ The table indicates that generally, all early model minivans
are equipped with one sliding door latching systems while newer
minivans have two latching systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The agency has reconsidered the Transport Canada and VRTC test data
in light of the information from Ford. We continue to believe that the
majority of the current fleet already complies with the sliding door
test. Most sliding doors in the fleet have two latching systems, with a
latching system on the front and the rear edges of the door, and are
capable of meeting the sliding door requirements in the final rule
without design modifications. However, we recognize that vehicles with
one latching system are generally unable to meet the force load
requirement or the allowable door separation limitation and that
information from Ford indicates that many large van sliding doors
currently have only one latch. Thus, many large vehicles will need to
have an additional latch installed on the sliding doors. While this
design change to vehicles with one latching system is not significant,
an additional year to meet S4.2.2 of the 2007 final rule will better
enable manufacturers to assess their vehicles and accommodate needed
changes within design and production cycles. Accordingly, we are
delaying the compliance date of the sliding door provisions of S4.2.2
of the February 2007 final rule until September 1, 2010, to provide
manufacturers another year of lead time.
However, we are retaining the original effective date of September
1, 2009 for all other provisions of the final rule. We do not agree
that significant design changes will be needed to comply with the
requirements of FMVSS No. 206. Ford stated that vehicles not meeting
the upgraded standard experienced deformation and damage to the sheet
metal of the B and C-Pillar, the door sliding track, and the latch. We
also observed similar sheet metal and track damage as that reported by
Ford in the minivans with a single latching system that failed the
sliding door test requirements. However, vehicles with sliding doors
equipped with two latch systems were able to meet the sliding door test
requirements in the standard without extensive damage to the sheet
metal, door track or latch. Thus, NHTSA
[[Page 35134]]
believes that it is likely that if Ford's large van sliding door were
equipped with two latch systems, the vehicle would pass the
requirements without a significant redesign of the surrounding
structure.
We reiterate our conclusion in the February 2007 final rule that
aligning the effective date of the FMVSS No. 206 final rule with that
of the FMVSS No. 214 upgrade is unwarranted.\10\ The door lock and door
retention components requirements do not affect the same vehicle
structural components that may require modification to meet the FMVSS
No. 214 upgrade requirements. The tests for the two rulemakings are
very different, and the test for this rule is not a dynamic crash test.
Since vehicles with two latch systems were able to meet the standard's
requirements without extensive damage to the sheet metal, door track,
or other components, we believe that the sheet metal damage cited by
Ford is not determinative for complying with the FMVSS No. 206
requirements. As such, we do not believe it would be appropriate to tie
the effective date for this rule with that of the side impact upgrade,
since that would result in unnecessary delay in obtaining the benefits
from this rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ 72 FR at 5396.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As for the arguments to align the effective date to the
implementation of the GTR in Europe, NHTSA is not obligated by the 1998
Agreement to harmonize effective dates of GTRs with other countries.
The GTR process allows each country to develop its own implementation
schedule of the rule. Therefore, we reject Ford's assertion that ``an
effective date consistent with GTR implementation timing in Europe is
reasonable and warranted.'' Extending the compliance date of the
sliding door provisions until September 1, 2010 gives sufficient time
for necessary modifications to comply with the new test requirements
while ensuring that the benefits from the rule will be achieved in the
U.S. as quickly as possible. Therefore, we are retaining the final rule
effective date of September 1, 2009, with the exception of extending
the effective date of the sliding door provisions of S4.2.2 to
September 1, 2010 to accommodate manufacturers' design and production
cycles.
IV. Effective Date of This Document
Because September 1, 2009 (the original effective date for the
February 2007 final rule) is fast approaching, NHTSA finds for good
cause that this action delaying the compliance date should take effect
immediately. Today's final rule makes no substantive changes to FMVSS
No. 206, but delays the compliance date of the sliding door provisions
of S4.2.2 of the February 6, 2007 final rule until September 1, 2010
while the agency responds to the petitions for reconsideration of the
rule.
V. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures
This rulemaking document was not reviewed by the Office of
Management and Budget under E.O. 12866. It is not considered to be
significant under E.O. 12866 or the Department's Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979). Although the February
6, 2007 final rule was significant due to public interest in the
issues, this postponement of the compliance date of the sliding door
provisions of S4.2.2 of the February 6, 2007 final rule until September
1, 2010 is not significant. This final rule does not impose any
requirements on any manufacturer. The minimal impacts of today's
amendment do not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation.
Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)
NHTSA has examined today's final rule pursuant to Executive Order
13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) and concluded that no additional
consultation with States, local governments or their representatives is
mandated beyond the rulemaking process. The agency has concluded that
the rule does not have federalism implications because the rule does
not have ``substantial direct effects on the States, on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government.''
Further, no consultation is needed to discuss the preemptive effect
of today's rule. NHTSA rules can have preemptive effect in at least two
ways. First, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act contains
an express preemptive provision: ``When a motor vehicle safety standard
is in effect under this chapter, a State or a political subdivision of
a State may prescribe or continue in effect a standard applicable to
the same aspect of performance of a motor vehicle or motor vehicle
equipment only if the standard is identical to the standard prescribed
under this chapter.'' 49 U.S.C. 30103(b)(1). It is this statutory
command that preempts State law, not today's rulemaking, so
consultation would be unnecessary.
Second, the Supreme Court has recognized the possibility of implied
preemption. State requirements imposed on motor vehicle manufacturers,
including sanctions imposed by State tort law, can stand as an obstacle
to the accomplishment and execution of a NHTSA safety standard. When
such a conflict is discerned, the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution
makes the State requirements unenforceable. See Geier v. American Honda
Motor Co., 529 U.S. 861 (2000). NHTSA has considered today's final rule
and does not currently foresee any potential State requirements that
might conflict with it. Without any conflict, there could not be any
implied preemption.
Executive Order 13045
Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any
rulemaking that: (1) Is determined to be ``economically significant''
as defined under E.O. 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental, health
or safety risk that NHTSA has reason to believe may have a
disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets
both criteria, we must evaluate the environmental health or safety
effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the planned
regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably
feasible alternatives considered by us.
This rulemaking is not subject to the Executive Order because it is
not economically significant as defined in E.O. 12866.
Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform)
With respect to the review of the promulgation of a new regulation,
section 3(b) of Executive Order 12988, ``Civil Justice Reform'' (61 FR
4729, February 7, 1996) requires that Executive agencies make every
reasonable effort to ensure that the regulation: (1) Clearly specifies
the preemptive effect; (2) clearly specifies the effect on existing
Federal law or regulation; (3) provides a clear legal standard for
affected conduct, while promoting simplification and burden reduction;
(4) clearly specifies the retroactive effect, if any; (5) adequately
defines key terms; and (6) addresses other important issues affecting
clarity and general draftsmanship under any guidelines issued by the
Attorney General. This document is consistent with that requirement.
Pursuant to this Order, NHTSA notes as follows. The preemptive
effect of this rule is discussed above. NHTSA notes further that there
is no requirement that individuals submit a petition for
reconsideration or pursue other
[[Page 35135]]
administrative proceeding before they may file suit in court.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.,
as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
(SBREFA) of 1996) whenever an agency is required to publish a notice of
rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must prepare and make
available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis that
describes the effect of the rule on small entities (i.e., small
businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions).
However, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required if the head of
an agency certifies the rule would not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities. SBREFA amended the
Regulatory Flexibility Act to require Federal agencies to provide a
statement of the factual basis for certifying that a rule would not
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
I certify that this final rule does not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule affects
motor vehicle manufacturers, multistage manufacturers and alterers, but
the entities that qualify as small businesses will not be significantly
affected by this rulemaking. This final rule does not establish new
requirements, but instead only adjusts an effective date of one of the
provisions of the February 2007 final rule.
National Environmental Policy Act
We have analyzed this final rule for the purposes of the National
Environmental Policy Act and determined that it does not have any
significant impact on the quality of the human environment.
Paperwork Reduction Act
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, a person is not required
to respond to a collection of information by a Federal agency unless
the collection displays a valid OMB control number. The final rule does
not contain any new information collection requirements.
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272)
directs us to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory
activities unless doing so would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling
procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by
voluntary consensus standards bodies, such as the Society of Automotive
Engineers (SAE). The NTTAA directs us to provide Congress, through OMB,
explanations when we decide not to use available and applicable
voluntary consensus standards.
No voluntary consensus standards were used in developing today's
final rule because this final rule only adjusts an effective date of
one of the provisions of the standard. There are no voluntary standards
that address the subject of this rulemaking.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA)
requires Federal agencies to prepare a written assessment of the costs,
benefits and other effects of proposed or final rules that include a
Federal mandate likely to result in the expenditure by State, local or
tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of more
than $100 million in any one year (adjusted for inflation with base
year of 1995). Before promulgating a NHTSA rule for which a written
statement is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires us to
identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives
and adopt the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome
alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of
section 205 do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable
law. Moreover, section 205 allows us to adopt an alternative other than
the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative
if we publish with the final rule an explanation why that alternative
was not adopted.
The final rule will not impose any unfunded mandates under the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995. This rulemaking does not meet the
definition of a Federal mandate because it would not result in costs of
$100 million (adjusted annually for inflation with a base year of 1995
or 116 million in 2003 dollars) or more to either State, local, or
tribal governments, in the aggregate, or to the private sector. Thus,
this rulemaking is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and
205 of the UMRA.
Regulation Identifier Number (RIN)
The Department of Transportation assigns a regulation identifier
number (RIN) to each regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of
Federal Regulations. The Regulatory Information Service Center
publishes the Unified Agenda in April and October of each year. You may
use the RIN contained in the heading at the beginning of this document
to find this action in the Unified Agenda.
Privacy Act
Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments
received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf
of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's
complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on
April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78) or you may visit https://www.dot.gov/privacy.html.
List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 571
Motor vehicle safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements,
Tires.
0
In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA amends 49 CFR 571.206 as
follows:
PART 571--FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS
0
1. The authority citation for Part 571 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117 and 30166;
delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.
0
2. Section 571.206 is amended by adding S4.2.2.3, to read as follows:
Sec. 571.206 Standard 206; Door locks and door retention components.
* * * * *
S4.2.2.3 This S4.2.2.3 applies to vehicle manufactured on or after
September 1, 2010.
* * * * *
Issued on: July 14, 2009.
Ronald L. Medford,
Acting Deputy Administrator.
[FR Doc. E9-17078 Filed 7-17-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
