Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Door Locks and Door Retention Components, 7370-7383 [2010-2837]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
7370
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 33 / Friday, February 19, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
Ordering Clause
Pursuant to 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 303(r)
and 613, the Order Suspending Effective
Date is adopted.
Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010–3267 Filed 2–18–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712–01–P
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 79
[CG Docket No. 05–231; ET Docket No. 99–
254; FCC 08–255]
Closed Captioning of Video
Programming; Closed Captioning
Requirements for Digital Television
Receivers
Synopsis
AGENCY: Federal Communications
Commission.
ACTION: Final rule; announcement of
effective date.
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES
SUMMARY: In this document, the
Commission announces that the Office
of Management and Budget (OMB) has
approved, for a period of three years, the
information collection associated with
the Commission’s Closed Captioning of
Video Programming; Closed Captioning
Requirements for Digital Television
Receivers, Declaratory Ruling and Order
(2008 Closed Captioning Order). This
notice is consistent with the 2008
Closed Captioning Order, which stated
that the Commission would publish a
document in the Federal Register
announcing the effective date of those
rules.
DATES: 47 CFR 79.1(g)(1) through (5), (i),
published at 74 FR 1594, January 13,
2009, is effective February 19, 2010.
Video programming distributors must
comply with 47 CFR 79.1(i) by March
22, 2010.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Amelia Brown, Disabilities Rights
Office, Consumer and Governmental
Affairs Bureau, at (202) 418–2799
(voice) or (202) 418–7804 (TTY).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This
document announces that, on July 27,
2009, OMB approved, for a period of
three years, the information collection
requirements contained in the
Commission’s 2008 Closed Captioning
Order, FCC 08–255, published at 74 FR
1594, January 13, 2009. The OMB
Control Number is 3060–0761. The
Commission publishes this notice as an
announcement of the effective date of
the rules. If you have any comments on
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:08 Feb 18, 2010
Jkt 220001
the burden estimates listed below, or
how the Commission can improve the
collections and reduce any burdens
caused thereby, please contact Cathy
Williams, Federal Communications
Commission, Room 1–C823, 445 12th
Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554.
Please include the OMB Control
Number, 3060–0761, in your
correspondence. The Commission will
also accept your comments via the
Internet if you send them to
PRA@fcc.gov. To request materials in
accessible formats for people with
disabilities (braille, large print,
electronic files, audio format), send an
e-mail to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the
Consumer and Governmental Affairs
Bureau at (202) 418–0530 (voice), (202)
418–0432 (TTY).
As required by the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507),
the FCC is notifying the public that it
received OMB approval on July 27,
2009, for the information collection
requirements contained in the
Commission’s rules at 47 CFR 79.1(g)(1)
through (5) and 47 CFR 79.1(i). The
OMB Control Number is 3060–0761.
The total annual reporting burden for
respondents for these collections of
information, including the time for
gathering and maintaining the collection
of information, is estimated to be:
14,283 respondents, 111,247 responses,
a total annual hourly burden of 226,452
hours, and $38,283,630 in total annual
costs.
Under 5 CFR 1320, an agency may not
conduct or sponsor a collection of
information unless it displays a current,
valid OMB Control Number.
No person shall be subject to any
penalty for failing to comply with a
collection of information subject to the
Paperwork Reduction Act, that does not
display a current, valid OMB Control
Number. The foregoing notice is
required by the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995, Public Law 104–13,
October 1, 1995, and 44 U.S.C. 3507.
Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010–3265 Filed 2–18–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712–01–P
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration
49 CFR Part 571
[Docket No. NHTSA–2010–0015
RIN 2127–AK60
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
Standards; Door Locks and Door
Retention Components
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Final rule; response to petitions
for reconsideration; technical
amendments.
SUMMARY: This final rule responds to
petitions for reconsideration of a
February 6, 2007 final rule that
amended Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
Standard No. 206 to add and update
requirements and test procedures and to
harmonize with the world’s first global
technical regulation for motor vehicles.
This is the second of two documents
responding to the petitions; an earlier
final rule delayed the compliance date
of the sliding door provisions for a year.
In today’s document, the agency is
granting some aspects of the petitions
while denying other aspects, and makes
several technical amendments to the
regulatory text.
DATES: This rule is effective February
19, 2010. Any petitions for
reconsideration of today’s final rule
must be received by NHTSA not later
than April 5, 2010.
ADDRESSES: If you wish to petition for
reconsideration of this rule, your
petition should refer to the docket
number and be submitted to:
Administrator, National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building, 4th
Floor, Washington, DC 20590. Note that
all documents received will be posted
without change to the docket, including
any personal information provided.
Please see the Privacy Act discussion
under the section entitled, Rulemaking
Analyses and Notices.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For
technical issues, contact Ms. Shashi
Kuppa, Office of Crashworthiness
Standards, by telephone at (202) 366–
4902, or by fax at (202) 366–2990. For
legal issues, contact Ms. Sarah Alves,
Office of the Chief Counsel, by
telephone at (202) 366–2992, or by fax
at (202) 366–3820.
Both persons may be reached by mail
at the following address: National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration,
E:\FR\FM\19FER1.SGM
19FER1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 33 / Friday, February 19, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200
New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington,
DC 20590.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
standard for doors equipped with
wheelchair platform lifts. The effective
date for the final rule was September 1,
2009.
Table of Contents
Petitions for Reconsideration
I. Background
II. Summary of Responses to Petitions for
Reconsideration
a. NHTSA’s Part I Response
b. Today’s Part II Response
III. Technical Issues
a. Sliding Door Requirements and Test
Procedures
1. Test Force Application Duration
2. Test Force Application Load Plate
Positioning
3. Test Force Application Load Plate
Rotation
4. Closure Warning Devices
b. Exclusion of Wheelchair Lift Doors
IV. Other Issues
a. Correction of S5.1.1.4(b)(2)
b. Technical Amendment to Figure 7
c. Distinguishing Between Primary and
Auxiliary Door Latches
d. Certification Information
e. Applicability of the Standard to Vehicles
Over 10,000 lb GVWR
V. GTR Process
VI. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
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.
I. Background
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES
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
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.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:08 Feb 18, 2010
Jkt 220001
7371
• S5.2.2.4(a), to specify a time
requirement instead of a load
application rate of the sliding door test,
which considers the Alliance request
while paralleling the GTR requirements;
• S5.2.2.3(f), S5.2.2.3(g)(3), and
S5.2.2.3(h)(3), to more accurately
specify sliding door test force
application load plate positioning;
• S5.2.2.3(f)(1)(ii), S5.2.2.3(g)(1)(ii),
and S5.2.2.3(h)(1)(ii), to better define
the allowable rotation for test plates;
and,
• S4, to reinstate an exclusion of
doors equipped with wheelchair lift
systems.
• This final rule also corrects
provisions in the standard for closing
windows and tethering doors during the
test (S5.1.1.4(b)(2)(i)(C)), and amends
Figure 7 to make the vehicle coordinate
reference system for inertial testing
consistent with Society of Automotive
Engineers (SAE) Standard J211
(Instrumentation for Impact Test) and
with the sign conventions used in other
Federal motor vehicle safety standards
such as FMVSS No. 208, Occupant
Crash Protection, and FMVSS No. 214,
Side Impact Protection.
In addition to the above, this final
rule responds to the petitions by
clarifying or explaining provisions of
the 2007 final rule. We also respond to,
and deny, Advocates’ request that
sought a determination that the GTR
process under which the final rule was
developed is flawed and contrary to the
rulemaking procedures required by the
Administrative Procedure Act.
III. Technical Issues
II. Summary of Responses to Petitions
for Reconsideration
a. Sliding Door Requirements and Test
Procedures
a. NHTSA’s Part I Response
1. Test Force Application Duration
The February 2007 final rule required
that the sliding door test procedure load
rate application be applied at any rate
not to exceed 2,000 newtons (N) per
minute (N/min), until a force of 9,000 N
is achieved on each force application
device or until either force application
device reaches a total displacement of
300 mm (S5.2.2.4(a)). The maximum
load is held for 30 seconds.
In its petition for reconsideration, the
Alliance requested that NHTSA shorten
the load application rate for the sliding
door system test procedure. The
Alliance stated that testing in
accordance with the specifications in
S5.2.2.4(a) will require a minimum of
4.5 minutes, because S4.2.2.1 specifies
that the ‘‘track and slide combination or
other supporting means for each sliding
door, while in the closed fully latched
position, shall not separate from the
door frame when a total force of 18,000
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—
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\19FER1.SGM
19FER1
7372
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 33 / Friday, February 19, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
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).
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 costbenefit analysis’’ in NHTSA’s Final
Regulatory Evaluation (FRE) (Docket No.
NHTSA–2006–23882–0002). The
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES
2 Metals do not ‘‘creep’’ at room temperature. We
assume ‘‘creep’’ describes a yielding or deformation
of the material.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:08 Feb 18, 2010
Jkt 220001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
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 30second load rate would unreasonably
diminish the stringency of the sliding
door load test. However, after
considering the Alliance’s petition, the
agency has decided that the load
application rate up to 2,000 N/min
resulted in an unnecessarily long
duration for the test. Rather than
specifying a force application rate
(apply the force at any rate not to exceed
2,000 N/min until a force of 9,000 N is
achieved on each force application
device), to simplify the test procedure
we are amending S5.2.2.4(a) to specify
that the 9,000 N force is achieved in not
less than 90 seconds and not more than
120 seconds. The 90 to 120 second
duration corresponds to loading rates of
4,500 N/min to 6,000 N/min, which
according to data from the tests
conducted at VRTC is comparable to the
loading rates of 20 to 90 mm/min
specified in the GTR.
The agency developed the test
parameters for the sliding door test
specified in the February 2007 final rule
based on the results of eight tests
conducted by Transport Canada and
seven conducted by VRTC. Table 1
below, ‘‘Transport Canada and VRTC
Sliding Door Evaluation Test Results,’’
summarizes the results of Transport
Canada’s and VRTC’s sliding door tests
used to develop the February 2007 final
rule. The table identifies the makes and
models of the vehicles tested, the
number of sliding door latches, the peak
loads applied during the test, the
approximate time (in seconds) to
achieve either 8,900 N or the peak load,
the approximate displacement rate (in
mm/min) at the peak load, and the
approximate loading rate (in N/min).
E:\FR\FM\19FER1.SGM
19FER1
7373
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 33 / Friday, February 19, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 1—TRANSPORT CANADA AND VRTC SLIDING DOOR EVALUATION TEST RESULTS
Model year
Make
Model
Number
of
latches
Peak loads
(N)
Transport Canada Test Results
Approx. duration to
achieve 8,900 N or
peak load (sec)*
(F)
1995 .............
Dodge .........
Caravan ......
1
1998 .............
Dodge .........
Caravan ......
1
2000 .............
Mazda .........
MPV ............
1
1999 .............
Honda .........
Odyssey .....
1
1997 .............
Chevy .........
Venture .......
2
2000 .............
Pontiac .......
Transport ....
2
1998 .............
Ford ............
Windstar .....
2
1999 .............
Ford ............
Windstar .....
2
(F) 9526 ......
(R) 10008
(F) 7239 ......
(R) 11142
(F) 10895 ....
(R) 10810
(F) 6451 ......
(R) 13334
(F) 11129 ....
(R) 11155
(F) 11148 ....
(R) 11108
(F) 11119 ....
(R) 11088
(F) 11144 ....
(R) 11095
Dodge .........
Caravan ......
1
2001 .............
Dodge .........
Caravan ......
1
1992 .............
Chevy .........
Lumina ........
1
2002 .............
Honda .........
1
2002 .............
Honda .........
2001 .............
Ford ............
2001 .............
Ford ............
Odyssey .....
(Drv. dr)
Odyssey .....
(Pass dr.)
Windstar .....
(Drv. dr)
Windstar .....
(Pass dr.)
(R)
(F)
(R)
10
150
240
53400
53400
13
40
2031
315
33411
16713
14
14
NA
NA
38143
38143
7
13
NA
NA
55294
41077
12
12
0.59
350
44500
44500
14
14
NA
NA
38143
38143
12
12
NA
NA
44500
44500
14
14
NA
NA
38143
38143
12
16
727
302
43129
39327
(F)
(R)
(F)
1993 .............
(F)
Approx. loading rate
(N/min)*
10
Averages ...........................................................................................
NHTSA (VRTC) Test Results
(R)
Approx.
displacement rate at peak
load (mm/min)*
(R)
(F)
(R)
(F) 9009 ......
(R) 9018
(F) 7162 ......
(R) 8900
(F) 6266 ......
(R) 6266
(F) 7875 ......
(R) 8900
(F) 7749 ......
(R) 8900
(F) 8900 ......
(R) 8900
(F) 8900 ......
(R) 8900
38.5
38.9
225
315
14040
13909
387
260
19.74
18.46
1110
2053
21.4
21.4
196
393
17568
17568
980
340
19.9
19.06
482
1571
520
300
19.62
20
894
1780
150
340
20
19.4
3560
1571
120
320
22
18.8
4450
1685
Averages ...........................................................................................
317
231
75
115
6015
5734
1
2
2
* 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).
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES
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
In view of the petition for
reconsideration, we have reexamined
the VRTC test data to review the time
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.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:08 Feb 18, 2010
Jkt 220001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
9,000 N when applying the loads at
4,500 N/min and 6,000 N/min (the
loading rates resulting in the
displacements of 20 mm to 90 mm/min,
respectively), we found durations of
between 90 and 120 seconds. The 90 to
120 second duration better parallels the
GTR requirements. Accordingly, we are
modifying the load application rate for
the sliding door system test procedure
by specifying in S5.2.2.4(a) to increase
the force, as linearly as possible, until
a force of 9,000 N is achieved on each
force application device in not less than
90 seconds and not more than 120
seconds.
We disagree with the petitioner’s
belief that, because Transport Canada
had used the 10-second load application
in developing data supporting the GTR,
a 10-second load application should be
used. The Transport Canada tests were
only used to develop the initial
procedural aspects of the sliding door
tests. We excluded these test results in
E:\FR\FM\19FER1.SGM
19FER1
7374
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 33 / Friday, February 19, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES
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
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,
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.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:08 Feb 18, 2010
Jkt 220001
more recent model year vehicles, which
had the addition of another door
latching system, were able to meet the
requirements. In addition, we are not
aware of any vehicle requiring
significant structural changes to meet
the requirements of the sliding door test.
Thus, we disagree with the Alliance’s
assertion that supporting the test loads
over a period of time longer than the
petitioner’s suggested 30-second
duration will require additional
structure in the vehicle.
2. Test Force Application Load Plate
Positioning
The February 2007 final rule specified
that ‘‘the force application plate is
positioned such that the long edge of the
plate is as close to the interior edge of
the door as possible, but not such that
the forward edge of plate is more than
12.5 mm from the interior edge’’
(S5.2.2.3(f)(3), S5.2.2.3(g)(3), and
S5.2.2.3(h)(3)).
The Alliance petitioned NHTSA to
slightly revise the wording of the
provision because it believes that
NHTSA intended to apply this
requirement to both the forward edge of
the forward plate as well as the
rearward edge of the rear plate.
Accordingly, the Alliance recommended
NHTSA revise the above-mentioned
sections to read: ‘‘The force application
plate is positioned such that the long
edge of the plate is as close to the
interior edge of the door as possible, but
not such that the forward edge of
forward plate and the rear edge of the
rear plate are more than 12.5 mm from
the respective interior edges.’’
Agency Response
We are granting this request. The
Alliance’s suggested wording more
accurately reflects the intent of the
requirement; the suggested wording is
clearer that the specification applies to
the positioning of both plates.
Therefore, we are modifying the
specifications for load plate positioning
for the sliding door system force
application test specified in sections
S5.2.2.3(f)(3), S5.2.2.3(g)(3), and
S5.2.2.3(h)(3), as suggested by the
Alliance.
3. Test Force Application Load Plate
Rotation
The February 2007 final rule specified
that the force application plates used for
applying the force in the sliding door
test may ‘‘allow for longitudinal rotation
with respect to the vehicle’s centerline
axis’’ (S5.2.2.3(f)(1)(ii), S5.2.2.3(g)(1)(ii)
and S5.2.2.3(h)(1)(ii)). In its petition for
reconsideration, the Alliance stated that
the final rule’s description of the force
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
application plate rotation is unclear.
The Alliance petitioned NHTSA to
amend S5.2.2.3(f)(1)(ii),
S5.2.2.3(g)(1)(ii), and S5.2.2.3(h)(1)(ii) to
read as follows:
The plates are fixed perpendicular to the
force application devices and move in the
transverse direction. For alignment purposes,
each plate is attached to the application
device in a manner that allows for rotation
about the vehicle’s y-axis. In this manner, the
face of each plate remains parallel to the
vertical plane which passes through the
vehicle’s longitudinal centerline.
Agency Response
We are granting this request. The
Alliance’s suggested clarification better
defines the allowable rotation for the
test plates. The specification as written
in the February 2007 final rule does not
clearly distinguish which vehicle
centerline is being referenced.
Therefore, we are modifying the
specifications for permissible load plate
rotation for the sliding door system
force application test in sections
S5.2.2.3(f)(1)(ii), S5.2.2.3(g)(1)(ii), and
S5.2.2.3(h)(1)(ii), as the petitioner
suggested.
4. Closure Warning Devices
In the February 2007 final rule,
NHTSA required sliding doors to have
either: (1) a primary door latch system
that meets the same requirements as
primary door latch systems on hinged
side doors (i.e., has both a fully and
secondary latched position); or (2) a
system with a fully latched position and
a door closure warning system to alert
the driver when the door is not in the
fully latched position.5 NHTSA
explained that FMVSS No. 206 did not
previously require either a primary or a
secondary latch system for sliding
doors; the fully latched position and the
associated loading requirements were
newly required by the final rule.
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
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.
E:\FR\FM\19FER1.SGM
19FER1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 33 / Friday, February 19, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES
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
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:08 Feb 18, 2010
Jkt 220001
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.
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
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.
7 A system with a fully latched position and a
door closure warning system.
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
7375
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
E:\FR\FM\19FER1.SGM
Continued
19FER1
7376
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 33 / Friday, February 19, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
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
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES
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.
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.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:08 Feb 18, 2010
Jkt 220001
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.
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.
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
IV. Other Issues
a. Correction of S5.1.1.4(b)(2)
In its petition for reconsideration of
the February 2007 final rule, the
Alliance suggested that the words ‘‘if
provided’’ should be included in
S5.1.1.4(b)(2) (one of the provisions
specifying the test procedure for a
hinged door test). The petitioner
correctly noted that there is a
corresponding section,
S5.1.1.4(b)(1)(i)(C), which includes that
phrase. We agree to include the phrase,
‘‘if provided,’’ in S5.1.1.4(b)(2). The
phrase is appropriate for both sections,
and the amendment makes the
procedures consistent. Also, for
additional consistency, we will clarify
in this section that doors ‘‘may’’ be
tethered to avoid damaging recording
equipment.
b. Technical Amendment to Figure 7
Prior to the February 2007 final rule,
FMVSS No. 206 did not have a figure
that graphically displayed the vehicle
coordinate reference system to be used
for inertial testing. The GTR provided
such a figure because part of the GTR
referenced various directions with
respect to different vehicle axes. The
NPRM proposed, and the February 2007
final rule adopted, this same GTR figure
as Figure 7.
Although the agency did not receive
any comment regarding Figure 7 in
response to both the NPRM and the
February 2007 final rule, after
publication of the final rule NHTSA
realized that x-axis and the z-axis in
Figure 7 were not consistent with SAE
J211 (Instrumentation for Impact Test)
or with the sign conventions used in
other Federal motor vehicle safety
standards such as FMVSS No. 208 and
FMVSS No. 214. Therefore, NHTSA is
making a technical amendment to
FMVSS No. 206 by modifying Figure 7
to be consistent with SAE J211 and the
sign convention for other Federal motor
vehicle safety standards as follows:
E:\FR\FM\19FER1.SGM
19FER1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 33 / Friday, February 19, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
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
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:08 Feb 18, 2010
Jkt 220001
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.
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
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.
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
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
11 Such a request would be made in connection
with an agency inquiry regarding compliance with
the standard.
E:\FR\FM\19FER1.SGM
19FER1
ER19FE10.003</GPH>
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES
c. Distinguishing Between Primary and
Auxiliary Door Latches
7377
7378
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 33 / Friday, February 19, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
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.
d. Certification Information
The February 2007 final rule specifies
that each primary and auxiliary door
latch system shall meet either dynamic
requirements or a calculation of inertial
load resistance developed to ensure that
the door latch system will remain
latched when properly assembled in the
vehicle door (S4.1.1.4). TriMark asked if
a computer simulation could be used as
a method of evaluation for the inertial
analysis.
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES
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.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:08 Feb 18, 2010
Jkt 220001
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.
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.’’
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
12 ‘‘Multipurpose passenger vehicle’’ means a
motor vehicle with motive power, except a lowspeed 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.
13 See KKK-A-1822F (Aug. 1, 2007), available at
https://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.
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
applicable to buses with a GVWR of
4,536 kg (10,000 lb) or less.14
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
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.
E:\FR\FM\19FER1.SGM
19FER1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 33 / Friday, February 19, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES
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
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
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.’’
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:08 Feb 18, 2010
Jkt 220001
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.
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 § 553(b).
Notice under § 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
§ 553(c). There is no requirement in the
APA for public participation in
formation of the NPRM.19
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).
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
PO 00000
Frm 00041
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
7379
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.
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,
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.
20 49 CFR Part 553, Appendix C.
21 Id.
E:\FR\FM\19FER1.SGM
19FER1
7380
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 33 / Friday, February 19, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES
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
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 openminded 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
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.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:08 Feb 18, 2010
Jkt 220001
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.
PO 00000
Frm 00042
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
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.
E:\FR\FM\19FER1.SGM
19FER1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 33 / Friday, February 19, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
This rulemaking is not subject to the
Executive Order because it is not
economically significant as defined in
E.O. 12866.
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES
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
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:08 Feb 18, 2010
Jkt 220001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00043
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
7381
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
E:\FR\FM\19FER1.SGM
19FER1
7382
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 33 / Friday, February 19, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
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
https://www.dot.gov/privacy.html.
List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 571
Motor vehicle safety, Report and
recordkeeping requirements, Tires.
■ In consideration of the foregoing,
NHTSA amends 49 CFR part 571 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
revising paragraphs S4,
S5.1.1.4(b)(2)(i)(C), S5.2.2.3(f)(1)(ii),
S5.2.2.3(f)(3), S5.2.2.3(g)(1)(ii),
S5.2.2.3(g)(3), S5.2.2.3(h)(1)(ii),
S5.2.2.3(h)(3), S5.2.2.4(a), and Figure 7
to read as follows:
■
§ 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
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES
*
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:08 Feb 18, 2010
Jkt 220001
accommodate a permanently attached
wheelchair lift system that when the
device is in the retracted position, the
lift platform retracts to a vertical
orientation parallel to and in close
proximity with the interior surface of
the lift door and in that position, the
platform completely covers the doorway
opening, has fixed attachments to the
vehicle and provides a barricade to the
doorway. The bus wheelchair lift door
must be linked to an alarm system
consisting of either a flashing visible
signal located in the driver’s
compartment or an alarm audible to the
driver that is activated when the door is
not fully closed and the vehicle ignition
is activated.
*
*
*
*
*
S5.1.1.4 * * *
(b) * * *
(2) * * *
(i) * * *
(C) Ensure that the door latch is in the
fully-latched position, that the door is
unlocked (doors may be tethered to
avoid damaging the recording
equipment), and that any windows, if
provided, are closed.
*
*
*
*
*
S5.2.2.3 * * *
(f) * * *
(1) * * *
(ii) The plates are fixed perpendicular
to the force application devices and
move in the transverse direction. For
alignment purposes, each plate is
attached to the application device in a
manner that allows for rotation about
the vehicle’s y-axis. In this manner, the
face of each plate remains parallel to the
vertical plane which passes through the
vehicle’s longitudinal centerline.
*
*
*
*
*
(3) The force application plate is
positioned such that the long edge of the
plate is as close to the interior edge of
the door as possible, but not such that
the forward edge of forward plate and
the rear edge of the rear plate are more
than 12.5 mm from the respective
interior edges.
(g) * * *
(1) * * *
PO 00000
Frm 00044
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
(ii) The plates are fixed perpendicular
to the force application devices and
move in the transverse direction. For
alignment purposes, each plate is
attached to the application device in a
manner that allows for rotation about
the vehicle’s y-axis. In this manner, the
face of each plate remains parallel to the
vertical plane which passes through the
vehicle’s longitudinal centerline.
*
*
*
*
*
(3) The force application plate is
positioned such that the long edge of the
plate is as close to the interior edge of
the door as possible, but not such that
the forward edge of forward plate and
the rear edge of the rear plate are more
than 12.5 mm from the respective
interior edges.
(h) * * *
(1) * * *
(ii) The plates are fixed perpendicular
to the force application devices and
move in the transverse direction. For
alignment purposes, each plate is
attached to the application device in a
manner that allows for rotation about
the vehicle’s y-axis. In this manner, the
face of each plate remains parallel to the
vertical plane which passes through the
vehicle’s longitudinal centerline.
*
*
*
*
*
(3) The force application plate is
positioned such that the long edge of the
plate is as close to the interior edge of
the door as possible, but not such that
the forward edge of forward plate and
the rear edge of the rear plate are more
than 12.5 mm from the respective
interior edges.
*
*
*
*
*
S5.2.2.4 Test Procedure.
(a) Increase the force on each force
application device as linearly as
practicable until a force of 9,000 N is
achieved on each force application
device in not less than 90 seconds and
not more than 120 seconds, or until
either force application device reaches a
total displacement of 300 mm.
*
*
*
*
*
TABLES AND FIGURES TO § 571.206
*
E:\FR\FM\19FER1.SGM
*
*
19FER1
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
ADDRESSES:
[FR Doc. 2010–2837 Filed 2–18–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–59–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
50 CFR Part 229
[Docket No. 080721862–8864–01]
RIN 0648–AW51
Taking of Marine Mammals Incidental
to Commercial Fishing Operations;
Harbor Porpoise Take Reduction Plan
Regulations
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Final rule.
SUMMARY: NMFS issues this final rule to
amend the regulations implementing the
Harbor Porpoise Take Reduction Plan
(HPTRP) to address the increased
incidental mortality and serious injury
of the Gulf of Maine/Bay of Fundy
(GOM/BOF) stock of harbor porpoises
(Phocoena phocoena) in gillnet fisheries
throughout the stock’s U.S. range.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:08 Feb 18, 2010
Effective March 22, 2010.
Copies of the final
Environmental Assessment (EA) and
Regulatory Impact Review/Final
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (RIR/
FRFA) for this action, as well as the
Harbor Porpoise Take Reduction Team
(HPTRT) meeting summaries and
supporting documents, may be obtained
from the HPTRP Web site (https://
www.nero.noaa.gov/hptrp) or by writing
to Diane Borggaard, NMFS, Northeast
Region, Protected Resources Division,
55 Great Republic Drive, Suite 04–400,
Gloucester, MA 01930.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Amanda Johnson, NMFS, Northeast
Region, 978–282–8463,
amanda.johnson@noaa.gov; or Melissa
Andersen, NMFS, Office of Protected
Resources, 301–713–2322,
melissa.andersen@noaa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
DATES:
Issued: February 4, 2010.
David L. Strickland,
Administrator.
Jkt 220001
Background
The HPTRP was developed pursuant
to section 118(f) of the Marine Mammal
Protection Act (MMPA), 16 U.S.C.
1361–1423h, to reduce the level of
serious injury and mortality of the
GOM/BOF stock of harbor porpoises.
This final rule implements
modifications to the HPTRP to address
increased mortalities of harbor
porpoises in commercial gillnet
fisheries due to non-compliance with
the HPTRP requirements and observed
interactions occurring outside of
PO 00000
Frm 00045
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
7383
existing HPTRP management areas.
These modifications implement
measures that apply to both the New
England and Mid-Atlantic portions of
the HPTRP.
Recent harbor porpoise bycatch
estimates indicate that, when
calculating the average estimated
mortality for the period between 2002
and 2006, bycatch exceeded the stock’s
potential biological removal level (PBR).
The 2008 Stock Assessment Report
(SAR) indicates that the current annual
estimated harbor porpoise incidental
bycatch is 866 animals per year, which
exceeds the current PBR of 610 animals
(Waring et al., 2009). In December 2007,
NMFS reconvened the HPTRT to
discuss the most recent harbor porpoise
abundance and bycatch information for
gillnet fisheries from Maine through
North Carolina. The HPTRT used this
information to develop a suite of
recommended modifications to the
HPTRP that would reduce takes to
below the stock’s PBR level and to a rate
approaching a zero mortality and
serious injury rate, known as the zero
mortality rate goal (ZMRG), which is
defined as 10 percent of PBR. The
recommendations included expanding
seasonal and temporal requirements
within the HPTRP management areas,
incorporating additional management
areas, and creating areas that would
seasonally close to gillnet fisheries if
certain levels of harbor porpoise bycatch
E:\FR\FM\19FER1.SGM
19FER1
ER19FE10.004</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 33 / Friday, February 19, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 33 (Friday, February 19, 2010)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 7370-7383]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-2837]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
49 CFR Part 571
[Docket No. NHTSA-2010-0015
RIN 2127-AK60
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Door Locks and Door
Retention Components
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Final rule; response to petitions for reconsideration;
technical amendments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This final rule responds to petitions for reconsideration of a
February 6, 2007 final rule that amended Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
Standard No. 206 to add and update requirements and test procedures and
to harmonize with the world's first global technical regulation for
motor vehicles. This is the second of two documents responding to the
petitions; an earlier final rule delayed the compliance date of the
sliding door provisions for a year. In today's document, the agency is
granting some aspects of the petitions while denying other aspects, and
makes several technical amendments to the regulatory text.
DATES: This rule is effective February 19, 2010. Any petitions for
reconsideration of today's final rule must be received by NHTSA not
later than April 5, 2010.
ADDRESSES: If you wish to petition for reconsideration of this rule,
your petition should refer to the docket number and be submitted to:
Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building, 4th Floor, Washington, DC 20590.
Note that all documents received will be posted without change to the
docket, including any personal information provided. Please see the
Privacy Act discussion under the section entitled, Rulemaking Analyses
and Notices.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical issues, contact Ms.
Shashi Kuppa, Office of Crashworthiness Standards, by telephone at
(202) 366-4902, or by fax at (202) 366-2990. For legal issues, contact
Ms. Sarah Alves, Office of the Chief Counsel, by telephone at (202)
366-2992, or by fax at (202) 366-3820.
Both persons may be reached by mail at the following address:
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration,
[[Page 7371]]
U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE.,
Washington, DC 20590.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Background
II. Summary of Responses to Petitions for Reconsideration
a. NHTSA's Part I Response
b. Today's Part II Response
III. Technical Issues
a. Sliding Door Requirements and Test Procedures
1. Test Force Application Duration
2. Test Force Application Load Plate Positioning
3. Test Force Application Load Plate Rotation
4. Closure Warning Devices
b. Exclusion of Wheelchair Lift Doors
IV. Other Issues
a. Correction of S5.1.1.4(b)(2)
b. Technical Amendment to Figure 7
c. Distinguishing Between Primary and Auxiliary Door Latches
d. Certification Information
e. Applicability of the Standard to Vehicles Over 10,000 lb GVWR
V. GTR Process
VI. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
I. Background
Summary of 2007 Final Rule
In this document, NHTSA responds to petitions for reconsideration
of its February 6, 2007 final rule adding and updating requirements and
test procedures for Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No.
206, Door Locks and Door Retention Components (49 CFR 571.206) (72 FR
5385; Docket No. NHTSA-2006-23882). That rule improved FMVSS No. 206 in
several areas, and harmonized with the world's first global technical
regulation (GTR) for motor vehicles.\1\ Consistent with the GTR, the
final rule retained all previously existing provisions in the standard,
but added a new full vehicle test procedure for sliding doors, added
secondary latched position requirements for doors other than hinged
side doors and back doors, provided a new optional test procedure for
assessing inertial forces, and extended the application of FMVSS No.
206 to buses with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 10,000 pounds
(lb) or less, including 12-15 passenger vans. The final rule also
eliminated an exclusion from the requirements of the standard for doors
equipped with wheelchair platform lifts. The effective date for the
final rule was September 1, 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The U.S. is a Contracting Party of the 1998 Global Agreement
which is administered by the U.N. Economic Commission for Europe's
World Forum for the Harmonization of Vehicle Regulations (WP.29).
The U.S. voted in favor of establishing the GTR at the November 18,
2004 Session of the Executive Committee and was obligated under the
Agreement to initiate the process for adopting the provisions of the
GTR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Petitions for Reconsideration
In response to the February 2007 final rule, NHTSA received
petitions for reconsideration from the Alliance of Automobile
Manufacturers (the Alliance), Ford Motor Company (Ford), Advocates for
Highway Safety (Advocates), and Thomas Built Buses, Inc. (Thomas Built
Buses). The suggestions of each of the petitioners are summarized
below:
The Alliance petitioned to change the requirements and
test procedures for sliding doors and to extend the effective date of
the final rule.
Ford petitioned NHTSA to extend the effective date of the
final rule or at a minimum change the date as it pertains to sliding
doors.
Advocates questioned the GTR procedure under which the
February 2007 final rule was developed. It also petitioned the agency
to require sliding doors latches to have secondary latching positions
and to remove the option for a visual door closure warning system.
Thomas Built Buses petitioned the agency to reinstate the
exclusion for wheelchair lift doors on buses with lift platforms that
retracts to provide a barrier to occupants being ejected.
The agency also received a letter from the TriMark Corporation
(TriMark), which sought clarification of some provisions of the
February 2007 final rule.
II. Summary of Responses to Petitions for Reconsideration
a. NHTSA's Part I Response
To accommodate manufacturers' design and production cycles while
allowing the agency more time to analyze the petitions in regards to
other issues, the agency published a final rule on July 20, 2009 that
delayed the compliance date of the sliding door provisions of S4.2.2
from September 1, 2009, to September 1, 2010. (74 FR 35131; Docket No.
NHTSA 2009-0116.) The original effective date of September 1, 2009 for
all other provisions was retained. In that final rule, the agency
explained that the other issues raised in the petitions for
reconsideration would be addressed by the agency in a subsequent
document, which we are issuing today.
b. Today's Part II Response
Today's final rule makes the following technical changes to the
2007 final rule. This final rule amends--
S5.2.2.4(a), to specify a time requirement instead of a
load application rate of the sliding door test, which considers the
Alliance request while paralleling the GTR requirements;
S5.2.2.3(f), S5.2.2.3(g)(3), and S5.2.2.3(h)(3), to more
accurately specify sliding door test force application load plate
positioning;
S5.2.2.3(f)(1)(ii), S5.2.2.3(g)(1)(ii), and
S5.2.2.3(h)(1)(ii), to better define the allowable rotation for test
plates; and,
S4, to reinstate an exclusion of doors equipped with
wheelchair lift systems.
This final rule also corrects provisions in the standard
for closing windows and tethering doors during the test
(S5.1.1.4(b)(2)(i)(C)), and amends Figure 7 to make the vehicle
coordinate reference system for inertial testing consistent with
Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) Standard J211 (Instrumentation
for Impact Test) and with the sign conventions used in other Federal
motor vehicle safety standards such as FMVSS No. 208, Occupant Crash
Protection, and FMVSS No. 214, Side Impact Protection.
In addition to the above, this final rule responds to the petitions
by clarifying or explaining provisions of the 2007 final rule. We also
respond to, and deny, Advocates' request that sought a determination
that the GTR process under which the final rule was developed is flawed
and contrary to the rulemaking procedures required by the
Administrative Procedure Act.
III. Technical Issues
a. Sliding Door Requirements and Test Procedures
1. Test Force Application Duration
The February 2007 final rule required that the sliding door test
procedure load rate application be applied at any rate not to exceed
2,000 newtons (N) per minute (N/min), until a force of 9,000 N is
achieved on each force application device or until either force
application device reaches a total displacement of 300 mm
(S5.2.2.4(a)). The maximum load is held for 30 seconds.
In its petition for reconsideration, the Alliance requested that
NHTSA shorten the load application rate for the sliding door system
test procedure. The Alliance stated that testing in accordance with the
specifications in S5.2.2.4(a) will require a minimum of 4.5 minutes,
because S4.2.2.1 specifies that the ``track and slide combination or
other supporting means for each sliding door, while in the closed fully
latched position, shall not separate from the door frame when a total
force of 18,000
[[Page 7372]]
N [9,000 N on each side of the door] along the vehicle transverse axis
is applied to the door as specified in S5.2.2.'' (Dividing the test
load, 9,000 N, by the maximum allowable rate of 2,000 N/min produces a
duration of approximately 4.5 minutes for each test.) The Alliance
requested shortening the test duration to achieve the required force
loading in 30 seconds.
The Alliance provided several reasons for its request. The
petitioner stated that longer test durations introduce ``creep,'' or
minor sheet metal deformations, that are not representative of the
loading that might be experienced in a dynamic crash situation where
loads are applied for a fraction of a second.\2\ To illustrate the
occurrence of these deformations under sustained load, the Alliance
provided the results of a developmental sliding door test that was
conducted using a 29-second load application, followed by a 28-second
hold, and then a ramp to overload (see Graphs A, B and C in the
Alliance petition, Docket No. NHTSA-2006-23882-0007). The figures show
that, after the load was stabilized, 29 seconds into the test (33
seconds after the start of data collection as shown in Graph A of the
petition) and during the period while the load was held constant, the
rear load actuator displaced transversely 6 millimeters (mm) (Graph B)
and the upper rear point on the door displaced transversely 8 mm (Graph
C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Metals do not ``creep'' at room temperature. We assume
``creep'' describes a yielding or deformation of the material.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In its petition, the Alliance stated its belief that because most
of the testing that supported the development of the GTR was performed
using 10-second load applications, ``[m]odifying the procedure in a
manner that lengthens the load application duration by a factor of 27
may call into question the cost-benefit analysis'' in NHTSA's Final
Regulatory Evaluation (FRE) (Docket No. NHTSA-2006-23882-0002). The
Alliance stated that this is because the FRE estimated benefits by
comparing the occupant ejection rate through sliding doors equipped
with one versus two latches, and estimated costs as those of adding a
second latch and striker to vehicles equipped with a single latch. The
Alliance implies that the FRE costs may be too low or incomplete
because, the petitioner believes, supporting the test loads over a
longer period of time may ultimately require additional structure in
the vehicle, and such changes were not addressed in NHTSA's FRE.
On May 22, 2007, the Alliance met with NHTSA to discuss the
latter's concerns with the test force application duration (Docket No.
NHTSA-2006-23882-0012). A presentation was given by General Motors (GM)
to help explain how ``creep'' can occur with longer force application
durations. The Alliance and GM believed that the creep (yielding) that
occurs while maintaining the load could be used to predict the amount
of creep (yielding) that will occur while applying the force loads for
longer force applications. GM claimed that the increase in deformation
that occurs for longer force application durations could be the
difference between passing or failing the test. GM also claimed that a
load duration of 30 seconds is justified because in tests conducted by
Transport Canada and NHTSA's Vehicle Research & Test Center (VRTC), the
peak loads, or the required load limit of 18,000 N (9,000 N of each
loading device), could be achieved within this time period.
The Alliance further stated that requiring a load application time
of at least 4.5 minutes diverges from the GTR requirement and the GTR's
developmental testing. The GTR specifies a load rate between 20 to 90
mm/min. The Alliance stated that manufacturers will likely specify
maximum allowable speed, and that full load will be reached in
considerably less than 4.5 minutes. Thus, the Alliance claims that the
differences in load duration now make it possible for a vehicle
certified to the GTR in other countries to not comply in the United
States.
Agency Response
We are denying the request to shorten the time duration to 30
seconds. A 30-second load rate would unreasonably diminish the
stringency of the sliding door load test. However, after considering
the Alliance's petition, the agency has decided that the load
application rate up to 2,000 N/min resulted in an unnecessarily long
duration for the test. Rather than specifying a force application rate
(apply the force at any rate not to exceed 2,000 N/min until a force of
9,000 N is achieved on each force application device), to simplify the
test procedure we are amending S5.2.2.4(a) to specify that the 9,000 N
force is achieved in not less than 90 seconds and not more than 120
seconds. The 90 to 120 second duration corresponds to loading rates of
4,500 N/min to 6,000 N/min, which according to data from the tests
conducted at VRTC is comparable to the loading rates of 20 to 90 mm/min
specified in the GTR.
The agency developed the test parameters for the sliding door test
specified in the February 2007 final rule based on the results of eight
tests conducted by Transport Canada and seven conducted by VRTC. Table
1 below, ``Transport Canada and VRTC Sliding Door Evaluation Test
Results,'' summarizes the results of Transport Canada's and VRTC's
sliding door tests used to develop the February 2007 final rule. The
table identifies the makes and models of the vehicles tested, the
number of sliding door latches, the peak loads applied during the test,
the approximate time (in seconds) to achieve either 8,900 N or the peak
load, the approximate displacement rate (in mm/min) at the peak load,
and the approximate loading rate (in N/min).
[[Page 7373]]
Table 1--Transport Canada and VRTC Sliding Door Evaluation Test Results
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Model year Make Model Number Peak loads Approx. duration to
of (N)..................... achieve 8,900 N or
latches peak load (sec)*
Approx. displacement rate at peak load (mm/min)*
Approx. loading rate (N/min)*
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Transport Canada Test Results (F) (R) (F) (R) (F) (R)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1995.................................. Dodge................... Caravan................. 1 (F) 9526................ 10 10 150 240 53400 53400
(R) 10008...............
1998.................................. Dodge................... Caravan................. 1 (F) 7239................ 13 40 2031 315 33411 16713
(R) 11142...............
2000.................................. Mazda................... MPV..................... 1 (F) 10895............... 14 14 NA NA 38143 38143
(R) 10810...............
1999.................................. Honda................... Odyssey................. 1 (F) 6451................ 7 13 NA NA 55294 41077
(R) 13334...............
1997.................................. Chevy................... Venture................. 2 (F) 11129............... 12 12 0.59 350 44500 44500
(R) 11155...............
2000.................................. Pontiac................. Transport............... 2 (F) 11148............... 14 14 NA NA 38143 38143
(R) 11108...............
1998.................................. Ford.................... Windstar................ 2 (F) 11119............... 12 12 NA NA 44500 44500
(R) 11088...............
1999.................................. Ford.................... Windstar................ 2 (F) 11144............... 14 14 NA NA 38143 38143
(R) 11095...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Averages.................................................................................................................. 12 16 727 302 43129 39327
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NHTSA (VRTC) Test Results (F) (R) (F) (R) (F) (R)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1993.................................. Dodge................... Caravan................. 1 (F) 9009................ 38.5 38.9 225 315 14040 13909
(R) 9018................
2001.................................. Dodge................... Caravan................. 1 (F) 7162................ 387 260 19.74 18.46 1110 2053
(R) 8900................
1992.................................. Chevy................... Lumina.................. 1 (F) 6266................ 21.4 21.4 196 393 17568 17568
(R) 6266................
2002.................................. Honda................... Odyssey................. 1 (F) 7875................ 980 340 19.9 19.06 482 1571
(Drv. dr)............... (R) 8900................
2002.................................. Honda................... Odyssey................. 1 (F) 7749................ 520 300 19.62 20 894 1780
(Pass dr.).............. (R) 8900................
2001.................................. Ford.................... Windstar................ 2 (F) 8900................ 150 340 20 19.4 3560 1571
(Drv. dr)............... (R) 8900................
2001.................................. Ford.................... Windstar................ 2 (F) 8900................ 120 320 22 18.8 4450 1685
(Pass dr.).............. (R) 8900................
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Averages.................................................................................................................. 317 231 75 115 6015 5734
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* In the column, the first number represents readings for the front force application device (F) and the second represents the rear force application device (R).
Note that the force application rate for the sliding door test
specified in the February 2007 final rule was determined using only the
data from the VRTC tests. The average time to attain 8,900 N, or peak
load, in the VRTC tests was 274 (= (317+231)/2) seconds. This
corresponds to the approximate loading rate of 2,000 N/min specified in
the final rule.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ The NPRM and the GTR prescribed a load rate application of
20-90 mm/min until a force of 9,000 N is achieved on each of the
loading devices, followed by a 10-second hold. In response to the
NPRM, the Alliance commented that the test procedure should be
controlled using a force application rate rather than a displacement
rate, because controllers currently in use do not allow for
simultaneous control of both displacement and load, and that the
procedure as specified would raise practicability concerns. NHTSA
agreed with the comment and adopted in the February 2007 final rule
that the load be controlled at a rate not to exceed 2,000 N/min.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In view of the petition for reconsideration, we have reexamined the
VRTC test data to review the time durations for conducting the test. We
have determined that the average force application rate in the sliding
door test at VRTC presented in Table 1 was approximately 6,000 N/min
((6,015+5,734)/2 = 5,874 N/min). This corresponds approximately to an
average displacement rate of 95 mm/min ((75+115)/2 = 95 mm/min) which
is close to the upper limit of the displacement rate specified in the
GTR (90 mm/min). Regarding the lower limit, of the VRTC tests in Table
1 that exhibited displacement rates of approximately 20 mm/min
(corresponding to the lower limit of the displacement rate specified in
the GTR), the highest corresponding force application rate was
approximately 4,500 N/min. Force application rates between 4,500 to
6,000 N/min in the sliding door test correspond to test durations
between 90 and 120 seconds. In short, when we calculated the time
duration to achieve the test force of 9,000 N when applying the loads
at 4,500 N/min and 6,000 N/min (the loading rates resulting in the
displacements of 20 mm to 90 mm/min, respectively), we found durations
of between 90 and 120 seconds. The 90 to 120 second duration better
parallels the GTR requirements. Accordingly, we are modifying the load
application rate for the sliding door system test procedure by
specifying in S5.2.2.4(a) to increase the force, as linearly as
possible, until a force of 9,000 N is achieved on each force
application device in not less than 90 seconds and not more than 120
seconds.
We disagree with the petitioner's belief that, because Transport
Canada had used the 10-second load application in developing data
supporting the GTR, a 10-second load application should be used. The
Transport Canada tests were only used to develop the initial procedural
aspects of the sliding door tests. We excluded these test results in
[[Page 7374]]
calculating the appropriate force application rates for the February
2007 final rule because the test setup was not identical to that
specified in the February 2007 final rule. The Transport Canada tests
were conducted with the load plates joined by a connecting bar that
caused the result of one door edge to affect the other. In addition,
the force application device in the Transport Canada tests lacked
sufficient structural reinforcement to prevent displacements on the
vehicle floor and off-axis loading that could cause the loads to be
applied in directions other than transverse.
NHTSA is concerned that testing at exceptionally fast force
application rates, such as a 30-second force application rate, will
unacceptably reduce the stringency of the sliding door test. Table 1
shows that testing conducted on similar Dodge Caravans (with only one
latch system and manufactured from 1992-1995) showed that one vehicle
was able to achieve the required loads on both door edges during
Transport Canada testing when tested within 10 seconds and at a rate of
53,400 N/min, while the other failed the load requirement when tested
by VRTC within 40 seconds and at a rate of approximately 14,000 N/
min.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ The Alliance points out in its petition that tests conducted
by Transport Canada and by VRTC on the Dodge Caravan and Chevy
Lumina were performed within 30 seconds or less. However, these
tests were not used for determining the application rate adopted in
the final rule since door separation exceeded the limit before a
force of 9,000 N was achieved on each force application device.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As for the Alliance's concern about the yielding of the metal it
saw during the hold period in the Alliance developmental test, we were
not persuaded that there was a problem with the test. Yielding in and
of itself does not invalidate a test. The yielding could have resulted
from a redistribution of loads in the door structure. The petitioner
did not provide any specifics of the door used in this developmental
sliding door test. We believe that the door was equipped with only a
single latch system since the door deformations in this test were in
excess of 100 mm, and that the yielding noted by the Alliance could
have been avoided had the door been equipped with two latch systems. In
any event, because the test duration has been amended by this final
rule, the issue is moot.
With regard to the Alliance's concern that the FRE did not include
vehicle structural changes, the Alliance comment was not supported by
either analysis or data. Although the earlier model year vehicles
tested at VRTC failed the sliding door test requirements, more recent
model year vehicles, which had the addition of another door latching
system, were able to meet the requirements. In addition, we are not
aware of any vehicle requiring significant structural changes to meet
the requirements of the sliding door test. Thus, we disagree with the
Alliance's assertion that supporting the test loads over a period of
time longer than the petitioner's suggested 30-second duration will
require additional structure in the vehicle.
2. Test Force Application Load Plate Positioning
The February 2007 final rule specified that ``the force application
plate is positioned such that the long edge of the plate is as close to
the interior edge of the door as possible, but not such that the
forward edge of plate is more than 12.5 mm from the interior edge''
(S5.2.2.3(f)(3), S5.2.2.3(g)(3), and S5.2.2.3(h)(3)).
The Alliance petitioned NHTSA to slightly revise the wording of the
provision because it believes that NHTSA intended to apply this
requirement to both the forward edge of the forward plate as well as
the rearward edge of the rear plate. Accordingly, the Alliance
recommended NHTSA revise the above-mentioned sections to read: ``The
force application plate is positioned such that the long edge of the
plate is as close to the interior edge of the door as possible, but not
such that the forward edge of forward plate and the rear edge of the
rear plate are more than 12.5 mm from the respective interior edges.''
Agency Response
We are granting this request. The Alliance's suggested wording more
accurately reflects the intent of the requirement; the suggested
wording is clearer that the specification applies to the positioning of
both plates. Therefore, we are modifying the specifications for load
plate positioning for the sliding door system force application test
specified in sections S5.2.2.3(f)(3), S5.2.2.3(g)(3), and
S5.2.2.3(h)(3), as suggested by the Alliance.
3. Test Force Application Load Plate Rotation
The February 2007 final rule specified that the force application
plates used for applying the force in the sliding door test may ``allow
for longitudinal rotation with respect to the vehicle's centerline
axis'' (S5.2.2.3(f)(1)(ii), S5.2.2.3(g)(1)(ii) and S5.2.2.3(h)(1)(ii)).
In its petition for reconsideration, the Alliance stated that the final
rule's description of the force application plate rotation is unclear.
The Alliance petitioned NHTSA to amend S5.2.2.3(f)(1)(ii),
S5.2.2.3(g)(1)(ii), and S5.2.2.3(h)(1)(ii) to read as follows:
The plates are fixed perpendicular to the force application
devices and move in the transverse direction. For alignment
purposes, each plate is attached to the application device in a
manner that allows for rotation about the vehicle's y-axis. In this
manner, the face of each plate remains parallel to the vertical
plane which passes through the vehicle's longitudinal centerline.
Agency Response
We are granting this request. The Alliance's suggested
clarification better defines the allowable rotation for the test
plates. The specification as written in the February 2007 final rule
does not clearly distinguish which vehicle centerline is being
referenced. Therefore, we are modifying the specifications for
permissible load plate rotation for the sliding door system force
application test in sections S5.2.2.3(f)(1)(ii), S5.2.2.3(g)(1)(ii),
and S5.2.2.3(h)(1)(ii), as the petitioner suggested.
4. Closure Warning Devices
In the February 2007 final rule, NHTSA required sliding doors to
have either: (1) a primary door latch system that meets the same
requirements as primary door latch systems on hinged side doors (i.e.,
has both a fully and secondary latched position); or (2) a system with
a fully latched position and a door closure warning system to alert the
driver when the door is not in the fully latched position.\5\ NHTSA
explained that FMVSS No. 206 did not previously require either a
primary or a secondary latch system for sliding doors; the fully
latched position and the associated loading requirements were newly
required by the final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Under the first option, the secondary latched position is
subject to loads 50% or less of what the fully latched position must
meet. The second option contemplates that the driver will close the
sliding door so that it is fully latched, thus providing occupants
the protection associated with the fully latched loading
requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The final rule explained that these options for backup protection
for sliding door latches have been permitted in the Economic Commission
of Europe (ECE) regulations for decades. Further, during the
discussions of the GTR, the European governments said there were no
data showing better ejection prevention with either of the options.
Since NHTSA did not have any data showing a problem with either
approach and no commenter provided data showing a problem, NHTSA
adopted the
[[Page 7375]]
options in the upgraded FMVSS No. 206.
In its petition for reconsideration of the February 2007 final
rule, Advocates objected to the option that allows sliding door latches
to be equipped with only a primary latching position if a door closure
warning system is present. The petitioner had similarly objected to the
option in its comments to the NPRM. In its petition, Advocates
requested NHTSA to require that all sliding door latches be equipped
with both primary and secondary latching positions.
The petitioner believed that the arguments presented by NHTSA in
the February 2007 final rule did not sufficiently support NHTSA's
decision to oppose Advocates' comment seeking a mandatory secondary
latching position on sliding door latches. Advocates stated that lack
of clear data was insufficient for denying its request, since door
closure warning systems do not ensure the same degree of fail-safe
redundancy as would a mechanical secondary latching system. The
petitioner argued that ``common sense'' supports the view that not all
drivers will notice or react appropriately to a warning that the
primary latching system is not functioning properly.
The petitioner also believed that NHTSA's not requiring a secondary
latching position is contradictory to the agency's decision in the
final rule with regard to hinged side door locks and was thus
``arbitrary and capricious.'' For hinged side door locks, we require
two separate actions to unlatch and then unlock a door from the inside
of the vehicle, in part to prevent children from easily opening a door
while the vehicle is in motion. Advocates stated that ``[e]ven though
the agency admitted [in the hinged side door lock situation] that there
are no definitive data on the use of child door safety locks, the
agency decided that reliance on human behavior would pose a risk to the
safety of children.'' The petitioner believed that the two situations
address nearly identical issues of vehicle safety and should be
addressed by NHTSA consistently, by requiring a mechanical secondary
latching system for side sliding doors.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ The petitioner also believed that the difference in outcomes
between the two situations can be explained by NHTSA's participation
in the GTR process. ``Having forged its position in the
international setting, the agency is reluctant to reverse its views
it previously espoused in the domestic rulemaking proceeding. This
specific instance illustrates the disadvantage at which participants
in the domestic APA [Administrative Procedure Act] rulemaking
process are placed when that proceeding is superceded [sic] by the
prior global rulemaking process under the 1998 Global Agreement.''
March 23, 2007 petition, page 10. NHTSA seeks to reassure that the
GTR process does not detract from or contravene agency rulemaking
under the APA and the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act
(49 U.S.C. 30101 et seq.). The discussion in this section responds
to the petitioner's specific concerns about the door closing system
for side sliding doors and explains why we disagree that a
mechanical secondary latching system should be required. In a
separate section of this preamble, we respond to the petitioner's
overall objections to the GTR process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agency Response
We are denying Advocates' request to require that all sliding door
latches be equipped with both primary and secondary latching positions.
We reiterate our determination in the final rule that the lack of data
showing the superiority of one system over the other is noteworthy and
important, when the one system at issue \7\ has been in existence for
decades in Europe. This is not a situation where we are deliberating
whether to permit a system that has been unproven in the real world.
The European governments have permitted the system for decades, and
available data from Europe do not show better ejection prevention with
either of the options. Data also do not show a problem with the
systems. Based on the best available information, NHTSA has determined
that the systems performed equally. With performance being equal, the
agency has concluded that both systems should be permitted. Today's
final rule confirms that determination.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ A system with a fully latched position and a door closure
warning system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is also not a situation where we relaxed an existing
requirement but failed to analyze the basis for changing our previous
decisions underlying the requirement. Currently, the only requirement
applicable to sliding side doors in FMVSS No. 206 is that the entire
door, track and slide entire system must not separate when a total
transverse load of 18,000 N is applied. There are no requirements for
the individual latch components for sliding doors. The February 2007
final rule newly required the doors to have a backup system for
supplemental protection. As to the requirements that should apply to
the backup, as explained above, information available to NHTSA from
Europe indicates that having either a secondary latched position or a
door closure warning system was equivalent. Accordingly, the decision
was made to permit either system.
We do not believe we were arbitrary and capricious in not requiring
a secondary latching position. The decision not to require a mechanical
secondary latching system for side sliding doors was based on different
considerations than the decision to require an action distinct from
activation of the door handle to open a door. In the latter situation,
NHTSA rejected the Alliance request to permit a door to be unlocked and
unlatched with a single pull of the handle when the door is equipped
with a child safety lock. The Alliance request pertained to the primary
locking mechanism, not to a backup system. There was no alarm or
warning provided to the driver informing him or her that the child lock
was not engaged. If two distinct actions were not provided to open a
rear door, a child could open the door and tumble out by a single pull
of the door handle. The safety of the primary system would be too
easily overridden by allowing a door to open by a single pull of a
handle. Stated differently, the safety of the primary system could be
too easily thwarted by human inattention. Further, the requirement for
a distinct action to unlock and to open the door has been in FMVSS No.
206 since 1968, and the agency was not convinced there was reason to
lessen the requirement.
In contrast, Advocates' request related to a supplemental backup
system that has never before been required by the standard. Based on
available information, NHTSA selected appropriate requirements for the
backup system. Similar to its decision on the child lock issue, the
agency did not adopt any requirement for the backup system that would
lessen the performance of the primary latching system. We did not allow
the backup system to make it easier for a properly latched sliding door
to be inadvertently opened. In this regard, the agency's decisions
regarding the requirements for the side sliding doors and for the child
safety locks are reasonable and consistent. For the reasons stated
above, NHTSA denies Advocates' petition to require all sliding door
latches to have both primary and secondary latching positions.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Advocates also believed that a response by the agency to its
comment on the NPRM opposing the second option was ``inapposite'' to
the comment. The agency had stated in the final rule: ``We believe
these new requirements achieve Advocates' suggestion that a
mechanical solution is more dependable than one that requires some
human behavior.'' 72 FR at 5391. In its petition, Advocates stated
that its NPRM comments had advocated the need to have a mechanical
secondary latching system, and that the primary system is mechanical
has no relevance to the issue of what means are used to provide the
backup system.
A clarification of NHTSA's statement in the final rule would be
helpful. The agency was explaining that the February 2007 final rule
upgraded the current FMVSS No. 206 such that, among other matters, a
latch will have to be provided that has a fully latched position
that meets more stringent loading requirements than now required. To
comply with the final rule's sliding door requirements and test
procedure, we believe that manufacturers may have to install two
latching systems--on the front and rear edges of the door--rather
than only one latching system in only one location. The ``mechanical
solution'' to which the agency referred was to the two-latch system,
or an otherwise mechanically enhanced latch system, that would have
to be installed to meet the upgraded strength requirements. Further,
the agency was acknowledging the final rule's adoption into FMVSS
No. 206 a requirement that did not exist before in the standard.
That requirement for a backup system (either having a secondary
latching position for each of the two sliding door latches or having
the vehicle have an alert that the latches are not in the fully
latched position) was seen by the agency to further supplement
safety by providing a vehicle-based attribute that addressed partial
latching of the door.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 7376]]
b. Exclusion of Wheelchair Lift Doors
The February 2007 final rule removed a provision that had been in
the standard since 1985, which excluded from the standard doors
equipped with wheelchair lifts.\9\ The doors have been excluded because
the agency determined, in response to a petition for rulemaking
submitted in the early 1980's from Thomas Built Buses, that a
wheelchair lift platform acted as a barricade in the doorway when it
was stored. When stored, the platform retracted to a vertical
orientation parallel to and in close proximity with the interior
surface of the lift door, and covered the complete opening. The 2007
final rule stated that ``wheelchair lift designs have evolved such that
they no longer provide adequate protection for vehicle occupants as
contemplated when the exclusion was adopted,'' according to a 1998
evaluation. 72 FR at 5396. The agency believed that current lift system
have platforms not covering or only partially covering the vehicle
doorway, e.g., some have platforms that are stored horizontally above
the vehicle floor. Id. NHTSA further noted that current wheelchair lift
designs can be installed without modifying an OEM door system, so that
``installation of a wheelchair platform lift does not necessitate
removal of a vehicle door from compliance with FMVSS No. 206.'' Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ The door must also be linked to an alarm system consisting
of either a flashing visible signal located in the driver's
compartment or an alarm audible to the driver that is activated when
the door is open. See S4(c) of FMVSS No. 206.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In response to the February 2007 final rule, Thomas Built Buses
petitioned NHTSA to reinstate the exclusion. The petitioner stated that
it uses single panel lift doors that provide a barrier to ejection. It
requested excluding a door that ``has a wheelchair lift that sets in
the wheelchair lift door opening when retracted adequately providing a
barrier to bus occupants from being ejected.''
Agency Response
We are granting this request. The agency was not aware that lift
platforms continued to be manufactured that completely cover the door
opening when retracted and act to barricade the doorway. While the
former exclusion of all doors equipped with a wheelchair lift was too
broad given that some lifts made today do not completely block the door
when retracted, the agency sees no reason to subject to FMVSS No. 206
doors with lifts that do block the doorway, as reasoned in the 1985
rulemaking. The agency is amending the February 2009 final rule to
exclude doors equipped with a permanently attached wheelchair lift
system meeting the following criteria: (a) When the lift is in the
retracted position, the lift platform retracts to a vertical
orientation parallel to and in close proximity with the interior
surface of the lift door; (b) in that position, the platform completely
covers the doorway opening and provides a barricade to the doorway;
and, (c) the wheelchair lift door is linked to an alarm system
consisting of either a flashing visible signal located in the driver's
compartment or an alarm audible to the driver that is activated when
the door is not fully closed and the vehicle ignition is activated.
IV. Other Issues
a. Correction of S5.1.1.4(b)(2)
In its petition for reconsideration of the February 2007 final
rule, the Alliance suggested that the words ``if provided'' should be
included in S5.1.1.4(b)(2) (one of the provisions specifying the test
procedure for a hinged door test). The petitioner correctly noted that
there is a corresponding section, S5.1.1.4(b)(1)(i)(C), which includes
that phrase. We agree to include the phrase, ``if provided,'' in
S5.1.1.4(b)(2). The phrase is appropriate for both sections, and the
amendment makes the procedures consistent. Also, for additional
consistency, we will clarify in this section that doors ``may'' be
tethered to avoid damaging recording equipment.
b. Technical Amendment to Figure 7
Prior to the February 2007 final rule, FMVSS No. 206 did not have a
figure that graphically displayed the vehicle coordinate reference
system to be used for inertial testing. The GTR provided such a figure
because part of the GTR referenced various directions with respect to
different vehicle axes. The NPRM proposed, and the February 2007 final
rule adopted, this same GTR figure as Figure 7.
Although the agency did not receive any comment regarding Figure 7
in response to both the NPRM and the February 2007 final rule, after
publication of the final rule NHTSA realized that x-axis and the z-axis
in Figure 7 were not consistent with SAE J211 (Instrumentation for
Impact Test) or with the sign conventions used in other Federal motor
vehicle safety standards such as FMVSS No. 208 and FMVSS No. 214.
Therefore, NHTSA is making a technical amendment to FMVSS No. 206 by
modifying Figure 7 to be consistent with SAE J211 and the sign
convention for other Federal motor vehicle safety standards as follows:
[[Page 7377]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR19FE10.003
c. Distinguishing Between Primary and Auxiliary Door Latches
The February 2007 final rule mandated that each hinged door system
be equipped with at least one ``primary door latch system'' (S4.1.1).
``Primary door latch system'' was defined as consisting of a ``primary
door latch(s) and a striker(s).'' A ``primary door latch'' was defined
as ``a latch equipped with both a fully latched position and a
secondary latched position and is designated as a `primary door latch'
by the manufacturer.'' The reason for the phrase ``and is designated as
a `primary door latch' by the manufacturer'' was to deal with a
potential problem for NHTSA in identifying, for compliance testing
purposes, the ``primary latch'' of a door or door system if the door or
door system is also equipped with an auxiliary latch that has a
secondary latch position.\10\ If both the primary door latch and the
auxiliary latch have a secondary latched position, it is not obvious
which latch is the primary latch.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ ``Auxiliary door latch'' was defined as a latch equipped
with a fully latched position, with or without a secondary latched
position, and fitted to a door or door system equipped with a
primary door latch system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
TriMark requested that NHTSA not have ``a physical identification
of the primary and auxiliary latch because of the cost involved and
ability to use a similar/identical latch in both primary and auxiliary
applications.'' TriMark asked how the agency envisioned that this
requirement for latch designation be addressed from a practical matter.
Agency Response
The final rule required the vehicle manufacturer to designate one
of the latches as the primary latch in connection with the
manufacturer's certification of compliance, and to identify the primary
door latch when asked to do so by the agency.\11\ We did not intend,
and the final rule did not require, that the primary door latch be
physically marked differently on the vehicle than the auxiliary door
latch. Door latch suppliers may provide the same latch for both primary
and auxiliary applications, if the performance requirements are
satisfied. NHTSA continues to believe the approach used in the February
2007 final rule will not be unduly burdensome to latch suppliers.
Vehicle manufacturers simply must identify the primary door latch at
the time of certification of the vehicle. In practice, prior to
conducting a compliance test on
[[Page 7378]]
a vehicle, NHTSA will ask the manufacturer which is the primary door
latch for that vehicle and will test the vehicle in accordance with the
manufacturer's response.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Such a request would be made in connection with an agency
inquiry regarding compliance with the standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
d. Certification Information
The February 2007 final rule specifies that each primary and
auxiliary door latch system shall meet either dynamic requirements or a
calculation of inertial load resistance developed to ensure that the
door latch system will remain latched when properly assembled in the
vehicle door (S4.1.1.4). TriMark asked if a computer simulation could
be used as a method of evaluation for the inertial analysis.
Agency Response
NHTSA does not prohibit a manufacturer from certifying its vehicle
based on a method that is different than that specified in the FMVSS.
As explained in the final rule, FMVSS test procedures specify the
procedures that will be used by the agency to determine if a motor
vehicle complies with the applicable requirements. A manufacturer is
not required to use the procedures to certify its vehicle. However,
NHTSA may ask the vehicle manufacturer for the basis for its
certification. In the event of a noncompliance with an FMVSS, a
manufacturer may defend itself against civil penalties for violating
the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act if it could show that
it exercised due care in making its certification. Whether a
manufacturer exercised due care in basing a certification on a computer
simulation depends on the particularities of the case, including the
characteristics of the computer simulation, and is determined in the
context of a particular compliance proceeding.
e. Applicability of the Standard to Vehicles Over 10,000 lb GVWR
The February 2007 final rule applies to passenger cars,
multipurpose passenger vehicles, and trucks. It also applies to buses
with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 4,536 kg (10,000 lbs) or
less. In response to the final rule, Trimark asked NHTSA to comment on
the applicability of this standard to motor homes, fire trucks,
ambulances, and Class 7/8 heavy trucks in excess of a GVWR of 4,536 kg
(10,000 lbs).
Agency Response
With regard to applicability, note 49 CFR 571.3, which provides
specific definitions for the vehicle types of concern in the Trimark
comment. Specifically, a motor home is defined as ``a multi-purpose
vehicle with motive power that is designed to provide temporary
residential accommodations, as evidenced by the presence of at least
four of the following facilities: Cooking; refrigeration or ice box;
self-contained toilet; heating and/or air conditioning; a potable water
supply system including a faucet and a sink; and a separate 110-125
volt electrical power supply and/or propane.'' Paragraph S2 of the
February 2007 final rule states applicability to multipurpose passenger
vehicles; \12\ therefore, the 2007 final rule applies to motor homes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ ``Multipurpose passenger vehicle'' means a motor vehicle
with motive power, except a low-speed vehicle or trailer, designed
to carry 10 persons or less which is constructed either on a truck
chassis or with special features for occasional off-road
operation.'' 49 CFR 571.3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NHTSA considers fire trucks to be a type of truck, which is defined
in 49 CFR 571.3 as ``a motor vehicle with motive power, except a
trailer, designed primarily for the transportation of property or
special purpose equipment.'' Since paragraph S2 of the February 2007
final rule states its applicability to trucks, the final rule applies
to fire trucks.
Ambulances are typically multipurpose passenger vehicles (MPVs) for
purposes of the FMVSSs, and thus must meet the standards for MPVs
(including FMVSS No. 206). In addition, ambulances are also subject to
regulation through separate standards administered by the General
Services Administration (GSA) in the Federal Specifications for the
Star-of-Life Ambulance.\13\ Section 3.10.9 of the GSA standard states,
``Door latches, hinges, and hardware furnished by original equipment
manufacturers and final stage ambulance manufacturers shall comply with
FMVSS 206.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ See KKK-A-1822F (Aug. 1, 2007), available at https://www.deltaveh.com/KKK-A-1822F.htm. This standard was created by the
U.S. General Services Administration as a guideline for the proper
construction of an ambulance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regarding Class 7/8 heavy trucks, these vehicles fall under the
definition of truck as defined in 49 CFR 571.3. FMVSS No. 206 applied
to trucks, regardless of their GVWR, prior to the February 2007 final
rule, as does the amended FMVSS No. 206. S2 of amended FMVSS No. 206
states that the standard applies to ``passenger cars, multipurpose
passenger vehicles, and trucks, and buses with a gross vehicle weight
rating (GVWR) of 4,536 kg or less'' (emphasis added). In other words,
the February 2007 final rule applies to all passenger cars,
multipurpose passenger vehicles, and trucks, regardless of their GVWR,
and is also applicable to buses with a GVWR of 4,536 kg (10,000 lb) or
less.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ The preamble of the final rule explained that it ``extends
the application of FMVSS No. 206 to buses with a gross vehicle
weight rating (GVWR) of 4,536 kg (10,000 pounds) or less, including
12-15 passenger vans.'' 72 FR 5385, 5386.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
V. GTR Process
The February 2007 final rule responded to a comment from Advocates
that had expressed concern about the opportunity for consumer
organizations to be involved in the GTR process, and about what
Advocates had said was an ``after-the-fact'' presentation of a draft
GTR which, the commenter believed, threatened to abridge the agency's
authority. In responding to the comment, the final rule sought to
address what appeared to be Advocates' fundamental misunderstanding of
the GTR process. NHTSA clarified in the final rule that consumer groups
have an opportunity to be involved in all aspects of the GTR process,
and explained how the process is transparent and inviting of public
participation in the formation of draft proposals. 72 FR at 5388. The
final rule explained how information regarding the meetings and
negotiations was made publicly available through Federal Register
notices, and that meeting agendas, presentations, reports and test
results were made available to the public on the UNECE Web site after
each international meeting. The final rule pointed out that public
comment on the GTR discussions were requested multiple times, and that
domestic consumer organizations were able to participate in the GTR
negotiations as a part of Consumer International. Importantly, the
final rule explained that under the GTR process, countries voting
``yes'' on a GTR have only agreed to begin their processes for adopting
the provisions of the GTR, i.e., to issue an NPRM or Advance NPRM. The
GTR process leaves the ultimate decision to each country of whether to
adopt the GTR into their domestic law. That is, the process leaves it
up to NHTSA to decide whether to issue a final rule adopting the
proposed requirements into the FMVSS, after receiving and considering
comments on the NPRM.
In its petition for reconsideration, Advocates repeated many of the
concerns it had expressed in its comment on the NPRM. The petitioner
again described its belief that the procedure under which the final
rule was developed was flawed. The petitioner believed that the final
rule was negotiated in proceedings with foreign stakeholders since,
Advocates stated, only international organizations having standing to
participate at UNECE
[[Page 7379]]
sponsored Working Party on Passive Safety committee meetings are
allowed to ``influence'' the GTR negotiations. (Advocates stated that
U.S. consumer groups were unable to participate in the GTR negotiations
as a part of Consumer International, a group with standing, because of
cost and location constraints.)
The petitioner also believed that by participating in the GTR
process and adopting the GTR, NHTSA subverted the rulemaking procedures
required by the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553).
Advocates stated that the purpose of the APA notice and comment
rulemaking requirement is to ensure that the U.S. public is able to
comment on the rule while it is still in the formative or proposed
stage. The petitioner believed that, because the U.S. will have already
voted for the GTR when NHTSA presents it as a proposed rule, the APA
proceeding is tainted because the agency has put its credibility on the
line in adopting the GTR. Advocates contended that as a result of this,
the agency's commitment to the international process and the GTR/
proposed rule makes the agency more resistant to adopting changes and
alternatives and prejudices Advocates' participation in the rulemaking
proceeding.
Agency Response
We appreciate this opportunity to explain again the GTR process and
to address the petitioner's reservations about the process. The GTR
process under the UN/ECE 1998 Agreement on Global Technical Regulations
provides opportunities for NHTSA to enhance vehicle safety and improve
government efficiency. It assists us in adopting best safety practices
from around the world, identifying and reducing unwarranted regulatory
requirements, and leveraging scarce government resources for research
and regulation. The process facilitates our effort to continuously
improve and seek high levels of safety, particularly by helping us
develop regulations that reflect a global consideration of current and
anticipated technology and safety problems.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ See, 49 CFR Part 553, Appendix C, ``Statement of Policy:
Implementation of the United Nations/Economic Commission for Europe
(UN/ECE) 1998 Agreement on Global Technical Regulations--Agency
Policy Goals and Public Participation.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The final rule described in detail the benefits that the GTR
process afforded the American public in the development of the upgraded
FMVSS No. 206. 72 FR 5388, col. 3. It also explained the high degree to
which public participation was pursued and encouraged by NHTSA in
developing the NPRM and final rule.\16\ Advocates is concerned about
its inability to be directly involved at international meetings.
Attendance at the meetings by non-governmental parties is not crucial
to the process. Alternative opportunities are provided for
participation, such as by commenting to agency notices of WP.29
programs of work.\17\ Moreover, the point at which public participation
is crucial, and where Advocates is wholly able to participate, is
subsequent and in response to publication of NHTSA's NPRM. The GTR
process recognizes and embraces that participation and fully accords
with the requirements of the APA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ Id., col. 2.
\17\ Advocates did participate in the GTR process via the
opportunity to submit comments to several notices published by NHTSA
concerning the GTR process. Advocates did in fact take advantage of
this opportunity by submitting comments in response to a 2003 notice
NHTSA issued regarding activities under the UNECE 1998 Agreement.
See Docket No. NHTSA-2003-14395-0005 (March 5, 2003) (submitted in
response to Notice of activities under the 1998 Global Agreement and
request for comments, 68 FR 5333, February 3, 2003). Advocates also
submitted comments to other notices announcing information on other
international
