[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 240 (Wednesday, December 15, 2004)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 75020-75042]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-27215]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
49 CFR Part 571
[Docket No. NHTSA-2004-19840]
RIN 2127-AH34
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Door Locks and Door
Retention Components and Side Impact Protection
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Department of
Transportation.
[[Page 75021]]
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We are proposing to amend Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
Standard (FMVSS) No. 206, Door locks and door retention components, in
order to add and update requirements and test procedures and to
harmonize with the world's first global technical regulation for motor
vehicles. If adopted, today's proposal would add test requirements and
test procedures for sliding doors, add secondary latched position
requirements for doors other than hinged side doors and back doors,
provide a new test procedure for assessing inertial forces, and extend
the application of FMVSS No. 206 to buses with a Gross Vehicle Weight
Rating (GVWR) of less than 10,000 pounds, including 12-15 passenger
vans.
DATES: Comment closing date: You should submit your comments early
enough to ensure that Document Management receives them not later than
February 14, 2005. See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for proposed
effective date.
ADDRESSES: For purposes of identification, please mention the docket
number of this document in your comments. You may submit those comments
by any of the following methods:
Web Site: http://dms.dot.gov. Follow the instructions for
submitting comments on the DOT electronic docket site.
Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
Mail: Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of
Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, Room PL-401,
Washington, DC 20590-001.
Hand Delivery: Room PL-401 on the plaza level of the
Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC, between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays.
Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
Instructions: All submissions must include the agency name and
docket number or Regulatory Identification Number (RIN) for this
rulemaking. For detailed instructions on submitting comments and
additional information on the rulemaking process, see the Public
Comments heading of the Supplementary Information section of this
document. Note that all comments received will be posted without change
to http://dms.dot.gov, including any personal information provided.
Please see the discussion of the Privacy Act under the Public Comments
section.
Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments received, go to http://dms.dot.gov at any time or to Room PL-
401 on the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal Holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
For technical issues: Dr. George Mouchahoir, Chief Structures and
Special Systems Division, Office of Crashworthiness Standards, National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20590; telephone (202) 366-4919; telefax (202) 493-2739;
[email protected].
For legal issues: Mr. Christopher Calamita, Office of the Chief
Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh
Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590; telephone (202) 366-2992; telefax
(202) 366-3820.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Proposed effective date: If adopted, the
amendments proposed in this rulemaking action would become effective
September 1, two years following the next model year after the date of
publication of a final rule in the Federal Register. For example, if a
final rule were adopted on December 1, 2005, the rule would be
effective beginning September 1, 2008. Optional early compliance would
be permitted on and after the date of publication of the final rule in
the Federal Register.
Table of Contents
I. Executive Summary
II. Background
III. Current Requirements of FMVSS No. 206
IV. Scope of the Safety Problem
V. Harmonization Efforts
VI. Proposed Improvements to FMVSS No. 206
A. Hinged Door Issues
1. Load Tests
2. Inertial Test
3. Door Hinges
B. Side Sliding Door Issues
C. Door Locks
D. Applicability to Buses
E. Summary of Improvements
VII. Alternative Approaches to Testing Retention Components on
Hinged Doors That Were Considered but Are Not Proposed
A. Hinged Side Door System Tests (Full Door Tests)
B. Combination Component Test
VIII. Door Closure and Operability Requirements
IX. Costs, Benefits, and the Proposed Effective Date
X. Differences Between the GTR and the NPRM
XI. Effective Date
XII. Regulatory Analysis and Notices
XIII. Public Comments
I. Executive Summary
Currently, door lock systems and door retention components on
passenger cars, trucks, and multipurpose passenger vehicles must comply
with a series of requirements established in FMVSS No. 206 in the early
1970s in order to minimize the ejections of occupants through side door
openings. In 1995, these requirements were expanded to address back
doors. While these requirements have significantly improved door
performance over the level of pre-standard doors, occupants continue to
be ejected through doors.
Given the sources and magnitude of the overall safety problem posed
by ejections from vehicles, the agency intends to address the problem
comprehensively, focusing on ejections through glazing as well as
ejections through doors. Ejections through glazing (i.e., ejections
through a vehicle window) comprise 59 percent of all ejections and the
data show that the greatest potential ejection mitigation benefits will
come from reducing these ejections.\1\ To address ejections through
glazing, the agency has a multi-phase approach. The first phase is an
upgrade to FMVSS No. 214, Side impact protection, which would likely
induce vehicle manufacturers to use side curtains as a countermeasure.
A proposal for that upgrade was issued earlier this year. In the next
phase, we plan to propose occupant containment requirements for those
side curtains in non-rollover crashes. Additional phases could include
a study of the benefits of rollover sensors that would deploy the
curtains when they sense an impending rollover.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The scope of the safety problem is described in greater
detail in section IV of this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ejections through openings other than side glazing and doors, such
as windshields, open convertible tops, and open truck beds comprise 26%
of the ejections. It is hard for NHTSA to evaluate countermeasures
designed to reduce ejections through these various paths, since the
paths are through openings that are not on all vehicles, thus making it
harder to obtain data. Further, there are not any potential
countermeasures for the vehicles that have these openings. The
remaining ejections are ejections through doors, which constitute the
other 15 percent of the ejection problem, and are the focus of this
proposal.
Crashes such as offset frontals, near side impacts, and especially
rollovers,
[[Page 75022]]
which pose the greatest risk of ejection for occupants, may lead to
complex loading conditions to the vehicle door structure. In
recognition of this, the agency tried to develop a new combination test
that would subject the door latch components to simultaneously applied
loads from different directions as occurs in rollover and other crashes
in order to reduce related door ejections. We also wanted to update the
existing requirements and test procedures established to ensure the
strength of individual latch components for load conditions that are
less complex, such as those that occur in many non-rollover collisions.
The agency's efforts to improve the requirements and test
procedures of FMVSS 206 in order to address door ejections coincided
with the adoption of the initial Program of Work under the 1998 Global
Agreement.\2\ That program includes door lock and door retention
systems as one of the promising areas for the establishment of a global
technical regulation (GTR). The agency sought to work collaboratively
on door ejections with other contracting parties to the 1998 Global
Agreement, particularly the European Union and Japan. Through the
exchange of information on ongoing research and testing and through the
leveraging of resources for testing and evaluations, the agency led
successful efforts that culminated in the establishment of the first
GTR under the 1998 Agreement. We believe that the provisions of the
GTR, if adopted at the domestic level, would improve the current
requirements and test procedures of FMVSS 206 and improve the door
retention regulations of other countries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The 1998 Global Agreement was concluded under the auspices
of the United Nations and provides for the establishment of globally
harmonized vehicle regulations. This Agreement, whose conclusion was
spearheaded by the United States, entered into force in 2000 and is
administered by the UN Economic Commission for Europe's World Forum
for the Harmonization of Vehicle Regulations (WP.29).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S., as a Contracting Party of the 1998 Global Agreement that
voted in favor of establishing this GTR at the November 18, 2004
Session of the Executive Committee, is obligated under the Agreement to
initiate the process for adopting the provisions of the GTR.\3\ This
proposal is closely based on the GTR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ While the Agreement obligates such contracting parties to
begin their processes, it leaves the ultimate decision of whether to
adopt the GTR into their domestic law to the parties themselves.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NHTSA had anticipated that the GTR and this proposal would address
both rollover related door ejections as well as non-rollover related
door ejections. The problem of rollover related door ejections is
significantly greater in the United States than in other countries.
This is primarily due to the fact that light trucks, vans, and sport
utility vehicles, which have a greater propensity for rollover than
passenger cars, together comprise a larger portion of the U.S. vehicle
fleet than they do of the vehicle fleets in other countries.
Differences in safety belt use rates also play a role. Thus, other
countries have not focused on developing and issuing regulations
designed to prevent ejections through the door in rollover crashes.
Nevertheless, the world community was willing to investigate ways to
address complex loading conditions, as occur in rollover related door
ejections. Specifically, countries participating in the development of
the GTR helped to evaluate the new combination test procedure, which is
intended to replicate the application of forces in the real world and
in part address the rollover related door ejections. However,
difficulties were encountered with following the test procedure due to
the inability to conduct the test on some types of latches, thus
rendering the procedure unusable. Our inability to proceed at this time
with a combination test limited our focus in this rulemaking on
improving non-rollover door ejections. However, the agency expects
continued efforts to develop an alternative procedure for complex
loading conditions, and hopes to be able to propose a requirement and
procedure in the future. The agency will also continue to study the
overall problem of rollover related ejections under its comprehensive
rollover plan and will address them accordingly.
Non-rollover door ejections are the type of door ejections that the
GTR, this proposal and the regulations of other countries are seeking
to prevent. Even though non-rollover door ejections occur at a lower
rate than rollover door ejections, the non-rollover door ejections
account for 59 percent of all door ejections.
This proposal, if made final, would improve the current FMVSS No.
206 requirements in several areas. First and foremost, with respect to
sliding doors, given that the existing standard has a door-in-frame
requirement to test sliding door retention strength, but does not
provide a test procedure, it would replace the existing requirement
with new requirements and an associated full vehicle test procedure. It
would also require that sliding side doors either have a secondary
latched position, which serves as a backup to the fully latched
position and increases the likelihood that a striker will remain
engaged with the latch when the door is incompletely closed, or a
visual telltale signaling that the door is not fully closed. The fully
latched and secondary latched positions would also be load tested and
would be required to meet inertial requirements the same way as the
latches on hinged doors. Second, it would require a secondary latched
position for double-doors, currently referred to as ``cargo-doors.''
This requirement already exists in the European and Japanese
regulations. Third, it would add a dynamic inertial test procedure to
FMVSS No. 206 as an optional alternative to the current inertial
calculation. Such a test procedure is more representative of the real
world and has been conducted in Europe for type approval purposes.
Fourth, it would add new requirements for rear-hinged side doors to
prevent potential inadvertent openings while the vehicle is moving.
Finally, it would extend 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. This last requirement addresses a
uniquely U.S. issue and thus is not included in the GTR.
With the improvements proposed in this notice to address non-
rollover door ejections, we estimate that we would prevent 7 deaths and
4 serious injuries, annually. These benefits come primarily from the
changes to the sliding door requirements and test procedure.
The total costs of these proposals are estimated to be slightly
over $8 million. All of those costs are associated with adding a second
latch to those sliding doors that do not currently have one. Adding a
second latch is necessary in order for sliding doors to meet the
existing sliding door requirements when tested according to the new
sliding door test procedure. The door retention components would need
only small changes, if any. Vans currently meet the proposed secondary
latch position requirement for double doors. We do not anticipate that
the proposed inertial load test would add significant cost on
manufacturing operations, particularly given that it would be an
optional alternative.
Vehicle manufacturers, and ultimately, consumers, both here and
abroad, can expect to achieve cost savings through the formal
harmonization of differing sets of standards when the contracting
parties to the 1998 Global Agreement implement the new GTR. Further,
adopting amendments based on the GTR will not only result in
improvements to the FMVSS No. 206, but also to the door
[[Page 75023]]
lock and door retention component regulation of the United Nations'
Economic Commission for Europe (ECE R.11), which is used by the
majority of the world community. In addition to the sliding door test
procedure, the rear-hinged side door requirements, and the inertial
test procedure that are discussed above, ECE R. 11, when amended per
the GTR, will benefit from the inclusion of back door requirements and
rear door locking requirements. To date, those requirements have been
in place only in the U.S. and Canada.
II. Background
As originally conceived, FMVSS No. 206 was intended to reduce the
likelihood of occupant deaths and injuries resulting from ejections
through door openings by keeping vehicle doors closed in crashes. The
opening of these doors was primarily due to structural failures in the
latch, striker, or hinges. Sheet metal failures in the door structure
or the B-pillar were rare. In crashes involving the opening of doors,
the latch, striker, and hinges were subjected to tensile and
compressive forces along the vehicle's longitudinal (forward-to-aft)
and lateral (side-to-side) axes. These force directions could cause the
latch or striker to fail under as little as 5,000 newtons (N) of force.
Based on these findings, the automotive community concluded that the
most effective means of reducing door openings would be through
increasing the strength of the door retention components. In 1964, the
Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) developed and issued the first
test procedures designed to address door retention components: SAE
Recommended Practice J839, Passenger Car Side Door Latch Systems (SAE
J839); and SAE Recommended Practice J934, Vehicle Passenger Door Hinge
Systems (SAE J934).
As initially issued in the early 1970's, FMVSS No. 206 was based,
in large part, on the SAE recommended practices in existence at that
time, except that we increased the recommended test force requirement
in the lateral direction.\4\ Aside from the changes made in 1995 to
address back door openings, no significant changes have been made to
the current regulation since the early 1970's. While these regulations
were proven to be largely effective in the 1970's, ejections due to
door openings continue to account for 15 percent of all ejections.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ The force was increased to reduce the number of door
openings resulting from occupant impacts on the interior of the
door. SAE responded by adopting the same lateral force requirement
in SAE J839.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. Current Requirements of FMVSS No. 206
FMVSS No. 206 applies to all passenger cars, trucks and
multipurpose passenger vehicles, regardless of their GVWR, and provides
that certain door retention components on any door leading directly
into an occupant compartment, i.e., a compartment containing seating
accommodations for one or more occupants, must comply with the
requirements of the standard. The standard excludes folding doors,
roll-up doors, doors that are designed to be easily attached to or
removed from vehicles manufactured for operation without doors, and
side doors that are equipped with wheelchair lifts and that are linked
to either an audible or visible alarm system that is activated when the
doors are open.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Door retention components on side doors equipped with
wheelchair lifts that are linked to either a visual or audible
warning were excluded from the standard in 1985. 50 FR 12029 March
27, 1985.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hinged side door requirements. The standard requires that each
latch on hinged side doors have both a fully latched and a secondary
latched position.\6\ In this notice, a latch with both a fully latched
and a secondary latched position will be referred to as a ``primary
door latch.'' As currently required, a primary door latch and striker
cannot separate when a longitudinal force of 11,000 N (2,500 lb) or a
lateral force of 8,900 N (2,000 lb) is applied while the components are
fully engaged.\7\ Also, a primary door latch with a striker will be
referred to as a primary door latch system. During testing, the
longitudinal force is applied to the primary door latch system
perpendicular to the latch face. For conventional door latch
systems,\8\ this force is applied parallel to the vehicle's
longitudinal axis. The longitudinal test is designed to simulate door
openings in which the striker is pulled away from the latch faceplate.
The lateral force is applied in the direction in which the door opens.
The lateral procedure is intended to simulate door openings in which
the striker is pulled away from the latch in that direction. The
standard also requires that the coupled latch and striker may not
separate when a longitudinal or a lateral force of 4,450 N (1,000 lb)
is applied to the primary door latch system while in its secondary
closure position.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ The fully latched position keeps the striker, which is
typically attached to the vehicle structure, firmly coupled with the
latch, which is typically incorporated into the door. The secondary
latched position serves as a backup to the fully latched position,
increasing the likelihood that the striker will remain engaged with
the latch when the door is incompletely closed.
\7\ The latch is designed with a cam that has two closure
positions. When the latch is fully engaged or fully closed, the
opening in the latch is at its furthest position away from the
striker.
\8\ A conventional door latch system is one that is located at
the rear portion of the door opening, as opposed to a system that is
located at the bottom of the door opening.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Further, a hinged side door latch must not disengage from the fully
latched position when an inertial force of 30 g is applied to the latch
system in either the vehicle's longitudinal or the lateral axes.\9\
Latch systems are subjected to inertial loading when the vehicle comes
to an abrupt stop. This type of loading has the potential to release
the latch even though the door latch may be undamaged. FMVSS No. 206
provides that demonstration of compliance with this requirement is to
be accomplished either by following an agency-approved test procedure
or by completing a mathematical formula specified in SAE J839. While
NHTSA approved an inertial loading test procedure submitted by General
Motors (GM) in 1967, it has never adopted such a procedure into the
standard and no other test procedures were approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Inertia is the property of matter that requires that a force
be applied on a body to accelerate it. An inertial force is a force
resulting from acceleration of mass and is calculated by multiplying
the mass of a body by its acceleration. In this instance, the
inertial force relates to the force produced by accelerating the
mass of the latching system and its components to an acceleration of
30 g.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The standard also requires each hinge system\10\ to support the
door, and not separate when separate longitudinal (11,000 N (2,500 lb))
and lateral (8,900 N (2,000 lb)) forces are applied to the system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ A hinge system is a system of one or more hinges. Under the
standard, all hinges on a single door can be tested together to meet
the required load.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hinged side cargo doors. With slight modifications, hinged side
door requirements are specified for the latch and hinge systems on
hinged side cargo doors. Cargo door latch systems need not currently
have a secondary latching system. A ``cargo-type door'' is defined in
the standard as ``a door designed primarily to accommodate cargo
loading including, but not limited to, a two-part door that latches to
itself,'' and is typically designed with two doors that attach to one
another. Because of the design of these doors, cargo door systems
typically have more than one door latch. The standard requires that
latches on a single door jointly resist the force loading in the
lateral direction.
Back doors. Back door latches are tested in three directions: (1)
The
[[Page 75024]]
direction of door opening, (2) perpendicular to the latch face and (3)
orthogonal to the first two directions. By referencing the direction of
the test loads to the latch instead of the vehicle, it allows the
appropriate test load to be applied despite differences in orientation
for back door latches. Also, while back doors are required to have at
least one primary door latch, they may have other latches that do not
have both a fully and secondary latched position.
Sliding doors. Unlike the types of doors described above, sliding
doors are regulated under the current standard as integrated systems.
All sliding door retention components, including the door, track and
slide combination, or other supporting means, may not separate when a
total lateral force of 17,792 N (4,000 lb) is applied to the entire
system with the door in the closed position. There is no requirement
that the door have a primary door latch system, or even a latch system
with only a fully latched position. Rather, the entire door, with its
door retention components, is tested. While vehicle manufacturers are
required to certify compliance to this requirement, NHTSA has not
conducted compliance tests on sliding doors because the standard does
not have a test procedure for these doors.
IV. Scope of the Safety Problem
Based on a review of NASS and FARS data from 1995-2003, there were
5,023,879 vehicle occupants involved in tow away vehicle crashes on an
annual basis; 54,082 of those occupants were ejected from their
vehicle. See Table 1. In ejections in which the route of ejection is
known, 59 percent of ejections occur through side glazing and 26
percent of the ejections occur through openings other than side glazing
or doors (i.e., convertible tops, sunroofs, windshields, open truck
beds). The remaining, 15 percent of ejections occurred through a
vehicle door. The rate of ejections through doors is heavily dependent
on belt use. Of the serious injuries and fatalities attributable to
ejections through doors in the U.S., 94 percent involve unbelted
occupants.
To address the ejections through side glazing, the agency has
indicated that we will initiate rulemaking within the next couple of
years to establish occupant containment performance requirements for
side air bags and side curtains now being incorporated into the vehicle
fleet for side impact occupant protection. Ejections through openings
other than side glazing and doors, such as windshields, open
convertible tops, and open truck beds comprise 26 percent of the
ejections. It is hard for NHTSA to evaluate countermeasures designed to
reduce ejections through these various paths, since the path is through
openings that are not on all vehicles and potential countermeasures are
not apparent for the particular vehicle classification and use.
Table 1.--Total Ejections: 1995-2003 NASS and FARS Occupants in Towed Light Duty Vehicle Crashes Adjusted for
Fatality and Damage Area on an Annual Basis
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ejection Ejection
Total All Rate with with
occupants Unejected ejection (percent) unknown known
routes routes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All crashes............................... 5,023,879 4,969,797 54,082 1.08 3,078 51,004
Rollovers................................. 444,267 410,420 33,847 7.62 2,399 31,448
Non-rollovers............................. 4,579,612 4,559,377 20,235 0.44 680 19,555
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 2.--Ejection Routes
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Side
Door Rate 1* Rate 2** glazing Rate 1* Rate 2** Other Rate 1* Rate 2**
ejections (percent) (percent) ejections (percent) (percent) ejections (percent) (percent)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All crashes........................ 7,622 0.16 14.94 29,877 0.63 58.58 13,505 0.29 26.48
Rollovers.......................... 3,089 0.75 9.82 19,098 4.63 60.73 9,261 2.24 29.45
Non-rollovers...................... 4,533 0.10 23.18 10,779 0.24 55.12 4,243 0.10 21.70
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\*\ Rate 1 = [Rate 2 for (Ejections for Door, Glazing, or Other Route)] * [Rate for All Ejections].
[Example: For all crashes, the rate for Door Ejection = 14.94%*1.08% = 0.16%].
\**\ Rate 2 = [(Ejections for Door, Glazing, or Other) / (All Ejections-Unknown Ejection Routes)].
[Example: For all crashes, the rate for Door Ejection with respect to Ejection with Known Routes = 7,622/51,004 = 14.94%].
In further analyzing the door ejections, the agency found that of
the 15 percent (7,622) vehicle ejections that occurred through a door,
4,533 ejections occurred in non-rollover crashes (i.e., frontal, side,
and rear impact crashes) verses 3,089 ejections in rollover crashes.
See Table 2. However, the data indicate that rollover crashes have a
higher rate of ejection than non-rollover crashes, and that the rate
for ejection through a vehicle door is also higher for rollover
crashes, as opposed to non-rollover crashes. For all crashes, the rate
for ejection in rollover crashes is 7.62 percent, verses 0.44 percent
for non-rollover crashes. See Table 1. The rate for ejection through a
door in rollover crashes is 0.75 percent.\11\ Conversely, the rate for
ejection through a door in non-rollover crashes is 0.10 percent\12\.
See Table 2. The agency tried to address complex loading conditions
such as those which can occur in rollover related door ejections by
developing a new combination test that would subject the door latch
components to simultaneously applied loads from different
directions.\13\ Further discussion of this test and the reasons it was
not adopted are discussed in section VII.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ [door ejections in rollovers (3,089) / all door ejections
through known routes in rollovers (31,448)] * [rate for all
ejections in rollovers (7.62%)]
\12\ [door ejections in non-rollovers (4,533) / all door
ejections through known routes in non-rollovers (19,555)] * [rate
for all ejections in rollovers (7.62%)]
\13\ Complex combination loadings also occur in other, non-
rollover crashes, for which the combination test was also intended
to apply.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Door ejections, due to non-rollover door openings, account for 23
percent of the total non-rollover ejections with known routes. A
portion of these ejections occurs through sliding door openings and
from doors in 12-15
[[Page 75025]]
passenger vans. Of those ejected through a sliding door, each year
approximately 20 people are killed and 30 people are seriously injured,
based on the 1995-2003 data from NASS. In fact, based on the 2003 sales
data, about 85 percent of vans sold in the U.S. have sliding doors.
Only 15 percent of vans sold have double doors. Additionally, we are
concerned that the individuals with the greatest exposure to sliding
door failures are children. Children sit in the back of vehicles in
disproportionately high numbers.\14\ We do not believe that this
exposure is acceptable when measures can be taken to minimize the
likelihood that a sliding door would open in a crash. Finally, with the
increasing popularity of vehicles with sliding doors on both the driver
and passenger side of the vehicle, we expect the number of overall
sliding door failures to increase unless they are required to be
designed in a way that reduces the likelihood of a door opening.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ ``Child Restraint use in 2002: Results from the 2002 NOPUS
Controlled Intersection Study.'' http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nrd-30/NCSA/Rpts/2003/ChildRestraints.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
V. Harmonization Efforts
The agency's efforts to update the requirements and test procedures
of FMVSS No. 206 in order to address these safety issues coincided with
the adoption of the initial Program of Work of the 1998 Global
Agreement. Globally, there are several existing regulations,
directives, and standards that pertain to door lock and door retention
components. As all share similarities, the international motor vehicle
safety community tentatively determined that these components might be
amenable to the development of a GTR under the 1998 Global Agreement
(1998 Agreement). During the 126th session of WP.29 of March 2002, the
Executive Committee of the 1998 Agreement adopted a Program of Work,
which included the development of a GTR to address inadvertent door
opening in crashes. The Executive Committee also charged the Working
Party on Passive Safety (GRSP) to form an informal working group to
discuss and evaluate relevant issues concerning requirements for door
locks and door retention components and to make recommendations
regarding a potential GTR.\15\ The informal working group was
established in September 2002.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ The GRSP is made up of delegates from many countries around
the world, and who have voting privileges. Representatives from
manufacturing and consumer groups also attend and participate in the
GRSP and informal working groups that are developing GTRs. Those
that chose not to participate are kept apprised of the GTR progress
from progress reports presented at the GRSP meetings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States of America (U.S.) volunteered to lead the group's
efforts and develop a document detailing the recommended requirements
for the GTR. The U.S., through this agency, sought to work
collaboratively on door ejections with other contracting parties to the
1998 Global Agreement, particularly the European Union and Japan. The
U.S. presented a formal proposal to develop the GTR to the Executive
Committee of the 1998 Agreement, which was adopted in June 2003 (TRANS/
WP.29/2003/49, this document has been placed in the docket). The GRSP
then drafted the door locks and door retention GTR. The draft GTR was
discussed in full at the December 2003 and the May 2004 GRSP meetings.
In developing language for the draft GTR, the GRSP considered all
relevant standards, regulations, and directives. An analysis was made
to identify the differences in the application, requirements, and test
procedures of the North American and UNECE Regulations (TRANS/WP.29/
2003/49).
The following regulations, directives and international voluntary
standards were considered in drafting the GTR:
UN/ECE Regulation 11--Uniform provisions concerning the
approval of vehicles with regard to door latches and door retention
components.
U.S. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 206, Door
locks and door retention components. (FMVSS No. 206)
EU Directive 70/387/EEC, concerning the doors of motor
vehicles and their trailers.
Canada Motor Vehicle Safety Regulation No. 206--Door locks
and door retention components. (CMVSS No. 206). [Note: The North
American regulations FMVSS and CMVSS No. 206 are substantially
similar].
Japan Safety regulation for Road Vehicle Article 25.
Australian Design Rule 2/00--Side Door Latches and Hinges.
SAE J839, September 1998--Passenger Car Side Door Latch
Systems.
SAE J934, September 1998--Vehicle Passenger Door Hinge
Systems.
The only significant differences between the sets of standards were
found in FMVSS No. 206 and UN/ECE Regulation 11 (ECE R11). This is
because the U.S. and Canadian standards mirror each other, as do the
ECE and Japanese regulations. The Australian regulation combines
elements of both sets of regulations. All regulations are largely based
on SAE J839 and SAE J934.
In addition, the GRSP evaluated alternative requirements and test
procedures developed and presented by the U.S. and Canada, as well as
refinements suggested by other GRSP delegates and representatives.
Details of the discussions can be found in the final progress report of
the working group (TRANS/WP29/2004/70, http://www.unece.org/trans/main/wp29/wp29wgs/wp29gen/gen2004.html, document 2004/70, this document can
be found in the docket). A draft GTR for door retention components was
presented to the GRSP on May 3, 2004. The GRSP thoroughly discussed the
draft and an amended copy was developed into a formal document (TRANS/
WP29/2004/69, http://www.unece.org/trans/main/wp29/wp29wgs/wp29gen/gen2004.html, document 2004/69, this document can be found in the
docket).
The GRSP concluded its work and agreed to recommend the
establishment of this GTR to the Executive Committee. On November 18,
2004, the Executive Committee approved establishment of the GTR. The
U.S., as a Contracting Party of the 1998 Agreement and voting in favor
of establishing this global technical regulation, is obligated to
initiate rulemaking to adopt the provisions of the GTR.
The established GTR provides improvements over the current FMVSS
No. 206, as well as those regulations of other countries. With respect
to sliding doors, given that the existing standards have a door-in-
frame requirement to test sliding door retention strength but do not
provide a test procedure, the GTR provides a replacement for the
existing requirements and a new associated full vehicle test procedure.
It also provides that sliding doors either have a secondary latched
position or a visual telltale signalling that the door is not fully
closed. For doors with rear mounted hinge systems, it would add new
requirements to prevent potential inadvertent openings while a vehicle
is moving. In addition, the GTR ensured that existing requirements that
were either in the FMVSS or the ECE were included, such as back door,
double doors and door lock requirements.
VI. Proposed Improvements to FMVSS No. 206
A. Hinged Doors Issues
1. Load Tests
We are not proposing significant changes to the existing
requirements for latches on hinged side doors. FMVSS No. 206 requires
load tests of the hinge systems in the longitudinal and transverse
directions. In the GTR, these
[[Page 75026]]
tests were retained, but the regulatory text was reworded to remove any
implication that the load is applied relative to the vehicle
orientation. In addition, the force levels specified in the GTR are the
result of harmonization of FMVSS 206 and ECE R11 to eliminate
variations due to rounding of unit conversions. Finally, the GTR
requires a secondary latched position for ``double doors'', which are
referred to as cargo-doors in FMVSS 206. To the extent a requirement
for the secondary positions may prevent inadvertent door openings, we
believe it would be beneficial for double doors. Currently, all vans
with such doors have cargo doors with primary door latch systems, which
includes secondary positions. Double doors generally have more than one
latch system; the GTR also requires that the transverse requirement
apply only to the primary door latch system and not auxiliary door
latch systems. We are proposing that FMVSS 206 be amended to include
these GTR requirements.
2. Inertial Test
The GTR has a provision for a full vehicle dynamic inertial test
procedure, as an option to the inertial calculation. Currently, the
FMVSS 206 has a provision that manufacturers may certify to an agency-
approved test procedure. As discussed earlier, NHTSA approved a GM test
procedure in the 1960s. Since that time, no other requests have been
approved. Such an approach is inconsistent with the manner in which the
agency has historically operated. Accordingly, we propose to replace
the current ``agency-approved'' provision with the specified test
procedure from the GTR that manufacturers may use for certification.
As in FMVSS No. 206, ECE R11 has a provision for a dynamic inertial
loading test, but there is no specified test procedure. In the process
of drafting the GTR, it was recommended that the test procedure be
developed based on one type of testing currently conducted for ECE R11
type approval. The GTR test procedure was validated by the U.S. and
Canada.\16\ It places inertial forces on doors, either when installed
in the vehicle or when tested on a test fixture, in the longitudinal
and transverse directions. The agency is aware additional specificity
may be required in characterizing the test fixture in order to avoid
issues with the enforceability of the proposed procedure. The agency
intends to discuss this issue with Transport Canada and the European
laboratories that have conducted this test. The U.S. plans to adopt
requirements and a procedure to accommodate this optional dynamic test
and will incorporate in its compliance procedure a tolerance for the
inertial load limits to account for minor deviations in conducting full
vehicle or sled testing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ See presentation from Transport Canada in the DOT Docket
NHTSA-1999-3705.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to the longitudinal and transverse tests, tests in the
vertical direction were considered. Conducting the inertial test in the
vertical direction is feasible, but is much more difficult to conduct
than the tests in the longitudinal and transverse directions. Since the
most common failure mode demonstrated in the inertial tests conducted
by Canada was in the direction of door opening,\17\ the GRSP determined
that a test in the vertical direction appeared to be beneficial only
for back door designs, which commonly open in the vertical direction.
Therefore, we are only proposing this optional test procedure in the
vertical direction for back doors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Door Hinges
The load testing requirements for door hinges in the GTR are the
same as those currently in FMVSS 206 and ECE R11. The side door
requirements for hinges, which are based on SAE Recommended Practice
J934, Vehicle Passenger Door Hinge Systems, appear to test adequately
the strength and design of door hinges. NHTSA has fully analyzed its
crash data and possible failure modes associated with the failure of
door retention components. We have not identified a significant safety
problem with door hinges currently installed in vehicles. Accordingly,
we are not proposing to change the requirements of FMVSS No. 206,
although we are proposing to articulate the test procedure for door
hinges rather than relying on a modified incorporation by reference of
the applicable SAE J839 recommended practice.
B. Side Sliding Doors Issues
We are also proposing to amend the current sliding door requirement
and add a sliding door test procedure to improve the standard and
harmonize with the GTR. The current requirements and test procedures in
both ECE R11 and the North American standards were incorporated in the
GTR. This includes the ECE R11 requirements for the latch/striker
systems. However, neither ECE R11 nor FMVSS No. 206 have a detailed
full vehicle sliding door test procedure that simulates real world door
openings in crashes.
The GTR requires that sliding doors have either a primary door
latch system that meets the same requirements as primary door latch
systems on hinged side doors, or a system with a fully latched position
and a mechanism for determining when a sliding door is not fully
latched. We propose to adopt the same latch system requirement. We are
unaware of any sliding door designs that do not use some type of latch
system. Accordingly, FMVSS No. 206 already has a mechanism for testing
these latches. If the sliding door is not equipped with a primary door
latch system, a latch system without a secondary latched position is
permitted as long as the vehicle is equipped with a telltale that
informs the driver of the vehicle that the door is not fully latched.
We are proposing this requirement because we believe this approach will
assure vehicle occupants that a sliding door is completely closed. We
are unaware of any systems that do not already meet this requirement.
The absence of a test procedure for the current FMVSS No. 206
sliding side door requirements is an obvious area for revision. Both
NHTSA and Transport Canada had been working on the development of this
test procedure for some time. The procedure that was adopted in the GTR
is based on a procedure that Transport Canada had developed. The test
is intended to address door failures that occur in front, rear, and
rollover crashes. Since the test produces some level of longitudinal
force, in addition to the direct lateral loading, the door components
deform and twist. Therefore it is likely that compliant door latch
systems will be more robust than in the past.
The procedure involves a full vehicle test in which a sliding door
is tested by applying force against the two edges of the door. The test
setup is initiated by placing two loading plates against the interior
of the door. The loading plates are placed adjacent to the latch/
striker system located at the door edge. If the door edge has two
latch/striker systems along one edge, the loading plate is placed
between the two systems. If a door edge does not have a latch/striker
system, the loading plate is placed at a point midway along the length
of the door edge. An outward lateral force of 18,000 N total is then
applied to the loading plates.
The proposed test procedure for the sliding door transverse loading
test specifies that the force application device would be mounted on
the vehicle floor. We are requesting comments on the appropriateness
and feasibility of mounting the force
[[Page 75027]]
application device external to the vehicle being tested.
A test failure would be indicated by (1) a 100 mm separation of the
interior of the door from the exterior of the vehicle's doorframe at
any point, or (2) either force application device's reaching a total
displacement of 300 mm. The GTR requires that there be no more than 100
mm of separation, even if the latch system does not fail, to account
for partial ejections through separation of sliding doors from the
frame without the latch system failing. The 100 mm limit is based on a
commonly used measurement for maximum allowable open space in the U.S.
and Canada for school bus opening requirements.
C. Door Locks
We are proposing to retain the existing requirements for door locks
largely as is. However, two minor changes are proposed. First, we are
distinguishing between exterior and interior door locks. All exterior
door locks must be capable of being unlocked from the interior of the
vehicle by means of a lock release device which, when engaged, shall
prevent operation of the exterior door handle or other exterior latch
release control and which has an operating means and a lock release/
engagement device located within the interior of the vehicle. Interior
door locks are subject to the same requirements except that for rear
side doors and back doors, this release mechanism must require a
separate action distinct from the simple actuation of the door handle,
and the release device must be readily accessible to the driver of the
vehicle or an occupant seated adjacent to the door. The reason for
differentiating between interior and exterior locks is that automatic
door locks actually have two separate door lock devices, which may or
may not use the same release device. For manual locks, there would be
only one lock that secures the latch from both the interior and the
exterior of the vehicle.
D. Applicability to Buses
We are proposing to extend the applicability of FMVSS No. 206 to
buses with a GVWR of less than 10,000 lb. Historically, FMVSS No. 206
has not applied to buses because the types of doors installed on buses
in the 1960s were not amenable to testing under the standard. However,
with the advent of 12- and 15-passenger vans, smaller buses may now be
equipped with traditional side hinged doors. There does not appear to
be any reason not to subject these doors to the requirements of FMVSS
No. 206, just as the doors on passenger cars and all trucks, regardless
of weight, are currently regulated. We have developed a definition of a
folding door that we believe will accommodate those types of bus doors
that remain unsuitable for testing. While the standard has always
exempted folding doors, it has never defined them. We anticipate that
the impact of the extension will have little additional cost to vehicle
manufacturers in meeting compliance. The agency is aware that all 12-15
passenger vans currently share the same door system and latching
components as other smaller size vans, which already meet the
requirements of our standard.
E. Summary of Improvements
This proposal, if made final, would improve the current FMVSS No.
206 requirements in several areas. First and foremost, with respect to
sliding doors, given that the existing standard has a door in frame
requirement to test sliding door retention strength but does not
provide a test procedure, it would replace the existing requirement
with new requirements and an associated full vehicle test procedure. It
would also require that sliding doors either have a secondary latched
position or a visual telltale signaling that the door is not fully
closed. The fully latched and secondary latched positions would also be
load tested and would be required to meet inertial requirements the
same way as the latches on hinged doors. Second, it would require a
secondary latched position for double-doors, currently referred to as
``cargo-doors.'' This requirement already exists in the European and
Japanese regulations. Third, it would add a dynamic inertial test
procedure to FMVSS No. 206 as an optional alternative to the current
inertial calculation. Such a test procedure is more representative of
the real world and has been conducted in Europe for type approval
purposes. Fourth, it would add new requirements for rear-hinged side
doors to prevent potential inadvertent opening while a vehicle is
moving. Finally, it would extend 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.
VII. Alternative Approaches to Testing Retention Components on Hinged
Doors That Were Considered but Are Not Proposed
The agency has developed a series of new test procedures designed
to simulate real world door opening in crashes. These tests consist of
two door-in-frame quasi-static (full door) tests and a bench-type
component test, known as the combination test. However, because of
issues regarding (1) the practicability of the tests, and (2)
complications in developing the compliance tests, we are not proposing
them in this document.
A. Hinged Side Door System Tests (Full Door Tests)
The agency has designed lateral and longitudinal full door tests in
which a vehicle door is placed in a test frame as opposed to remaining
on the vehicle. The lateral full door test is designed to simulate
latch failures in crashes that produce outward forces on the door
(i.e., through occupant loading or inertial loading) such as side
crashes that result in vehicle spin and rollover. The longitudinal full
door test is designed to simulate a collision in which the side of the
vehicle is stretched, leading to the possibility that the striker could
be torn from its mated latch (i.e., far side door in side impacts, and
front and rear offset crashes on the opposite side door).
We have decided against proposing these full door tests because
they create undue restrictions on certain door designs and have an
unenforceable test procedure. Additionally, we have determined that
even if the problems could be resolved, it is unlikely that the full
door tests would provide additional value over the existing component
tests.
In addition, as part of the GTR drafting process, some GSRP
delegates and representatives independently evaluated the contemplated
test procedures. They expressed concern that the new procedure would be
unduly design restrictive, given the limitations of the test frame. For
example, it could be complicated to construct test frames
individualized to each available door system design. A test frame may
not be representative of real world conditions, in which a door system
design may incorporate advanced devices such as door clips or door
interlocks.\18\ Additionally, building a test frame to adequately
address new latch designs that may be mounted in non-traditional
locations may be difficult. Likewise, the procedures do not allow
manufacturers to use door trim that provides structural support to the
door because of the need to remove the trim to accommodate placement of
the loading device.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ Door clips and interlocks are devices that are built into
the door frame and attach to the door to retain and prevent the door
from intruding into the vehicle when impacted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
By the same token, conducting the proposed tests on the full
vehicle may
[[Page 75028]]
be impractical because not all loads can be applied to a closed door.
Alternatively, it may be possible to cut away the door frame and attach
it to the test frame. However, such an approach may not fully replicate
the actual door-in-frame as installed in the vehicle since cutting the
door frame may change its characteristics. This approach would require
that the agency develop an acceptable procedure for cutting away the
vehicle door system in such a way to address the fit between the latch
and striker, as well as the physical characteristics of the door and
the doorframe. The agency decided that expending additional effort on
this was not warranted given the small number of potential benefits.
B. Combination Component Test
NHTSA also developed a new component test that would require
simultaneous application of two loads. In theory, the combination test
procedure is representative of the combination of longitudinal
compressive and lateral tensile forces that occur in real-world latch
failures. Currently, no regulation, directive, or international
voluntary standard has such a requirement. Examples of the types of
crashes in which such forces could occur are rollover crashes and
crashes in which either the front or the rear of the vehicle is
impacted (including in an offset mode). The combination test procedure
is a static bench test that may be capable of evaluating the strength
of the latching systems.
Unlike the full door tests discussed immediately above, NHTSA's
initial and current evaluation of the combination test procedure and
existing crash data indicate that the procedure may reduce a
substantial number of door openings at a level that is statistically
significant. No other test procedure within FMVSS No. 206 or ECE R11
simulates these types of latch failure conditions. For these reasons,
the combination test procedure was considered for inclusion in the GTR.
There was significant support from GRSP delegates and representatives
for a test that addresses the door failure modes represented by this
test. However, in some vehicles, the test setup is such that the
striker cannot interface with the faceplate of the latch, rendering the
test meaningless.\19\ While it is possible to (1) modify the striker
portion of the latch system so that the test can be conducted, or (2)
test using a full vehicle, the GRSP delegates and representatives
expressed strong concern regarding the adoption of this type of
procedure and its potential for enforceability questions. NHTSA shares
these concerns. A test procedure that cannot be conducted in an
objective manner from vehicle to vehicle is problematic in terms of
enforcement. Thus, while NHTSA expects a test procedure that addresses
the retention failures identified by the combination test to be
pursued, we do not presently believe we have a test procedure that can
be incorporated into a motor vehicle safety standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ See Transport Canada presentation on testing in Docket
NHTSA-1999-3705 and VRTC report second series (in preparation).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, there is widespread support in the international community
for a test that addresses the door failure modes and potential benefits
represented by the combination test. Therefore, the GRSP delegates and
representatives agreed to continue to review work on the modification
of the U.S.-based procedure, as well as to look for other new
procedures to capture the benefits associated with door failures due to
simultaneous compressive longitudinal and tensile lateral loading of
latch systems in real world crashes. Any acceptable procedure
developed, if practicable and enforceable, could then be added to the
GTR as an amendment. We seek comments on other viable procedures that
could be considered for simultaneous combination of loading of the
latch systems. Please provide sufficient detail on the procedure(s) and
support test data.
VIII. Door Closure and Operability Requirements
Currently, FMVSS No. 206 does not have door retention and door
operability requirements in dynamic crash tests. At present, the agency
has door retention requirements and evaluates door closure as part of
FMVSS No. 208, ``Frontal Occupant Protection,'' which requires that the
doors be retained and the test dummies remain in the vehicle until both
the vehicle and the dummies have ceased moving after the test. FMVSS
No. 214 also contains retention requirements for doors struck by a
movable deformable barrier in testing under the standard to remain
attached to the vehicle, as well as a requirement for non-struck doors
to remain closed during and after crashes. However, the standards do
not have a test procedure for evaluating these requirements in dynamic
crash testing.
The GTR and ECE R11 do not contain requirements for door retention
and door operability. The European Union has requirements to evaluate
door retention and door operability in their frontal and side impact
standards (ECE R94 and ECE R95). However, as in the U.S., the European
Union also does not have established compliance procedures for
compliance with these requirements.
The agency has developed test procedures for evaluating door
retention and door operability requirements for dynamically tested
vehicles in frontal and side impacts. Following validation of these
procedures, the agency plans address the door operability and retention
issues in a separate notice.
IX. Costs, Benefits, and the Proposed Effective Date
This proposal, if made final, would add and update test procedures
for door latches. We believe that only one of these, a new sliding door
test procedure for FMVSS No. 206 would add costs to vehicles and
provide quantifiable benefits for consumers. There were almost 1.4
million vans sold in 2003 that had sliding doors. The sliding door test
procedure essentially requires sliding doors to have two latches. An
estimated 660,000 vans with 1.2 million sliding doors need a second
latch to comply. The incremental cost of adding a second latch is
estimated to average $7.00 per door. Total costs are estimated at $8.4
million (in 2003 economics).
The average annual ejections through sliding doors from 1995-2003
resulted in 20 fatalities and 30 injuries. When an occupant is retained
in a vehicle and the ejection is eliminated, it does not necessarily
mean that the occupant escapes injury. When all vehicles with sliding
doors meet this proposal, annually an estimated 7 fatalities and 4
occupants with serious to severe injuries would be reduced in severity
to minor injuries (AIS 1) as a result of remaining inside the vehicle.
The agency has tentatively determined that, aside from sliding
doors that will require the addition of a second latch, the current
vehicle fleet would comply with the proposal, if made final. Therefore,
we are proposing a lead time of two complete model years from when a
final rule is published. For example, if a final rule were adopted on
December 1, 2005, the rule would be effective beginning September 1,
2008. We believe that this would provide manufacturers adequate time to
make the necessary design changes. Optional early compliance would be
permitted on and after the date of publication of the final rule in the
Federal Register.
X. Differences Between the GTR and the NPRM
This NPRM fulfills our obligation to initiate domestic rulemaking
to adopt the provisions of the GTR. With the exception of minor
differences, the
[[Page 75029]]
NPRM is based closely on the GTR. These minor differences are as
follows:
The NPRM proposes application to 12- and 15-passenger vans
and smaller buses under 10,000 lb with hinged or sliding doors; the GTR
does not. This reflects the fact that these vehicles comprise a larger
portion of the U.S. vehicle fleet than when compared globally.
The NPRM proposes to maintain, but clarify the language of
the current requirements of FMVSS No. 206 for rear side door locks. The
GTR allows for an option of the rear door lock system meeting either
the current FMVSS No. 206 requirement or requiring a system that allows
the door to be unlocked and opened with a simple actuation of the
interior door handle as long as there is a child safety lock. These
options for the rear side door lock system in the GTR address the need
for egress from a rear seat, while respecting the need to prevent
children from opening a locked door. In the GTR, neither type of system
is prohibited as a supplemental safety device. It was left to a
country's discretion which system would be required as the primary
safety device. The NPRM does not prohibit child safety locks as a
supplemental system.
The GTR also allows the option of the sliding door tests
to be performed on either a vehicle or door body-in-white (i.e., pre-
production), or the post-production door or vehicle. The body-in-white
option is important for countries that certify components and vehicles
under a type approval system. Since the U.S. does not use a type
approval system and conducting these tests on body-in-white vehicles or
doors would create enforceability issues, the NPRM specifies that the
tests be conducted on the post-production vehicle or door.
The GRSP and the WP.29 are aware that the U.S. intended to deviate
from the GTR in these areas. Regardless of these minor differences, we
believe that the provisions of the GTR, if adopted, would improve
vehicle safety here in the United States and abroad.
XI. Regulatory Analyses and Notices
A. Vehicle Safety Act
Under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, Motor Vehicle Safety (49 U.S.C. 30101
et seq.), the Secretary of Transportation is responsible for
prescribing motor vehicle safety standards that are practicable, meet
the need for motor vehicle safety, and are stated in objective terms.
49 U.S.C. 30111(a). When prescribing such standards, the Secretary must
consider all relevant, available motor vehicle safety information. 49
U.S.C. 30111(b). The Secretary must also consider whether a proposed
standard is reasonable, practicable, and appropriate for the type of
motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment for which it is prescribed and
the extent to which the standard will further the statutory purpose of
reducing traffic accidents and associated deaths. Id. Responsibility
for promulgation of Federal motor vehicle safety standards was
subsequently delegated to NHTSA. 49 U.S.C. 105 and 322; delegation of
authority at 49 CFR 1.50.
The agency carefully considered these statutory requirements in
proposing these amendments to FMVSS Nos. 206 and 214.
We believe that the proposed amendments to FMVSS No. 206 will be
practicable. This document does not propose significant changes to the
current requirements of FMVSS No. 206. Currently, 40 percent of the
sliding doors will pass the proposed test. Additionally, if made final,
the amendments would harmonize the U.S. requirements with the global
technical regulation.
We believe that this proposed rule would be appropriate for the
vehicles subject to the requirements. If adopted, the proposal would
continue to exclude vehicle doors for which the requirements and test
procedures are impractical or unnecessary (e.g., folding doors, roll-
up-doors).
Finally, the agency has tentatively determined that the proposed
amendments would provide objective procedures for determining
compliance. The proposed test procedures have been evaluated by the
agency, and we have tentatively determined that they produce repeatable
and reproducible results. The sliding door load test procedure and the
inertial test procedure have been vetted by the international
automotive community, which has determined them to be acceptable.
Further, we are proposing test procedures to provide additional
objectivity to existing requirements.
B. Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures
Executive Order 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and Review'' (58 FR
51735, October 4, 1993), provides for making determinations whether a
regulatory action is ``significant'' and therefore subject to Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) review and to the requirements of the
Executive Order. The Order defines a ``significant regulatory action''
as one that is likely to result in a rule that may:
(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public
health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or
communities;
(2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an
action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants,
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients
thereof; or
(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in
the Executive Order.
We have considered the impact of this rulemaking action under
Executive Order 12866 and the Department of Transportation's regulatory
policies and procedures. This rulemaking would not have an annual
effect on the economy of $100 million or more, but is significant due
to public interest in the issues. Therefore, this document was reviewed
by the Office of Management and Budget under E.O. 12866, ``Regulatory
Planning and Review.'' This document would amend 49 CFR part 571.206 by
adding new performance requirements for hinged side doors and a new
compliance test procedure for side sliding doors. These requirements
would have to be met by vehicle manufacturers.
The estimated cost of the new requirements, if adopted, would be
minor. We have estimated the cost of modifications for sliding doors
with one latch at $7.00 per door, for a total cost to the entire fleet
of approximately $8.4 million (2003 dollars). For a further explanation
of the estimated costs, see the Preliminary Regulatory Evaluation
provided in the docket for this proposal.
C. Executive Order 13132
Executive Order 13132 requires NHTSA to develop an accountable
process to ensure ``meaningful and timely input by State and local
officials in the development of regulatory policies that have
federalism implications.'' ``Policies that have federalism
implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations
that 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.'' Under Executive Order 13132, the agency may not issue a
regulation with federalism implications, that imposes substantial
direct compliance costs, and that is not
[[Page 75030]]
required by statute, unless the Federal Government provides the funds
necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by State and
local governments, the agency consults with State and local
governments, or the agency consults with State and local officials
early in the process of developing the proposed regulation. NHTSA also
may not issue a regulation with federalism implications and that
preempts State law unless the agency consults with State and local
officials early in the process of developing the proposed regulation.
We have analyzed this rule in accordance with the principles and
criteria set forth in Executive Order 13132 and have determined that
this rule does not have sufficient Federal implications to warrant
consultation with State and local officials or the preparation of a
federalism summary impact statement. The rule would not have any
substantial impact on the States, or on the current Federal-State
relationship, or on the current distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various local officials.
D. Executive Order 13045
Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any
rulemaking that: (1) is determined to be ``economically significant''
as defined under E.O. 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental, health
or safety risk that NHTSA has reason to believe may have a
disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets
both criteria, we must evaluate the environmental health or safety
effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the planned
regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably
feasible alternatives considered by us.
This rulemaking is not subject to the Executive Order because it is
not economically significant as defined in E.O. 12866. It also does not
involve decisions based on health risks that disproportionately affect
children.
E. Executive Order 12778
Pursuant to Executive Order 12778, ``Civil Justice Reform,'' we
have considered whether this proposed rule would have any retroactive
effect. This proposed rule, if adopted, would not have any retroactive
effect. A petition for reconsideration or other administrative
proceeding will not be a prerequisite to an action seeking judicial
review of this rule if it is adopted. This proposed rule would not
preempt the states from adopting laws or regulations on the same
subject, except that it would preempt a State regulation that is in
actual conflict with the Federal regulation or makes compliance with
the Federal regulation impossible or interferes with the implementation
of the Federal statute.
F. 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 have considered the effects of this rulemaking action under the
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) and certify that this
proposal would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. Vehicle manufacturers typically have their
door latches designed and produced by wholly-owned subsidiaries.
Accordingly, there are very few independent vehicle door latch
manufacturers.
G. National Environmental Policy Act
We have analyzed this proposed amendment for the purposes of the
National Environmental Policy Act and determined that it would not have
any significant impact on the quality of the human environment.
H. Paperwork Reduction Act
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, a person is not required
to respond to a collection of information by a Federal agency unless
the collection displays a valid OMB control number. The proposed rule
does not contain any new information collection requirements.
I. 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 the
proposed requirements because no voluntary standards exist that address
the subject of this rulemaking. However, the SAE Recommended Practice
J934, September 1998, Vehicle Passenger Door Hinge Systems and SAE
Recommended Practice J839, September 1998, Passenger Car Side Door
Latch Systems would continue to be incorporated by reference in the
regulatory text.
J. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA)
requires Federal agencies to prepare a written assessment of the costs,
benefits and other effects of proposed or final rules that include a
Federal mandate likely to result in the expenditure by State, local or
tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of more
than $100 million in any one year (adjusted for inflation with base
year of 1995). Before promulgating a NHTSA rule for which a written
statement is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires us to
identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives
and adopt the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome
alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of
section 205 do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable
law. Moreover, section 205 allows us to adopt an alternative other than
the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative
if we publish with the final rule an explanation why that alternative
was not adopted.
The proposed rule would 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 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
[[Page 75031]]
requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.
K. Regulation Identifier Number (RIN)
The Department of Transportation assigns a regulation identifier
number (RIN) to each regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of
Federal Regulations. The Regulatory Information Service Center
publishes the Unified Agenda in April and October of each year. You may
use the RIN contained in the heading at the beginning of this document
to find this action in the Unified Agenda.
XII. Public Comments
How Do I Prepare and Submit Comments?
Your comments must be written and in English. To ensure that your
comments are correctly filed in the Docket, please include the docket
number of this document in your comments.
Your comments must not be more than 15 pages long. (49 CFR 553.21).
We established this limit to encourage you to write your primary
comments in a concise fashion. However, you may attach necessary
additional documents to your comments. There is no limit on the length
of the attachments.
Please submit two copies of your comments, including the
attachments, to Docket Management at the address given above under
ADDRESSES.
How Can I Be Sure That My Comments Were Received?
If you wish Docket Management to notify you upon its receipt of
your comments, enclose a self-addressed, stamped postcard in the
envelope containing your comments. Upon receiving your comments, Docket
Management will return the postcard by mail.
How Do I Submit Confidential Business Information?
If you wish to submit any information under a claim of
confidentiality, you should submit three copies of your complete
submission, including the information you claim to be confidential
business information, to the Chief Counsel, NHTSA, at the address given
above under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. In addition, you should
submit two copies, from which you have deleted the claimed confidential
business information, to Docket Management at the address given above
under ADDRESSES. When you send a comment containing information claimed
to be confidential business information, you should include a cover
letter setting forth the information specified in our confidential
business information regulation. (49 CFR part 512.)
Will the Agency Consider Late Comments?
We will consider all comments that Docket Management receives
before the close of business on the comment closing date indicated
above under DATES. To the extent possible, we will also consider
comments that Docket Management receives after that date. If Docket
Management receives a comment too late for us to consider it in
developing a final rule (assuming that one is issued), we will consider
that comment as an informal suggestion for future rulemaking action.
How Can I Read the Comments Submitted by Other People?
You may read the comments received by Docket Management at the
address given above under ADDRESSES. The hours of the Docket are
indicated above in the same location.
You may also see the comments on the Internet. To read the comments
on the Internet, take the following steps:
Go to the Docket Management System (DMS) Web page of the
Department of Transportation (http://dms.dot.gov/).
On that page, click on ``search.''
On the next page (http://dms.dot.gov/search/), type in the
four-digit docket number shown at the beginning of this document.
Example: If the docket number were ``NHTSA-1998-1234,'' you would type
``1234.'' After typing the docket number, click on ``search.''
On the next page, which contains docket summary
information for the docket you selected, click on the desired comments.
You may download the comments.
Please note that even after the comment closing date, we will
continue to file relevant information in the Docket as it becomes
available. Further, some people may submit late comments. Accordingly,
we recommend that you periodically check the Docket for new material.
Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments
received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf
of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's
complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on
April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages 19477-78) or you may visit
http://dms.dot.gov.
List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 571
Motor vehicle safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, and
Tires.
In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA proposes to amend 49 CFR
part 571.206 as follows:
PART 571--FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS
1. The authority citation for part 571 would continue to read as
follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117 and 30166;
delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.
2. 49 CFR 571.206 would be amended by:
a. Revising S1; S2; the definitions of ``auxiliary door latch,''
``back door,'' ``fork-bolt,'' ``primary door latch,'' ``side front
door,'' ``side rear door,'' and ``trunk lid'' in S3; S4 through
S4.1.1.3; S4.1.2; S4.2 through S4.2.1.2; S4.2.2; S4.3; S5.1 through
S5.1.1.2; S5.1.2; S5.2; S5.2.1; S5.2.2; Figure 1; and
b. Adding ``auxiliary door latch system,'' ``body member,'' 'door
closure warning system,'' ``door hinge system,'' ``door latch system,''
``door member,'' ``door system,'' ``double door,'' ``folding door,''
``force application zone,'' ``fork-bolt opening direction,'' ``fully-
latched position,'' ``hinge,'' ``hinge pin,'' ``latch,'' ``primary door
latch system,'' ``secondary latched position,'' ``striker,'' to the
definitions in S3; S4.1.1.4; S4.1.2.1 through S4.1.2.3; S4.2.1.3;
S4.2.2.1; S4.2.2.2; S4.3.1; S4.3.2; S5; S5.1.1.3; S5.1.1.4; S5.1.2.1
through S5.1.2.4; S5.2.1.1 through S5.2.1.4; S5.2.2.1 through S5.2.2.4;
S5.3; Figures 2 through 4, Table 1, Figures 5 through 9; and
c. Removing ``cargo-type door'' and ``fork-bolt opening'' from the
definitions in S3, S4.1.3, S4.1.3.1, S4.4 through S4.5, S5.4 through
S5.5.
The revisions and additions read as follows:
Sec. 571.206 Standard No. 206; Door locks and door retention
components.
S1. Scope and Purpose. This regulation specifies requirements for
vehicle door locks and door retention components, including latches,
hinges, and other supporting means, to minimize the likelihood of
occupants being ejected from a vehicle as a result of impact.
S2. Application. This regulation applies to vehicle door locks and
door retention components on side or back doors that lead directly into
a compartment that contains one or more seating accommodations in
passenger cars, multipurpose vehicles, and trucks and in buses with a
gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 4,536 kg or less.
[[Page 75032]]
S3. Definitions.
Auxiliary door latch is a latch equipped with a fully latched
position and fitted to a door or door system equipped with a primary
door latch system.
Auxiliary door latch system consists, at a minimum, of an auxiliary
door latch and a striker.
Back door is a door or door system on the back end of a motor
vehicle through which passengers can enter or depart the vehicle or
cargo can be loaded or unloaded. It does not include:
(a) A trunk lid; or
(b) A door or window composed entirely of glazing material and
whose latches and/or hinge systems are attached directly to the glazing
material.
Body member is that portion of the hinge normally affixed to the
body structure.
* * * * *
Door closure warning system is a system that will activate a visual
signal located where it can be clearly seen by the driver when a door
latch system is not in its fully latched position and while the vehicle
ignition is activated.
Door hinge system is one or more hinges used to support a door.
Door latch system consists, at a minimum, of a latch and a striker.
Door member is that portion of the hinge normally affixed to the
door structure and constituting the swinging member.
Door system is the door, latch, striker, hinges, sliding track
combinations and other door retention components on a door and its
surrounding doorframe. The door system of a double door includes both
doors.
Double door is a system of two doors where the front door or wing
door opens first and connects to the rear door or bolted door, which
opens second.
Folding door is a movable barrier, which will close off an
entranceway to a bus, multipurpose passenger vehicle or truck,
consisting of two or more hinge panels that swing, slide, or rotate;
does not have a striker and latch assembly; and is normally controlled
from a location adjacent to the vehicle's driver seat.
Force application zone is defined by a rectangular area on the door
or rear hatch bounded by the projection onto the door or hatch exterior
of two vertical lines, 25 mm on either side of the right or left edges
of the exterior handle or the latch release handle, and the projection
of two horizontal lines 10 mm and 110 mm below the lowest point of the
exterior door handle or the latch release handle. In the event there is
insufficient space below the release handle the force application zone
shall be located above the release handle.
Fork-bolt is the part of the latch that engages and retains the
striker when in a latched position.
Fork-bolt opening direction is the direction opposite to that in
which the striker enters the latch to engage the fork-bolt.
Fully latched position is the coupling condition of the latch that
retains the door in a completely closed position.
Hinge is a device system used to position the door relative to the
body structure and control the path of the door swing for passenger
ingress and egress.
Hinge pin is that portion of the hinge normally interconnecting the
body and door members and establishing the swing axis.
Latch is a device employed to maintain the door in a closed
position relative to the vehicle body with provisions for deliberate
release (or operation).
Primary door latch is a latch equipped with both a fully latched
position and a secondary latched position.
Primary door latch system consists, at a minimum, of a primary door
latch and a striker.
Secondary latched position refers to the coupling condition of the
latch that retains the door in a partially closed position.
Side front door is a door that, in a side view, has 50 percent or
more of its opening area forward of the rearmost point on the driver's
seat back, when the seat back is adjusted to its most vertical and
rearward position.
Side rear door is a door that, in a side view, has 50 percent or
more of its opening area to the rear of the rearmost point on the
driver's seat back, when the driver's seat is adjusted to its most
vertical and rearward position.
Striker is a device with which the latch engages to maintain the
door in the fully latched or secondary latched position.
Trunk lid is a movable body panel that provides access from outside
the vehicle to a space wholly partitioned from the occupant compartment
by a permanently attached partition or fixed or fold-down seat back.
S4. Requirements. The requirements apply to all side and back doors
and door components except for those on folding doors, roll-up doors,
detachable doors, and doors that are designated to provide emergency
egress.
S4.1 Hinged Doors.
S4.1.1 Primary Door Latch System. Each hinged door system shall be
equipped with at least one primary door latch system.
S4.1.1.1 Load Test One.
(a) Each primary door latch system and auxiliary door latch system,
when in the fully latched position, shall not separate when a load of
11,000 N is applied in the direction perpendicular to the face of the
latch such that the latch and the striker anchorage are not compressed
against each other, when tested in accordance with S5.1.1.1.
(b) When in the secondary latched position, the primary door latch
system shall not separate when a load of 4,500 N is applied in the same
direction specified in paragraph (a) of this section when demonstrated
in accordance with S5.1.1.1.
S4.1.1.2 Load Test Two.
(a) Each primary door latch system and auxiliary door latch system,
when in the fully latched position, shall not separate when a load of
9,000 N is applied in the fork-bolt opening direction and parallel to
the face of the latch, when demonstrated in accordance with S5.1.1.2.
(b) When in the secondary latched position, the primary door latch
system shall not separate when a load of 4,500 N is applied in the same
direction specified in (a) when demonstrated in accordance with
S5.1.1.2.
S4.1.1.3 Load Test Three. Each primary door latch system on back
doors shall not disengage from the fully latched position when a load
of 9,000 N is applied in a direction orthogonal to the directions
specified in S4.1.1.1 and S4.1.1.2 when tested in accordance with
S5.1.1.3.
S4.1.1.4 Inertial Load. Each primary door latch system and
auxiliary door latch system shall meet either the dynamic requirements
specified in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section or the calculation
of inertial load resistance specified in paragraph (c) of this section.
(a) Each primary door latch and auxiliary door latch on each hinged
door shall not disengage from the fully latched position when an
inertia load of 30 g is applied to the door latch system, including the
latch and its activation device, in the directions parallel to the
vehicle's longitudinal and transverse axes with the locking device
disengaged and demonstrated in accordance with S5.1.1.4.
(b) Each primary door latch and auxiliary door latch on each hinged
back door shall also not disengage from the fully latched position when
an inertia load of 30g is applied to the door latch system, including
the latch and its activation device, in the direction parallel to the
vehicle's vertical axis with the locking device disengaged and
[[Page 75033]]
when demonstrated in accordance with S5.1.1.4.
(c) Each component or subassembly can be calculated for its minimum
inertia load resistance in a particular direction. The combined
resistance to the unlatching operation must assure that the door latch
system, when properly assembled in the vehicle door, will remain
latched when subjected to an inertia load of 30 g in the vehicle
directions specified in paragraph (a) or (b) of this section, as
applicable, when demonstrated in accordance with S5.1.1.4(a).
S4.1.2 Door Hinges.
S4.1.2.1 When tested in accordance with S5.1.2, each door hinge
system shall
(a) Support the door,
(b) Not separate when a longitudinal load of 11,000 N is applied,
(c) Not separate when a transverse load of 9,000 N is applied, and
(d) Not separate when a vertical load of 9,000 N is applied.
S4.1.2.2 If a single hinge within the hinge system is tested
instead of the entire hinge system, the hinge must bear a load
proportional to the total number of hinges in the hinge system.
S4.1.2.3 On side doors with rear mounted hinges that can be
operated independently of other doors, (a) The interior door handle
shall be inoperative when the speed of the vehicle is greater than or
equal to 4 km/h, and
(b) A door closure warning system shall be provided for those
doors.
S4.2 Sliding Side Doors.
S4.2.1 Latch System. Each sliding door system shall be equipped
with either:
(a) At least one primary door latch system, or
(b) A door latch system with a fully latched position and a door
closure warning system.
S4.2.1.1 Load Test One.
(a) At least one door latch system, when in the fully latched
position, shall not separate when a load of 11,000 N is applied in the
direction perpendicular to the face of the latch such when tested in
accordance with S5.2.1.1.
(b) In the case of a primary door latch system, when in the
secondary latched position, the door latch system shall not separate
when a load of 4,500 N is applied in the same direction when tested in
accordance with S5.2.1.1.
S4.2.1.2 Load Test Two.
(a) At least one door latch system, when in the fully latched
position, shall not separate when a load of 9,000 N is applied in the
fork-bolt opening direction and parallel to the face of the latch when
tested in accordance with S5.2.1.2.
(b) In the case of a primary door latch system, when in the
secondary latched position, the door latch system shall not separate
when a load of 4,500 N is applied in the same direction when tested in
accordance with S5.2.1.2.
S4.2.1.3 Inertial Load. Each door latch system certified as meeting
the requirements of S4.2.1.1 and S4.2.1.2 shall meet either the dynamic
requirements specified in paragraph (a) of this section or the
calculation of inertial load resistance specified in paragraph (b) of
this section.
(a) The door latch system shall not disengage from the fully
latched position when an inertial load of 30g is applied to the door
latch system, including the latch and its activation mechanism, in the
directions parallel to the vehicle's longitudinal and transversal axes
with the locking mechanism disengaged and when tested in accordance
with 5.2.1.4.
(b) The minimum inertial load resistance can be calculated for each
component or subassembly. Their combined resistance to the unlatching
operation must assure that the door latch system, when properly
assembled in the vehicle door, will remain latched when subjected to an
inertia load of 30 g in the vehicle directions specified in S4.2.1.1 or
S4.2.1.2, as applicable, in accordance with S5.1.1.4.
S4.2.2 Door System.
S4.2.2.1 The track and slide combination or other supporting means
for each sliding door, while in the closed fully latched position,
shall not separate from the door frame when a total force of 18,000 N
along the vehicle transverse axis is applied to the door in accordance
with S5.2.2.
S4.2.2.2 The sliding door, when tested in accordance with S5.2.2,
fails the requirement of S4.2.2.1 if any one of the following occurs:
(a) A separation between the interior of the door and the exterior
edge of the doorframe exceeds 100 mm, while the required force is
maintained.
(b) Either force application device reaches a total displacement of
300 mm.
S4.3 Door Locks. Each door shall be equipped with at least one
locking device which, when engaged, shall prevent operation of the
exterior door handle or other exterior latch release control and which
has an operating means and a lock release/engagement device located
within the interior of the vehicle.
S4.3.1 Rear side doors.
Each rear side door shall be equipped with at least one locking
device which has a lock release/engagement mechanism located within the
interior of the vehicle and readily accessible to the driver of the
vehicle or an occupant seated adjacent to the door, and which, when
engaged, prevents operation of the interior door handle or other
interior latch release control and requires separate actions to unlock
the door and operate the interior door handle or other interior latch
release control.
S4.3.2 Back doors.
Each back door equipped with an interior door handle or other
interior latch release control, shall be equipped with at least one
locking device that meets the requirements of S4.3.1.
S5 Test Procedures.
S5.1 Hinged Doors.
S5.1.1 Primary Door Latches.
S5.1.1.1 Load Test One Force Application. Compliance with S4.1.1.1
and S4.2.1 is demonstrated in accordance with the following:
(a) Fully Latched Position.
(1) Adapt the test fixture shown in Figure 1 to the mounting
provisions of the latch and striker. Align the direction of engagement
parallel to the linkage of the fixture. Mount the latch and striker in
the fully latched position to the test fixture.
(2) Locate weights to apply a 900 N load tending to separate the
latch and striker in the direction of the door opening.
(3) Apply the test load, in the direction specified in S4.1.1.1 and
Figure 4, at a rate not to exceed 5 mm/min until the required load has
been achieved. Record the maximum load achieved.
(b) Secondary Latched Position.
(1) Adapt the test fixture shown in Figure 1 to the mounting
provisions of the latch and striker. Align the direction of engagement
parallel to the linkage of the fixture. Mount the latch and striker in
the secondary latched position to the test fixture.
(2) Locate weights to apply a 900 N load tending to separate the
latch and striker in the direction of the door opening.
(3) Apply the test load, in the direction specified in S4.1.1.1 and
Figure 4, at a rate not to exceed 5 mm/min until the required load has
been achieved. Record maximum load achieved.
(4) The test plate on which the door latch is mounted will have a
striker cut-out configuration similar to the environment in which the
door latch will be mounted on normal vehicle doors.
S5.1.1.2 Load Test Two Force Application. Compliance with S4.1.1.2
and S4.2.2 is demonstrated in accordance with the following:
(a) Fully Latched Position.
(1) Adapt the test fixture shown in Figure 2 to the mounting
provisions of
[[Page 75034]]
the latch and striker. Mount the latch and striker in the fully latched
position to the test fixture.
(2) Apply the test load, in the direction specified in S4.1.1.2 and
Figure 4, at a rate not to exceed 5 mm/min until the required load has
been achieved. Record the maximum load achieved.
(b) Secondary Latched Position.
(1) Adapt the test fixture shown in Figure 2 to the mounting
provisions of the latch and striker. Mount the latch and striker in
secondary latched position to the test fixture.
(2) Apply the test load, in the direction specified in S4.1.1.2 and
Figure 4, at a rate not to exceed 5 mm/min until the required load has
been achieved. Record the maximum load achieved.
S5.1.1.3 Load Test Three Force Application. Compliance with
S4.1.1.3 is demonstrated in accordance with the following:
(a) Adapt the test fixture shown in Figure 3 to the mounting
provisions of the latch and striker. Mount the latch and striker in
fully latched position to the test fixture.
(b) Apply the test load, in the directions specified in S4.1.1.3
and Figure 4, at a rate not to exceed 5 mm/min until the required load
has been achieved. Record the maximum load required.
S5.1.1.4 Inertia Force Application. Compliance with S4.1.1.4 and
S4.2.3 is demonstrated in accordance with either paragraph (a) or (b)
of this section.
(a) Calculation. Compliance shall be demonstrated in accordance
with paragraph 6 of Society of Automotive Engineers Recommended
Practice J839, Passenger Car Side Door Latch Systems, June 1991.
(b) Dynamic Test.
(1) Test Setup and Directions for Full Vehicle Test.
(i) Test Setup.
(A) Rigidly secure the full vehicle to an acceleration device that,
when accelerated together, will assure that all points on the crash
pulse curve are within the corridor defined in Table 1 and Figure 5.
(B) Install the equipment used to record door opening (doors may be
tethered to avoid damaging the recording equipment).
(C) Close the door(s) to be tested and ensure that the door
latch(es) is in the fully-latched position, that the door(s) is
unlocked, and that all windows, if provided, on the door(s) are closed.
(ii) Test Directions. (See Figure 6).
(A) Longitudinal Setup 1. Orient the vehicle so that its
longitudinal axis is aligned with the axis of the acceleration device,
simulating a frontal impact.
(B) Longitudinal Setup 2. Orient the vehicle so that its
longitudinal axis is aligned with the axis of the acceleration device,
simulating a rear impact.
(C) Transverse Setup 1. Orient the vehicle so that its transverse
axis is aligned with the axis of the acceleration device, simulating a
driver-side impact.
(D) Transverse Setup 2. (Only for vehicles having different door
arrangements on each side.) Orient the vehicle so that its transverse
axis is aligned with the axis of the acceleration device, simulating a
side impact in the direction opposite to that described in paragraph
(C).
(2) Test Setup and Directions for Door Test.
(i) Test Setup.
(A) Mount the door assemblies, consisting of at least the door
latch(es), exterior door handle(s) with mechanical latch operation,
interior door opening lever(s), and locking device(s), either
separately or combined to a test fixture. Each door and striker shall
be mounted to the test fixture to correspond to its orientation on the
vehicle and to the directions specified in paragraph (b)(1)(ii) of this
section.
(B) Mount the test fixture to the acceleration device, and install
the equipment used to record door opening.
(C) Ensure that the door latch is in the fully-latched position,
that the door is tethered and unlocked, and that any windows are
closed.
(ii) Test Directions. (See Figure 6)
(A) Longitudinal Setup 1. Orient the door subsystem(s) on the
acceleration device in the direction of a frontal impact.
(B) Longitudinal Setup 2. Orient the door subsystem(s) on the
acceleration device in the direction of a rear impact.
(C) Transverse Setup 1. Orient the door subsystem(s) on the
acceleration device in the direction of a driver-side impact.
(D) Transverse Setup 2. Orient the door subsystem(s) on the
acceleration device in the direction opposite to that described in
paragraph (C).
(E) Vertical Setup 1 (back doors only). Orient the door
subsystem(s) on the acceleration device so that its vertical axis (when
mounted in the vehicle) is aligned with the axis of the acceleration
device, simulating a rollover impact where the force is applied in the
direction from the top to the bottom of the door (when mounted in a
vehicle).
(F) Vertical Setup 2 (back doors only). Orient the door
subsystem(s) on the acceleration device so that its vertical axis (when
mounted in the vehicle) is aligned with the axis of the acceleration
device, simulating a rollover impact where the force is applied in the
direction opposite to that described in paragraph (b)(2)(ii)(E) of this
section.
(3) Test Operation.
(i) Maintaining a minimum acceleration level of 30 g for a period
of at least 30 ms, while keeping the acceleration within the pulse
corridor defined in Table 1 and Figure 5, accelerate the acceleration
device in the following directions:
(A) For Full Vehicle Tests, in the directions specified in
S5.1.1.4(b)(1)(ii)(A) through S5.1.1.4(b)(1)(ii)(D).
(B) For Door Tests,in the directions specified in
S5.1.1.4(b)(2)(ii)(A) through S5.1.1.4(b)(2)(ii)(F).
(ii) Check recording device for door opening and/or closure during
the test.
(iii) If at any point in time, the pulse exceeds 36 g and the test
requirements are fulfilled, the test shall be considered valid.
S5.1.2 Door Hinges. Compliance with S4.1.2 is demonstrated in
accordance with the following:
S5.1.2.1 Multiple Hinge Evaluation.
S5.1.2.1.1 Longitudinal Load Test.
(a) Attach the hinge system to the mounting provision of the test
fixture illustrated in Figure 7. Hinge attitude must simulate vehicle
position (door fully closed) relative to the hinge centerline. For test
purposes, the distance between the extreme ends of one hinge in the
system to the extreme end of another hinge in the system is to be set
at 406 mm 4 mm. The load is to be applied equidistant
between the linear center of the engaged portions of the hinge pin and
through the centerline of the hinge pin in the longitudinal vehicle
direction (see figure 8).
(b) Apply the test load at a rate not to exceed 5 mm/min until the
required load has been achieved. Record maximum load achieved.
S5.1.2.1.2 Transverse Load Test.
(a) Attach the hinge system to the mounting provisions of the test
fixture illustrated in figure 7. Hinge attitude must simulate vehicle
position (door fully closed) relative to the hinge centerline. For test
purposes, the distance between the extreme ends of one hinge in the
system to the extreme opposite end of another hinge in the system is to
be set at 406 mm 4mm. The load is to be applied
equidistant between the linear center of the engaged portions of the
hinge pins and through the centerline of the hinge pin in the
transverse vehicle direction (see figure 8).
(b) Apply the test load at a rate not to exceed 5 mm/min until the
required load has been achieved. Record maximum load achieved.
[[Page 75035]]
S5.1.2.2 Vertical Load Test (back doors only).
(a) Attach the hinge system to the mounting provisions of the test
fixture illustrated in figure 7. Hinge attitude must simulate vehicle
position (door fully closed) relative to the hinge centerline. For test
purposes, the distance between the extreme ends of one hinge system in
the system to the extreme opposite end of another hinge system is to be
set at 406 mm 4 mm. The load is to be applied through the
centerline of the hinge pin in a direction orthogonal to the
longitudinal and transverse loads (see figure 8).
(b) Apply the test load at a rate not to exceed 5 mm/min until the
required load has been achieved. Failure consists of a separation of
either hinge. Record the maximum load achieved.
S5.1.2.3 Single Hinge Evaluation. In some circumstances, it may be
necessary to test the individual hinges of a hinge system. In such
cases, the results for an individual hinge, when tested in accordance
with the procedures below, shall be such as to indicate that system
requirements in S4.1.2 are met. (For example, an individual hinge in a
two-hinge system must be capable of withstanding 50 percent of the load
requirements of the total system.)
(a) Longitudinal Load. Attach the hinge system to the mounting
provision of the test fixture illustrated in figure 7. Hinge attitude
must simulate the vehicle position (door fully closed) relative to the
hinge centerline. For test purposes, the load is to be applied
equidistant between the linear center of the engaged portions of the
hinge pin and through the centerline of the hinge pin in the
longitudinal vehicle direction. Apply the test load at a rate not to
exceed 5 mm/min until the required load has been achieved. Failure
consists of a separation of either hinge. Record maximum load achieved.
(b) Transverse Load. Attach the hinge system to the mounting
provision of the test fixture illustrated in figure 7. Hinge attitude
must simulate the vehicle position (door fully closed) relative to the
hinge centerline. For test purposes, the load is to be applied
equidistant between the linear center of the engaged portions of the
hinge pin and through the centerline of the hinge pin in the transverse
vehicle direction. Apply the test load at a rate not to exceed 5 mm/min
until the required load has been achieved. Failure consists of a
separation of either hinge. Record maximum load achieved.
(c) Vertical Load. Attach the hinge system to the mounting
provision of the test fixture illustrated in figure 7. Hinge attitude
must simulate the vehicle position (door fully closed) relative to the
hinge centerline. For test purposes, the load is to be applied
centerline of the hinge pin in a direction orthogonal to the
longitudinal and transverse loads. Apply the test load at a rate not to
exceed 5 mm/min until the required load has been achieved. Failure
consists of a separation of either hinge. Record maximum load achieved.
S5.1.2.4 For piano-type hinges, the hinge spacing requirements are
not applicable and arrangement of the test fixture is altered so that
the test forces are applied to the complete hinge.
S5.2 Sliding Side Doors.
S5.2.1 Door Latches.
S5.2.1.1 Load Test One Force Application. Compliance with S4.2.1.1
is demonstrated in accordance with the test procedures specified in
S5.1.1.1.
S5.2.1.2 Load Test Two Force Application. Compliance with S4.2.1.2
is demonstrated in accordance with the test procedures specified in
S5.1.1.2.
S5.2.1.3 [Reserved]
S5.2.1.4 Inertial Force Application. Compliance with 4.2.1.3 is
demonstrated in accordance with the test procedures specified in
S5.1.1.4.
S5.2.2 Door System. Compliance with S4.2.2 is demonstrated in
accordance with the following:
S5.2.2.1 Tests are conducted using a full vehicle with the sliding
door and its retention components.
S5.2.2.2. The test is conducted using two force application devices
capable of applying the outward transverse forces specified in
S5.2.2.4. The test setup is shown in figure 9. The force application
system shall include the following:
(a) Two force application plates.
(b) Two force application devices capable of applying the outward
transverse load requirements for a minimum displacement of 300 mm.
(c) Two load cells of sufficient capacity to measure the applied
loads specified in S5.2.2.4.
(d) Two linear displacement measurement devices required for
measuring force application device displacement during the test.
(e) Equipment for measuring at least 100 mm of separation between
the interior of the door and the exterior edge of the doorframe, while
respecting all relevant safety and health requirements.
S5.2.2.3 Test Setup.
(a) Remove all interior trim and decorative components from the
sliding door assembly.
(b) Remove seats and any interior components that may interfere
with the mounting and operation of the test equipment.
(c) Mount the force application devices and associated support
structure to the floor of the test vehicle.
(d) Determine the forward and aft edge of the sliding door, or its
adjoining vehicle structure, that contains a latch/striker.
(e) Close the sliding door, ensuring that all door retention
components are fully engaged.
(f) For any tested door edge that contains one latch/striker, the
following set-up procedures are used:
(1) The force application plate is 150 mm in length, 50 mm in
width, and at least 15 mm in thickness.
(2) Place the force application device and force application plate
against the door so that the applied force is perpendicular to the
vertical longitudinal plane that passes through the vehicle's
longitudinal centerline, and vertically centered on the door-mounted
portion of the latch/striker.
(3) The force application plate is positioned as close to the edge
of the door as possible. It is not necessary for the force application
plate to be vertical.
(g) For any tested door edge that contains more than one latch/
striker, the following setup procedures are used:
(1) The force application plate is 300 mm in length, 50 mm in
width, and at least 15 mm in thickness.
(2) Place the force application device and force application plate
against the door so that the applied force is perpendicular to the
vertical longitudinal plane that passes through the vehicle's
longitudinal centerline, and vertically centered on a point mid-way
between the outermost edges of the latch/striker assemblies.
(3) The force application plate is positioned as close to the edge
of the door as possible. It is not necessary for the force application
plate to be vertical.
(h) For any tested door edge that does not contain at least one
latch/striker, the following set-up procedures are used:
(1) The force application plate is 300 mm in length, 50 mm in
width, and at least 15 mm in thickness.
(2) Place the force application device and force application plate
against the door so that the applied force is perpendicular to the
vertical longitudinal plane that passes through horizontal the
vehicle's longitudinal centerline, and vertically centered on a point
mid-way along the length of the door edge ensuring that the loading
device avoids contact with the window glazing.
(3) The force application plate is positioned as close to the edge
of the door as possible. It is not necessary for the force application
plate to be vertical.
[[Page 75036]]
(i) The door is unlocked. No extra fixtures or components may be
welded or affixed to the sliding door or any of its components.
(j) Attach any equipment used for measuring door separation that
will be used to determine separation levels during the test procedure.
(k) Place the load application structure so that the force
application plates are in contact with the interior of the sliding
door.
S5.2.2.4 Test Procedure.
(a) Move each force application device at a rate of 20-90 mm per
minute 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.
(b) If one of the force application devices reaches the target
force of 9,000 N prior to the other, maintain the 9,000 N force with
that force application device until the second force application device
reaches the 9,000 N force.
(c) Once both force application devices have achieved 9,000 N each,
stop forward movement of the force application devices and hold the
resulting load for a minimum of 10 seconds.
(d) Maintain the force application device position of paragraph (c)
and measure the separation between the exterior edge of the doorframe
and the interior of the door along the perimeter of the door.
S5.3 [Reserved]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15DE04.029
[[Page 75037]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15DE04.030
[[Page 75038]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15DE04.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15DE04.032
[[Page 75039]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15DE04.033
[[Page 75040]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15DE04.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15DE04.035
[[Page 75041]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15DE04.036
[[Page 75042]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15DE04.037
Issued on: December 7, 2004.
Stephen R. Kratzke,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 04-27215 Filed 12-14-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-C