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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 571 and 590

[Docket No. 94-70, Notice 4]

RIN 2127-AF35

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Door Locks and Door

Retention Components

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),

Department of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Final rule; response to petitions for reconsideration.

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

SUMMARY: This document grants in part and denies in part petitions for

reconsideration of a final rule of this agency that extended the

performance requirements applicable to vehicle side door latches,

hinges, and locks to the back doors of passenger cars and multipurpose

passenger vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 4,536

kilograms (10,000 pounds) or less.

The agency is granting two of the requests in the petitions. First,

the agency is granting a request for a phase-in of the compliance date

of the new requirements and establishing the usual reporting and

recordkeeping requirements necessary for enforcement of a phase-in.

Secondly, the agency is clarifying the definition of ``trunk lid'' with

respect to vehicles in which the seatbacks of rear seats fold down to

provide additional cargo space. NHTSA is denying the other two requests

in the petitions.

DATES: This final rule is effective September 2, 1997.

Any petition for reconsideration of this rule must be received by

NHTSA not later than September 16, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Petitions for reconsideration should refer to the docket and

notice numbers noted above for this rule and be submitted to the Docket

Section, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh

Street, SW., Room 5109, Washington, DC 20590; telephone (202) 366-4949.

Docket room hours are from 9:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., Monday through

Friday.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical issues: Dr. William Fan,

Light Duty Vehicle Division, Office of Crashworthiness Standards,

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street SW,

Washington, DC 20590; telephone (202) 366-4922; FAX (202) 366-4329. For

legal issues: Walter Myers, Office of the Chief Counsel, National

Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street SW,

Washington, DC 20590; telephone (202) 366-2992; FAX (202) 366-3820.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

Federal motor vehicle safety standard (Standard) No. 206, Door

locks and door retention components (49 CFR 571.206), specifies

performance requirements for side door latches, hinges, locks, and

other supporting means. The requirements of the standard, applicable to

all passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles (MPV), and trucks,

are intended to minimize occupant ejection from the vehicle in the

event of a crash.

On September 28, 1995, NHTSA published a final rule in the Federal

Register (60 FR 50124) extending the requirements of the standard to

the back doors of passenger cars and MPVs that are so equipped and that

have a GVWR of 4,536 kilograms (10,000 pounds) or less, including

hatchbacks, station wagons, sport utility vehicles, and passenger vans.

The effective date of the new requirements was specified in the rule as

September 1, 1997.

The final rule defined ``back door'' as follows:

[A] door or door system on the back end of a vehicle through

which passengers can enter of depart the vehicle, or cargo can be

loaded or unloaded, except--

(1) The trunk lid of a passenger car whose trunk is separated

from the passenger compartment by a partition; and

(2) a door or window composed entirely of glazing material whose

latches and/or hinges are attached directly onto the glazing

material.

The rule required that each back door system have at least one

primary latch and that each primary latch not separate when a load of

11,000 Newtons (2,500 pounds) is applied perpendicular to the face of

the latch (Load Test One); when a load of 8,900 Newtons (2,000 pounds)

is applied in the direction of fork-bolt opening parallel to the face

of the latch (Load Test Two); and when a load of 8,900 Newtons (2,000

pounds) is applied in a direction orthogonal to the other two

directions (Load Test Three). The rule further specified that auxiliary

latches in multiple-latch back door systems must meet the same strength

requirements as primary latches on those doors.

The primary latches of the back doors are required by the rule to

have both the fully latched and the secondary latched positions.

Auxiliary latches are not required to have a secondary latched

position.

[[Page 39905]]

The Petitions

(a) The American Automobile Manufacturers Association (AAMA)

submitted a petition for reconsideration on behalf of its members,

Chrysler Corporation (Chrysler), Ford Motor Company (Ford), and General

Motors (GM), urging the deletion of ``unnecessary and design

restrictive requirements'' and extension of the effective date.

Specifically, the AAMA requested reconsideration of the following

requirements:

(1) Auxiliary latch performance requirements. AAMA asserted that

auxiliary latches should not be required to meet the same strength

requirements as primary latches. AAMA argued that since the standard

does not require auxiliary latches, a door equipped with only a primary

latch that met requirements would comply with the standard, while a

door with a complying primary latch and an auxiliary latch that did not

meet the primary latch strength requirements would not. The AAMA stated

that such a situation is neither reasonable nor appropriate since the

addition of an auxiliary latch, whatever its performance level, would

provide a level of security over and above that required by the

standard. In addition, the current requirement could result in a

reduction in door system performance if it causes manufacturers not to

add auxiliary latches to doors because of the additional costs

involved. Finally, AAMA argued that auxiliary latches are often added

to prevent water leaks, wind noise, squeaks, and rattles, and the

deletion of such latches could cause customer dissatisfaction.

Accordingly, when a door system contains multiple latches, only one

should be required to meet the requirements of the standard.

(2) Secondary latching position for hatches. AAMA stated that

requiring a secondary latching position for the hatches of hatchback

cars is unnecessary and provides no benefit to customers. AAMA asserted

that the benefits of a secondary latching position for side doors are

derived from the presence of a seated occupant near those doors. Thus,

in the event of occupant misuse, such as a door not fully closed by the

occupant, the secondary latch position can retain a door in a closed

position until it can be secured in the fully latched position. AAMA

stated that in addition to forcing redesign of the latch, requiring a

secondary latching position on the back doors of hatchback cars will

require redesign of the latch release mechanism because hatch release

mechanisms may be key-controlled only. Further, ergonomics may require

installation of an exterior release handle where one does not presently

exist, thus further increasing resource expenditure with no

commensurate safety benefit. Thus, AAMA asked that the latch releases

on hatchback cars be required to meet requirements prohibiting

component separation in the fully latched position only.

(3) Lead time. In the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) of

August 30, 1994 (59 FR 44691) in which NHTSA proposed extending the

side door requirements to back doors, the proposed effective date was

``the first September 1 that occurs following a two year period

beginning with the publication of a final rule.'' AAMA stated that that

proposed lead time would have provided a lead time of slightly less

than 3 years to slightly more than 2 years, but that the lead time

specified in the final rule was less than that proposed in the NPRM.

Since some AAMA members' back door and hatch systems do not comply with

the new requirements, new latches and locks may have to be designed,

tested and validated, then production tooling must be designed and

built, all requiring approximately 2 to 3 years lead time. In addition,

some members are planning certain phase-outs in model year (MY) 1997

and introduction of new models in MY 1998. Thus, phasing-in the new

requirements would allow manufacturers the flexibility to direct

resources to products which offer long term impact and be more in

accordance with the lead time proposed in the NPRM. AAMA therefore

requested a phase-in of 60 percent of production by MY 1998 (September

1, 1997) and 100 percent by MY 1999 (September 1, 1998).

(b) General Motors. GM stated that it participated in and supported

the petition of AAMA. GM further commented that a lead time of less

than 2 years is unreasonable and requested a 2-model year phasing-in of

the new requirements commencing September 1, 1997.

(c) Chrysler Corporation. Chrysler also stated that it participated

in and supported the petition of AAMA, and reiterated AAMA's request

for a 2-model year phase-in of the new requirements.

(d) Ford Motor Company. Ford stated that it, too, participated in

and supported the petition of the AAMA. In addition, Ford stated that

the definition of ``back door'' in the rule (quoted above) is ambiguous

in that passenger sedans equipped with fold-down rear seats could be

construed as not having a trunk ``separated from the passenger

compartment by a partition'' since there would be no partition when the

seats are folded down.

Agency Analysis and Decision

(a) Clarifying the definition of ``back door.'' NHTSA recognizes

that certain models of passenger sedans are equipped with rear seats on

which the seatbacks fold down to provide additional cargo space. Thus,

to eliminate any possibility that the exclusion of trunk lids from the

definition of ``back door'' might be misapplied with respect to

vehicles with fold-down rear seats, the agency is clarifying the

exclusion by adding a definition of ``trunk lid.''

(b) Phase-in of requirements. The petitioners were unanimous in

their assertions that an effective date of September 1, 1997 did not

provide sufficient lead time to design, test, and produce new latch

systems and to accommodate planned business cycles. Accordingly, to

provide manufacturers sufficient time to redesign, build, test, and

validate latches that may need to be changed to meet the new

requirements, petitioners requested a phase-in of the new requirements

so that compliance of 60 percent of production is required beginning

September 1, 1997 (MY 1998) and 100 percent beginning September 1, 1998

(MY 1999).

NHTSA proposed an effective date of the first September 1 following

2 years after publication of the final rule in the Federal Register.

NHTSA believed that a lead time of 2 to 3 years would be needed by

manufacturers to make necessary latch design and tooling changes for

some of their vehicles. In addition, the agency was aware of the

ability of manufacturers to replace certain add-on components with

upgraded parts without having to change existing vehicle body

structures. Thus, the agency did not believe it likely that a latch

upgrade operation would involve significant vehicle sheet metal or body

structure changes. NHTSA believed that the lead time provided in the

final rule, a period that is 4 weeks short of 2 years, would be

adequate.

As noted above, the petitioners reiterated the arguments they made

in response to the NPRM that 2 years was insufficient lead time for

certifying the compliance of all vehicles. They also alleged that the

agency failed to provide even the minimum lead time (2 years) that it

had proposed in the NPRM. Further, some petitioners provided

confidential information concerning the time necessary to design new

latches, build and test prototypes, assure quality and durability, and

conduct certification tests. Based on this new information, as

[[Page 39906]]

well as other confidential data submitted regarding product plans,

NHTSA has concluded that the short phase-in requested by the

petitioners would provide manufacturers with the necessary time needed

to comply with the new requirements, while minimizing compliance costs.

Compared with requiring 100 percent compliance beginning September 1,

1997, as specified in the final rule, adopting the petitioners' request

would result in a compliance delay of a maximum of 40 percent of

production for a 1-year period. In view of the agency's belief that

many back door latch, hinge, and lock assemblies already comply with

the new requirements and that many more manufacturers will comply with

the new requirements by the original effective date, the agency

believes that the actual difference in the implementation delay between

the original effective date and the petitioners' requested phase-in of

the effective date would be less than 40 percent of total vehicle

production. Accordingly, the effective date of the requirements of the

final rule will be phased-in to require 60 percent of affected vehicles

to comply with the new requirements by September 1, 1997 (MY 1998), and

to require all such vehicles manufactured after September 1, 1998 (MY

1999) to comply with the new requirements.

NHTSA is also establishing the usual reporting and recordkeeping

requirements necessary for agency enforcement of a phase-in. These

requirements are necessary to enable the agency to identify which

vehicles are certified to be in compliance with the new back door

requirements. In general, each manufacturer must submit a report to

NHTSA within 60 days after the end of the production year ending August

31, 1998 detailing its 60 percent compliance with the back door latch,

hinge, and lock requirements of its passenger cars and MPVs produced

that production year. The information required for each report is also

specified. Finally, each manufacturer must maintain records of the

vehicle identification numbers of each passenger car and MPV for which

information is reported under this standard until December 31, 1999.

(c) Auxiliary Latch Performance Requirements. For the first time,

``auxiliary latch'' was defined in the standard as a latch or latches

other than the primary latch (which was also defined in the standard

for the first time) installed on a door equipped with more than one

latch. The final rule specified that the primary latch is required to

have both fully latched and secondary latched positions, while

auxiliary latches are required to have only a fully latched position.

Although the amendments to the standard specifically address

auxiliary latches, they did not require installation of auxiliary

latches on back door systems. There is too much variation in the

configurations and designs of those door systems for the agency to be

able to specify a practicable and broadly-worded requirement for

auxiliary latches that would appropriately distinguish between those

door systems needing auxiliary latches and those that do not. More

importantly, adopting such a requirement is not necessary to ensure

that auxiliary latches are provided on multiple door systems since the

vehicle manufacturers already do so. The agency believes, however, that

if auxiliary latches are installed, there is a need to ensure that they

perform properly.

The agency believes that, in the interest of motor vehicle safety,

auxiliary latches on back doors must meet the same strength

requirements that primary latches must meet in the fully latched

position. While primary and auxiliary latches serve a common purpose in

holding the door system closed, they are usually in different

locations, oriented in different directions, and subjected to different

loading conditions in a crash. In a typical double cargo door system,

for example, if the auxiliary latch that attaches a door part to the

vehicle floor fails in a crash, the door parts would tend to rotate

outward, creating a pulling and twisting loading on the primary latch.

Since the primary latch is not required to meet such a rotational load

requirement, it may not perform well in such a loading condition. In

fact, NHTSA data show that in a rotational load test, many production

door latches, whether primary or auxiliary, fail at a much lower load

level than the load limits specified in S4.1.1.1 and S4.1.1.2 of the

standard. If auxiliary latches meet the same strength requirements as

primary latches, however, such additional strength would reduce the

likelihood of primary latch failure due to the rotational loading of a

crash, thereby reducing the risk of unintentional door opening and

consequent occupant ejection.

NHTSA does not agree with AAMA's argument that applying strength

requirements to auxiliary latches could cause manufacturers to delete

auxiliary latches, thus resulting in reductions in door system

performance. As AAMA pointed out in its petition, manufacturers add

auxiliary latches for purposes related to consumer satisfaction, such

as prevention of water leaks, wind noise, squeaks, rattles, and the

like. NHTSA believes that vehicle manufacturers will remain responsive

to motor vehicle safety and consumer satisfaction, and that the number

of latches fitted to a door system will continue to reflect the

manufacturer's assessment of the actual safety needs of the system.

Further, the technology of door latch design is well established and

commonly used throughout the auto industry. Thus, NHTSA is confident

that manufacturers will not delete auxiliary latches merely to avoid

making some minor modifications to some latch designs, assuming that

any are in fact necessary.

For the reasons discussed above, the agency is convinced that in

order to reduce the safety risk of inadvertent door openings in crashes

and potential occupant ejection as a result of those openings, all door

latches, whether primary or auxiliary, must meet the strength

requirements of the standard. Accordingly, this request of the

petitioners is denied.

(d) Secondary latching position requirement for hatchbacks. AAMA

suggested that the secondary latching position is not necessary for the

back door latches of hatchback cars since such doors are designed

solely for loading and unloading cargo. AAMA contended that the

secondary latching requirement for such doors serves no safety purpose

and provides no benefits to occupants. AAMA further contended that such

a requirement will require redesign of the latch release mechanisms

since hatch release mechanisms may be key-controlled only. AAMA stated

that ergonomics may require the addition of an outside door handle

where one does not now exist, thus increasing costs without any

commensurate safety benefit.

NHTSA disagrees with AAMA on this issue. The purpose of the

secondary latching position requirement is to prevent door opening in

the event that the fully latched position fails, for whatever reason,

to retain the door in the closed position. Latch disengagement from the

fully latched position can occur from many dynamic factors, notably

impact or inertia forces generated in a crash. Although the hatches of

hatchback cars are typically designed for the loading and unloading of

cargo and have no interior door handle that can inadvertently cause the

door to open, they are particularly susceptible to opening in crashes.

NHTSA pointed out in the final rule that agency data show that hatches

on hatchback cars have a significantly

[[Page 39907]]

higher opening rate in crashes than back doors in other types of

vehicles, making them a major source of occupant ejections.

Accordingly, requiring a secondary latching position on these latches

is an added element of security in preventing door opening and

consequent occupant ejection in crashes.

The agency also does not agree that requiring a secondary latching

position for latches on hatchbacks will necessitate extensive redesign

of those latches. The agency believes that key-controlled latches can

be designed to have secondary latching positions, with perhaps only

very minor modifications. Further, the agency continues to believe that

a large variety of such latches, whether key-controlled or otherwise,

already comply with the requirements of the standard. The agency

pointed out in the final rule that the production cost of a latch is

nearly the same with or without the secondary latching position, and

that the incremental cost for latch improvement, if needed, is not more

than $1.00 per latch. The final rule referred to a 1994 engineering

evaluation of the back door latches of 8 minivans conducted by the

agency in which it was found that 7 of those vehicles already had 2

latching positions on their back door latches. The agency also

considers it likely that many existing side or back door latch systems

that now comply with the standard can be used for hatch doors.

Accordingly, this request in the AAMA petition for reconsideration is

denied.

Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

(a) Executive Order No. 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and

Procedures.

This rulemaking document was not reviewed under E.O. 12866,

Regulatory Planning and Review. NHTSA has considered the impact of this

rulemaking action under the DOT's regulatory policies and procedures

and has determined that it is not ``significant'' within the meaning of

those policies and procedures.

The amendments promulgated by this document are intended to clarify

the applicability of Standard No. 206 in terms of what latches, hinges

and locks are not covered by the requirements of the standard (trunk

lids), and to permit a phase-in of the effective date of the amendments

to the standard published in the final rule of September 28, 1995 (60

FR 50124). The cost impacts of the amendments to the standard were

analyzed at length in the 1995 final rule and determined to be so minor

as not to require a final regulatory evaluation. The petitioners

submitted no data or information showing any cost impacts not

considered in the 1995 final rule. Further, slight delay in the

implementation of the 1995 final rule does not alter the agency's

conclusions about the rule's cost impacts. Accordingly, NHTSA reaffirms

the cost estimates discussed in the 1995 final rule and has not

prepared a full regulatory evaluation for this response to the

petitions for reconsideration.

(b) Regulatory Flexibility Act.

NHTSA has considered the effects of this rulemaking action under

the Regulatory Flexibility Act. For the reasons explained above, I

hereby certify that the amendments promulgated by this rule will not

have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.

Accordingly, a regulatory flexibility analysis was not prepared.

(c) Executive Order 12612 (Federalism).

NHTSA has analyzed this rulemaking action in accordance with the

principles and criteria contained in E.O. 12612, Federalism, and has

determined that this rule does not have sufficient federalism

implications to warrant preparation of a Federalism Assessment.

(d) National Environmental Policy Act.

NHTSA has analyzed this rulemaking action for the purposes of the

National Environmental Policy Act and has determined that

implementation of this rulemaking action will not have any significant

impact on the quality of the human environment.

(e) Paperwork Reduction Act.

The reporting requirements associated with this rule will be

submitted to the Office of Management and Budget for approval in

accordance with Chapter 35 of Title 44, United States Code, prior to

the effective date of such reporting requirements. Administration:

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration; Title: Back Door Latch,

Hinge, and Lock Phase- in Reporting Requirements; Need for Information:

To report manufacturers' production for the first year of the phase-in

period; Proposed Use of Information: To determine compliance with

`phase-in requirements; Frequency: One report; Burden Estimate: 1,260

hours; Respondents: 35; Forms(s): Written reports; Average Burden Hours

Per Respondent: 24.

(f) Executive Order 12778 (Civil Justice Reform).

This final rule does not have any retroactive effect. Under 49

U.S.C. 30103(b), whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard is in

effect, a state or political subdivision thereof may prescribe or

continue in effect a standard applicable to the same aspect of

performance of a motor vehicle only if such standard is identical to

the Federal standard. A state may, however, prescribe a standard for a

motor vehicle or item of equipment obtained for its own use that

imposes a higher performance requirement than the Federal standard. 49

U.S.C. 30161 sets forth a procedure for judicial review of final rules

establishing, amending or revoking Federal motor vehicle safety

standards. A petition for reconsideration or other administrative

proceeding is not required before parties may file suit in court.

List of Subjects

49 CFR Part 571

Imports, Motor vehicle safety, Motor vehicles, Rubber and rubber

products, Tires.

49 CFR Part 590

Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

PART 571--FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS

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

follows:

Authority: 49 U.S.C. sec. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117, and 30166;

delegations of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.

2. Section 571.206 is amended in S.3 by revising the definition of

``back door'' first published at 60 FR 50124, September 28, 1995, to

become effective September 1, 1997; by adding the definition of ``trunk

lid;'' and by revising S4 to read as follows:

Sec. 571.206 Standard No. 206, Door locks and door retention

components.

* * * * *

S3. * * *

Back door means 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; but does not include:

(a) A trunk lid; or

(b) A door or window that is composed entirely of glazing material

and whose latches and/or hinges are attached directly to the glazing

material.

* * * * *

Trunk lid means 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 a fixed or fold-down

seat back.

* * * * *

S4. Requirements.

[[Page 39908]]

(a) Components on side doors. Components on any side door that

leads directly into a compartment that contains one or more seating

accommodations shall conform to this standard.

(b) Components on back doors. Components on any back door of a

passenger car or multipurpose passenger vehicle with a gross vehicle

weight rating (GVWR) of 4,536 kilograms (10,000 pounds) or less that

leads directly into a compartment that contains one or more seating

accommodations shall conform to this standard, subject to the following

compliance schedule:

(1)(i) For those affected passenger cars and multipurpose passenger

vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 1997, and before

September 1, 1998, the amount of such vehicles complying with this

standard shall be not less than 60 percent of the combined total

production of passenger cars and multipurpose passenger vehicles, based

on:

(A) The manufacturer's average annual production of such vehicles

manufactured on or after September 1, 1996 and before September 1,

1998; or

(B) The manufacturer's production of such vehicles on or after

September 1, 1997 and before September 1, 1998.

(ii) For calculating average annual production of affected

passenger cars and multipurpose passenger vehicles for each

manufacturer and the number of such vehicles manufactured by each

manufacturer, a vehicle produced by more than one manufacturer shall be

attributed to a single manufacturer as follows:

(A) A vehicle that is imported shall be attributed to the importer;

(B) A vehicle manufactured in the United States by more than one

manufacturer, one of which also markets the vehicle, shall be

attributed to the manufacturer that markets the vehicle.

(C) A vehicle produced by more than one manufacturer shall be

attributed to any one of the vehicle's manufacturers specified by an

express written contract between the manufacturer so specified and the

manufacturer to which the vehicle would otherwise be attributed under

paragraph (b)(1)(ii) (A) or (B) of this section.

(2) Components on the back doors of affected passenger cars and

multipurpose passenger vehicles manufactured on and after September 1,

1998 shall conform to all applicable requirements of this standard.

(c) Components on folding doors, roll-up doors, doors that are

designed to be easily attached to or detached from motor vehicles

manufactured for operation without doors, and doors that are equipped

with wheelchair lifts and that are linked to an alarm system consisting

of either a flashing visible signal located in the driver's compartment

or an alarm audible to the driver that is activated when the door is

open, need not conform to this standard.

(d) A particular latch or hinge assembly utilized as a test

specimen need not meet further requirements after having been subjected

to and having met any one of the requirements of S4 or S5.1 through

S5.4.

* * * * *

1. Part 590 is added to read as follows:

PART 590--BACK DOOR LATCH, HINGE, AND LOCK PHASE-IN REPORTING

REQUIREMENTS

Sec.

590.1 Scope.

590.2 Purpose.

590.3 Applicability.

590.4 Definitions.

590.5 Response to inquiries.

590.6 Reporting Requirements.

590.7 Records.

590.8 Petition to extend period to file report.

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117, and 30166;

delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.

Sec. 590.1 Scope.

This part establishes requirements for manufacturers of passenger

cars and multipurpose passenger vehicles with a gross vehicle weight

rating of 4,536 kilograms (10,000 pounds) or less to respond to NHTSA

inquiries, to submit reports, and maintain records related to such

reports, concerning the number of such vehicles that meet the back door

latch, hinge, and lock requirements of Standard No. 206, Door locks and

door retention components (49 CFR 571.206).

Sec. 590.2 Purpose.

The purpose of these reporting requirements is to aid the NHTSA in

determining whether a manufacturer of passenger cars and multipurpose

passenger vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating of 4,536

kilograms (10,000 pounds) or less has complied with the back door

latch, hinge, and lock requirements of Standard No. 206.

Sec. 590.3 Applicability.

This part applies to manufacturers of passenger cars and

multipurpose passenger vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating of

4,536 kilograms (10,000 pounds) or less. However, this part does not

apply to those motor vehicles excluded from the requirements of

Standard No. 206.

Sec. 590.4 Definitions.

(a) All terms defined in 49 U.S.C. 30102 are used in their

statutory meanings.

(b) Gross vehicle weight rating, multipurpose passenger vehicle,

and passenger car are used as defined in Sec. 571.3 of this chapter.

(c) Production year means the 12-month period between September 1

of one year and August 31 of the following year, inclusive.

Sec. 590.5 Response to inquiries.

During the production year ending August 31, 1998, each

manufacturer shall, upon request from the Office of Vehicle Safety

Compliance, this agency, provide information regarding which vehicle

makes/models are certified as complying with the provisions of S4 and

S5, Standard No. 206.

Sec. 590.6 Reporting requirements.

(a) General reporting requirements. Within 60 days after the end of

the production year ending August 31, 1998, each manufacturer shall

submit a report to NHTSA concerning the manufacturer's compliance with

the latch, hinge, and lock requirements of this standard for the back

doors of its passenger cars and multipurpose passenger vehicles with a

gross vehicle weight rating of 4,536 kilograms (10,000 pounds or less)

produced in that year. Each report shall:

(1) Identify the manufacturer;

(2) State the full name, title, and address of the official

responsible for preparation of the report;

(3) Identify the production year being reported on;

(4) Contain a statement regarding whether or not the manufacturer

complied with the back door latch, hinge, and lock requirements of this

standard in the percentages specified in S4 for the period covered by

the report and the basis for that statement;

(5) Provide the information specified in Sec. 590.7;

(6) Be written in the English language; and

(7) Be submitted to: Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration, ATTN: NSA-01, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC

20590.

(b) Report content.--(1) Basis for phase-in production goals. Each

manufacturer shall provide the number of passenger cars and

multipurpose passenger vehicles with a GVWR of 4,536 kilograms (10,000

pounds) or less manufactured for sale in the United States for each of

the two previous production years or, at the manufacturer's option, for

the current

[[Page 39909]]

production year. A new manufacturer that has not previously

manufactured passenger cars and multipurpose passenger vehicles with a

GVWR of 4,536 kilograms (10,000 pounds) or less for sale in the United

States must report the number of such vehicles manufactured during the

current production year.

(2) Production. Each manufacturer shall report for the production

year for which the report is filed the number of passenger cars and

multipurpose passenger vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating of

4,536 kilograms (10,000 pounds) or less that meet the back door latch,

hinge, and lock requirements of this standard.

Sec. 590.7 Records.

Each manufacturer shall maintain records of the vehicle

identification number of each passenger car and multipurpose passenger

vehicle for which information is reported in accordance with Sec. 590.6

until December 31, 1999.

Sec. 590.8 Petition to extend period to file reports.

A petition for extension of time to file a report required by S6.1

must be received not later than 15 days before expiration of the time

specified in Sec. 590.5(a). The petition must be submitted to:

Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, ATTN:

NSA-01, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590. The filing of a

petition does not automatically extend the time for filing a report. A

petition will be granted only if the petitioner shows good cause for

the extension and the extension is consistent with motor vehicle

safety.

Issued on July 23, 1996.

Ricardo Martinez,

Administrator.

[FR Doc. 96-19354 Filed 7-30-96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-59-P