Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 168 / Wednesday, August 31, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 51669 

1See 60 FR 43031 (August 18, 1995). For a 

detailed discussion of subsequent amendments to 

the head impact protection requirements see 69 FR 

9217 at 9218–9220 (February 27, 2004). 

later than March 1, 2007 with respect to 

carriage of digital signals; provided, 

further, that the notice shall also 

describe the carriage requirements 

pursuant to 47 U.S.C. 338(a)(4), and 

paragraph (b)(2) of this section. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

(2) A designated market area is the 

market area, as determined by Nielsen 

Media Research and published in the 

1999–2000 Nielsen Station Index 

Directory and Nielsen Station Index 

United States Television Household 

Estimates or any successor publication. 

In the case of areas outside of any 

designated market area, any census area, 

borough, or other area in the State of 

Alaska that is outside of a designated 

market area, as determined by Nielsen 

Media Research, shall be deemed to be 

part of one of the local markets in the 

State of Alaska. 

(3) A satellite carrier shall use the 

1999–2000 Nielsen Station Index 

Directory and Nielsen Station Index 

United States Television Household 

Estimates to define television markets 

for the first retransmission consentmandatory carriage election cycle 

commencing on January 1, 2002 and 

ending on December 31, 2005. The 

2003–2004 Nielsen Station Index 

Directory and Nielsen Station Index 

United States Television Household 

Estimates shall be used for the second 

retransmission consent-mandatory 

carriage election cycle commencing 

January 1, 2006 and ending December 

31, 2008, and so forth for each triennial 

election pursuant to this section. 

Provided, however, that a county 

deleted from a market by Nielsen need 

not be subtracted from a market in 

which a satellite carrier provides localinto-local service, if that county is 

assigned to that market in the 1999–

2000 Nielsen Station Index Directory or 

any subsequent issue of that 

publication. A satellite carrier may 

determine which local market in the 

State of Alaska will be deemed to be the 

relevant local market in connection with 

each subscriber in an area in the State 

of Alaska that is outside of a designated 

market, as described in paragraph (e)(2) 

of this section. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 05–17324 Filed 8–30–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

49 CFR Part 571 

[Docket No. NHTSA–2005–22240] 

RIN 2127–AJ60 

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety 

Standards; Occupant Protection in 

Interior Impact 

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT. 

ACTION: Final rule; response to petitions 

for reconsideration. 

SUMMARY: This document responds to 

petitions for reconsideration requesting 

changes to a final rule published on 

February 27, 2004 (February 2004 final 

rule). The February 2004 final rule 

amended the upper interior impact 

requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle 

Safety Standard No. 201, ‘‘Occupant 

protection in interior impact.’’ Among 

other matters, to address the safety 

consequences of certain new vehicle 

designs, the February 2004 final rule 

added new targets to door frames and 

seat belt mounting structures found in 

some vehicles. This document amends 

the definition of ‘‘seat belt mounting 

structure’’ to ensure that the definition 

is not unnecessarily broad, and clarifies 

several issues related to existing target 

relocation procedures. This document 

also delays the implementation of the 

new requirements for door frames and 

seat belt mounting structures from 

September 1, 2005 until December 1, 

2005. 

DATES: The amendments in this rule are 

effective September 1, 2005. 

Petitions: Petitions for reconsideration 

must be received by October 17, 2005, 

and should refer to this docket and the 

notice number of this document and be 

submitted to: Administrator, National 

Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 

400 7th Street, SW., Washington, DC 

20590. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

technical issues: Lori Summers, Office 

of Crashworthiness Standards, NVS–

112, NHTSA, 400 7th Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20590. Telephone: 

(202) 366–1740. Fax: (202) 493–2290. 

For legal issues: Mr. George Feygin, 

Attorney Advisor, Office of the Chief 

Counsel, NCC–112, NHTSA, 400 7th 

Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590. 

Telephone: (202) 366–5834. Fax: (202) 

366–3820. E-mail: 

George.Feygin@nhtsa.dot.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

In 1995, the National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration (NHTSA) 

amended Federal Motor Vehicle Safety 

Standard (FMVSS) No. 201, ‘‘Occupant 

protection in interior impact,’’ to require 

passenger cars, trucks, and 

multipurpose passenger vehicles with a 

gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 

4,536 kilograms (10,000 pounds) or less, 

and buses with a GVWR of 3,860 

kilograms (8,500 pounds) or less, to 

provide head protection when an 

occupant’s head strikes upper interior 

components, such as pillars, side rails, 

headers, and the roof during a crash.1

The new head protection requirements 

were necessary because head impacts 

with upper interior components 

resulted in a significant number of 

occupant injuries and fatalities. 

The head impact protection 

provisions of FMVSS No. 201 set 

minimum performance requirements for 

vehicle interiors by establishing target 

areas within the vehicle that must be 

properly padded or otherwise have 

energy absorbing properties to minimize 

head injury in the event of a crash. 

Compliance with the upper interior 

impact requirements is determined, in 

part, by measuring the forces 

experienced by a Free Motion Headform 

(FMH) test device when it is propelled, 

at any speed up to and including either 

18 km/h or 24 km/h (12 mph or 15 

mph), into certain targets on the vehicle 

interior. 

New vehicle designs not 

contemplated by the 1995 amendments 

to FMVSS No. 201 emerged, and with 

them, certain safety concerns. First, a 

number of manufacturers began 

producing three door coupes and 

pickup trucks with three or four doors. 

Unlike the conventional designs, these 

vehicles do not have B-pillars between 

doors. Yet, the door frames appeared to 

be equivalent to the B-pillar for 

purposes of head impact protection 

because these door frames were located 

near the head of a seated vehicle 

occupant and posed the same potential 

head injury risks as a B-pillar. Second, 

certain pillarless coupes and 

convertibles used a freestanding vertical 

structure to provide an attachment point 

for the upper anchorage of a lap and 

shoulder belt. This structure, which 

must be relatively stiff in order to 

ensure the stability of the belt 

anchorage, was normally located near 

the head of the occupant in the seating 

position for which the belt is provided. 

51670 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 168 / Wednesday, August 31, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

2See Docket Number NHTSA–2000–7145–11. 

3See Docket Number NHTSA–2000–7145–09, 

Appendix A. 

4For a detailed summary of the meeting please 

see Docket Number NHTSA–2000–7145–12. 5See 69 FR 9217 at 9222. 

Because these structures do not 

support the roof of the vehicle, neither 

the door frames nor freestanding vertical 

seat belt mounting structures fit within 

the definition of ‘‘pillar’’ found in 

FMVSS No. 201 and, thus, did not have 

to meet the FMH impact requirements. 

Yet, the agency was concerned about the 

potential safety consequences of these 

new designs because they posed the 

same potential head injury risks as a 

pillar, roll-bar, or other stiff vertical 

component. 

On February 27, 2004, the agency 

published a final rule that addressed 

this concern (69 FR 9217; Docket 00–

7145). The February 2004 final rule 

amended the definition of ‘‘B-pillar’’

and added several other definitions, to 

ensure that door frames aft of the Apillar and forward of any other pillars 

become subject to the FMH impact 

requirements. The final rule also 

required freestanding vertical seat belt 

mounting structures to meet the FMH 

impact requirements. The final rule 

defined ‘‘seat belt mounting structure’’

as: 

A component of the vehicle body or frame, 

including trim, extending above a horizontal 

plane 460 mm above the seating reference 

point, SgRP, of the closest outboard 

designated seating position, with an upper 

seat belt anchorage conforming to the 

requirements of S4.2.1 and S4.3.2 of 

Standard No. 210 (49 CFR 571.210) attached 

to it, and is not a pillar, roll bar, brace or 

stiffener, side rail, seat, or part of the roof. 

II. Summary of Petitions for 

Reconsideration 

The agency received petitions for 

reconsideration of the February 2004 

final rule from the Alliance of 

Automobile Manufacturers (Alliance) 

and from DaimlerChrysler (DCX). 

Subsequently, Alliance also filed a 

request for an interpretation related to 

the February 2004 final rule.2

A. Alliance Petition 

In its petition, Alliance stated that the 

current definition of seat belt mounting 

structure encompasses some vehicle 

components that were not contemplated 

by the agency. While the agency 

intended to subject freestanding vertical 

seat belt mounting structures to the 

head impact protection requirements of 

FMVSS No. 201, according to Alliance, 

the current definition will also require 

rear package shelves, side-wall trim 

panels, and interior rear quarter trim 

panels to provide head impact 

protection. Alliance believes that these 

seat belt mounting structures are 

‘‘integrated into the body structure of 

the vehicle’’ and should be excluded 

from the FMH impact requirements. In 

support of its view, Alliance provided 

examples of vehicles with rear seat belt 

anchorages located on the rear package 

shelf or in the rear upper corner of the 

interior rear quarter panel, next to the 

seat back. Other examples showed 

vehicles with the front seat belt 

anchorage located on the front upper 

corner of the interior rear quarter panel, 

or on the rear package shelf area, behind 

the seat back.3

On October 5, 2004, NHTSA met with 

Alliance to further discuss certain 

provisions of the petition for 

reconsideration.4 At the meeting, 

Alliance supplemented its petition by 

proposing an alternative definition of 

the seat belt mounting structure. 

Specifically, Alliance requested that the 

definition state that only a portion of the 

seat belt mounting structure that 

‘‘projects into the daylight opening’’ be 

subjected to the FMH impact 

requirements. For vehicles in which a 

daylight opening cannot be clearly 

established, Alliance suggested that the 

seat belt mounting structure be defined 

as a ‘‘freestanding load bearing 

component of the vehicle body’’ or part 

of the roof.’’

B. DCX Petition 

In its petition, DCX indicated support 

for the Alliance petition and expressed 

concern that NHTSA unintentionally 

subjected seat belt mounting anchorages 

integrated within the vehicle body 

structure to the FMH impact 

requirements. DCX suggested that 

language in the preamble to the final 

rule referring to ‘‘stand-alone structures 

rising from the floor of a vehicle’’

indicated that NHTSA did not intend to 

include seat belt anchorages located on 

the interior rear quarter panel or rear 

package shelf in the definition of the 

seat belt mounting structure. DCX 

requested that NHTSA amend the 

definition of the seat belt mounting 

structure as follows: 

Seat belt mounting structure means a 

component extending above or out of the 

normal horizontal vehicle body structure or 

surface at the height of the upper door 

surface or lower edge of the window opening 

with an upper seat belt anchorage 

conforming to the requirements of S4.2.1 and 

S4.3.2 of Standard No. 210 (49 CFR 571.210) 

attached to it, and is not a pillar, roll bar, 

brace or stiffener, side rail, seat, or part of the 

roof or normal body structure (below the 

level of window opening) such as a body 

closure panel, quarter panel or its trim. 

III. Discussion and Analysis 

A. Definition of Seat Belt Mounting 

Structure 

In amending the upper interior impact 

requirements, the agency did not intend 

to limit the definition of the seat belt 

mounting structure strictly to ‘‘standalone’’ objects. This is because some 

seat belt mounting structures that could 

cause injury (because of their proximity 

to an occupant’s head and the resulting 

risk of head injury) could be located on 

‘‘attached’’ or integrated vehicle 

components. Nevertheless, the agency 

did not intend to apply the FMH impact 

requirements to interior quarter panel 

trim, or rear package shelves that are 

located such that they could not readily 

come in contact with the normally 

seated occupant’s head. 

Accordingly, the agency agrees with 

Alliance and DCX that the definition 

provided in the February 2004 final rule 

encompasses some vehicle components 

that were not contemplated by that 

rulemaking. We are amending the 

definition of the seat belt mounting 

structure to ensure that the seat belt 

mounting structure FMH impact 

requirements are not overly broad. 

Why the agency is not adopting a seat 

belt mounting structure definition based 

on ‘‘window opening’’ or ‘‘daylight 

opening.’’

In their petitions, Alliance and DCX 

urged the agency to change the 

definition of seat belt mounting 

structure such that only pillar-like 

components protruding above the 

vehicle beltline or the daylight window 

opening by a certain vertical distance 

would be subject to FMH impact 

requirements. We note that the agency 

has previously considered the issue of 

defining the seat belt mounting 

structure in terms of daylight opening.5

We again decline to adopt the 

petitioner’s suggestion for two reasons. 

First, we believe the terms ‘‘beltline’’

or ‘‘daylight opening’’ are inappropriate 

for defining the seat belt mounting 

structures because these design 

elements may not exist or may not be 

easily identified in vehicles that are 

most likely to include seat belt 

mounting structures. Specifically, the 

agency believes that freestanding seat 

belt mounting structures are most likely 

to appear in open body vehicles. 

Because these vehicles may not include 

complete roofs, side windows, or side 

doors, it may not be possible to define 

where the ‘‘daylight opening’’ or 

‘‘beltline’’ begins. For example, a Jeep 

Wrangler is, in certain configurations, 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 168 / Wednesday, August 31, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 51671 

6The 660 mm distance was determined using a 

generic vehicle seat with the seat back angle ranging 

between 20 and 25 degrees. 

7See Docket No. NHTSA–2000–7145–9. 

an open body vehicle that has a soft roof 

assembly and detachable side doors. 

This vehicle design makes it difficult to 

clearly establish a daylight opening or 

beltline. 

Second, in some vehicles, the rear 

package shelf panel is located higher 

than the daylight opening or beltline. 

Because petitioners argue that these 

shelves should not be subjected to the 

FMH impact requirements, the 

definition based on daylight opening or 

beltline location would not fully resolve 

the manufacturer’s concerns. 

The agency believes that locating the 

seat belt mounting structure should not 

depend on the location and the height 

of the nearest daylight opening, but on 

the structure’s proximity to the 

occupant’s head, and the likelihood that 

the occupant’s head could strike that 

structure. Thus, instead of attempting to 

define the seat belt mounting structure 

in reference to daylight opening, the 

agency believes that it is more 

appropriate to describe the seat belt 

mounting structure in reference to the 

head CG of a seated Hybrid-III 50th 

percentile male dummy. The head CG of 

the seated Hybrid-III 50th percentile 

male dummy is 660 mm vertically above 

the seating reference point (SgRP).6

Regardless of vehicle type, using this 

geometric measurement method enables 

identification of the seat belt mounting 

structure parts or components that 

could come in contact with the 

occupant’s head. 

In deciding how to best refine the 

current definition of seat belt mounting 

structure, the agency carefully evaluated 

the information presented by Alliance 

and DCX. Specifically, we examined the 

upper seat belt anchorage locations of 

vehicles shown in Appendices A and B 

of the Alliance petition.7 The seat belt 

mounting structure configurations, 

presented by Alliance as problematic in 

light of the current seat belt mounting 

structure definition, fall into two 

categories. 

In some vehicles described by 

Alliance, the upper seat belt anchorage 

is located on the rear package shelf 

behind the seat back. This configuration 

exists in some two-seat vehicles such as 

the Corvette Convertible and Cadillac 

XLR, and some four-seat vehicles such 

as the Mitsubishi Eclipse Spyder. In 

other vehicles, the seat belt upper 

anchorage is located on either the front 

upper corner of the interior quarter 

panel, or the rear upper corner of the 

interior quarter panel, near the junction 

of the seat back and rear package shelf. 

We believe that raising the minimum 

height specification in the seat belt 

mounting structure definition and 

excluding interior rear quarter panels 

from the FMH impact requirements 

would resolve the petitioner’s concerns 

without compromising occupant safety. 

Seat belt mounting components located 

on the rear package shelf. 

After examining the information 

presented by Alliance, we conclude that 

an upper seat belt anchorage located on 

the rear package shelf is usually located 

such that it could not come in contact 

with the occupant’s head. 

For two-seat vehicles, because of front 

seat head restraint height requirements, 

it is unlikely that the head of the front 

seat occupant would impact objects that 

are located behind the seat back or the 

head restraint, as the head impact 

trajectory would be blocked. 

Accordingly, the agency believes that 

the head restraint will prevent head 

contact with most targets located on the 

rear package shelf. For vehicles with 

two rows of seating positions, the rear 

seat back or rear seat head restraint 

would likely prevent the rear seat 

occupant’s head contact with most 

targets located on the rear package shelf. 

In sum, we conclude that a seated 

occupant’s head is not likely to contact 

a vehicle interior component that is 

located behind the head restraint or seat 

back because the head impact trajectory 

would be blocked. Because the upper 

seat belt anchorage located behind the 

rearmost designated seating is unlikely 

to come into contact with the occupant’s 

head, the agency decided to revise the 

seat belt mounting structure definition 

such that it would not encompass most 

interior components located on the rear 

package shelf. 

Specifically, for seat belt mounting 

structures located behind the rearmost 

designated seating positions, the revised 

definition will encompass only 

components that extend 660 mm above 

the SgRP of that seating position; i.e., 

above the head CG of a Hybrid-III 50th 

percentile male dummy in a generic 

vehicle seat. The agency believes that 

this definition will ensure that 

components located behind the 

rearmost seat back or the head restraint 

are not subject to the new FMH impact 

requirements unless they reach a height 

where head contact becomes possible. 

For seat belt mounting structures 

located in front of other seating 

positions, the definition remains 

unchanged because the rear seat 

occupants could strike the vehicle 

components that extend 460 mm above 

the SgRP of the seating position located 

behind these components. 

The relevant portion of the revised 

regulatory text will read as follows: 

Seat belt mounting structure means: 

(a) A vehicle body or frame 

component, including trim, that 

incorporates an upper seat belt 

anchorage conforming to the 

requirements of S4.2.1 and S4.3.2 of 49 

CFR 571.210, that is located rearward of 

the rearmost outboard designated 

seating position, and that extends above 

a horizontal plane 660 mm above the 

seating reference point (SgRP) of that 

seating position; and 

(b) A vehicle body or frame 

component, including trim, that 

incorporates an upper seat belt 

anchorage conforming to the 

requirements of S4.2.1 and S4.3.2 of 49 

CFR 571.210, that is located forward of 

the rearmost outboard designated 

seating position, and that extends above 

a horizontal plane 460 mm above the 

SgRP of that seating position located 

rearward of the anchorage. 

Interior quarter panels. 

In amending the upper interior impact 

requirements, the agency did not intend 

to add new FMH impact targets to 

interior quarter panels located between 

the edge of the side door opening and 

the rearmost outboard seating position. 

We believe that locating additional 

targets on the interior rear quarter 

panels would be impracticable for a 

variety of vehicle designs. Accordingly, 

we are revising the seat belt mounting 

structure definition to exclude interior 

rear quarter panels. We defined the 

interior rear quarter panel as follows: 

‘‘Interior rear quarter panel means a 

vehicle interior component located 

between the rear edge of the side door 

frame, the front edge of the seat back, 

and the daylight opening.’’

B. Request for Clarification 

Petitioners requested that NHTSA 

clarify several issues related to target 

relocation procedures. Specifically, they 

asked if an SB target, requiring 

relocation because of vehicle 

configuration, to a point below the 460 

mm plane, would become invalid, and 

whether targets relocated into open 

space would become invalid. 

First, the agency believes that targets 

relocated below the 460 mm horizontal 

plane should not be automatically 

invalidated. This is consistent with our 

position regarding other targets subject 

to current head impact protection 

requirements. For example, a BP4 target 

relocated below a 460 mm horizontal 

plane is not automatically excluded 

from testing. Instead, the target is 

51672 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 168 / Wednesday, August 31, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

8The same issue was raised in a November 2, 

2004 request for a legal interpretation from 

Alliance. See Docket No. NHTSA–2000–7145–13. 

relocated in accordance with target 

relocation procedures specified S10(b) 

and S10(c) of FMVSS No. 201.8 Thus, 

there is no minimum height limitation 

for a relocated target. Second, any target 

that is relocated in ‘‘open space’’ need 

not meet the FMH impact requirements. 

Finally, with respect to other target 

relocation questions raised by 

petitioners, we again note that target 

relocation procedures are specified in 

S10(b) and S10(c) of FMVSS No. 201. In 

order for us to answer a more specific 

relocation question related to an 

individual vehicle configuration, a 

manufacturer would need to provide 

more specific information related to the 

target in question. 

C. Effective Date 

Because the effective date for the new 

requirements for door frames and seat 

belt mounting structures is imminent, 

we are delaying the implementation of 

the new requirements from September 

1, 2005 until December 1, 2005. This 

short delay will enable manufacturers to 

carefully evaluate how the changes in 

this document would affect vehicle 

compliance. Because the practical affect 

of these changes is that fewer vehicle 

components will be subject to certain 

requirements of 49 CFR 571.201, longer 

lead time is unnecessary. For the same 

reasons, we are making the amendments 

effective September 1, 2005. 

IV. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices 

A. Executive Order 12866 and DOT 

Regulatory Policies and Procedures 

This rulemaking document was not 

reviewed under Executive Order 12866, 

‘‘Regulatory Planning and Review.’’ The 

agency has considered the impact of this 

rulemaking action under the 

Department of Transportation’s 

regulatory policies and procedures, and 

has determined that it is not 

‘‘significant.’’

This document narrows the definition 

of the seat belt mounting structure to 

ensure that the definition is not 

unnecessarily broad, and clarifies 

several issues raised by a petitioner. The 

practical affect of this change in the 

definition is that fewer vehicle 

components will be subject to certain 

requirements of 49 CFR 571.201. 

B. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism) 

The agency has analyzed this 

rulemaking action in accordance with 

the principles and criteria set forth in 

Executive Order 13132. This final rule 

does not have a 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, as 

specified in Executive Order 13132. 

C. Executive Order 13045 

Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, 

April 23, 1997) applies to any rule 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 rule is not subject to the 

Executive Order 13045 because it is not 

economically significant as defined in 

E.O. 12866 and does not involve 

decisions based on environmental, 

safety or health risks having a 

disproportionate impact on children. 

D. Civil Justice Reform 

Pursuant to Executive Order 12988, 

‘‘Civil Justice Reform’’ (61 FR 4729, 

February 5, 1996), the agency has 

considered whether this rulemaking 

would have any retroactive effect. This 

final rule does 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. This final 

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. 

E. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 

(5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires agencies 

to evaluate the potential effects of their 

rules on small businesses, small 

organizations and small governmental 

jurisdictions. I have considered the 

possible effects of this rulemaking 

action under the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act and certify that it would not have 

a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

because the amendments in this 

rulemaking do not impose new 

requirements. Instead, this rulemaking 

narrows the definition of the seat belt 

mounting structure. The practical affect 

of this change in the definition is that 

fewer vehicle components will be 

subject to certain requirements of 49 

CFR 571.201. 

F. 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. This final rule does not adopt 

any new information collection 

requirements. 

G. 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. The NTTAA directs us to 

provide Congress, through OMB, 

explanations when we decide not to use 

available and applicable voluntary 

consensus standards. 

There are no available voluntary 

consensus standards that are equivalent 

to FMVSS No. 201. 

H. 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 

($120.7 million as adjusted annually for 

inflation with base year of 1995). 

This final rule will not result in costs 

of $120.7 million or more to either State, 

local, or tribal governments, in the 

aggregate, or to the private sector. Thus, 

this final rule is not subject to the 

requirements of sections 202 and 205 of 

the UMRA. 

I. 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 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 168 / Wednesday, August 31, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 51673 

year. You may use the RIN contained in 

the heading at the beginning of this 

document to find this action in the 

Unified Agenda. 

J. Privacy Act 

Please note that 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. 

K. National Environmental Policy Act 

NHTSA has analyzed this rulemaking 

action for the purposes of the National 

Environmental Policy Act. The agency 

has determined that implementation of 

this action will not have any significant 

impact on the quality of the human 

environment. 

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Parts 571 

Motor vehicle safety, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Tires. 

■ In consideration of the foregoing, Part 

571 is amended as follows: 

PART 571—FEDERAL MOTOR 

VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 571 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 2011, 30115, 

30166 and 30177; delegation of authority at 

49 CFR 1.50. 

■ 2. Section 571.201 is amended by 

revising the definition of Seat belt 

mounting structure in S3, adding the 

definition of Interior rear quarter panel 

to S3 in alphabetical order, and revising 

S6.3(e) to read as follows: 

§ 571.201 Standard No. 201; Occupant 

protection in interior impact. 

* * * * * 

S3. Definitions. * * * 

Interior rear quarter panel means a 

vehicle interior component located 

between the rear edge of the side door 

frame, the front edge of the rearmost 

seat back, and the daylight opening. 

* * * * * 

Seat belt mounting structure means: 

(a) A vehicle body or frame 

component, including trim, that 

incorporates an upper seat belt 

anchorage conforming to the 

requirements of S4.2.1 and S4.3.2 of 49 

CFR 571.210, that is located rearward of 

the rearmost outboard designated 

seating position, and that extends above 

a horizontal plane 660 mm above the 

seating reference point (SgRP) of that 

seating position; and 

(b) A vehicle body or frame 

component, including trim, that 

incorporates an upper seat belt 

anchorage conforming to the 

requirements of S4.2.1 and S4.3.2 of 49 

CFR 571.210, that is located forward of 

the rearmost outboard designated 

seating position, and that extends above 

a horizontal plane 460 mm above the 

SgRP of that seating position located 

rearward of the anchorage. 

(c) The seat belt mounting structure is 

not a pillar, roll bar, brace or stiffener, 

side rail, seat, interior rear quarter 

panel, or part of the roof. 

* * * * * 

S6.3 * * * 

(e) Any target located on the seat belt 

mounting structures, door frames and 

other door frames before December 1, 

2005. 

* * * * * 

Dated: August 25, 2005. 

Jeffrey W. Runge, 

Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 05–17294 Filed 8–29–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

49 CFR Part 595 

[Docket No. NHTSA–2004–19092] 

RIN 2127–AJ07 

Make Inoperative Provisions; Vehicle 

Modifications To Accommodate People 

With Disabilities 

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration (NHTSA), 

Department of Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: To facilitate further the 

modification of vehicles to 

accommodate individuals with 

disabilities, this final rule expands the 

existing exemptions from the ‘‘make 

inoperative’’ provision of the Vehicle 

Safety Act. Responding to petitions for 

rulemaking from members of the 

mobility industry, this document 

expands the exemption to include 

exemptions from provisions of the 

advanced air bag requirements, the 

child restraint anchorage system 

requirements, and the upper interior 

head protection requirements. 

DATES: The effective date for this final 

rule is October 31, 2005. 

Petitions for reconsideration. Petitions 

for reconsideration of this final rule 

must received not later than October 17, 

2005. 

ADDRESSES: Petitions for reconsideration 

of the final rule must refer to the docket 

and notice number set forth above and 

be submitted to the Administrator, 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration, 400 Seventh Street, 

SW., Washington, DC 20590, with a 

copy to Docket Management, Room PL–

401, 400 Seventh Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20590. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

non-legal issues, you may call Ms. Gayle 

Dalrymple, Office of Crash Avoidance 

Standards at (202) 366–5559. Her fax 

number is (202) 366–7002. For legal 

issues, you may call Ms. Dorothy 

Nakama, Office of Chief Counsel at (202) 

366–2992. Her fax number is (202) 366–

3820. You may send mail to both of 

these officials at the National Highway 

Traffic and Safety Administration, 400 

Seventh St., SW., Washington, DC 

20590. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

The National Traffic and Motor 

Vehicle Safety Act requires vehicle 

manufacturers to certify that their 

vehicles comply with all applicable 

Federal motor vehicle safety standards 

(49 U.S.C. 30112 et seq.). The Act 

further prohibits manufacturers, 

distributors, dealers, and repair 

businesses from knowingly making 

inoperative any part or device or 

element of design installed in or on a 

motor vehicle that is in compliance with 

an applicable standard (49 U.S.C. 30122; 

‘‘make inoperative’’ provision). Any 

action that removes or disables safety 

equipment or features installed to 

comply with an applicable standard, or 

that degrades the performance of such 

equipment or features could lead to the 

assessment of civil penalties. Section 

30122 authorizes regulations to exempt 

a person from the make inoperative 

provision if the agency decides the 

exemption is consistent with motor 

vehicle safety and the purpose and 

policy of the Safety Act. 

To facilitate the modification of motor 

vehicles for persons with disabilities, 

NHTSA provides a limited exception 

from the make inoperative provision. 

While a vast majority of Americans can 

drive and ride in a motor vehicle as 

produced and certified by 

manufacturers, individuals with 

disabilities often require special 

modifications to accommodate their 

particular needs. Some of these 

modifications may require removal of