[Federal Register: August 31, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 168)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 51669-51673]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr31au05-18]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
[[Page 51670]]
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 A-pillar 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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See Docket Number NHTSA-2000-7145-11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See Docket Number NHTSA-2000-7145-09, Appendix A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ For a detailed summary of the meeting please see Docket
Number NHTSA-2000-7145-12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 ``stand-alone'' 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ See 69 FR 9217 at 9222.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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,
[[Page 51671]]
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ The 660 mm distance was determined using a generic vehicle
seat with the seat back angle ranging between 20 and 25 degrees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ See Docket No. NHTSA-2000-7145-9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
[[Page 51672]]
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ The same issue was raised in a November 2, 2004 request for
a legal interpretation from Alliance. See Docket No. NHTSA-2000-
7145-13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
[[Page 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.
0
In consideration of the foregoing, Part 571 is amended as follows:
PART 571--FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS
0
1. The authority citation for part 571 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 2011, 30115, 30166 and 30177;
delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.
0
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:
Sec. 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