Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 248 / Monday, December 28, 2020 / Proposed Rules 84281 

(h) Accuracy of docket entry. A 

person filing a document by electronic 

means, or, if the filer is an attorney 

designee, the designating attorney, is 

responsible for ensuring the accuracy of 

the official docket entry generated by 

the eCRB system, including proper 

identification of the proceeding, the 

filing party, and the description of the 

document. The Copyright Royalty Board 

will maintain on its website 

(www.loc.gov/crb) appropriate guidance 

regarding naming protocols for eCRB 

filers. 

(i) Documents subject to a protective 

order. A person filing a document by 

electronic means must ensure, at the 

time of filing, that any documents 

subject to a protective order are 

identified to the eCRB system as 

‘‘restricted’’ documents. This 

requirement is in addition to any 

requirements detailed in the applicable 

protective order. Failure to identify 

documents as ‘‘restricted’’ to the eCRB 

system may result in inadvertent 

publication of sensitive, protected 

material. 

(j) Exceptions to requirement of 

electronic filing—(1) Certain exhibits or 

attachments. Parties may file in paper 

form any exhibits or attachments that 

are not in a format that readily permits 

electronic filing, such as oversized 

documents; or are illegible when 

scanned into electronic format. Parties 

filing paper documents or things 

pursuant to this paragraph must deliver 

legible or usable copies of the 

documents or things in accordance with 

§ 303.6(a)(2) and must file electronically 

a notice of filing that includes a 

certificate of delivery. 

(2) Pro se parties. A pro se party may 

file documents in paper form and must 

deliver and accept delivery of 

documents in paper form, unless the pro 

se party has obtained an eCRB 

password. 

(k) Privacy requirements. (1) Unless 

otherwise instructed by the Copyright 

Royalty Judges, parties must exclude or 

redact from all electronically filed 

documents, whether designated 

‘‘restricted’’ or not: 

(i) Social Security numbers. If an 

individual’s Social Security number 

must be included in a filed document 

for evidentiary reasons, the filer must 

use only the last four digits of that 

number. 

(ii) Names of minor children. If a 

minor child must be mentioned in a 

document for evidentiary reasons, the 

filer must use only the initials of that 

child. 

(iii) Dates of birth. If an individual’s 

date of birth must be included in a 

pleading for evidentiary reasons, the 

filer must use only the year of birth. 

(iv) Financial account numbers. If a 

financial account number must be 

included in a pleading for evidentiary 

reasons, the filer must use only the last 

four digits of the account identifier. 

(2) Protection of personally 

identifiable information. If any 

information identified in paragraph 

(k)(1) of this section must be included 

in a filed document, the filing party 

must treat it as confidential information 

subject to the applicable protective 

order. In addition, parties may treat as 

confidential, and subject to the 

applicable protective order, other 

personal information that is not material 

to the proceeding. 

(l) Incorrectly filed documents. (1) 

The Copyright Royalty Board may direct 

an eCRB filer to re-file a document that 

has been incorrectly filed, or to correct 

an erroneous or inaccurate docket entry. 

(2) If an attorney or a pro se party who 

has been issued an eCRB password 

inadvertently presents a document for 

filing in paper form, the Copyright 

Royalty Board may direct that person to 

file the document electronically. The 

document will be deemed filed on the 

date it was first presented for filing if, 

no later than the next business day after 

being so directed by the Copyright 

Royalty Board, the attorney or pro se 

participant files the document 

electronically. If the filer fails to make 

the electronic filing on the next business 

day, the document will be deemed filed 

on the date of the electronic filing. 

(m) Technical difficulties. (1) A filer 

encountering technical problems with 

an eCRB filing must immediately notify 

the Copyright Royalty Board of the 

problem either by email, or by 

telephone, followed promptly by 

written confirmation. 

(2) If a filer is unable, due to technical 

problems, to make a filing with eCRB by 

an applicable deadline, and makes the 

notification required by paragraph 

(m)(1) of this section, the filer shall use 

electronic mail to make the filing with 

the Copyright Royalty Board and deliver 

the filing to the other parties to the 

proceeding. The filing shall be 

considered to have been made at the 

time it was filed by electronic mail. The 

Copyright Royalty Judges may direct the 

filer to refile the document through 

eCRB when the technical problem has 

been resolved, but the document shall 

retain its original filing date. 

(3) The inability to complete an 

electronic filing because of technical 

problems arising in the eCRB system 

may constitute ‘‘good cause’’ (as used in 

§ 303.6(b)(4)) for an order enlarging time 

or excusable neglect for the failure to act 

within the specified time, provided the 

filer complies with paragraph (m)(1) of 

this section. This section does not 

provide authority to extend statutory 

time limits. 

Dated: December 15, 2020. 

Jesse M. Feder, 

Chief Copyright Royalty Judge. 

[FR Doc. 2020–27941 Filed 12–23–20; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 1410–72–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

49 CFR Part 595 

[Docket No. NHTSA–2016–0031] 

RIN 2127–AL67 

Make Inoperative Exemptions; Vehicle 

Modifications To Accommodate People 

With Disabilities 

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration (NHTSA), U.S. 

Department of Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Supplemental notice of 

proposed rulemaking (SNPRM). 

SUMMARY: In 2016, NHTSA published a 

notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) 

to amend our regulations, ‘‘Make 

Inoperative Exemptions, Vehicle 

Modifications to Accommodate People 

With Disabilities,’’ to include a new 

exemption relating to the Federal motor 

vehicle safety standard (FMVSS) for roof 

crush resistance. The exemptions 

facilitate the mobility of drivers and 

passengers with physical disabilities. 

This SNPRM expands the scope of 

NHTSA’s 2016 NPRM in two ways. 

First, it grants a petition from Bruno 

Independent Living Aids, Inc., and 

proposes to include in part 595 an 

exemption relating to the rear visibility 

requirements in FMVSS No. 111. 

Second, in response to an inquiry from 

Enterprise Holdings Co. (Enterprise), 

this document proposes to permit rental 

car companies to make inoperative a 

knee bolster air bag, on a temporary 

basis, to permit the temporary 

installation of hand controls to 

accommodate persons with physical 

disabilities seeking to rent the vehicle. 

DATES: Comments concerning this 

SNPRM should be submitted early 

enough to ensure that the Docket 

receives them not later than January 27, 

2021. In compliance with the Paperwork 

Reduction Act, NHTSA is also seeking 

comment on a revised information 

collection. See the Paperwork Reduction 

Act section under Regulatory Analyses 


tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
84282 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 248 / Monday, December 28, 2020 / Proposed Rules 

1 81 FR 12852, Docket No. NHTSA–2016–0031. 

2Section 30101, ‘‘Purpose and Policy,’’ of the 

Safety Act states: ‘‘The purpose of this chapter is 

to reduce traffic accidents and deaths and injuries 

resulting from traffic accidents. Therefore it is 

necessary—(1) to prescribe motor vehicle safety 

standards for motor vehicles and motor vehicle 

equipment in interstate commerce; and (2) to carry 

out needed safety research and development.’’ 

3Section 595.4 of subpart C states: ‘‘The term 

motor vehicle repair business is defined in 49 

U.S.C. 30122(a) as ‘a person holding itself out to the 

public to repair for compensation a motor vehicle 

or motor vehicle equipment.’ This term includes 

businesses that receive compensation for servicing 

vehicles without malfunctioning or broken parts or 

systems by adding or removing features or 

components to or from those vehicles or otherwise 

customizing those vehicles.’’ 

4Modifications that would affect systems 

installed in compliance with any other FMVSS, or 

with an FMVSS listed in § 595.7(c) but in a manner 

not specified in that paragraph, are not covered 

under Part 595, Subpart C. 

and Notices below. Comments 

concerning the revised information 

collection requirements are due 

February 26, 2021 to NHTSA and to the 

Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) at the address listed in the 

ADDRESSES section. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

to the docket number identified in the 

heading of this document by any of the 

following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

online instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• Mail: Docket Management Facility: 

U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 

New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building 

Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 

Washington, DC 20590–0001. 

• Hand Delivery or Courier: 1200 

New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building 

Ground Floor, Room W12–140, between 

9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET, Monday through 

Friday, except Federal holidays. To be 

sure someone is there to help you, 

please call (202) 366–9332 before 

coming. 

• Fax: 202–493–2251. 

Comments on the proposed 

information collection requirements 

should be submitted to: Office of 

Management and Budget, Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs, 

Washington, DC 20503, Attn: Desk 

office for NHTSA. It is requested that 

comments sent to the OMB also be sent 

to the NHTSA rulemaking docket 

identified at the heading of this 

document. 

Instructions: For detailed instructions 

on submitting comments and additional 

information on the rulemaking process, 

see the Public Participation heading of 

the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section 

of this document. Note that all 

comments received will be posted 

without change to http://

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided. Please 

see the Privacy Act heading below. 

Privacy Act: 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 (65 FR 

19477–78). 

For access to the docket to read 

background documents or comments 

received, go to http://

www.regulations.gov or the street 

address listed above. To be sure 

someone is there to help you, please call 

(202) 366–9332 before coming. Follow 

the online instructions for accessing the 

dockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Gunyoung Lee, NHTSA Office of Crash 

Avoidance Standards (phone: 202–366– 

6005; fax: 202–493–0073); Daniel 

Koblenz, NHTSA Office of Chief 

Counsel (phone: 202–366–5329; fax 

202–366–3820); or David Jasinski 

(phone: 202–366–5552; fax 202–366– 

3820. The mailing address for these 

officials is: National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Introduction 

This SNPRM supplements an NPRM 1

published on March 11, 2016, proposing 

to amend 49 CFR part 595, subpart C to 

include a new exemption relating to 

FMVSS No. 216, ‘‘Roof crush 

resistance.’’ This SNPRM does not 

propose any substantive changes to that 

NPRM as it relates to the proposed 

exemption for FMVSS No. 216. This 

SNPRM simply proposes to expand the 

scope of the 2016 NPRM to include an 

additional make inoperative exemption 

from certain sections of FMVSS No. 111, 

‘‘Rear visibility,’’ and to create a new 

exemption for rental car companies 

having to temporarily disable a knee 

bolster air bag to install hand controls. 

The three rulemakings are related as 

they each propose to amend part 595. 

The Agency has decided to propose 

these changes as an SNPRM, rather than 

as separate individual NPRMs, for the 

sake of administrative simplicity and 

the convenience of the reader. 

II. Statutory Background 

The National Traffic and Motor 

Vehicle Safety Act (49 U.S.C. Chapter 

301) (‘‘Safety Act’’) and NHTSA’s 

regulations require vehicle and 

equipment manufacturers to certify that 

their vehicles or vehicle equipment 

comply with all applicable FMVSS (see 

49 U.S.C. 30112; 49 CFR part 567). A 

vehicle manufacturer, distributor, 

dealer, rental company, or repair 

business generally may not knowingly 

make inoperative any part of a device or 

element of design installed in or on a 

motor vehicle in compliance with an 

applicable FMVSS (see 49 U.S.C. 

30122). NHTSA has the authority to 

issue regulations that exempt regulated 

entities from the ‘‘make inoperative’’ 

provision (49 U.S.C. 30122(c)), if the 

Agency finds that the exemption would 

be consistent with motor vehicle safety 

and with 49 U.S.C. 30101.2 The Agency 

has used that authority to promulgate 49 

CFR part 595, subpart C, ‘‘Make 

Inoperative Exemptions, Vehicle 

Modifications to Accommodate People 

with Disabilities’’ (hereafter, ‘‘subpart 

C’’). 

Subpart C sets forth exemptions to 

permit, under limited circumstances, 

vehicle modifications that make certain 

systems installed in compliance with an 

FMVSS inoperative when the vehicles 

are modified to be used by persons with 

disabilities after the first retail sale of 

the vehicle for purposes other than 

resale. The regulation was promulgated 

to facilitate the modification of motor 

vehicles so that persons with disabilities 

can drive or ride in them. The 

regulation involves information and 

disclosure requirements and limits the 

extent of modifications that may be 

made. 

Under the regulation, a motor vehicle 

repair business 3 that modifies a vehicle 

to enable a person with a disability to 

operate or ride as a passenger in the 

motor vehicle and that avails itself of 

the exemption provided by subpart C 

must register with NHTSA. The 

modifier is exempted from the make 

inoperative provision of the Safety Act, 

but only to the extent that the 

modifications affect compliance with 

the FMVSSs specified in 49 CFR 

595.7(c) and only to the extent specified 

in § 595.7(c).4 The modifier must affix a 

permanent label to the vehicle 

identifying itself as the modifier and the 

vehicle as no longer complying with all 

FMVSS in effect at original 

manufacture, and must provide and 

retain a document listing the affected 

FMVSSs, and indicating any reduction 

in the load carrying capacity of the 

vehicle of more than 100 kilograms (220 

pounds). 


tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 248 / Monday, December 28, 2020 / Proposed Rules 84283 

5 79 FR 19178, Docket No. NHTSA–2010–0162. 6 49 CFR 571.3. 

III. New Make Inoperative Exemption 

in Subpart C for Portions of FMVSS No. 

111, ‘‘Rear Visibility’’ 

a. Background on the FMVSS No. 111 

Requirements 

To satisfy a statutory mandate in the 

Cameron Gulbransen Kids 

Transportation Safety Act of 2007 (the 

K.T. Safety Act), NHTSA published a 

final rule 5 on April 7, 2014 amending 

FMVSS No. 111, to require, effectively, 

that all light vehicles be equipped with 

a backup camera system that, among 

other things, displays a certain specified 

field of view to the driver. The K.T. 

Safety Act directed NHTSA to amend 

the FMVSS to expand the rearward field 

of view for all passenger cars, trucks, 

multipurpose passenger vehicles, buses, 

and low-speed vehicles with a gross 

vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of less 

than 4,536 kilograms (kg) (10,000 

pounds). The rule, which became fully 

phased in on May 1, 2018, requires that 

vehicles be equipped with a system that 

provides the driver with an image of the 

area directly behind the vehicle. The 

purpose of this requirement is to reduce 

the number of back-over crashes 

involving pedestrians, particularly 

children and other high-risk persons. 

The standard requires that each 

passenger car must display a rearview 

image to the driver that meets the 

requirements of FMVSS No. 111 S5.5.1 

through S5.5.7, and that each 

multipurpose passenger vehicle, lowspeed vehicle, truck, bus, and school 

bus with a GVWR of 4,536 kg or less 

must meet the requirements of S6.2.1 

through S6.2.7. Both sets of 

requirements state that the rearview 

image must have a field of view that 

covers 5 feet from either side of the 

vehicle center line to 20 feet 

longitudinally from the vehicle’s rear 

bumper, and that the rearview image be 

large enough that the driver will see 

objects in the field of view. The 

standard also sets requirements for 

when the rearview image must be 

displayed. NHTSA assesses compliance 

with these requirements by placing 

cylindrical test objects along the 

perimeter of the minimum field of view 

requirement, and assessing whether the 

test cylinders are visible to the driver in 

the rearview image, and whether the 

rearview image is displayed under the 

required circumstances. Although the 

rear visibility requirements in FMVSS 

No. 111 are written in a technologyneutral way that states only that a 

vehicle must display a ‘‘rearview 

image’’ without reference to what 

technology is used to display the image, 

it is NHTSA’s understanding that all 

manufacturers comply with the 

rearview image requirements using a 

backup camera system (i.e., a rear-facing 

camera behind the vehicle that 

transmits a video image to a digital 

display in view of the driver). 

During the rulemaking that 

established the FMVSS No. 111 rear 

visibility requirements, the issue of 

temporary equipment obstructing a 

backup camera system’s field of view 

was raised in a comment by the 

National Truck Equipment Association 

(NTEA) to the NPRM. In this comment, 

NTEA noted that, because it was 

expected that manufacturers would 

meet the new rear visibility 

requirements with a backup camera 

system, it would be possible for the 

camera’s field of view to be obstructed 

by the installation of certain types of 

temporarily-attached vehicle 

equipment, such as a salt or sand 

spreader, which can be temporarily 

mounted to the trailer hitch of a pickup 

truck. NHTSA responded to this 

comment in the final rule by stating that 

the rule was not intended to apply ‘‘to 

trailers and other temporary equipment 

that can be installed by the vehicle 

owner.’’ However, NHTSA did not 

address the question of whether the 

installation of such equipment would 

violate the make inoperative prohibition 

(49 U.S.C. 30122) if done by an entity 

subject to § 30122. 

b. Bruno’s Petition for Rulemaking 

On April 17, 2018, NHTSA received 

a petition for rulemaking from Bruno 

requesting NHTSA to amend subpart C 

so that it would include paragraphs S5.5 

and S6.2 of FMVSS No. 111. 

Bruno states it is a manufacturer of 

several products that allow a vehicle 

owner to transport unoccupied personal 

mobility devices (PMD) such as 

wheelchairs, powered wheelchairs, and 

powered scooters intended for use by 

vehicle occupants with mobility 

impairments. Bruno states that there are 

two types of PMD transport devices that 

it manufactures. The first type is what 

the petition describes as a platform lift 

that can be attached to the exterior of 

the vehicle by means of a trailer hitch. 

This first type of PMD transport device 

is fully supported by the trailer receiver 

hitch without ground contact. The 

second type of PMD transport device is 

supported in part by contact with the 

ground. As such it is a ‘‘trailer’’ under 

NHTSA’s definitions.6

Bruno states that most backup 

cameras that are installed pursuant to 

FMVSS No. 111 are mounted at a low 

height along the horizontal centerline of 

the vehicle, often near the vehicle’s rear 

license plate mounting. The placement 

of the backup camera in this location 

means that it may be obstructed by a 

rear-mounted PMD transport device, or 

by a PMD that is mounted onto the 

transport device. Since the PMD 

transport devices may obstruct the rear 

view from the vehicle’s rearview video 

system, installation of the devices could 

arguably violate the ‘‘make inoperative’’ 

prohibition (49 U.S.C. 30122). Bruno 

argues in its petition that PMD transport 

devices are ‘‘temporary equipment,’’ to 

which NHTSA said the final rule was 

not intended to apply. However, the 

petitioner states that, to avoid potential 

uncertainty regarding the manufacture, 

sale or installation of both types of PMD 

transport device Bruno manufactures, 

Bruno requests that subpart C be 

amended to cover the backup camera 

requirements (S5.5 and S6.2) of FMVSS 

No. 111. 

After filing the petition, Bruno 

submitted additional material in which 

the petitioner contends that the final 

rule of FMVSS No. 111 specifically 

excluded trailers such as the Bruno 

Chariot (i.e., a ‘‘trailer’’ type of PMD 

transport device), even though the body 

of current FMVSS No. 111 does not 

include explicit language for the 

exclusion of trailers, and even though 

the preamble was referring to trailers 

attached by the vehicle owner. 

Response to Petition 

NHTSA recognizes that the 

petitioner’s request presents a trade-off 

between the benefits of a camera system 

for rear visibility balanced against 

enhanced mobility for people with 

disabilities. Comments are requested on 

the proposed exemption. To achieve the 

maximum safety benefit of the 

regulations, it is our desire to provide 

the narrowest exemption possible to 

accommodate the needs of persons with 

physical disabilities, while minimizing 

unintended safety consequences that 

could occur by creating a pathway for 

unforeseen and unintended uses. 

NHTSA has decided to grant the 

petition. The modifications permitted 

under the proposed exemption would 

be temporary in that they do not 

permanently affect the vehicle’s design 

or structure, and would not be widely 

available beyond the population of 

persons with disabilities who wish to 

have a covered entity install a PMD 

transport device on their vehicle. It is 

important to note that statements in the 

preamble to the K.T. Act final rule 

cannot provide regulatory certainty that 

PMD transport devices are excluded 

from the make inoperative provision. 


tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
84284 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 248 / Monday, December 28, 2020 / Proposed Rules 

7Note that ‘‘dealer’’ is defined in the Safety Act 

as a seller of motor vehicles or motor vehicle 

equipment, which includes retail outlets that sell 

PMD transport devices. 

8Although the ‘‘make inoperative’’ prohibition 

does contain an exception for temporarily taking 

vehicles or equipment out of compliance, that 

limited exception only applies where the entity 

taking the vehicles out of compliance does not 

believe the vehicle or equipment will not be used 

when the device is inoperative. Obviously, a rental 

company would intend a rental vehicle that has a 

device or element temporarily ‘‘made inoperative’’ 

to accommodate a disability to be used while the 

device or element is inoperative. 

9A copy of this letter has been included in the 

docket number identified at the beginning of this 

document. 

10Enterprise did not provide an example other 

than the situation posed by installation of hand 

controls and its effect on knee bolster air bags. 

11This document generally refers to the act of 

‘‘disabling’’ the knee bolster air bag. For the 

purposes of the applicability of the ‘‘make 

inoperative’’ prohibition and exemption discussed 

in this document, the act of ‘‘disabling’’ the knee 

bolster air bag may also include removing the air 

bag. In other words, removal is one means of 

disabling the air bag. 

Further, unlike with the examples of 

salt and sand spreaders referenced in 

the preamble, it is NHTSA’s 

understanding that PMDs transport 

devices are generally installed by 

dealers and motor vehicle repair 

businesses that specialize in 

modifications to provide mobility 

solutions to people with physical 

disabilities, both of which are subject to 

the make inoperative prohibition.7

Accordingly, we believe a regulatory 

exemption can provide the appropriate 

regulatory certainty to allow for 

installation of PMD transport devices, 

even if not necessary for other types of 

temporary equipment installed by the 

vehicle owner. 

Based on the above analysis NHTSA 

proposes to amend subpart C to add a 

‘‘make inoperative’’ exemption for 

S5.5.1, S5.5.2, S6.2.1, and S6.2.2 of 

FMVSS No. 111, to allow for the 

temporary installation of a PMD 

transport device that could obstruct the 

vehicle’s backup camera system. 

NHTSA seeks comment on this 

proposal. 

In particular, NHTSA seeks comment 

on its decision to limit the proposed 

exemption to the temporary installation 

of a PMD transport device on a vehicle, 

which precludes entities from 

permanently disabling the backup 

camera system, or from making the 

backup camera system inoperative in 

contexts other than when attaching a 

PMD transport device to the vehicle. 

NHTSA included these restrictions on 

the proposed exemption so that the 

exemption would be as narrow as 

possible while still addressing the 

mobility needs for persons with 

disabilities. 

NHTSA also seeks comment on its 

tentative decision to limit the 

exemption to include only the ‘‘field of 

view’’ (S5.5.1 and S6.2.1) and ‘‘size’’ 

(S5.5.2 and S6.2.2) requirements, and 

not the other rearview image 

requirements in S5.5 and S6.2, such as 

‘‘linger time.’’ NHTSA did not include 

these other requirements in the 

proposed exemption because they 

would not be impacted by placing an 

object in front of the camera that blocks 

its view. 

IV. Make Inoperative Exemptions for 

Rental Companies 

a. FAST Act 

The Fixing America’s Surface 

Transportation Act (FAST Act), Public 

Law 114–94 (December 4, 2015), made 

rental companies subject to the ‘‘make 

inoperative’’ prohibition. The FAST Act 

also defined terms related to rental 

companies. For example, a ‘‘rental 

company’’ is defined as a person who is 

engaged in the business of renting 

covered rental vehicles and uses for 

rental purposes a motor vehicle fleet of 

35 or more covered rental vehicles, on 

average, during the calendar year. A 

‘‘covered rental vehicle’’ is defined as a 

vehicle that meets three requirements: 

(1) It has a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or 

less; (2) it is rented without a driver for 

an initial term of less than four months; 

and (3) it is part of a motor vehicle fleet 

of 35 or more motor vehicles that are 

used for rental purposes by a rental 

company. 

Thus, beginning in December 2015, 

rental companies, as the term is defined 

in the FAST Act, were subject to the 

make inoperative prohibition for the 

first time. One effect of this FAST Act 

provision was to subject rental 

companies to § 30122 prohibitions for 

making inoperative systems installed to 

comply with the FMVSS—even if doing 

so to accommodate the installation of 

adaptive equipment for use by persons 

with disabilities, and even if the 

modification were only temporary.8

b. Enterprise Request for Interpretation 

In a letter dated August 12, 2019, 

Enterprise, through its counsel, 

submitted a request for interpretation to 

NHTSA regarding the effect of the 

‘‘make inoperative’’ prohibition on its 

obligations under the Americans with 

Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA).9

Specifically, Enterprise asked whether 

the ‘‘make inoperative’’ prohibition 

applies to modifications by rental 

companies to temporarily disable knee 

bolster air bags to accommodate the 

installation of hand controls for drivers 

with physical disabilities. Following 

receipt of the letter, NHTSA met with 

Enterprise to discuss its request further. 

Some of the information provided by 

Enterprise has formed the basis for this 

rulemaking. 

In its letter, Enterprise stated that, to 

provide service to customers with 

disabilities and ensure compliance with 

the ADA, rental companies install 

adaptive equipment, such as hand 

controls, upon request. Enterprise stated 

that, when installing adaptive 

equipment in a motor vehicle, 

‘‘equipment or features that were 

installed in compliance with NHTSA’s 

safety standards may need to be 

modified. In these cases, the vehicle 

modification may render the affected 

equipment or features, as originally 

certified, ‘inoperative.’ ’’ 

Enterprise specifically addressed 

safety concerns with installing hand 

controls in rental vehicles equipped 

with knee bolster air bags.10 Hand 

controls consist of a metal bar that 

connects to the accelerator and brake 

pedals of a vehicle to enable operation 

by a person unable to control the pedals 

with their feet. Knee bolster air bags are 

installed by manufacturers to prevent or 

reduce the severity of leg injuries in the 

event of a frontal collision. Since knee 

bolster air bags, like all air bags, deploy 

at high speeds with a great degree of 

force, installed hand controls could 

either break apart, creating and 

propelling dangerous metal fragments, 

or otherwise be propelled into the driver 

at great forces—either of which would 

create a serious safety risk. 

Enterprise stated that manufacturers 

of hand controls owned by Enterprise 

specify that a driver’s side knee bolster 

air bag must be disabled (including 

removal in some instances) 11 for safe 

operation of the hand controls, both 

because the presence of a knee bolster 

air bag may interfere with safe operation 

of the hand controls, and because the 

presence of hand controls would 

interfere with the air bag should it be 

deployed in the event of a crash. 

Enterprise noted that 49 CFR part 595, 

subpart C, includes exemptions for 

certain entities from the ‘‘make 

inoperative’’ prohibition in certain 

circumstances to accommodate the 

modification of vehicles for persons 

with disabilities. However, the subpart 

does not include ‘‘rental companies’’ 

within the entities who could use those 

exemptions in subpart C. 

Pertaining specifically to knee bolster 

air bags, Enterprise noted that they are 

not specifically required by FMVSS No. 

208. However, Enterprise observed that 

vehicle manufacturers are increasingly 


tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 248 / Monday, December 28, 2020 / Proposed Rules 84285 

12See 49 CFR 571.208 S15.3.5. 

making knee bolster air bags standard 

equipment on all models such that it is 

becoming difficult for Enterprise to 

purchase new vehicles that do not 

include knee bolster air bags. Further, 

Enterprise stated that vehicles with knee 

bolster air bags are not crash tested with 

the knee bolster air bags removed or 

disabled, meaning Enterprise cannot 

know whether disabling knee bolster air 

bags affects compliance with FMVSS 

No. 208. 

Enterprise concluded that, based 

upon its ADA obligations to provide 

hand controls for drivers requesting 

them and the increasing trend of knee 

bolster air bags being standard 

equipment, Enterprise expects to need 

to disable knee bolster air bags 

temporarily on rental vehicles to 

continue to make vehicles available to 

rent by drivers with physical 

disabilities. Enterprise requested 

NHTSA’s opinion on the applicability of 

the ‘‘make inoperative’’ prohibition to 

these circumstances. 

c. Applicability of ‘‘Make Inoperative’’ 

Prohibition to Enterprise 

The question raised by Enterprise’s 

letter is whether disabling the knee 

bolster air bag would constitute a 

violation of the ‘‘make inoperative’’ 

prohibition. NHTSA does not have 

sufficient information to determine 

whether the knee bolster air bag is a part 

or element of design installed ‘‘in 

compliance with an applicable motor 

vehicle safety standard,’’ but notes that 

knee bolster air bags are installed to 

reduce femur loading, and FMVSS No. 

208 does provide specific requirements 

for femur load.12 While NHTSA has 

made general inquiries with vehicle 

manufacturers through their trade 

association about whether knee bolster 

air bags are installed as part of an 

element of design installed in 

compliance with the motor vehicle 

safety standards, their association has 

not yet provided information to resolve 

this question. 

After considering the issue, NHTSA 

has determined that it cannot 

affirmatively state that § 30122 would 

not prohibit making inoperative knee 

bolster air bags to install hand controls 

to enable service to customers with 

physical disabilities. The Agency 

appreciates the difficulties this issue 

poses to Enterprise and other rental 

companies. As knee bolster air bags are 

already becoming standard equipment 

across much of the light duty fleet, this 

situation could result in rental 

companies facing the untenable position 

of being forced to either: (1) Retain a 

number of older vehicles in its fleet 

(without knee bolster air bags) and on 

its premises to rent to drivers requesting 

hand controls; (2) cease the rental of 

vehicles to drivers requesting hand 

controls; (3) disable the air bag and 

potentially violate § 30122; or (4) install 

hand controls on vehicles with knee 

bolster air bags and create serious safety 

risks for their customers. None of these 

results is acceptable to NHTSA. The 

first action would prevent Enterprise 

from renting newer vehicles, which 

include newer safety innovations, to 

drivers requiring the use of hand 

controls, would be impracticable given 

the inability to guarantee availability of 

sufficient vehicles at all relevant rental 

facilities, and would eventually be 

impossible as those vehicle age out of 

their useful service lives. The second 

action would eliminate a critical service 

for people with disabilities and may 

have implications for compliance with 

the Americans with Disabilities Act. 

The third action would potentially 

violate the Safety Act. The fourth option 

would create an unreasonable risk to the 

safety of rental customers with physical 

disabilities. NHTSA is addressing the 

situation by proposing to use its 

statutory authority to exempt rental 

companies conditionally from the Safety 

Act’s ‘‘make inoperative’’ prohibition to 

allow the temporary disabling of knee 

bolster air bags. 

d. Need for a ‘‘Make Inoperative’’ 

Exemption for Rental Companies 

NHTSA is issuing this SNPRM after 

considering the untenable situation 

faced by prospective vehicle renters 

with physical disabilities and rental car 

companies seeking to provide services 

to people with physical disabilities, and 

balancing NHTSA’s strong interest in 

promoting motor vehicle safety with the 

interest (including the statutory interest 

implicit within the ADA) to provide 

access to mobility for persons with 

disabilities. NHTSA has tentatively 

concluded that it should exercise its 

statutory authority to exempt rental 

companies from the make inoperative 

prohibition in certain circumstances, 

and with certain conditions, so that 

rental companies may rent vehicles to 

drivers requesting hand controls. This 

action is consistent with NHTSA’s 

decision to promulgate 49 CFR part 595, 

subpart C, to exempt motor vehicle 

repair businesses from the make 

inoperative prohibition to accommodate 

persons with disabilities. While the 

balance of safety and accessibility 

associated with granting an exemption 

to the make inoperative prohibition to 

rental companies is identical to the 

grant of exemption to motor vehicle 

repair businesses, some aspects are 

quite different, as will be discussed 

next. 

Therefore, NHTSA is proposing to 

add a new section to 49 CFR part 595 

specifically for rental companies. While 

this section would be largely similar to 

49 CFR 595.7, NHTSA believes that 

rental companies could not easily be 

added to section 595.7 for several 

reasons. First, section 595.7 

contemplates permanent modifications 

and NHTSA expects that rental 

companies would modify vehicles only 

temporarily. Therefore, the proposal 

specifically limits the exemption to the 

duration of the rental agreement and a 

reasonable period before and after the 

rental agreement (a period to perform 

and reverse the necessary 

accommodations). Like in 49 CFR 595.7, 

NHTSA is proposing a requirement that 

the vehicle have a label affixed 

indicating that it has been modified 

such that a device or element of design 

installed pursuant to the FMVSS may 

have been made inoperative. However, 

given the expected temporary nature of 

the modifications, NHTSA is not 

proposing that vehicles be permanently 

labeled. NHTSA also has not proposed 

to require that rental companies register 

with NHTSA prior to performing 

modifications. At this time, NHTSA is 

only considering allowing rental 

companies to disable a knee bolster air 

bag and is not including all of the 

exemptions applicable to motor vehicle 

repair businesses in section 595.7(c). 

These issues are discussed in greater 

detail later in this document. 

NHTSA requests public comment on 

this SNPRM, including the need of 

rental companies for relief from the 

make inoperative prohibition and how 

the exemption could be narrowly 

granted. 

As part of this discussion, NHTSA 

requests comment on whether 

Enterprise’s request may be mooted by 

the use of other models of hand controls 

or other innovations of adaptive driving 

equipment suitable for temporary 

installation. NHTSA has had 

discussions with the National Mobility 

Equipment Dealers Association 

regarding this question and has reached 

the tentative conclusion that, while 

there may be models of hand controls 

on the market that do not require 

disablement of the knee bolster air bag, 

those models require custom 

installations that would not be feasible 

for a rental company business model. 

These entities seek to make a temporary 

modification to their rental vehicles, so 

that after the rental they may remove the 

hand controls and revert the vehicle to 

its former state to rent to the next 


tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
84286 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 248 / Monday, December 28, 2020 / Proposed Rules 

customer. Further, it is likely that 

necessitating the replacement by 

Enterprise and other rental companies 

of their adaptive equipment may 

unnecessarily result in costs and other 

impacts on rental companies in seeking 

to accommodate customers with 

physical disabilities. 

e. Scope of an Exemption for Rental 

Companies 

Although NHTSA is proposing a make 

inoperative exemption for rental 

companies, NHTSA has questions 

regarding the scope of an exemption to 

rental companies, and the logistics of 

granting those exemptions. Specifically, 

NHTSA requests public comment on the 

following questions in this preamble 

and on the discussion supporting them. 

In responding to a question, we would 

appreciate commenters numbering their 

answers in accordance with the 

following numbered questions: 

1. Should rental companies be provided 

exemptions from the make inoperative 

prohibitions to make temporary vehicle 

modifications, permanent vehicle 

modifications, or both? 

The wording of the proposed 

regulatory text would only allow 

temporary modifications by rental 

companies that would include the 

duration of the rental agreement and a 

reasonable period before and after 

modification, to allow the rental 

company to make and reverse the 

modification, respectively. If the vehicle 

would be rented to a second person 

requiring the same modification 

immediately after the termination of the 

first rental agreement, a rental company 

would not be required to reverse the 

modification and then immediately 

modify the vehicle again. (Based on 

information provided by Enterprise, 

rental companies require flexibility in 

their fleet usage and, therefore, it is 

unlikely that a vehicle would be rented 

to two people requiring the same 

modification consecutively.) In any 

event, in light of this information from 

Enterprise, is there a need to allow 

rental companies to make permanent 

modifications to vehicles in order to 

accommodate drivers with disabilities? 

Should they be permitted to 

permanently modify vehicles as repair 

businesses are under Subpart C, 

provided they meet all requirements of 

sections 595.6 and 595.7? NHTSA seeks 

comments as to whether permanent 

modification may be necessary or 

helpful, and may revisit this tentative 

conclusion in a final rule in response to 

comments received. 

2. Although Enterprise only asked 

NHTSA about the application of the 

make inoperative prohibition to 

disabling knee bolster air bags to 

accommodate installation of hand 

controls, should NHTSA provide a make 

inoperative exemption for other 

installations of adaptive equipment by 

rental companies? 

This question pertains to the 

standards and modifications that would 

be covered by a make inoperative 

exemption. Enterprise’s letter refers 

only to the disablement of knee bolster 

air bags to accommodate installation of 

hand controls. To date, NHTSA has 

received no other inquiries or requests 

for relief from the make inoperative 

prohibition from any other rental 

company or related to any other 

accommodation. Accordingly, this 

proposed rule only addresses the 

disablement of knee bolster air bags to 

accommodate the installation of hand 

controls. If NHTSA receives comments 

that warrant the granting of exemptions 

to the make inoperative prohibition for 

additional accommodations, NHTSA 

will consider including an exemption 

from those accommodations in a final 

rule implementing this proposal. 

3. If a temporary modification to install 

adaptive equipment causes a 

malfunction telltale to illuminate, 

should the rental company be allowed 

to disable the telltale? 

This question pertains to the air bag 

malfunction telltale. One aspect not 

directly addressed in Enterprise’s letter 

is what effect the modification would 

have on the air bag malfunction telltale, 

which is required by FMVSS No. 208. 

In its conversations with NHTSA, 

Enterprise stated that its procedure for 

disabling the knee bolster air bag would 

involve the installation of a shunt 

within the electrical circuitry of the air 

bag system. NHTSA believes that the 

installation of such a shunt would allow 

the air bag system, upon its diagnostic 

check at the time the vehicle is started, 

to conclude that there is no malfunction 

within the air bag system. Accordingly, 

after the diagnostic check, NHTSA 

believes that the air bag malfunction 

telltale would not illuminate as a result 

of disabling the knee bolster air bag. 

NHTSA requests comment on 

whether the disabling of the air bag in 

this manner is desirable and should be 

permitted. There are competing safety 

interests at issue when considering this 

question. If a shunt were not installed, 

NHTSA believes that, for vehicles where 

the knee bolster air bag is disabled, the 

air bag malfunction telltale would 

illuminate after the diagnostic check. 

This would correctly provide the 

operator of the vehicle with information 

that the air bag system is not 

operational, and would provide 

additional assurance that the disabling 

of the knee bolster air bag is reversed for 

later rentals. A subsequent renter of the 

exempted vehicle, where the 

modification was inadvertently not 

reversed, could see the telltale 

illuminated and inform the rental 

company of the malfunction. 

However, the illumination of the air 

bag malfunction telltale where the knee 

bolster air bag is disabled may also have 

negative safety consequences. If the air 

bag malfunction telltale is illuminated 

for the duration of the rental to a driver 

with a disability, that driver would not 

have the benefit of the telltale 

illuminating the event of any other 

malfunction within the air bag system, 

including malfunctions affecting air 

bags that are clearly installed as part of 

compliance with FMVSS No. 208. 

NHTSA is also unaware of whether the 

activation of a malfunction indicator 

light will result in a suppression of 

other air bags that are not disabled by 

the rental company. The proposed 

regulatory text does not make 

allowances for making inoperative the 

telltale in the situation presented by 

Enterprise. However, NHTSA seeks 

comment on how this issue should be 

addressed in a final rule. 

4. Would NHTSA need to provide a 

make inoperative exemption for 

installation of hand controls? 

Alternatively stated, would the mere 

installation of hand controls by a rental 

company potentially make inoperative 

systems installed in compliance with an 

FMVSS, even if no other modifications 

to the vehicle are made? For example, 

would a hand control (or any other 

adaptive equipment typically installed 

by rental companies) interfere with 

devices or elements of designs installed 

in compliance with any FMVSS? If the 

mere installation of adaptive equipment 

potentially violates the ‘‘make 

inoperative’’ prohibition, NHTSA would 

consider broadening the scope of the 

exemption granted in a final rule issued 

following this proposal. 

f. Procedural Requirements for an 

Exemption for Rental Companies 

NHTSA has questions related to 

procedural aspects of such an 

exemption. These questions include: 

5. Should rental companies need to 

request an exemption from NHTSA or 

should the exemption be provided 

automatically within the regulation? 

NHTSA has tentatively concluded, as 

with motor vehicle repair businesses, 


tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 248 / Monday, December 28, 2020 / Proposed Rules 84287 

13This list of entities is not intended as an 

endorsement of any entity, but is solely provided 

for informational purposes. 

rental companies should not have to 

seek an exemption from NHTSA in 

order to disable knee bolster air bags 

temporarily to install hand controls. 

Rather, NHTSA proposes to grant the 

exemption to rental companies 

conditionally on their compliance with 

the proposed amendments to 49 CFR 

part 595. Given that a rental company 

may be required to make modifications 

quickly to provide accommodations 

when a customer requests a vehicle with 

hand controls, NHTSA does not find 

that seeking permission to obtain an 

exemption would be beneficial to safety 

or to drivers requesting modifications, 

or practical to execute in actual 

situations. Moreover, NHTSA would be 

limited in its ability to evaluate the 

merits of a request for an exemption in 

an approval system, and so it seems 

obtaining NHTSA approval would serve 

no useful purpose. 

6. If rental companies are granted 

exemption by the regulation alone 

rather than on request to NHTSA, 

should rental companies be required to 

notify NHTSA of modifications to 

vehicles? If so, how often and what 

information should rental companies be 

required to provide? 

As provided in 49 CFR 595.6, a motor 

vehicle repair business that modifies a 

vehicle pursuant to part 595 must, not 

later than 30 days after it modifies a 

vehicle pursuant to the ‘‘make 

inoperative’’ exemption in part 595, 

identify itself to NHTSA. NHTSA has 

tentatively concluded that a similar 

requirement is not warranted for rental 

companies. First, there are far fewer 

rental companies than there are motor 

vehicle repair businesses, such that 

NHTSA is aware of the existence of 

large rental companies. Second, the 

modifier information furnished to 

NHTSA under 49 CFR 595.6 is used, in 

part, to populate a database available to 

the public of entities that perform 

modifications to motor vehicles to 

accommodate persons with 

disabilities.13 In the instance of rental 

companies, they are modifying vehicles 

to accommodate customers with 

physical disabilities as part of its 

business operations, and as part of its 

efforts to comply with the ADA. Thus, 

a list of rental companies able to modify 

vehicles pursuant to 49 CFR part 595 

would likely be a list of all rental 

companies. Such a list would be of 

limited utility to the public, but would 

impose a paperwork burden on all 

rental companies. NHTSA tentatively 

concludes that, consistent with the goals 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act, it is 

not necessary for rental companies to 

identify themselves to NHTSA prior to 

modifying vehicles pursuant to a ‘‘make 

inoperative’’ exemption. However, 

NHTSA seeks comment on how many 

rental companies would be required to 

report themselves to NHTSA if such a 

reporting requirement is included in a 

final rule. 

7. Should rental companies be 

required to notify customers that a 

vehicle modified to accommodate the 

installation of adaptive equipment may 

have had devices or designs installed in 

compliance with an applicable FMVSS 

made inoperative? 

NHTSA tentatively concludes the 

answer is yes, renters of vehicles 

modified pursuant to this proposed 

make inoperative exemption would 

have to be notified that the vehicle’s 

safety device or element of design was 

made inoperative, similar to the 

requirements for motor vehicle repair 

businesses. NHTSA would require the 

name and address of the rental company 

modifying the vehicle to be disclosed to 

the renter. The notification would have 

to specifically identify that the knee 

bolster air bag has been temporarily 

affected by the modification. NHTSA 

believes, however, that this notification 

could be accomplished simply by 

annotating the invoice or rental 

agreement at the rental counter, which 

would take a minimum amount of time. 

The costs to meet this requirement 

would be insignificant. 

This notice proposes to require that 

the rental company affix a temporary 

label, meant to remained affixed during 

the rental, indicating that the knee 

bolster air bag is disabled. This label 

would serve both to inform persons 

driving the vehicle of the status of the 

air bag and to remind the rental 

company to reactivate the air bag at the 

conclusion of the rental. Because this 

proposal does not apply to permanent 

modifications, it would not be logical to 

include a permanent label stating that 

the vehicle may not comply with all 

FMVSSs. Unlike a provision in subpart 

C, this proposal does not include a 

requirement that the physical location 

of the rental company modifying the 

vehicle be on the label affixed to the 

vehicle. NHTSA believes that this 

information is provided to renters in the 

rental agreement and is not necessary to 

include on the label itself. 

8. Should rental companies be 

required to retain records of vehicles 

modified pursuant to this ‘‘make 

inoperative’’ exemption. If so, what 

information and for how long? 

Motor vehicle repair businesses who 

modify vehicles pursuant to the ‘‘make 

inoperative’’ exemption in 49 CFR part 

595, subpart C, are required to retain, for 

five years, information provided to 

owners of vehicles that are modified. 

NHTSA tentatively concludes that this 

type of record retention should be 

required of rental companies as well. 

This would facilitate enforcement by 

NHTSA in the event of potential 

violations of the terms of the make 

inoperative exemption in this proposal, 

or if a safety problem arises in the 

vehicle at a later date that could 

possibly relate to the deactivation of the 

air bag. NHTSA believes the costs 

associated with this record retention 

would be minimal since the record 

could be the rental agreement or invoice 

itself, which can be stored as part of 

their general record retention process, 

electronically or in paper format at their 

discretion. NHTSA considers the costs 

of the proposed requirements in the 

section discussing the applicability of 

the Paperwork Reduction Act. As with 

the existing record retention 

requirement for motor vehicle repair 

businesses that permanently modify 

vehicles for people with disabilities, 

NHTSA is proposing a five-year 

recordkeeping requirement. 

9. Should rental companies be 

required to notify subsequent renters 

and/or purchasers of rental vehicles that 

have been modified pursuant to this 

proposed ‘‘make inoperative’’ 

exemption that the vehicle was 

previously modified? 

While NHTSA is not proposing such 

a requirement, the Agency seeks 

comment on whether such a 

requirement is warranted and if so, how 

such a notification would be made. 

NHTSA notes that it does not have 

authority over used vehicle sales 

transactions, and that State laws may be 

better equipped to handle any general or 

specific retail disclosure obligations. If 

the comments or other information 

available at the time of the issuance of 

final rule implementing this proposal 

indicate that such a requirement is 

warranted, it may be included in the 

final rule. 

10. What procedures could or should 

NHTSA require of rental companies to 

ensure the knee bolster air bag will be 

reenabled when the rental vehicle is 

returned and the hand controls are 

disabled? 

The make inoperative exemption that 

would be applicable to rental companies 

by this proposal would only apply for 

the period during which a covered 

rental vehicle is rented to a person with 

a disability and a reasonable period 

before and after the rental agreement in 

order to perform and subsequently 

reverse the modification to 


tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
84288 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 248 / Monday, December 28, 2020 / Proposed Rules 

accommodate a driver with physical 

disabilities. However, the proposal does 

not include any specific requirements 

for rental companies for reversing 

modifications to rental vehicles. NHTSA 

requests comments on whether NHTSA 

should impose requirements related to 

reversing a vehicle modification and if 

so, what those requirements should be. 

11. To the extent car sharing 

companies (e.g., Zipcar) qualify as a 

‘‘rental company’’ under 49 U.S.C. 

30102, would all aspects of this 

proposal be reasonably applied to ride 

sharing companies, or would procedural 

requirements need to be different for 

them? 

NHTSA believes that all aspects of 

this proposal would be equally 

applicable to a car sharing company that 

qualifies as a ‘‘rental company’’ under 

the definition in 49 U.S.C. 30102. 

However, NHTSA has not conducted 

any outreach as to the application of 

this proposal to car sharing companies. 

Therefore, any comments pertinent to 

the application of this proposal would 

be helpful. 

V. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices 

Executive Order 12866 and DOT 

Regulatory Requirements 

NHTSA has considered the impact of 

this rulemaking action under E.O. 

12866, ‘‘Regulatory Planning and 

Review,’’ E.O. 13563, and the 

Department of Transportation’s 

regulatory requirements under 49 CFR 

part 5. This rulemaking document was 

not reviewed by the Office of 

Management and Budget under E.O. 

12866. It is not considered to be 

significant under E.O. 12866. NHTSA 

has determined that the effects are so 

minor that a regulatory evaluation is not 

needed to support the rulemaking. 

Modifying a vehicle in a way that 

reduces the rear visibility of a backup 

camera by installing a trailer or carrying 

device could reduce crash avoidance 

features of the vehicle when the vehicle 

is reversing. However, the number of 

vehicles potentially modified would be 

very few in number. The Agency 

believes it has made the exemption 

narrow to achieve the goal of increasing 

mobility of drivers and passengers with 

physical disabilities while maintaining 

vehicle safety to the extent possible. 

This rear visibility proposal does not 

contain new reporting requirements or 

requests for information beyond what is 

already required by 49 CFR part 595 

subpart C. This rulemaking would 

impose minor labeling, and insignificant 

recordkeeping, costs on rental 

companies who choose to take 

advantage of the opportunity to install 

temporary hand controls to 

accommodate the needs of customers 

with physical disabilities, which we 

expect may be transferred to consumers. 

The label and recordkeeping 

requirements are necessary to ensure the 

modification that takes the vehicle out 

of compliance with the FMVSS is 

temporary and that the vehicle will be 

restored to full compliance when the 

rental is over. The proposed 5-year 

record retention requirement would 

facilitate enforcement by NHTSA in the 

event of potential violations of the terms 

of the make inoperative exemption in 

this proposal, and to facilitate the 

investigation and identification of 

vehicles in the event a subsequent safety 

problem arises that could relate to the 

manner in which air bags were 

deactivated. NHTSA believes that the 

costs associated with retaining this 

record would be insignificant since the 

record could be the rental invoice or 

agreement itself, which can be stored by 

rental companies in the same manner 

that they store their invoices, including 

electronically. 

Rental companies choosing to 

deactivate knee bolster air bags to 

facilitate installation of hand controls 

would incur costs associated with the 

installation of a shunt and a pedal 

operating device for a person with 

disability. However, the proposed rule 

is an enabling rule and does not require 

a rental business to engage in this 

practice. Thus, any costs associated 

with the installation of these devices are 

solely related to a rental business that 

chooses to accommodate consumers 

with disabilities for business or other 

reasons. Although the proposed rule 

would not directly contribute to the 

potential costs, any such potential costs 

would likely be transferred to 

consumers. Modifying a vehicle to 

install a trailer or carrying device, or 

temporary hand controls would not only 

increase business for entities making 

these modifications, but also increase 

consumer choices resulting from the 

perceived usefulness of the installed 

hardware. The consumer demand for 

the equipment and service is evidence 

that the perceived usefulness would be 

greater than the sum of its cost and any 

perceived added safety risk (i.e., 

resulting from making the rearview 

camera and/or air bag inoperative). 

E.O. 13771 (Regulatory Reform) 

NHTSA has reviewed this SNPRM for 

compliance with E.O. 13771 (‘‘Reducing 

Regulation and Controlling Regulatory 

Costs’’) which requires Federal Agencies 

to offset the number and cost of new 

regulations through the repeal, 

revocation, or revision of existing 

regulations. As provided in OMB 

Memorandum M–17–21 (‘‘Implementing 

E.O. 13771’’), a ‘‘regulatory action’’ 

subject to E.O. 13771 is a significant 

regulatory action as defined in section 

3(f) of E.O. 12866 that has been finalized 

and that imposes total costs greater than 

zero. As discussed above, this action is 

not a significant rule under Executive 

Order 12866. Accordingly, it is not 

subject to the offset requirements of 

13771. 

This SNPRM is expected to be a 

deregulatory action under E.O. 13771. It 

provides an exemption to dealers and 

repair businesses that would permit 

them to facilitate transport of 

unoccupied personal mobility devices 

(PMD) such as wheelchairs, powered 

wheelchairs, and powered scooters 

intended for use by vehicle occupants 

with mobility impairments. The SNPRM 

would permit these entities the ability 

to attach platform lifts and trailers for 

carrying PMD and provide more 

consumer choices, which may result in 

increased interest in and sales of these 

devices. The second part of this SNPRM 

would benefit rental companies by 

enabling them to modify vehicles for 

customers with disabilities and allow 

for the rental of vehicles with hand 

controls. The rental companies would 

benefit by enabling a temporary 

modification that will allow them to 

satisfy demand for such vehicles. They 

would not have to turn away customers 

seeking to rent a vehicle with hand 

controls due to an absence of such a 

vehicle on their premises. However, 

NHTSA is unable at this time to 

quantify the cost impacts due to the lack 

of information about the demand for 

devices such as petitioner Bruno’s PMD 

transporters and, from rental companies, 

the demand for hand controls on rental 

vehicles whose installation necessitates 

deactivating the knee bolster air bag. 

NHTSA requests comments on 

estimating the cost savings of this 

proposed rule. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), as amended 

by the Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 

1996), whenever an Agency is required 

to publish a notice of proposed 

rulemaking or final rule, it must prepare 

and make available for public comment 

a regulatory flexibility analysis that 

describes the effect of the rule on small 

entities (i.e., small businesses, small 

organizations, and small governmental 

jurisdictions). The Small Business 

Administration’s regulations at 13 CFR 

part 121 define a small business, in part, 

as a business entity ‘‘which operates 


tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 248 / Monday, December 28, 2020 / Proposed Rules 84289 

primarily within the United States.’’ (13 

CFR 121.105(a)). No regulatory 

flexibility analysis is required if the 

head of an Agency certifies the rule will 

not have a significant economic impact 

on a substantial number of small 

entities. SBREFA amended the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act to require 

Federal Agencies to provide a statement 

of the factual basis for certifying that a 

rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. 

I certify that this proposed rule would 

not have a significant economic impact 

on a substantial number of small 

entities. The entities installing the 

trailers and PMD-carrying devices could 

be small entities, and a substantial 

number of rental companies might also 

be small entities as well. However, the 

impacts on them are not expected to be 

significant. The proposed exemption 

would be deregulatory and provide 

additional flexibility to these entities 

with minimal requirements (there are 

some labeling and recordkeeping 

requirements), but overall the Agency 

does not believe there would be a large 

number of PMD installed, or a large 

number of rental car transactions 

affected by this rulemaking. Therefore, 

the impacts on any small businesses 

affected by this rulemaking would not 

be significant. 

Executive Order 13132 (Federalism) 

NHTSA has examined today’s 

proposed rule pursuant to Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255; Aug. 10, 

1999) and concluded that no additional 

consultation with States, local 

governments, or their representatives is 

mandated beyond the rulemaking 

process. The Agency has concluded that 

the proposed rule does not have 

sufficient federalism implications to 

warrant consultation with State and 

local officials or the preparation of a 

federalism summary impact statement. 

The proposal does not have ‘‘substantial 

direct effects on the States, on the 

relationship between the national 

government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government.’’ This proposed 

rule would not impose any 

requirements on anyone. This proposal 

would lessen restrictions on modifiers 

and rental companies. 

NHTSA rules can have preemptive 

effect in two ways. First, the National 

Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act 

contains an express preemption 

provision stating that a State (or a 

political subdivision of a State) may 

prescribe or continue to enforce a 

standard that applies to an aspect of 

performance of a motor vehicle or motor 

vehicle equipment only if the standard 

is identical to the FMVSS governing the 

same aspect of performance. See 49 

U.S.C. 30103(b)(1). This provision is not 

relevant to this rulemaking as it does 

not involve the establishing, amending 

or revoking of a Federal motor vehicle 

safety standard. 

Second, the Supreme Court has 

recognized the possibility, in some 

instances, of implied preemption of 

State requirements imposed on motor 

vehicle manufacturers, including 

sanctions imposed by State tort law. 

While NHTSA is unaware of any 

specific State law or action that would 

prohibit the actions that this proposed 

rule would permit, some States may 

have laws or enforcement postures 

relating to the disabling of air bags. 

While NHTSA is generally favors 

enforcement of such laws (indeed air 

bag disabling by manufacturers, dealers, 

motor vehicle repair businesses and 

rental companies is generally prohibited 

through NHTSA’s make inoperative 

prohibition), the proposed exemption 

from this provision for temporary 

disablement of knee bolster air bags 

could preempt State laws that include 

broad prohibitions against disabling air 

bags or air bag malfunction indicators. 

NHTSA requests comment from States 

as to whether such laws or enforcement 

postures exist. 

Civil Justice Reform 

When promulgating a regulation, 

Agencies are required under Executive 

Order 12988 to make every reasonable 

effort to ensure that the regulation, as 

appropriate: (1) Specifies in clear 

language the preemptive effect; (2) 

specifies in clear language the effect on 

existing Federal law or regulation, 

including all provisions repealed, 

circumscribed, displaced, impaired, or 

modified; (3) provides a clear legal 

standard for affected conduct rather 

than a general standard, while 

promoting simplification and burden 

reduction; (4) specifies in clear language 

the retroactive effect; (5) specifies 

whether administrative proceedings are 

to be required before parties may file 

suit in court; (6) explicitly or implicitly 

defines key terms; and (7) addresses 

other important issues affecting clarity 

and general draftsmanship of 

regulations. 

Pursuant to this Order, NHTSA notes 

as follows. The preemptive effect of this 

proposed rule is discussed above. 

NHTSA notes further that there is no 

requirement that individuals submit a 

petition for reconsideration or pursue 

other administrative proceeding before 

they may file suit in court. 

National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

Under the National Technology 

Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 

(NTTAA) (Pub. L. 104–113), ‘‘all Federal 

agencies and departments shall use 

technical standards that are developed 

or adopted by voluntary consensus 

standards bodies, using such technical 

standards as a means to carry out policy 

objectives or activities determined by 

the agencies and departments.’’ 

Voluntary consensus standards are 

technical standards (e.g., materials 

specifications, test methods, sampling 

procedures, and business practices) that 

are developed or adopted by voluntary 

consensus standards bodies, such as the 

Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE). 

The NTTAA directs us to provide 

Congress, through OMB, explanations 

when we decide not to use available and 

applicable voluntary consensus 

standards. No voluntary standards exist 

regarding these proposed exemptions 

for modification of vehicles to 

accommodate persons with disabilities. 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 requires 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 annually 

(adjusted for inflation with base year of 

1995). This proposed exemption would 

not result in expenditures by State, local 

or tribal governments, in the aggregate, 

or by the private sector in excess of $100 

million annually. 

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 would not have any 

significant impact on the quality of the 

human environment. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

Under procedures established by the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

(PRA), a person is not required to 

respond to a collection of information 

by a Federal Agency unless the 

collection displays a valid Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) control 

number. The proposal adding the 

backup camera requirements (S5.5 and 

S6.2) of FMVSS No. 111 to 49 CFR part 

595 subpart C does not contain new 

reporting requirements or requests for 

information beyond what is already 

required by subpart C. The proposal 


tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
84290 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 248 / Monday, December 28, 2020 / Proposed Rules 

14This information is based upon an estimate 

provided by Enterprise regarding the number of 

vehicle modifications it anticipates making. 

15See May 2019 National Occupational 

Employment and Wage Estimates by ownership, 

Federal, state, and local government including the 

U.S. Postal Service, available at https://

www.bls.gov/oes/current/999001.htm#49-0000 

(accessed December 22, 2020). 

addressing rental companies would be a 

new Information Collection Request 

(ICR), and has been forwarded to OMB 

for review. The ICR describes the nature 

of the information collection and its 

expected burden. 

This SNPRM would make changes to 

an existing information collection for 

exemptions from the make inoperative 

prohibition for modifiers and related 

consumer disclosures under 49 CFR part 

595, subpart C. In compliance with the 

requirements of the PRA, NHTSA asks 

for public comments on the following 

proposed revision of a currently 

approved collection of information: 

Title: Exemption from Make 

Inoperative Prohibition Modifier 

Identification and Consumer Disclosure 

49 CFR 595 Subpart C. 

Type of Request: Revision of a 

currently approved collection. 

OMB Control Number: 2127–0635 

Affected Public: Businesses that 

modify vehicles, after first retail sale, so 

that the vehicle may be used by persons 

with disabilities. 

Requested Expiration Date of 

Approval: Three years from the date of 

approval. 

Form Number: None. 

Summary of the Collection of 

Information: Rental companies would 

be added to the group of entities who, 

if they avail themselves of the 

exemptions in 49 CFR subpart C, are 

required to keep a record, for each 

applicable vehicle, listing which 

standards, or portions thereof, are 

affected by the modification, and to 

provide a copy to the owner (renter) of 

the vehicle modified (see 49 CFR 595.7 

(b) and (e) as published below). This 

SNPRM does not propose to extend the 

registration requirement for modifiers to 

rental companies, so that aspect of the 

collection is not proposed to be 

modified. 

Description of the Need for the 

Information and Use of the Information: 

This SNPRM proposes to extend to 

rental companies the requirement that 

modifiers provide each customer whose 

vehicle modification involves the use of 

the make inoperative exemptions with a 

list of the exemptions used to modify 

that vehicle. (Practically speaking, there 

would only be the one exemption 

discussed in this SNPRM, for knee 

bolster air bags.) The simplest form of 

this document is an annotated invoice 

or rental agreement. No specific, 

separate, or special forms are required. 

A copy of this document must also be 

retained for five years. This document 

will be used by the consumer (or renter, 

in the case of rental vehicles) to 

understand the modifications made to 

his/her vehicle and their effect on 

vehicle safety. It may be used by 

NHTSA in the event of an inquiry about 

the safety of the modified vehicles or 

compliance with the requirements that 

might be adopted. 

Description of the Likely Respondents 

(Including Estimated Number, and 

Proposed Frequency of Response to the 

Collection of Information): NHTSA 

estimates that rental companies would 

temporarily modify approximately 4000 

vehicles per year 14 for persons with 

disabilities under the exemption 

proposed in this SNPRM, all of which 

are proposed to be subject to the 

notification requirement. 

Estimate of the Total Annual 

Reporting and Recordkeeping Burden 

Resulting from the Collection of 

Information: The burden for the record 

required by proposed 49 CFR 595.8 for 

those vehicles will be an additional 

1,333 hours per year nationwide. 

NHTSA anticipates that the least costly 

way for a rental company to comply 

with this portion of the new rule would 

be to annotate the vehicle modification 

invoice to describe the exemption, if 

any, involved with each item on the 

invoice. The cost of preparing the 

invoice is not a portion of our burden 

calculation, as that preparation would 

be done in the normal course of 

business. The time needed to annotate 

the invoice, we estimate, is 20 minutes. 

This burden does not include the 

gathering of the information required for 

the calculation. That information would 

be gathered in the normal course of the 

vehicle modification. 

The labor costs associated with this 

additional burden are estimated to be 

$25.29 per hour for ‘‘Automotive 

Service Technicians and Mechanics,’’ 

Occupation code 49–3023.15 This is 

based on the assumption that the person 

making the modification to the vehicle 

will be annotating the invoice, rather 

than a rental clerk assisting a customer. 

Therefore, the estimated total labor costs 

associated with this additional burden 

are $33,712 ($25.29 per hour wage × 

1,333 hours = $33,711.57). 

There will be no additional material 

cost associated with compliance with 

this requirement since no additional 

materials need be used above those used 

to prepare the invoice in the normal 

course of business. We are assuming it 

is normal and customary in the course 

of rental car business to prepare an 

invoice, to provide a copy of the invoice 

to the vehicle owner, and to keep a copy 

of the invoice for five years after the 

vehicle is rented. 

Comments Are Invited On: 

1. Will the document referenced in 

proposed 49 CFR 595.8 need to be 

prepared for approximately 4000 

temporarily modified vehicles per year? 

2. Will the annotation of each invoice 

as to which exemptions were used take 

an average of 20 minutes? If the 

exemption were only for the knee 

bolster air bag, would a time less than 

20 minutes be needed? 

3. Is it normal in the course of the car 

rental business, to provide a copy of the 

invoice to the vehicle owner, and to 

keep a copy of the invoice for five years 

after the vehicle is delivered to the 

owner in finished form? 

Please submit any comments, 

identified by the docket number in the 

heading of this document, by the 

methods described in the ADDRESSES

section of this document to NHTSA and 

OMB. 

Plain Language 

Executive Order 12866 requires each 

Agency to write all rules in plain 

language. Application of the principles 

of plain language includes consideration 

of the following questions: 

• Have we organized the material to 

suit the public’s needs? 

• Are the requirements in the rule 

clearly stated? 

• Does the rule contain technical 

language or jargon that isn’t clear? 

• Would a different format (grouping 

and order of sections, use of headings, 

paragraphing) make the rule easier to 

understand? 

• Would more (but shorter) sections 

be better? 

• Could we improve clarity by adding 

tables, lists, or diagrams? 

• What else could we do to make the 

rule easier to understand? 

If you have any responses to these 

questions, please include them in your 

comments on this proposal. 

Regulation Identifier Number (RIN) 

The Department of Transportation 

assigns a regulation identifier number 

(RIN) to each regulatory action listed in 

the Unified Agenda of Federal 

Regulations. The Regulatory Information 

Service Center publishes the Unified 

Agenda in April and October of each 

year. You may use the RIN contained in 

the heading at the beginning of this 

document to find this action in the 

Unified Agenda. 


tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 248 / Monday, December 28, 2020 / Proposed Rules 84291 

VI. Public Participation 

How long do I have to submit 

comments? 

We are providing a 60-day comment 

period. 

How do I prepare and submit 

comments? 

• Your comments must be written in 

English. 

• To ensure that your comments are 

correctly filed in the Docket, please 

include the Docket Number shown at 

the beginning of this document in your 

comments. 

• Your comments must not be more 

than 15 pages long. (49 CFR 553.21). We 

established this limit to encourage you 

to write your primary comments in a 

concise fashion. However, you may 

attach necessary additional documents 

to your comments. There is no limit on 

the length of the attachments. 

• If you are submitting comments 

electronically as a PDF (Adobe) File, 

NHTSA asks that the documents be 

submitted using the Optical Character 

Recognition (OCR) process, thus 

allowing NHTSA to search and copy 

certain portions of your submissions. 

Comments may be submitted to the 

docket electronically by logging onto the 

Docket Management System website at 

http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

online instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• You may also submit two copies of 

your comments, including the 

attachments, to Docket Management at 

the address given above under 

ADDRESSES. 

Please note that pursuant to the Data 

Quality Act, in order for substantive 

data to be relied upon and used by the 

Agency, it must meet the information 

quality standards set forth in the OMB 

and DOT Data Quality Act guidelines. 

Accordingly, we encourage you to 

consult the guidelines in preparing your 

comments. OMB’s guidelines may be 

accessed at http://www.whitehouse.gov/ 

omb/fedreg/reproducible.html. DOT’s 

guidelines may be accessed at http://

www.bts.gov/programs/statistical_

policy_and_research/data_quality_

guidelines. 

How can I be sure that my comments 

were received? 

If you wish Docket Management to 

notify you upon its receipt of your 

comments, enclose a self-addressed, 

stamped postcard in the envelope 

containing your comments. Upon 

receiving your comments, Docket 

Management will return the postcard by 

mail. 

How do I submit confidential business 

information? 

If you wish to submit any information 

under a claim of confidentiality, you 

should submit three copies of your 

complete submission, including the 

information you claim to be confidential 

business information, to the Chief 

Counsel, NHTSA, at the address given 

above under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT. In addition, you should 

submit two copies, from which you 

have deleted the claimed confidential 

business information, to Docket 

Management at the address given above 

under ADDRESSES. When you send a 

comment containing information 

claimed to be confidential business 

information, you should include a cover 

letter setting forth the information 

specified in our confidential business 

information regulation. (49 CFR part 

512). To facilitate social distancing 

during COVID–19, NHTSA is 

temporarily accepting confidential 

business information electronically. 

Please see https://www.nhtsa.gov/ 

coronavirus/submission-confidentialbusiness-information for details. 

Will the Agency consider late 

comments? 

We will consider all comments that 

Docket Management receives before the 

close of business on the comment 

closing date indicated above under 

DATES. To the extent possible, we will 

also consider comments that Docket 

Management receives after that date. If 

Docket Management receives a comment 

too late for us to consider in developing 

the follow on final rule, we will 

consider that comment as an informal 

suggestion for future rulemaking action. 

How can I read the comments submitted 

by other people? 

You may read the comments received 

by Docket Management at the address 

given above under ADDRESSES. The 

hours of the Docket are indicated above 

in the same location. You may also see 

the comments on the internet. To read 

the comments on the internet, go to 

http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

online instructions for accessing the 

dockets. 

Please note that, even after the 

comment closing date, we will continue 

to file relevant information in the 

Docket as it becomes available. Further, 

some people may submit late comments. 

Accordingly, we recommend that you 

periodically check the Docket for new 

material. 

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 595 

Motor vehicle safety, Motor vehicles. 

In consideration of the foregoing, 

NHTSA proposes to amend 49 CFR part 

595 to read as follows: 

PART 595—MAKE INOPERATIVE 

EXEMPTIONS 

■ 1. The authority citation for Part 595 

would be revised to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 

30117, 30122 and 30166; delegation of 

authority at 49 CFR 1.95. 

■ 2. Revise § 595.3 to read as follows: 

§ 595.3 Applicability. 

This part applies to dealers, motor 

vehicle repair businesses, and rental 

companies. 

■ 3. Amend § 595.4 by adding in 

alphabetical order, the definitions 

‘‘covered rental vehicle’’ and ‘‘rental 

company,’’ to read as follows: 

§ 595.4 Definitions. 

* * * * * 

The term covered rental vehicle is 

defined as it is in 49 U.S.C. 30102(a). 

* * * * * 

The term rental company is defined 

as it is in 49 U.S.C. 30102(a). 

■ 4. Amend § 595.7 by adding paragraph 

(c)(19) to read as follows: 

§ 595.7 Requirements for vehicle 

modifications to accommodate people with 

disabilities. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(19) S5.5.1, S5.5.2, S6.2.1, and S6.2.2 

of 49 CFR 571.111, in any case in which 

a personal mobility device transporter is 

temporarily installed on a vehicle by 

way of a trailer hitch to carry a personal 

mobility device (e.g., a wheelchair, 

powered wheelchair, or powered 

scooter) used by the driver or a 

passenger with a disability. 

* * * * * 

■ 5. Add § 595.8 to read as follows: 

§ 595.8 Modifications by rental companies. 

(a) A rental company that modifies a 

motor vehicle temporarily in order to 

rent a covered rental vehicle to a person 

with a disability to operate, or ride as 

a passenger in, the motor vehicle is 

exempted from the ‘‘make inoperative’’ 

prohibition in 49 U.S.C. 30122 to the 

extent that those modifications make 

inoperative any part of a device or 

element of design installed on or in the 

motor vehicle in compliance with the 

Federal motor vehicle safety standards 

or portions thereof specified in 

paragraph (d) of this section. 

Modifications that would make 

inoperative devices or elements of 

design installed in compliance with any 

other Federal motor vehicle safety 


tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
84292 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 248 / Monday, December 28, 2020 / Proposed Rules 

standards, or portions thereof, are not 

covered by this exemption. 

(b) The exemption described in 

paragraph (a) extends only for the 

period during which the covered rental 

vehicle is rented to a person with a 

disability and a reasonable period before 

and after the rental agreement in order 

to perform and reverse the modification 

described in paragraph (d) of this 

section. 

(c) Any rental company that 

temporarily modifies a motor vehicle to 

enable a person with a disability to 

operate, or ride as a passenger in, the 

motor vehicle in such a manner as to 

make inoperative any part of a device or 

element of design installed on or in the 

motor vehicle in compliance with a 

Federal motor vehicle safety standard or 

portion thereof specified in paragraph 

(d) of this section must affix to the 

motor vehicle a label of the type and in 

the manner described in paragraph (e) of 

this section and must provide and retain 

a document of the type and in the 

manner described in paragraph (f) of 

this section. 

(d)(1) 49 CFR 571.208, in the case of 

the disablement of a knee bolster air bag 

to allow the installation of hand 

controls. 

(2) [Reserved] 

(e) The label required by paragraph (c) 

of this section shall: 

(1) Be affixed within the passenger 

compartment of the vehicle.; 

(2) Be affixed in a location visible to 

the driver in a manner that does not 

obstruct the driver’s view while 

operating the vehicle; 

(3) Contain the statement 

‘‘WARNING—To accommodate 

installation of hand controls, this rental 

vehicle has had its knee bolster air bags 

temporarily disabled,’’ and, 

(4) Be removed when the 

modifications described in paragraph 

(d) are reversed. 

(f) The document required by 

paragraph (c) of this section shall: 

(1) Be provided in original or 

photocopied paper form, or in electronic 

form to the renter of the covered rental 

vehicle at the time of execution of the 

rental agreement; 

(2) Contain the name and physical 

address of the rental company making 

the modifications; 

(3) Be kept in original or photocopied 

paper form, or retained electronically, 

by the rental company for a period of 

not less than five years after the 

conclusion of the rental agreement for 

which the modification is made; 

(4) Be clearly identifiable as to the 

vehicle that has been modified; and 

(5) Identify the devices or elements of 

design installed on or in a motor vehicle 

in compliance with a Federal motor 

vehicle safety standard made 

inoperative by the rental company. 

Issued in Washington, DC, under authority 

delegated in 49 CFR 1.95. 

James C. Owens, 

Deputy Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2020–28648 Filed 12–23–20; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P 


tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS