14406 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

holders also are required to exercise 

reasonable diligence to ascertain 

whether the foreign sponsorship 

disclosure requirements apply at the 

time of the lease agreement and at any 

renewal thereof. 

This information collection 

requirements will provide the 

Commission and the public with 

increased transparency and will ensure 

that audiences of broadcast stations are 

aware when a foreign government, or its 

representatives, are seeking to persuade 

the American public. The information 

collection requirements will also enable 

interested parties to monitor the extent 

of such efforts to persuade the American 

public. 

OMB Control Number: 3060–0214. 

OMB Approval Date: March 7, 2022. 

OMB Expiration Date: March 31, 

2025. 

Title: Sections 73.3526 and 73.3527, 

Local Public Inspection Files; Sections 

73.1212, 76.1701 and 73.1943, Political 

Files. 

Form Number: N/A. 

Respondents: Business or other for 

profit entities; Not for profit institutions; 

State, Local or Tribal government; 

Individuals or households. 

Number of Respondents: 23,996 

respondents; 66,839 responses. 

Estimated Time per Response: 1–52 

hours. 

Frequency of Response: On occasion 

reporting requirement, Recordkeeping 

requirement, Third party disclosure 

requirement. 

Obligation to Respond: Required to 

obtain or retain benefits. The statutory 

authority that covers this information 

collection is contained in Sections 151, 

152, 154(i), 303, 307 and 308 of the 

Communications Act of 1934, as 

amended. 

Total Annual Burden: 2,047,805 

hours. 

Total Annual Cost: No cost. 

Needs and Uses: The information 

collection requirements included under 

this OMB Control Number 3060–0214, 

requires broadcast stations to maintain 

for public inspection a file containing 

the material set forth in 47 CFR 73.3526 

and 73.3527. 

This collection was revised to reflect 

the burden associated with the foreign 

sponsorship identification disclosure 

requirements adopted in the 

Sponsorship Identification 

Requirements for Foreign GovernmentProvided Programming (86 FR 32221, 

June 17, 2021, FCC 21–42, rel. Apr. 22, 

2021). The collection requires broadcast 

television and radio stations to place 

copies of foreign sponsorship 

identification disclosures required by 47 

CFR 73.1212(j) and the name of the 

program to which the disclosures were 

appended in its online public 

inspection file on a quarterly basis in a 

standalone folder marked as ‘‘Foreign 

Government-Provided Programming 

Disclosures.’’ The collection requires 

325(c) permit holders to place copies of 

foreign sponsorship identification 

disclosures required by 47 CFR 

73.1212(j) and the name of the program 

to which the disclosures were appended 

in its International Bureau Filing 

System record on a quarterly basis. The 

filing must state the date and time the 

program aired. In the case of repeat 

airings of the program, those additional 

dates and times should also be 

included. Where an aural 

announcement was made, its contents 

must be reduced to writing and placed 

in the online public inspection file in 

the same manner. 

This information collection 

requirement will provide the 

Commission and the public with 

increased transparency and will ensure 

that audiences of broadcast stations are 

aware when a foreign government, or its 

representatives, are seeking to persuade 

the American public. The information 

collection requirements will also enable 

interested parties to monitor the extent 

of such efforts to persuade the American 

public. 

Lists of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73 

Radio, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Television. 

Federal Communications Commission. 

Marlene Dortch, 

Secretary, Office of the Secretary. 

Final Rules 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Federal Communications 

Commission amends 47 CFR part 73 as 

follows. 

PART 73—RADIO BROADCAST 

SERVICE 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 73 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 155, 301, 303, 

307, 309, 310, 334, 336, 339. 

§ 73.1212 [Amended] 

■ 2. Amend § 73.1212 by removing 

paragraph (l). 

[FR Doc. 2022–05447 Filed 3–14–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–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; Modifications by 

Rental Car Companies 

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration (NHTSA), 

Department of Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This final rule amends 

NHTSA’s regulations regarding 

exemptions to the make inoperative 

prohibition to accommodate disabilities 

to include new exemptions relating to 

the Federal motor vehicle safety 

standards (FMVSS) for roof crush 

resistance, rear visibility, and air bags. 

The air bag provision permits 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. We have drafted this rule to 

facilitate the mobility of drivers and 

passengers with physical disabilities in 

a manner that balances safety and 

accessibility. This rulemaking responds 

to a petition for rulemaking from the 

National Mobility Equipment Dealers 

Association and from Bruno 

Independent Living Aids, Inc., and to an 

inquiry from Enterprise Holdings Co. 

DATES: This rule is effective March 15, 

2022. 

Petitions for Reconsideration: 

Petitions for reconsideration of this final 

rule must be received at the address 

below by April 29, 2022. 

ADDRESSES: If you wish to petition for 

reconsideration of this rule, submit your 

petition to the following address so that 

it is received by NHTSA by the date 

above: Administrator, National Highway 

Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New 

Jersey Avenue SE, West Building, 

Washington, DC 20590. You should 

refer in your petition to the docket 

number of this document. The petition 

will be placed in the docket. Note that 

all submissions received will be posted 

without change to https://

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided. Please 

see the Privacy Act heading below. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Gunyoung Lee, NHTSA Office of Crash 

Avoidance Standards (phone: 202–366– 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 14407 

1NHTSA decided to combine the rulemakings 

into RIN 2127–AL67 for the convenience of readers 

and to simplify administrative procedures. 

2The modifier must also 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 FMVSSs with 

which the vehicle no longer complies and 

indicating any reduction in the load carrying 

capacity of the vehicle of more than 100 kilograms 

(kg) (220 pounds (lb)). 

3This upgraded roof crush standard was adopted 

May 12, 2009 (74 FR 22348). 

4S3.1(b). 

5The term ‘‘vehicle modifier’’ refers to entities 

that make changes to a vehicle after the first 

purchase other than for resale. The terms ‘‘alterer’’ 

and ‘‘multistage manufacturer’’ refer to entities that 

makes changes to vehicles prior to the vehicle being 

sold to the end user (i.e., prior to first purchase 

other than for resale). See 49 CFR parts 567 and 

568. 

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: 

Table of Contents 

I. Introduction 

II. Background 

III. FMVSS No. 216a (Roof Crush Resistance) 

a. The Standard 

b. NMEDA Petition for Rulemaking 

c. NPRM 

d. Comments on the NPRM 

e. Agency Decision 

IV. FMVSS No. 111 (Rear Visibility) 

a. The Standard 

b. Bruno Petition for Rulemaking 

c. SNPRM 

d. Comments on the NPRM 

e. Agency Decision 

V. FMVSS No. 208 (Occupant Crash 

Protection) 

a. FAST Act 

b. Enterprise Request for Interpretation 

c. SNPRM 

d. Response to Comments 

e. Agency Decision 

VI. Effective Date 

VII. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices 

I. Introduction 

This final rule amends 49 CFR part 

595, subpart C, ‘‘Make Inoperative 

Exemptions, Vehicle Modifications to 

Accommodate People With 

Disabilities,’’ in response to petitions 

from the National Mobility Equipment 

Dealers Association (NMEDA), Bruno 

Independent Living Aids, Inc. (Bruno), 

and a request from Enterprise Holdings 

Co. (Enterprise). 

This final rule is preceded by two 

rulemaking proposals. First, NHTSA 

published a notice of proposed 

rulemaking (NPRM) on March 11, 2016 

(81 FR 12852), relating to NMEDA’s 

petition on the roof crush resistance 

standard. Second, the agency published 

a supplemental notice of proposed 

rulemaking (SNPRM) on December 28, 

2020 (85 FR 84281) on Bruno’s petition 

on the rear visibility standard. The 

SNPRM also responded to Enterprise’s 

inquiry seeking to permit rental car 

companies the ability to temporarily 

make inoperative knee bolster air bags 

to facilitate installation of hand 

controls.1 NHTSA received no 

comments opposing adoption of the 

proposals. 

II. Background 

The National Traffic and Motor 

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

301) (Safety Act) and NHTSA’s 

regulations require vehicle 

manufacturers to certify that their 

vehicles comply with all applicable 

FMVSSs (49 U.S.C. 30112; 49 CFR part 

567) at the time of manufacture. A 

vehicle manufacturer, distributor, 

dealer, rental company or repair 

business, except as indicated below, 

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 

(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)). The agency has used that 

authority to adopt 49 CFR part 595, 

‘‘Make Inoperative Exemptions.’’ 

The provisions at 49 CFR part 595, 

subpart C, sets forth exemptions from 

the make inoperative provision to 

permit, under limited circumstances, 

vehicle modifications that take the 

vehicles out of compliance with certain 

FMVSSs 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. A 

motor vehicle repair business that avails 

itself of the exemption provided by 

subpart C must register itself with 

NHTSA. The modifier is exempted from 

the make inoperative provision only to 

the extent that the modifications affect 

the vehicle’s compliance with the 

FMVSSs specified in 49 CFR 595.7(c) 

and only to the extent specified in 

§ 595.7(c). Modifications that would 

take the vehicle out of compliance with 

any other FMVSS, or with an FMVSS 

listed in § 595.7(c) but in a manner not 

specified in paragraph (c), are not 

exempted by the regulation.2

III. FMVSS No. 216a (Roof Crush 

Resistance) 

a. The Standard 

FMVSS No. 216a, ‘‘Roof crush 

resistance; Upgraded standard,’’ 

requires that the vehicle roof meet two 

requirements when subjected to a test 

force applied by a large steel test plate 

first to one side of the roof, and then to 

the other side: The lower surface of the 

test plate must not move more than 127 

millimeters (mm); and the load applied 

to a headform positioned on a test 

device in the corresponding front 

outboard seat must not exceed 222 

Newtons. Vehicles with a gross vehicle 

weight rating (GVWR) of 2,722 kg (6,000 

lb) or less must withstand a test force of 

up to 3 times the vehicle’s unloaded 

weight. For vehicles with a GVWR 

greater than 2,722 kg (6,000 lb) and up 

to 4,536 kg (10,000 lb), the test force is 

up to 1.5 times the vehicle’s unloaded 

wight. The standard applies, with some 

exceptions, to passenger cars, trucks, 

multipurpose passenger vehicles, and 

buses other than school buses.3

The standard provides an alternative 

compliance option for vehicles built in 

two or more stages (other than vehicles 

built using a chassis cab) and vehicles 

with a GVWR greater than 2,722 kg 

(6,000 lb) with an altered roof.4

Manufacturers of these vehicles may 

certify to the roof crush requirements of 

FMVSS No. 220, ‘‘School bus rollover 

protection,’’ instead of the upgraded 

roof crush requirements in FMVSS No. 

216a. (The FMVSS No. 220 

requirements are explained below.) 

Vehicle modifiers,5 however, are (prior 

to this final rule) prohibited from 

making any vehicle modifications to 

vehicles meeting FMVSS No. 216a— 

such as raising the vehicle roof—unless 

the vehicle continues to comply with 

FMVSS No. 216a, due to the make 

inoperative prohibition. Part 595 does 

not, prior to today’s final rule, provide 

an exemption from FMVSS No. 216a for 

modifiers that raise the roof on vehicles 

to accommodate people with 

disabilities. 

b. NMEDA Petition for Rulemaking 

NMEDA requested that NHTSA 

amend 49 CFR part 595 to provide an 

exemption from FMVSS No. 216a for 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
14408 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

6NMEDA also appeared to suggest that while roof 

suppliers could (in theory) design, build, and 

provide vehicle modifiers with roofs capable of 

meeting FMVSS No. 216a, this is not likely to 

happen because the business of its members alone 

is not sufficient incentive for a roof supplier to 

design and certify a roof that meets FMVSS No. 

216a. 

7NMEDA developed raised roof manufacturing 

guidelines which provide their members with roof 

structure designs and installation considerations 

such that the modified vehicle would meet the 

minimum load requirements in FMVSS No. 220. 

See NMEDA, Raised Roof Manufacturing 

Guidelines—Ford E series GM/Chevrolet Savana/ 

Express Model years 2008–2009–2010, Revision 2, 

January 19, 2010. 

modifiers that raise the vehicle roof to 

meet the special needs of occupants 

with disabilities. NMEDA requested that 

such modifications be permitted as long 

as the vehicle is not made inoperative 

with the requirements of FMVSS No. 

220. 

NMEDA explained that (presumably 

prior to the effective date of FMVSS No. 

216a), raising the roof of a vehicle was 

an everyday manufacturing operation 

for hundreds of NMEDA members, most 

of which are modifiers of vehicles with 

a GVWR greater than 2,722 kg (6,000 lb), 

but not greater than 4,536 kg (10,000 lb). 

NMEDA explained that there is a need 

for modifiers to raise the roofs of 

vehicles after first sale to meet the 

mobility needs of consumers with 

disabilities. In many cases, a consumer 

will purchase a vehicle, usually over 

2,722 kg (6,000 lb) GVWR and then 

approach a modifier to have a roof 

raised. Generally, customers ask to raise 

the roof 305 to 356 mm (12 to 14 inches) 

to suit their particular needs. In other 

cases, a public agency or independent 

transportation company will purchase a 

vehicle to have the roof raised to 

provide public transportation for 

persons needing accommodation. 

NMEDA further argued that FMVSS 

No. 216a and the make inoperative 

prohibition make it impossible for such 

modifiers to raise the roof and ensure 

continued compliance with FMVSS No. 

216a. It explained that, prior to the 

upgrade to FMVSS No. 216a, NMEDA 

had tested and provided consortium test 

and installation instruction to its 

members for a tubular structure, or roll 

cage, to comply with the requirements 

in FMVSS No. 220. Petitioner 

conducted this testing mainly because it 

believed that FMVSS No. 220 is a 

comparatively simpler test and the roll 

cage is less expensive to install. NMEDA 

indicated, however, that the 

modification procedure it developed is 

no longer performed; it would violate 

the make inoperative prohibition 

because it was intended to ensure 

compliance with FMVSS No. 220, not 

with FMVSS No. 216a. NMEDA also 

stated that it is not practical for it to 

design a FMVSS No. 216a-compliant 

roof to fit the various makes and models 

of vehicles that would be modified. The 

petitioner further explained that, while 

modifiers would have difficultly 

ensuring a modified roof continues to 

meet FMVSS No. 216a, they would be 

able to ensure that it meets FMVSS No. 

220.6

c. NPRM 

NHTSA granted NMEDA’s petition 

and, on March 11, 2016, published an 

NPRM (81 FR 12852) proposing to 

amend part 595 to add an exemption to 

the upgraded roof strength requirements 

of FMVSS No. 216a. We proposed to 

condition this exemption on the 

installation of a roof meeting the 

performance requirements of FMVSS 

No. 220. 

In the NPRM we stated that we 

tentatively agreed with the petitioner 

that there may be a need to 

accommodate persons with special 

mobility needs by raising the vehicle 

roof and that FMVSS No. 216a 

essentially prevents vehicle modifiers 

from doing so. Prior to the promulgation 

of FMVSS No. 216a, the vast majority of 

the vehicles being modified for this 

purpose did not have to comply with 

any roof crush requirements because 

they were vehicles with a GVWR 

between 2,722 kg (6,000 lb) and 4,536 kg 

(10,000 lb), to which FMVSS No. 216 

(the pre-upgrade standard) did not 

apply. Thus, prior to the 2009 upgrade, 

modifiers could replace the roof on such 

vehicles without violating the make 

inoperative prohibition. 

We explained that, while such 

vehicles now have requirements under 

FMVSS No. 216a, the need to 

accommodate persons with disabilities 

remains. A raised roof makes it easier 

for someone to enter the vehicle seated 

in a wheelchair or for a personal care 

attendant to tend to them or walk in and 

out of the entrance. Doors may be raised 

in conjunction with a roof to enable a 

person in a wheelchair to enter without 

having to bend over or have a personal 

care attendant tilt the wheelchair back. 

Larger wheelchairs or motorized 

wheelchairs may also require 

modifications to the roof height to 

improve ingress and egress of the 

occupant. These modifications to the 

roof could take the vehicle out of 

compliance with the requirements of 

FMVSS No. 216a. 

Accordingly, we tentatively agreed 

with NMEDA that there is a need to 

provide an exemption in part 595 for 

modifications that involve raising the 

vehicle roof to accommodate persons 

with special mobility needs. We also 

tentatively agreed with NMEDA’s 

suggestion that FMVSS No. 220 is a 

reasonable alternative to ensure a 

minimum level of roof strength to 

protect the occupants of vehicles 

modified in this manner. 

Similar to the rationale we expressed 

in the 2009 final rule (74 FR 22348, May 

12, 2009) for allowing alterers and 

multistage manufacturers the option of 

certifying to FMVSS No. 220 instead of 

FMVSS No. 216a, we explained that 

there are technical problems involved 

with ensuring that a vehicle that has its 

roof raised continues to meet the 

requirements of FMVSS No. 216a. For 

example, if a van is altered by replacing 

the roof with a taller roof surface and 

structure, this would change the 

location of the FMVSS No. 216a test 

plate with respect to the original roof 

surface and structure. If a vehicle was 

modified and the roof was raised to the 

heights suggested by NMEDA (305 to 

356 mm), the 127 mm of test device 

travel specified in the requirements 

would likely be exceeded prior to the 

test device engaging the original 

vehicle’s roof structure in the FMVSS 

No. 216a test. We further stated that it 

would be difficult for modifiers 

(generally small businesses) to raise the 

roof of a vehicle to these types of 

heights and ensure that the vehicle 

remains compliant with FMVSS No. 

216a, given the small volume, variety of 

roof heights needed to accommodate 

different disabilities, and variety of 

vehicle models. 

We further stated our tentative belief 

that providing modifiers an exemption 

from FMVSS No. 216a, as long as the 

modified vehicle meets FMVSS No. 220, 

strikes an appropriate balance between 

the need to modify these vehicles to 

accommodate persons with disabilities 

and the need to ensure that vehicle roofs 

are sufficiently strong. Providing the 

qualified exemption would enable 

modifiers to use a whole raised roof that 

is designed to be installed on the 

vehicle. Further, such a raised roof 

could be applied to vehicles of varying 

height and would still be able to absorb 

the load of the test plate in the FMVSS 

No. 220 test. As NMEDA stated, such a 

roof structure has been designed and is 

available to modifiers.7

We also explained that we believed 

the requirements of FMVSS No. 220 

offer a reasonable avenue for increasing 

safety in rollover crashes. We noted 

that, at the time of the 2009 upgrade, 

several states required ‘‘para-transit’’ 

vans and other buses, which are 

typically manufactured in multiple 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 14409 

8S5.1(a). 

9S5.1(b). 

stages, to comply with the roof crush 

requirements of FMVSS No. 220. 

Further, we noted that our crash data 

showed that FMVSS No. 220 has been 

effective for protecting school buses 

during rollover crashes. We also stated 

that we believed the strength 

requirements for FMVSS Nos. 216a and 

220 are comparable. FMVSS No. 216a 

requires the roof on vehicles with a 

GVWR greater than 2,722 kg (6,000 lb) 

to withstand a force of 1.5 times the 

vehicle’s unloaded weight, applied 

sequentially to the front corners of the 

roof by an angled plate. The roof must 

withstand the force such that it does not 

crush to the point of allowing the lower 

surface of the test plate to travel more 

than 127 millimeters,8 and the load 

applied to a headform located at the 

corresponding front outboard seating 

position does not exceed 222 Newtons.9

The FMVSS No. 220 test uses a single 

horizontal plate over the whole roof of 

the vehicle to apply a load to the 

vehicle’s roof. That standard requires 

the roof to withstand a force of 1.5 times 

the vehicle’s unloaded weight prior to 

130 mm of plate travel. 

d. Comments on the NPRM 

The agency received one comment to 

the NPRM from an individual who 

supported the proposal. 

e. Agency Decision 

NHTSA has decided to finalize the 

proposal and add an exemption from 

FMVSS No. 216a to part 595 for the 

reasons provided in the NPRM. We 

recognize the concerns raised by 

NMEDA regarding continued mobility 

for people with disabilities and have 

concluded that its request to allow 

modifiers the option of meeting the 

performance requirements of FMVSS 

No. 220 is reasonable. The agency 

continues to believe the requirements of 

FMVSS No. 220 have been effective for 

school buses, and these requirements 

are permitted as a compliance option in 

FMVSS No. 216a for alterers and 

multistage manufacturers who complete 

or add raised roofs to vehicles prior to 

first retail sale. In the context of the 

NMEDA’s petition and its development 

of raised roof manufacturing guidelines 

for its members, we believe FMVSS No. 

220 appropriately balances safety and 

practicability. 

We note that in the 2009 roof crush 

upgrade rulemaking (in the context of 

the decision to specify FMVSS No. 220 

as an alternative compliance option for 

certain multistage manufacturers and 

alterers), we expressed some concern 

that, while the requirements in FMVSS 

No. 220 have been effective for school 

buses, they might not be as effective for 

other vehicle types (e.g., light vehicles) 

as FMVSS No. 216a because that test 

results in roof deformations that are 

consistent with the crush patterns in the 

real world for light vehicles. However, 

at the same time we acknowledged that 

requiring multistage manufacturers and 

alterers to meet FMVSS No. 216a would 

fail to consider the practicability 

problems and special issues those 

entities face. In those circumstances, 

NHTSA believed that the requirements 

of FMVSS No. 220 offered a reasonable 

balance between practicability and 

safety. 

Similarly, while we believe that 

ensuring light vehicles’ compliance 

with FMVSS No. 220 may not provide 

the same high level of safety as ensuring 

compliance with FMVSS No. 216a, we 

also believe that FMVSS No. 220 offers 

a reasonable avenue to balance the need 

to modify vehicles to accommodate 

persons with a disability and the need 

to increase safety in rollover crashes. 

We do encourage modifiers only to raise 

or alter the roof when there are no other 

options. For this reason, we encourage 

modifiers to contact the respective 

manufacturer or seek advice from 

groups like NMEDA to address 

questions or concerns related to the 

modification(s) that may compromise a 

safety system. It is the agency’s position 

that a modification that deactivates any 

safety system or takes a vehicle out of 

compliance from any FMVSS that is 

exempted in part 595 should be pursued 

only when all other options have been 

reasonably exhausted given the 

circumstances. 

Therefore, for the reasons provided 

here and in the NPRM, we are amending 

49 CFR 595.7(c) to exempt vehicle 

modifications in which the roof is raised 

so long as the modified vehicle meets 

the roof crush requirements of FMVSS 

No. 220. We note that the final 

regulatory text incorporates some 

technical changes to the proposed 

regulatory text. The final regulatory text 

clarifies that the exemption only applies 

to modifications involving a raised roof. 

The final regulatory text also makes 

clear that the exemption applies to the 

entirety of FMVSS No. 216a, not just 

S5.2(b). 

IV. FMVSS No. 111 (Rear Visibility) 

a. The Standard 

FMVSS No. 111 requires light 

vehicles to be equipped with a backup 

rear visibility system that, among other 

things, displays an image of the area 

directly behind the vehicle. 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, low-speed vehicle, truck, bus, 

and school bus with a GVWR of 4,536 

kg (10,000 lb) or less must meet the 

requirements of S6.2.1 through S6.2.7. 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 by a commenter. The 

commenter (the National Truck 

Equipment Association) 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 section 30122. 

b. Bruno Petition for Rulemaking 

Bruno requested that NHTSA amend 

subpart C so that it would include 

paragraphs S5.5 and S6.2 of FMVSS No. 

111. Bruno 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 stated that there are two types of 

PMD transport devices that it 

manufactures. The first type is what the 

petitioner describes as a platform lift 

that can be attached to the exterior of 

the vehicle by means of a trailer hitch. 

This 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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
14410 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

10 49 CFR 571.3. 

11We noted in the SNPRM that NHTSA issued an 

interpretation letter explicitly stating that NHTSA 

would not consider an owner installing a PMD 

transport device that obstructs the backup camera 

to be a ‘‘make inoperative’’ violation. Letter to 

Richard A. Keller, III (May 3, 2019), available at 

https://isearch.nhtsa.gov/files/571.111%20-- 

%20Camera%20Obstruction%20--%20Keller%20-- 

%2018-0661.htm. However, 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. 

12This point was raised by Bruno in its comment, 

where Bruno states that requiring that a vehicle 

remain compliant with FMVSS No. 111 could 

significantly increase the cost of PMD transport 

devices, by as much as 25%–30%. 

13Although 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. 

14A copy of this letter has been included in the 

docket number identified at the beginning of this 

document. 

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

NHTSA’s definitions.10

Bruno stated 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 

stated that, to avoid potential 

uncertainty regarding the manufacture, 

sale or installation of both types of PMD 

transport devices it manufactures, it 

requests that subpart C be amended to 

cover the backup camera requirements 

(S5.5 and S6.2) of FMVSS No. 111. 

c. SNPRM 

NHTSA granted Bruno’s petition and 

proposed to add S5.5 and S6.2 of 

FMVSS No. 111 to the list of 

exemptions in part 595, subpart C, so 

that modifiers would know that NHTSA 

would not consider the temporary 

installation of a PMD transport device 

that blocks a vehicle’s required backup 

camera to be a ‘‘make inoperative’’ 

violation. However, to maximize safety, 

we proposed to write the ‘‘make 

inoperative’’ exemption narrowly to 

apply only to the ‘‘field of view’’ and 

‘‘size’’ requirements for backup cameras 

in FMVSS No. 111 (S5.5.1, S5.5.2, 

S6.2.1, and S6.2.2), and only to the 

temporary installation of a PMD 

transport device.11

d. Comments on the SNPRM 

NHTSA received eight comments on 

the proposed expansion of part 595 to 

the ‘‘field of view’’ and ‘‘size’’ 

requirements for backup cameras in 

FMVSS No. 111, all supportive of the 

proposal. These comments were from 

disability rights advocates, trade 

associations, individual commenters, 

and Bruno itself. The comments 

supported the proposed exemption due 

to the mobility benefits it would provide 

to persons who use PMDs. Commenters 

who discussed NHTSA’s reasoning 

supported the agency’s decision to draft 

the exemption narrowly, so that it 

would only apply to temporary (rather 

than permanent) disabling of the backup 

camera system, since doing so preserves 

the safety benefits of the backup camera 

system to the greatest extent possible. 

e. Agency Decision 

NHTSA has balanced the safety 

benefits of the camera system for rear 

visibility with the enhanced mobility for 

people with disabilities that this 

exemption would enable. We are 

adopting the make inoperative 

exemption for the field of view and size 

requirements for backup cameras in 

FMVSS No. 111 (S5.5.1, S5.5.2, S6.2.1, 

and S6.2.2) but only for temporary 

situations. The modifications permitted 

under the exemption do not 

permanently affect the vehicle’s design 

or structure and will not be available 

beyond the population of persons with 

disabilities who wish to have a covered 

entity install a PMD transport device on 

their vehicle. NHTSA believes, and the 

commenters agree, that this exemption 

allowing only a temporary disabling of 

the backup camera system is narrowly 

focused and maintains the safety 

provided by the backup camera system 

in most circumstances, while 

recognizing the needs of persons with 

disabilities to transport PMDs. 

We also emphasize that, while this 

final rule’s exemption permits a 

temporary disengagement of the field of 

view and size requirements, we believe 

that modifiers should consider whether 

there are supplemental backup cameras 

that could be used with the PMD 

conveyances so that rear visibility could 

be maintained. We are not requiring the 

installation of such a system because the 

cost and complexity of wiring such a 

system into a vehicle could be 

significant enough to prevent some 

persons with disabilities from being able 

to install a PMD transport device.12

Installing such a system could also 

affect the compliance of the original 

backup camera system that drivers 

would resume relying on once a 

temporarily installed PMD transport 

device is removed. Nonetheless, NHTSA 

encourages modifiers to consider the 

feasibility of a supplemental backup 

camera to offset the blockage of the 

original equipment rear visibility 

system. 

V. FMVSS No. 208 (Occupant Crash 

Protection) 

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.13

b. Enterprise Request for Interpretation 

In a letter dated August 12, 2019, 

Enterprise 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).14 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. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 14411 

15Enterprise did not provide an example other 

than the situation posed by installation of hand 

controls and its effect on knee bolster air bags. 

16This 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. 

17See 49 CFR 571.208, S15.3.5. NHTSA noted 

that it had 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, but their 

association did not provided information to resolve 

this question. 

18A number of comments addressed broad issues 

not discussed in the rulemaking. For example, two 

anonymous commenters raised issues related to the 

safety of deaf drivers. An individual raised the issue 

of the availability of left foot drive rental cars. 

Another expressed a desire for vehicles that are 

accessible with ramps and low steps for people who 

are mobility impaired. An individual suggested that 

Continued 

Following receipt of the letter, NHTSA 

met with Enterprise to discuss its 

request further. 

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.15 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 and 

generally help control occupant 

kinematics 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 in the path of knee bolster 

air bag deployment could break apart, 

propelling components of the hand 

control into the driver with great 

forces—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) 16 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, as the 

subpart pre-dated the FAST Act, the 

subpart does not include rental 

companies within the entities who 

could use those exemptions. 

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 

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, knee bolster air bags would 

have to be temporarily disabled on 

rental vehicles to continue to make 

vehicles available to rent by drivers 

with physical disabilities. Enterprise 

requested NHTSA’s help in answering 

whether disabling the knee bolster air 

bag would constitute a violation of the 

make inoperative prohibition, and if it 

would, how Enterprise could provide 

hand controls to serve its customers. 

c. SNPRM 

NHTSA decided to issue the SNPRM 

to address the problem raised by 

Enterprise. NHTSA explained that it did 

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 noted that knee bolster 

air bags are installed to reduce femur 

loading, and FMVSS No. 208 does 

provide specific requirements for femur 

load.17 NHTSA determined that, 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 section 

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 was acceptable 

to NHTSA. The first action would 

prevent Enterprise from providing for 

rent newer vehicles, which include 

newer safety innovations, to drivers 

requiring the use of hand controls, 

which NHTSA deemed unacceptable 

because all drivers should be afforded 

the protections of new safety 

technologies. Further, the action would 

be impracticable given the inability to 

guarantee availability of sufficient 

vehicles at all relevant rental facilities. 

The second action was unacceptable as 

it would eliminate a critical service for 

people with disabilities and may be 

contrary to the ADA. 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 issued the December 2020 

SNPRM after balancing NHTSA’s 

primary 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 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. The action would be 

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. NHTSA proposed to 

add a new section to 49 CFR part 595 

specifically for rental companies having 

to disable a knee bolster air bag to 

install hand controls. 

d. Response to Comments 

NHTSA received 42 comments on the 

SNPRM. Twenty-one comments directly 

addressed the issue of the proposed 

make inoperative exemption for rental 

companies.18 All were generally 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
14412 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

induction loops for car rentals be mandated so 

people with hearing loss can receive effective 

communication when they rent a car. An individual 

supported the rulemaking, but believed that 

additional steps should be taken such as adaptive 

equipment for deaf and the hard of hearing, and 

that people with disabilities should be able to rent 

a car for a spontaneous trip if they desire to do so 

without waiting for a modification to be completed. 

An anonymous commenter stated that more must be 

done because it costs five times more to rent an 

accessible vehicle than a generic vehicle. Another 

stated that NHTSA should work with automobile 

manufacturers to make modifications more 

financially accessible. These comments provided 

helpful information to NHTSA regarding issues 

related to accessibility. To the extent the comments 

are beyond the scope of this rulemaking, they are 

not further discussed in this document. 

supportive of the rulemaking, with a 

few raising issues with specific aspects 

of the proposal. 

To learn more about this area, NHTSA 

presented 11 questions in the SNPRM 

regarding the scope of an exemption to 

rental companies, and the logistics of 

granting those exemptions. In this 

section, NHTSA presents the questions, 

summarizes and responds to the 

comments, and indicates any changes 

made to the proposal in response to 

those comments. 

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 allowed only 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. 

All commenters who addressed the 

issue supported allowing temporary 

modifications. Enterprise stated in its 

comment that it only anticipates making 

temporary modifications to vehicles. 

Enterprise stated that, while it was 

unlikely that the same vehicle would be 

rented to two people requiring the same 

modification consecutively, it supported 

the proposed allowance that, if a vehicle 

were to be rented to a second person 

requiring the same modification, the 

rental company would not be required 

to reverse the modification and then 

immediately modify the vehicle again. 

The Paralyzed Veterans of America 

(PVA), National Automobile Dealers 

Association (NADA), and NMEDA 

supported only providing temporary 

modifications. The rental companies did 

not express a need for an exemption for 

permanent modifications. This final rule 

only pertains to temporary 

modifications by rental companies. 

Given that this rulemaking was initiated 

in response to a request for temporary 

relief from a rental company and that no 

information was provided on the need 

or merits of permanent modifications, 

NHTSA has determined that it is 

unnecessary for this rule to provide for 

permanent modifications. Accordingly, 

this final rule will only allow for 

temporary modifications to rental cars 

to accommodate customers with 

disabilities. 

The City of Los Angeles supported 

temporary modifications only for the 

driver’s seating position, not the 

passenger’s seating position. NHTSA 

focused on the position that would need 

the hand controls, which presumably 

was only the driver’s seating position. 

The scope of the exemption will not 

cover modifications other than those 

necessary to install hand controls. 

An individual stated that the 

exemption should only be granted if it 

could be reasonably assured that the 

modification is an appropriate type for 

a person’s specific disability, the 

equipment was manufactured and tested 

according to applicable standards, 

regulations, and guidelines, that all 

modifications are performed by factory 

trained and certified technicians, and 

that rental companies prohibit adding a 

second driver without a disability to the 

rental contract. NHTSA declines to 

adopt these suggestions. As to the first 

suggestion, NHTSA believes that 

requiring a rental company to verify a 

customer’s need for a specific 

accommodation is more appropriately 

addressed by State and Federal civil and 

disability rights law. Second, the Safety 

Act already requires that all motor 

vehicle equipment comply with all 

applicable FMVSSs and that they be free 

of safety-related defects. Regarding the 

third suggestion, NHTSA declines to 

condition the availability of exemptions 

to accommodate persons with 

disabilities on the credentialing of 

technicians by third parties. 

(Nevertheless, NHTSA urges all rental 

companies modifying vehicles to follow 

manufacturer-recommended practices 

related to the disabling of knee bolster 

air bags to ensure the safety of both their 

customers and the employees who 

modify vehicles.) Finally, NHTSA 

declines to adopt a rule prohibiting 

adding a second driver to the rental 

contract, as such a requirement appears 

overly restrictive at this time. 

2. Should NHTSA provide a make 

inoperative exemption for other 

installations of adaptive equipment by 

rental companies? 

Commenters such as Enterprise, the 

American Car Rental Association 

(ACRA), PVA, the City of Los Angeles, 

and NMEDA suggested that NHTSA 

could grant similar exemptions for other 

accommodations. An individual 

expressed a concern with sitting too 

close to the air bags and suggested rental 

companies could disable air bags on a 

case-by-case basis with the customer 

acknowledging the risks of removing the 

air bag. NHTSA has not included any 

additional make inoperative exemptions 

in this final rule. If rental companies or 

others believe that further make 

inoperative exemptions are necessary, 

they may submit a petition for 

rulemaking. 

3. If a temporary modification to install 

adaptive equipment causes the air bag 

malfunction telltale required by FMVSS 

No. 208 to illuminate, should the rental 

company be allowed to disable the 

telltale? 

In its conversations with NHTSA 

prior to the NPRM, 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 believed 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, NHTSA 

was concerned about potential safety 

implications if, after the diagnostic 

check, the air bag malfunction telltale 

would not illuminate even though the 

knee bolster air bag was disabled. 

Conversely, the illumination of the air 

bag malfunction telltale where the knee 

bolster air bag is disabled also raises 

concern. 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 installed 

pursuant to FMVSS No. 208. 

Commenters were divided in their 

views. For example, Enterprise, ACRA, 

PVA, the Alliance for Automotive 

Innovation, the City of Los Angeles, and 

NMEDA believed that the telltale should 

not illuminate when using the shunt so 

that it could alert the driver of some 

other air bag system malfunction. 

Enterprise and Terry Sturgis both noted 

that the driver would already be aware 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 14413 

19This list of entities is not intended as an 

endorsement of any entity but is solely provided for 

informational purposes. 

20However, records of modifications that are kept 

by rental companies may be subject to disclosure 

to NHTSA in the context of a specific investigation 

or enforcement action. 

of the disablement of the knee bolster 

air bag. In contrast, NADA and Eugene 

Blumkin supported illuminating the 

telltale when using the shunt. 

The arguments presented by the 

commenters largely echoed the 

competing safety interests that were 

discussed in the SNPRM. After 

considering the comments, NHTSA has 

decided either illumination status is 

acceptable. If the air bag malfunction 

telltale illuminates because of disabling 

the knee bolster air bag, it is correctly 

warning about a problem with the air 

bag system. A telltale that does not 

illuminate due to a shunt is also 

acceptable as a related outcome to this 

final rule’s permitting the modification 

to the knee bolster air bag. Further, an 

unilluminated telltale may be able to 

notify the occupants of malfunctions 

with other air bags in the vehicle. In 

both situations, the telltale must be 

restored to operating status when the 

knee bolster air bag system is returned 

to its pre-rental state. NHTSA suggests 

that rental companies inform their 

customers what it means if the telltale 

is illuminated in the vehicle. 

4. 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 other FMVSS? 

In response to this question, 

Enterprise stated its belief that the mere 

installation of adaptive equipment 

would not constitute a make inoperative 

violation. NADA did not address the 

legal question but stated its desire to 

limit the exemption to temporary hand 

control installation and knee bolster air 

bag deactivation. NMEDA suggested that 

some hand control designs may interfere 

with compliance with FMVSS No. 124, 

which pertains to accelerator control 

systems. However, NMEDA did not 

indicate what aspect of FMVSS No. 124 

would be made inoperative by the 

installation of hand controls or whether 

such hand controls might be commonly 

used by rental companies. 

Having considered the issue and the 

comments received, the agency is 

focusing this final rule on the 

application of FMVSS No. 208 (the 

disablement of the knee bolster air bag 

for the installation of hand controls). 

NHTSA believes that the wording of the 

exemption sufficiently addresses all 

make inoperative issues caused by the 

installation of the hand controls. 

5. Should rental companies need to 

request an exemption from NHTSA or 

should the exemption be provided 

automatically within the regulation? 

NHTSA tentatively concluded in the 

NPRM that rental companies should not 

have to seek an exemption from NHTSA 

prior to disabling the knee bolster air 

bags to install hand controls. Rather, 

NHTSA proposed to grant the 

exemption to rental companies 

conditionally on their compliance with 

the proposed amendments to 49 CFR 

part 595. 

All commenters who addressed this 

issue agreed that rental companies 

should not have to seek an exemption 

from NHTSA. In the SNPRM, NHTSA 

observed that a rental company may be 

required to make modifications quickly 

to provide accommodations when a 

customer requests a vehicle with hand 

controls. As a practical matter, NHTSA 

would not be able to evaluate and 

respond to requests for exemption 

quickly enough in situations where 

customers are waiting at the rental car 

counter. Accordingly, this final rule 

does not require that rental companies 

seek permission from NHTSA prior to 

making modifications to vehicles. This 

approach is consistent with other 

exemptions in § 595.7. 

6. Should rental companies be required 

to notify NHTSA of modifications to 

vehicles? 

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. In the SNPRM, 

NHTSA 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.19 Regarding rental 

companies, they are modifying vehicles 

to accommodate customers with 

physical disabilities as part of their 

business operations, and as part of their 

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 and would 

impose a paperwork burden on all 

rental companies. 

Enterprise, the City of Los Angeles 

and NMEDA supported not requiring 

rental companies to identify themselves 

to NHTSA or notify NHTSA when 

making a vehicle modification. 

Conversely, an individual and NADA 

asserted that rental companies should 

have to identify themselves to NHTSA 

prior to making modifications pursuant 

to this make inoperative exemption. 

NMEDA suggested that NHTSA 

consider requiring rental companies to 

submit annual reports of modifications 

and other information pertinent to 

modifications such as the location, 

number of installations, types of 

controls installed, serial number, make/ 

model of vehicles modified, and reports 

of any incidents. 

NHTSA does not believe that the 

regular reporting of modifications made 

pursuant to the make inoperative 

exemption is needed. Safety-related 

incidents may be reported to NHTSA by 

anyone via an internet portal at https:// 

www.nhtsa.gov/report-a-safety-problem, 

or by contacting NHTSA’s vehicle safety 

hotline. If NHTSA discovers a safety 

issue in the future that justifies regular 

reporting of vehicle modifications, 

NHTSA may consider a requirement in 

the future. However, at this time, 

NHTSA is not aware of any safety issue 

that would justify the burden and 

expense of regular reporting of vehicle 

modifications. Accordingly, NHTSA is 

not requiring any regular reporting to 

NHTSA of modifications.20

7. Should rental companies be required 

to notify customers that the air bag in 

the vehicle they rented is disengaged to 

accommodate the installation of 

adaptive equipment? 

The SNPRM proposed requiring that 

the rental company affix a temporary 

label, meant to remain 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. 

Commenters were generally 

supportive of this proposed labeling 

requirement. Enterprise, NADA and 

others agreed that a temporary label was 

a practicable means of notifying the 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
14414 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

21 It is unclear to us, however, how a master 

agreement would apply to when the customer is 

renting a vehicle that has been modified under the 

exemption. Prior to the customer arriving, the rental 

company would be required to modify a specific 

vehicle by disabling or removing the knee bolster 

air bag, installing hand controls and placing the 

consumer notification information in the passenger 

compartment. NHTSA believes that such a modified 

vehicle would be removed from any general 

circulation until the customer requesting the 

modification arrives to rent the vehicle. 

driver that the vehicle has been 

modified. PVA, the City of Los Angeles, 

NMEDA, and Eugene Blumkin 

supported the requirement that rental 

companies notify customers that the 

knee bolster air bag has been disabled. 

Terry Sturgis suggested an inward 

facing windshield sticker or a tag on the 

key ring. 

NHTSA is adopting the requirement, 

but declines to specify a location for the 

label. NHTSA is concerned that some 

States may have laws preventing the 

placing of such a label on the 

windshield, hanging from a rearview 

mirror or in a similarly view-obstructing 

location. NHTSA believes a label on the 

key ring would not be sufficient to 

satisfy the requirement that the label 

must be in the vehicle’s passenger 

compartment. 

In the SNPRM, NHTSA also proposed 

that renters of modified vehicles would 

have to be informed of the name and 

address of the rental company 

modifying the vehicle and again that the 

knee bolster air bag has been 

temporarily disabled. NHTSA believed 

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, and that the costs to 

meet this requirement would be 

insignificant. 

NADA, PVA, the City of Los Angeles, 

NMEDA, and Eugene Blumkin 

supported the requirement of separately 

notifying the renter of the modification, 

for example, by providing information 

in the rental agreement. Terry Sturgis 

suggested that notification directly to 

the customer may not be necessary 

because they would likely know about 

the modification already, having 

requested it. Enterprise and ACRA 

opposed the separate notification in the 

rental agreement. Both commenters 

found the second notification to be 

unnecessary and not practical. Both 

indicated that rental companies did not 

have systems in place to append such 

notifications at the time of the execution 

of the rental agreement. In contrast to 

NHTSA’s estimate that the burden of 

this notification would be minimal, 

Enterprise and ACRA suggested that 

implementing such a system could 

cause substantial expense. Further, the 

commenters noted that, in some cases, 

the customer does not execute a rental 

agreement at the time of rental. Instead, 

renters sign a master rental agreement 

and then, after placing a reservation, can 

choose an eligible vehicle and leave. 

NHTSA agrees with Enterprise, 

ACRA, and Terry Sturgis that this 

separate notification is unnecessary. 

The notification directly to the customer 

is duplicative of the notification that 

would be provided in the passenger 

compartment of the vehicle itself. 

Finally, NHTSA accepts that the 

annotation of rental agreements may be 

a greater burden than estimated in the 

SNPRM. Accordingly, this final rule 

does not include the requirement that a 

rental company provide a separate 

notification directly to the renter at the 

time the vehicle is rented.21

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 that 

permanently 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. In the SNPRM, NHTSA 

proposed that this type of record 

retention should be required of rental 

companies as well. The information 

would facilitate enforcement by NHTSA 

in the event of potential violations of 

the terms of the make inoperative 

exemption, 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 stated that 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. 

NADA and Eugene Blumkin agreed 

with NHTSA’s proposal that rental 

companies be subject to similar record 

retention requirements applying to 

motor vehicle repair businesses. NADA 

suggested that rental companies should 

have to keep records for each vehicle 

modified, including vehicle 

identification information, dates when 

modifications were made, dates 

restored, and how and when the 

company disposed of the vehicle. 

NMEDA suggested that rental 

companies be subject to record retention 

requirements as to customer, 

equipment, vehicle, technician, 

installation, and inspection information. 

The Disability Rights Education and 

Defense Fund and the Consortium for 

Citizens with Disabilities Transportation 

Task Force supported a five-year 

recordkeeping requirement. 

Enterprise and ACRA suggested that 

rental companies may lack a system to 

provide and retain a copy of the notice 

that would be provided to renters. After 

reading Enterprise’s and ACRA’s 

comments, it was unclear to us whether 

they objected only to retaining the 

document proposed to be provided to 

the customer (but not adopted by this 

final rule), or whether Enterprise 

objected to the record retention 

requirement generally. NHTSA sought 

further clarification from Enterprise. In 

response, the commenter stated it could 

reasonably maintain records of a rental 

company location making the 

modification, the vehicle being 

modified, and the device or element of 

design that is made inoperative. 

After considering the comments, 

NHTSA has decided to require a record 

consisting of the following be retained: 

(1) The name and address of the 

company making the modifications; (2) 

clear identification of the vehicle being 

modified; and (3) identification of the 

devices of elements of design modified. 

Further, (4) the record must be retained 

for five years. (Because this final rule 

does not include the requirement that a 

rental company provide a copy of the 

notice placed in the passenger 

compartment to the customer at the time 

of execution of the rental agreement, 

there is no requirement in this final rule 

that such a document be retained.) 

However, this final rule does modify 

one of the above record requirements. 

There was some ambiguity in the 

proposal regarding whether 

modifications were required to be made 

by the rental company or whether rental 

companies may contract with a motor 

vehicle repair business to perform the 

modifications. NHTSA did not intend in 

the SNPRM to limit a rental company’s 

ability to choose whether to use its own 

employees to perform the modification 

or to contract with a motor vehicle 

repair business to perform the 

modification. This final rule makes this 

explicit by replacing the proposed 

requirement that the retained record 

contain the name and physical address 

of the rental company making the 

modification with a requirement that 

the rental company retain the name and 

physical address of the rental company 

and any entity that performed or 

reversed the modification on behalf of 

the rental company. In the clarification 

of its comments, Enterprise stated that 

its internal recordkeeping systems could 

not keep track of work provided by third 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 14415 

parties. However, we believe that any 

invoices or any other record provided 

by such third parties to Enterprise or 

created by Enterprise (whether in paper 

or electronic form) can be reasonably 

maintained. To allow for the fact that 

relevant records may be created by more 

than one entity, NHTSA has changed 

the term ‘‘document’’ to the plural 

‘‘documents’’ in order to remove any 

implication that the information 

required to be retained must all be 

contained within a single document. 

As with the existing record retention 

requirement for motor vehicle repair 

businesses that permanently modify 

vehicles for people with disabilities, 

NHTSA is specifying a five-year 

recordkeeping requirement. In its 

clarification, Enterprise stated this its 

record retention policy requires records 

be retained for three years. We believe 

it is not unreasonable and would result 

in minimal added expense for records 

related to the rentals of modified 

vehicles be retained for five years. A 

five-year period better ensures that data 

will be available in case safety problems 

arise with the performance of the knee 

bolster air bags, hand controls, or 

related equipment in vehicles modified 

pursuant to this exemption. NHTSA is 

not requiring any regular reporting to 

the agency of modifications made 

pursuant to this exemption, so retaining 

the records for five years better 

guarantees the availability of data. A 

five-year period is also consistent with 

a similar requirement in part 595, 

subpart C, that has been workable. 

NHTSA considers the costs of the 

recordkeeping requirements in a section 

below discussing the Paperwork 

Reduction Act. 

9. Should rental companies be required 

to notify subsequent renters and/or 

purchasers of rental vehicles that the 

vehicle was previously modified? 

In the SNPRM, NHTSA expressed its 

view that subsequent renters or 

purchasers of rental vehicles need not 

be notified of prior temporary 

modifications. Enterprise, ACRA, Terry 

Sturgis, and Eugene Blumkin agreed 

that rental companies should not be 

required to disclose prior temporary 

modifications that were reversed. In 

contrast, NADA suggested that rental 

companies should be required to notify 

purchasers of rental vehicles of prior 

modifications. NMEDA stated that 

notification to subsequent renters would 

be ethical, reasonable, and not overly 

burdensome. PVA suggested that 

subsequent purchasers may benefit from 

knowing that the vehicle could be 

modified to accommodate hand 

controls. 

NHTSA concludes there is not a 

sufficient need for a NHTSA 

requirement that rental companies be 

required to notify subsequent renters or 

purchasers of rental vehicles that have 

been modified pursuant to this make 

inoperative exemption. As noted by 

ACRA, the installation and removal of 

hand controls and disabling and 

reenabling of the knee bolster air bag 

typically have no permanent effect on 

the vehicle. NHTSA agrees these are 

straightforward processes that are 

unlikely to compromise the safety 

performance of the vehicle once the 

vehicle is restored. 

Further, NHTSA believes that State 

law may be better equipped to handle 

any general or specific retail disclosure 

obligations. Nothing in this rulemaking 

should be construed as affecting any 

notification obligation imposed by State 

or other Federal law. In response to 

PVA, NHTSA believes that it might 

make more sense if information that a 

vehicle is capable of being modified to 

accommodate hand controls were 

provided by the vehicle manufacturer 

rather than the rental company. 

10. What procedures 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 proposed make inoperative 

exemption 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 accommodate a driver 

with physical disabilities. However, the 

proposal did not include any specific 

requirements for rental companies for 

reversing modifications to rental 

vehicles. NHTSA requested comments 

on whether NHTSA should impose 

requirements related to reversing a 

vehicle modification and if so, what 

those requirements should be. 

ACRA stated that rental companies 

should have their own procedures for 

ensuring that the knee bolster air bag is 

replaced and reenabled. PVA and 

NADA agreed that rental companies 

should be required to reenable the knee 

bolster air bag, but did not suggest any 

specific procedure NHTSA could 

require to provide assurance that it 

would be done. An individual stated 

that rental companies should follow the 

procedures specified by vehicle and air 

bag manufacturers. 

This final rule does not adopt 

procedures for reversing the 

modifications. Each rental company will 

have protocols and business practices 

best suited to ensure the air bag is 

restored. NHTSA believes that the 

notification in the passenger 

compartment and the presence of hand 

controls should be sufficient to ensure 

that the rental company reinstalls and 

reenables the knee bolster air bag prior 

to renting the vehicle to another 

customer. Nothing in this rulemaking 

precludes the use of other cues such as 

a special key ring. However, NHTSA 

does not believe at this time that 

mandating secondary cues is necessary 

to achieve the required reenabling of the 

air bag. 

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? 

In the SNPRM, NHTSA stated 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. Commenters who 

addressed this issue, such as ACRA, the 

Disability Right Education and Defense 

Fund, the Consortium for Citizens with 

Disabilities Transportation Task Force, 

PVA, and Eugene Blumkin agreed that 

car sharing companies who met the 

definition of a ‘‘rental company’’ should 

be held to the same standard. Terry 

Sturgis stated that procedural 

requirements for ride sharing companies 

may need to be different, but provided 

no specific suggestions. 

NHTSA agrees with the commenters 

that car sharing companies who qualify 

as a ‘‘rental company’’ should be held 

to the same requirements as any other 

rental company. Having received no 

specific suggestion of any special 

procedural accommodations that might 

be required based on the process for car 

sharing, NHTSA is not providing any 

different accommodations for car 

sharing companies who may avail 

themselves of this make inoperative 

exemption. 

e. Agency Decision 

For the reasons discussed above and 

in the NPRM, we are amending subpart 

C 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. 

The exemption extends only for the 

period during which the covered rental 

vehicle is rented to the person with a 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
14416 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

disability and must be reversed after the 

rental is over. The rental company must 

affix a label in the passenger 

compartment, in a visible location, 

informing the driver that the vehicle has 

had its knee bolster air bags temporarily 

disabled. Information about the 

modification must be kept by the rental 

company for five years. NHTSA has 

issued this final rule after balancing 

vehicle safety with the interest 

(including the statutory interest implicit 

within the ADA) to provide access to 

mobility for persons with disabilities. 

VI. Effective Date 

As this final rule relieves the 

regulatory burdens on various entities 

and facilitates the mobility of persons 

with disabilities, the agency finds that 

there is good cause for an immediate 

effective date. 

VII. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices 

Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 

(Regulatory Planning and Review), E.O. 

13563, and DOT Regulatory Policies and 

Procedures 

We have considered the potential 

impact of this final rule under Executive 

Order 12866, Executive Order 13563, 

and DOT Order 2100.6A. This final rule 

is not significant and so was not 

reviewed by the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) under E.O. 12866 

and is not of special note to the 

Department under DOT Order 2100.6A. 

This rulemaking imposes no costs on 

the vehicle modification or car rental 

industry. If anything, there could be a 

cost savings due to the exemptions. 

NHTSA has qualitatively assessed the 

benefits and costs of the rule. 

FMVSS No. 216a: With respect to 

benefits, as noted above we believe that 

while ensuring compliance with FMVSS 

No. 220 may not provide the same level 

of safety as ensuring compliance with 

FMVSS No. 216a, we believe that, in 

light of the mobility needs of 

individuals with disabilities, in this 

particular case FMVSS No. 220 offers a 

reasonable avenue to balance the need 

to modify vehicles to accommodate 

persons with a disability and the need 

to increase safety in rollover crashes. 

We have made the exemption narrow 

and conditioned on maintaining the 

integrity of the roof. Further, this 

conditional exemption ensures a higher 

level of safety than prior to the roof 

crush upgrade, when FMVSS No. 216 

did not apply to any vehicles over 6,000 

lb. 

With respect to costs, prior to this 

final rule modifiers needed to ensure 

that a vehicle on which the roof had 

been raised continued to meet FMVSS 

No. 216a. The final rule requires that 

modifiers instead ensure that the 

modified vehicle meets FMVSS No. 220. 

Because the FMVSS No. 220 test is, as 

NMEDA argued in its petition, less 

complicated than the FMVSS No. 216a 

test (and NMEDA has provided its 

members with information and 

instructions on how to install an 

FMVSS No. 220-compliant roll cage 

when raising a vehicle roof), the final 

rule will be less costly for modifiers to 

comply with than the current 

requirement. 

The roof crush resistance rule does 

not contain new reporting requirements 

or requests for information beyond what 

is already required by 49 CFR part 595, 

subpart C. 

FMVSS No. 111: Modifying a vehicle 

to install a trailer for PMD transport 

device not only increases business for 

entities making these modifications, but 

also increases consumer choices 

regarding the vehicles they can use to 

ride in. Because of this rule, a consumer 

may now ride in a vehicle that cannot 

fit a PMD because the PMD could be 

stowed on a carrier. 

Modifying a vehicle in a way that 

reduces the rear visibility of a backup 

camera by installing a trailer or carrying 

a PMD could reduce crash avoidance 

features of the vehicle when the vehicle 

is reversing. However, few vehicles 

would be potentially modified and the 

agency has made the exemption 

temporary and not permanent. We have 

made the exemption as narrow as 

possible to achieve the goal of 

increasing mobility of drivers and 

passengers with physical disabilities 

while maintaining a level of vehicle 

safety. 

The rear visibility rule does not 

contain new reporting requirements or 

requests for information beyond what is 

already required by 49 CFR part 595, 

subpart C. 

FMVSS No. 208: Rental companies 

choosing to deactivate knee bolster air 

bags to facilitate installation of hand 

controls will not incur costs beyond 

those of their own choosing. This 

rulemaking will have minor labeling 

and recordkeeping costs on rental 

companies that install temporary hand 

controls and disable the knee bolster air 

bag; the increased revenue due to 

increase rentals of vehicles modified 

with hand controls will likely offset the 

minor labeling and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

The labeling and recordkeeping costs 

are necessary to ensure that the renter 

knows the knee bolster air bag is 

nonfunctional and to assist in having 

the knee bolster air bag restored when 

the rental is over. The 5-year record 

retention requirement facilitates 

enforcement by NHTSA in the event of 

potential violations of the terms of the 

make inoperative exemption in this 

rule, and facilitates the investigation 

and identification of vehicles in the 

event a subsequent safety problem arises 

relative to the deactivation of the air 

bags. NHTSA believes that the costs 

associated with retaining this record are 

minimized 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. 

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 

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. 

NHTSA has considered the effects of 

this rule under the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act. I certify that this rule 

will not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. 

FMVSS No. 216a: Most dealerships 

and repair businesses are considered 

small entities, and some proportion of 

these modify vehicles to accommodate 

individuals with disabilities. However, 

NHTSA expects that the number of such 

modifications that are made every year 

is not so large as to involve a substantial 

number of small entities. We also note 

that it should be more practicable for 

modifiers to comply with the make 

inoperative provision after this final 

rule than in the absence of the final rule. 

Therefore, the impacts on any small 

businesses affected by this rulemaking 

will not be substantial. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 14417 

22See, e.g., N.J. Admin. 16:53–1.3(f) (‘‘Roof 

modifications shall meet the requirements of the 

roof crush resistance standard set forth in Federal 

Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 216 (49 CFR 

571.216), incorporated herein by reference, as 

amended and supplemented.’’). 

FMVSS No. 111: The entities 

installing the trailers and PMD transport 

devices could be small entities. 

However, the impacts on them are not 

expected to be significant. The 

exemption provides 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 

transporters installed. Therefore, the 

impacts on any small businesses 

affected by this rulemaking would not 

be significant. 

FMVSS No. 208: A substantial 

number of rental companies could be 

small entities, but NHTSA does not 

believe the impacts on them will be 

significant. The exemption provides 

additional flexibility to install hand 

controls with minimal requirements 

(there are some labeling and 

recordkeeping requirements), but 

overall NHTSA does not believe there 

will be a large number of rental car 

transactions affected by this rulemaking. 

This final rule’s impact on small 

businesses will not be significant. 

Executive Order 13132 (Federalism) 

NHTSA has examined this final rule 

pursuant to Executive Order 13132 (64 

FR 43255; Aug. 10, 1999) and concludes 

that no additional consultation with 

States, local governments, or their 

representatives is mandated beyond the 

rulemaking process. The agency has 

concluded that the 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 rule 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.’’ 

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 because this final rule does not 

involve establishing, amending, or 

revoking 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. 

NHTSA is aware of a State law that 

might be seen as differing from this 

rule.22 However, the agency does not see 

a preemption issue. This rule strikes a 

balance between safety and accessibility 

appropriate to NHTSA’s make 

inoperative exemptions, 49 CFR part 

595, subpart C. NHTSA has struck this 

balance by setting the performance 

requirements that must be met so as not 

to violate section 30122. States can 

decide if that balance speaks to their 

safety goals. The agency requested 

comments on any specific State law or 

action that would prohibit the disabling 

of a knee bolster air bag. No comments 

were received. In sum, NHTSA does not 

anticipate that this final rule will 

preempt any State law. 

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 

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 

SAE International. 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 this exemption 

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 final rule does 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 will not have any significant 

impact on the quality of the human 

environment. 

Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) 

Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501 et 

seq.), a Federal agency must receive 

approval from OMB before it collects 

certain information from the public and 

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 

rulemaking creates new information 

collection requirements and is expected 

to increase the number of respondents 

under a previously approved 

Information Collection Request (ICR). 

The information collection requirements 

found in 49 CFR part 595, subpart C, 

were covered by a previously approved 

ICR that expired on August 31, 2021, 

titled ‘‘Exemption for the Make 

Inoperative Prohibition to 

Accommodate People with Disabilities’’ 

(OMB Control No. 2127–0635). NHTSA 

has initiated the process of reinstating 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
14418 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

the previously approved ICR in a 

request for comment published in the 

Federal Register on January 12, 2022 

(87 FR 1829). To continue the process 

to request reinstatement of the 

previously approved information 

collection with modification to include 

the new reporting requirements for 

rental companies, NHTSA will be 

publishing a separate notice announcing 

that NHTSA is submitting the request to 

OMB for review approval, providing a 

30-day comment period, and directing 

that comments be submitted to OMB. 

The aspects of this final rule 

pertaining to roof crush and rear 

visibility would not result in any 

additional information collection 

burdens beyond what is already 

required by subpart C. NHTSA expects 

that the vehicles modified under these 

new exemptions would already be 

modified under existing exemptions in 

subpart C. 

In the December 2020 SNPRM, 

NHTSA noted that the portion of this 

final rule pertaining to rental vehicles 

would include new reporting 

requirements or requests for information 

beyond what was already required by 

subpart C. The primary source of this 

recordkeeping burden was the proposed 

requirement that rental companies 

provide to a renter of a modified vehicle 

the information regarding the 

modifications and containing a copy of 

the label that must be placed in the 

vehicle. NHTSA presumed that this 

information would be included in the 

invoice provided to a renter and would 

result in an additional 1,333 burdenhours expended annually by rental 

companies to comply. However, as 

discussed earlier in this document, 

NHTSA has not included in this final 

rule the requirement that rental 

companies provide renters with this 

information separately from the label 

that must be placed in the occupant 

compartment. 

The other information collection 

burden associated with the portion of 

the final rule pertaining to rental 

vehicles is the requirement that the 

rental company retain, for each 

applicable vehicle, a document listing 

the modifications made to the vehicle. 

In the December 2020 SNPRM, NHTSA 

concluded that there was no additional 

cost or time burden associated with 

compliance with this requirement 

because NHTSA believed it was normal 

and customary in the ordinary course of 

business to prepare and retain such 

documents. NHTSA has made changes 

to this final rule to ensure that this is 

the case. First, NHTSA has not included 

the proposed requirement that the renter 

be provided with a copy of the label that 

must be placed in the vehicle in 

response to comments. Commenters 

such as Enterprise and ACRA identified 

this requirement as potentially 

burdensome and not something kept in 

the ordinary course of business. Second, 

NHTSA has clarified that third parties 

may modify vehicles in accordance with 

this exemption. The records or receipts 

provided by these third parties to rental 

companies may be sufficient to satisfy 

the recordkeeping requirements. 

Based on the foregoing, NHTSA 

believes that there will be no additional 

burdens beyond the ordinary course of 

business associated with collections of 

information subject to the Paperwork 

Reduction Act as part of this final rule. 

A discussion of the new information 

collection requirements will be 

included in the 30-day notice 

announcing NHTSA’s submission to 

OMB of a request for reinstatement of its 

previously approved collection for part 

595. 

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 send them to the 

NHTSA officials listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section at 

the beginning of this document. 

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. 

Privacy Act 

Anyone is able to search the 

electronic form of all submissions to 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). 

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 595 

Motor vehicle safety, Motor vehicles. 

In consideration of the foregoing, 

NHTSA amends 49 CFR part 595 to read 

as follows: 

PART 595—MAKE INOPERATIVE 

EXEMPTIONS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 595 

continues 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. Revise § 595.4 to read as follows: 

§ 595.4 Definitions. 

Covered rental vehicle is defined as it 

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

Dealer, defined in 49 U.S.C. 30102(a), 

is used in accordance with its statutory 

meaning. 

Motor vehicle repair business is 

defined as it is in 49 U.S.C. 30122(a). 

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. 

Rental company is defined as it is in 

49 U.S.C. 30102(a). 

■ 4. Amend § 595.7 by adding 

paragraphs (c)(18) and (19) to read as 

follows: 

§ 595.7 Requirements for vehicle 

modifications to accommodate people with 

disabilities. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(18) 49 CFR 571.216a, in any case in 

which: 

(i) The disability necessitates raising 

the roof; and, 

(ii) The vehicle, after modification, 

meets 49 CFR 571.220. 

(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, 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 14419 

powered wheelchair, or powered 

scooter) used by a 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 

standards, or portions thereof, are not 

covered by the exemption in this 

paragraph (a). 

(b) The exemption described in 

paragraph (a) of this section 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 retain documents 

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 bag 

temporarily disabled;’’ and, 

(4) Be removed when the 

modifications described in paragraph 

(d) of this section are reversed. 

(f) The retained documents required 

by paragraph (c) of this section shall: 

(1) Contain the name and physical 

address of the rental company and any 

entity making or reversing the 

temporary modifications on behalf of 

the rental company; 

(2) 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; 

(3) Be clearly identifiable as to the 

vehicle that has been modified; and 

(4) 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. 

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

30117, 30122 and 30166; delegation of 

authority at 49 CFR 1.95. 

Steven S. Cliff, 

Deputy Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2022–05293 Filed 3–14–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 622 

[Docket No. 120404257–3325–02; RTID 

0648–XB878] 

Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of 

Mexico, and South Atlantic; 2022 

Commercial Longline Closure for 

South Atlantic Golden Tilefish 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Temporary rule; closure. 

SUMMARY: NMFS implements an 

accountability measure for the 

commercial longline component for 

golden tilefish in the exclusive 

economic zone (EEZ) of the South 

Atlantic. Commercial longline landings 

for golden tilefish are projected to reach 

the longline component’s commercial 

quota by March 16, 2022. Therefore, 

NMFS closes the commercial longline 

component of golden tilefish in the 

South Atlantic EEZ on March 16, 2022, 

at 12:01 a.m. local time. This closure is 

necessary to protect the golden tilefish 

resource. 

DATES: This temporary rule is effective 

from 12:01 a.m. local time on March 16, 

2022, until 12:01 a.m. local time on 

January 1, 2023. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Mary Vara, NMFS Southeast Regional 

Office, telephone: 727–824–5305, email: 

mary.vara@noaa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

snapper-grouper fishery of the South 

Atlantic includes golden tilefish and is 

managed under the Fishery 

Management Plan for the SnapperGrouper Fishery of the South Atlantic 

Region (FMP). The FMP was prepared 

by the South Atlantic Fishery 

Management Council (Council) and is 

implemented by NMFS under the 

authority of the Magnuson-Stevens 

Fishery Conservation and Management 

Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) by 

regulations at 50 CFR part 622. 

The commercial golden tilefish sector 

has two components, each with its own 

quota: The longline and hook-and-line 

components (50 CFR 622.190(a)(2)). The 

commercial golden tilefish annual catch 

limit (ACL) is allocated 75 percent to 

the longline component and 25 percent 

to the hook-and-line component. The 

total commercial ACL (equivalent to the 

commercial quota) is 331,740 lb 

(150,475 kg) gutted weight, and the 

longline component quota is 248,805 lb 

(112,856 kg) gutted weight. 

Under 50 CFR 622.193(a)(1)(ii), NMFS 

is required to close the commercial 

longline component for golden tilefish 

when the longline component’s 

commercial quota has been reached or 

is projected to be reached by filing a 

notification to that effect with the Office 

of the Federal Register. After this 

closure, golden tilefish may not be 

commercially fished or possessed by a 

vessel with a golden tilefish longline 

endorsement. NMFS has determined 

that the commercial quota for the golden 

tilefish longline component in the South 

Atlantic will be reached by March 16, 

2022. Accordingly, the commercial 

longline component of South Atlantic 

golden tilefish is closed effective at 

12:01 a.m. local time on March 16, 2022, 

and will remain closed until the start of 

the next fishing year on January 1, 2023. 

During the commercial longline 

closure, golden tilefish may still be 

commercially harvested using hookand-line gear on a vessel with a 

commercial South Atlantic Unlimited 

Snapper-Grouper permit without a 

longline endorsement until the hookand-line quota specified in 50 CFR 

622.190(a)(2)(ii) is reached. A vessel 

with a golden tilefish longline 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES