12638 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 27, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

1Federal law requires vehicle manufacturers to

certify that their vehicles comply with all

applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards

(FMVSS or standard) (49 U.S.C. section 30112).

They must continue to comply until the time of

their first retail sale. As noted above, when

installing adaptive equipment in a motor vehicle, a

modifier may need to remove items of equipment

or features that were installed in compliance with

the standards issued by NHTSA pursuant to our

statutory authority (49 U.S.C. section 30111). At

other times, the installer may need to modify or

bypass the safety equipment or features so that the

adaptive equipment can be used. In either instance,

the vehicle modification renders the affected

equipment or features, as originally certified,

inoperative. As noted above, such removal or

alteration violates a statutory provision that

prohibits certain entities from making such

equipment and features inoperative. Specifically,

manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and repair

businesses may not knowingly make inoperative

any part of a device or element of design installed

in or on a motor vehicle that is in compliance with

an applicable standard (49 U.S.C. section 30122).

We have interpreted the term ‘‘make inoperative’’

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration

49 CFR Part 595

[Docket No. NHTSA–01–8667]

RIN 2127–AG40

Exemption From the Make Inoperative

Prohibition

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic

Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: NHTSA is taking action to

facilitate the modification of motor

vehicles so that persons with disabilities

can drive or ride in them. The agency

is accomplishing this by issuing a

limited exemption from a statutory

provision that prohibits specified types

of commercial entities from either

removing safety equipment or features

installed on motor vehicles pursuant to

the Federal motor vehicle safety

standards or altering the equipment or

features so as to adversely affect their

performance. The exemption is limited

in that it allows repair businesses to

modify only certain types of Federallyrequired safety equipment and features,

under specified circumstances.

DATES: Effective Date: This rule is

effective April 30, 2001.

Petitions: Petitions for reconsideration

must be received by April 13, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Petitions for reconsideration

should refer to the docket and notice

number of this document and be

submitted to: Administrator, National

Highway Traffic Safety Administration,

400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington,

DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For

non-legal issues, you may contact Gayle

Dalrymple, Office of Crash Avoidance

Standards, NPS–20. Telephone: (202)

366–5559. Fax: (202) 366–4329.

For legal issues, you may contact

Rebecca MacPherson, Office of Chief

Counsel, NCC–20. Telephone: (202)

366–2992. Fax: (202) 366–3820.

You may send mail to these officials

at the National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration, 400 Seventh St., SW.,

Washington, DC 20590.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Background and overview

A. Reasons for this rulemaking

B. Notice of proposed rulemaking

C. Summary of public comments

II. Final rule

A. Summary of key differences between

proposal and final rule

B. Limitations on exemptions

C. Applicability of exemption to

modifications performed by repair

businesses

D. Standards for which permission is

granted to make safety features

inoperative

1. FMVSS No. 101, controls and displays

2. FMVSS No. 108, lamps, reflective

devices, and associated equipment

3. FMVSS No. 114, theft protection

4. FMVSS No. 118, power-operated

window, partition, and roof panel

systems

5. FMVSS No. 123, motorcycle controls

and displays

6. FMVSS No. 135, passenger car brake

systems

7. FMVSS No. 201, occupant protection in

interior impact

8. FMVSS No. 202, head restraints

9. FMVSS No. 203, impact protection for

the driver from the steering control

system and FMVSS No. 204, steering

control rearward displacement

10. FMVSS No. 207, seating systems

11. FMVSS No. 208, occupant crash

protection

12. FMVSS No. 214, side impact protection

E. Standards for which permission is not

granted to make safety features

inoperative

1. Standards which could be compromised

by vehicle modifications

a. FMVSS No. 102, transmission lever

sequence, starter interlock, and

transmission braking effect

b. FMVSS No. 103, windshield defrosting

and defogging systems, and FMVSS No.

104, windshield wiping and washing

systems

c. FMVSS No. 105, hydraulic brake

systems, and FMVSS No. 121, air brake

systems

d. FMVSS No. 111, rearview mirrors

e. FMVSS No. 113, hood latch systems

f. FMVSS No. 124, accelerator control

systems

g. FMVSS No. 206, door locks and door

retention components

h. FMVSS No. 209, seat belt assemblies

i. FMVSS No. 210, seat belt assembly

anchorages

j. FMVSS No. 216, roof crush resistance

k. FMVSS No. 301, fuel system integrity

and FMVSS No. 303, fuel system

integrity of compressed natural gas

vehicles

l. FMVSS No. 302, flammability of interior

materials

2. Standards which are unaffected by

vehicle modifications

F. Modifications not contemplated by the

final rule

G. Gross vehicle weight ratings

H. Applicability of exemptions to

commercial vehicles

III. Prescriptions, labeling, and recordkeeping

requirements

A. Prescriptions and professional

evaluations

B. Labeling requirements and customer

information

IV. Regulatory analyses and notices

I. Background and Overview

A. Reasons for This Rulemaking

We initiated this rulemaking because

although the intended effect of the

Federal motor vehicle safety standards

is to protect the safety of all Americans,

the standards can inadvertently limit

the mobility of those Americans with

disabilities. The vast majority of

Americans can drive and/or ride in

motor vehicles as they are produced by

the motor vehicle manufacturers in full

compliance with the Federal motor

vehicle safety standards. When they use

these vehicles, they benefit from the

safety features required by those

standards.

However, individuals with disabilities

are often unable to drive or ride in a

passenger vehicle, such as a passenger

car or van, unless it has been specially

modified to accommodate their

particular conditions. Some

modifications, such as the installation of

mechanical hand controls or a left foot

accelerator, are relatively simple and

inexpensive. Others, such as the

installation of a joystick that controls

steering, acceleration and braking or a

lowering of the vehicle floor, can be

complex and expensive. In some cases,

it is necessary to alter or even remove

federally-required safety equipment to

make those special modifications. In

those cases, it may not be possible to

enable individuals with disabilities both

to enjoy the opportunity to drive or ride

in a motor vehicle as well as to receive

the benefits from the full array of

federally-required safety features.

The need to alter or remove federallyrequired safety equipment poses a

problem because there is a statutory

provision prohibiting making such

features inoperative (49 U.S.C. section

30122).1 While that prohibition does not

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 27, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 12639

to mean any action that removes or disables safety

equipment or features installed to comply with an

applicable standard, or that degrades the

performance of such equipment or features.

Violations of this provision are punishable by civil

penalties of up to $5,000 per violation.

2 49 U.S.C. section 30122(c)(1).

3Estimating the Number of Vehicles Adapted for

Use by Persons with Disabilities, NHTSA Research

Note, December, 1997, Docket No. NHTSA–01–

8667–2.

4 42 U.S.C. section 12101, et seq.

5A discussion of the basis for the agency’s belief

that many modifiers make mandatory safety

equipment inoperative without first seeking

authorization from NHTSA can be found in the

preamble to the NPRM. 63 FR 51547 (September 28,

1998), Docket No. NHTSA 98–4332–1.

6H. Rep. 93–1191, pp 34–5 (1974).

apply to vehicle owners, it does apply

to modifications made by the types of

commercial entities that modify

vehicles for persons with disabilities.

However, the National Highway

Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)

may issue regulations that exempt

persons from the ‘‘make inoperative’’

prohibition.2 Such regulations may

specify which equipment and features

may be made inoperative, as well as the

circumstances under which they may be

made so. To date, the agency has only

issued one such regulation. That

regulation permits the installation of

retrofit air bag on-off switches under

certain circumstances. In all other

instances, we have addressed the need

to remove, disconnect, or otherwise

alter mandatory safety equipment by

issuing a separate letter assuring the

individual requestor that we will not

seek enforcement action against the

business modifying the vehicle. The

vast majority of these instances involve

persons seeking modifications to

accommodate persons with disabilities.

Our policy of handling requests for

permission to make modifications on an

individual, case-by-case basis does not

serve the best interest of the driving

public, the vehicle modifiers, or this

agency. The case-by-case approach is illsuited to dealing effectively with the

volume of motor vehicles needing

modification. We estimate that, as of

1997, approximately 383,000 vehicles

had some type of adaptive equipment

installed in them to accommodate a

driver or passenger with a disability.3

We estimate that approximately 2,295

vehicles are modified for persons with

disabilities per year. We do not know

how many of these modifications

involved making a federally-required

safety feature inoperative. We do know

that the modification of motor vehicles

for the benefit of persons with

disabilities is a growing phenomenon.

The number of vehicles modified

annually will increase as the population

ages and as greater numbers of

individuals with physical disabilities

pursue employment, travel, and

recreational opportunities presented by

the passage of the Americans With

Disabilities Act (ADA).4

Further, the unwieldiness of the caseby-case approach causes many vehicle

modifiers to bypass it. The permission

granted in the agency letters is directed

to specific owners of specific vehicles

and cannot be transferred to other

owners or other vehicles. Thus, a

business performing modifications must

obtain written permission for each

customer who needs a vehicle modified

in a way that adversely affects

compliance with the standards. Because

agency resources for evaluating

individual modification requests are

limited, an individual with a disability

may wait a significant period of time

before the agency can issue a letter

stating its intent to not enforce the

statute for the vehicle modifications

affected. During that time period, the

individual may be without any means of

independent transportation. Partially as

a result of the unwieldiness of this

process, only a handful of the vehicles

modified annually are covered by a

letter from NHTSA granting permission

to make a piece of federally-required

safety equipment inoperative.5 Most are

made without permission and without

the benefit of any guidance about the

opportunities for making modifications

without sacrificing safety.

We believe that it is appropriate,

therefore, to replace the case-by-case

approach with an exemption that

accommodates the needs of persons

with disabilities and promotes a

constructive dialogue between the

modifiers and the agency. Congress

anticipated the need for such an

exemption. The legislative history of the

make inoperative provision includes the

statement that ‘‘exemptions may be

warranted for owners with special

medical problems, who require special

controls * * *.’’ 6 In addition to

eliminating the need for case-by-case

approvals, the exemption will facilitate

making needed vehicle modifications by

providing guidance to modifiers on the

types of modifications we believe can be

made without unduly decreasing the

level of safety provided to the vehicle

occupants and to others.

B. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

In developing the proposed

exemption, we sought to balance

mobility and safety. To that end, we

conducted a comprehensive analysis of

both our standards and the types of

adaptive equipment currently available.

We sought to distinguish between those

instances in which there are methods of

modification that make it possible, at

reasonable cost, to accommodate

persons with disabilities while avoiding

making the original safety equipment or

features inoperative from those

instances in which it is not possible to

do so. We determined that vehicle

modifications fell into the following

categories:

1. Modifications that did not affect the

original federally-required safety

equipment or feature.

2. Modifications that involved the

installation of adaptive equipment

capable of being operated in lieu of the

original equipment, which remained in

place and fully operable separately, or

in conjunction with the original

equipment.

3. Modifications that resulted in

making safety equipment inoperative

even though other methods of making

the modification were readily available

that could have accommodated the

needs of the disabled occupant at

reasonable cost without making the

original equipment inoperative.

4. Modifications that made the

original equipment inoperative, but

either did not appear to lead to a

degradation of safety or all methods

available to accommodate the needs of

the disabled occupant rendered the

original equipment or feature

inoperative.

5. Modifications that made the

original equipment inoperative and

resulted in possible degradation of

safety so severe that we did not believe

an exemption was warranted, and other

methods of modification that did not

make the original equipment

inoperative were either available or a

compliant system is easily produced.

In proposing to waive the make

inoperative provision for some portions

of some safety standards, we determined

that modifications in the first two

categories listed above did not make the

required safety features or equipment

inoperative, while modifications in the

third category did make the equipment

inoperative but could be performed in a

way that is consistent with modification

performed under the first two

categories. Modifications within the

fourth and fifth categories could not

reasonably be performed in a manner

that would not render the original

equipment inoperative.

Based on our assessment, we issued a

notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)

on September 28, 1998 (63 FR 51547;

Docket No. NHTSA–98–4332–1). We

proposed to exempt only those

modifications in the fourth category.

Modifications within this category did

12640 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 27, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

7Four trade associations, the Association for

Driver Rehabilitation Specialists (ADED), the

American Occupational Therapy Association

(AOTA), the National Automobile Dealers

Association (NADA), and the National Mobility

Equipment Dealers Association (NMEDA), filed

comments on behalf of their members who are

occupational therapists and driver rehabilitation

specialists in the first two instances, and alterers

and modifiers in the second two instances.

not degrade safety sufficiently to

prohibit the modification and were, in

some cases, the only means of

accommodating a particular disability.

We did not consider exempting

modifications within category five

because we believed that the needed

modification should not degrade the

level of safety to such an extent as to

place vehicle occupants in an inherently

unsafe environment.

C. Summary of Public Comments on the

NPRM

Thirty-nine comments were submitted

addressing details of the NPRM. Only

one organization representing persons

with disabilities, Access to

Independence and Mobility (AIM),

commented on the proposed rule. One

consumer safety group also commented,

as did two vehicle manufacturers, and

several modifiers, alterers, and driver

rehabilitation specialists.7 Two

individuals representing state interests

also commented.

In general, the comments to the notice

were very supportive of our efforts.

However, some commenters, primarily

Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety

(Advocates), vehicle alterers and AIM,

raised concerns that the rule, as

proposed, would unduly decrease the

level of safety provided to persons with

disabilities. The primary concern voiced

by these entities was that the agency

was not proposing to implement a rule

that ensured significant, on-going

monitoring of vehicle modifications.

Other commenters, including modifiers

and driver rehabilitation specialists,

urged that exemptions be provided for

some standards which we had not

included in the proposed list of

exemptions.

Expressing concerns regarding the

safety of vehicle modifications, the

University of Virginia Automobile

Safety Laboratory urged that on-going

studies be performed to identify vehicle

modifications that constitute an

unreasonable risk to safety. However,

the commenter went on to say that it

recognized that real world injury data

would likely never be available to

accurately determine the level of risk

involved in vehicle modifications and to

fully support NHTSA’s proposal to issue

limited exemptions.

While the majority of modifiers saw

no need to impose any paperwork or

labeling requirements on modifiers,

Advocates, some alterers, and the State

of Connecticut argued that paperwork

and/or labels were needed to assure that

only necessary modifications were

performed or that vehicle owners or

subsequent purchasers were aware of

the modifications that were performed

and that there could be some

degradation of overall safety. A lively

debate arose among commenters

concerning the need for persons with

disabilities to have a written

prescription detailing the types of

modifications needed. These comments

were submitted primarily by members

of the Association for Driver

Rehabilitation Specialists (ADED) on

one side of the issue and occupational

therapists who are not members of

ADED, some modifiers and the State of

Connecticut on the other side of the

issue.

II. Final Rule

Based on our review of the comments,

we are today issuing a final rule that

exempts certain vehicle modifications

from the make inoperative provisions.

The exemptions are listed in the

regulatory text and will become Subpart

C of Part 595 of Title 49 of the Code of

Federal Regulations (CFR). This

preamble explains our response to the

comments and our decision to issue the

final rule. While it provides important

explanations of the agency’s rationale in

making its decision, the preamble is not

part of the regulation. It should,

however, be read carefully since it

provides important information on why

we decided to grant exemptions for

some, but not all, standards; what types

of modifications require an exemption;

who may rely on the exemptions; and

what standards may be affected by

vehicle modifications, regardless of

whether there is an exemption for that

modification.

The exemptions adopted in this final

rule generally only apply to a portion of

each included standard and may have

other conditions, such as the

installation of wheelchair tie-down

devices, placed upon it. The following

chart details the standards with respect

to which modifications are exempted, as

well as those standards for which

modifiers need to be aware that certain

modifications may expose them to civil

penalties.

TABLE 1

FMVSS covered by the make inoperative exemption

FMVSS not covered by the make inoption exemption

Modification could affect vehicle

compliance

Modification would not affect compliance

101, Controls and displays, except for S5.2(a), S5.3.1, S5.3.2 and

S5.3.5.

102, Transmission lever sequence,

starter interlock, and transmission braking effect.

106, Brake hoses.

108, Lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment, S5.1.1.5

only, when the modified motor vehicle does not have a steering

wheel and it is not feasible to retain the turn signal self-canceling

device installed by the vehicle manufacturer.

103, Windshield defrosting and

defogging systems.

109, New pneumatic tires.

114, Theft protection, S4.4 and S4.5 only, when the original key-locking system must be modified.104, Windshield wiping and washing system.110, Tire selection and rims.

118, Power-operated window, partition, and roof panel systems, S4(a)

only, when the medical condition of the person for whom the vehicle

is modified requires a remote ignition to start the vehicle.

105, Hydraulic brake systems ....... 116, Motor vehicle brake fluids.

123, Motorcycle controls and displays, S5.1 and S5.2.1 ....................... 111, Rearview mirrors ................... 117, Retreaded pneumatic tires.

135, Passenger car brake systems, S5.3.1 only, when the vehicle

modification requires removal of the vehicle manufacturer installed

foot pedal.

113, Hood latch systems ............... 119, New pneumatic tires for vehicles other than passenger cars.

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 27, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 12641

8When the modified system completely by-passes

or alters the original equipment such that it cannot

be used in conformance with the applicable

standard, the modification will be considered a

violation of the make inoperative provision even

Continued

TABLE 1—Continued

FMVSS covered by the make inoperative exemption

FMVSS not covered by the make inoption exemption

Modification could affect vehicle

compliance

Modification would not affect compliance

201, Occupant protection in interior impact, only with respect to targets on the side rail, B-pillar and first ‘‘other’’ pillar adjacent to the

stowed platform of a lift or ramp, or the rear header and rearmost

pillars adjacent to the stowed platform of a lift or ramp.

121, Air brake systems .................. 120, Tire selection and rims for

vehicles other than passenger

cars.

202, Head restraints, when the motor vehicle is modified to be driven

by an individual in a wheelchair and no other seat is provided for

the driver or the front passenger sits in a wheelchair and no other

front passenger seat is provided, and S4.3(b)(1) and S4.3(b)(2)

only, when the driver’s head restraint must be modified to accommodate a driver with a disability.

124, Accelerator control systems .. 122, Motorcycle brake systems.

203, Impact protection for the driver from the steering control system,

S5.1 only, when the modification requires a structural change to or

removal of the original steering shaft, and S5.2 only, when an item

of adaptive equipment must be mounted on the steering wheel.

206, Door locks and door retention

components.

125, Warning devices.

204, Steering control rearward displacement only, when the modification requires a structural change to or removal of the original steering shaft.209, Seat belt assemblies ............. 129, Non-pneumatic tires for passenger cars.

207, Seating systems, S4.1 only, when the motor vehicle is modified

to be driven by an individual in a wheelchair and no other seat is

provided for the driver and a wheelchair securement device is installed in the driver position.

210, Seat belt assembly anchorages.131, School bus pedestrian safety

devices.

208, Occupant crash protection, S4.1.5.1(a)(1), S4.1.5.1(a)(3),

S4.2.6.2, S5, S7.1, S7.2, and S7.4 only, when Type 2 or type 2A

seat belts meeting the requirements of FMVSS Nos. 209 and 210

are installed in the affected seating position.

216, Roof crush resistance ........... 205, Glazing materials.

214, Side impact protection, S5 only, when the affected seating and/or

restraint system must be modified to accommodate a person with a

disability.

301, fuel system integrity .............. 212, Windshield mounting

302, Flammability of interior materials.213, Child restraint systems.

303, Fuel system integrity of compressed natural gas vehicles.217, emergency exits and window

retention and release.

218, Motorcycle helmets.

219, Windshield zone intrusion.

220, School bus rollover protection.

221, School bus body joint

strength.

222, School bus passenger seating and crash protection.

223, Rear impact guards.

224, Rear impact protection.

225, Child restraint anchorage

systems*.

304, Compressed natural gas fuel

container integrity.

* FMVSS No. 225, Child restraint anchorage systems, was issued after the publication of the NPRM proposing exemptions to the make inoperative provisions for vehicles modified to accommodate persons with disabilities. Accordingly, NHTSA has not determined whether such systems

may need to be removed or modified in order to accommodate an individual with a disability. Should such a need arise, it can be addressed in a

future rulemaking.

A. Summary of Key Differences Between

Proposal and Final Rule

The final rule largely adopts the

proposed rule except for four changes.

We will require a permanently affixed

label that states the vehicle may no

longer comply with all Federal Motor

Vehicle Safety Standards. Also, we are

allowing limited exemptions for

modifications affecting FMVSS Nos.

123, 201 and 114.

B. Limitations on Exemptions

In the NPRM, we proposed to issue

exemptions for modifications affecting

some, but not all, Federal motor vehicle

safety standards. The number of

exemptions was restricted for several

reasons. First, the needed vehicle

modifications have no impact on the

safety features installed in compliance

with many standards; thus, there is no

need in those cases for an exemption

from the make inoperative provision.

Second, we decided that if, after

modifications are made, the original

equipment remains fully functional and

readily usable by drivers or passengers

other than the individual with a

disability, we would not consider the

modifications as making the safety

equipment inoperative even though the

adaptive equipment itself may not be

able to meet the requirements of the

affected safety standard.8 We also

12642 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 27, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

though the original equipment remains in the

vehicle. (See NHTSA letter of interpretation to

Senne, Kelsey & Associates, Inc., dated March 26,

1999. The agency determined that the installation

of an electronic gas and brake control constituted

a violation of the make inoperative provision

because it did not allow for the return of the throttle

to an idle position in the event of a severance or

disconnection in the accelerator control system in

contravention of FMVSS No. 124.)

determined that we would not consider

a modification to violate the make

inoperative provision when the original

safety equipment is removed or

modified so that it could not be used as

designed, but the new system retains the

original equipment’s performance and

function relative to the affected

standard. Finally, we looked at all other

types of modifications that could

potentially void a vehicle certification

and assessed the likely loss in safety

that could result from a modification

that fell outside of the categories

described above. In most instances, we

determined that the modifications

would not result in a significant loss of

safety. However, in some instances, we

determined that the possible

degradation of safety was too great to

make it appropriate to grant an

exemption.

Advocates was particularly vocal in

expressing the belief that the NPRM did

not do enough to promote the safety of

persons with disabilities. As an initial

matter, it challenged whether there was

a need for an exemption and whether

issuing an exemption would serve the

interests of motor vehicle safety, stating

NHTSA has no reliable information on the

nature and extent to which vehicle

modifications falling within the ambit of the

FMVSS have adhered to or significantly

departed from the level of safety that should

be ensured for disabled vehicle occupants.

Despite agency assertions that equivalent

levels of safety should be provided when

possible, it has no information in the record

verifying that vehicle modifications to date

have provided that equivalent safety.

Advocates maintained that granting a

blanket exemption from a number of the

safety standards to all persons engaged

in the business of altering or modifying

vehicles for use by the disabled drivers

does nothing to assure disabled

occupants that their vehicles will be

altered properly and safely, that

modifiers will make only those changes

permitted by the exemption and will

certify their work, or that future

purchasers will be informed that the

safety equipment has been rendered

inoperable. That organization noted that

the agency acknowledged in the NPRM

that a substantial number of vehicle

modifiers ‘‘do not possess sufficient

knowledge of the standards to judge

whether a particular modification may

affect a vehicle’s compliance with the

standards. Advocates stated that it could

not understand how the proposed

exemption would resolve problems

posed by this lack of knowledge, stop

modifiers’ from performing

modifications that negatively impact

safety and provide adequate safety for

the disabled. While acknowledging that

a listing of the standards or the portions

of the standard that are subject to

exemption provide some clarity, it

argued that

* * * nothing in the proposed rule provides

any assurance that the list will be read,

understood, and correctly applied by

modifiers, that modifications will be limited

to only those portions of the standard that are

exempt, that the modifications will be

properly performed, or that the disabled

driver will know what specific items of

equipment were modified, in what way, and

the extent to which these modifications may

affect operating safety and vehicle

crashworthiness.

While Advocates expressed support

for vehicle modifications, including

safety equipment, that are necessary to

meet the mobility needs of disabled

persons, it also said that the agency

should adopt a stronger regulatory

presence in this burgeoning area of

motor vehicle safety. That organization

maintained that providing a blanket

exemption with no oversight fails to

ensure an appropriate balance between

mobility and safety, and invites abusive

practices and inadequate and unsafe

modifications.

Finally, Advocates claimed that the

agency is proposing a broad exemption,

with corollary proposals to eliminate

any form of reporting or even of vehicle

labeling advising of modifications, and

that the proposed change in basic

agency policy relinquishes fundamental

oversight responsibilities at a time when

effective oversight of vehicle

modifications is becoming more

pervasive and more important.

Advocates then averred that NHTSA

must maintain agency supervision and

oversight of the issue, collect essential

data on vehicle modifications for the

disabled, and provide consumer safety

information for the disabled and future

purchasers of vehicles altered to

accommodate the disabled.

Vantage Mini-vans, a manufacturer of

minivans designed for persons with

disabilities, stated that consumers

deserve to drive a vehicle that meets

certain safety standards. It argued that if

modifications are required to make a

vehicle wheelchair accessible, the

consumer should know that there are no

other options available other than those

necessary to take the vehicle out of

compliance. It said also that if there

were a viable option available that

would enable to modifier to leave the

original safety features intact, that

option should be preferred or required.

After acknowledging that the companies

that modify vehicles for the disabled are

often very small and do not have the

financial resources to crash test for

every conceivable configuration of

adaptive equipment, Vantage went on to

state that, for modifications involving

hand controls, steering modifications

and seat belt modifications, an

exemption for modifications affecting

compliance with the relevant FMVSSs

may be in order, provided another

viable alternative is not available that

would not take the vehicle out of

compliance.

We agree that these commenters have

expressed legitimate concerns. We have

decided to issue a final rule establishing

limited exemptions because we believe

this is the best way at this time to

promote the mobility of persons with

disabilities while ensuring some level of

safety for those persons. We also

strongly recommend that equipment

manufacturers, vehicle modifiers, and

driver evaluators work together to

ensure that the installed equipment is

appropriate for both the particular

vehicle and the driver, considering

factors such as vehicle geometry and

driver size before selecting the

equipment to be installed.

We disagree with Advocates’

characterization of the exemptions as

broad-based. The exemptions should be

viewed in the context of all standards

issued by NHTSA. The exemptions have

been tailored to allow for the least

amount of degradation possible. The

majority of modifications subject to an

exemption will not result in any

degradation of safety. This is because

many of the exemptions are designed to

address design criteria within the

applicable standards that have no

impact on vehicle performance. For

example, FMVSS No. 135 requires the

brake be operated by a foot control, even

though this requirement was included

in the standard to achieve

harmonization rather than because of a

need based on engineering principles.

Modifications affecting some standards,

like FMVSS No. 201, could result in a

degradation of safety, but cannot be

accommodated any other way. FMVSS

201 requires that test results of impacts

with certain targets on specific areas of

the vehicle fall below a certain level.

When a lift is installed in a vehicle, the

stowed platform blocks some target

points. Requiring compliance with

FMVSS 201 would prevent an

individual who must use a wheelchair

from driving or riding in a vehicle,

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 27, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 12643

9We note that this is the practice in the disability

community. We are aware of other types of

specialized manufacturing where the end user may

order a specific vehicle that is then built by a finalstage manufacturer. In these instances, there may be

cases where the final stage manufacturer is only

Continued

because he or she would not be able to

enter. In order to diminish any

degradation in safety, we have limited

the exemptions to those portions of the

standard that are directly affected by the

vehicle modification and have, in most

instances, placed other requirements on

the modifier to address legitimate safety

concerns.

As pointed out by the University of

Virginia, we do not have firm statistics

on the effect of current vehicle

modifications on vehicle safety. Current

methods of obtaining motor vehicle

safety statistics are based on total

vehicle populations within classes of

vehicles (e.g., passenger cars, light

trucks). We will likely never have

sufficient data to verify that modified

vehicles are providing a level of safety

comparable to that of non-modified

vehicles. Merely identifying

dangerously modified vehicles is like

finding the proverbial needle in a

haystack. Drawing a statistically

significant correlation between such

vehicles and the overall fleet that

comprises our databases would be even

more difficult. However, we do not

believe the lack of data justifies inaction

on our part.

If we do not issue a regulation

providing some measure of relief to

persons with disabilities, there are two

likely outcomes: modifications will

continue to be performed with no

agency oversight, and a significant

number of persons with disabilities will

be unable to drive or ride in personal

vehicles.

We have analyzed both available

methods of making necessary

modifications and our standards to

determine where exemptions may be

needed in order to provide reasonable

accommodation of the needs of persons

with disabilities. In instances in which

we believe the cost of a modification

that does not affect compliance with the

FVMSSs is reasonable enough to be

viable, we have decided against issuing

an exemption. Likewise, we are not

issuing exemptions for standards that

address a severe risk of injury or death

when alternative modification methods

are available or should be easily

developed. This may mean that the

manufacturers of some adaptive

equipment will need to either retool

their products or stop selling them.

Thus, far from being a ‘‘blanket

exemption,’’ today’s rule affects only

those areas where we believe there is a

minimal reduction in safety, if any.

We have decided against requiring the

type of agency oversight that Advocates

appears to support; i.e., approval of each

modification, because such oversight

has proved unworkable in the past. We

receive relatively few requests to grant

an exemption for the modification of

specific vehicles. As discussed in the

NPRM, the number of vehicles modified

significantly exceeds the number of

exemption requests received by this

agency. Additionally, NHTSA simply

does not have the staff available to

review every vehicle modification

request for persons with disabilities in

a reasonable amount of time. Thus,

today’s rule more effectively analyzes

the level of risk involved than the caseby-case determinations that are

currently provided. Likewise, we have

decided against requiring modifiers to

submit detailed records of all

modifications to NHTSA. Such

submissions would serve no value

unless they were scrutinized by agency

staff who would make independent

determinations as to the appropriateness

of the modifications. As is the case with

pre-modification submissions, we

simply do not have the staff to conduct

such a review. We do note that nothing

in today’s rule restricts our ability to

bring enforcement actions against

entities that make modifications that go

beyond or are inconsistent with these

exemptions pursuant to our statutory

authority under 49 U.S.C. 30122.

We also acknowledge that today’s rule

does not, in and of itself, guarantee that

vehicle modifications will only be

performed subject to the exemptions.

Today’s rule will provide responsible

modifiers the ability to make needed

modifications without fear of running

afoul of the law. It also alerts these

modifiers that they need to exercise

special care in performing certain

modifications. In some instances, these

modifiers will be required to stop

performing certain modifications that

they may have believed were safe. We

believe this rule, in conjunction with

the existing industry standards and our

consumer information brochure, will

significantly reduce the likelihood that

vehicle modifications will be made in a

manner that places the vehicle

occupants at undue risk.

We have decided against adopting the

position advocated by Vantage that

would require all modifications be

performed in conformance with all

applicable safety standards unless no

other method exists for performing the

modification. Certainly we agree that all

modifications should be performed in a

manner that minimizes the impact on

vehicle conformance with all safety

standards. However, such a requirement

would be unenforceable, since it is

inherently unobjective. Instead, we

believe that the criteria we have

employed in determining whether an

exemption is appropriate adequately

ensures that modifications that are

likely to have an impact on motor

vehicle safety are only exempted when

they cannot be done in a manner that

does not void the vehicle’s compliance

with the standards.

C. Applicability of Exemption to

Modifications Performed by Repair

Businesses

In the NPRM, we proposed that the

exemptions to the make inoperative

provision would be available to dealers

and repair businesses. Under our

statutory authority, we can also issue

exemptions to manufacturers and

distributors.

Volvo commented that the

exemptions should also apply to vehicle

manufacturers since the logic presented

in the NPRM appears to apply to

manufacturers as well as modifiers.

Independent Mobility Systems voiced a

concern that vehicle alterers, who have

the duty to certify, may believe the

exemptions apply to them. The National

Automobile Dealers Association

(NADA) urged NHTSA to clarify that a

‘‘first purchase of a vehicle in good faith

for purposes other than retail’’ occurs

when a contract for sale is entered into

between a new vehicle dealer and a

purchaser. NADA argued that such a

definition would ensure that only a

small percentage of disability-related

modifications will constitute

‘‘alterations’’ under NHTSA’s

regulations, thereby minimizing the

number of modifications that will be

eligible for the ‘‘make inoperative’’

exemption.

We do not believe that vehicle

manufacturers, including alterers,

should be allowed to take advantage of

the exemptions in today’s rule. The

need for an exemption arises from two

sources:

• The need to custom fit the vehicle

to the disabled individual’s needs and/

or

• Compliance with the applicable

standards could only be demonstrated

by testing the vehicle after all pertinent

modifications have been made,

potentially destroying a unique vehicle.

We do not believe manufacturers need

an exemption for either reason because

they do not custom fit their vehicles.

Instead, they produce a vehicle that

possesses many, but not all, of the

attributes needed by the end user of the

vehicle.9 All final fitting for a driver

12644 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 27, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

manufacturing one or two vehicles of a specific

configuration. Issues related to those manufacturers

are being addressed in a rulemaking on the

certification responsibilities of vehicles built in two

or more stages.

10We are limiting this definition to this rule

because of the unique payment arrangements that

are common for vehicles modified for persons with

disabilities. We have maintained in other contexts

(e.g., the alteration of a hard-top sedan into a

convertible) that if the work performed affects the

vehicle’s mandatory safety features, a label

certifying compliance as to the affected portion of

the vehicle is required.

11The NPRM incorrectly stated that an exemption

was contemplated for S5.1(a). There is no such

paragraph in FMVSS No. 101. The correct reference

is S5.2(a).

with a disability is done by a modifier.

Thus, the manufacturer produces

several vehicles of the same

configuration and has the ability to test

that configuration in order to certify

compliance. However, we recognize

NADA’s concern that there are instances

in which the final fitting is arguably

performed prior to the vehicle’s first

retail sale. This would have the effect of

making the business performing the

work an alterer rather than a modifier.

Unlike modifiers, who cannot make

mandatory safety equipment inoperative

without a waiver or exemption, an

alterer cannot make any changes to a

vehicle other that the addition of readily

attachable components without

certifying that vehicle, as altered

complies with all safety standards that

are potentially affected by the alteration.

As an alterer, the business would be

unable to use the exemptions provided

today. The precipitating event that

determines whether the work performed

is an alteration or a modification is the

‘‘first purchase of a vehicle in good faith

for purposes other than retail.’’

Individuals purchasing vehicles that

need to be modified to accommodate a

disability may enter into extensive

negotiations with a dealership whereby

the dealership procures the vehicle and

arranges to have a business that

specializes in such modifications

perform the actual work. Vehicle title

may or may not be passed to the end

user before the modifications are made,

depending on who is paying for the

modifications. Often a state or the

Federal government picks up the cost of

some or all of the modified vehicle.

They may wish to be assured that the

required modifications are completed in

a satisfactory manner before they submit

payment for the vehicle. In such an

instance, the business performing the

modifications could be placed in the

position of an alterer for reasons beyond

its control. Thus, we believe that it is

appropriate to define a ‘‘first purchase

of a vehicle in good faith for purposes

other than retail’’ as something other

than the transfer of title. On the other

hand, we believe that more is required

than general inquiries about the

availability of a suitable vehicle, since

there is no firm commitment to

purchase a vehicle at that time.

We have decided to define ‘‘first

purchase of a vehicle in good faith for

purposes other than retail’’ for purposes

of this rule as the point at which the

seller and the end user enter into a sales

contract that identifies a specific vehicle

to be delivered. This definition will

reduce the risk of a business being

deemed an alterer because it is unable

to transfer title at the time the

modifications are made, while ensuring

that businesses do not use the

exemptions to produce ‘‘showroom’’

vehicles that have been significantly

altered but have not been fitted for a

particular customer.10

We are also aware of instances in

which vehicle manufacturers modify

vehicles for a specific customer after the

vehicle has been certified as a compliant

vehicle. Several vehicle manufacturers

have expressed concern in the context

of the exemptions for retrofit air bag onoff switches that they cannot install a

retrofit on-off switch because they are

not a dealer or repair business. Similar

concerns exist in this rulemaking as

well. 49 CFR part 595 controls both

retrofit switches and modifications to

vehicles for persons with disabilities.

‘‘Motor vehicle repair business’’ is

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

‘‘a person holding itself out to the

public to repair for compensation a

motor vehicle or motor vehicle

equipment.’’ Part 595 clarifies that 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. 49 CFR 595.4. Thus, a modifier

would be a motor vehicle repair

business within the context of Part 595.

However, a manufacturer or dealer

could also be a motor vehicle repair

business depending on the type of

service provided in a particular

circumstance. For instance, if an

individual takes his or her vehicle into

the dealership for repairs, the dealership

is acting as a motor vehicle repair

business, rather than as a ‘‘dealer.’’ In

some instances, vehicle manufacturers

will send technicians to work on a

problem that is particularly difficult to

resolve. A manufacturer could also have

a vehicle transported to a centralized

facility to perform a particularly

difficult repair. In both instances, the

vehicle manufacturer is operating as a

motor vehicle repair business rather

than as a manufacturer of the vehicle.

We believe that the same situation

should exist for exemptions under Part

595, if the business is not operating in

its primary capacity as a dealer or

manufacturer. If a dealer or

manufacturer adds or removes features

to or from a vehicle, or otherwise

customizes a vehicle after the first

purchase of a vehicle in good faith for

purposes other than retail, then the

dealer or manufacturer may utilize the

exemptions detailed in Part 595.

Because a dealer can also be a motor

vehicle repair business, referencing

dealers in the regulatory text is

redundant. Accordingly, the term has

been removed.

D. Standards for Which Permission Is

Granted To Make Safety Features

Inoperative

1. FMVSS No. 101, Controls and

Displays

The purpose of FMVSS No. 101 is to

ensure the accessibility and visibility of

motor vehicle controls and displays to

reduce the diversion of the driver’s

attention from driving and mistakes in

selecting controls. In the NPRM, we

proposed exempting all of the standard

except the following: S5.2(a),11 which

governs the symbols and abbreviations

used for certain controls; S5.3.1, which

requires illumination of certain controls

when the headlights are on; S5.3.2,

which governs the color of telltales; and

S5.3.5, which requires cabin lighting

forward of the driver’s H point to be

able to be adjustable or turned off.

Only the Texas Transportation

Institute (TTI) commented on the

proposed exemption. TTI argued against

an exemption to S5.2(a), positing that

the lack of an exemption will require

modifiers to use the symbols required

by FMVSS No. 101, giving uniformity to

secondary control keypads, an area that

currently is not uniform. We have

decided against providing an exemption

to S5.2(a) because we agree that

uniformity is desirable and compliance

with the standard is easily

accomplished.

2. FMVSS No. 108, Lamps, Reflective

Devices, and Associated Equipment

FMVSS No. 108 is designed to ensure

that roadways are adequately

illuminated, drivers can signal their

intentions to others, and vehicles are

conspicuous. We had proposed to

include S5.1.1.5, which requires a turn

signal be self-canceling when the

steering wheel rotates within the

exemption. The exemption would be

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 27, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 12645

12See letter dated May 22, 1992 to Stephen E.

Selander, General Motors, and letter dated January

30, 1997 to corporation requesting confidential

treatment of portions of the letter, including the

name of the requestor. Confidential treatment was

granted and those portions of the letter have been

redacted.

limited to vehicles where the steering

wheel has been removed and the

original turn lever cannot be retained.

The agency also sought comment on

whether there are cases in which the

original turn signal actuating device and

function is not retained, and if so, if

they had a self-canceling feature

(particularly a self-canceling feature that

is not controlled by steering wheel

rotation).

We received several responses to our

questions. According to one commenter,

some horizontal systems remove the

OEM turn signal lever. TTI noted that in

other instances, a user is unable to

operate the OEM turn signals and a

redundant circuit is used. These

systems may leave the OEM equipment

intact but use a timed circuit to cancel

the signal. TTI went on to maintain that

these provisions can and should be

required for all modifications. However,

MossRehab, a driving school for people

with disabilities, commented that floormounted hand controls generally have

turn signal operation incorporated into

the controls unit. These signals are not

self-canceling. MossRehab went on to

state that it finds manual signals to be

preferable to the timed self-canceling

signals.

Based on the comments, we have

decided to issue the exemption as

proposed. If some systems work better

without a self-canceling feature, we are

disinclined to prohibit that technology.

3. FMVSS No. 114, Theft Protection

We originally did not propose to

allow an exemption for FMVSS No. 114

because we did not believe that any

vehicle modifications would have the

effect of rendering equipment installed

in compliance with this standard

inoperative. The standard is intended to

reduce the incidence of crashes from the

unauthorized operation of a vehicle and

from the rollaway of vehicles with

automatic transmissions that result from

children playing with the gear shifts of

parked vehicles.

TTI and the California Department of

Rehabilitation urged us to include this

standard within the exemption.

According to TTI, an exemption should

be added for FMVSS No. 114 since the

ignition key switch is routinely replaced

by a pushbutton or keypad. Many

severely disabled drivers cannot use a

conventional ignition key. Additionally,

the steering column housing the ignition

is often removed. Theft is unlikely given

the formidable appearance of adaptive

equipment. The California Department

of Rehabilitation expressed a different

concern. It argued that FMVSS No. 114

should be included because anyone who

knew how to bypass a steering wheel

lock function that was not key operable

would know enough about the system to

bypass it in any case.

Previous interpretations by our Office

of the Chief Counsel regarding the use

of a device other than a traditional key

to meet the requirements of this

standard have stated that a push button

code can be a key.12 Thus, an exemption

would not be needed to address TTI’s

concern. However, we believe that the

concern raised by the California

Department of Rehabilitation is valid.

Given the complexity of the modified

systems, it is unlikely that someone

unfamiliar with the system would know

how to operate it. We are including S4.4

and S4.5 of the standard within the

exemption because the requirements

specifying the number of key-locking

combinations is both unrealistic and

unnecessary given the low number of

vehicles involved.

4. FMVSS No. 118, Power-Operated

Window, Partition, and Roof Panel

Systems

Standard No. 118 specifies

requirements for the operation of poweroperated windows, partitions, and roof

panels to help prevent injury or death

from a window, partition, or panel

closing on vehicle occupants,

particularly children. The agency

proposed to include S4(a) of the

standard when a remote ignition device

is necessary to accommodate an

individual’s disability. The exempted

paragraph requires that ignition key be

in the ‘‘start,’’ ‘‘on,’’ or ‘‘accessory’’

position in order to close the vehicle’s

power windows, partitions, or roof

panels.

We received no comments on this

proposal and it is being adopted in this

rule as originally proposed.

5. FMVSS No. 123, Motorcycle Controls

and Displays

FMVSS No. 123 specifies

requirements for the location, operation,

identification, and illumination of

motorcycle controls and displays, as

well as requirements for motorcycle

stands and footrests. Because we

believed there are no common vehicle

modifications that should affect this

standard, it was not discussed in the

NPRM. ADED commented that

modifications to motorcycle controls

should be addressed so that such

modifications are done in the safest

manner possible.

We are now aware that some

individuals with disabilities have their

motorcycles modified so that they can

ride on them. Such modifications could

affect the placement of controls. S5.1

and S5.2.1 contain requirements that

certain controls (engine stop, brake,

clutch, etc) be activated by a hand or

foot on a particular side of the body.

The purpose of the requirements

contained in these sections is to ensure

safety of motorcycle operation through

uniformity of controls location and

operation. These requirements may be

inconsistent with a particular person’s

disability. In those instances, the

needed modification could not be

performed in a manner consistent with

the requirements of the standard.

Uniformity of control location and

operation is not a safety issue for

persons with disabilities since their

vehicles have been custom modified,

therefore there would be no degradation

of safety if controls are switched from

one side to the other, or from the foot

to the hand, as long as vehicle functions

are not degraded. Accordingly, we have

decided to allow exemption from S5.1

and S5.2.1 of FMVSS 123, when

changes to motorcycle controls are

necessary to allow a person with

disabilities to operate his or her

motorcycle.

6. FMVSS No. 135, Passenger Car Brake

Systems

Standard No. 135 specifies

requirements for the service brake and

associated parking brake systems to

ensure safe braking performance under

normal and emergency braking

conditions. S5.3.1 of the standard

requires a foot control to operate the

brakes. Believing that this foot control

may need to be removed to

accommodate some physical conditions,

we proposed to provide an exemption

from that paragraph. We sought

comment on whether there are brake

modifications that incapacitate the

original brake controls and would affect

the vehicle’s compliance in any of the

required performance tests. We were

particularly interested in learning

whether the use of a joy stick prevented

an able-bodied driver from using the

original brake pedal and whether either

a joy stick or a power assist affects the

vehicle’s braking potential during the

specified performance tests.

We received numerous comments

about this proposed exemption. As an

initial matter, it does not appear that

either joy sticks or power assists have an

effect on a vehicle’s braking potential

during the performance tests specified

12646 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 27, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

13Two commenters, ToddVans and Ahnafield,

objected to the practice of modifiers raising vehicles

off the frame rather than lowering the floor. These

concerns were not limited to FMVSS No. 201,

although this was the context in which the concerns

were raised. Rather, their concerns were with the

change in the center of gravity and driver

maneuverability. Raising vehicles off the frame does

not directly implicate any safety standards.

Typically vehicles are only raised off the frame a

couple of inches. While this could raise the

vehicle’s center of gravity slightly, there is no

indication that this has a negative effect on vehicle

handling or that these vehicles are substantially

more likely to roll over. Additionally, vehicles with

dropped floors can also be more difficult to handle

than the unmodified vehicle, depending on how the

modification is performed. Dropping vehicle floors

can also have negative consequences on the vehicle

structural integrity and the fuel system. Thus, we

are unable to state with any confidence that one

system of modification is preferable to the other.

14These vehicle structural components are listed

and defined in FMVSS No. 201.

in the standard or under real world

driving conditions. According to the

National Mobility Equipment Dealers

Association (NMEDA), power-assist

braking systems work in conjunction

with the OEM system. TTI commented

that no powered gas/brake controls (i.e.,

joysticks) prevent the use of OEM brake

pedals or accelerators although they

may introduce delays or lags. In a welldesigned system, these delays are 0.1

seconds or less.

Significant disagreement arose over

whether it was ever necessary to remove

the brake foot pedal to accommodate a

disability. Several commenters stated

that they had never seen the brake pedal

removed and that a removable guard be

placed over or in front of the pedal if

needed. The California Department of

Rehabilitation argued that pedals should

not be removed or blocked by adaptive

equipment because non-disabled

individuals need to be able to drive

vehicle if necessary. TTI stated that

while there may be instances in which

the foot pedal needs to be removed,

such an extreme modification should

not be the subject of a generic

exemption but should be addressed by

the agency on a case-by-case basis.

Other commenters, notably NMEDA

and AIM, argued that an exemption

from S5.3.1 is appropriate as some

conditions, such as cerebral palsy, can

lead to spasms that may require the

removal of the OEM foot pedals.

NMEDA also stated that some

technology cannot separate braking

functions from steering functions, such

that the OEM equipment becomes

redundant. NMEDA also noted that

concerns with spasms can generally be

accommodated by placing a guard over

the pedal.

A commenter representing the

Connecticut Department of Motor

Vehicles noted that any exemption to

this standard should not include the

requirement for an emergency braking

system if a single hydraulic component

fails. He noted that this function is often

inadvertently eliminated in current

modifications.

As proposed and adopted, the

exemption to FMVSS No. 135 is limited

to S5.3.1, which requires a foot control.

No other portions of the standard are

subject to an exemption and modifiers

need to assure that all other portions of

the standard, including that requiring

emergency braking, are adhered to. We

have decided to issue an exemption for

the foot control even though the

commenters stated that a pedal guard

would generally resolve any potential

problems. We have decided to provide

an exemption for two reasons. First of

all, neither FMVSS No. 105 or FMVSS

No. 121 requires braking via a foot

pedal. The requirement for such a pedal

in FMVSS No. 135 is overly restrictive.

Second, we are aware of instances

where the installation of a pedal guard

will not accommodate a disability. This

occurs when the individual needing the

accommodation is positioned in the

vehicle in such a way that there is

inadequate leg room. In this instance,

the pedal can interfere with the

individual’s ability to fit in the vehicle.

Since foot pedals are only rarely

removed now, we do not believe that

this exemption will lead to widespread

removal of pedals.

7. FMVSS No. 201, Occupant Protection

in Interior Impact

Standard No. 201 specifies

requirements to afford protection to

vehicle occupants when they strike the

interior of the vehicle. While we are

aware that some modifications could

affect the vehicle’s compliance with the

standard, we did not propose extending

an exemption to the standard. However,

we did seek comment on whether the

changes in upper interior component

padding would impinge on a large,

wheelchair-seated driver’s line of sight.

In general, several commenters,

including TTI, DaimlerChrysler,

Ahnafield and Todd Vans, stated that

there would be no need to provide an

exemption as a result of increased

padding installed by the original

manufacturer because dropped floors

will place the driver’s line of sight at the

same level as an individual seated in the

original vehicle seat.13

NMEDA urged us to apply the

exemption to wheelchair lifts and ramps

that are stowed inside the vehicle while

the vehicle is in use. According to this

commenter, vehicles equipped with

interior-mounted wheelchair lifts or

ramps cannot reasonably comply with

the standard because of the rigid surface

of the lifts or ramps that are not

susceptible to padding. Placing a

padded barrier between the lift or ramp

and the occupant would be unwieldy

and likely would not be used. While

lifts or ramps that stow under the

vehicle would not implicate FMVSS No.

201, they are generally three times as

expensive as systems that are stowed

inside the vehicle. Thus, NMEDA

requested an exemption from the

standard when the lift or ramp is stowed

aft of the vehicle’s B-pillar.

We believe NMEDA’s concerns are

valid and are accommodating those

concerns in this rule. The exemption

applies to vehicles that have lifts or

ramps that stow inside the vehicle and

block the test targets called for in the

standard. The exemption applies to the

following:

• A right- or left-side mounted lift or

ramp with a platform that stows

vertically and inside the vehicle for

targets located on the right or left side

rail, the B-pillar, and the first ‘‘other’’

pillar (not the A-pillar) adjacent to the

stowed platform or ramp.14

• A rear-mounted lift or ramp with a

platform that stows vertically and inside

the vehicle for targets located on the

rear header and rearmost pillars

adjacent to the stowed platform or ramp.

8. FMVSS No. 202, Head Restraints

To reduce the frequency and severity

of neck injuries in rear-end and other

collisions, Standard No. 202 requires all

vehicles to be equipped with a head

restraint at each front outboard seating

position that meets specific size and

performance requirements. In the

NPRM, we proposed to include the

standard in the exemption when the

vehicle is modified for a wheelchairseated driver or front seat passenger,

and no other seat for the affected seating

position is provided, or when the head

restraint must be altered to

accommodate a driver’s impairment.

The agency solicited comment on

whether any wheelchair head rests were

likely to meet the requirements of the

standard.

All commenters addressing this

standard agreed that neither swing away

head rests or attachable head rests could

meet the standard. Accordingly, we

included the standard as part of the

exemption as proposed in the NPRM.

9. FMVSS No. 203, Impact Protection

for the Driver From the Steering Control

System, and FMVSS No. 204, Steering

Control Rearward Displacement

FMVSS No. 203 serves to reduce the

likelihood and severity of head, chest,

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 27, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 12647

neck, and facial injuries that result from

impacts with the steering wheel. We

proposed including S5.1 of the standard

as part of the exemption if a

modification requires a structural

change to, or removal of, the vehicle

steering shaft. Standard No. 204 reduces

the likelihood and severity of head,

chest, neck, and facial injuries that

result from vehicle components forcing

the steering shaft rearward toward the

driver during a crash. We proposed

including this standard in the

exemption if the modification requires a

structural change to, or removal of, the

vehicle steering shaft. We asked

whether the following modifications can

be performed in a manner that preserves

the vehicle’s compliance with Standard

No. 204’s steering column displacement

requirements: (1) the extension of the

steering shaft, (2) the installation of

horizontal steering, or (3) the

installation of mechanical hand

controls. We also sought comment on

whether there are modifications which

require changes to the steering column

but not the steering shaft that could only

be made in such a way as to affect the

vehicle’s compliance with either

FMVSS No. 203 or FMVSS No. 204.

The Connecticut Department of Motor

Vehicles stated that FMVSS No. 204

should not be exempted since there is

no need to remove the lower steering

shaft in newer systems and when the

entire steering column is removed, the

method of attachment is not robust

enough to allow the column to transmit

sufficient forces to fail FMVSS No. 204.

However, both TTI and Ahnafield

supported including the standard as

part of the proposed exemption.

According to TTI, servo steering

adaptations may require the removal of

the OEM steering column and

associated equipment. Servo steering

units are replacing horizontal steering

columns in some areas of the country.

Ahnafield remarked that horizontal

steering systems may affect compliance

with the standard. Ahnafield also

requested an exemption for S5.2 of

Standard No. 203, which restricts the

likelihood that jewelry or loose clothing

will be caught by the steering control,

pointing out that jewelry can become

caught on steering wheel-mounted

steering control devices.

Notwithstanding the comment from

the Connecticut Department of Motor

Vehicles, we have decided to include

S5.1 of FMVSS No. 203 and FMVSS No.

204, in its entirety, as part of the

exemption. This is because other

commenters indicated that at least some

current market designs for adaptive

steering systems do affect compliance

with the standards. We do not believe

that the steering column should be

replaced with a non-compliant column

except in the most extraordinary

circumstances since the replacement of

the column alone can generally be done

in a manner that does not run afoul of

the standards. Thus, the exemption is

restricted to cases where the

modification involves the removal of the

steering shaft, rather than the steering

column alone. In instances where the

steering shaft must be removed, we will

allow the modifier to also replace the

steering column. This is because a

modification that requires the removal

of the steering shaft is so drastic that

there is no way to effect the

modification without taking the steering

column out of compliance with the

standards.

We have decided to include S5.2 of

FMVSS No. 203 in the exemption as

well. Some steering control devices are

inherently incompatible with loose

jewelry and clothing. We do not believe

that a device that could catch loose

clothing and jewelry is necessarily a

poor design choice for individuals with

certain disabilities. Since these steering

control devices cannot be installed

without running afoul of S5.2, we

believe an exemption is appropriate in

cases in which an item of adaptive

equipment must be mounted on the

steering wheel.

10. FMVSS No. 207, Seating Systems

To minimize the likelihood that a seat

will collapse during a collision, FMVSS

No. 207 requires vehicle seats to meet

certain performance, installation, and

attachment requirements. In the NPRM,

we proposed to include S4.1 of the

standard in the exemption when the

vehicle is modified for a wheelchair

seated driver and no other seat for that

seating position is provided and a

wheelchair securement device is

supplied for that seating position. S4.1

requires that a compliant driver’s seat be

provided with the vehicle. Removing

seats other than the driver’s seat to

replace the seat with a wheelchair

location does not make inoperative

FMVSS No. 207, because no other seats

are specifically required by the standard

and wheelchairs are not regulated as

vehicle seats.

DaimlerChrysler stated that the

exemption should also be given for

passenger seats. We have not proposed

to do so because the standard does not

require that the vehicle come equipped

with any seats other than one for the

driver.

MossRehab agreed with our

assessment in the NPRM that 6-way

power base seats do not need an

exemption because the base of the seat

should be attached to the floor. It did

question, however, whether the seat

portion would remain on its base. We

do not believe an exemption for 6-way

power seat base is appropriate because

the seat manufacturer should be able to

assure that the seat does not separate

from the vehicle. Likewise, the seating

portion of the seat should remain

attached to the base portion of the seat.

Accordingly, we are limiting inclusion

of FMVSS No. 207 in the exemption to

S4.1, given a wheelchair securement

device is supplied for the driver seating

position, as proposed in the NPRM.

11. FMVSS No. 208, Occupant Crash

Protection

The purpose of FMVSS No. 208 is to

reduce the number of vehicle occupant

injuries incurred in a collision. We

recommended including the standard in

the exemption as long as Type 2 or Type

2A seat belts meeting the requirements

of FMVSS No. 209 are installed. An

exemption would not be available if a

retrofit air bag on-off switch was

sufficient to accommodate the

individual’s disability. NHTSA sought

comment from lowered floor minivan

alterers on whether they have been able

to certify compliance with the standard

and from hand control operators on

whether the original components

installed to meet the standard (e.g., knee

bolsters) are made inoperative by the

installation of the hand controls.

Finally, we sought comment from

modifiers on how often they are

required to disable seat belt

pretensioners and why.

Comments focused on two separate

requirements of the standard: air bags

and knee bolsters. MossRehab stated

that there are many situations in which

drivers cannot position themselves far

enough away from the air bag to avoid

injury. Individuals who use hand

controls to operate acceleration and

braking may sit much closer to the

wheel than is typical. According to

Ahnafield, people with limited mobility

do not need to sit close to the steering

wheel; they can use remote devices.

Independent Mobility Systems stated

that there should not be a blanket

inclusion of FMVSS No. 208 in the

exemption, since able-bodied

individuals would lose the benefit of the

occupant protection system. It argued

that an exemption for FMVSS No. 208

should be limited to a seating position

occupied by a wheelchair. We believe

this comment was directed primarily to

the deactivation of the air bags.

Commenters noted that generally the

installation of hand controls requires

the removal of some part of the knee

bolster. TTI maintained that careful

12648 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 27, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

15The report from this conference may be viewed

at the NHTSA web site at http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov.

selection of mechanical hand controls

and installation should eliminate or

significantly reduce the amount of knee

bolster removal. The California

Department of Rehabilitation noted that

the risk of injury from the hand control

could be greater than the risk of injury

from a compromised knee bolster. Crow

River, NMEDA, and Independent

Mobility Systems also favored an

exemption from the performance

requirements governing femur loads

because of the need to modify knee

bolsters in vehicles equipped with hand

controls.

As discussed in the NPRM, only some

portions of FMVSS No. 208 would be

included in the exemption, and the

exemption would only apply in

instances where a retrofit air bag on-off

switch cannot accommodate the

individual’s disability and the modified

seating position is provided with Type

2 or Type 2A safety belts that meet the

requirements of FMVSS Nos. 209 and

210.

Because of this rule, individuals who

need modifications that include, but are

not limited to, the installation of an air

bag on-off switch or the permanent

disconnection of the air bag do not need

to first request permission from the

agency under its existing processes for

authorizing on-off switches or

permanent deactivation. That

permission is given here. However, with

the limited exceptions discussed below,

individuals who do not require

additional vehicle modifications

because of a recognized disability, e.g.,

short-statured individuals or the elderly,

must continue to submit those requests.

The only exceptions to this policy are

for drivers with achondroplasia, and for

passengers with atlantoaxial instability.

We are not requiring prior agency

authorization for these conditions

because they are two of the four

conditions that physicians at a National

Medical Conference on evaluating air

bag risks determined would always

justify the deactivation of an air bag.15

The other two conditions, scoliosis and

Down’s Syndrome, are not subject to the

exception because not all individuals

with these conditions are likely to face

an increased risk from a deploying air

bag. These individuals, as well as any

individual whose treating physician

recommends deactivation because of a

specific medical condition, remain

eligible for permanent air bag

deactivation upon written request to the

agency when no on-off switch is

available.

We note that air bag on-off switches

will no longer be allowed after

September 1, 2012 for individuals other

than those who are entitled to take

advantage of this rule’s exemption.

12. FMVSS No. 214, Side Impact

Protection

Standard No. 214’s requirements

serve to minimize the risk of serious or

fatal injuries to vehicle occupants in

side impact collisions. In the NPRM, we

proposed to include S5 of the standard

in the exemption. This paragraph details

the dynamic performance requirements

that vehicles must meet in order to

comply with the standard. We requested

comments on whether there were

modifications, other than those that

change the seat position, that would

affect a vehicle’s compliance with the

dynamic performance requirements of

the standard.

Only one commenter, NMEDA,

responded to this request. It stated that

modifications would not necessarily

reduce door strength to an extent that

the strength requirement of the standard

could not be met. However, the controls

or displays could be positioned between

the driver and the side of the vehicles

such that the thoracic injury criteria of

S5.1 could not be met. Likewise, for rear

seat occupants, a stowed lift could fail

the standard’s injury criteria.

We are limiting the exemption to

instances where the restraint system or

the seat must be changed to

accommodate a person with a disability.

We believe the exemption is appropriate

in this instance because the change in

the location of the seat or in the restraint

system could affect the measurement of

the injury criteria specified in the

standard. We do not believe it is

necessary to include the standard in the

exemption to accommodate equipment

mounted between the driver and the

door (such as touch pads), because this

equipment is generally light and would

not be likely to cause the chest injuries

that the standard seeks to prevent. We

also note that FMVSS No. 214 already

excludes vehicles with wheelchair lifts

from the requirements of S3(f) and S5.

Thus, an exemption for vehicles

equipped with wheelchair lifts is

unnecessary.

E. Standards for Which Permission Is

Not Granted To Make Safety Features

Inoperative

1. Standards Which Could Be

Compromised by Vehicle Modifications

A detailed discussion of the types of

vehicle modifications that could affect a

vehicle’s conformance with a specific

safety standard can be found in the

NPRM. Unless expressly addressed in

the responses to that document, we will

not describe those systems again here.

a. FMVSS No. 102, Transmission lever

sequence, starter interlock, and

transmission braking effect. FMVSS No.

102 requires automatic transmissions to

have: (1) A specified transmission shift

lever sequence, (2) a starter interlock,

and (3) at least one low gear. We

solicited comment on whether

modifications to the method by which

the vehicle is started and the

transmission gear is selected are

necessary to accommodate a person

with a disability.

NMEDA replied that it is aware of one

touchpad system where the

transmission shifter is located in the

keypad which could change the

sequence, disable the starter interlock,

or disable the lower forward drive gear.

We have decided against including

Standard No. 102 as part of the

exemption because we believe that the

existence of a single, noncomplying

system is insufficient to justify an

exemption to the standard. Other,

complying systems are available. We

also note that merely placing the shifter

on a touchpad does not make the

original equipment inoperative. As

stated in our withdrawal of rulemaking

on this standard in November 1999,

‘‘Standard No. 102 only specifies a

sequence for shift ‘levers.’ Therefore,

possible automatic transmission designs

like pushbuttons, keypads, and touch

screens are not subject to the shift lever

sequence requirements, since they have

no levers.’’

b. FMVSS No. 103, Windshield

defrosting and defogging systems, and

FMVSS No. 104, Windshield wiping and

washing systems. FMVSS No. 103 and

FMVSS No. 104 specify requirements

for the area of the windshield that must

be cleared by the defrosting and

defogging systems and the windshield

wiping and washing systems,

respectively. As noted in the NPRM,

vehicle modifications commonly result

in the relocation of switches and a

reduction in the features normally

available to the driver while the vehicle

is in motion. We are unaware of any

reason why a modification would affect

the performance level of these systems

to the extent that a vehicle no longer

complied with these standards. We

received no comments on the NPRM

indicating that there was, in fact, a need

for an exemption. Accordingly, we are

not including these standards.

c. FMVSS No. 105, Hydraulic brake

systems, and FMVSS No. 121, Air brake

systems. Standard No. 105 and Standard

No. 121 govern the performance of

various braking systems in different

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 27, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 12649

16See NHTSA letter of legal interpretation to

Senne, Kelsey & Associates, Inc., dated 3/26/1999.

types of vehicles. Standard No. 105

applies to multipurpose passenger

vehicles (MPVs), trucks, buses and

passenger cars with hydraulic brake

systems that were manufactured before

September 1, 2000. Standard No. 121

applies to trucks, buses and trailers

equipped with air brake systems. Like

Standard No. 135, these two standards

help ensure safe vehicle braking

performance in normal and emergency

driving situations. In the NPRM, we

sought comment on whether there are

brake modifications that incapacitate

the original brake controls and would

affect the vehicle’s compliance in any of

the required performance tests. We were

particularly interested in learning

whether the use of a joy stick prevented

an able-bodied driver from using the

original brake pedal and whether either

a joy stick or a power assist affects the

vehicle’s braking potential during the

specified performance tests.

Our discussion of braking systems, as

well as our summary of the comments

submitted to the NPRM, are provided

earlier in the discussion on FMVSS No.

135. Unlike that standard, neither of

these standards require a foot control.

Accordingly, no exemption is needed.

d. FMVSS No. 111, Rearview mirrors.

To ensure that drivers have a clear and

unobstructed view to the rear of the

vehicle, Standard No. 111 specifies the

location, field of view, magnification

and labeling of rearview mirrors on all

vehicles. Crow River commented that a

modifier may need an exemption if the

placement of the driver, due to

modifications, changes the driver’s field

of view through the rearview mirror.

When mirrors are relocated, extra

mirrors are added, or larger mirrors are

substituted for the original rear view

mirrors when vehicles are modified for

persons with disabilities, NHTSA does

not believe these modifications should

affect the vehicle’s certification with the

standard. Additionally, NHTSA does

not believe that such a modification is

advisable since it could unduly restrict

the driver’s field of view. Accordingly,

no provision is being made to include

FMVSS No. 111 in the exemption.

e. FMVSS No. 113, Hood latch

systems. Standard No. 113 requires that

cars, MPVs, trucks and buses have a

second latch position on the hood latch

system to prevent the hood from

unlatching, opening, and blocking a

driver’s view through the windshield.

As stated in the NPRM, we are not

aware of any modifications that are

made to the hood latch system, although

we realize that the method of unlatching

the system may sometimes need to be

modified. We asked whether there are

modifications that would require

eliminating the second latch position in

contravention of the standard. We

received no comments on this issue.

Accordingly, we have decided against

including this standard in the

exemption.

f. FMVSS No. 124, Accelerator control

systems. Standard No. 124 is intended

to help prevent runaway acceleration of

vehicles. The standard requires a

vehicle’s throttle to return to its idle

position when the driver withdraws all

force from the accelerator control or

when there is a disconnection in the

accelerator system between the control

and the engine. The predominant

vehicle modification affecting

compliance with this standard is the

removal or blocking of the accelerator

pedal when the driver uses hand

controls. The standard does not require

a foot pedal serve as the accelerator.

DaimlerChrysler noted that it is aware

of complete servocontrol systems that

use a joystick that may preclude the use

of the accelerator pedal and require its

removal. We believe that this situation

is directly analogous to brake pedals

and the requirements of FMVSS Nos.

105 and 121. For the same reasons

provided in the discussion of those

standards, we do not believe an

exemption is needed. Additionally, we

note that systems where the handoperated control bypasses the original

accelerator and the modified accelerator

cannot meet the requirements of the

standard, an exemption would be

inappropriate because the driver may be

unable to stop the vehicle.16

g. FMVSS No. 206, Door locks and

door retention components. To

minimize the likelihood that vehicle

occupants will be ejected from a vehicle

during a crash, Standard No. 206

requires hinged side doors, rear doors

and sliding doors to meet certain

performance requirements. It also

requires hinged side door latches to

have both a primary latching position

and a secondary latching position.

All commenters who responded to the

portion of the NPRM addressing this

standard except DaimlerChrysler argued

that an exemption should be allowed for

the standard. DaimlerChrysler stated

that the use of existing occupant

restraints is more important in reducing

the likelihood of ejection than a

compliant door latch. Some electrically

and remotely operated door systems do

not retain the original latch/locking

mechanism. However, there are some

power-operated door lock/latch systems

that are coupled with the OEM latch/

lock systems; accordingly, no exemption

is needed. The standard currently has

an exclusion for side doors equipped

with platform lifts as long as the lifts are

linked with an alarm system. We sought

comment in the NPRM on whether the

original latching mechanisms must be

disabled or changed in the course of

vehicle modifications in a manner that

takes them out of compliance with the

standard.

TTI stated that all the sliding door or

swinging door automatic openers that it

has encountered on full-size van

conversions involve the removal of or

making inoperative the OEM latches.

The doors are held shut by the cable,

chain or actuator arms of the automatic

door opener (the minivan conversions

retain the OEM latch in some form). TTI

does not know if these systems are as

effective as the OEM latches. However,

for independent driving, an automatic

door opener is crucial.

NMEDA commented that all aftermarket automatic door openers require

the removal of the OEM systems. The

OEM automatic door openers are not yet

available to modifiers. In the same vein,

Crow River suggested a temporary

exemption to allow for the retooling of

existing automatic door openers.

The California Department of

Transportation stated that NHTSA

should include FMVSS No. 206 in the

list of exempted standards, because no

aftermarket door openers retain the

OEM latch. This commenter believes

that the fact that no one has presented

any evidence that discarding the door

latch is necessary to the installation of

an automatic door opener is not a good

reason to deny the exemption for this

standard. It also argued that the current

exemption for doors equipped with

platform lifts that have alarm systems is

misguided since it offers no guarantee

that there will not be an ejection.

We are evaluating the current

exclusion in FMVSS No. 206 regarding

side doors with lifts. Part of this

evaluation includes the pending

petition to extend the exclusion to

vehicles with ramps. We are not

addressing that exclusion in this rule.

We have decided against allowing a

broader exclusion from Standard No.

206 as part of this rulemaking even

though several commenters support

such an exclusion. The primary purpose

of the standard is to prevent ejections

from vehicles. Currently, ejection

through windows or doors accounts for

nearly 25% of all motor vehicle

fatalities.

We agree with DaimlerChrysler that

extending the exemption to FMVSS No.

206 would be inappropriate. While most

of the existing modifications to vehicle

doors may take the vehicle out of

12650 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 27, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

compliance with the standard, the

current performance requirements for

Standard No. 206 are not onerous.

Additionally, we are very concerned

about the risk of an ejection should a

door latch and/or hinge system fail.

Finally, we are aware of remote access

designs being developed by vehicle

manufacturers that would allow vehicle

modifications that do not take the

vehicle out of compliance with the

standard. Accordingly, we do not

believe an exemption would be

consistent with motor vehicle safety. We

recognize that many automatic door

opener manufacturers will need to

retool their products if they wish to

continue selling them. However,

developing the necessary technology

should not be difficult and best serves

the need for motor vehicle safety. Thus,

other than the exclusion that is already

contained within FMVSS No. 206, we

do not believe an exemption is

warranted.

h. FMVSS No. 209, seat belt

assemblies. This standard sets out

requirements for seat belt assemblies as

items of motor vehicle equipment. We

did not propose to include Standard No.

209 as part of the exemption in the

NPRM since we saw no reason that

modifiers could not use compliant

assemblies. Simply moving the belt

anchors or using a different belt does

not necessarily cause a noncompliance

with FMVSS No. 209 or FMVSS No.

210. We received no comment regarding

this issue and are not including the

standard in the exemption.

i. FMVSS No. 210, Seat belt assembly

anchorages. Standard No. 210 is a

vehicle standard that establishes

strength and location requirements for

seat belt assembly anchorages. The

requirements ensure that the belt loads

during a crash are transferred to the

skeleton of the occupant and not to the

occupant’s soft tissue. The standard also

ensures that the restraint anchorages are

strong enough to withstand a crash. Like

FMVSS No. 206, compliance with this

standard is fairly simple to measure. We

did not propose including this standard

in the exemption in the NPRM because

we believed that if belt anchorages are

moved, or otherwise modified to

accommodate a person with a disability,

measurements, calculations, or

engineering judgment could be used to

ensure that the standard continues to be

met.

Only TTI commented on this section

of the notice, commenting that it was

not always possible for wheelchair users

to use the original safety belt. As noted

in the NPRM, compliance with this

standard is easily demonstrated.

Accordingly, no exemption is

warranted.

j. FMVSS No. 216, Roof crush

resistance. FMVSS No. 216 is intended

to reduce the number of deaths and

injuries caused by a roof crushing into

the vehicle cabin during a rollover. As

explained in the NPRM, we do not

believe it is necessary for a raised roof

to be installed in a manner that takes the

vehicle out of compliance with the

standard. However, we requested

comment on whether there are raised

roofs that must be installed in a way

that adversely affects the vehicle’s

compliance with the standard or if there

are ways to raise the roof other than

through the installation of a

commercially-made raised roof.

NMEDA commented that the available

replacement roofs that it is aware of do

not assure compliance with FMVSS No.

216. However, reinforcements can be

added that would not take the raised

roof out of compliance. According to

TTI, many vocational rehabilitation

agencies require raised roofs to be

supplemented by a reinforced structure

under the roof. However, the California

Department of Rehabilitation cautioned

that the added weight to raised roofs to

prevent roof crush creates handling

problems that should not be discounted.

Our Office of Vehicle Safety

Compliance has done one

demonstration test using the FMVSS

No. 216 compliance test on a conversion

van that was fitted with a fiberglass roof

and that did not have a reinforcing cage.

The vehicle was able to pass the test.

Accordingly, we do not believe it is

necessary to include this standard in the

exemption.

k. FMVSS No. 301, Fuel system

integrity and FMVSS No. 303, Fuel

system integrity of compressed natural

gas vehicles. To reduce deaths and

injuries occurring from fires caused by

leaking fuel during and after a crash,

Standard No. 301 and Standard No. 303

set performance requirements for fuel

systems in crashes. Preserving fuel

system integrity in a crash to prevent

occupant exposure to fire is extremely

important to all persons, but perhaps

even more so for persons with

disabilities since they may require more

time to exit a vehicle. Accordingly, we

did not propose including these

standards in the exemption even though

we know some vehicle modifications

could take a vehicle out of compliance

with the applicable standard.

Congressman John Moakley wrote that

exemptions should not be allowed for

modifications to fuel systems that

would take a vehicle out of compliance

because conversions can be performed

that do not affect the alteration of the

fuel system. Likewise, NMEDA

commented that no exemption should

be offered for FMVSS Nos. 301 and 303

because the process of moving the fuel

tank, supply lines, and filler neck while

lowering a floor can compromise

compliance with the standards.

Ahnafield claimed that there have never

been any reported or documented

problems with the fuel system

modifications that have been made by

the industry so far. We continue to

believe that including Standard Nos.

301 and 303 in the exemption is

inappropriate.

l. FMVSS No. 302, Flammability of

interior materials. Like Standard No.

301 and Standard No. 303, FMVSS No.

302 is designed to reduce the likelihood

of death or injury from fires. In order to

reduce this risk, particularly from fires

that originate in the vehicle’s interior,

Standard No. 302 specifies that any

material within one-half inch of the

occupant compartment air space meet

specified flammability requirements.

Materials meeting the standard are

readily available and the standard’s test

procedure is relatively easy.

Accordingly, we did not propose to

provide an exemption to this standard.

We received no comments suggesting

that an exemption was either needed or

appropriate. Accordingly, we are not

including the standard in this rule.

2. Standards Which Are Unaffected by

Vehicle Modifications

We believe the following safety

standards are unaffected by any vehicle

modifications needed to accommodate

an individual with a disability. None of

the commenters to the NPRM indicated

that these standards could be so

affected. These standards are not subject

to an exemption from the make

inoperative provision: FMVSS No. 106,

Brake hoses; FMVSS No. 109, New

pneumatic tires; FMVSS No. 110, Tire

selection and rims; FMVSS No. 116,

Motor vehicle brake fluids; FMVSS No.

117, Retreaded pneumatic tires; FMVSS

No. 119, New pneumatic tires for

vehicles other than passenger cars;

FMVSS No. 120, Tire selection and rims

for vehicles other than passenger cars;

FMVSS No. 122, Motorcycle brake

systems; FMVSS No. 125, Warning

devices; FMVSS No. 129, New nonpneumatic tires for passenger cars;

FMVSS No. 131, School bus pedestrian

safety devices; FMVSS No. 205, Glazing

materials; FMVSS No. 212, Windshield

mounting; FMVSS No. 213, Child

restraint systems; FMVSS No. 217, Bus

emergency exits and window retention

and release; FMVSS No. 218,

Motorcycle helmets; FMVSS No. 219,

Windshield zone intrusion; FMVSS No.

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 27, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 12651

220, School bus rollover protection;

FMVSS No. 221, School bus body joint

strength; FMVSS No. 222, School bus

passenger seating and crash protection;

FMVSS No. 223, Rear impact guards;

FMVSS No. 224, Rear impact protection;

FMVSS No. 225, Child restraint

anchorage systems; and FMVSS No.

304, Compressed natural gas fuel

container integrity.

F. Modifications not Contemplated by

the Final Rule

In the NPRM, we stated that we

intended to preserve our existing

procedure for making case-by-case

determinations on whether to waive

enforcement against modifications that

would not be subject to the exemption

under final rule and that could not be

made in a manner that did not

compromise the vehicle’s compliance

with the standards. NMEDA and

Advocates for Ohioans with Disabilities

agreed that we need to provide some

mechanism that will allow for

adaptations not contemplated by the

NPRM. We have decided to continue to

review these individual requests upon

written submission. All requests should

be submitted as early as possible, since

the agency will need time to review the

request and draft an appropriate

response.

G. Gross Vehicle Weight Ratings

Gross vehicle weight ratings (GVWR)

are not controlled by any specific

standard. However, the requirements of

a given standard may vary depending on

a vehicle’s GVWR. Only the vehicle

manufacturer can specify GVWR. Often

vehicle modifications can significantly

add to a vehicle’s ‘‘unloaded vehicle

weight’’ and therefore can reduce the

load carrying capacity of a vehicle.

Consumers would likely not realize, and

often are not told, that the load carrying

capacity of their vehicle, in terms of

passengers, luggage, and routine cargo,

has been reduced by the vehicle

modifications. Overloading can lead to

premature wear of vehicle components

and can create significant safety

problems. Accordingly, the modifier

must provide the consumer with

specific information about the load

carrying capacity of the vehicle after the

modifications are completed if that load

carrying capacity has been reduced by

more than 220 pounds (100 kg). In

providing this information, the modifier

must state whether the weight of a

user’s wheelchair is included in the

available load capacity.

H. Applicability of Exemptions to

Commercial Vehicles

Two commenters raised concerns that

were unique to commercial vehicles.

Congressman John Moakley wrote that

commercial vehicles should only be

allowed to transport passengers using

SAE-compliant wheelchairs that are

tested in the specific conversion in

which they will be used. Suspension

Compression Systems strongly

disagreed with including any standard

in the exemption that affects the front

seat passenger seat position in

commercial applications, in particular

FMVSS Nos. 201, 202 and 208, averring

that the front seat occupant has not

made a conscious choice to trade off

safety benefits for increased mobility.

We do not believe there is a need to

exclude commercial vehicles from the

exemption created by this rule.

Most commercial vehicles used for

transporting persons with disabilities

can be altered prior to their first retail

sale since there is no need to fit the

vehicle for a specific individual. In such

a case, there is no exemption from any

standards. In instances in which the

vehicle is modified after the first retail

sale, we believe that prohibiting

modifiers from utilizing the exemption

because of the commercial/personal use

status of the vehicle is unworkable.

Such a prohibition would place the

onus on the modifier rather than the

owner to determine how the vehicle

would be used. Additionally, we note

that Congressman Moakley’s suggestion

would require that each commercial

vehicle come with SAE-compliant

wheelchairs since the vehicle operator

would have no other way of

guaranteeing that passengers have such

wheelchairs. Such a requirement would

seriously limit the amount of space

available in the vehicle since the

passengers’ personal wheelchair would

have to be stowed somewhere on the

vehicle. Likewise, prohibiting

wheelchair passengers in the front seat

reduces the carrying capacity of the

vehicle. As a general matter, occupants

are safer in the back seat than the front

seat. However, there is no indication

that a passenger seated in a wheelchair

to the rear of the B-pillar is at any

greater risk from whiplash, the

condition contemplated by FMVSS No.

202, than a front seat occupant. Proper

use of tie-down devices and safety belts

would help ameliorate any additional

risk for a wheelchair-seated occupant in

the right front seating position as

compared to a wheelchair-seated

occupant in a rear seating position,

particularly when the passenger air bag

has been disabled pursuant to the

exemption for FMVSS No. 208.

III. Prescriptions, Labeling, and

Recordkeeping Requirements

A. Prescriptions and Professional

Evaluations

In the NPRM, we noted that an

occupational therapist or other trained

professional often evaluates the driving

capabilities of a person with a disability

and then writes a prescription detailing

needed vehicle modifications. We did

not contemplate specifying who was

qualified to make a determination of

driving ability. We did, however, ask

several questions regarding current

industry practice in conducting of

driver evaluations and the use of

prescriptions, and regarding whether

such prescriptions assist in ensuring

that only necessary modifications are

made. The purpose underlying the

questions was to determine whether we

should require vehicle modifiers to keep

a record of vehicle and equipment

prescriptions to induce the modifiers to

take care that modifications for persons

with disabilities are completed in a

manner that truly meets the particular

individual’s needs without any

unnecessary modifications and to

discourage modifiers from

circumventing the requirements of the

various safety standards.

Two issues, whether a prescription

should be required as a condition of the

exemption and who should be

considered to be qualified to write that

prescription, produced the greatest

divergence in opinion among the

commenters. Comments on those issues

were received from occupational

therapists, vehicle modifiers, certified

driver rehabilitation specialists, NADA,

and one state.

Those supporting mandatory

prescriptions argued that an exemption

from Federal motor vehicle safety

standard requirements should be

provided only when vehicle

modifications are absolutely necessary.

They stated that the determination of

what modifications are necessary is

typically done by means of a driver

evaluation and prescription for driving

equipment provided by a qualified

specialist. The commenters averred that

the most appropriate person to evaluate

an individual desiring vehicle

modifications is a trained driver

evaluator. Noting that the technology

currently available for use by persons

with disabilities to drive independently

or to ride safely as a passenger in a

vehicle is advancing and constantly

changing and improving, the

commenters argued that trained

12652 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 27, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

individuals are needed to keep up with

the technology and how that technology

can best be used. Commenters

supporting this view were the American

Occupational Therapy Association,

ADED, and NMEDA, among others.

According to ADED, a certified driver

rehabilitation specialist is such a trained

individual. The American Occupational

Therapy Association advocated that

prescriptions be issued by either

occupational therapists or certified

driver rehabilitation specialists. It

maintained that occupational therapists

are adequately qualified to make driver

evaluations based on their specialized

training regardless of whether they are

certified driver rehabilitation

specialists. However, individuals in

other professional disciplines may also

be qualified to make an evaluation if

they have completed the training

required to become certified.

Those opposed to mandatory

prescriptions, primarily modifiers, but

also some representatives of state

organizations and persons with

disability advocacy groups, argued that

excluding individuals who are not

certified driving rehabilitation

specialists from evaluating and

prescribing vehicle modifications would

unnecessarily increase the burden on

the disabled community, increasing

costs and limiting access to needed

vehicle modifications (particularly in

rural areas). They said that

prescriptions, while helpful to many

disabled individuals unaware of current

technology, should not be required as a

condition for a make inoperative

exemption. These commenters claimed

that driving capability evaluations and

prescriptions are unnecessary to limit

modifications to individuals who need

them because it is unlikely that an ablebodied individual would have a vehicle

modified as contemplated by the NPRM

so as to avoid mandated safety

measures. Access Wheels, a modifier,

commented that prescriptions are rarely

used and then only to justify the

payment of the modification costs by a

third party. It then stated that

sophisticated modifications generally

are the result of a professional

determination of driver capability in

large part because of the exceptionally

high cost of such modifications. It stated

also that the vast majority of

modifications involve relatively simple,

and less expensive vehicle alterations,

and thus are modifications for which

professional evaluations of capabilities

are unnecessary.

NADA did not take any position on

whether prescriptions were needed,

stating that prescriptions, evaluations,

or other reports should be provided to

the modifier, consistent with current

practice. It went on to say that a

NHTSA-approved customer request

process is not needed. The Connecticut

Department of Motor Vehicles noted

that some states require prescriptions.

For those that do not, it believes

requiring an individual without a

prescription to receive permission from

NHTSA is not onerous.

After evaluating the comments and

based on our own knowledge of the

industry, we conclude that it is unlikely

that persons without disabilities will try

to take advantage of the exemptions in

today’s final rule because they are so

narrowly written and because of the

expense of such modifications.

Additionally, given the current practice

in the industry not to require or rely on

prescriptions for relatively simple and

inexpensive modifications, we see no

need to add an additional burden to an

already time-consuming and expensive

process.

B. Labeling Requirements and Customer

Information

We did not propose any specific

requirements for labels, customer

information, or recordkeeping in the

NPRM. However, we solicited comment

on whether such requirements were

needed to aid disabled persons or

regulations enforcement personnel and

what burden such requirements might

place on modifiers, who are largely

small businesses.

Several commenters, including

NMEDA, the Connecticut Department of

Motor Vehicles, and NADA, stated that

labels identifying the work performed

on the vehicle should be required so

that questions of future modifiers/repair

businesses about how the work was

done can be answered. Access Wheels

maintained that labeling is an

unnecessary burden. It said that it had

never seen a modification that was not

immediately apparent. Also, anyone

selling a modified vehicle would likely

advertise the modifications rather than

attempt to hide them, since this would

allow them to recover some of the cost

of the modifications.

We have decided to require a label

stating that the vehicle has been

modified pursuant to the exemption in

part 595 and may no longer comply

with all safety standards and providing

the name and street address of the

modifier. This label, which is to be

affixed to the vehicle directly adjacent

to the manufacturer or alterer’s

certification label in the same manner as

that label, will allow repair businesses

and subsequent owners to determine

who modified the vehicle. The persons

can contact the modifier if they have

questions about the specific nature of

the work performed and the potential

safety consequences of that work. We

are requiring a street address, instead of

a post office box, to assist in locating the

modifier through the Internet or

directory assistance. We are not

requiring modifiers to indicate on the

label which exemptions they have taken

advantage of because we want to keep

the label sufficiently small so that it can

be placed next to the certification label.

The same commenters who supported

labels (e.g., NMEDA, the Connecticut

Department of Motor Vehicles, NADA,

and Advocates) argued that requiring

modifiers to identify potential safety

consequences of modifications and tell

customers before the work does not

seem overly burdensome and is already

required by at least one state

(Connecticut). They stated customers

should be specifically informed about

potentially noncompliant, but exempt,

modifications, and modifiers should

also be required to identify any steps

they would take to minimize

noncompliance. Advocates averred that

the agency has a responsibility to

require modifiers to include permanent

notification to any subsequent owners

in the vehicle identifying the specific

modifications that have been made to

that vehicle, the specific safety

standards that were affected, and the

effects that those modifications will

have on operating safety and vehicle

crashworthiness. The Connecticut

Department of Motor Vehicles stated

that such disclosure would clear up

questions by end users who say they

had no idea of the trade-offs and

accordingly did not make an informed

decision.

Access Wheels argued against such a

requirement, stating that mandatory

disclosure of steps taken to minimize

noncompliance would add to modifiers’

costs and administrative burdens. It

stated that other factors, such as liability

insurance premiums, state motor

vehicle regulations, funding

specifications, and OEM warranty

constraints, as well as the cost of

modifications, dictate that a modifier

make as few changes to the vehicle as

possible.

We considered three types of owner’s

manual inserts that could be used to

provide information to the vehicle user:

(1) A generic insert describing the

most commonly made modifications

and the possible safety consequences of

those modifications;

(2) An insert listing the standards

affected by the modifications to the

particular vehicle; and

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 27, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 12653

(3) An insert describing the particular

modifications made to that particular

vehicle.

We have decided against requiring

any type of owner’s manual insert for

several reasons. The information in a

generic insert may not apply to a

particular vehicle and could be

confusing. We have also determined

that the development of a very detailed

insert tailored to each modified vehicle

would be overly burdensome.

Additionally, the vehicle invoice, which

is received once the modifications were

performed, often provides some details

about what modifications were made.

As discussed earlier, modified vehicles

are normally customized for a particular

individual. Accordingly, we believe

persons with disabilities will know

many of the modifications that will be

needed to accommodate their particular

disabilities. Likewise, in many

instances, the effect of the modification

on an existing system and the safety

consequences that the modifications

will have on crash avoidance and

crashworthiness will be readily

discernible.

We are, however, requiring modifiers

to provide the vehicle owner with a list

of standards, or portions thereof, with

which the vehicle may no longer be in

compliance due to modifications

performed under this exemption. This

document, which could simply be the

invoice, would also have to indicate any

reduction in load carrying capacity of

more than 220 pounds (100 kg). The

modifier would be required to retain a

copy of this document for a period of

five years.

Nothing in today’s rule precludes a

modifier from detailing in writing the

specific modifications to be performed

on the vehicle and the potential impact

of those modifications on the vehicle’s

crash avoidance and crashworthiness

capabilities. We note, however, that

requiring modifiers to provide detailed

information on how each modification

was performed and what effect the

modification could have on compliance

with applicable safety standards could

result in the expenditure of a significant

amount of time and effort. Such a

document would have to be tailored to

each vehicle, and the cost involved in

preparing the document would not be

spread over a large number of vehicles.

Thus, the cost, per insert, could be high.

Since the cost of such labors would

likely be passed onto the individual

paying for the modifications, we believe

such a document, while possibly

helpful, should not be required. This is

particularly true when the final invoice

already generally details what

modifications were made to the vehicle,

as well as the name of the company

performing the modifications. Because

the nature of the modifications could be

relevant to future purchasers or repair

businesses, we urge owners of these

vehicles to keep the invoice with the

vehicle documentation.

Advocates strongly objected to our

decision not to propose recordkeeping

requirements. It stated that NHTSA

must install a system of oversight that

ensures appropriate and timely review

of modifications performed pursuant to

the proposed rule. Advocates maintains

that if the agency does not require

modifiers to maintain records of the

vehicles they modify or to notify the

agency of such modifications, it would

not only eliminate any possibility of

prospective oversight, the exemptions

would compromise the legal position of

members of the disabled community in

their ability to rely on appropriate

documentation of the modifications

performed by these commercial

operations. Advocates went on to charge

that NHTSA is issuing a blanket

exemption which will receive no

prospective oversight by the agency of

the extent to which vehicle

modifications have undermined the safe

travel of disabled persons. They

maintained that the proposed

exemption, in essence, substitutes the

vagaries of the marketplace in lieu of a

comprehensive regulatory approach.

While this will promote mobility,

Advocates is concerned it will not

ensure that the disabled are accorded

the safety protection required by the

safety standard after a vehicle

modification is performed.

NMEDA offered a counterview,

stating that modifiers or owners should

not have to perform any of the following

tasks: fill out written requests, certify

the need for modifications, certify

having read the information concerning

the safety consequences of

modifications, or obtain prior agency

approval of their requests. According to

NMEDA, modifiers also should not have

to inform the agency that they have

made modifications or specify what

those modifications are. NMEDA did

not offer any reasons for its position,

other than stating such requirements

would be burdensome.

We disagree with Advocates’ assertion

that the rights of the disabled

community will be compromised by the

agency declining to establish detailed

reporting requirements. As discussed

above, nothing in today’s rule prevents

an individual with disabilities from

requesting and securing documentation

detailing both the modifications to be

performed as well as the potential safety

impact of those modifications.

Additionally, we are requiring modifiers

who intend to avail themselves of the

exemption to provide us with

information that is similar to the type of

information manufacturers are required

to submit under 49 CFR 566. Under

today’s rule, these modifiers will be

required to provide us with a document

that provide their name, address, and a

statement that they modify vehicles for

individuals with disabilities and intend

to avail themselves of the exemption

created by this rule. Any changes in that

information would have to be conveyed

to the agency within 30 days of the

change. This requirement, coupled with

the requirement that the modifiers

retain a document that specifies the

standards with which the vehicle may

no longer be in compliance that was

discussed above, should guarantee a

high degree of accountability without

straining the resources of the agency or

the modifiers.

IV. Regulatory Analyses and Notices

A. Executive Order 12866 and DOT

Regulatory Policies and Procedures

NHTSA has considered the impact of

this rulemaking action under Executive

Order 12866 and the Department of

Transportation’s regulatory policies and

procedures. This rulemaking document

was not reviewed under E.O. 12866,

‘‘Regulatory Planning and Review’’ and

is not considered ‘‘significant’’ within

the meaning of the Department of

Transportation’s regulatory policies and

procedures. NHTSA has determined

that the impacts are so minimal that a

full regulatory evaluation is not

warranted.

The agency believes the safety

disbenefits, if any, will be minimal. The

modifications should not reduce the

safety of individuals with disabilities

since the types of permissible

modifications are limited. Further,

without the modifications, those

individuals would not be able to operate

or ride in motor vehicles, and thus

could not benefit at all from the

Federally-required safety equipment

and features. Modifying a vehicle to

allow disabled individuals to operate or

ride in motor vehicles may result in

some loss of safety for any individuals

without disabilities who operate or ride

in those motor vehicles. However, we

believe any loss of safety will be

minimal. We do not expect many

individuals without disabilities to use

seating positions specially modified for

persons with disabilities. Further, as

noted above, the number of affected

standards is very small. Finally, the

number of vehicles so modified will be

relatively small.

12654 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 27, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

The expected impact of this rule on

vehicle modifiers is low. Their method

and cost of doing business will only be

changed to the extent that those who are

now modifying vehicles in a manner

that makes mandatory safety equipment

inoperable now have clear guidance on

which modifications are permissible.

Some modifiers may have to depart

from the way in which they have

performed various modifications in the

past to stay within the parameters of the

agency’s exemption. However, such a

departure need not always cost more

and will minimize any disbenefits

associated with the fundamentally

unsafe nature of the previous method of

performing the modification. Only

nominal costs related to the labeling

requirements are imposed on vehicle

modifiers.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

We have considered the effects of this

rulemaking action under the Regulatory

Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.)

Most modifiers are considered small

entities. I hereby certify that this rule

will not have a significant economic

impact on a substantial number of small

entities. As explained above, this action

replaces the current requirement that

vehicle modifiers write to NHTSA and

request permission each time they need

to modify a vehicle in a way that

compromises a vehicle’s compliance

with any standard in order to

accommodate an individual with a

disability. While most modifiers are

considered small entities, the rule does

not impose any mandatory significant

impact on them since: (1) For the vast

majority of cases, we believe the rule

codifies existing standard industry

practices and procedures used to make

vehicle modifications, (2) the rule

assists vehicle modifiers in making

appropriate design choices, and (3) the

rule eliminates the costs associated with

submitting a written request to NHTSA

to modify each vehicle as well as the

costs associated with waiting for the

agency’s response. Therefore, a

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis is not

required.

C. National Environmental Policy Act

NHTSA has analyzed this proposed

amendment for the purposes of the

National Environmental Policy Act and

determined that it will not have any

significant impact on the quality of the

human environment.

D. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

The agency has analyzed this

rulemaking in accordance with the

principles and criteria contained in

Executive Order 13132 and has

determined that it does not have

sufficient federalism implications to

warrant consultation with State and

local officials or the preparation of a

federalism summary impact statement.

The final rule has no substantial effects

on the States, or on the current FederalState relationship, or on the current

distribution of power and

responsibilities among the various local

officials.

E. 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 rule will not have a

significant expenditure of funds by

State, local and tribal governments.

Additionally, the cost of the Rule will

not exceed the expenditure of over $100

million by the private sector.

F. Executive Order 12778 (Civil Justice

Reform)

This final rule does not have any

retroactive effect. The rule does not

repeal any existing federal law or

regulation. Additionally, the rule does

not preempt any causes of action in

state or Federal court. The rule modifies

existing law only to the extent that it

replaces an agency procedure under

which vehicle modifiers had to obtain

our permission to modify a vehicle to

accommodate a person with a disability

in a way that compromised the vehicle’s

compliance with the Standard. This rule

does not require submission of a

petition for reconsideration or other

administrative proceedings before

parties may file suit in court.

G. Paperwork Reduction Act

This final rule includes the following

‘‘collections of information,’’ as that

term is defined in 5 CFR Part 1320

Controlling Paperwork Burdens on the

Public:

Labels—New labels are specified in

this final rule that specify that

modifications have been made to a

vehicle subject that take the vehicle out

of conformance with certain safety

standards. At present, OMB has

approved NHTSA’s collection of

labeling requirements under OMB

clearance no. 2127–0512, Consolidated

Labeling Requirements for Motor

Vehicles (Except the Vehicle

Identification Number). This clearance

will expire on 6/30/2001, and is cleared

for 71,095 burden hours on the public.

For the following reasons, NHTSA

estimates that the new labels will have

a negligible increase in the information

collection burden on the public. There

are approximately 2,295 vehicles

modified for persons with disabilities

per year. The label will be placed on

each affected vehicle once. Since, in this

final rule, NHTSA specifies the exact

content of the labels, the manufacturers

will not have to spend any hours in

developing the labels. NHTSA estimates

the technical burden time (time required

for affixing labels) to be .0042 hours (15

sec) per label. NHTSA estimates that the

total annual burden imposed on the

public as a result of the vehicle

modification labels will be 9.6 hours

(2,295 vehicles multiplied by .0042

hours per label), even if every vehicle

modified requires a label. The

maximum annual cost of labels for all

affected vehicles will be about $1,150.

Modifier identification—Modifiers

who take advantage of the exemption

created by this rule will be required to

furnish NHTSA with a written

document providing the modifier’s

name, address, and telephone number,

and a statement that the modifier is

availing itself of the exemption. We are

currently seeking OMB review of this

collection of information, which would

not be required until 180 days after the

publication of this rule in the Federal

Register.

Identification of which portions of the

exemption are being used—Modifiers

who avail themselves of the exemption

created by today’s rule will be required

to keep a record for each applicable

vehicle listing which standards, or

portions thereof, no longer comply with

the Federal motor vehicle safety

standards. We are currently seeking

OMB review of this collection of

information.

H. 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.

I. Plain Language

Executive Order 12866 and the

President’s memorandum of June 1,

1998, require each agency to write all

rules in plain language. Because this

rule codifies exceptions to certain

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 27, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 12655

17 Voluntary consensus standards are technical

standards developed or adopted by voluntary

consensus standards bodies. Technical standards

are defined by the NTTAA as ‘‘performance-based

or design-specific technical specifications and

related management systems practices.’’ They

pertain to ‘‘products and processes, such as size,

strength, or technical performance of a product,

process or material.’’

portions of specific Federal motor

vehicle safety standards, it is written in

such a way that cross-references to the

affected portions of those standards are

given. We believe that this is the most

efficient way to reference the standards

and that this method also provides the

most clarity as to which safety

requirements are exempted as a result of

this rule.

J. Executive Order 13045

Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885,

April 23, 1997) applies to any rule that:

(1) is determined to be ‘‘economically

significant’’ as defined under Executive

Order 12866, and (2) concerns an

environmental, health or safety risk that

NHTSA has reason to believe may have

a disproportionate effect on children. If

the regulatory action meets both criteria,

we must evaluate the environmental

health or safety effects of the planned

rule on children, and explain why the

planned regulation is preferable to other

potentially effective and reasonably

feasible alternatives considered by us.

As noted earlier, this rule is not

economically significant. Additionally,

this rule will not have a

disproportionate effect on children. This

rulemaking directly involves decisions

based on health risks that affect children

only to the extent that a child is the

intended benefactor of the vehicle

modification. The majority of

exemptions provided pursuant to this

rule affect drivers who have a disability.

Some of the exemptions accommodate

the special needs of vehicle passengers.

To the extent the passenger is a child,

there may be some safety disbenefit for

that child. However, this disbenefit is

weighed against the benefit of allowing

the child to leave the house in a family’s

personal conveyance. Absent

modifications, the child might not be

able to ride at all.

K. National Technology Transfer and

Advancement Act

Section 12(d) of the National

Technology Transfer and Advancement

Act (NTTAA) requires NHTSA to

evaluate and use existing voluntary

consensus standards 17 in its regulatory

activities unless doing so would be

inconsistent with applicable law (e.g.,

the statutory provisions regarding

NHTSA’s vehicle safety authority) or

otherwise impractical. In meeting that

requirement, we are required to consult

with voluntary, private sector,

consensus standards bodies. Examples

of organizations generally regarded as

voluntary consensus standards bodies

include the American Society for

Testing and Materials (ASTM), the

Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE),

and the American National Standards

Institute (ANSI). If NHTSA does not use

available and potentially applicable

voluntary consensus standards, we are

required by the Act to provide Congress,

through OMB, an explanation of the

reasons for not using such standards.

This rule is procedural in nature and

does not adopt any standards,

consensus-based or otherwise. In the

preamble to this rule, we have noted

that SAE standards and industry

guidelines do exist that may assist a

modifier in determining how to perform

a modification that minimizes any

negative impact on safety.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 595

Disability, Imports, Motor vehicle

safety, Motor vehicles.

For the reasons set forth in the

preamble, NHTSA is amending Part 595

of Title 49 of the Code of Federal

Regulations as follows:

PART 595—EXEMPTIONS FROM THE

MAKE INOPERATIVE PROHIBITION

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 1.50.

2. Part 595 is amended by revising

§§ 595.1 and 595.2, designating §§ 595.1

through 595.4 as Subpart A—‘‘General’’,

designating § 595.5 as Subpart B—

‘‘Retrofit On-Off Switches for Air Bags’’,

and adding a Subpart C to read as

follows:

§ 595.1 Scope.

This part establishes conditions under

which the compliance of motor vehicles

and motor vehicle equipment with the

Federal motor vehicle safety standards

may be made inoperative.

§ 595.2 Purpose.

The purpose of this part is to provide

an exemption from the ‘‘make

inoperative’’ provision of 49 U.S.C.

30122 that permits motor vehicle

dealers and motor vehicle repair

businesses to install retrofit air bag onoff switches and to otherwise modify

motor vehicles to enable people with

disabilities to operate or ride as a

passenger in a motor vehicle.

* * * * *

Subpart C—Vehicle Modifications To

Accommodate People With Disabilities

§ 595.6 Modifier identification.

(a) Any motor vehicle repair business

that modifies a motor vehicle to enable

a person with a disability to operate, or

ride as a passenger in, the motor vehicle

and intends to avail itself of the

exemption provided in 49 CFR 595.7

shall furnish the information specified

in paragraphs (a)(1) through (3) of this

section to: Administrator, National

Highway Traffic Safety Administration,

400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington,

DC 20590.

(1) Full individual, partnership, or

corporate name of the motor vehicle

repair business.

(2) Residence address of the motor

vehicle repair business and State of

incorporation if applicable.

(3) A statement that the motor vehicle

repair business modifies a motor vehicle

to enable a person with a disability to

operate, or ride as a passenger in, the

motor vehicle and intends to avail itself

of the exemption provided in 49 CFR

595.7.

(b) Each motor business repair

business required to submit information

under paragraph (a) of this section shall

submit the information not later than

August 27, 2001. After that date, each

motor business repair business that

modifies a motor vehicle to enable a

person with a disability to operate, or

ride as a passenger in, the motor vehicle

and intends to avail itself of the

exemption provided in 49 CFR 595.7

shall submit the information required

under paragraph (a) not later than 30

days after it first modifies a motor

vehicle to enable a person with a

disability to operate, or ride as a

passenger in, the motor vehicle. Each

motor vehicle repair business who has

submitted required information shall

keep its entry current, accurate and

complete by submitting revised

information not later than 30 days after

the relevant changes in the business

occur.

§ 595.7 Requirements for vehicle

modifications to accommodate people with

disabilities.

(a) Any motor vehicle repair business

that modifies a motor vehicle to enable

a person with a disability to operate, or

ride as a passenger in, the motor vehicle

is exempted from the ‘‘make

inoperative’’ prohibition of 49 U.S.C.

30122 to the extent that those

modifications affect the motor vehicle’s

compliance with the Federal motor

vehicle safety standards or portions

thereof specified in paragraph (c) of this

section. Modifications that would take a

12656 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 27, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

vehicle out of compliance with any

other Federal motor vehicle safety

standards, or portions thereof, are not

covered by this exemption.

(b) Any motor vehicle repair business

that 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 (c) of this

section must affix to the motor vehicle

a permanent label of the type and in the

manner described in paragraph (d) of

this section and must provide and retain

a document of the type and in the

manner described in paragraph (e) of

this section.

(c)(1) 49 CFR 571.101, except for S5.2

(a), S5.3.1, S5.3.2, and S5.3.5 of that

section.

(2) S5.1.1.5 of 49 CFR 571.108, in the

case of a motor vehicle that is modified

to be driven without a steering wheel or

for which it is not feasible to retain the

turn signal canceling device installed by

the vehicle manufacturer.

(3) S4.4 and S4.5 of 49 CFR 571.114,

in any case in which the original keylocking system must be modified.

(4) S4(a) of 49 CFR 571.118, in any

case in which the medical condition of

the person for whom the vehicle is

modified necessitates the installation of

a remote ignition switch to start the

vehicle.

(5) S5.1 and S5.2.1 of 49 CFR 571.123,

in any case in which the modification

necessitates the relocation of original

equipment manufacturer’s controls.

(6) S5.3.1 of 49 CFR 571.135, in any

case in which the modification

necessitates the removal of the original

equipment manufacturer foot pedal.

(7) 49 CFR 571.201 with respect to:

(i) Targets located on the right side

rail, the right B-pillar and the first right

side ‘‘other’’ pillar adjacent to the

stowed platform of a lift or ramp that

stows vertically, inside the vehicle.

(ii) Targets located on the left side

rail, the left B-pillar and the first left

side ‘‘other’’ pillar adjacent to the

stowed platform of a lift or ramp that

stows vertically, inside the vehicle.

(iii) Targets located on the rear header

and the rearmost pillars adjacent to the

stowed platform of a lift or ramp that

stows vertically, inside the vehicle.

(8) 49 CFR 571.202, in any case in

which:

(i) A motor vehicle is modified to be

operated by a driver seated in a

wheelchair and no other seat is supplied

with the vehicle for the driver;

(ii) A motor vehicle is modified to

transport a right front passenger seated

in a wheelchair and no other right front

passenger seat is supplied with the

vehicle; or

(9) S3(b)(1) and (b)(2) of 49 CFR

571.202, in any case in which the

driver’s head restraint must be modified

to accommodate a driver with a

disability.

(10) S5.1 of 49 CFR 571.203, in any

case in which the modification

necessitates a structural change to, or

removal of, the original equipment

manufacturer steering shaft.

(11) S5.2 of 49 CFR 571.203, in any

case in which an item of adaptive

equipment must be mounted on the

steering wheel.

(12) 49 CFR 571.204, in any case in

which the modification necessitates a

structural change to, or removal of, the

original equipment manufacturer

steering shaft.

(13) S4.1 of 49 CFR 571.207, in any

case in which a vehicle is modified to

be driven by a person seated in a

wheelchair and no other driver’s seat is

supplied with the vehicle, provided that

a wheelchair securement device is

installed at the driver’s position.

(14) S4.1.5.1(a)(1), S4.1.5.1(a)(3),

S4.2.6.2, S5, S7.1, S7.2 and S7.4 of 49

CFR 571.208 for the designated seating

position modified, provided Type 2 or

2A seat belts meeting the requirements

of 571.209 and 571.210 of this chapter

are installed at that position.

(15) S5 of 49 CFR 571.214 for the

designated seating position modified, in

any cases in which the restraint system

and/or seat at that position must be

changed to accommodate a person with

a disability.

(d) The label required by paragraph

(b) of this section shall:

(1) Be permanently affixed to the

vehicle,

(2) Be located adjacent to the original

certification label or the alterer’s

certification label, if applicable,

(3) Give the modifier’s name and

physical address,

(4) Contain the statement ‘‘This

vehicle has been modified in

accordance with 49 CFR 595.6 and may

no longer comply with all Federal Motor

Vehicle Safety Standards in effect at the

time of its original manufacture.’’

(e) The document required by

paragraph (b) of this section shall:

(1) Be provided, in original or

photocopied form, to the owner of the

vehicle at the time the vehicle is

delivered to the owner,

(2) Be kept, in original or photocopied

form, at the same address provided on

the label described in paragraph (c) of

this section for a period not less than

five years after the vehicle, as modified,

is delivered to the individual for whom

the modifications were performed,

(3) Be clearly identifiable as to the

vehicle that has been modified,

(4) Contain a list of the Federal motor

vehicle safety standards or portions

thereof specified in paragraph (c) of this

section with which the vehicle may no

longer be in compliance.

(5) Indicate any reduction in the load

carrying capacity of the vehicle of more

than 100 kg (220 lb) after the

modifications are completed. In

providing this information, the modifier

must state whether the weight of a

user’s wheelchair is included in the

available load capacity.

Issued on February 20, 2001.

L. Robert Shelton,

Executive Director.

[FR Doc. 01–4655 Filed 2–21–01; 3:13 pm]

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P