Document ID: NHTSA-2014-0069-0001
Agency: nhtsa
Document Type: Rule
Title: Make Inoperative Exemptions; Vehicle Modifications to Accommodate People with Disabilities: Ejection Mitigation; Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment
Posted Date: 2014-07-09T04:00Z

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 131 (Wednesday, July 9, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 38792-38795]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-15901]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 595

[Docket No. NHTSA-2014-0069]
RIN 2127-AL17

Make Inoperative Exemptions; Vehicle Modifications To Accommodate 
People With Disabilities; Ejection Mitigation; Lamps, Reflective 
Devices, and Associated Equipment

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), 
Department of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Final rule, technical correction.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This final rule amends NHTSA regulations to include a new 
exemption relating to the Federal motor vehicle safety standard for 
ejection mitigation, and to correct a reference regarding the standard 
for lamps, reflective devices and associated equipment. The exemptions 
facilitate the mobility of physically disabled drivers and passengers.

DATES: Effective date: The date on which this final rule amends the CFR 
is September 8, 2014.
    Petitions for Reconsideration: Petitions for reconsideration of 
this final rule must be received at the address below by August 25, 
2014.

ADDRESSES: If you wish to petition for reconsideration of this rule, 
submit your petition to the following address so that it is received by 
NHTSA by the date above: Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety 
Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building, Washington, 
DC 20590. You should refer in your petition to the docket number of 
this document. The petition will be placed in the docket. Note that all 
submissions received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided. 
Please see the Privacy Act heading below.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christopher J. Wiacek, NHTSA Office of 
Crash Avoidance Standards, NVS-123 (telephone 202-366-4801), or Deirdre 
Fujita, NHTSA Office of Chief Counsel, NCC-112 (telephone 202-366-
2992). The mailing address for these officials is: National Highway 
Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, 
DC 20590.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In response to a petition for rulemaking 
from Bruno Independent Living Aids (Bruno), this final rule amends 49 
CFR Part 595, Subpart C, ``Make Inoperative Exemptions, Vehicle 
Modifications to Accommodate People With Disabilities,'' to include a 
new exemption relating to FMVSS No. 226, ``Ejection mitigation.'' This 
document also corrects a reference in the part to FMVSS No. 108, 
``Lamps, reflective devices and associated equipment.'' The notice of 
proposed rulemaking (NPRM) preceding this final rule was published on 
October 26, 2012 (77 FR 65352).

Background

    The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (49 U.S.C. 
Chapter 301) (``Safety Act'') and NHTSA's regulations require vehicle 
manufacturers to certify that their vehicles comply with all applicable 
Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) (see 49 U.S.C. 30112; 
49 CFR part 567) at the time of manufacture. A vehicle manufacturer, 
distributor, dealer, or repair business, except as indicated below, may 
not knowingly make inoperative any part of a device or element of 
design installed in or on a motor vehicle in compliance with an 
applicable FMVSS (see 49 U.S.C. 30122). NHTSA has the authority to 
issue regulations that exempt regulated entities from the ``make 
inoperative'' provision (49 U.S.C. 30122(c)). The agency has used that 
authority to promulgate 49 CFR part 595, ``Make Inoperative 
Exemptions.''
    49 CFR part 595, subpart C, sets forth exemptions from the make 
inoperative provision to permit, under limited circumstances, vehicle 
modifications that take the vehicles out of compliance with certain 
FMVSSs when the vehicles are modified to be used by persons with 
disabilities after the first retail sale of the vehicle for purposes 
other than resale. The regulation was promulgated to facilitate the 
modification of motor vehicles so that persons with disabilities can 
drive or ride in them. The regulation involves information and 
disclosure requirements and limits the extent of modifications that may 
be made. Details of the regulation are described in the October 26, 
2012 NPRM.

FMVSS No. 226, ``Ejection Mitigation''

    On January 19, 2011,\1\ the agency published a final rule 
establishing FMVSS No. 226, ``Ejection Mitigation,'' to reduce the 
partial and complete ejection of vehicle occupants through side windows 
in crashes, particularly rollover crashes. The standard applies to 
passenger cars, and to multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks and 
buses with a gross vehicle weight rating of 4,536 kg (10,000 pounds) or 
less.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 76 FR 3212; response to petitions for reconsideration, 78 FR 
55138 (September 9, 2013).
    \2\ Certain vehicles are excluded from the standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To assess compliance with FMVSS No. 226, an impactor is propelled 
from inside a test vehicle toward the windows. The ejection mitigation 
safety system is required to prevent the impactor from moving more than 
a specified distance beyond the plane of a window. In the test, the 
countermeasure must retain the linear travel of the impactor such that 
the impactor must not travel 100 millimeters beyond the location of the 
inside surface of the vehicle glazing. This displacement limit serves 
to control the size of any gaps forming between the countermeasure 
(e.g., the ejection mitigation side curtain air bag) and the window 
opening, thus reducing the potential for both partial and complete 
ejection of an occupant.
    The agency believes that vehicle manufacturers will meet the 
standard by means of side curtain air bag technology, and possibly 
supplement the technology with advanced glazing. Existing side impact 
air bag curtains (installed pursuant to FMVSS No. 214, ``Side impact 
protection'') will be made larger so that they cover more of the window 
opening, made more robust to remain inflated longer, and made to deploy 
in both side impacts and in rollovers using sensor technology.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ NHTSA estimates the new FMVSS No. 226 requirements will save 
373 lives and prevent 476 serious injuries per year. The final rule 
adopted a phase-in of the new requirements, which started September 
1, 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FMVSS No. 226 is a new regulation and currently, 49 CFR Part 595 
does not provide for an exemption for vehicles that are modified to 
accommodate people with disabilities.

NPRM

    On October 26, 2012, NHTSA published an NPRM \4\ in the Federal 
Register responding to a petition for rulemaking from Bruno requesting 
NHTSA to amend Sec.  595.7 to include an exemption from the 
requirements of FMVSS No. 226. The NPRM granted the petition and 
proposed to amend the regulation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 77 FR 65352, October 26, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Bruno manufactures a product line it calls ``Turning Automotive 
Seating (TAS),'' which replaces the seat installed by the original 
equipment manufacturer (OEM). In its petition, Bruno states that the 
purpose of TAS is

[[Page 38793]]

``to provide safe access to private motor vehicles for mobility-
impaired drivers or passengers, semi-ambulatory or transferring from a 
wheelchair. The Bruno TAS replaces the OEM seat in a sedan, minivan, 
van, pickup, or SUV.'' A detailed description of the TAS system can be 
found in the NPRM.
    In its petition, Bruno referred to another NHTSA rulemaking (that 
has since resulted in a final rule \5\) amending the part 595 
regulation, pertaining to the moving deformable barrier (MDB) and pole 
tests of FMVSS No. 214 (Sec.  595.7(c)(15)). The final rule provided an 
exemption from the MDB and pole test requirements as applied to a 
designated seating position that is modified by changing the restraint 
system and/or seat at that position to accommodate a person with a 
disability. Bruno states in its current petition that FMVSS No. 226 
will enhance the side air bag technology of FMVSS No. 214, and that 
these enhanced side air bags present much of the same difficulties when 
accommodating the transportation needs of mobility impaired persons as 
the difficulties discussed in the rulemaking for FMVSS No. 214.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 76 FR 37025, June 24, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the October 26, 2012 NPRM, NHTSA proposed to amend Sec.  
595.7(c) to add an exemption for FMVSS No. 226.\6\ However, we 
indicated in the preamble that the agency did not fully agree with 
Bruno's statements about the need for an exemption from ejection 
mitigation requirements when the vehicle's OEM seat was replaced by a 
TAS seat. In NHTSA's view, FMVSS No. 226 is not affected by torso air 
bags or seat components, so the fact that the OEM seat would be 
replaced did not seem germane. NHTSA did not understand why removing 
the original seat and replacing it with a TAS seat would negatively 
impact the performance of the curtain air bags certified as meeting 
FMVSS No. 226.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ NHTSA proposed that the exemption would only be for the side 
of the vehicle where a seat must be changed to accommodate a person 
with a disability.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Nonetheless, the agency did acknowledge in the NPRM that the side 
impact sensing and electronic architecture system could be integrated 
with that of the ejection mitigation rollover protection system. Thus, 
NHTSA acknowledged the possibility that, in the process of modifying or 
replacing a seat to accommodate a person with a disability, the FMVSS 
No. 214 side impact air bag system could be deactivated, which could 
tangentially deactivate the FMVSS No. 226 rollover ejection mitigation 
system. Thus, NHTSA stated, for vehicles in which the seat is modified 
or replaced, it may not be practical to exempt them from the side 
impact requirements and not from ejection mitigation requirements. In 
the NPRM, NHTSA sought comment on the need for the requested exemption, 
and asked questions as to whether deactivating the side impact 
protection system would also deactivate the ejection mitigation system, 
and whether an exemption could only be for the ejection mitigation 
countermeasure (curtains) on the side of the vehicle affected by the 
modification, rather than for both sides.

Response to the NPRM

    The agency received one comment on the NPRM. The comment was from 
the National Mobility Equipment Dealers Association (NMEDA),\7\ which 
supports the proposed FMVSS No. 226 exemption. NMEDA states that 
aftermarket seats differ in dimension/geometry from the original 
equipment seat and may be positioned differently in the vehicle. The 
commenter states that a wider or higher aftermarket seat, or seat 
placement, could hinder the deployment of the ejection mitigation side 
curtain air bags. NMEDA also states that some modifiers move the 
vehicle seat outward to provide more center row space for a wheelchair. 
The commenter states that since relocating the seat in this way may 
affect the proper deployment of the curtain air bag, some modifiers 
deactivate the air bag on the affected side of the vehicle. NMEDA 
states: ``Deactivation of side curtain airbags is often done by 
removing the airbag and installing a Shunt that provides the proper 
feedback to the 214 control module.'' (A shunt is a device that allows 
electric current to pass around another point in the circuit by 
creating a low resistance path.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ NMEDA is an association representing vehicle repair 
businesses (modifiers) and vehicle manufacturers that provide 
mobility to consumers with disabilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NMEDA also states that some modifications involve modifying the 
occupant restraint system (seat belt) for a seating position, such as 
when the original restraint system is integrated into the OEM seat and 
the OEM seat is removed. The commenter states that modifiers have to 
mount a new restraint system to the upper side roof rail of the 
vehicle, which ``could affect the deployment of a 226 airbag [sic].''
    Additionally, NMEDA states: ``Since the technical specifications of 
the OEM 226 control modules are not available to modifiers, a modifier 
would not know whether the deactivation of one side of the vehicle's 
curtain airbags also deactivates the other side.''

Agency Decision

    The agency has determined that there is merit to Bruno's request to 
amend Sec.  595.7 to add an exemption from the ejection mitigation 
requirements and thus has decided to adopt the proposed amendment. 
NMEDA's comment indicates that it is common for modifiers to deactivate 
or remove the side curtain air bag that is packaged in the headliner 
roof rail to make modifications to the seat belt to accommodate a 
disabled driver or passenger or to install a new seating system. To 
date, the side curtain air bag is the primary OEM countermeasure 
installed to meet FMVSS No. 226. Since the countermeasure would be 
deactivated or removed, an exemption from FMVSS No. 226 is warranted to 
facilitate transportation of people with disabilities. Further, 
modifiers are permitted by Sec.  595.7 (see Sec.  595.7(c)(15)) to 
deactivate or remove the OEM side curtain air bag installed in 
compliance with FMVSS No. 214. If the side curtain air bag were 
deactivated or removed from the vehicle, maintaining compliance with 
FMVSS No. 226 would not be possible.
    That said, we recognize that the requested amendment presents a 
trade-off of substantial ejection mitigation protection in exchange for 
continued mobility for people with disabilities. The agency is 
concerned about the negative effect an exemption may have on the safety 
benefits afforded to occupants.
    In an effort to balance the mobility needs of people who need 
vehicle modifications to accommodate a disability with the performance 
requirements of FMVSS No. 226, the exemption we have adopted is 
limited. Vehicle manufacturing designs generally utilize one ejection 
mitigation curtain air bag per side to protect the front and the rear 
rows. If the side curtain air bag must be made inoperative on one side 
of the vehicle to accommodate a disabled person, we are not convinced 
that the side curtain air bag on the other side of the vehicle needs to 
be made inoperative as well.
    NHTSA believes it is necessary to maintain as much as possible the 
integrity of the ejection mitigation safety system for the side of the 
vehicle that is not altered. From NMEDA's comments, it appears possible 
to isolate and only deactivate the altered side of the vehicle using a 
shunt. Several major

[[Page 38794]]

manufacturers \8\ provide, on the internet, information related to 
modifying vehicles for mobility purposes. We encourage modifiers to 
contact the respective manufacturer or seek other information to obtain 
the technical know-how to deactivate one side of the vehicle's curtain 
air bags without deactivating the other side.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ http://www.fordmobilitymotoring.com, http://www.gmmobility.com, http://www.chryslerautomobility.com, and http://toyotamobility.com.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Thus, we amend Sec.  595.7(c) to add Sec.  595.7(c)(17), and only 
exempt from S4.2 and S5 of 49 CFR 571.226 the side of the vehicle where 
a seat on that side of the vehicle must be changed to accommodate a 
person with a disability. A modifier may not knowingly make inoperative 
the side curtain air bag on the opposite side of the vehicle.

Technical Amendment

    On December 4, 2007, the agency published a final rule (72 FR 
68234) amending FMVSS No. 108, ``Lamps, reflective devices, and 
associated equipment'' (49 CFR 571.108), by reorganizing the regulatory 
text so that the standard provides a more straightforward and logical 
presentation of the applicable regulatory requirements. The final rule 
did not impose any new substantive requirements on manufacturers. The 
effective date of the rule was December 1, 2012.
    FMVSS No. 108 includes a requirement that a turn signal operating 
unit installed on vehicles must be self-canceling by steering wheel 
rotation and capable of cancellation by a manually operated control. 
The requirement used to be in S5.1.1.5 of FMVSS No. 108, but after the 
2007 final rule it is now in S9.1.1 of the standard.
    Following the 2007 final rule, the agency did not revise Sec.  
595.7 to reflect the reorganized text of the lighting standard in the 
make inoperative exemption relating to FMVSS No. 108. Currently, Sec.  
595.7(c)(2) references S5.1.1.5 of FMVSS No. 108, when the correct 
paragraph reference is S9.1.1. Today's final rule corrects Sec.  
595.7(c)(2) to reference S9.1.1 of FMVSS No. 108.

Effective Date

    As this final rule relieves the regulatory burdens on certain 
entities and involves FMVSS requirements that have already become 
effective, the agency believes that a 60-day effective date is 
appropriate.

Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review), E.O. 
13563, and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures

    The agency has considered the impact of this rulemaking action 
under E.O. 12866, E.O. 13563, and the Department of Transportation's 
regulatory policies and procedures. This rulemaking document was not 
reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget under E.O. 12866, 
``Regulatory Planning and Review.'' It is not considered to be 
significant under E.O. 12866 or the Department's Regulatory Policies 
and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979). NHTSA has determined 
that the effects are so minor that a regulatory evaluation is not 
needed to support the subject rulemaking. This rulemaking imposes no 
costs on the vehicle modification industry. If anything, there could be 
a cost savings due to the exemption.
    Modifying a vehicle in a way that makes inoperative the performance 
of ejection mitigation air bags will reduce the protections offered 
occupants in a rollover. However, the number of vehicles potentially 
modified is very small. This is essentially the trade-off that NHTSA is 
faced with when increasing mobility for persons with disabilities: When 
necessary vehicle modifications are made, some safety may unavoidably 
be lost to gain personal mobility. The agency has made the exemption 
adopted today as narrow as reasonably possible, to preserve ejection 
mitigation protection as much as possible.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., 
as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act 
(SBREFA) of 1996), whenever an agency is required to publish a notice 
of proposed rulemaking or final rule, it must prepare and make 
available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis that 
describes the effect of the rule on small entities (i.e., small 
businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions). 
The Small Business Administration's regulations at 13 CFR Part 121 
define a small business, in part, as a business entity ``which operates 
primarily within the United States.'' (13 CFR 121.105(a)). No 
regulatory flexibility analysis is required if the head of an agency 
certifies the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities. SBREFA amended the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act to require Federal agencies to provide a statement of 
the factual basis for certifying that a rule will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
    NHTSA has considered the effects of this final rule under the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act. Most dealerships and repair businesses are 
considered small entities, and a substantial number of these businesses 
modify vehicles to accommodate individuals with disabilities. I certify 
that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities. While most dealers and repair 
businesses are considered small entities, the exemption will not impose 
any new requirements, but will instead provide additional flexibility. 
Therefore, the impacts on any small businesses affected by this 
rulemaking will not be substantial.

Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

    NHTSA has examined today's final rule pursuant to Executive Order 
13132 (64 FR 43255; Aug. 10, 1999) and concluded that no additional 
consultation with States, local governments, or their representatives 
is mandated beyond the rulemaking process. The agency has concluded 
that the final rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to 
warrant consultation with State and local officials or the preparation 
of a federalism summary impact statement. The rule does not have 
``substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between 
the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power 
and responsibilities among the various levels of government.'' This 
rule will not impose any requirements on anyone and instead lessens a 
requirement for modifiers.
    NHTSA rules can have preemptive effect in two ways. First, the 
National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act contains an express 
preemption provision stating that when a motor vehicle safety standard 
is in effect under 49 U.S.C. chap. 301, a State or a political 
subdivision of a State may prescribe or continue in effect a standard 
applicable to the same aspect of performance of a motor vehicle or 
motor vehicle equipment only if the standard is identical to the 
standard prescribed under Chapter 301. 49 U.S.C. 30103(b)(1). This 
provision is not relevant to this rulemaking as it does not involve the 
establishing, amending or revoking of a Federal motor vehicle safety 
standard.
    Second, the Supreme Court has recognized the possibility, in some

[[Page 38795]]

instances, of implied preemption of State requirements imposed on motor 
vehicle manufacturers, including sanctions imposed by State tort law. 
We are unaware of any State law or action that would prohibit the 
actions that this final rule permits.

Civil Justice Reform

    When promulgating a regulation, agencies are required under 
Executive Order 12988 to make every reasonable effort to ensure that 
the regulation, as appropriate: (1) Specifies in clear language the 
preemptive effect; (2) specifies in clear language the effect on 
existing Federal law or regulation, including all provisions repealed, 
circumscribed, displaced, impaired, or modified; (3) provides a clear 
legal standard for affected conduct rather than a general standard, 
while promoting simplification and burden reduction; (4) specifies in 
clear language the retroactive effect; (5) specifies whether 
administrative proceedings are to be required before parties may file 
suit in court; (6) explicitly or implicitly defines key terms; and (7) 
addresses other important issues affecting clarity and general 
draftsmanship of regulations.
    Pursuant to this Order, NHTSA notes as follows. The preemptive 
effect of this rule is discussed above. NHTSA notes further that there 
is no requirement that individuals submit a petition for 
reconsideration or pursue other administrative proceeding before they 
may file suit in court.

National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Under the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 
(NTTAA) (Pub. L. 104-113), ``all Federal agencies and departments shall 
use technical standards that are developed or adopted by voluntary 
consensus standards bodies, using such technical standards as a means 
to carry out policy objectives or activities determined by the agencies 
and departments.'' Voluntary consensus standards are technical 
standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling 
procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by 
voluntary consensus standards bodies, such as the Society of Automotive 
Engineers (SAE). The NTTAA directs us to provide Congress, through OMB, 
explanations when we decide not to use available and applicable 
voluntary consensus standards. No voluntary standards exist regarding 
this exemption for modification of vehicles to accommodate persons with 
disabilities.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 requires agencies to 
prepare a written assessment of the costs, benefits and other effects 
of proposed or final rules that include a Federal mandate likely to 
result in the expenditure by State, local or tribal governments, in the 
aggregate, or by the private sector, of more than $100 million annually 
(adjusted for inflation with base year of 1995). This exemption does 
not result in expenditures by State, local or tribal governments, in 
the aggregate, or by the private sector in excess of $100 million 
annually.

National Environmental Policy Act

    NHTSA has analyzed this rulemaking action for the purposes of the 
National Environmental Policy Act. The agency has determined that 
implementation of this action will not have any significant impact on 
the quality of the human environment.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), a person is not 
required to respond to a collection of information by a Federal agency 
unless the collection displays a valid OMB control number. This final 
rule does not contain new reporting requirements or requests for 
information beyond what is already required by 49 CFR Part 595, Subpart 
C. An entity taking advantage of the exemption will simply list FMVSS 
No. 226 in the document described in 49 CFR 595.7(b).

Plain Language

    Executive Order 12866 requires each agency to write all rules in 
plain language. Application of the principles of plain language 
includes consideration of the following questions:
     Have we organized the material to suit the public's needs?
     Are the requirements in the rule clearly stated?
     Does the rule contain technical language or jargon that 
isn't clear?
     Would a different format (grouping and order of sections, 
use of headings, paragraphing) make the rule easier to understand?
     Would more (but shorter) sections be better?
     Could we improve clarity by adding tables, lists, or 
diagrams?
     What else could we do to make the rule easier to 
understand?
    If you have any responses to these questions, please include them 
in your comments on this rule.

Regulation Identifier Number (RIN)

    The Department of Transportation assigns a regulation identifier 
number (RIN) to each regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of 
Federal Regulations. The Regulatory Information Service Center 
publishes the Unified Agenda in April and October of each year. You may 
use the RIN contained in the heading at the beginning of this document 
to find this action in the Unified Agenda.

Privacy Act

    Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all submissions to 
any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment 
(or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, 
business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act 
Statement in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (Volume 
65, Number 70; Pages 19477-78).

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 595

    Motor vehicle safety, Motor vehicles.

    In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA amends 49 CFR part 595 to 
read as follows:

PART 595--MAKE INOPERATIVE EXEMPTIONS

0
1. The authority citation for part 595 is revised to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117, 30122 and 30166; 
delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.95.

0
2. Amend Sec.  595.7 by revising paragraph (c)(2) and adding paragraph 
(c)(17) to read as follows:

Sec.  595.7  Requirements for vehicle modifications to accommodate 
people with disabilities.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (2) S9.1.1 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.
* * * * *
    (17) S4.2 and S5 of 49 CFR 571.226, on the side of the vehicle 
where a seat on that side of the vehicle must be changed to accommodate 
a person with a disability.
* * * * *

    Dated: June 19, 2014.
David J. Friedman,
Acting Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2014-15901 Filed 7-8-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P