Source: http://thefederalregister.com/2011/06/24/2011-15765.html
Timestamp: 2019-06-19 22:49:27
Document Index: 668913788

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 567', 'art 595', 'art 595', '§ 595', 'art 595', 'art 595', '§ 595', '§ 595', '§ 595', '§ 595', 'ART 595', 'art 595', '§ 595']

[Docket No. NHTSA-2011-0079]
RIN 2127-AK77
SUMMARY: This final rule amends regulations concerning vehicle modifications which accommodate people with disabilities to update and expand a reference in an exemption relating to the Federal motor vehicle safety standard for side impact protection. The expanded exemption facilitates the mobility of drivers and passengers with disabilities.
DATES: Effective Date:August 23, 2011. As this final rule relieves the regulatory burdens on certain entities and involves Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) requirements that have recently become effective, the agency believes that the above effective date is appropriate.
Petitions for Reconsideration:Petitions for reconsideration of this final rule must be received by the agency by August 8, 2011.
ADDRESSES: If you wish to petition for reconsideration of this rule, you should refer in your petition to the docket number of this document and submit your petition to: Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building, Washington, DC 20590. The petition will be placed in the docket. Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all documents received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union,etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in theFederal Registerpublished on April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages 19477-78).
For access to the docket to read background documents or comments received, go tohttp://www.regulations.govand follow the online instructions for accessing the docket. You may also visit DOT's Docket Management Facility, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001 for access to the docket.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gayle Dalrymple, NHTSA Office of Crash Avoidance Standards, NVS-123, telephone (202-366-5559), fax (202-493-2739), or Jesse Chang, NHTSA Office of Chief Counsel, NCC-112, telephone (202-366-2992), fax (202-366-3820). The mailing address for these officials is: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.
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) (see49 U.S.C. 30112; 49 CFR Part 567). A vehicle manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business generally may not knowingly make inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed in or on a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable FMVSS (see49 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 Subpart C, “Make Inoperative Exemptions, Vehicle Modifications to Accommodate People with Disabilities.”
Before today's final rule, 49 CFR Part 595 Subpart C set forth an exemption from “S5 of 49 CFR 571.214 [FMVSS No. 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.” 49 CFR 595.7(c)(15). However, the reference to S5 of FMVSS No. 214 became outdated as a result of a 2007 amendment to Standard 214. Prior to 2007, S5 had referred to the dynamic performance requirements that vehicles must meet when subjected to amoving deformable barrier (MDB) test.1 In 2007, NHTSA upgraded FMVSS No. 214 and reorganized the standard.2 The MDB test was redesignated from S5 to S7 and was upgraded with the adoption of new technically-advanced test dummies representing a 5th percentile adult female and a 50th percentile adult male and enhanced injury criteria.
1The MDB test simulates an intersection collision with one vehicle being struck in the side by another vehicle.
272 FR 51908, September 11, 2007; response to petitions for reconsideration, 73 FR 32473, June 9, 2003; 75 FR 12123, March 15, 2010.
In addition, the 2007 rule added a new vehicle-to-pole test to the standard (seeS9, 49 CFR 571.214). The pole test simulates a vehicle crashing sideways into narrow fixed objects, such as utility poles and trees. The pole test requires vehicle manufacturers to assure head and improved chest protection in side crashes for a wide range of occupant sizes and over a broad range of seating positions. Manufacturers are meeting the upgraded requirements of the standard by vehicle modifications that include installing side air bags in vehicle seats and/or door panels and side roof rails. The phase-in of the upgraded MDB and pole test requirements began on September 1, 2010.
On February 12, 2009, Bruno Independent Living Aids (Bruno) submitted a petition for rulemaking to expand the specified requirements of FMVSS No. 214 referenced in § 595.7. Bruno manufactures a product line called “Turning Automotive Seating (TAS)” which replaces the seat installed by the original equipment manufacturer (OEM). Bruno believes that their product affords disabled persons a safer method of vehicle entry and exit when compared to using a platform lift or entering and exiting unassisted. However, in their petition, Bruno expressed concern that: “* * * torso side air bags are commonly installed in the outboard side of the OEM seat backrest” and would be removed when installing a TAS system. For these reasons, Bruno sought in their petition to update Part 595 to maintain a similar exemption from the MDB test (to reflect the new designation under S7), and to expand Part 595 to allow an exemption from the new S9 vehicle-to-pole test requirements.
On September 28, 2010, NHTSA published an NPRM in theFederal Register. In that document, we proposed to amend § 595.7(c)(15) to reference the upgraded MDB requirements and to expand the exemption to include the pole test requirements. In support of the NPRM, the agency expressed the belief that, due to the nature of the modifications, there exists a continuing need for exemption from the MDB requirements and that there is a need to exempt vehicles modified to accommodate disabled persons from the pole test requirements.
We recognized in the NPRM that the proposed exemption presents a trade-off of substantial side impact protection in exchange for continued mobility for people with disabilities and some enhancement in easier and possibly safer vehicle entry and exit.3 Thus, we requested comments on how the agency should proceed in order to achieve the maximum safety benefit with the narrowest exemption possible to accommodate the needs of disabled persons. However, the agency received no comments on the NPRM.
3NHTSA estimated in the FMVSS No. 214 rulemaking that side head and torso air bags result in a 24 percent reduction in fatality risk for nearside occupants and an estimated 14 percent reduction in fatality risk by torso bags alone. See Docket No. NHTSA-29134, NHTSA's Final Regulatory Impact Analysis.)
The agency remains concerned about the negative effect an exemption may have on the safety benefits afforded to disabled persons who require modifications to their vehicles. However, we are unaware at this time of any other reasonable alternatives that can appropriately balance the mobility needs of people who must have vehicle modifications to accommodate a disability with the MDB and pole test requirements of FMVSS No. 214. Thus, for the reasons provided in the NPRM, we amend § 595.7(c)(15) to add references to both S7 and S9 and to remove any reference to S5.
Since § 595.7(c)(15)'s reference to S5 is no longer valid, today's final rule updates that paragraph's reference from S5 to S7. We believe that there is a continuing need for the exemption from the MDB requirements. Since the upgraded FMVSS No. 214 incorporates enhanced MDB requirements, compliance with these requirements could continue to be affected by an alteration of the restraint system and/or the seat.
The agency also believes that the compliance with the injury criteria for the MDB test could be affected even if vehicle seats with seat-mounted air bags are not removed but are instead changed in a less significant way to accommodate a person with a disability (e.g.,an OEM seat is mounted on a 6-way power seat base). This is because countermeasures that were designed to protect the occupant at the OEM seating position that may no longer be as protective at the position at which the seat is placed after the modification. Thus, NHTSA believes that there is a continuing need to exempt modifiers from the MDB test requirements for the purpose of accommodating persons with disabilities.
This final rule also expands § 595.7(c)(15) to include S9 of FMVSS No. 214. This change exempts modifications that affect the vehicle's compliance with the pole test requirements of FMVSS No. 214 in any case in which the restraint system and/or seat position must be changed to accommodate a person with a disability.
Rulemaking Analyses and Notices Executive Order 12866, Executive Order 13563, and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures
NHTSA has considered the impact of this rulemaking action under ExecutiveOrder 12866, Executive Order 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 minor and that a regulatory evaluation is not needed to support the subject rulemaking. Today's final rule imposes no costs on the vehicle modification industry. If there is any effect, it will be a cost savings due to the exemptions.
Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601et 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). 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.
This second way that NHTSA rules can preempt is dependent upon the existence of an actual conflict between an FMVSS and the higher standard that would effectively be imposed on motor vehicle manufacturers if someone obtained a State common law tort judgment against the manufacturer—notwithstanding the manufacturer's compliance with the NHTSA standard. Because most NHTSA standards established by an FMVSS are minimum standards, a State common law tort cause of action that seeks to impose a higher standard on motor vehicle manufacturers will generally not be preempted. However, if and when such a conflict does exist—for example, when the standard at issue is both a minimum and a maximum standard—the State common law tort cause of action is impliedly preempted. SeeGeierv.American Honda Motor Co.,529 U.S. 861 (2000).
To this end, the agency has examined the nature (e.g.,the language and structure of the regulatory text) and objectives of today's rule and finds that this rule merely increases flexibility for certain exempted entities. As such, NHTSA does not intend that this rule preempt state tort law that would effectively impose a higher standard on motor vehicle manufacturers than that established by today's rule. Establishment of a higher standard by means of State tort law would not conflict with the exemption announced here. Without any conflict, there could not be any implied preemption of a State common law tort cause of action. Further, we are unaware of any State law or action that would prohibit the actions that this final rule would permit.
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.
PART 595—MAKE INOPERATIVE EXEMPTIONS 1. The authority citation for part 595 continues to read as follows: Authority:
2. Amend § 595.7 by revising paragraph (c)(15) to read as follows:
Issued on: June 16, 2011. David L. Strickland, Administrator.