[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 187 (Monday, September 28, 1998)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 51547-51562]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-25761]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
49 CFR Part 595
[Docket No. NHTSA-98-4332]
RIN 2127-AG40
Exemption From the Make Inoperative Prohibition
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: NHTSA is proposing a limited exemption from a statutory
provision prohibiting dealers, repair businesses
[[Page 51548]]
and other specified commercial entities from removing safety equipment
or features installed on motor vehicles pursuant to the Federal motor
vehicle safety standards and from altering the equipment or features so
as to adversely affect their performance. Repair businesses and dealers
would be exempted from the prohibition to facilitate their modification
of motor vehicles so that persons with disabilities can drive or ride
in them. The exemption would permit modifications that have an
unavoidable adverse effect on safety equipment or features installed
pursuant to some, but not all requirements of the Federal safety
standards. The requirements tentatively selected for inclusion in the
exemption were chosen after carefully balancing their safety
significance against the types of modifications needed for persons with
disabilities. By specifying which modifications may be made, the
proposal rule would provide universal, comprehensive guidance to all
modifiers and would thereby enhance the safety of vehicles modified to
accommodate people with disabilities.
DATES: Comments must be received by December 28, 1998.
ADDRESSES: Comments should refer to the docket number of this proposed
rule and be submitted to: Docket Management, Room PL-401, 400 Seventh
Street, SW, Washington, DC 20590 (Docket Room hours are 10:00 a.m.-5
p.m., Monday through Friday.)
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
For non-legal issues: Gayle Dalrymple, Office of Crash Avoidance
Standards, NPS-20, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400
Seventh Street, SW, Washington, DC 20590, telephone (202) 366-5559.
For legal issues: Nicole Fradette, Office of Chief Counsel,
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW,
Washington, DC 20590, telephone (202) 366-2992, facsimile (202) 366-
3820.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Background and Overview
II. Proposed Exemption
A. Summary
B. Specifics of the Proposed Exemption
C. Scope of Proposed Exemption
1. Standards for which Permission would be Granted to Make
Safety Features Inoperative
2. Standards for which Permission would not be Granted to Make
Safety Features Inoperative
III. Explanation of Procedural Differences Between Proposed
Exemption and Existing Exemption re Air Bag On-Off Switches
IV. Additional Considerations
V. Request for Comments
VI. Proposed Effective Date
VII. Regulatory Analyses and Notices
VIII. Comments
I. Background and Overview
The U.S. Census Bureau estimates that nearly 49 million Americans,
or 19.4 percent of the American population, have some type of physical,
mental or other disability.1 Their disabilities provide
special challenges for these people in obtaining and using various
necessities of life. One of those necessities is transportation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ John McNeil, Disability, U.S. Census Bureau (May 9, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Persons with disabilities often need their motor vehicles modified
to allow them to drive or ride in those vehicles. For example,
wheelchair lifts, power seats and hand controls are often installed to
enable paraplegics to enter and operate vehicles. The National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) estimates that some 383,000
vehicles have some type of adaptive equipment installed in them to
accommodate a driver or passenger with a disability.2 The
agency believes the number of vehicles modified annually will increase
as a greater percentage of the population ages and as the Americans
With Disabilities Act (ADA) 3 improves access to employment,
travel, and recreation for people with disabilities.4
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Estimating the Number of Vehicles Adapted for Use by Persons
with Disabilities, NHTSA Research Note, Dec. 1997.
\3\ Pub. L. 101-336, 42 U.S.C. sections 12101, et seq.
\4\ The ADA sweepingly endorsed the rights of persons with
disabilities and greatly expanded the existing obligations of the
public sector towards persons with disabilities under the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973 ( 29 U.S.C. sections 701 et seq.). The
ADA created specific affirmative obligations on private entities who
conduct business with the general public.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Modifying vehicles often involves removing equipment or features
installed pursuant to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards
(standards) promulgated by NHTSA or altering them so as to reduce their
performance. 5 For example, some individuals who have
limited range of motion in their arms need to replace the vehicle's
original steering wheel with a reduced diameter steering wheel so that
they can operate the vehicle. Removing the original steering wheel and
air bag and replacing it with a smaller steering wheel that lacks an
air bag affects the vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 208,
Occupant Crash Protection, which requires the vehicle to be equipped
with a driver's side air bag.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ NHTSA issues safety standards that specify performance
requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle
equipment. 49 U.S.C. 30111 and 49 CFR Part 571. Vehicle and
equipment manufacturers must certify that their new products comply
with all applicable standards before they sell their products. For
vehicles manufactured by two or more manufacturers, the final-stage
manufacturer is ultimately responsible for certifying the vehicle. A
final-stage manufacturer is defined as a person who performs such
manufacturing operations on an incomplete vehicle that it becomes a
completed vehicle. 49 CFR 568.3. If a completed, certified vehicle
is modified prior to its first retail sale (other than by the
addition, substitution, or removal of readily attachable
components), the person making the modification is an alterer and is
required to certify that, as altered, the vehicle continues to
comply with all applicable standards. 49 CFR 567.7. Businesses that
modify a vehicle after its first sale for purposes other than resale
are not required to certify that the vehicle, as modified, continues
to comply with the standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Such removal or alteration violates a statutory provision which
prohibits certain parties from making such equipment and features
inoperative. Section 30122 of Title 49 of the United States Codes
provides that manufacturers, distributors, dealers,6 and
repair businesses 7 may not knowingly make inoperative any
part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor
vehicle in compliance with an applicable standard. The agency
interprets ``make inoperative'' to mean any action that removes or
disables safety equipment or features installed to comply with an
applicable standard, or degrades the performance of such equipment or
features.8 Violations of this provision are punishable by
civil penalties of up to $1,100 per violation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Section 30102 of 49 U.S.C. defines ``dealer'' as ``a person
selling and distributing new motor vehicles or motor vehicle
equipment primarily to purchasers that in good faith purchase the
vehicles or equipment other than for resale.''
\7\ Section 30122(a) of 49 U.S.C. defines ``motor vehicle repair
business'' as ``a person holding itself out to the public to repair
for compensation a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment.'' NHTSA
has interpreted this term to include businesses that service
vehicles by adding features or components to or otherwise
customizing those vehicles.
\8\ For example, Standard 208, Occupant crash protection,
requires certain vehicles to be equipped with air bags and to meet
specified injury criteria in a crash. Deactivating or removing the
air bag would make inoperative the air bag installed to comply with
the standard. Cutting the knee bolster could affect the femur load
criterion and, therefore, degrade the performance of the vehicle in
a crash.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The statute authorizes NHTSA to issue regulations exempting a
person from the make inoperative prohibition and specifying which
equipment and features may be made inoperative. 49 U.S.C. 30122(c)(1).
Such a regulation may be issued for an individual or for a class of
individuals.9 The legislative
[[Page 51549]]
history of the Act makes it clear that one of the intended purposes of
the exemption was to accommodate the need of individuals with
disabilities for vehicle modifications.10
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Section 30122(c)(1) of Title 49 of the United States Code
authorizes the agency ``to exempt a person from'' the make
inoperative provision if the agency ``decides the exemption is
consistent with motor vehicle safety. * * *'' The question of
whether the agency has the authority to exempt classes of people
from the make inoperative prohibition or is limited to exempting
individuals on a case-by-case basis arose in the agency's rulemaking
on air bag on-off switches. 62 FR 62406; November 21, 1997. The
agency believes that Congress intended to permit an exemption based
on classes of people. The singular includes the plural, absent
contrary statutory language or purpose. Section 30122 neither
contains any language nor has any purpose that would preclude
reading ``person'' in the plural. NHTSA notes that similar use of
the singular in 15 U.S.C. 1402(e), the statutory predecessor to 49
U.S.C. 30118(a) regarding the making of a defect and noncompliance
determination concerning a motor vehicle or replacement equipment,
has repeatedly been judicially interpreted to permit NHTSA to make
determinations regarding classes of vehicles or equipment. Section
30118(a) was enacted in the same public law, Pub. L. No. 93-492,
that contained the make inoperative prohibition.
\10\ The report stated that ``exemptions may be warranted for
owners with special medical problems, who require special controls.
* * *'' H. Rep. accompanying 1974 Amendments to the Motor Vehicle
Safety Act (1974).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To date, the agency has not issued a regulation exempting modifiers
as a class from the make inoperative provision for the purpose of
modifying vehicles to accommodate individuals with
disabilities.11 Instead, the agency considers requests from
individual modifiers for permission to modify vehicles for individuals
with disabilities and responds on a request by request basis. In some
cases, the Chief Counsel of NHTSA has issued letters stating that the
agency will not institute enforcement proceedings against the motor
vehicle dealer or repair business for modifying a particular vehicle to
accommodate a person's disability. Such letters also caution that only
necessary modifications may be made and that the person making the
modifications should consider the safety consequences of the
modifications. While this approach eliminates the risk of civil
penalties, it still leaves vehicle dealers and repair businesses in
technical violation of the make inoperative prohibition. Further, it
does not provide guidance to modifiers as to which Federally-required
safety equipment and features may be modified consistent with the
interests of motor vehicle safety. In addition, the agency is concerned
that the process is largely bypassed by most modifiers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ NHTSA recently issued its first regulation exempting motor
vehicle dealers and repair businesses from the statutory prohibition
against making federally-required safety equipment inoperative so
that they may install retrofit manual on-off switches for air bags
in vehicles owned by or used by people whose requests for switches
have been approved by NHTSA. 62 FR 62406; Nov. 21, 1997.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The agency believes that many modifiers modify vehicles without
requesting agency permission, and without receiving any agency
guidance.12 Although approximately 383,000 vehicles have
been modified to date 13 and there are an estimated 400
modifiers,14 the agency has only received a total of
approximately 250 requests 15 for permission to modify a
particular vehicle to accommodate a driver or passenger with a
disability. While NHTSA estimates that approximately 200 of the
modifiers receive some guidance on making vehicle modifications from
industry associations and others, the balance apparently receive no
guidance at all.16
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ The agency believes that several factors account for this
situation. First, NHTSA believes that some modifiers may be unaware
of the statutory make inoperative prohibition. Others may not be
aware that they should seek the agency's permission before modifying
a vehicle in a way that compromises the vehicle's compliance with
any of the standards. Third, some vehicle modifiers believe that
their modifications do not make inoperative any device or element of
design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with the
standards. Agency staff discussions with modifiers revealed that
much of this was due to a lack of familiarity with the standards
rather than poor engineering judgment. In general, NHTSA found that
once modifiers understood and familiarized themselves with the
standards, most modifiers exercised sound engineering judgment with
respect to modifying the vehicles. For example, the agency learned
that some modifiers were unaware that replacing the original
steering wheel and column with horizontal steering affected the
vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 203, Impact protection for
the driver from the steering control system, Standard No. 204,
Steering control rearward displacement, and Standard No. 208,
Occupant crash protection. Some thought they had only affected
compliance with Standard No. 208's air bag requirement. Thus, many
modifiers only requested permission to deactivate the air bag. NHTSA
is increasing its efforts to raise the level of knowledge of the
standards and the make inoperative prohibition within both the
disabled community and the vehicle modification industry to address
this problem. Finally, some dealers and repair businesses who are
aware of the need to seek permission simply ignore that requirement
because they consider the requirement to write a letter for every
vehicle modification onerous.
\13\ The agency notes that some of these modifications did not
adversely affect the vehicles' compliance with any applicable safety
standards and, therefore, did not violate the make inoperative
prohibition.
\14\ This estimate is from the National Mobility Equipment
Dealers Association (NMEDA).
\15\ The majority of these requests were made in the past few
years. Since all of the modifications were based on the need to
accommodate a person's disability, the agency granted all of the
requests.
\16\ NMEDA, a professional association composed of vehicle
alterers, modifiers, equipment manufacturers, occupational
therapists (OTs), and driver trainers, has issued recommended
practice guidelines for particular types of vehicle modifications,
such as dropping a floor to accommodate a wheelchair or installing a
power seat base, to assist its members in modifying vehicles safely.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The making of modifications without sufficient guidance raises
concerns about the ability of persons with disabilities to have their
vehicles modified in ways that do not unnecessarily or excessively
affect the safety of their vehicles. Modifiers tend to be small
businesses with limited engineering and other resources. Most do not
have the resources to test whether a particular modification would
affect a vehicle's compliance with a particular standard.17
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ NHTSA notes that NMEDA has tried to address this issue by
developing a Quality Assurance Program (QAP) and conducting crash
tests of modified vehicles. In addition, the agency is aware that
alterers who also certify vehicles built to accommodate persons with
disabilities prior to their first retail sale have also performed
crash tests on modified vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The agency's experience with the vehicle modification industry
indicates that knowledge of the standards varies among the modifiers.
While some modifiers are very knowledgeable of the standards and the
need to preserve a vehicle's compliance with them, others are less
knowledgeable. Many modifiers do not possess sufficient knowledge of
the standards to judge whether a particular modification may affect a
vehicle's compliance with the standards.
To address these safety concerns, the agency has attempted to
increase the level of knowledge by participating in national industry
conferences and through other means.18 As a result,
modifiers have increasingly sought NHTSA's guidance with respect to the
specific modifications they wish to perform for individuals with
disabilities. The agency has also amended several of its standards to
address particular needs of persons with disabilities.19
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ For example, NHTSA has required manufacturers to recall
adaptive equipment, investigated complaints about a modified vehicle
and a hand control, participated in outside research groups
concerned with modified vehicles and adaptive equipment, and
researched air bag interaction with, and injury potential from,
steering control devices.
\19\ See for example, Standard No. 213, Child restraint systems,
final rule, 51 FR 5335; February 13, 1986 and 49 CFR Part
571.213.S6.1.2.(a)(1)(I); Standard No. 222, School bus passenger
seating and crash protection, final rule, 58 FR 4586; January 15,
1993 and technical amendment, 58 FR 46873; September 3, 1993;
Standard No. 208, Occupant crash protection, 58 FR 11975; March 2,
1993, amended Standard No. 208 to provide manufacturers of light
trucks and vans (LTVs) ``designed to be driven by persons with
disabilities'' an alternative to complying with the dynamic testing
requirement for manual seat belts at outboard seating positions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, NHTSA believes that a more comprehensive method is needed
now to address all of the standards and to reach the industry as a
whole. The agency believes that a regulation is needed to assist
modifiers and members of the disabled population in making appropriate
decisions with respect to
[[Page 51550]]
the majority of vehicle modifications.20 To this end, the
agency is proposing an exemption from the make inoperative prohibition
that will:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ The agency notes that industry members, including NMEDA,
and members of the disabled community have urged NHTSA to issue
clearer guidance in the area of modifying vehicles for the
individuals with disabilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Promote the mobility and safety of persons with
disabilities by providing comprehensive, universally available
guidance;
Improve the industry's ability to assess what
modifications are consistent with the statutory provision and the
interests of safety;
Improve the agency's ability to achieve its safety goals;
and
Relieve modifiers of the burden of writing a letter to the
agency for each and every modification they wish to perform.
II. Proposed Exemption
A. Summary
NHTSA is proposing a limited exemption from the statutory provision
prohibiting motor vehicle dealers, repair businesses and other
specified commercial entities from removing or altering safety
equipment or features installed pursuant to the Federal motor vehicle
safety standards so as to make them inoperative. Repair businesses and
dealers would be exempted from the make inoperative prohibition for the
purpose of modifying motor vehicles after the first retail sale to
accommodate a person with a disability. The exemption would permit
modifications affecting some, but not all, standards.
B. Specifics of the Proposed Exemption
While NHTSA believes that all individuals should, to the extent
possible, be provided with an equivalent level of vehicle safety, it
also believes that all Americans should, to the extent possible, be
provided with an equivalent level of mobility. Vehicles must often be
modified to make them accessible to and usable by people with
disabilities. These modifications often make features installed in
compliance with the standards inoperative.
Among persons with disabilities, the type and severity of physical
impairments that affect a person's ability to access and use a vehicle
vary from person to person. Different impairments require different
vehicle modifications.21 Each different modification may
affect a vehicle's compliance with the standards in a different way.
Consequently, due to the wide range of disabilities and the various
modifications needed to accommodate them, it would be difficult for the
agency to attempt to develop a regulation that lists each type and
level of severity of disability and that specifies the particular set
of standards that may be adversely affected by the modifications
suitable for each of those listed types and levels of severity of
disability. Instead, the agency has decided to issue the proposed
regulation, which would take a more general approach and provide
modifiers with the flexibility and guidance they need to accommodate
various people with disabilities while preserving the safety of the
vehicle to the greatest extent possible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ For example, a paraplegic may need to drop the floor of a
vehicle and install a lift and hand controls to accommodate his
entering the vehicle and transferring to a power seat to drive,
while a person with limited range of motion in her right arm may
simply need to install a knob on the vehicle's steering wheel.
Another individual may need to have the right-front passenger seat
removed and a wheelchair restraint installed so that he may ride in
the vehicle while seated in a wheelchair.
Further, two paraplegics with similar limited range of motion
could require different modifications. One individual may be able to
operate the vehicle with the steering wheel originally installed by
the manufacturer while another might require a smaller steering
wheel to be installed. The first modification would not require
removal of the air bag, the second would.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For a modification to be exempt from the make inoperative
prohibition, a dealer or repair business would have to meet certain
conditions. The modification would be permitted to affect compliance
with the standards specified, in whole or in part, below. However, the
exemption would not grant permission with respect to any other
standards.22 Although it is not expressly required, the
agency expects that the dealer or motor vehicle repair business would
not modify the vehicle in a manner that adversely affects the vehicle's
compliance with those specified standards any more than is reasonably
necessary, considering cost and available technology, to accommodate
the person with the disability.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ For a full discussion of the standards proposed for
inclusion in the exemption as well as some of the standards not
proposed for inclusion, see Section II. C. of this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The standards and portions thereof proposed for exemption are
specified below:
Standard No. 101, Controls and displays, S5.1 (a), which
governs the symbols and abbreviations used for certain controls;
S5.3.1, which requires illumination of certain controls when the head
lights are on; S5.3.2 which governs the color of telltales; or S5.3.5
which requires cabin lighting forward of the driver's H point
23 to be able to be adjustable or turned off. The purpose of
Standard No. 101 is to limit driver distraction from the driving task.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ The H-point is the manufacturer's reference point for
determining where the passenger's hip joint should be located for
testing purposes. The hip joint's location affects the head's
location.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
S5.1.1.5 of Standard No. 108, Lamps, reflective devices,
and associated equipment, where the vehicle is modified to be driven
without a steering wheel and where it is not feasible to retain the
original equipment manufacturer (OEM) turn signal lever required by
S5.1.1.5. The purpose of Standard No. 108 is to ensure that roadways
are illuminated, drivers can signal their intentions, and vehicles are
conspicuous.
S4(a) of Standard No. 118, Power-operated window,
partition, and roof panel systems, where a remote ignition device is
necessary. Standard No. 118 specifies requirements for the operation of
power-operated windows, partitions, and roof panels to help prevent
injury or death from a window, partition, or panel closing on a vehicle
occupant (particularly children).
S5.3.1 of Standard No. 135, Passenger car brake systems,
where the foot control must be removed to accommodate a person's
disability. Standard No. 135 specifies requirements for service brake
and associated parking brake systems to ensure safe braking performance
under normal and emergency driving conditions.
Standard No. 202, Head restraints, where (1) a vehicle
modified for a wheelchair seated driver or right front passenger and
where no other seat is supplied with the vehicle for the driver or
right front passenger seating position or (2) where the head restraint
must be altered to accommodate a driver's impairment. 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.
S5.1 Standard No. 203, Impact protection for the driver
from the steering control system, where the modification requires a
structural change to, or removal of, the OEM steering shaft. The
standard serves to reduce the likelihood and severity of head, chest,
neck, and facial injuries from impact with the steering wheel.
Standard No. 204, Steering control rearward displacement,
where the modification requires a structural change to, or removal of,
the OEM
[[Page 51551]]
steering shaft. The standard serves to reduce the likelihood and
severity of head, chest, neck, and facial injuries due to vehicle
components forcing the steering shaft rearward toward the driver in a
crash.
Standard No. 207, Seating systems, where a vehicle is
modified to be driven by a person seated in a wheelchair and no other
seat is supplied with the vehicle for the driver; provided, that a
wheelchair securement device is installed at the driver's position. To
minimize the likelihood that a seat will collapse during a collision,
Standard No. 207 establishes performance, installation, and attachment
requirements for seats.
Standard No. 208, Occupant crash protection, provided that
Type 2 or 2A seat belts meeting the requirements of Standard No. 209
and anchorages meeting the requirements of Standard No. 210 are
installed. The purpose of Standard 208 is to reduce the number of
vehicle occupant deaths and the severity of vehicle occupant injuries
incurred in a collision.
S5 (the dynamic performance requirement only) of Standard
No. 214, Side impact protection, where the seat position must be
changed to accommodate a person's disability. Standard No. 214's
requirements serve to minimize the risk of serious and fatal injuries
to vehicle occupants in side impact collisions.
Under the proposed procedure, modifiers would no longer have to
seek the agency's approval before modifying a vehicle to accommodate a
person with a disability. The modifier could make the necessary
modifications as long as the modifications are needed to accommodate a
person's disability and only affect the vehicle's compliance with the
specified standards. The agency has not proposed to require modifiers
to maintain records of the vehicles they modify or notify the agency of
such modifications. Further, the agency has not proposed to require
modifiers to affix a label to the vehicle stating that the vehicle has
been modified and may no longer comply with all standards. A complete
discussion of these issues and requests for comments are contained in
Sections III, IV and Section V of this notice.
C. Scope of Proposed Exemption
The agency believes that compliance with certain standards is
potentially often affected by the manner in which vehicle modifications
are currently made for persons with disabilities. NHTSA has tried to
identify those standards and determine whether they are appropriate
candidates for inclusion in the proposed exemption.
In making this determination, the agency was mindful that its
authority to grant exemptions from the make inoperative exemption is
limited, as noted above, to those cases in which an exemption is
consistent with safety. In light of the legislative history indicating
that one of the intended purposes of the exemption was to accommodate
persons with disabilities, NHTSA interprets this limitation as
requiring that an exemption not lead to any unnecessary reduction in
safety. A stricter reading of the limitation would defeat the goal of
allowing those modifications necessary to facilitate the mobility needs
of those persons. Although some modifications to a vehicle may result
in a decrease in safety to the vehicle's occupants, without such
modifications, persons with disabilities often cannot use their
vehicles.
Accordingly, in developing this proposal, the agency has sought to
accommodate the mobility needs of people with disabilities, while
preserving safety to the extent possible. The agency is proposing to
grant an exemption from the make inoperative prohibition only with
respect to those standards or portions of standards requiring safety
devices or features whose performance would unavoidably have to be
compromised to accommodate a person's disability.
In determining whether to propose inclusion of modifications
affecting devices or features installed pursuant to a particular
standard, NHTSA first considered the range of specific disabilities
that need to be accommodated to enable people with disabilities to
operate or ride in a vehicle. Second, the agency considered what type
of modifications would be necessary to accommodate such disabilities.
The following table includes illustrative examples of disabilities and
identifies the common vehicle modifications made to accommodate those
disabilities. These items are included here only as examples and are,
by no means, all inclusive.
Examples of Vehicle Modifications to Accommodate Particular Disabilities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For driver or passenger Disability Vehicle type Modification needed
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Driver.................... Right side hemiplegia Passenger car................... Install a left foot
due to stroke. accelerator.
Driver.................... Lower level paraplegia, Passenger car................... Install hand controls
multiple sclerosis, or for brake and throttle,
a double leg amputee. a spinner knob steering
control device, and a
wheelchair hoist to
lift chair into or on
top of vehicle for
storage.
Driver.................... Lower level paraplegia, Pickup truck.................... Install hand controls
multiple sclerosis, or for brake and throttle,
a double leg amputee. a spinner knob steering
control device, a
wheelchair hoist to
lift chair into or on
top of vehicle for
storage, and a transfer
seat to lift driver
into seat.
Driver.................... Higher level paraplegia Mini van........................ Lower floor and install
or lower level a lift or ramp, hand
quadriplegia, a controls (manual or
wheelchair user who power assist), a power
does not want to lift seat base or a
the wheelchair in and wheelchair tie down, a
out of a car. reduced diameter
steering wheel, and
reduced effort braking
and/or steering
Driver.................... Higher level Full-sized van.................. Lower floor and raise
quadriplegia. body off the suspension
or raise the roof and
install a lift, a
wheelchair tie down,
power assist hand
controls or joy stick
steering, and brake and
throttle control.
Passenger................. Higher level paraplegia Mini van........................ Lower floor and install
or lower level a lift or ramp, a power
quadriplegia, a seat base or a
wheelchair user who wheelchair tie down.
does not want to lift
the wheelchair in and
out of a car, a child
with cerebral palsy.
[[Page 51552]]
Passenger................. Lower level paraplegia, Passenger car................... Install a wheelchair
multiple sclerosis, or hoist to lift chair
a child with muscular into or on top of
dystrophy or cerebral vehicle for storage.
palsy. Passenger car.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Third, after considering the array of disabilities, NHTSA used its
engineering judgment to determine tentatively which safety devices or
features required by the standards might be affected by the variety of
modifications needed to accommodate individuals with those
disabilities. For each standard whose required device or feature might
be affected by a vehicle modification, the agency considered whether
modifications to enable a person with disabilities to operate or occupy
a motor vehicle could be made reasonably without violating the make
inoperative prohibition. Many modifications can be made without
compromising a vehicle's compliance with the standards. If the agency
believed that compliance could be preserved easily or with a reasonable
amount of cost and effort, it did not include modifications involving
that standard in the proposed exemption.
The following cases illustrate how the agency determined whether a
particular modification should be exempt from the make inoperative
prohibition:
Case 1. A modifier may need to replace the original vehicle floor
covering with a material that is more conducive to the motion of a
wheelchair's wheels. With a minimum amount of effort, the original
floor covering can be replaced with a material that preserves the
vehicle's certification to Standard No. 302, Flammability of interior
materials. Thus, NHTSA did not propose to include Standard No. 302 in
the proposed exemption.
Case 2. A modifier may have to remove the driver's seat and install
wheelchair restraints to enable a quadriplegic to drive from a
wheelchair. Since Standard No. 207, Seating systems, requires that a
driver's seat be installed in the vehicle, removing the driver's seat
would violate the make inoperative prohibition. Since the only way the
person could drive is from a wheelchair, NHTSA tentatively determined
that the modification was necessary and that an exemption would,
therefore, be appropriate.
Case 3. A modifier may have to lower the floor of the vehicle to
accommodate a person with a disability. Lowering the floor may require
relocating the vehicle's fuel tank which could affect the vehicle's
compliance with Standard No. 301, Fuel system integrity, which sets
performance requirements for fuel systems in crashes. The agency
determined that it is possible to make the modification without
compromising compliance with the standard. The agency determined that
permitting a modifier to compromise compliance with the standard was
unacceptable since it could unnecessarily expose occupants to an
increased risk of fire.
Following is a discussion of the standards the agency believes are
appropriate candidates for the exemption and those it believes are
inappropriate. The discussion addresses only those standards the agency
believes might be affected by common vehicle modifications. The
following standards will not be discussed and are not recommended for
exemption because the agency believes there are no common vehicle
modifications that should affect the vehicles, vehicle systems, or
equipment to which they apply:
Standard No. 106, Brake hoses
Standard No. 109, New pneumatic tires
Standard No. 110, Tire selection and rims
Standard No. 114, Theft protection
Standard No. 116, Motor vehicle brake fluids
Standard No. 117, Retreaded pneumatic tires
Standard No. 119, New pneumatic tires for vehicles other than passenger
cars
Standard No. 120, Tire selection and rims for vehicles other than
passenger cars
Standard No. 122, Motorcycle brake systems
Standard No. 123, Motorcycle controls and displays
Standard No. 125, Warning devices
Standard No. 129, Non-pneumatic tires for passenger cars
Standard No. 131, School bus pedestrian safety devices
Standard No. 205, Glazing materials
Standard No. 212, Windshield mounting
Standard No. 213, Child restraint systems
Standard No. 217, Bus emergency exits and window retention and release
Standard No. 218, Motorcycle helmets
Standard No. 219, Windshield zone intrusion
Standard No. 220, School bus rollover protection
Standard No. 221, School bus body joint strength
Standard No. 222, School bus passenger seating and crash protection
Standard No. 223, Rear impact guards
Standard No. 224, Rear impact protection
Standard No. 304, Compressed natural gas fuel container integrity
1. Standards for Which Permission Would Be Granted To Make Safety
Features Inoperative
a. Standard No. 101, Controls and displays. The purpose of Standard
101 is to limit driver distraction from the driving task. The standard
does not require or prescribe exact locations or methods of operation
for any control or display. The standard does, however, require that if
certain controls are provided, they ``shall be operable by the driver''
and that if certain displays are furnished, they ``shall be visible to
the driver.'' The standard also directs that the driver be restrained
for testing and lists which controls must be illuminated when the
vehicle's headlights are on.
Controls and displays, as well as the driver's seating position,
are often moved when a vehicle is modified. These changes create the
potential to take the vehicle out of compliance with 49 CFR 571.101 in
three ways. First, controls or displays may be moved to a position that
is not visible to the driver when the driver is looking forward (e.g.
switches may be moved to a door mounted touch panel to be operated by
the driver's elbow, or switches may be mounted in a head rest). Second,
a change in the driver's seating position may result in the driver's
inability to see or reach an OEM control or display. Finally, changing
the restraint system can make it impossible to comply with section 6 of
the standard which requires the driver to be restrained pursuant to the
requirements of Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. The agency
believes that such changes do not create a safety problem since the
purpose of the modification is to make as many functions as possible
operable by the disabled driver.
NHTSA is aware that other drivers may occasionally use the modified
[[Page 51553]]
vehicle; however, the agency does not believe this presents a serious
problem. The vehicle is primarily designed for the disabled person and
that individual will be accustomed to the availability and placement of
controls and displays in his or her vehicle. The controls can still be
placed in a way that minimizes any potential distraction for the driver
with a disability. NHTSA believes that most of the vehicles will be
driven by someone other than the disabled driver only infrequently. For
these reasons, NHTSA believes a limited exemption from the make
inoperative exemption for Standard No. 101 is appropriate. NHTSA does
not believe that an exemption would be appropriate from S5.1(a), which
governs the symbols and abbreviations used for certain controls;
S5.3.1, which requires illumination of certain controls when the head
lights are on; S5.3.2 which governs the color of telltales; or S5.3.5
which requires cabin lighting forward of the driver's H point
24 to be able to be adjustable or turned off.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ The H-point is the manufacturer's reference point for
determining where the passenger's hip joint should be located for
testing purposes. The hip joint's location affects the head's
location.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. Standard No. 108, Lamps, reflective devices, and associated
equipment. The purpose of Standard No. 108 is to ensure that roadways
are illuminated, drivers can signal their intentions, and vehicles are
conspicuous. NHTSA is aware of only two situations in which common
vehicle modifications could take the vehicle out of compliance with 49
CFR Sec. 571.108. NHTSA believes the make inoperative exemption is
necessary for only one of the modifications; the other modification can
be performed in a way that preserves the vehicle's compliance with the
standard.
The agency believes that vehicles that are modified so that they no
longer have a steering wheel cannot conform to S5.1.1.5, which requires
turn signals to be self-canceling by the steering wheel rotation.
Although NHTSA believes that such cases are rare, the agency believes
that such a modification cannot be made without taking the vehicle out
of compliance with Standard No. 108. Other modifications to the self-
canceling feature of the turn signal are made without removing the
steering wheel. For example, touch pads that control the vehicle's turn
signals can be installed without removing the steering wheel. Some
touch pad actuated turn signals are canceled by a timer, not the
steering wheel rotation. In all cases known to NHTSA where a touch pad
is installed to control the vehicle's turn signals and the steering
wheel is not removed, the OEM turn signal lever and canceling feature
is retained on the vehicle. Since the OEM turn signal lever and
canceling feature is retained on the vehicle, the modification would
not compromise the compliance of the OEM equipment provided to meet
S5.1.1.5.
The standard requires the installation of a center high-mounted
stop lamp (CHMSL) and specifies its location. 49 CFR Secs. 571.108,
S5.1.1.27, S5.3.1.8(a). Certain vans which require the installation of
a raised roof to accommodate a wheelchair seated occupant will require
the CHMSL to be moved. NHTSA believes that the CHMSL can be reinstalled
in a way that preserves the vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 108.
NHTSA is unaware of any situations in which this cannot be done. For
example, sometimes in a van conversion rear doors must be lengthened
when a raised roof is installed. If the van originally had one CHMSL
above the doors, the lengthened doors could be retrofitted with two
CHMSLs pursuant to S5.1.1.27(b) of the standard.25
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ S5.1.1.27(b) of Standard No. 108 provides that: ``Each
multipurpose passenger vehicle, truck and bus whose overall width is
less than 80 inches, whose GVWR is 10,000 pounds or less, whose
vertical centerline, when the vehicle is viewed from the rear, is
not located on a fixed body panel but separates one or two movable
body sections, such as doors, which lacks sufficient space to
install a single high-mounted stop lamp on the centerline above such
body sections, and which is manufactured on or after September 1,
1993, shall have two high mounted stop lamps which:
(1) Are identical in size and shape and have an effective
projected luminous area not less than 2\1/4\ inches each.
(2) Together have a signal to the rear visible as specified in
paragraph (a)(2) of this S5.1.1.27.
(3) Together have the minimum photometric values specified in
paragraph (a)(3) of this S5.1.1.27.
(4) Shall provide access for convenient replacement of the bulbs
without special tools. 49 CFR Sec. 571.108, S5.1.1.27(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NHTSA believes a make inoperative exemption from S5.1.1.5 of
Standard No. 108 is appropriate only where a vehicle is modified to be
driven without a steering wheel and where it is not feasible to retain
the OEM turn signal lever. NHTSA seeks comment on whether there are
cases in which the OEM turn signal actuating device and function is not
retained for the use of drivers other than the driver for whom the
vehicle was modified. If such cases exist, do the substitute turn
signal controls installed for the driver with a disability have the
self-canceling feature required by Standard No. 108 S5.1.1.5? Do they
have some self-canceling feature other than steering wheel rotation?
c. Standard No. 118, Power-operated window, partition, and roof
panel systems. Standard No. 118 specifies requirements for the
operation of power-operated windows, partitions, and roof panels to
help prevent injury or death from a window, partition, or panel closing
on a vehicle occupant (particularly children). NHTSA knows of only one
situation where a modification would take the vehicle out of compliance
with Standard No. 118. Disabled persons who have trouble maintaining a
constant body temperature (e.g. quadraplegics and burn victims) and
live in very cold or very hot climates use a remote control ignition
device so that the occupant compartment can be warmed or cooled before
they enter. Section 4(a) of the standard requires that before a power
operated window, partition, or roof panel system can be closed, the key
that activates the vehicle's engine must be in the `` `ON', `START', or
`ACCESSORY' position.'' In the modified vehicle under discussion here,
the vehicle is running when the person enters, hence the person has
control of the power operated windows even though there is no key in
the ignition. Thus, NHTSA believes make inoperative exemption from
S4(a) of Standard No. 118 is appropriate where a remote ignition device
is necessary to accommodate a disability.
d. Standard No. 135, Passenger car brake systems. Standard No. 135
specifies requirements for service brake and associated parking brake
systems to ensure safe braking performance under normal and emergency
driving conditions.26 The addition of some sort of hand
control to the OEM system--usually a system that attaches in some
manner to the brake pedal--is the most common modification made to any
brake system for a driver with a disability. Normally these systems
maintain the OEM brake control. Also common are modifications made to
the level of effort (pressure) required of the driver to operate the
brake. Such modifications are known as low-effort and zero-effort
braking and increase the amount of power assist to the driver. Low-
effort and zero-effort braking is accomplished by reworking the OEM
power brake system. Most of these modifications preserve the OEM foot
pedal and affect only the method of actuation of the braking system.
The agency believes that some, relatively
[[Page 51554]]
uncommon, modifications may require removal of the OEM foot pedal. For
example, a disabled person who experiences involuntary muscle spasms in
his legs may have to have the OEM foot control removed to prevent him
from inadvertently activating the vehicle's brake during a spasm.
S5.3.1 of Standard No. 135 specifies that the service brakes be
activated by a foot control. Consequently, NHTSA has tentatively
concluded that exemption from S5.3.1 of Standard No. 135 may be
appropriate in those situations where the foot pedal must be removed to
accommodate a person's disability. NHTSA seeks comment on whether its
tentative conclusion is correct. Are there disabilities which require
removal of the OEM foot pedal? The agency also seeks comment from the
vehicle manufacturers, hand control manufacturers, vehicle modifiers,
those who adapt power brake systems, and users, as to whether there are
brake modifications that incapacitate the OEM brake controls and would
affect the vehicle's performance in any of the required tests.
Specifically, does any joy stick driving control prevent the use of the
OEM brake pedal or affect the vehicle's potential to perform the
braking tests? Does increasing the power assist to the brakes affect
the vehicle's potential to perform the braking test? The agency also
seeks comment as to whether there are modifications made to the
accelerator control that do not preserve the OEM performance and
function.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ Until August 31, 2000, manufacturers of passenger cars may
elect to comply with Standard No. 135 instead of Standard No. 105,
Hydraulic Brake Systems, Passenger cars manufactured on or after
September 1, 2000 will have to comply with Standard No. 135.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
e. Standard No. 202, Head restraints. To reduce the frequency and
severity of neck injuries in rear-end and other collisions, Standard
No. 202 requires each front outboard seating position in all vehicles
to be equipped with a head restraint that meets specific size and
performance requirements. Vehicles may be modified to accommodate a
wheelchair seated driver or right front seat passenger. Such a
modification requires the removal of the OEM seat and, as a
consequence, the head restraint. NHTSA is aware that some wheelchairs
are equipped with head rests or positioning devices and that some
vehicles modified to be driven by wheelchair seated drivers are
equipped with swing-away head rests. Although the agency does not know
for certain, it doubts that the head rests installed on some
wheelchairs or the swing away head rests attached to vehicles comply
with Standard No. 202. Thus, NHTSA believes that compliance with
Standard No. 202 may be compromised when the OEM seat is permanently
removed to accommodate a wheelchair-seated occupant at either of the
front outboard seating positions.
In addition to the case of a wheelchair seated occupant, NHTSA
knows of another modification that could make Standard No. 202
inoperative. Some drivers (such as a driver with poor peripheral
vision) may need to alter the size of their vehicle's head restraint so
it no longer interferes with their ability to see rearward over their
shoulders.27 Reducing the size of the head restraint could
affect the vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 202 in a variety of
ways. If the head restraint is altered so that the remaining height of
the head restraint is less than 27.5 inches above the seating reference
point, the remaining width is less than 10 inches on a bench seat, or
the remaining width is less than 6.75 inches on an individual
seat,28 the vehicle may no longer comply with the
requirements of Standard No. 202. Even smaller reductions in the size
of a head restraint affect the head restraint's ability to meet the
performance requirements of S4.3 of Standard No. 202.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ See, e.g., Letter from Ms. Jessie Flautt, to Chief Counsel
in 1991, requesting permission to cut the width of a head restraint
for a driver with poor peripheral vision.
\28\ 49 CFR Part 571.202 S4.3(b)(1) and (2), respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In light of the above, NHTSA believes an exemption from the make
inoperative prohibition with regard to Standard No. 202 is warranted in
two situations only. First, where the OEM seat is permanently removed
so that only a wheelchair seated driver or right front passenger can
occupy either or both front outboard seating positions. If the vehicle
is modified to have a detachable driver or right front passenger seat,
the detachable seat must comply with Standard No. 202.29 If
an OEM driver or passenger seat is supplied with the vehicle, that seat
must comply with Standard No. 202. Second, an exemption would be
warranted if the head restraint must be altered to accommodate a
driver's disability. NHTSA solicits comment on whether the head rests
used on some wheelchairs would meet Standard No. 202's requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ In most instances when a vehicle is modified to allow a
person to drive from a wheelchair, an additional driver's seat and a
means for attaching the seat to the vehicle floor are provided. An
attachable passenger's seat is also usually provided.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
f. Standard No. 203, Impact protection for the driver from the
steering control system and Standard No. 204, Steering control rearward
displacement. Standard No. 203 and Standard No. 204 serve to reduce the
likelihood and severity of head, chest, neck, and facial injuries due
to contact with the steering wheel. Standard No. 203 requires (1) that
the impact force developed on a chest body block impacting the steering
wheel at 15 mph be less than 2,500 pounds in a three millisecond
interval,30 and (2) that no steering control system
components catch the driver's clothing or jewelry. The standard does
not apply to vehicles that conform to S5.1, Standard No. 208 (i.e., air
bag requirements). Standard No. 204 requires that the upper end of the
steering column 31 be displaced less than five inches when
the vehicle impacts a fixed full frontal barrier at 30 mph.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ Essentially, this requires that the steering column must
have an energy absorbing feature.
\31\ Steering shaft means a component that transmits steering
torque from the steering wheel to the steering gear. Steering column
means a structural housing that surrounds a steering shaft. 49 CFR
Part 571.204, S3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
These two standards assume that the vehicle uses the type of
steering system typically installed in a vehicle: the steering column
longitudinal axis points toward the driver and a steering wheel,
mounted at the end of the column, is used by the driver to steer the
vehicle. Vehicles modified to be driven by persons with disabilities do
not always have such steering systems. Some individuals with
disabilities require alternative steering systems such as joystick
steering (usually mounted to one side of the driver), horizontal
steering (the column points toward the driver, but the face plane of
the steering wheel is parallel to the column), foot steering, or the
Scott steering system to accommodate their particular
disability.32 In addition, extensions are sometimes added to
the OEM steering shaft to allow a wheelchair seated driver to sit
further back in the vehicle than the OEM shaft will allow (usually
because his or her wheelchair will not fit into the area reachable by
the OEM system).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ The Scott steering system is similar to the steering system
used on airplanes and is used primarily by quadraplegics.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The agency would like to point out the difference between the
steering ``shaft'' and the steering ``column''. While the words
``steering column'' are often used in everyday conversation when
referring to the system consisting of the steering shaft, covered by
the steering column, S3 of Standard 204 specifically defines the
steering shaft as ``a component that transmits steering torque from the
steering wheel to the steering gear,'' while the steering column is ``a
structural housing that surrounds a steering shaft.'' It is the
agency's intent to discriminate between fairly minor modifications that
may
[[Page 51555]]
involve attaching equipment to the steering column, or cutting away a
portion of that housing, from more serious modifications that require a
change to the component that connects the driver control to the
steering gear, because it is the steering shaft that is most likely to
transmit crash loads from the engine compartment of the vehicle to the
driver. Therefore, NHTSA believes that a person modifying a vehicle for
a person with disabilities should preserve the vehicle's certification
with respect to the requirements of Standard Nos. 203 and 204 except
when a modification requires a structural change to, or removal of, the
original steering shaft. NHTSA does not believe that the simple
addition of a piece of adaptive equipment (AE), such as a hand control,
to the steering column constitutes a change to the steering shaft. The
agency requests comment on 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. The
agency also seeks comment on whether there are modifications which
require changes to the steering column, without a change to the
steering shaft, and which can only be made in a way that would affect
the vehicle's compliance with S5.1 of Standard No. 203 or with Standard
No. 204.
g. Standard No. 207, Seating systems. To minimize the likelihood
that a seat will collapse during a collision, Standard No. 207, Seating
systems establishes performance, installation, and attachment
requirements for seats. The standard requires vehicles to be equipped
with a driver's seat and requires all seats installed in a vehicle to
both withstand and remain in their adjusted position when certain loads
are applied in various directions to the seats. The standard also
requires folding seats to be equipped with a restraining device and a
release mechanism. NHTSA knows of only one vehicle modification in
which certification to Standard No. 207 cannot be maintained--the
permanent removal of the driver's seat so that the vehicle can be
driven by a driver seated in a wheelchair. In most instances when the
driver for whom the vehicle is modified is sitting in a wheelchair, an
additional driver's seat and a means for attaching the seat to the
vehicle floor are provided. This seat and the attachment mechanism
should conform to the requirements of Standard No. 207; NHTSA knows of
no reason why it cannot.
NHTSA believes that only a limited exemption from Standard No. 207
is appropriate. Wheelchairs and other non-automotive seats are not
designed to withstand loads and remain in position during a collision.
NHTSA believes that only vehicles modified to be driven by a person
seated in a wheelchair and that are equipped with a wheelchair
securement device should be exempt from compliance with Standard No.
207. The exemption would not apply to any vehicle equipped with a
detachable driver's seat; in that case, the detachable seat would have
to comply with the standard's requirements.
The agency is aware that some commenters may argue that the
installation of a six-way power seat base (allowing a wheelchair user
to transfer to the OEM driver's seat) requires exemption from Standard
No. 207. NHTSA disagrees. The agency believes that it is reasonable and
practicable to attach these seat bases to a vehicle in a manner that
would not compromise a vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 207.
Thus, NHTSA believes that an exemption from the make inoperative
prohibition for the installation of a power seat base is inappropriate.
h. Standard No. 208, Occupant crash protection. The purpose of
Standard No. 208 is to reduce the number of vehicle occupant deaths and
the severity of vehicle occupant injuries in a crash. The standard
requires vehicles to be equipped with specific manual and automatic
restraint systems (e.g. seat belts and air bags) and to meet specified
injury criteria during a crash test.33 Many vehicle
modifications could affect a vehicle's compliance with this standard.
The agency has tried to determine how various modifications might
affect a vehicle's compliance with the standard. NHTSA knows that some
types of modifications unavoidably affect a vehicle's compliance with
Standard No. 208. For example, any modification that requires the
removal of the OEM steering wheel, and hence the driver air bag,
affects the vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 208. In addition,
any modification to the seat which requires removing an air bag sensor
located under the seat compromises a vehicle's compliance with the
standard. Based on the results of testing, NHTSA knows of other
modifications that will not affect a vehicle's compliance with the
standard. For example, the results of a crash test conducted at the
University of Virginia indicate that raising the body off the frame or
lowering the floor of a full size van will not compromise a vehicle's
compliance with Standard No. 208, at least for a driver seated in a
modified OEM seat.34 In addition, NHTSA believes that the
simple attachment of a steering control device on the OEM steering
wheel will not affect a vehicle's compliance with Standard No.
208.35
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ Passenger cars and light trucks and vans with a curb weight
of 5,500 pounds or a Gross Vehicle Weight Rating (GVWR) of 8,500
pounds or less are required to be equipped with air bags at both
front outboard seating positions. Heavier vehicles are not required
to have air bags at both front outboard seating positions and may
instead be equipped with a belt system.
\34\ University of Virginia, Automobile Safety Laboratory crash
test of Ford E150 van for NMEDA.
\35\ ``Air Bag Interaction with and Injury Potential from Common
Steering Control Devices,'' final report DOT-HS-808-580, Nov. 1996;
Pilkey et al. Univ. of Virginia Automobile Safety Lab.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The agency is also aware that there are some modifications which
may take a vehicle out of compliance with Standard No. 208. For
example, nearly every modification to the occupant compartment forward
of the B pillar could compromise a vehicle's compliance with Standard
No. 208. At this point in time, the agency lacks the data or test
results needed to determine whether some modifications affect a
vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 208.36 For example,
the agency does not know if cutting the knee bolster to accommodate the
push rods in a standard set of mechanical hand controls affects the
vehicle's ability to meet the injury criteria in a crash. The agency is
also uncertain whether cutting the vehicle floor to install a power pan
in the driver's area or whether cutting the roof adversely affects the
vehicle's structural response in a crash to the point that Standard No.
208's criteria can no longer be met. Finally, NHTSA does not know
whether removing pretensioners during a modification of the belt system
makes it impossible to meet the criteria of Standard No. 208.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ The fact that OEMs refuse to pass through certification for
Standard No. 208 in any case where the vehicle is changed forward of
the B-pillar indicates the difficulty of knowing whether certain
modifications will affect a vehicle's compliance with Standard No.
208. In addition, the OEMs instruct modifiers not to place any
equipment in the air bag deployment zone.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In light of the standard's complexity and the uncertainty
concerning the effect of some modifications on a vehicle's compliance
with Standard No. 208, NHTSA believes that exemption from the make
inoperative prohibition for Standard No. 208 should be granted for any
modification necessary to accommodate a disability, provided the
[[Page 51556]]
modifier installs Type 2 37 or Type 2A 38 belts
that comply with Standard No. 209, and provided the belt anchorages
comply with Standard No. 210. The agency notes, however, that the
exemption would not apply in any situation where compliance with the
standard could be preserved and a person's disability could be
accommodated by the installation of an air bag on-off switch. NHTSA
seeks comment from drop floor minivan alterers on whether they have
been able to certify their vehicles to Standard No. 208 since September
1, 1997 (the date the section 4.2 exclusion expired). The agency also
seeks comment from hand control manufacturers as to whether they
believe OEM components installed to meet Standard No. 208 (e.g. knee
bolsters) are made inoperable by the installation of their controls.
The agency seeks comments from modifiers on how, how often, and why
they must disable seat pretensioners.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ An integrated lap and shoulder belt.
\38\ A separate lap and shoulder belt.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
i. Standard No. 214, Side impact protection. Standard No. 214's
requirements serve to minimize the risk of serious and fatal injuries
to vehicle occupants in side impact collisions. The standard specifies
injury criteria to be measured during a crash test and sets strength
requirements for doors. With respect to the dynamic performance
requirement of Standard No. 214, NHTSA believes that an exemption from
the make inoperative prohibition is warranted for cases in which the
seat position must be changed to accommodate a person's disability. The
agency discovered during the course of the development of the test
procedure for the side impact crash test that data indicating injury to
the dummy will be affected by seat height, fore/aft position, and the
distance between the dummy and the door interior surface. (The use of
occupant restraints, however, did not affect the test results
significantly.) The agency requests comments on whether OEMs or
modifiers believe there are modifications, other than those that change
the seat position, that would affect the vehicle's compliance with S5
of Standard No. 214. NHTSA does not believe there are any modifications
which would necessarily reduce door strength to an extent that the
strength requirement of Standard No. 214 could not be met. Thus, NHTSA
does not believe a make inoperative exemption is warranted for that
portion of the standard. NHTSA requests comment on whether OEMs or
modifiers believe there are modifications which must be done in a
manner that necessarily compromises door strength.
2. Standards for Which Permission Would Not Be Granted To Make Safety
Features Inoperative
a. Standard No. 102, Transmission shift lever sequence, starter
interlock, and transmission braking effect. Standard No. 102 requires
automatic transmissions to have: (1) a specified transmission shift
lever sequence, (2) a starter interlock, and (3) at least one forward
drive transmission position that provides a greater degree of engine
braking than the highest speed transmission ratio (i.e. one low gear).
To accommodate certain disabilities, some modifications are made to the
method by which the vehicle is started and the transmission gear is
selected. A common modification is the attachment of an extension lever
to the column-mounted gear selection lever in a passenger car to permit
left-handed gear selection. NHTSA is unaware of any modification which
would need to change the transmission gear selection sequence, disable
the starter interlock, or disable the lower forward drive gear ratios
so there is no longer a low gear. Thus, NHTSA does not believe a make
inoperative exemption for Standard No. 102 is appropriate. NHTSA
solicits 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.
b. Standard No. 103, Windshield defrosting and defogging systems,
and Standard No. 104, Windshield wiping and washing systems. Standard
No. 103 and Standard No. 104 specify requirements for the area of the
windshield that must be cleared by the defrosting and defogging and
windshield wiping and washing systems, respectively. 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. For example, if the OEM provides three or four
wiper speeds on a dial control, a disabled driver who needs a touch pad
or other switch panel may have access to only two speeds. However,
neither this situation nor any other modification to these systems that
NHTSA knows of are violations of the make inoperative prohibition since
the minimum requirements of the standard are met. The agency is unaware
of any reason why a modification would affect the performance level of
these systems to the extent that the vehicle no longer complied with
these standards. NHTSA, therefore, does not believe an exemption for
Standard No. 103 or Standard No. 104 is appropriate.
c. Braking Standards. Standard No. 105, Hydraulic brake systems and
Standard No. 121, Air brake systems govern the performance of various
braking systems in different types of vehicles. Standard No. 105
applies to multipurpose passenger vehicles (MPVs), trucks, buses and
passenger cars (manufactured before September 1, 2000) with hydraulic
brake systems. Standard No. 121 applies to trucks, buses and trailers
equipped with air brake systems. Manufacturers of passenger cars may
elect to comply with Standard No. 135 instead of Standard No. 105 until
August 31, 2000.39 All of these standards help ensure safe
vehicle braking performance in normal and emergency driving situations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\ Passenger cars manufactured on or after September 1, 2000
will have to comply with Standard No. 135. See discussion of
Standard No. 135 in Section II, C, 1, d above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The most common modification to any brake system when adapting a
vehicle to be driven by a person with a disability is the addition of
some sort of hand control to the OEM system--usually a system that
attaches in some manner to the brake pedal. Normally these systems
maintain the OEM brake control. Also common are modifications to the
level of effort (pressure) required of the driver to operate the brake.
These modifications are called low-effort and zero-effort braking and
increase the amount of power assist to the driver. This is accomplished
by reworking the OEM power brake system. Since these modifications are
only to the method of actuation and in most cases preserve the OEM foot
pedals, NHTSA does not believe that these modifications take a vehicle
out of compliance with any part of these braking standards. Unlike
Standard No. 135, Standard Nos. 105 and 121 do not specify that the
service brakes be activated by a foot control. Therefore, NHTSA does
not believe that make inoperative exemption for Standard Nos. 105 and
121 is warranted. The agency seeks comment from the vehicle
manufacturers, hand control manufacturers, vehicle modifiers, those who
adapt power brake systems, and users, as to whether there are brake
modifications that incapacitate the OEM brake controls and would affect
the vehicle's performance in any of the required tests. Specifically,
does any joy stick driving control prevent the use of the OEM brake
pedal or affect the vehicle's potential to perform the braking tests?
Does increasing the power assist to the brakes affect the vehicle's
potential to perform the braking test?
[[Page 51557]]
The agency also seeks comment as to whether there are modifications
made to the accelerator control that do not preserve the OEM
performance and function.
d. Standard No. 111, Rearview mirrors. To ensure that drivers have
a clear and unobstructed view to the rear of the vehicle, the standard
specifies the location, field of view, magnification and labeling of
rearview mirrors on all vehicles. While mirrors are relocated, extra
mirrors added, or larger mirrors substituted for the OEM when vehicles
are modified for persons with disabilities, NHTSA does not believe
these modifications should affect the vehicles' certification to
Standard No. 111. Since there should be no situation in which non-
compliance with the standard is necessary or advised, NHTSA is not
proposing a make inoperative exemption from Standard No. 111.
e. Standard 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. NHTSA is not aware of
any modifications that are made to hood latch systems when a vehicle is
modified to accommodate a person with a disability. NHTSA is aware that
a modification to the method of unlatching might be necessary to allow
a person with reduced range of motion or strength, or seated in a
wheelchair to open the hood. NHTSA does not believe, however, that a
modification to the method of unlatching would require the elimination
of the second latch position; thus, the agency does not believe a make
inoperative exemption for Standard No. 113 is warranted. The agency
seeks comment on whether there are modifications that would require
eliminating the second latch position.
f. Standard No. 124, Accelerator control systems. Accelerator
control systems 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 vehicle modification situation
with respect to Standard No. 124 is directly analogous to the previous
discussion of the braking standards. Most modifications to the
accelerator system involve the addition of hand operated controls to
the OEM system. NHTSA does not believe, therefore, that the vehicle is
taken out of compliance with the standard as long as the OEM
performance and function are preserved. Thus, NHTSA does not believe an
exemption for Standard No. 124 is justified. The agency seeks comment
from the vehicle manufacturers, hand control manufacturers, vehicle
modifiers, those who adapt acceleration systems, and users, as to
whether there are accelerator modifications that incapacitate the OEM
accelerator controls and would affect the vehicle's performance in any
of the required tests. Are there modifications made to the accelerator
control that do not preserve the OEM performance and function?
g. Standard No. 201, Occupant protection in interior impact. The
purpose of this standard is to protect vehicle occupants from serious
injury from impacts with interior components in a collision. The
certification of a vehicle to the current standard would most likely be
affected, if at all, through the installation of adaptive equipment
(AE) for secondary controls. Special switches or touch pads are often
installed to allow a person to reach and operate the controls for power
windows, washer/wipers, and headlights. These controls can be mounted
almost anywhere: on the side door panel, the arm rest, the front
instrument panel, or the windshield header. It does not appear that
these controls are large, heavy or rigid enough to cause significant
injury upon occupant impact, although they may inflict lacerations.
NHTSA seeks comments from OEMs and modifiers on whether or not the
addition of adaptive equipment and devices, such as hand controls or
knobs, affect the results of tests required by 49 CFR 571.201, S5.1,
``Instrument Panels''?
NHTSA believes, however, that there may be a problem with van
conversions for wheelchair-seated drivers when the new requirements for
impact testing to the upper interior components become effective. The
extra padding needed on the windshield header to comply with the new
requirements may interfere with a driver's line of sight, since a
wheelchair-seated driver sits higher above the vehicle floor than a
driver using an OEM seat. NHTSA believes this could be accommodated by
lowering the floor in the driver area; the agency is aware that this
will not be a solution for everyone. Those drivers who are very tall,
or for whom the floor cannot be lowered enough, may need to have
sections of padding on the header removed. Also, it may be much safer
to remove padding from the header than to lower the floor of the
vehicle further than would be necessary if the header were not padded.
NHTSA seeks comments from OEMs on how they expect upper interior
components to change under the new requirements. Specifically, if the
eye ellipse of a wheelchair-seated driver is higher than that of a 95th
percentile male, will increased padding or other design changes affect
that driver's line of sight?
h. Standard 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, Door locks and door retention
components, requires hinged doors to have latches with two positions:
fully latched and secondarily latched. The latch and striker must not
separate under certain longitudinal, transverse, and inertial load and
the door hinges must not separate under certain longitudinal and
transverse loads. The standard also specifies that track and slide
combinations on sliding doors must not separate under a 4,000 pound
transverse load. The standard also requires vehicles to have door locks
operable from the interior of the vehicle. Standard No. 206 excludes
``* * * side doors which are equipped with wheelchair lifts and which
are linked to an alarm system.'' The agency has granted a petition
asking to expand this exclusion to side doors fitted with
ramps.40 This action by the agency does not mean that the
action desired by the petitioner will be taken, only that NHTSA will
examine the issue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\40\ 61 FR 27325; May 31, 1996.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Several vehicle modifications have the potential to affect door
closures and the doors' ability to remain closed during impact.
Examples include electrically operated door openers for both hinged and
sliding doors and lengthened doors that are sometimes installed when
the vehicle roof is raised. Standard 206 is crucial in preventing the
ejection of occupants in a crash. NHTSA has no compelling evidence that
the OEM door latching mechanism cannot be preserved, or its equivalent
installed, in the course of door modifications. Therefore, NHTSA does
not believe exemption from the make inoperative prohibition for
Standard No. 206 is justified. The agency also solicits comment on
whether door latching and locking mechanisms must be disabled or
changed in the course of vehicle modifications in a manner that takes
them out of compliance with Standard No. 206, Door locks and door
retention components.
i. Standard No. 209, Seat belt assemblies. This standard sets out
requirements for seat belt assemblies as items of motor vehicle
equipment.
[[Page 51558]]
NHTSA is not proposing exemption from the make inoperative prohibition
since the agency sees no reason why modifiers cannot use Standard No.
209-compliant systems.
j. Standard 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
the force of a crash. Compliance with the criteria is fairly simple to
measure. Traditionally, NHTSA has said that a vehicle may comply with
Standard No. 210 as manufactured or as modified. The agency does not
believe, therefore, that exemption from make inoperative with respect
to Standard No. 210 is necessary. If belt anchorages are moved, or
otherwise modified, to accommodate a person with a disability, NHTSA
believes measurements, calculations, or engineering judgement can be
used to ensure that Standard No. 210 is met in the new position.
k. Standard No. 216, Roof crush resistance. The purpose of Standard
No. 216 is to reduce the number of deaths and injuries caused by a roof
crushing into the vehicle during a rollover. The standard establishes
static strength requirements for both car and LTV roofs. A common
modification that could compromise a vehicle's certification to this
standard is the installation of a raised roof (most often made of
fiberglass). The agency believes that modifiers almost always, if not
exclusively, achieve this roof modification by purchasing a replacement
roof from a roof manufacturer and installing the new roof according to
the roof manufacturer's instructions. NHTSA believes that the roof
manufacturer should be able to provide guidance to the vehicle modifier
on the strength of the roof and the vehicle make/models for which
installation of that roof is appropriate. The agency does not believe
that it is necessary for a raised roof to be installed in a manner that
takes a vehicle out of compliance with Standard No. 216. NHTSA invites
roof manufacturers and vehicle modifiers to comment on whether there
are raised roofs which must be installed in a way that adversely
affects the vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 216, Roof crush
resistance, or if there are instances in which a raised roof is
achieved by some method other than installing a replacement roof.
l. Standard No. 301, Fuel system integrity and Standard 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, Fuel system integrity and Standard
No. 303, Fuel system integrity of compressed natural gas vehicles 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 often require more time to exit a
vehicle.
Vehicle certification to Standard No. 301 can be compromised when
the fuel tank, supply lines, and filler neck are moved in the process
of lowering the floor of a van or minivan. NHTSA believes it is
essential for safety that anyone working on a motor vehicle place a
tank in such a way that it is not subject to impact by the sharp edges
of the vehicle's structures, that fuel lines are not routed near hot
surfaces, and that the fuel filler neck is not installed in such a way
that it will separate from the tank, or be sheared off in a collision.
In addition, NHTSA is aware of one tank manufacturer who has
demonstrated that when its tank was correctly installed in the rear of
a 1992 Ford E150 with a lowered floor and raised body, the vehicle met
the performance requirements of Standard No. 301. The points discussed
under Standard No. 301 are applicable to Standard No. 303, Fuel system
integrity of compressed natural gas vehicles. NHTSA, therefore,
believes strongly that a make inoperative exemption for Standard No.
301 and Standard No. 303 is not justified.
m. Standard No. 302, Flammability of interior materials. To reduce
the occurrence of deaths and injuries to vehicle occupants from fire,
especially those which originate in the vehicle's interior, Standard
302, Flammability of interior materials specifies that any material
within one-half inch of the occupant compartment air space shall not
``burn, nor transmit a flame front across its surface, at a rate of
more than four inches per minute.'' Materials meeting this standard are
readily available and the test procedure described in the standard is
fairly simple.
There are many modifications which have the potential to compromise
a vehicle's certification to Standard No. 302. One example is the
replacement of OEM carpet in vans with a surface which is easier for
wheelchairs to roll on. Carpet may also be replaced in the process of
lowering a floor. Some vehicle modifiers have told NHTSA staff that
they do not use OEM materials when making changes because these
materials are much more expensive than others more commonly available.
The agency believes that fire safety for persons with disabilities
should not be compromised during vehicle modification. Even if OEM
materials are not used, modifiers can employ substitutes that comply
with Standard No. 302. NHTSA believes it is the duty of the vehicle
modifier to get information from its suppliers on the fire resistance
of the materials it uses. Suppliers should be able to tell modifiers
whether the material will meet Standard No. 302 requirements. The
agency is not proposing a make inoperative exemption for Standard No.
302.
III. Explanation of Procedural Differences Between Proposed
Exemption and Existing Exemption re Air Bag On-Off Switches
In developing the procedures for implementing the proposed
exemption, the agency considered the detailed eligibility procedures it
adopted as part of the make inoperative exemption that it issued in
November 1997 to permit the retrofit installation of on-off switches
for air bags. Generally, the agency tentatively concluded that the
circumstances warranting the detailed procedures in that rulemaking are
not present in this rulemaking.
The agency included detailed paperwork and agency authorization
procedures for individual requests for on-off switches because
information in the media and from the commenters indicated that many
people misperceived the extent and source of the risk associated with
air bags. The agency was concerned that many people who were not at
risk for death or injury from an air bag would reduce their safety by
unnecessarily installing and using switches. Therefore, NHTSA drafted
the regulation granting the exemption to counteract that misperception
and its potential consequences. The regulation requires vehicle owners
to first read an information brochure explaining the actual risks
associated with air bags and what most owners can do to virtually
eliminate the risks to themselves and the users of their vehicle and to
then submit a request for a switch to the agency. The vehicle owner may
obtain a switch only after the agency sends the owner a letter
authorizing a motor vehicle dealer or repair business to install it.
The regulation also requires dealers or repair businesses to provide
[[Page 51559]]
the vehicle owner with information about the potential safety
consequences of using the switch to turn off an air bag when they
install a switch. In addition, dealers and repair businesses must
notify the agency when they install a switch.
The agency has not proposed any of those procedural provisions as
part of the exemption from the make inoperative prohibition for persons
who modify vehicles to accommodate people with disabilities. More
specifically, the agency has not proposed to require that vehicle
owners or modifiers perform any of the 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. Similarly, the agency
has not proposed to require that modifiers notify the agency of the
modifications they make or provide vehicle owners with information
concerning the safety consequences of the modifications.
The proposed exemption addresses the requests for modifications
based on objective physical inability to use an unmodified vehicle, not
any potentially overgeneralized or overstated fear of an item of
vehicle equipment, as in the case of air bags. Thus, there is no gap
between the actual need for modifications and the perceived need for
them. Further, there is a limitation on the modifications that vehicle
owners can obtain under the exemption. The modifications must be
necessary to accommodate a particular disability. There is little
likelihood that persons lacking disabilities will seek the types of
modifications addressed by this proposed exemption. Most such
modifications have appeal only to those with a need for them. In
addition, most of these modifications are expensive. For example, a
fairly extensive modification to allow a quadriplegic to drive costs
anywhere from $27,000 to $80,000 (for the most advanced modifications).
Even a relatively simple set of hand controls costs between $300 and
$500. Further, the agency believes that most modifications,
particularly the most extensive, are paid for in whole or in part by
organizations that generally require individuals desiring vehicle
modifications to be evaluated by an occupational therapist (OT), or
other appropriate professional 41 before vehicles are
modified. These organizations include the U.S. Department of Veterans
Affairs (VA),42 the states,43 or third party
payers, such as workman's compensation or disability
insurers.44 The OT assesses the severity of the person's
disability and issues a prescription specifying the vehicle
modifications that are needed to accommodate the person's disability.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\41\ Medical doctors, rehabilitation specialists, and driver
trainer/evaluators also evaluate persons with disabilities for
vehicle modifications.
\42\ Disabled veterans are eligible for financial assistance
from the VA to help defray the cost of their vehicle modifications.
\43\ Funding for vehicle modifications is available in most
states through the Vocational Rehabilitation Departments to a person
with a disability who needs a personal vehicle to travel to work or
school.
\44\ In addition, most major vehicle manufacturers offer rebates
to people with disabilities who purchase their vehicles to help
defray the cost of vehicle modifications and adaptive equipment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A final factor that would tend to discourage persons without
disabilities from attempting to obtain the modifications at issue in
this proposed exemption is that those modifications take a considerable
period of time. This is in part because modifiers must typically
customize the vehicle to fit the person with a disability. For example,
the modifications for a quadriplegic could take from several weeks to
several months to complete. The modifier must take measurements and
ensure that the location and alignment of all the controls and
equipment are accessible to and operable by the person with a
disability. In order to do this, a modifier must often schedule several
``fittings'' with the person for whom the vehicle is being modified.
Based on these considerations, the agency tentatively concluded
that there is no need to propose special procedural provisions to limit
the availability of modifications under the proposed exemption. There
is little risk that people would seek to have their vehicles modified
unless the modification was genuinely needed to accommodate a person's
disability. The agency also believes there is little risk that
modifiers would agree to modify vehicles for persons without
disabilities. The exemption would not apply to any modifications
performed for the convenience of an able-bodied person and modifiers
would be subject to civil penalties for any such modifications. For the
same reasons, the agency tentatively concludes also that there is no
need for modifiers to inform the agency when it makes modifications
under the exemption.
NHTSA seeks comment on whether its tentative conclusions
are correct. Is there a significant risk that individuals would seek
modifications unrelated to the accommodation of persons with
disabilities? Should the agency require any paperwork or record
retention requirements to ensure either that the intended beneficiary
is a person with disabilities or that the modifications are necessary
to accommodate a specific disability or set of disabilities?
Finally, virtually all the businesses who perform vehicle
modifications for individuals with disabilities are small businesses.
The agency does not want to impose any unnecessary requirements on
these businesses. The agency is concerned that requiring dealers and
repair businesses to submit a complete copy of an authorization form to
NHTSA would impose an unnecessary burden on these businesses. Under
such a requirement, modifiers would incur the additional costs
associated with preparing, printing, and maintaining such forms, and
then mailing them after they have been filled in and signed.
NHTSA requests comment on whether it should require
dealers and repair businesses to submit such information to NHTSA and
what the estimated burden for these businesses would be.
IV. Additional Issues and Considerations
NHTSA strongly encourages those who modify vehicles for disabled
drivers and passengers to strive to ensure that disabled people receive
a level of safety that is as close as possible to that provided able-
bodied drivers and passengers. In order to operate, or ride in, motor
vehicles, many disabled individuals have no choice but to accept a
lower level of safety in their vehicle due to their disability and the
technology that is currently available. For example, a disabled person
with limited range of motion may have to sit extremely close to the
steering wheel in order to drive. Sitting too close to the steering
wheel places that person at increased risk of head, neck, and chest
injuries in a crash.
NHTSA notes that in addition to the guidance that would be provided
under this proposal, there is guidance available from the best
available industry standards, such as the Society of Automotive
Engineers (SAE) Recommended Practices, Test Procedures, and Information
Reports. The agency urges modifiers to consult these materials. NHTSA
encourages vehicle manufacturers to work closely with those who modify
vehicles for persons with disabilities to develop vehicle designs which
minimize the need for aftermarket modifications, and to develop
appropriate mobility arrangements, adaptive devices, and other hardware
that will work harmoniously with the requirements of all applicable
standards.
[[Page 51560]]
The agency believes that the proposed exemption would meet the
needs of most persons with disabilities seeking necessary vehicle
modifications, but recognizes that there might be instances in which
relief might be appropriate, but would not be available under the
conditions of the exemption. For example, additional exemptions may be
required due to advances in technology, amendments to the current
standards, or to accommodate an extremely rare disability or condition.
Consequently, to the extent consistent with this rulemaking, NHTSA
would continue to review written requests for an exemption from the
make inoperative prohibition for vehicle modifications not covered
under this rulemaking.
V. Request for Comments
In addition to the questions raised above with respect to specific
safety standards and the procedural differences between today's
proposal and the existing exemption for air bag on-off switches, NHTSA
requests comments about the appropriateness of the provisions of the
proposed exemption. Among the specific issues are the following:
NHTSA solicits comment on whether the standards proposed
for inclusion under the exemption are appropriate. Are additional
limitations needed with respect to these standards? The agency is
particularly interested in the results of any tests that have been
performed on modified vehicles and adaptive equipment. NHTSA seeks
comment on whether there are modifications that would necessarily take
a vehicle out of compliance with a standard but are not included in the
proposed exemption. For the standard requirements that NHTSA is not
proposing for inclusion in the exemption, the agency solicits comment
on whether the agency's analysis is correct or whether any of those
standards' requirements warrant inclusion in the exemption, and, if so,
why?
NHTSA seeks comment on the use of vehicle modification
prescriptions in the vehicle modification industry. How often do
vehicle owners provide modifiers with a prescription? Do modifiers
generally follow the prescription's exact specifications or do they use
the prescription as a general guide to how they should modify a
vehicle? How often do vehicle owners provide modifiers with a license
restriction identifying the needed accommodation? Should NHTSA
expressly require motor vehicle dealers or repair businesses to obtain
from vehicle owners either a prescription or a valid restricted
driver's license? Would such a requirement improve safety? What effect
would such a requirement have on individuals with disabilities? Would
requiring individuals without a prescription or license restriction to
submit a request to modify to NHTSA be unduly burdensome? Is such a
requirement needed to ensure that modifications are performed only to
accommodate a person's disability and not for the convenience of an
able bodied individual?
The agency is aware of one situation in which a person
with a disability did not have a prescription because he did not seek
medical treatment due to his personal religious beliefs. The agency
solicits comment on whether people who do not consult medical
professionals for religious reasons consult some other trained
professional for advice on vehicle modifications. If they do consult
another professional, what type of professional is it? The agency also
requests comment on whether there are professionals other than doctors,
occupational therapists, or driver specialists who evaluate persons
with disabilities and recommend vehicle modifications.
The agency seeks comment on the type of information that
modifiers currently provide consumers concerning the specific vehicle
modifications that they make to accommodate persons with disabilities
and concerning the potential safety consequences of those
modifications. Should NHTSA require the disclosure of such information
by all modifiers? Should motor vehicle dealers and repair businesses be
required to identify any steps they would take to minimize the
vehicle's noncompliance with the particular standards?
The agency seeks comment on whether it should require
modifiers to disclose particular safety related information to the
consumer. If so, what information should that be? Should NHTSA require
the information to be presented in a particular way?
The agency solicits comments on the appropriateness of
requiring modifiers to obtain a written authorization from the vehicle
owner before any modifications can be made. Do dealers and repair
businesses already require such authorizations? The agency solicits
comment from modifiers who currently obtain written authorization on
how much time is involved in gathering and maintaining the forms.
The agency seeks comment on whether it should require
dealers or motor vehicle repair businesses to affix a permanent label
to the vehicle to ensure that subsequent purchasers are aware that the
vehicle has been modified and of the possible safety implications
associated with such modifications. If the agency were to require a
label, what should the format and the content of the label be? Where
should it be placed? Do modifiers currently affix labels? If so, what
does the label look like?
The agency seeks comment on the cost of vehicle
modifications made to accommodate people with disabilities.
The agency requests comment on any state efforts to
regulate the business of modifying vehicles to accommodate a person
with a disability and the potential effect the proposed rule would have
on those states' regulatory efforts.
Finally, the agency has posted information on vehicle
modifications and adaptive equipment at its Website
(``www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/rules/adaptive''). The agency requests
comment on whether this information is presented in a useful way. Is
there information that is not available at the Website that modifiers
and people with disabilities would like to have posted?
VI. Proposed Effective Date
Since this proposal would remove a restriction on the modification
of vehicles for persons with disabilities, NHTSA anticipates making
this amendment effective 30 days after publication of a final rule
under the Administrative Procedures Act. 5 U.S.C. Sec. 553(d). The
agency requests comment as to the appropriateness of the effective
date.
VII. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures
NHTSA has considered the impact of this rulemaking action under
E.O. 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.'' NHTSA has analyzed this
proposal and determined that it is not ``significant'' within the
meaning of the Department of Transportation's regulatory policies and
procedures. NHTSA has, therefore, determined that a regulatory
evaluation, designed to discuss the benefits/disbenefits and consumer
costs/cost savings of a proposal, is not needed to support the subject
rulemaking.
Clearly, modifying a vehicle in a way that degrades the performance
of certain federal motor vehicle safety standards would produce some
negative safety benefits for the occupants of the vehicle. However, the
number of safety
[[Page 51561]]
standards affected would be very small and the number of vehicles
potentially modified would be very few in number. Thus, the agency
believes the disbenefits, if any exist, would be minimal. 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.
It is cost prohibitive to have every vehicle modification tested in
advance for safety performance or safety compliance. The vehicle
modifications being made today to accommodate disabled persons are
based on engineering experience/judgment and have proven to be
successful in the real-world. For this particular proposal, which is
administrative in nature, no costs will be imposed by the agency's
actions. The cost of doing business for the vehicle modification
industry will not be changed by the subject proposal. If anything,
there could be a cost savings due to eliminating the requirements that
the modifier contact the agency about pending vehicle modifications.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
NHTSA has also considered the impacts of this notice 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 hereby
certify that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities. As explained above,
this action would create a formal procedure to replace the current
requirement that dealers or repair businesses 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 to
accommodate an individual with a disability. While most dealers and
repair businesses would be considered small entities, the proposed
requirements would not impose any mandatory significant economic impact
on them considering that: (1) for the vast majority of cases, the
agency believes the rule codifies standard industry practices and
procedures used to make vehicle modifications, (2) the proposed rule
would assist dealers and repair businesses in making appropriate design
choices, and (3) the proposed rule would eliminate 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 Preliminary Regulatory Flexibility Analysis is not
required as the subject rule does not impose any significant costs on
small business entities.
Paperwork Reduction Act
NHTSA has analyzed this proposed rule under the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (P.L. 104-13) and determined that it would not impose any
information collection requirements as that term is defined by the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in 5 CFR part 1320.
The National Environmental Policy Act
NHTSA has also analyzed this proposed rule under the National
Environmental Policy Act and determined that it would have no
significant impact on the human environment.
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-4)
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. This proposed rule does not meet the
definition of a Federal mandate, because it is completely permissive.
In addition, annual expenditures will not exceed the $100 million
threshold.
Executive Order 12612 (Federalism)
The agency has analyzed this proposed rule in accordance with the
principles and criteria set forth in Executive Order 12612. NHTSA has
determined that this proposed rule would not have sufficient federalism
implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
Civil Justice Reform
This proposed rule has no retroactive effect. NHTSA is not aware of
any state law that would be preempted by this proposed rule. This
proposed rule would not repeal any existing Federal law or regulation.
It would modify existing law only to the extent that it replaces an
agency procedure under which dealers and repair businesses had to
obtain the agency's 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 proposed rule would not require
submission of a petition for reconsideration or the initiation of other
administrative proceedings before a party may file suit in court.
VIII. Comments
NHTSA is providing a 90 day comment period. Interested persons are
invited to submit comments on this proposal. It is requested but not
required that 2 copies be submitted.
All comments should not exceed 15 pages in length (49 CFR 553.21).
Necessary attachments may be appended to these submissions without
regard to the 15 page limit. The limitation is intended to encourage
commenters to detail their primary arguments in a concise fashion.
If a commenter wishes to submit certain information under a claim
of confidentiality, three copies of the complete submission, including
the purportedly confidential business information, should be submitted
to the Chief Counsel, NHTSA, 400 7th Street, SW, Room 5219, Washington,
DC 20590, and two copies from which the purportedly confidential
information has been deleted should be submitted to the NHTSA Docket
Section. A request for confidentiality should be accompanied by a cover
letter setting forth the information specified in the agency's
confidential business information regulation. 49 CFR Part 512.
All comments received by NHTSA before the close of business on the
comment closing date indicated above for the proposal will be
considered, and will be available for examination in the docket at the
above address both before and after that date. To the extent possible,
comments filed after the closing date will also be considered. Comments
received too late for consideration in regard to the final rule will be
considered as suggestions for further rulemaking action. Comments on
the proposal will be available for inspection in the docket. The NHTSA
will continue to file relevant information as it becomes available in
the docket after the closing date, and recommends that interested
persons continue to examine the docket for new material.
Those persons desiring to be notified upon receipt of their
comments in the rulemaking docket should enclose a self-addressed,
stamped postcard in the envelope with their comments. Upon receiving
the comments, the docket supervisor will return the postcard by mail.
List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 595
Imports, Motor vehicle safety, Motor vehicles, Disability.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, NHTSA proposes to amend
Part 595 of Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
[[Page 51562]]
PART 595--EXEMPTIONS FROM THE MAKE INOPERATIVE PROHIBITION
1. The authority citation for part 595 would continue 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. The heading of part 595 would be revised to read as set forth
above.
3. Sections 595.1, 595.2, 595.3, and 595.4 would be designated as
``Subpart A--General''.
4. Section 595.1 would be revised to read as follows:
Sec. 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 is to be made inoperative.
5. Section 595.2 would be revised to read as follows:
Sec. 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 on-off
switches for air bags and to otherwise modify motor vehicles to enable
people with disabilities to operate or ride as a passenger in a motor
vehicle.
6. Section 595.5 is designated as ``Subpart B--Retrofit On-off
Switches for Air Bags''.
7. The heading of Section 595.5 would be revised to read as
follows: ``Requirements for Retrofit Air Bag On-off Switches.''
8. Subpart C would be added to read as follows:
Subpart C--Vehicle Modifications To Accommodate People With
Disabilities
Sec. 595.6 Requirements for Vehicle Modifications To Accommodate
People With Disabilities.
(a) Any dealer or 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 (b) of this section. No other Federal motor vehicle safety
standards, or portions thereof, are included.
(b)(1) 49 CFR 571.101, except for S5.1 (a), S5.3.1, S5.3.2, and
S5.3.5 of that section.
(2) Paragraph 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 lever installed by
the vehicle manufacturer.
(3) Paragraph S4(a) of 49 CFR 571.118, in cases in which the
medical condition of the person for whom the vehicle is modified
necessitates a remote ignition switch to start the vehicle.
(4) Paragraph S5.3.1 of 49 CFR 571.135, in cases in which the
modification requires removal of the original equipment manufacturer
foot pedal.
(5) 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
(iii) the driver's head restraint must be modified to accommodate a
driver with a disability.
(6) Paragraph S5.1 of 49 CFR 571.203, in cases in which the
modification requires a structural change to, or removal of, the
original equipment manufacturer steering shaft.
(7) 49 CFR 571.204, in cases in which the modification requires a
structural change to, or removal of, the original equipment
manufacturer steering shaft.
(8) 49 CFR 571.207, in cases 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.
(9) 49 CFR 571.208, provided Type 2 or 2A seat belts meeting the
requirements of 571.209 and 571.210 of this chapter are installed.
(10) Paragraph S5 of 49 CFR 571.214, in cases in which the
restraint system and/or seat must be changed to accommodate a person
with a disability.
Issued on September 22, 1998.
L. Robert Shelton,
Associate Administrator for Safety Performance Standards.
[FR Doc. 98-25761 Filed 9-23-98; 1:40 pm]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P