[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