[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 39 (Tuesday, February 27, 2001)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 12638-12656]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-4655]



[[Page 12637]]

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

Part III





Department of Transportation





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



National Highway Traffic Safety Administration



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



49 CFR Part 595



Exemption From the Make Inoperative Prohibition; Final Rule

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

[[Page 12638]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 595

[Docket No. NHTSA-01-8667]

RIN 2127-AG40


Exemption From the Make Inoperative Prohibition

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: NHTSA is taking action to facilitate the modification of motor 
vehicles so that persons with disabilities can drive or ride in them. 
The agency is accomplishing this by issuing a limited exemption from a 
statutory provision that prohibits specified types of commercial 
entities from either removing safety equipment or features installed on 
motor vehicles pursuant to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards 
or altering the equipment or features so as to adversely affect their 
performance. The exemption is limited in that it allows repair 
businesses to modify only certain types of Federally-required safety 
equipment and features, under specified circumstances.

DATES: Effective Date: This rule is effective April 30, 2001.
    Petitions: Petitions for reconsideration must be received by April 
13, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Petitions for reconsideration should refer to the docket and 
notice number of this document and be submitted to: Administrator, 
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, 
SW., Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For non-legal issues, you may contact 
Gayle Dalrymple, Office of Crash Avoidance Standards, NPS-20. 
Telephone: (202) 366-5559. Fax: (202) 366-4329.
    For legal issues, you may contact Rebecca MacPherson, Office of 
Chief Counsel, NCC-20. Telephone: (202) 366-2992. Fax: (202) 366-3820.
    You may send mail to these officials at the National Highway 
Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh St., SW., Washington, DC 
20590.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Background and overview
    A. Reasons for this rulemaking
    B. Notice of proposed rulemaking
    C. Summary of public comments
II. Final rule
    A. Summary of key differences between proposal and final rule
    B. Limitations on exemptions
    C. Applicability of exemption to modifications performed by 
repair businesses
    D. Standards for which permission is granted to make safety 
features inoperative
    1. FMVSS No. 101, controls and displays
    2. FMVSS No. 108, lamps, reflective devices, and associated 
equipment
    3. FMVSS No. 114, theft protection
    4. FMVSS No. 118, power-operated window, partition, and roof 
panel systems
    5. FMVSS No. 123, motorcycle controls and displays
    6. FMVSS No. 135, passenger car brake systems
    7. FMVSS No. 201, occupant protection in interior impact
    8. FMVSS No. 202, head restraints
    9. FMVSS No. 203, impact protection for the driver from the 
steering control system and FMVSS No. 204, steering control rearward 
displacement
    10. FMVSS No. 207, seating systems
    11. FMVSS No. 208, occupant crash protection
    12. FMVSS No. 214, side impact protection
    E. Standards for which permission is not granted to make safety 
features inoperative
    1. Standards which could be compromised by vehicle modifications
    a. FMVSS No. 102, transmission lever sequence, starter 
interlock, and transmission braking effect
    b. FMVSS No. 103, windshield defrosting and defogging systems, 
and FMVSS No. 104, windshield wiping and washing systems
    c. FMVSS No. 105, hydraulic brake systems, and FMVSS No. 121, 
air brake systems
    d. FMVSS No. 111, rearview mirrors
    e. FMVSS No. 113, hood latch systems
    f. FMVSS No. 124, accelerator control systems
    g. FMVSS No. 206, door locks and door retention components
    h. FMVSS No. 209, seat belt assemblies
    i. FMVSS No. 210, seat belt assembly anchorages
    j. FMVSS No. 216, roof crush resistance
    k. FMVSS No. 301, fuel system integrity and FMVSS No. 303, fuel 
system integrity of compressed natural gas vehicles
    l. FMVSS No. 302, flammability of interior materials
    2. Standards which are unaffected by vehicle modifications
    F. Modifications not contemplated by the final rule
    G. Gross vehicle weight ratings
    H. Applicability of exemptions to commercial vehicles
III. Prescriptions, labeling, and recordkeeping requirements
    A. Prescriptions and professional evaluations
    B. Labeling requirements and customer information
IV. Regulatory analyses and notices

I. Background and Overview

A. Reasons for This Rulemaking

    We initiated this rulemaking because although the intended effect 
of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards is to protect the safety 
of all Americans, the standards can inadvertently limit the mobility of 
those Americans with disabilities. The vast majority of Americans can 
drive and/or ride in motor vehicles as they are produced by the motor 
vehicle manufacturers in full compliance with the Federal motor vehicle 
safety standards. When they use these vehicles, they benefit from the 
safety features required by those standards.
    However, individuals with disabilities are often unable to drive or 
ride in a passenger vehicle, such as a passenger car or van, unless it 
has been specially modified to accommodate their particular conditions. 
Some modifications, such as the installation of mechanical hand 
controls or a left foot accelerator, are relatively simple and 
inexpensive. Others, such as the installation of a joystick that 
controls steering, acceleration and braking or a lowering of the 
vehicle floor, can be complex and expensive. In some cases, it is 
necessary to alter or even remove federally-required safety equipment 
to make those special modifications. In those cases, it may not be 
possible to enable individuals with disabilities both to enjoy the 
opportunity to drive or ride in a motor vehicle as well as to receive 
the benefits from the full array of federally-required safety features.
    The need to alter or remove federally-required safety equipment 
poses a problem because there is a statutory provision prohibiting 
making such features inoperative (49 U.S.C. section 30122).\1\ While 
that prohibition does not

[[Page 12639]]

apply to vehicle owners, it does apply to modifications made by the 
types of commercial entities that modify vehicles for persons with 
disabilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Federal law requires vehicle manufacturers to certify that 
their vehicles comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle 
safety standards (FMVSS or standard) (49 U.S.C. section 30112). They 
must continue to comply until the time of their first retail sale. 
As noted above, when installing adaptive equipment in a motor 
vehicle, a modifier may need to remove items of equipment or 
features that were installed in compliance with the standards issued 
by NHTSA pursuant to our statutory authority (49 U.S.C. section 
30111). At other times, the installer may need to modify or bypass 
the safety equipment or features so that the adaptive equipment can 
be used. In either instance, the vehicle modification renders the 
affected equipment or features, as originally certified, 
inoperative. As noted above, such removal or alteration violates a 
statutory provision that prohibits certain entities from making such 
equipment and features inoperative. Specifically, manufacturers, 
distributors, dealers, and repair businesses may not knowingly make 
inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed in 
or on a motor vehicle that is in compliance with an applicable 
standard (49 U.S.C. section 30122). We have interpreted the term 
``make inoperative'' to mean any action that removes or disables 
safety equipment or features installed to comply with an applicable 
standard, or that degrades the performance of such equipment or 
features. Violations of this provision are punishable by civil 
penalties of up to $5,000 per violation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    However, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) 
may issue regulations that exempt persons from the ``make inoperative'' 
prohibition.\2\ Such regulations may specify which equipment and 
features may be made inoperative, as well as the circumstances under 
which they may be made so. To date, the agency has only issued one such 
regulation. That regulation permits the installation of retrofit air 
bag on-off switches under certain circumstances. In all other 
instances, we have addressed the need to remove, disconnect, or 
otherwise alter mandatory safety equipment by issuing a separate letter 
assuring the individual requestor that we will not seek enforcement 
action against the business modifying the vehicle. The vast majority of 
these instances involve persons seeking modifications to accommodate 
persons with disabilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Our policy of handling requests for permission to make 
modifications on an individual, case-by-case basis does not serve the 
best interest of the driving public, the vehicle modifiers, or this 
agency. The case-by-case approach is ill-suited to dealing effectively 
with the volume of motor vehicles needing modification. We estimate 
that, as of 1997, approximately 383,000 vehicles had some type of 
adaptive equipment installed in them to accommodate a driver or 
passenger with a disability.\3\ We estimate that approximately 2,295 
vehicles are modified for persons with disabilities per year. We do not 
know how many of these modifications involved making a federally-
required safety feature inoperative. We do know that the modification 
of motor vehicles for the benefit of persons with disabilities is a 
growing phenomenon. The number of vehicles modified annually will 
increase as the population ages and as greater numbers of individuals 
with physical disabilities pursue employment, travel, and recreational 
opportunities presented by the passage of the Americans With 
Disabilities Act (ADA).\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Estimating the Number of Vehicles Adapted for Use by Persons 
with Disabilities, NHTSA Research Note, December, 1997, Docket No. 
NHTSA-01-8667-2.
    \4\ 42 U.S.C. section 12101, et seq.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, the unwieldiness of the case-by-case approach causes many 
vehicle modifiers to bypass it. The permission granted in the agency 
letters is directed to specific owners of specific vehicles and cannot 
be transferred to other owners or other vehicles. Thus, a business 
performing modifications must obtain written permission for each 
customer who needs a vehicle modified in a way that adversely affects 
compliance with the standards. Because agency resources for evaluating 
individual modification requests are limited, an individual with a 
disability may wait a significant period of time before the agency can 
issue a letter stating its intent to not enforce the statute for the 
vehicle modifications affected. During that time period, the individual 
may be without any means of independent transportation. Partially as a 
result of the unwieldiness of this process, only a handful of the 
vehicles modified annually are covered by a letter from NHTSA granting 
permission to make a piece of federally-required safety equipment 
inoperative.\5\ Most are made without permission and without the 
benefit of any guidance about the opportunities for making 
modifications without sacrificing safety.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ A discussion of the basis for the agency's belief that many 
modifiers make mandatory safety equipment inoperative without first 
seeking authorization from NHTSA can be found in the preamble to the 
NPRM. 63 FR 51547 (September 28, 1998), Docket No. NHTSA 98-4332-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We believe that it is appropriate, therefore, to replace the case-
by-case approach with an exemption that accommodates the needs of 
persons with disabilities and promotes a constructive dialogue between 
the modifiers and the agency. Congress anticipated the need for such an 
exemption. The legislative history of the make inoperative provision 
includes the statement that ``exemptions may be warranted for owners 
with special medical problems, who require special controls * * *.'' 
\6\ In addition to eliminating the need for case-by-case approvals, the 
exemption will facilitate making needed vehicle modifications by 
providing guidance to modifiers on the types of modifications we 
believe can be made without unduly decreasing the level of safety 
provided to the vehicle occupants and to others.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ H. Rep. 93-1191, pp 34-5 (1974).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

    In developing the proposed exemption, we sought to balance mobility 
and safety. To that end, we conducted a comprehensive analysis of both 
our standards and the types of adaptive equipment currently available. 
We sought to distinguish between those instances in which there are 
methods of modification that make it possible, at reasonable cost, to 
accommodate persons with disabilities while avoiding making the 
original safety equipment or features inoperative from those instances 
in which it is not possible to do so. We determined that vehicle 
modifications fell into the following categories:
    1. Modifications that did not affect the original federally-
required safety equipment or feature.
    2. Modifications that involved the installation of adaptive 
equipment capable of being operated in lieu of the original equipment, 
which remained in place and fully operable separately, or in 
conjunction with the original equipment.
    3. Modifications that resulted in making safety equipment 
inoperative even though other methods of making the modification were 
readily available that could have accommodated the needs of the 
disabled occupant at reasonable cost without making the original 
equipment inoperative.
    4. Modifications that made the original equipment inoperative, but 
either did not appear to lead to a degradation of safety or all methods 
available to accommodate the needs of the disabled occupant rendered 
the original equipment or feature inoperative.
    5. Modifications that made the original equipment inoperative and 
resulted in possible degradation of safety so severe that we did not 
believe an exemption was warranted, and other methods of modification 
that did not make the original equipment inoperative were either 
available or a compliant system is easily produced.
    In proposing to waive the make inoperative provision for some 
portions of some safety standards, we determined that modifications in 
the first two categories listed above did not make the required safety 
features or equipment inoperative, while modifications in the third 
category did make the equipment inoperative but could be performed in a 
way that is consistent with modification performed under the first two 
categories. Modifications within the fourth and fifth categories could 
not reasonably be performed in a manner that would not render the 
original equipment inoperative.
    Based on our assessment, we issued a notice of proposed rulemaking 
(NPRM) on September 28, 1998 (63 FR 51547; Docket No. NHTSA-98-4332-1). 
We proposed to exempt only those modifications in the fourth category. 
Modifications within this category did

[[Page 12640]]

not degrade safety sufficiently to prohibit the modification and were, 
in some cases, the only means of accommodating a particular disability. 
We did not consider exempting modifications within category five 
because we believed that the needed modification should not degrade the 
level of safety to such an extent as to place vehicle occupants in an 
inherently unsafe environment.

C. Summary of Public Comments on the NPRM

    Thirty-nine comments were submitted addressing details of the NPRM. 
Only one organization representing persons with disabilities, Access to 
Independence and Mobility (AIM), commented on the proposed rule. One 
consumer safety group also commented, as did two vehicle manufacturers, 
and several modifiers, alterers, and driver rehabilitation 
specialists.\7\ Two individuals representing state interests also 
commented.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Four trade associations, the Association for Driver 
Rehabilitation Specialists (ADED), the American Occupational Therapy 
Association (AOTA), the National Automobile Dealers Association 
(NADA), and the National Mobility Equipment Dealers Association 
(NMEDA), filed comments on behalf of their members who are 
occupational therapists and driver rehabilitation specialists in the 
first two instances, and alterers and modifiers in the second two 
instances.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In general, the comments to the notice were very supportive of our 
efforts. However, some commenters, primarily Advocates for Highway and 
Auto Safety (Advocates), vehicle alterers and AIM, raised concerns that 
the rule, as proposed, would unduly decrease the level of safety 
provided to persons with disabilities. The primary concern voiced by 
these entities was that the agency was not proposing to implement a 
rule that ensured significant, on-going monitoring of vehicle 
modifications. Other commenters, including modifiers and driver 
rehabilitation specialists, urged that exemptions be provided for some 
standards which we had not included in the proposed list of exemptions.
    Expressing concerns regarding the safety of vehicle modifications, 
the University of Virginia Automobile Safety Laboratory urged that on-
going studies be performed to identify vehicle modifications that 
constitute an unreasonable risk to safety. However, the commenter went 
on to say that it recognized that real world injury data would likely 
never be available to accurately determine the level of risk involved 
in vehicle modifications and to fully support NHTSA's proposal to issue 
limited exemptions.
    While the majority of modifiers saw no need to impose any paperwork 
or labeling requirements on modifiers, Advocates, some alterers, and 
the State of Connecticut argued that paperwork and/or labels were 
needed to assure that only necessary modifications were performed or 
that vehicle owners or subsequent purchasers were aware of the 
modifications that were performed and that there could be some 
degradation of overall safety. A lively debate arose among commenters 
concerning the need for persons with disabilities to have a written 
prescription detailing the types of modifications needed. These 
comments were submitted primarily by members of the Association for 
Driver Rehabilitation Specialists (ADED) on one side of the issue and 
occupational therapists who are not members of ADED, some modifiers and 
the State of Connecticut on the other side of the issue.

II. Final Rule

    Based on our review of the comments, we are today issuing a final 
rule that exempts certain vehicle modifications from the make 
inoperative provisions. The exemptions are listed in the regulatory 
text and will become Subpart C of Part 595 of Title 49 of the Code of 
Federal Regulations (CFR). This preamble explains our response to the 
comments and our decision to issue the final rule. While it provides 
important explanations of the agency's rationale in making its 
decision, the preamble is not part of the regulation. It should, 
however, be read carefully since it provides important information on 
why we decided to grant exemptions for some, but not all, standards; 
what types of modifications require an exemption; who may rely on the 
exemptions; and what standards may be affected by vehicle 
modifications, regardless of whether there is an exemption for that 
modification.
    The exemptions adopted in this final rule generally only apply to a 
portion of each included standard and may have other conditions, such 
as the installation of wheelchair tie-down devices, placed upon it. The 
following chart details the standards with respect to which 
modifications are exempted, as well as those standards for which 
modifiers need to be aware that certain modifications may expose them 
to civil penalties.

                                 Table 1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  FMVSS not covered by the make inoption
                                                 exemption
    FMVSS covered by the make    ---------------------------------------
      inoperative exemption       Modification could  Modification would
                                    affect vehicle        not affect
                                      compliance          compliance
------------------------------------------------------------------------
101, Controls and displays,       102, Transmission   106, Brake hoses.
 except for S5.2(a), S5.3.1,       lever sequence,
 S5.3.2 and S5.3.5.                starter
                                   interlock, and
                                   transmission
                                   braking effect.
108, Lamps, reflective devices,   103, Windshield     109, New pneumatic
 and associated equipment,         defrosting and      tires.
 S5.1.1.5 only, when the           defogging systems.
 modified motor vehicle does not
 have a steering wheel and it is
 not feasible to retain the turn
 signal self-canceling device
 installed by the vehicle
 manufacturer.
114, Theft protection, S4.4 and   104, Windshield     110, Tire
 S4.5 only, when the original      wiping and          selection and
 key-locking system must be        washing system.     rims.
 modified.
118, Power-operated window,       105, Hydraulic      116, Motor vehicle
 partition, and roof panel         brake systems.      brake fluids.
 systems, S4(a) only, when the
 medical condition of the person
 for whom the vehicle is
 modified requires a remote
 ignition to start the vehicle.
123, Motorcycle controls and      111, Rearview       117, Retreaded
 displays, S5.1 and S5.2.1.        mirrors.            pneumatic tires.
135, Passenger car brake          113, Hood latch     119, New pneumatic
 systems, S5.3.1 only, when the    systems.            tires for
 vehicle modification requires                         vehicles other
 removal of the vehicle                                than passenger
 manufacturer installed foot                           cars.
 pedal.

[[Page 12641]]

 
201, Occupant protection in       121, Air brake      120, Tire
 interior impact, only with        systems.            selection and
 respect to targets on the side                        rims for vehicles
 rail, B-pillar and first                              other than
 ``other'' pillar adjacent to                          passenger cars.
 the stowed platform of a lift
 or ramp, or the rear header and
 rearmost pillars adjacent to
 the stowed platform of a lift
 or ramp.
202, Head restraints, when the    124, Accelerator    122, Motorcycle
 motor vehicle is modified to be   control systems.    brake systems.
 driven by an individual in a
 wheelchair and no other seat is
 provided for the driver or the
 front passenger sits in a
 wheelchair and no other front
 passenger seat is provided, and
 S4.3(b)(1) and S4.3(b)(2) only,
 when the driver's head
 restraint must be modified to
 accommodate a driver with a
 disability.
203, Impact protection for the    206, Door locks     125, Warning
 driver from the steering          and door            devices.
 control system, S5.1 only, when   retention
 the modification requires a       components.
 structural change to or removal
 of the original steering shaft,
 and S5.2 only, when an item of
 adaptive equipment must be
 mounted on the steering wheel.
204, Steering control rearward    209, Seat belt      129, Non-pneumatic
 displacement only, when the       assemblies.         tires for
 modification requires a                               passenger cars.
 structural change to or removal
 of the original steering shaft.
207, Seating systems, S4.1 only,  210, Seat belt      131, School bus
 when the motor vehicle is         assembly            pedestrian safety
 modified to be driven by an       anchorages.         devices.
 individual in a wheelchair and
 no other seat is provided for
 the driver and a wheelchair
 securement device is installed
 in the driver position.
208, Occupant crash protection,   216, Roof crush     205, Glazing
 S4.1.5.1(a)(1), S4.1.5.1(a)(3),   resistance.         materials.
 S4.2.6.2, S5, S7.1, S7.2, and
 S7.4 only, when Type 2 or type
 2A seat belts meeting the
 requirements of FMVSS Nos. 209
 and 210 are installed in the
 affected seating position.
214, Side impact protection, S5   301, fuel system    212, Windshield
 only, when the affected seating   integrity.          mounting
 and/or restraint system must be
 modified to accommodate a
 person with a disability.
                                  302, Flammability   213, Child
                                   of interior         restraint
                                   materials.          systems.
                                  303, Fuel system    217, emergency
                                   integrity of        exits and window
                                   compressed          retention and
                                   natural gas         release.
                                   vehicles.
                                                      218, Motorcycle
                                                       helmets.
                                                      219, Windshield
                                                       zone intrusion.
                                                      220, School bus
                                                       rollover
                                                       protection.
                                                      221, School bus
                                                       body joint
                                                       strength.
                                                      222, School bus
                                                       passenger seating
                                                       and crash
                                                       protection.
                                                      223, Rear impact
                                                       guards.
                                                      224, Rear impact
                                                       protection.
                                                      225, Child
                                                       restraint
                                                       anchorage
                                                       systems*.
                                                      304, Compressed
                                                       natural gas fuel
                                                       container
                                                       integrity.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* FMVSS No. 225, Child restraint anchorage systems, was issued after the
  publication of the NPRM proposing exemptions to the make inoperative
  provisions for vehicles modified to accommodate persons with
  disabilities. Accordingly, NHTSA has not determined whether such
  systems may need to be removed or modified in order to accommodate an
  individual with a disability. Should such a need arise, it can be
  addressed in a future rulemaking.

A. Summary of Key Differences Between Proposal and Final Rule

    The final rule largely adopts the proposed rule except for four 
changes. We will require a permanently affixed label that states the 
vehicle may no longer comply with all Federal Motor Vehicle Safety 
Standards. Also, we are allowing limited exemptions for modifications 
affecting FMVSS Nos. 123, 201 and 114.

B. Limitations on Exemptions

    In the NPRM, we proposed to issue exemptions for modifications 
affecting some, but not all, Federal motor vehicle safety standards. 
The number of exemptions was restricted for several reasons. First, the 
needed vehicle modifications have no impact on the safety features 
installed in compliance with many standards; thus, there is no need in 
those cases for an exemption from the make inoperative provision. 
Second, we decided that if, after modifications are made, the original 
equipment remains fully functional and readily usable by drivers or 
passengers other than the individual with a disability, we would not 
consider the modifications as making the safety equipment inoperative 
even though the adaptive equipment itself may not be able to meet the 
requirements of the affected safety standard.\8\ We also

[[Page 12642]]

determined that we would not consider a modification to violate the 
make inoperative provision when the original safety equipment is 
removed or modified so that it could not be used as designed, but the 
new system retains the original equipment's performance and function 
relative to the affected standard. Finally, we looked at all other 
types of modifications that could potentially void a vehicle 
certification and assessed the likely loss in safety that could result 
from a modification that fell outside of the categories described 
above. In most instances, we determined that the modifications would 
not result in a significant loss of safety. However, in some instances, 
we determined that the possible degradation of safety was too great to 
make it appropriate to grant an exemption.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ When the modified system completely by-passes or alters the 
original equipment such that it cannot be used in conformance with 
the applicable standard, the modification will be considered a 
violation of the make inoperative provision even though the original 
equipment remains in the vehicle. (See NHTSA letter of 
interpretation to Senne, Kelsey & Associates, Inc., dated March 26, 
1999. The agency determined that the installation of an electronic 
gas and brake control constituted a violation of the make 
inoperative provision because it did not allow for the return of the 
throttle to an idle position in the event of a severance or 
disconnection in the accelerator control system in contravention of 
FMVSS No. 124.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Advocates was particularly vocal in expressing the belief that the 
NPRM did not do enough to promote the safety of persons with 
disabilities. As an initial matter, it challenged whether there was a 
need for an exemption and whether issuing an exemption would serve the 
interests of motor vehicle safety, stating

NHTSA has no reliable information on the nature and extent to which 
vehicle modifications falling within the ambit of the FMVSS have 
adhered to or significantly departed from the level of safety that 
should be ensured for disabled vehicle occupants. Despite agency 
assertions that equivalent levels of safety should be provided when 
possible, it has no information in the record verifying that vehicle 
modifications to date have provided that equivalent safety.

    Advocates maintained that granting a blanket exemption from a 
number of the safety standards to all persons engaged in the business 
of altering or modifying vehicles for use by the disabled drivers does 
nothing to assure disabled occupants that their vehicles will be 
altered properly and safely, that modifiers will make only those 
changes permitted by the exemption and will certify their work, or that 
future purchasers will be informed that the safety equipment has been 
rendered inoperable. That organization noted that the agency 
acknowledged in the NPRM that a substantial number of vehicle modifiers 
``do not possess sufficient knowledge of the standards to judge whether 
a particular modification may affect a vehicle's compliance with the 
standards. Advocates stated that it could not understand how the 
proposed exemption would resolve problems posed by this lack of 
knowledge, stop modifiers' from performing modifications that 
negatively impact safety and provide adequate safety for the disabled. 
While acknowledging that a listing of the standards or the portions of 
the standard that are subject to exemption provide some clarity, it 
argued that

* * * nothing in the proposed rule provides any assurance that the 
list will be read, understood, and correctly applied by modifiers, 
that modifications will be limited to only those portions of the 
standard that are exempt, that the modifications will be properly 
performed, or that the disabled driver will know what specific items 
of equipment were modified, in what way, and the extent to which 
these modifications may affect operating safety and vehicle 
crashworthiness.

    While Advocates expressed support for vehicle modifications, 
including safety equipment, that are necessary to meet the mobility 
needs of disabled persons, it also said that the agency should adopt a 
stronger regulatory presence in this burgeoning area of motor vehicle 
safety. That organization maintained that providing a blanket exemption 
with no oversight fails to ensure an appropriate balance between 
mobility and safety, and invites abusive practices and inadequate and 
unsafe modifications.
    Finally, Advocates claimed that the agency is proposing a broad 
exemption, with corollary proposals to eliminate any form of reporting 
or even of vehicle labeling advising of modifications, and that the 
proposed change in basic agency policy relinquishes fundamental 
oversight responsibilities at a time when effective oversight of 
vehicle modifications is becoming more pervasive and more important. 
Advocates then averred that NHTSA must maintain agency supervision and 
oversight of the issue, collect essential data on vehicle modifications 
for the disabled, and provide consumer safety information for the 
disabled and future purchasers of vehicles altered to accommodate the 
disabled.
    Vantage Mini-vans, a manufacturer of minivans designed for persons 
with disabilities, stated that consumers deserve to drive a vehicle 
that meets certain safety standards. It argued that if modifications 
are required to make a vehicle wheelchair accessible, the consumer 
should know that there are no other options available other than those 
necessary to take the vehicle out of compliance. It said also that if 
there were a viable option available that would enable to modifier to 
leave the original safety features intact, that option should be 
preferred or required. After acknowledging that the companies that 
modify vehicles for the disabled are often very small and do not have 
the financial resources to crash test for every conceivable 
configuration of adaptive equipment, Vantage went on to state that, for 
modifications involving hand controls, steering modifications and seat 
belt modifications, an exemption for modifications affecting compliance 
with the relevant FMVSSs may be in order, provided another viable 
alternative is not available that would not take the vehicle out of 
compliance.
    We agree that these commenters have expressed legitimate concerns. 
We have decided to issue a final rule establishing limited exemptions 
because we believe this is the best way at this time to promote the 
mobility of persons with disabilities while ensuring some level of 
safety for those persons. We also strongly recommend that equipment 
manufacturers, vehicle modifiers, and driver evaluators work together 
to ensure that the installed equipment is appropriate for both the 
particular vehicle and the driver, considering factors such as vehicle 
geometry and driver size before selecting the equipment to be 
installed.
    We disagree with Advocates' characterization of the exemptions as 
broad-based. The exemptions should be viewed in the context of all 
standards issued by NHTSA. The exemptions have been tailored to allow 
for the least amount of degradation possible. The majority of 
modifications subject to an exemption will not result in any 
degradation of safety. This is because many of the exemptions are 
designed to address design criteria within the applicable standards 
that have no impact on vehicle performance. For example, FMVSS No. 135 
requires the brake be operated by a foot control, even though this 
requirement was included in the standard to achieve harmonization 
rather than because of a need based on engineering principles. 
Modifications affecting some standards, like FMVSS No. 201, could 
result in a degradation of safety, but cannot be accommodated any other 
way. FMVSS 201 requires that test results of impacts with certain 
targets on specific areas of the vehicle fall below a certain level. 
When a lift is installed in a vehicle, the stowed platform blocks some 
target points. Requiring compliance with FMVSS 201 would prevent an 
individual who must use a wheelchair from driving or riding in a 
vehicle,

[[Page 12643]]

because he or she would not be able to enter. In order to diminish any 
degradation in safety, we have limited the exemptions to those portions 
of the standard that are directly affected by the vehicle modification 
and have, in most instances, placed other requirements on the modifier 
to address legitimate safety concerns.
    As pointed out by the University of Virginia, we do not have firm 
statistics on the effect of current vehicle modifications on vehicle 
safety. Current methods of obtaining motor vehicle safety statistics 
are based on total vehicle populations within classes of vehicles 
(e.g., passenger cars, light trucks). We will likely never have 
sufficient data to verify that modified vehicles are providing a level 
of safety comparable to that of non-modified vehicles. Merely 
identifying dangerously modified vehicles is like finding the 
proverbial needle in a haystack. Drawing a statistically significant 
correlation between such vehicles and the overall fleet that comprises 
our databases would be even more difficult. However, we do not believe 
the lack of data justifies inaction on our part.
    If we do not issue a regulation providing some measure of relief to 
persons with disabilities, there are two likely outcomes: modifications 
will continue to be performed with no agency oversight, and a 
significant number of persons with disabilities will be unable to drive 
or ride in personal vehicles.
    We have analyzed both available methods of making necessary 
modifications and our standards to determine where exemptions may be 
needed in order to provide reasonable accommodation of the needs of 
persons with disabilities. In instances in which we believe the cost of 
a modification that does not affect compliance with the FVMSSs is 
reasonable enough to be viable, we have decided against issuing an 
exemption. Likewise, we are not issuing exemptions for standards that 
address a severe risk of injury or death when alternative modification 
methods are available or should be easily developed. This may mean that 
the manufacturers of some adaptive equipment will need to either retool 
their products or stop selling them. Thus, far from being a ``blanket 
exemption,'' today's rule affects only those areas where we believe 
there is a minimal reduction in safety, if any.
    We have decided against requiring the type of agency oversight that 
Advocates appears to support; i.e., approval of each modification, 
because such oversight has proved unworkable in the past. We receive 
relatively few requests to grant an exemption for the modification of 
specific vehicles. As discussed in the NPRM, the number of vehicles 
modified significantly exceeds the number of exemption requests 
received by this agency. Additionally, NHTSA simply does not have the 
staff available to review every vehicle modification request for 
persons with disabilities in a reasonable amount of time. Thus, today's 
rule more effectively analyzes the level of risk involved than the 
case-by-case determinations that are currently provided. Likewise, we 
have decided against requiring modifiers to submit detailed records of 
all modifications to NHTSA. Such submissions would serve no value 
unless they were scrutinized by agency staff who would make independent 
determinations as to the appropriateness of the modifications. As is 
the case with pre-modification submissions, we simply do not have the 
staff to conduct such a review. We do note that nothing in today's rule 
restricts our ability to bring enforcement actions against entities 
that make modifications that go beyond or are inconsistent with these 
exemptions pursuant to our statutory authority under 49 U.S.C. 30122.
    We also acknowledge that today's rule does not, in and of itself, 
guarantee that vehicle modifications will only be performed subject to 
the exemptions. Today's rule will provide responsible modifiers the 
ability to make needed modifications without fear of running afoul of 
the law. It also alerts these modifiers that they need to exercise 
special care in performing certain modifications. In some instances, 
these modifiers will be required to stop performing certain 
modifications that they may have believed were safe. We believe this 
rule, in conjunction with the existing industry standards and our 
consumer information brochure, will significantly reduce the likelihood 
that vehicle modifications will be made in a manner that places the 
vehicle occupants at undue risk.
    We have decided against adopting the position advocated by Vantage 
that would require all modifications be performed in conformance with 
all applicable safety standards unless no other method exists for 
performing the modification. Certainly we agree that all modifications 
should be performed in a manner that minimizes the impact on vehicle 
conformance with all safety standards. However, such a requirement 
would be unenforceable, since it is inherently unobjective. Instead, we 
believe that the criteria we have employed in determining whether an 
exemption is appropriate adequately ensures that modifications that are 
likely to have an impact on motor vehicle safety are only exempted when 
they cannot be done in a manner that does not void the vehicle's 
compliance with the standards.

C. Applicability of Exemption to Modifications Performed by Repair 
Businesses

    In the NPRM, we proposed that the exemptions to the make 
inoperative provision would be available to dealers and repair 
businesses. Under our statutory authority, we can also issue exemptions 
to manufacturers and distributors.
    Volvo commented that the exemptions should also apply to vehicle 
manufacturers since the logic presented in the NPRM appears to apply to 
manufacturers as well as modifiers. Independent Mobility Systems voiced 
a concern that vehicle alterers, who have the duty to certify, may 
believe the exemptions apply to them. The National Automobile Dealers 
Association (NADA) urged NHTSA to clarify that a ``first purchase of a 
vehicle in good faith for purposes other than retail'' occurs when a 
contract for sale is entered into between a new vehicle dealer and a 
purchaser. NADA argued that such a definition would ensure that only a 
small percentage of disability-related modifications will constitute 
``alterations'' under NHTSA's regulations, thereby minimizing the 
number of modifications that will be eligible for the ``make 
inoperative'' exemption.
    We do not believe that vehicle manufacturers, including alterers, 
should be allowed to take advantage of the exemptions in today's rule. 
The need for an exemption arises from two sources:
     The need to custom fit the vehicle to the disabled 
individual's needs and/or
     Compliance with the applicable standards could only be 
demonstrated by testing the vehicle after all pertinent modifications 
have been made, potentially destroying a unique vehicle.
    We do not believe manufacturers need an exemption for either reason 
because they do not custom fit their vehicles. Instead, they produce a 
vehicle that possesses many, but not all, of the attributes needed by 
the end user of the vehicle.\9\ All final fitting for a driver

[[Page 12644]]

with a disability is done by a modifier. Thus, the manufacturer 
produces several vehicles of the same configuration and has the ability 
to test that configuration in order to certify compliance. However, we 
recognize NADA's concern that there are instances in which the final 
fitting is arguably performed prior to the vehicle's first retail sale. 
This would have the effect of making the business performing the work 
an alterer rather than a modifier. Unlike modifiers, who cannot make 
mandatory safety equipment inoperative without a waiver or exemption, 
an alterer cannot make any changes to a vehicle other that the addition 
of readily attachable components without certifying that vehicle, as 
altered complies with all safety standards that are potentially 
affected by the alteration. As an alterer, the business would be unable 
to use the exemptions provided today. The precipitating event that 
determines whether the work performed is an alteration or a 
modification is the ``first purchase of a vehicle in good faith for 
purposes other than retail.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ We note that this is the practice in the disability 
community. We are aware of other types of specialized manufacturing 
where the end user may order a specific vehicle that is then built 
by a final-stage manufacturer. In these instances, there may be 
cases where the final stage manufacturer is only manufacturing one 
or two vehicles of a specific configuration. Issues related to those 
manufacturers are being addressed in a rulemaking on the 
certification responsibilities of vehicles built in two or more 
stages.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Individuals purchasing vehicles that need to be modified to 
accommodate a disability may enter into extensive negotiations with a 
dealership whereby the dealership procures the vehicle and arranges to 
have a business that specializes in such modifications perform the 
actual work. Vehicle title may or may not be passed to the end user 
before the modifications are made, depending on who is paying for the 
modifications. Often a state or the Federal government picks up the 
cost of some or all of the modified vehicle. They may wish to be 
assured that the required modifications are completed in a satisfactory 
manner before they submit payment for the vehicle. In such an instance, 
the business performing the modifications could be placed in the 
position of an alterer for reasons beyond its control. Thus, we believe 
that it is appropriate to define a ``first purchase of a vehicle in 
good faith for purposes other than retail'' as something other than the 
transfer of title. On the other hand, we believe that more is required 
than general inquiries about the availability of a suitable vehicle, 
since there is no firm commitment to purchase a vehicle at that time.
    We have decided to define ``first purchase of a vehicle in good 
faith for purposes other than retail'' for purposes of this rule as the 
point at which the seller and the end user enter into a sales contract 
that identifies a specific vehicle to be delivered. This definition 
will reduce the risk of a business being deemed an alterer because it 
is unable to transfer title at the time the modifications are made, 
while ensuring that businesses do not use the exemptions to produce 
``showroom'' vehicles that have been significantly altered but have not 
been fitted for a particular customer.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ We are limiting this definition to this rule because of the 
unique payment arrangements that are common for vehicles modified 
for persons with disabilities. We have maintained in other contexts 
(e.g., the alteration of a hard-top sedan into a convertible) that 
if the work performed affects the vehicle's mandatory safety 
features, a label certifying compliance as to the affected portion 
of the vehicle is required.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We are also aware of instances in which vehicle manufacturers 
modify vehicles for a specific customer after the vehicle has been 
certified as a compliant vehicle. Several vehicle manufacturers have 
expressed concern in the context of the exemptions for retrofit air bag 
on-off switches that they cannot install a retrofit on-off switch 
because they are not a dealer or repair business. Similar concerns 
exist in this rulemaking as well. 49 CFR part 595 controls both 
retrofit switches and modifications to vehicles for persons with 
disabilities. ``Motor vehicle repair business'' is defined in 49 U.S.C. 
section 30122(a) as ``a person holding itself out to the public to 
repair for compensation a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment.'' 
Part 595 clarifies that this term includes businesses that receive 
compensation for servicing vehicles without malfunctioning or broken 
parts or systems by adding or removing features or components to or 
from those vehicles or otherwise customizing those vehicles. 49 CFR 
595.4. Thus, a modifier would be a motor vehicle repair business within 
the context of Part 595.
    However, a manufacturer or dealer could also be a motor vehicle 
repair business depending on the type of service provided in a 
particular circumstance. For instance, if an individual takes his or 
her vehicle into the dealership for repairs, the dealership is acting 
as a motor vehicle repair business, rather than as a ``dealer.'' In 
some instances, vehicle manufacturers will send technicians to work on 
a problem that is particularly difficult to resolve. A manufacturer 
could also have a vehicle transported to a centralized facility to 
perform a particularly difficult repair. In both instances, the vehicle 
manufacturer is operating as a motor vehicle repair business rather 
than as a manufacturer of the vehicle. We believe that the same 
situation should exist for exemptions under Part 595, if the business 
is not operating in its primary capacity as a dealer or manufacturer. 
If a dealer or manufacturer adds or removes features to or from a 
vehicle, or otherwise customizes a vehicle after the first purchase of 
a vehicle in good faith for purposes other than retail, then the dealer 
or manufacturer may utilize the exemptions detailed in Part 595. 
Because a dealer can also be a motor vehicle repair business, 
referencing dealers in the regulatory text is redundant. Accordingly, 
the term has been removed.

D. Standards for Which Permission Is Granted To Make Safety Features 
Inoperative

1. FMVSS No. 101, Controls and Displays
    The purpose of FMVSS No. 101 is to ensure the accessibility and 
visibility of motor vehicle controls and displays to reduce the 
diversion of the driver's attention from driving and mistakes in 
selecting controls. In the NPRM, we proposed exempting all of the 
standard except the following: S5.2(a),\11\ which governs the symbols 
and abbreviations used for certain controls; S5.3.1, which requires 
illumination of certain controls when the headlights are on; S5.3.2, 
which governs the color of telltales; and S5.3.5, which requires cabin 
lighting forward of the driver's H point to be able to be adjustable or 
turned off.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ The NPRM incorrectly stated that an exemption was 
contemplated for S5.1(a). There is no such paragraph in FMVSS No. 
101. The correct reference is S5.2(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Only the Texas Transportation Institute (TTI) commented on the 
proposed exemption. TTI argued against an exemption to S5.2(a), 
positing that the lack of an exemption will require modifiers to use 
the symbols required by FMVSS No. 101, giving uniformity to secondary 
control keypads, an area that currently is not uniform. We have decided 
against providing an exemption to S5.2(a) because we agree that 
uniformity is desirable and compliance with the standard is easily 
accomplished.
2. FMVSS No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment
    FMVSS No. 108 is designed to ensure that roadways are adequately 
illuminated, drivers can signal their intentions to others, and 
vehicles are conspicuous. We had proposed to include S5.1.1.5, which 
requires a turn signal be self-canceling when the steering wheel 
rotates within the exemption. The exemption would be

[[Page 12645]]

limited to vehicles where the steering wheel has been removed and the 
original turn lever cannot be retained. The agency also sought comment 
on whether there are cases in which the original turn signal actuating 
device and function is not retained, and if so, if they had a self-
canceling feature (particularly a self-canceling feature that is not 
controlled by steering wheel rotation).
    We received several responses to our questions. According to one 
commenter, some horizontal systems remove the OEM turn signal lever. 
TTI noted that in other instances, a user is unable to operate the OEM 
turn signals and a redundant circuit is used. These systems may leave 
the OEM equipment intact but use a timed circuit to cancel the signal. 
TTI went on to maintain that these provisions can and should be 
required for all modifications. However, MossRehab, a driving school 
for people with disabilities, commented that floor-mounted hand 
controls generally have turn signal operation incorporated into the 
controls unit. These signals are not self-canceling. MossRehab went on 
to state that it finds manual signals to be preferable to the timed 
self-canceling signals.
    Based on the comments, we have decided to issue the exemption as 
proposed. If some systems work better without a self-canceling feature, 
we are disinclined to prohibit that technology.
3. FMVSS No. 114, Theft Protection
    We originally did not propose to allow an exemption for FMVSS No. 
114 because we did not believe that any vehicle modifications would 
have the effect of rendering equipment installed in compliance with 
this standard inoperative. The standard is intended to reduce the 
incidence of crashes from the unauthorized operation of a vehicle and 
from the rollaway of vehicles with automatic transmissions that result 
from children playing with the gear shifts of parked vehicles.
    TTI and the California Department of Rehabilitation urged us to 
include this standard within the exemption. According to TTI, an 
exemption should be added for FMVSS No. 114 since the ignition key 
switch is routinely replaced by a pushbutton or keypad. Many severely 
disabled drivers cannot use a conventional ignition key. Additionally, 
the steering column housing the ignition is often removed. Theft is 
unlikely given the formidable appearance of adaptive equipment. The 
California Department of Rehabilitation expressed a different concern. 
It argued that FMVSS No. 114 should be included because anyone who knew 
how to bypass a steering wheel lock function that was not key operable 
would know enough about the system to bypass it in any case.
    Previous interpretations by our Office of the Chief Counsel 
regarding the use of a device other than a traditional key to meet the 
requirements of this standard have stated that a push button code can 
be a key.\12\ Thus, an exemption would not be needed to address TTI's 
concern. However, we believe that the concern raised by the California 
Department of Rehabilitation is valid. Given the complexity of the 
modified systems, it is unlikely that someone unfamiliar with the 
system would know how to operate it. We are including S4.4 and S4.5 of 
the standard within the exemption because the requirements specifying 
the number of key-locking combinations is both unrealistic and 
unnecessary given the low number of vehicles involved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See letter dated May 22, 1992 to Stephen E. Selander, 
General Motors, and letter dated January 30, 1997 to corporation 
requesting confidential treatment of portions of the letter, 
including the name of the requestor. Confidential treatment was 
granted and those portions of the letter have been redacted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. FMVSS 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 vehicle occupants, 
particularly children. The agency proposed to include S4(a) of the 
standard when a remote ignition device is necessary to accommodate an 
individual's disability. The exempted paragraph requires that ignition 
key be in the ``start,'' ``on,'' or ``accessory'' position in order to 
close the vehicle's power windows, partitions, or roof panels.
    We received no comments on this proposal and it is being adopted in 
this rule as originally proposed.
5. FMVSS No. 123, Motorcycle Controls and Displays
    FMVSS No. 123 specifies requirements for the location, operation, 
identification, and illumination of motorcycle controls and displays, 
as well as requirements for motorcycle stands and footrests. Because we 
believed there are no common vehicle modifications that should affect 
this standard, it was not discussed in the NPRM. ADED commented that 
modifications to motorcycle controls should be addressed so that such 
modifications are done in the safest manner possible.
    We are now aware that some individuals with disabilities have their 
motorcycles modified so that they can ride on them. Such modifications 
could affect the placement of controls. S5.1 and S5.2.1 contain 
requirements that certain controls (engine stop, brake, clutch, etc) be 
activated by a hand or foot on a particular side of the body. The 
purpose of the requirements contained in these sections is to ensure 
safety of motorcycle operation through uniformity of controls location 
and operation. These requirements may be inconsistent with a particular 
person's disability. In those instances, the needed modification could 
not be performed in a manner consistent with the requirements of the 
standard. Uniformity of control location and operation is not a safety 
issue for persons with disabilities since their vehicles have been 
custom modified, therefore there would be no degradation of safety if 
controls are switched from one side to the other, or from the foot to 
the hand, as long as vehicle functions are not degraded. Accordingly, 
we have decided to allow exemption from S5.1 and S5.2.1 of FMVSS 123, 
when changes to motorcycle controls are necessary to allow a person 
with disabilities to operate his or her motorcycle.
6. FMVSS No. 135, Passenger Car Brake Systems
    Standard No. 135 specifies requirements for the service brake and 
associated parking brake systems to ensure safe braking performance 
under normal and emergency braking conditions. S5.3.1 of the standard 
requires a foot control to operate the brakes. Believing that this foot 
control may need to be removed to accommodate some physical conditions, 
we proposed to provide an exemption from that paragraph. We sought 
comment on whether there are brake modifications that incapacitate the 
original brake controls and would affect the vehicle's compliance in 
any of the required performance tests. We were particularly interested 
in learning whether the use of a joy stick prevented an able-bodied 
driver from using the original brake pedal and whether either a joy 
stick or a power assist affects the vehicle's braking potential during 
the specified performance tests.
    We received numerous comments about this proposed exemption. As an 
initial matter, it does not appear that either joy sticks or power 
assists have an effect on a vehicle's braking potential during the 
performance tests specified

[[Page 12646]]

in the standard or under real world driving conditions. According to 
the National Mobility Equipment Dealers Association (NMEDA), power-
assist braking systems work in conjunction with the OEM system. TTI 
commented that no powered gas/brake controls (i.e., joysticks) prevent 
the use of OEM brake pedals or accelerators although they may introduce 
delays or lags. In a well-designed system, these delays are 0.1 seconds 
or less.
    Significant disagreement arose over whether it was ever necessary 
to remove the brake foot pedal to accommodate a disability. Several 
commenters stated that they had never seen the brake pedal removed and 
that a removable guard be placed over or in front of the pedal if 
needed. The California Department of Rehabilitation argued that pedals 
should not be removed or blocked by adaptive equipment because non-
disabled individuals need to be able to drive vehicle if necessary. TTI 
stated that while there may be instances in which the foot pedal needs 
to be removed, such an extreme modification should not be the subject 
of a generic exemption but should be addressed by the agency on a case-
by-case basis.
    Other commenters, notably NMEDA and AIM, argued that an exemption 
from S5.3.1 is appropriate as some conditions, such as cerebral palsy, 
can lead to spasms that may require the removal of the OEM foot pedals. 
NMEDA also stated that some technology cannot separate braking 
functions from steering functions, such that the OEM equipment becomes 
redundant. NMEDA also noted that concerns with spasms can generally be 
accommodated by placing a guard over the pedal.
    A commenter representing the Connecticut Department of Motor 
Vehicles noted that any exemption to this standard should not include 
the requirement for an emergency braking system if a single hydraulic 
component fails. He noted that this function is often inadvertently 
eliminated in current modifications.
    As proposed and adopted, the exemption to FMVSS No. 135 is limited 
to S5.3.1, which requires a foot control. No other portions of the 
standard are subject to an exemption and modifiers need to assure that 
all other portions of the standard, including that requiring emergency 
braking, are adhered to. We have decided to issue an exemption for the 
foot control even though the commenters stated that a pedal guard would 
generally resolve any potential problems. We have decided to provide an 
exemption for two reasons. First of all, neither FMVSS No. 105 or FMVSS 
No. 121 requires braking via a foot pedal. The requirement for such a 
pedal in FMVSS No. 135 is overly restrictive. Second, we are aware of 
instances where the installation of a pedal guard will not accommodate 
a disability. This occurs when the individual needing the accommodation 
is positioned in the vehicle in such a way that there is inadequate leg 
room. In this instance, the pedal can interfere with the individual's 
ability to fit in the vehicle. Since foot pedals are only rarely 
removed now, we do not believe that this exemption will lead to 
widespread removal of pedals.
7. FMVSS No. 201, Occupant Protection in Interior Impact
    Standard No. 201 specifies requirements to afford protection to 
vehicle occupants when they strike the interior of the vehicle. While 
we are aware that some modifications could affect the vehicle's 
compliance with the standard, we did not propose extending an exemption 
to the standard. However, we did seek comment on whether the changes in 
upper interior component padding would impinge on a large, wheelchair-
seated driver's line of sight.
    In general, several commenters, including TTI, DaimlerChrysler, 
Ahnafield and Todd Vans, stated that there would be no need to provide 
an exemption as a result of increased padding installed by the original 
manufacturer because dropped floors will place the driver's line of 
sight at the same level as an individual seated in the original vehicle 
seat.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Two commenters, ToddVans and Ahnafield, objected to the 
practice of modifiers raising vehicles off the frame rather than 
lowering the floor. These concerns were not limited to FMVSS No. 
201, although this was the context in which the concerns were 
raised. Rather, their concerns were with the change in the center of 
gravity and driver maneuverability. Raising vehicles off the frame 
does not directly implicate any safety standards. Typically vehicles 
are only raised off the frame a couple of inches. While this could 
raise the vehicle's center of gravity slightly, there is no 
indication that this has a negative effect on vehicle handling or 
that these vehicles are substantially more likely to roll over. 
Additionally, vehicles with dropped floors can also be more 
difficult to handle than the unmodified vehicle, depending on how 
the modification is performed. Dropping vehicle floors can also have 
negative consequences on the vehicle structural integrity and the 
fuel system. Thus, we are unable to state with any confidence that 
one system of modification is preferable to the other.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NMEDA urged us to apply the exemption to wheelchair lifts and ramps 
that are stowed inside the vehicle while the vehicle is in use. 
According to this commenter, vehicles equipped with interior-mounted 
wheelchair lifts or ramps cannot reasonably comply with the standard 
because of the rigid surface of the lifts or ramps that are not 
susceptible to padding. Placing a padded barrier between the lift or 
ramp and the occupant would be unwieldy and likely would not be used. 
While lifts or ramps that stow under the vehicle would not implicate 
FMVSS No. 201, they are generally three times as expensive as systems 
that are stowed inside the vehicle. Thus, NMEDA requested an exemption 
from the standard when the lift or ramp is stowed aft of the vehicle's 
B-pillar.
    We believe NMEDA's concerns are valid and are accommodating those 
concerns in this rule. The exemption applies to vehicles that have 
lifts or ramps that stow inside the vehicle and block the test targets 
called for in the standard. The exemption applies to the following:
     A right- or left-side mounted lift or ramp with a platform 
that stows vertically and inside the vehicle for targets located on the 
right or left side rail, the B-pillar, and the first ``other'' pillar 
(not the A-pillar) adjacent to the stowed platform or ramp.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ These vehicle structural components are listed and defined 
in FMVSS No. 201.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     A rear-mounted lift or ramp with a platform that stows 
vertically and inside the vehicle for targets located on the rear 
header and rearmost pillars adjacent to the stowed platform or ramp.
8. FMVSS No. 202, Head Restraints
    To reduce the frequency and severity of neck injuries in rear-end 
and other collisions, Standard No. 202 requires all vehicles to be 
equipped with a head restraint at each front outboard seating position 
that meets specific size and performance requirements. In the NPRM, we 
proposed to include the standard in the exemption when the vehicle is 
modified for a wheelchair-seated driver or front seat passenger, and no 
other seat for the affected seating position is provided, or when the 
head restraint must be altered to accommodate a driver's impairment. 
The agency solicited comment on whether any wheelchair head rests were 
likely to meet the requirements of the standard.
    All commenters addressing this standard agreed that neither swing 
away head rests or attachable head rests could meet the standard. 
Accordingly, we included the standard as part of the exemption as 
proposed in the NPRM.
9. FMVSS No. 203, Impact Protection for the Driver From the Steering 
Control System, and FMVSS No. 204, Steering Control Rearward 
Displacement
    FMVSS No. 203 serves to reduce the likelihood and severity of head, 
chest,

[[Page 12647]]

neck, and facial injuries that result from impacts with the steering 
wheel. We proposed including S5.1 of the standard as part of the 
exemption if a modification requires a structural change to, or removal 
of, the vehicle steering shaft. Standard No. 204 reduces the likelihood 
and severity of head, chest, neck, and facial injuries that result from 
vehicle components forcing the steering shaft rearward toward the 
driver during a crash. We proposed including this standard in the 
exemption if the modification requires a structural change to, or 
removal of, the vehicle steering shaft. We asked whether the following 
modifications can be performed in a manner that preserves the vehicle's 
compliance with Standard No. 204's steering column displacement 
requirements: (1) the extension of the steering shaft, (2) the 
installation of horizontal steering, or (3) the installation of 
mechanical hand controls. We also sought comment on whether there are 
modifications which require changes to the steering column but not the 
steering shaft that could only be made in such a way as to affect the 
vehicle's compliance with either FMVSS No. 203 or FMVSS No. 204.
    The Connecticut Department of Motor Vehicles stated that FMVSS No. 
204 should not be exempted since there is no need to remove the lower 
steering shaft in newer systems and when the entire steering column is 
removed, the method of attachment is not robust enough to allow the 
column to transmit sufficient forces to fail FMVSS No. 204. However, 
both TTI and Ahnafield supported including the standard as part of the 
proposed exemption. According to TTI, servo steering adaptations may 
require the removal of the OEM steering column and associated 
equipment. Servo steering units are replacing horizontal steering 
columns in some areas of the country. Ahnafield remarked that 
horizontal steering systems may affect compliance with the standard. 
Ahnafield also requested an exemption for S5.2 of Standard No. 203, 
which restricts the likelihood that jewelry or loose clothing will be 
caught by the steering control, pointing out that jewelry can become 
caught on steering wheel-mounted steering control devices.
    Notwithstanding the comment from the Connecticut Department of 
Motor Vehicles, we have decided to include S5.1 of FMVSS No. 203 and 
FMVSS No. 204, in its entirety, as part of the exemption. This is 
because other commenters indicated that at least some current market 
designs for adaptive steering systems do affect compliance with the 
standards. We do not believe that the steering column should be 
replaced with a non-compliant column except in the most extraordinary 
circumstances since the replacement of the column alone can generally 
be done in a manner that does not run afoul of the standards. Thus, the 
exemption is restricted to cases where the modification involves the 
removal of the steering shaft, rather than the steering column alone. 
In instances where the steering shaft must be removed, we will allow 
the modifier to also replace the steering column. This is because a 
modification that requires the removal of the steering shaft is so 
drastic that there is no way to effect the modification without taking 
the steering column out of compliance with the standards.
    We have decided to include S5.2 of FMVSS No. 203 in the exemption 
as well. Some steering control devices are inherently incompatible with 
loose jewelry and clothing. We do not believe that a device that could 
catch loose clothing and jewelry is necessarily a poor design choice 
for individuals with certain disabilities. Since these steering control 
devices cannot be installed without running afoul of S5.2, we believe 
an exemption is appropriate in cases in which an item of adaptive 
equipment must be mounted on the steering wheel.
10. FMVSS No. 207, Seating Systems
    To minimize the likelihood that a seat will collapse during a 
collision, FMVSS No. 207 requires vehicle seats to meet certain 
performance, installation, and attachment requirements. In the NPRM, we 
proposed to include S4.1 of the standard in the exemption when the 
vehicle is modified for a wheelchair seated driver and no other seat 
for that seating position is provided and a wheelchair securement 
device is supplied for that seating position. S4.1 requires that a 
compliant driver's seat be provided with the vehicle. Removing seats 
other than the driver's seat to replace the seat with a wheelchair 
location does not make inoperative FMVSS No. 207, because no other 
seats are specifically required by the standard and wheelchairs are not 
regulated as vehicle seats.
    DaimlerChrysler stated that the exemption should also be given for 
passenger seats. We have not proposed to do so because the standard 
does not require that the vehicle come equipped with any seats other 
than one for the driver.
    MossRehab agreed with our assessment in the NPRM that 6-way power 
base seats do not need an exemption because the base of the seat should 
be attached to the floor. It did question, however, whether the seat 
portion would remain on its base. We do not believe an exemption for 6-
way power seat base is appropriate because the seat manufacturer should 
be able to assure that the seat does not separate from the vehicle. 
Likewise, the seating portion of the seat should remain attached to the 
base portion of the seat. Accordingly, we are limiting inclusion of 
FMVSS No. 207 in the exemption to S4.1, given a wheelchair securement 
device is supplied for the driver seating position, as proposed in the 
NPRM.
11. FMVSS No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection
    The purpose of FMVSS No. 208 is to reduce the number of vehicle 
occupant injuries incurred in a collision. We recommended including the 
standard in the exemption as long as Type 2 or Type 2A seat belts 
meeting the requirements of FMVSS No. 209 are installed. An exemption 
would not be available if a retrofit air bag on-off switch was 
sufficient to accommodate the individual's disability. NHTSA sought 
comment from lowered floor minivan alterers on whether they have been 
able to certify compliance with the standard and from hand control 
operators on whether the original components installed to meet the 
standard (e.g., knee bolsters) are made inoperative by the installation 
of the hand controls. Finally, we sought comment from modifiers on how 
often they are required to disable seat belt pretensioners and why.
    Comments focused on two separate requirements of the standard: air 
bags and knee bolsters. MossRehab stated that there are many situations 
in which drivers cannot position themselves far enough away from the 
air bag to avoid injury. Individuals who use hand controls to operate 
acceleration and braking may sit much closer to the wheel than is 
typical. According to Ahnafield, people with limited mobility do not 
need to sit close to the steering wheel; they can use remote devices. 
Independent Mobility Systems stated that there should not be a blanket 
inclusion of FMVSS No. 208 in the exemption, since able-bodied 
individuals would lose the benefit of the occupant protection system. 
It argued that an exemption for FMVSS No. 208 should be limited to a 
seating position occupied by a wheelchair. We believe this comment was 
directed primarily to the deactivation of the air bags.
    Commenters noted that generally the installation of hand controls 
requires the removal of some part of the knee bolster. TTI maintained 
that careful

[[Page 12648]]

selection of mechanical hand controls and installation should eliminate 
or significantly reduce the amount of knee bolster removal. The 
California Department of Rehabilitation noted that the risk of injury 
from the hand control could be greater than the risk of injury from a 
compromised knee bolster. Crow River, NMEDA, and Independent Mobility 
Systems also favored an exemption from the performance requirements 
governing femur loads because of the need to modify knee bolsters in 
vehicles equipped with hand controls.
    As discussed in the NPRM, only some portions of FMVSS No. 208 would 
be included in the exemption, and the exemption would only apply in 
instances where a retrofit air bag on-off switch cannot accommodate the 
individual's disability and the modified seating position is provided 
with Type 2 or Type 2A safety belts that meet the requirements of FMVSS 
Nos. 209 and 210.
    Because of this rule, individuals who need modifications that 
include, but are not limited to, the installation of an air bag on-off 
switch or the permanent disconnection of the air bag do not need to 
first request permission from the agency under its existing processes 
for authorizing on-off switches or permanent deactivation. That 
permission is given here. However, with the limited exceptions 
discussed below, individuals who do not require additional vehicle 
modifications because of a recognized disability, e.g., short-statured 
individuals or the elderly, must continue to submit those requests. The 
only exceptions to this policy are for drivers with achondroplasia, and 
for passengers with atlantoaxial instability. We are not requiring 
prior agency authorization for these conditions because they are two of 
the four conditions that physicians at a National Medical Conference on 
evaluating air bag risks determined would always justify the 
deactivation of an air bag.\15\ The other two conditions, scoliosis and 
Down's Syndrome, are not subject to the exception because not all 
individuals with these conditions are likely to face an increased risk 
from a deploying air bag. These individuals, as well as any individual 
whose treating physician recommends deactivation because of a specific 
medical condition, remain eligible for permanent air bag deactivation 
upon written request to the agency when no on-off switch is available.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ The report from this conference may be viewed at the NHTSA 
web site at http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We note that air bag on-off switches will no longer be allowed 
after September 1, 2012 for individuals other than those who are 
entitled to take advantage of this rule's exemption.
12. FMVSS No. 214, Side Impact Protection
    Standard No. 214's requirements serve to minimize the risk of 
serious or fatal injuries to vehicle occupants in side impact 
collisions. In the NPRM, we proposed to include S5 of the standard in 
the exemption. This paragraph details the dynamic performance 
requirements that vehicles must meet in order to comply with the 
standard. We requested comments on whether there were modifications, 
other than those that change the seat position, that would affect a 
vehicle's compliance with the dynamic performance requirements of the 
standard.
    Only one commenter, NMEDA, responded to this request. It stated 
that modifications would not necessarily reduce door strength to an 
extent that the strength requirement of the standard could not be met. 
However, the controls or displays could be positioned between the 
driver and the side of the vehicles such that the thoracic injury 
criteria of S5.1 could not be met. Likewise, for rear seat occupants, a 
stowed lift could fail the standard's injury criteria.
    We are limiting the exemption to instances where the restraint 
system or the seat must be changed to accommodate a person with a 
disability. We believe the exemption is appropriate in this instance 
because the change in the location of the seat or in the restraint 
system could affect the measurement of the injury criteria specified in 
the standard. We do not believe it is necessary to include the standard 
in the exemption to accommodate equipment mounted between the driver 
and the door (such as touch pads), because this equipment is generally 
light and would not be likely to cause the chest injuries that the 
standard seeks to prevent. We also note that FMVSS No. 214 already 
excludes vehicles with wheelchair lifts from the requirements of S3(f) 
and S5. Thus, an exemption for vehicles equipped with wheelchair lifts 
is unnecessary.

E. Standards for Which Permission Is Not Granted To Make Safety 
Features Inoperative

1. Standards Which Could Be Compromised by Vehicle Modifications
    A detailed discussion of the types of vehicle modifications that 
could affect a vehicle's conformance with a specific safety standard 
can be found in the NPRM. Unless expressly addressed in the responses 
to that document, we will not describe those systems again here.
    a. FMVSS No. 102, Transmission lever sequence, starter interlock, 
and transmission braking effect. FMVSS No. 102 requires automatic 
transmissions to have: (1) A specified transmission shift lever 
sequence, (2) a starter interlock, and (3) at least one low gear. We 
solicited comment on whether modifications to the method by which the 
vehicle is started and the transmission gear is selected are necessary 
to accommodate a person with a disability.
    NMEDA replied that it is aware of one touchpad system where the 
transmission shifter is located in the keypad which could change the 
sequence, disable the starter interlock, or disable the lower forward 
drive gear. We have decided against including Standard No. 102 as part 
of the exemption because we believe that the existence of a single, 
noncomplying system is insufficient to justify an exemption to the 
standard. Other, complying systems are available. We also note that 
merely placing the shifter on a touchpad does not make the original 
equipment inoperative. As stated in our withdrawal of rulemaking on 
this standard in November 1999, ``Standard No. 102 only specifies a 
sequence for shift `levers.' Therefore, possible automatic transmission 
designs like pushbuttons, keypads, and touch screens are not subject to 
the shift lever sequence requirements, since they have no levers.''
    b. FMVSS No. 103, Windshield defrosting and defogging systems, and 
FMVSS No. 104, Windshield wiping and washing systems. FMVSS No. 103 and 
FMVSS No. 104 specify requirements for the area of the windshield that 
must be cleared by the defrosting and defogging systems and the 
windshield wiping and washing systems, respectively. As noted in the 
NPRM, vehicle modifications commonly result in the relocation of 
switches and a reduction in the features normally available to the 
driver while the vehicle is in motion. We are unaware of any reason why 
a modification would affect the performance level of these systems to 
the extent that a vehicle no longer complied with these standards. We 
received no comments on the NPRM indicating that there was, in fact, a 
need for an exemption. Accordingly, we are not including these 
standards.
    c. FMVSS No. 105, Hydraulic brake systems, and FMVSS No. 121, Air 
brake systems. Standard No. 105 and Standard No. 121 govern the 
performance of various braking systems in different

[[Page 12649]]

types of vehicles. Standard No. 105 applies to multipurpose passenger 
vehicles (MPVs), trucks, buses and passenger cars with hydraulic brake 
systems that were manufactured before September 1, 2000. Standard No. 
121 applies to trucks, buses and trailers equipped with air brake 
systems. Like Standard No. 135, these two standards help ensure safe 
vehicle braking performance in normal and emergency driving situations. 
In the NPRM, we sought comment on whether there are brake modifications 
that incapacitate the original brake controls and would affect the 
vehicle's compliance in any of the required performance tests. We were 
particularly interested in learning whether the use of a joy stick 
prevented an able-bodied driver from using the original brake pedal and 
whether either a joy stick or a power assist affects the vehicle's 
braking potential during the specified performance tests.
    Our discussion of braking systems, as well as our summary of the 
comments submitted to the NPRM, are provided earlier in the discussion 
on FMVSS No. 135. Unlike that standard, neither of these standards 
require a foot control. Accordingly, no exemption is needed.
    d. FMVSS No. 111, Rearview mirrors. To ensure that drivers have a 
clear and unobstructed view to the rear of the vehicle, Standard No. 
111 specifies the location, field of view, magnification and labeling 
of rearview mirrors on all vehicles. Crow River commented that a 
modifier may need an exemption if the placement of the driver, due to 
modifications, changes the driver's field of view through the rearview 
mirror. When mirrors are relocated, extra mirrors are added, or larger 
mirrors are substituted for the original rear view mirrors when 
vehicles are modified for persons with disabilities, NHTSA does not 
believe these modifications should affect the vehicle's certification 
with the standard. Additionally, NHTSA does not believe that such a 
modification is advisable since it could unduly restrict the driver's 
field of view. Accordingly, no provision is being made to include FMVSS 
No. 111 in the exemption.
    e. FMVSS No. 113, Hood latch systems. Standard No. 113 requires 
that cars, MPVs, trucks and buses have a second latch position on the 
hood latch system to prevent the hood from unlatching, opening, and 
blocking a driver's view through the windshield. As stated in the NPRM, 
we are not aware of any modifications that are made to the hood latch 
system, although we realize that the method of unlatching the system 
may sometimes need to be modified. We asked whether there are 
modifications that would require eliminating the second latch position 
in contravention of the standard. We received no comments on this 
issue. Accordingly, we have decided against including this standard in 
the exemption.
    f. FMVSS No. 124, Accelerator control systems. Standard No. 124 is 
intended to help prevent runaway acceleration of vehicles. The standard 
requires a vehicle's throttle to return to its idle position when the 
driver withdraws all force from the accelerator control or when there 
is a disconnection in the accelerator system between the control and 
the engine. The predominant vehicle modification affecting compliance 
with this standard is the removal or blocking of the accelerator pedal 
when the driver uses hand controls. The standard does not require a 
foot pedal serve as the accelerator.
    DaimlerChrysler noted that it is aware of complete servocontrol 
systems that use a joystick that may preclude the use of the 
accelerator pedal and require its removal. We believe that this 
situation is directly analogous to brake pedals and the requirements of 
FMVSS Nos. 105 and 121. For the same reasons provided in the discussion 
of those standards, we do not believe an exemption is needed. 
Additionally, we note that systems where the hand-operated control 
bypasses the original accelerator and the modified accelerator cannot 
meet the requirements of the standard, an exemption would be 
inappropriate because the driver may be unable to stop the vehicle.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See NHTSA letter of legal interpretation to Senne, Kelsey & 
Associates, Inc., dated 3/26/1999.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    g. FMVSS No. 206, Door locks and door retention components. To 
minimize the likelihood that vehicle occupants will be ejected from a 
vehicle during a crash, Standard No. 206 requires hinged side doors, 
rear doors and sliding doors to meet certain performance requirements. 
It also requires hinged side door latches to have both a primary 
latching position and a secondary latching position.
    All commenters who responded to the portion of the NPRM addressing 
this standard except DaimlerChrysler argued that an exemption should be 
allowed for the standard. DaimlerChrysler stated that the use of 
existing occupant restraints is more important in reducing the 
likelihood of ejection than a compliant door latch. Some electrically 
and remotely operated door systems do not retain the original latch/
locking mechanism. However, there are some power-operated door lock/
latch systems that are coupled with the OEM latch/lock systems; 
accordingly, no exemption is needed. The standard currently has an 
exclusion for side doors equipped with platform lifts as long as the 
lifts are linked with an alarm system. We sought comment in the NPRM on 
whether the original latching mechanisms must be disabled or changed in 
the course of vehicle modifications in a manner that takes them out of 
compliance with the standard.
    TTI stated that all the sliding door or swinging door automatic 
openers that it has encountered on full-size van conversions involve 
the removal of or making inoperative the OEM latches. The doors are 
held shut by the cable, chain or actuator arms of the automatic door 
opener (the minivan conversions retain the OEM latch in some form). TTI 
does not know if these systems are as effective as the OEM latches. 
However, for independent driving, an automatic door opener is crucial.
    NMEDA commented that all after-market automatic door openers 
require the removal of the OEM systems. The OEM automatic door openers 
are not yet available to modifiers. In the same vein, Crow River 
suggested a temporary exemption to allow for the retooling of existing 
automatic door openers.
    The California Department of Transportation stated that NHTSA 
should include FMVSS No. 206 in the list of exempted standards, because 
no aftermarket door openers retain the OEM latch. This commenter 
believes that the fact that no one has presented any evidence that 
discarding the door latch is necessary to the installation of an 
automatic door opener is not a good reason to deny the exemption for 
this standard. It also argued that the current exemption for doors 
equipped with platform lifts that have alarm systems is misguided since 
it offers no guarantee that there will not be an ejection.
    We are evaluating the current exclusion in FMVSS No. 206 regarding 
side doors with lifts. Part of this evaluation includes the pending 
petition to extend the exclusion to vehicles with ramps. We are not 
addressing that exclusion in this rule. We have decided against 
allowing a broader exclusion from Standard No. 206 as part of this 
rulemaking even though several commenters support such an exclusion. 
The primary purpose of the standard is to prevent ejections from 
vehicles. Currently, ejection through windows or doors accounts for 
nearly 25% of all motor vehicle fatalities.
    We agree with DaimlerChrysler that extending the exemption to FMVSS 
No. 206 would be inappropriate. While most of the existing 
modifications to vehicle doors may take the vehicle out of

[[Page 12650]]

compliance with the standard, the current performance requirements for 
Standard No. 206 are not onerous. Additionally, we are very concerned 
about the risk of an ejection should a door latch and/or hinge system 
fail. Finally, we are aware of remote access designs being developed by 
vehicle manufacturers that would allow vehicle modifications that do 
not take the vehicle out of compliance with the standard. Accordingly, 
we do not believe an exemption would be consistent with motor vehicle 
safety. We recognize that many automatic door opener manufacturers will 
need to retool their products if they wish to continue selling them. 
However, developing the necessary technology should not be difficult 
and best serves the need for motor vehicle safety. Thus, other than the 
exclusion that is already contained within FMVSS No. 206, we do not 
believe an exemption is warranted.
    h. FMVSS No. 209, seat belt assemblies. This standard sets out 
requirements for seat belt assemblies as items of motor vehicle 
equipment. We did not propose to include Standard No. 209 as part of 
the exemption in the NPRM since we saw no reason that modifiers could 
not use compliant assemblies. Simply moving the belt anchors or using a 
different belt does not necessarily cause a noncompliance with FMVSS 
No. 209 or FMVSS No. 210. We received no comment regarding this issue 
and are not including the standard in the exemption.
    i. FMVSS No. 210, Seat belt assembly anchorages. Standard No. 210 
is a vehicle standard that establishes strength and location 
requirements for seat belt assembly anchorages. The requirements ensure 
that the belt loads during a crash are transferred to the skeleton of 
the occupant and not to the occupant's soft tissue. The standard also 
ensures that the restraint anchorages are strong enough to withstand a 
crash. Like FMVSS No. 206, compliance with this standard is fairly 
simple to measure. We did not propose including this standard in the 
exemption in the NPRM because we believed that if belt anchorages are 
moved, or otherwise modified to accommodate a person with a disability, 
measurements, calculations, or engineering judgment could be used to 
ensure that the standard continues to be met.
    Only TTI commented on this section of the notice, commenting that 
it was not always possible for wheelchair users to use the original 
safety belt. As noted in the NPRM, compliance with this standard is 
easily demonstrated. Accordingly, no exemption is warranted.
    j. FMVSS No. 216, Roof crush resistance. FMVSS No. 216 is intended 
to reduce the number of deaths and injuries caused by a roof crushing 
into the vehicle cabin during a rollover. As explained in the NPRM, we 
do not believe it is necessary for a raised roof to be installed in a 
manner that takes the vehicle out of compliance with the standard. 
However, we requested comment on whether there are raised roofs that 
must be installed in a way that adversely affects the vehicle's 
compliance with the standard or if there are ways to raise the roof 
other than through the installation of a commercially-made raised roof.
    NMEDA commented that the available replacement roofs that it is 
aware of do not assure compliance with FMVSS No. 216. However, 
reinforcements can be added that would not take the raised roof out of 
compliance. According to TTI, many vocational rehabilitation agencies 
require raised roofs to be supplemented by a reinforced structure under 
the roof. However, the California Department of Rehabilitation 
cautioned that the added weight to raised roofs to prevent roof crush 
creates handling problems that should not be discounted.
    Our Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance has done one demonstration 
test using the FMVSS No. 216 compliance test on a conversion van that 
was fitted with a fiberglass roof and that did not have a reinforcing 
cage. The vehicle was able to pass the test. Accordingly, we do not 
believe it is necessary to include this standard in the exemption.
    k. FMVSS No. 301, Fuel system integrity and FMVSS No. 303, Fuel 
system integrity of compressed natural gas vehicles. To reduce deaths 
and injuries occurring from fires caused by leaking fuel during and 
after a crash, Standard No. 301 and Standard No. 303 set performance 
requirements for fuel systems in crashes. Preserving fuel system 
integrity in a crash to prevent occupant exposure to fire is extremely 
important to all persons, but perhaps even more so for persons with 
disabilities since they may require more time to exit a vehicle. 
Accordingly, we did not propose including these standards in the 
exemption even though we know some vehicle modifications could take a 
vehicle out of compliance with the applicable standard.
    Congressman John Moakley wrote that exemptions should not be 
allowed for modifications to fuel systems that would take a vehicle out 
of compliance because conversions can be performed that do not affect 
the alteration of the fuel system. Likewise, NMEDA commented that no 
exemption should be offered for FMVSS Nos. 301 and 303 because the 
process of moving the fuel tank, supply lines, and filler neck while 
lowering a floor can compromise compliance with the standards. 
Ahnafield claimed that there have never been any reported or documented 
problems with the fuel system modifications that have been made by the 
industry so far. We continue to believe that including Standard Nos. 
301 and 303 in the exemption is inappropriate.
    l. FMVSS No. 302, Flammability of interior materials. Like Standard 
No. 301 and Standard No. 303, FMVSS No. 302 is designed to reduce the 
likelihood of death or injury from fires. In order to reduce this risk, 
particularly from fires that originate in the vehicle's interior, 
Standard No. 302 specifies that any material within one-half inch of 
the occupant compartment air space meet specified flammability 
requirements. Materials meeting the standard are readily available and 
the standard's test procedure is relatively easy. Accordingly, we did 
not propose to provide an exemption to this standard.
    We received no comments suggesting that an exemption was either 
needed or appropriate. Accordingly, we are not including the standard 
in this rule.
2. Standards Which Are Unaffected by Vehicle Modifications
    We believe the following safety standards are unaffected by any 
vehicle modifications needed to accommodate an individual with a 
disability. None of the commenters to the NPRM indicated that these 
standards could be so affected. These standards are not subject to an 
exemption from the make inoperative provision: FMVSS No. 106, Brake 
hoses; FMVSS No. 109, New pneumatic tires; FMVSS No. 110, Tire 
selection and rims; FMVSS No. 116, Motor vehicle brake fluids; FMVSS 
No. 117, Retreaded pneumatic tires; FMVSS No. 119, New pneumatic tires 
for vehicles other than passenger cars; FMVSS No. 120, Tire selection 
and rims for vehicles other than passenger cars; FMVSS No. 122, 
Motorcycle brake systems; FMVSS No. 125, Warning devices; FMVSS No. 
129, New non-pneumatic tires for passenger cars; FMVSS No. 131, School 
bus pedestrian safety devices; FMVSS No. 205, Glazing materials; FMVSS 
No. 212, Windshield mounting; FMVSS No. 213, Child restraint systems; 
FMVSS No. 217, Bus emergency exits and window retention and release; 
FMVSS No. 218, Motorcycle helmets; FMVSS No. 219, Windshield zone 
intrusion; FMVSS No.

[[Page 12651]]

220, School bus rollover protection; FMVSS No. 221, School bus body 
joint strength; FMVSS No. 222, School bus passenger seating and crash 
protection; FMVSS No. 223, Rear impact guards; FMVSS No. 224, Rear 
impact protection; FMVSS No. 225, Child restraint anchorage systems; 
and FMVSS No. 304, Compressed natural gas fuel container integrity.

F. Modifications not Contemplated by the Final Rule

    In the NPRM, we stated that we intended to preserve our existing 
procedure for making case-by-case determinations on whether to waive 
enforcement against modifications that would not be subject to the 
exemption under final rule and that could not be made in a manner that 
did not compromise the vehicle's compliance with the standards. NMEDA 
and Advocates for Ohioans with Disabilities agreed that we need to 
provide some mechanism that will allow for adaptations not contemplated 
by the NPRM. We have decided to continue to review these individual 
requests upon written submission. All requests should be submitted as 
early as possible, since the agency will need time to review the 
request and draft an appropriate response.

G. Gross Vehicle Weight Ratings

    Gross vehicle weight ratings (GVWR) are not controlled by any 
specific standard. However, the requirements of a given standard may 
vary depending on a vehicle's GVWR. Only the vehicle manufacturer can 
specify GVWR. Often vehicle modifications can significantly add to a 
vehicle's ``unloaded vehicle weight'' and therefore can reduce the load 
carrying capacity of a vehicle. Consumers would likely not realize, and 
often are not told, that the load carrying capacity of their vehicle, 
in terms of passengers, luggage, and routine cargo, has been reduced by 
the vehicle modifications. Overloading can lead to premature wear of 
vehicle components and can create significant safety problems. 
Accordingly, the modifier must provide the consumer with specific 
information about the load carrying capacity of the vehicle after the 
modifications are completed if that load carrying capacity has been 
reduced by more than 220 pounds (100 kg). In providing this 
information, the modifier must state whether the weight of a user's 
wheelchair is included in the available load capacity.

H. Applicability of Exemptions to Commercial Vehicles

    Two commenters raised concerns that were unique to commercial 
vehicles. Congressman John Moakley wrote that commercial vehicles 
should only be allowed to transport passengers using SAE-compliant 
wheelchairs that are tested in the specific conversion in which they 
will be used. Suspension Compression Systems strongly disagreed with 
including any standard in the exemption that affects the front seat 
passenger seat position in commercial applications, in particular FMVSS 
Nos. 201, 202 and 208, averring that the front seat occupant has not 
made a conscious choice to trade off safety benefits for increased 
mobility. We do not believe there is a need to exclude commercial 
vehicles from the exemption created by this rule.
    Most commercial vehicles used for transporting persons with 
disabilities can be altered prior to their first retail sale since 
there is no need to fit the vehicle for a specific individual. In such 
a case, there is no exemption from any standards. In instances in which 
the vehicle is modified after the first retail sale, we believe that 
prohibiting modifiers from utilizing the exemption because of the 
commercial/personal use status of the vehicle is unworkable. Such a 
prohibition would place the onus on the modifier rather than the owner 
to determine how the vehicle would be used. Additionally, we note that 
Congressman Moakley's suggestion would require that each commercial 
vehicle come with SAE-compliant wheelchairs since the vehicle operator 
would have no other way of guaranteeing that passengers have such 
wheelchairs. Such a requirement would seriously limit the amount of 
space available in the vehicle since the passengers' personal 
wheelchair would have to be stowed somewhere on the vehicle. Likewise, 
prohibiting wheelchair passengers in the front seat reduces the 
carrying capacity of the vehicle. As a general matter, occupants are 
safer in the back seat than the front seat. However, there is no 
indication that a passenger seated in a wheelchair to the rear of the 
B-pillar is at any greater risk from whiplash, the condition 
contemplated by FMVSS No. 202, than a front seat occupant. Proper use 
of tie-down devices and safety belts would help ameliorate any 
additional risk for a wheelchair-seated occupant in the right front 
seating position as compared to a wheelchair-seated occupant in a rear 
seating position, particularly when the passenger air bag has been 
disabled pursuant to the exemption for FMVSS No. 208.

III. Prescriptions, Labeling, and Recordkeeping Requirements

A. Prescriptions and Professional Evaluations

    In the NPRM, we noted that an occupational therapist or other 
trained professional often evaluates the driving capabilities of a 
person with a disability and then writes a prescription detailing 
needed vehicle modifications. We did not contemplate specifying who was 
qualified to make a determination of driving ability. We did, however, 
ask several questions regarding current industry practice in conducting 
of driver evaluations and the use of prescriptions, and regarding 
whether such prescriptions assist in ensuring that only necessary 
modifications are made. The purpose underlying the questions was to 
determine whether we should require vehicle modifiers to keep a record 
of vehicle and equipment prescriptions to induce the modifiers to take 
care that modifications for persons with disabilities are completed in 
a manner that truly meets the particular individual's needs without any 
unnecessary modifications and to discourage modifiers from 
circumventing the requirements of the various safety standards.
    Two issues, whether a prescription should be required as a 
condition of the exemption and who should be considered to be qualified 
to write that prescription, produced the greatest divergence in opinion 
among the commenters. Comments on those issues were received from 
occupational therapists, vehicle modifiers, certified driver 
rehabilitation specialists, NADA, and one state.
    Those supporting mandatory prescriptions argued that an exemption 
from Federal motor vehicle safety standard requirements should be 
provided only when vehicle modifications are absolutely necessary. They 
stated that the determination of what modifications are necessary is 
typically done by means of a driver evaluation and prescription for 
driving equipment provided by a qualified specialist. The commenters 
averred that the most appropriate person to evaluate an individual 
desiring vehicle modifications is a trained driver evaluator. Noting 
that the technology currently available for use by persons with 
disabilities to drive independently or to ride safely as a passenger in 
a vehicle is advancing and constantly changing and improving, the 
commenters argued that trained

[[Page 12652]]

individuals are needed to keep up with the technology and how that 
technology can best be used. Commenters supporting this view were the 
American Occupational Therapy Association, ADED, and NMEDA, among 
others.
    According to ADED, a certified driver rehabilitation specialist is 
such a trained individual. The American Occupational Therapy 
Association advocated that prescriptions be issued by either 
occupational therapists or certified driver rehabilitation specialists. 
It maintained that occupational therapists are adequately qualified to 
make driver evaluations based on their specialized training regardless 
of whether they are certified driver rehabilitation specialists. 
However, individuals in other professional disciplines may also be 
qualified to make an evaluation if they have completed the training 
required to become certified.
    Those opposed to mandatory prescriptions, primarily modifiers, but 
also some representatives of state organizations and persons with 
disability advocacy groups, argued that excluding individuals who are 
not certified driving rehabilitation specialists from evaluating and 
prescribing vehicle modifications would unnecessarily increase the 
burden on the disabled community, increasing costs and limiting access 
to needed vehicle modifications (particularly in rural areas). They 
said that prescriptions, while helpful to many disabled individuals 
unaware of current technology, should not be required as a condition 
for a make inoperative exemption. These commenters claimed that driving 
capability evaluations and prescriptions are unnecessary to limit 
modifications to individuals who need them because it is unlikely that 
an able-bodied individual would have a vehicle modified as contemplated 
by the NPRM so as to avoid mandated safety measures. Access Wheels, a 
modifier, commented that prescriptions are rarely used and then only to 
justify the payment of the modification costs by a third party. It then 
stated that sophisticated modifications generally are the result of a 
professional determination of driver capability in large part because 
of the exceptionally high cost of such modifications. It stated also 
that the vast majority of modifications involve relatively simple, and 
less expensive vehicle alterations, and thus are modifications for 
which professional evaluations of capabilities are unnecessary.
    NADA did not take any position on whether prescriptions were 
needed, stating that prescriptions, evaluations, or other reports 
should be provided to the modifier, consistent with current practice. 
It went on to say that a NHTSA-approved customer request process is not 
needed. The Connecticut Department of Motor Vehicles noted that some 
states require prescriptions. For those that do not, it believes 
requiring an individual without a prescription to receive permission 
from NHTSA is not onerous.
    After evaluating the comments and based on our own knowledge of the 
industry, we conclude that it is unlikely that persons without 
disabilities will try to take advantage of the exemptions in today's 
final rule because they are so narrowly written and because of the 
expense of such modifications. Additionally, given the current practice 
in the industry not to require or rely on prescriptions for relatively 
simple and inexpensive modifications, we see no need to add an 
additional burden to an already time-consuming and expensive process.

B. Labeling Requirements and Customer Information

    We did not propose any specific requirements for labels, customer 
information, or recordkeeping in the NPRM. However, we solicited 
comment on whether such requirements were needed to aid disabled 
persons or regulations enforcement personnel and what burden such 
requirements might place on modifiers, who are largely small 
businesses.
    Several commenters, including NMEDA, the Connecticut Department of 
Motor Vehicles, and NADA, stated that labels identifying the work 
performed on the vehicle should be required so that questions of future 
modifiers/repair businesses about how the work was done can be 
answered. Access Wheels maintained that labeling is an unnecessary 
burden. It said that it had never seen a modification that was not 
immediately apparent. Also, anyone selling a modified vehicle would 
likely advertise the modifications rather than attempt to hide them, 
since this would allow them to recover some of the cost of the 
modifications.
    We have decided to require a label stating that the vehicle has 
been modified pursuant to the exemption in part 595 and may no longer 
comply with all safety standards and providing the name and street 
address of the modifier. This label, which is to be affixed to the 
vehicle directly adjacent to the manufacturer or alterer's 
certification label in the same manner as that label, will allow repair 
businesses and subsequent owners to determine who modified the vehicle. 
The persons can contact the modifier if they have questions about the 
specific nature of the work performed and the potential safety 
consequences of that work. We are requiring a street address, instead 
of a post office box, to assist in locating the modifier through the 
Internet or directory assistance. We are not requiring modifiers to 
indicate on the label which exemptions they have taken advantage of 
because we want to keep the label sufficiently small so that it can be 
placed next to the certification label.
    The same commenters who supported labels (e.g., NMEDA, the 
Connecticut Department of Motor Vehicles, NADA, and Advocates) argued 
that requiring modifiers to identify potential safety consequences of 
modifications and tell customers before the work does not seem overly 
burdensome and is already required by at least one state (Connecticut). 
They stated customers should be specifically informed about potentially 
noncompliant, but exempt, modifications, and modifiers should also be 
required to identify any steps they would take to minimize 
noncompliance. Advocates averred that the agency has a responsibility 
to require modifiers to include permanent notification to any 
subsequent owners in the vehicle identifying the specific modifications 
that have been made to that vehicle, the specific safety standards that 
were affected, and the effects that those modifications will have on 
operating safety and vehicle crashworthiness. The Connecticut 
Department of Motor Vehicles stated that such disclosure would clear up 
questions by end users who say they had no idea of the trade-offs and 
accordingly did not make an informed decision.
    Access Wheels argued against such a requirement, stating that 
mandatory disclosure of steps taken to minimize noncompliance would add 
to modifiers' costs and administrative burdens. It stated that other 
factors, such as liability insurance premiums, state motor vehicle 
regulations, funding specifications, and OEM warranty constraints, as 
well as the cost of modifications, dictate that a modifier make as few 
changes to the vehicle as possible.
    We considered three types of owner's manual inserts that could be 
used to provide information to the vehicle user:
    (1) A generic insert describing the most commonly made 
modifications and the possible safety consequences of those 
modifications;
    (2) An insert listing the standards affected by the modifications 
to the particular vehicle; and

[[Page 12653]]

    (3) An insert describing the particular modifications made to that 
particular vehicle.
    We have decided against requiring any type of owner's manual insert 
for several reasons. The information in a generic insert may not apply 
to a particular vehicle and could be confusing. We have also determined 
that the development of a very detailed insert tailored to each 
modified vehicle would be overly burdensome. Additionally, the vehicle 
invoice, which is received once the modifications were performed, often 
provides some details about what modifications were made. As discussed 
earlier, modified vehicles are normally customized for a particular 
individual. Accordingly, we believe persons with disabilities will know 
many of the modifications that will be needed to accommodate their 
particular disabilities. Likewise, in many instances, the effect of the 
modification on an existing system and the safety consequences that the 
modifications will have on crash avoidance and crashworthiness will be 
readily discernible.
    We are, however, requiring modifiers to provide the vehicle owner 
with a list of standards, or portions thereof, with which the vehicle 
may no longer be in compliance due to modifications performed under 
this exemption. This document, which could simply be the invoice, would 
also have to indicate any reduction in load carrying capacity of more 
than 220 pounds (100 kg). The modifier would be required to retain a 
copy of this document for a period of five years.
    Nothing in today's rule precludes a modifier from detailing in 
writing the specific modifications to be performed on the vehicle and 
the potential impact of those modifications on the vehicle's crash 
avoidance and crashworthiness capabilities. We note, however, that 
requiring modifiers to provide detailed information on how each 
modification was performed and what effect the modification could have 
on compliance with applicable safety standards could result in the 
expenditure of a significant amount of time and effort. Such a document 
would have to be tailored to each vehicle, and the cost involved in 
preparing the document would not be spread over a large number of 
vehicles. Thus, the cost, per insert, could be high. Since the cost of 
such labors would likely be passed onto the individual paying for the 
modifications, we believe such a document, while possibly helpful, 
should not be required. This is particularly true when the final 
invoice already generally details what modifications were made to the 
vehicle, as well as the name of the company performing the 
modifications. Because the nature of the modifications could be 
relevant to future purchasers or repair businesses, we urge owners of 
these vehicles to keep the invoice with the vehicle documentation.
    Advocates strongly objected to our decision not to propose 
recordkeeping requirements. It stated that NHTSA must install a system 
of oversight that ensures appropriate and timely review of 
modifications performed pursuant to the proposed rule. Advocates 
maintains that if the agency does not require modifiers to maintain 
records of the vehicles they modify or to notify the agency of such 
modifications, it would not only eliminate any possibility of 
prospective oversight, the exemptions would compromise the legal 
position of members of the disabled community in their ability to rely 
on appropriate documentation of the modifications performed by these 
commercial operations. Advocates went on to charge that NHTSA is 
issuing a blanket exemption which will receive no prospective oversight 
by the agency of the extent to which vehicle modifications have 
undermined the safe travel of disabled persons. They maintained that 
the proposed exemption, in essence, substitutes the vagaries of the 
marketplace in lieu of a comprehensive regulatory approach. While this 
will promote mobility, Advocates is concerned it will not ensure that 
the disabled are accorded the safety protection required by the safety 
standard after a vehicle modification is performed.
    NMEDA offered a counterview, stating that modifiers or owners 
should not have to perform any of the following tasks: fill out written 
requests, certify the need for modifications, certify having read the 
information concerning the safety consequences of modifications, or 
obtain prior agency approval of their requests. According to NMEDA, 
modifiers also should not have to inform the agency that they have made 
modifications or specify what those modifications are. NMEDA did not 
offer any reasons for its position, other than stating such 
requirements would be burdensome.
    We disagree with Advocates' assertion that the rights of the 
disabled community will be compromised by the agency declining to 
establish detailed reporting requirements. As discussed above, nothing 
in today's rule prevents an individual with disabilities from 
requesting and securing documentation detailing both the modifications 
to be performed as well as the potential safety impact of those 
modifications. Additionally, we are requiring modifiers who intend to 
avail themselves of the exemption to provide us with information that 
is similar to the type of information manufacturers are required to 
submit under 49 CFR 566. Under today's rule, these modifiers will be 
required to provide us with a document that provide their name, 
address, and a statement that they modify vehicles for individuals with 
disabilities and intend to avail themselves of the exemption created by 
this rule. Any changes in that information would have to be conveyed to 
the agency within 30 days of the change. This requirement, coupled with 
the requirement that the modifiers retain a document that specifies the 
standards with which the vehicle may no longer be in compliance that 
was discussed above, should guarantee a high degree of accountability 
without straining the resources of the agency or the modifiers.

IV. Regulatory Analyses and Notices

A. Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures

    NHTSA has considered the impact of this rulemaking action under 
Executive Order 12866 and the Department of Transportation's regulatory 
policies and procedures. This rulemaking document was not reviewed 
under E.O. 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and Review'' and is not 
considered ``significant'' within the meaning of the Department of 
Transportation's regulatory policies and procedures. NHTSA has 
determined that the impacts are so minimal that a full regulatory 
evaluation is not warranted.
    The agency believes the safety disbenefits, if any, will be 
minimal. The modifications should not reduce the safety of individuals 
with disabilities since the types of permissible modifications are 
limited. Further, without the modifications, those individuals would 
not be able to operate or ride in motor vehicles, and thus could not 
benefit at all from the Federally-required safety equipment and 
features. Modifying a vehicle to allow disabled individuals to operate 
or ride in motor vehicles may result in some loss of safety for any 
individuals without disabilities who operate or ride in those motor 
vehicles. However, we believe any loss of safety will be minimal. We do 
not expect many individuals without disabilities to use seating 
positions specially modified for persons with disabilities. Further, as 
noted above, the number of affected standards is very small. Finally, 
the number of vehicles so modified will be relatively small.

[[Page 12654]]

    The expected impact of this rule on vehicle modifiers is low. Their 
method and cost of doing business will only be changed to the extent 
that those who are now modifying vehicles in a manner that makes 
mandatory safety equipment inoperable now have clear guidance on which 
modifications are permissible. Some modifiers may have to depart from 
the way in which they have performed various modifications in the past 
to stay within the parameters of the agency's exemption. However, such 
a departure need not always cost more and will minimize any disbenefits 
associated with the fundamentally unsafe nature of the previous method 
of performing the modification. Only nominal costs related to the 
labeling requirements are imposed on vehicle modifiers.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    We have considered the effects of this rulemaking action under the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) Most modifiers are 
considered small entities. I hereby certify that this rule will not 
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities. As explained above, this action replaces the current 
requirement that vehicle modifiers write to NHTSA and request 
permission each time they need to modify a vehicle in a way that 
compromises a vehicle's compliance with any standard in order to 
accommodate an individual with a disability. While most modifiers are 
considered small entities, the rule does not impose any mandatory 
significant impact on them since: (1) For the vast majority of cases, 
we believe the rule codifies existing standard industry practices and 
procedures used to make vehicle modifications, (2) the rule assists 
vehicle modifiers in making appropriate design choices, and (3) the 
rule eliminates the costs associated with submitting a written request 
to NHTSA to modify each vehicle as well as the costs associated with 
waiting for the agency's response. Therefore, a Regulatory Flexibility 
Analysis is not required.

C. National Environmental Policy Act

    NHTSA has analyzed this proposed amendment for the purposes of the 
National Environmental Policy Act and determined that it will not have 
any significant impact on the quality of the human environment.

D. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

    The agency has analyzed this rulemaking in accordance with the 
principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 13132 and has 
determined that it does not have sufficient federalism implications to 
warrant consultation with State and local officials or the preparation 
of a federalism summary impact statement. The final rule has no 
substantial effects on the States, or on the current Federal-State 
relationship, or on the current distribution of power and 
responsibilities among the various local officials.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

F. Executive Order 12778 (Civil Justice Reform)

    This final rule does not have any retroactive effect. The rule does 
not repeal any existing federal law or regulation. Additionally, the 
rule does not preempt any causes of action in state or Federal court. 
The rule modifies existing law only to the extent that it replaces an 
agency procedure under which vehicle modifiers had to obtain our 
permission to modify a vehicle to accommodate a person with a 
disability in a way that compromised the vehicle's compliance with the 
Standard. This rule does not require submission of a petition for 
reconsideration or other administrative proceedings before parties may 
file suit in court.

G. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This final rule includes the following ``collections of 
information,'' as that term is defined in 5 CFR Part 1320 Controlling 
Paperwork Burdens on the Public:
    Labels--New labels are specified in this final rule that specify 
that modifications have been made to a vehicle subject that take the 
vehicle out of conformance with certain safety standards. At present, 
OMB has approved NHTSA's collection of labeling requirements under OMB 
clearance no. 2127-0512, Consolidated Labeling Requirements for Motor 
Vehicles (Except the Vehicle Identification Number). This clearance 
will expire on 6/30/2001, and is cleared for 71,095 burden hours on the 
public.
    For the following reasons, NHTSA estimates that the new labels will 
have a negligible increase in the information collection burden on the 
public. There are approximately 2,295 vehicles modified for persons 
with disabilities per year. The label will be placed on each affected 
vehicle once. Since, in this final rule, NHTSA specifies the exact 
content of the labels, the manufacturers will not have to spend any 
hours in developing the labels. NHTSA estimates the technical burden 
time (time required for affixing labels) to be .0042 hours (15 sec) per 
label. NHTSA estimates that the total annual burden imposed on the 
public as a result of the vehicle modification labels will be 9.6 hours 
(2,295 vehicles multiplied by .0042 hours per label), even if every 
vehicle modified requires a label. The maximum annual cost of labels 
for all affected vehicles will be about $1,150.
    Modifier identification--Modifiers who take advantage of the 
exemption created by this rule will be required to furnish NHTSA with a 
written document providing the modifier's name, address, and telephone 
number, and a statement that the modifier is availing itself of the 
exemption. We are currently seeking OMB review of this collection of 
information, which would not be required until 180 days after the 
publication of this rule in the Federal Register.
    Identification of which portions of the exemption are being used--
Modifiers who avail themselves of the exemption created by today's rule 
will be required to keep a record for each applicable vehicle listing 
which standards, or portions thereof, no longer comply with the Federal 
motor vehicle safety standards. We are currently seeking OMB review of 
this collection of information.

H. Regulation Identifier Number (RIN)

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

I. Plain Language

    Executive Order 12866 and the President's memorandum of June 1, 
1998, require each agency to write all rules in plain language. Because 
this rule codifies exceptions to certain

[[Page 12655]]

portions of specific Federal motor vehicle safety standards, it is 
written in such a way that cross-references to the affected portions of 
those standards are given. We believe that this is the most efficient 
way to reference the standards and that this method also provides the 
most clarity as to which safety requirements are exempted as a result 
of this rule.

J. Executive Order 13045

    Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any 
rule that: (1) is determined to be ``economically significant'' as 
defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental, 
health or safety risk that NHTSA has reason to believe may have a 
disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets 
both criteria, we must evaluate the environmental health or safety 
effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the planned 
regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably 
feasible alternatives considered by us.
    As noted earlier, this rule is not economically significant. 
Additionally, this rule will not have a disproportionate effect on 
children. This rulemaking directly involves decisions based on health 
risks that affect children only to the extent that a child is the 
intended benefactor of the vehicle modification. The majority of 
exemptions provided pursuant to this rule affect drivers who have a 
disability. Some of the exemptions accommodate the special needs of 
vehicle passengers. To the extent the passenger is a child, there may 
be some safety disbenefit for that child. However, this disbenefit is 
weighed against the benefit of allowing the child to leave the house in 
a family's personal conveyance. Absent modifications, the child might 
not be able to ride at all.

K. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act (NTTAA) requires NHTSA to evaluate and use existing voluntary 
consensus standards \17\ in its regulatory activities unless doing so 
would be inconsistent with applicable law (e.g., the statutory 
provisions regarding NHTSA's vehicle safety authority) or otherwise 
impractical. In meeting that requirement, we are required to consult 
with voluntary, private sector, consensus standards bodies. Examples of 
organizations generally regarded as voluntary consensus standards 
bodies include the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM), 
the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE), and the American National 
Standards Institute (ANSI). If NHTSA does not use available and 
potentially applicable voluntary consensus standards, we are required 
by the Act to provide Congress, through OMB, an explanation of the 
reasons for not using such standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards 
developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. 
Technical standards are defined by the NTTAA as ``performance-based 
or design-specific technical specifications and related management 
systems practices.'' They pertain to ``products and processes, such 
as size, strength, or technical performance of a product, process or 
material.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This rule is procedural in nature and does not adopt any standards, 
consensus-based or otherwise. In the preamble to this rule, we have 
noted that SAE standards and industry guidelines do exist that may 
assist a modifier in determining how to perform a modification that 
minimizes any negative impact on safety.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 595

    Disability, Imports, Motor vehicle safety, Motor vehicles.

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, NHTSA is amending Part 
595 of Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

PART 595--EXEMPTIONS FROM THE MAKE INOPERATIVE PROHIBITION

    1. The authority citation for part 595 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117, 30122, and 30166; 
delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.


    2. Part 595 is amended by revising Secs. 595.1 and 595.2, 
designating Secs. 595.1 through 595.4 as Subpart A--``General'', 
designating Sec. 595.5 as Subpart B--``Retrofit On-Off Switches for Air 
Bags'', and adding a Subpart C 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 may be made inoperative.


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 air bag 
on-off switches and to otherwise modify motor vehicles to enable people 
with disabilities to operate or ride as a passenger in a motor vehicle.
* * * * *

Subpart C--Vehicle Modifications To Accommodate People With 
Disabilities


Sec. 595.6  Modifier identification.

    (a) Any motor vehicle repair business that modifies a motor vehicle 
to enable a person with a disability to operate, or ride as a passenger 
in, the motor vehicle and intends to avail itself of the exemption 
provided in 49 CFR 595.7 shall furnish the information specified in 
paragraphs (a)(1) through (3) of this section to: Administrator, 
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, 
SW., Washington, DC 20590.
    (1) Full individual, partnership, or corporate name of the motor 
vehicle repair business.
    (2) Residence address of the motor vehicle repair business and 
State of incorporation if applicable.
    (3) A statement that the motor vehicle repair business modifies a 
motor vehicle to enable a person with a disability to operate, or ride 
as a passenger in, the motor vehicle and intends to avail itself of the 
exemption provided in 49 CFR 595.7.
    (b) Each motor business repair business required to submit 
information under paragraph (a) of this section shall submit the 
information not later than August 27, 2001. After that date, each motor 
business repair business that modifies a motor vehicle to enable a 
person with a disability to operate, or ride as a passenger in, the 
motor vehicle and intends to avail itself of the exemption provided in 
49 CFR 595.7 shall submit the information required under paragraph (a) 
not later than 30 days after it first modifies a motor vehicle to 
enable a person with a disability to operate, or ride as a passenger 
in, the motor vehicle. Each motor vehicle repair business who has 
submitted required information shall keep its entry current, accurate 
and complete by submitting revised information not later than 30 days 
after the relevant changes in the business occur.


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

    (a) Any motor vehicle repair business that modifies a motor vehicle 
to enable a person with a disability to operate, or ride as a passenger 
in, the motor vehicle is exempted from the ``make inoperative'' 
prohibition of 49 U.S.C. 30122 to the extent that those modifications 
affect the motor vehicle's compliance with the Federal motor vehicle 
safety standards or portions thereof specified in paragraph (c) of this 
section. Modifications that would take a

[[Page 12656]]

vehicle out of compliance with any other Federal motor vehicle safety 
standards, or portions thereof, are not covered by this exemption.
    (b) Any motor vehicle repair business that modifies a motor vehicle 
to enable a person with a disability to operate, or ride as a passenger 
in, the motor vehicle in such a manner as to make inoperative any part 
of a device or element of design installed on or in the motor vehicle 
in compliance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard or portion 
thereof specified in paragraph (c) of this section must affix to the 
motor vehicle a permanent label of the type and in the manner described 
in paragraph (d) of this section and must provide and retain a document 
of the type and in the manner described in paragraph (e) of this 
section.
    (c)(1) 49 CFR 571.101, except for S5.2 (a), S5.3.1, S5.3.2, and 
S5.3.5 of that section.
    (2) S5.1.1.5 of 49 CFR 571.108, in the case of a motor vehicle that 
is modified to be driven without a steering wheel or for which it is 
not feasible to retain the turn signal canceling device installed by 
the vehicle manufacturer.
    (3) S4.4 and S4.5 of 49 CFR 571.114, in any case in which the 
original key-locking system must be modified.
    (4) S4(a) of 49 CFR 571.118, in any case in which the medical 
condition of the person for whom the vehicle is modified necessitates 
the installation of a remote ignition switch to start the vehicle.
    (5) S5.1 and S5.2.1 of 49 CFR 571.123, in any case in which the 
modification necessitates the relocation of original equipment 
manufacturer's controls.
    (6) S5.3.1 of 49 CFR 571.135, in any case in which the modification 
necessitates the removal of the original equipment manufacturer foot 
pedal.
    (7) 49 CFR 571.201 with respect to:
    (i) Targets located on the right side rail, the right B-pillar and 
the first right side ``other'' pillar adjacent to the stowed platform 
of a lift or ramp that stows vertically, inside the vehicle.
    (ii) Targets located on the left side rail, the left B-pillar and 
the first left side ``other'' pillar adjacent to the stowed platform of 
a lift or ramp that stows vertically, inside the vehicle.
    (iii) Targets located on the rear header and the rearmost pillars 
adjacent to the stowed platform of a lift or ramp that stows 
vertically, inside the vehicle.
    (8) 49 CFR 571.202, in any case in which:
    (i) A motor vehicle is modified to be operated by a driver seated 
in a wheelchair and no other seat is supplied with the vehicle for the 
driver;
    (ii) A motor vehicle is modified to transport a right front 
passenger seated in a wheelchair and no other right front passenger 
seat is supplied with the vehicle; or
    (9) S3(b)(1) and (b)(2) of 49 CFR 571.202, in any case in which the 
driver's head restraint must be modified to accommodate a driver with a 
disability.
    (10) S5.1 of 49 CFR 571.203, in any case in which the modification 
necessitates a structural change to, or removal of, the original 
equipment manufacturer steering shaft.
    (11) S5.2 of 49 CFR 571.203, in any case in which an item of 
adaptive equipment must be mounted on the steering wheel.
    (12) 49 CFR 571.204, in any case in which the modification 
necessitates a structural change to, or removal of, the original 
equipment manufacturer steering shaft.
    (13) S4.1 of 49 CFR 571.207, in any case in which a vehicle is 
modified to be driven by a person seated in a wheelchair and no other 
driver's seat is supplied with the vehicle, provided that a wheelchair 
securement device is installed at the driver's position.
    (14) S4.1.5.1(a)(1), S4.1.5.1(a)(3), S4.2.6.2, S5, S7.1, S7.2 and 
S7.4 of 49 CFR 571.208 for the designated seating position modified, 
provided Type 2 or 2A seat belts meeting the requirements of 571.209 
and 571.210 of this chapter are installed at that position.
    (15) S5 of 49 CFR 571.214 for the designated seating position 
modified, in any cases in which the restraint system and/or seat at 
that position must be changed to accommodate a person with a 
disability.
    (d) The label required by paragraph (b) of this section shall:
    (1) Be permanently affixed to the vehicle,
    (2) Be located adjacent to the original certification label or the 
alterer's certification label, if applicable,
    (3) Give the modifier's name and physical address,
    (4) Contain the statement ``This vehicle has been modified in 
accordance with 49 CFR 595.6 and may no longer comply with all Federal 
Motor Vehicle Safety Standards in effect at the time of its original 
manufacture.''
    (e) The document required by paragraph (b) of this section shall:
    (1) Be provided, in original or photocopied form, to the owner of 
the vehicle at the time the vehicle is delivered to the owner,
    (2) Be kept, in original or photocopied form, at the same address 
provided on the label described in paragraph (c) of this section for a 
period not less than five years after the vehicle, as modified, is 
delivered to the individual for whom the modifications were performed,
    (3) Be clearly identifiable as to the vehicle that has been 
modified,
    (4) Contain a list of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards or 
portions thereof specified in paragraph (c) of this section with which 
the vehicle may no longer be in compliance.
    (5) Indicate any reduction in the load carrying capacity of the 
vehicle of more than 100 kg (220 lb) after the modifications are 
completed. In providing this information, the modifier must state 
whether the weight of a user's wheelchair is included in the available 
load capacity.

    Issued on February 20, 2001.
L. Robert Shelton,
Executive Director.
[FR Doc. 01-4655 Filed 2-21-01; 3:13 pm]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P