Exemption From the Make Inoperative Prohibition

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 595

[Docket No. NHTSA-98-4332]

RIN 2127-AG40

Exemption From the Make Inoperative Prohibition

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

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: NHTSA is proposing a limited exemption from a statutory

provision prohibiting dealers, repair businesses

[[Page 51548]]

and other specified commercial entities from removing safety equipment

or features installed on motor vehicles pursuant to the Federal motor

vehicle safety standards and from altering the equipment or features so

as to adversely affect their performance. Repair businesses and dealers

would be exempted from the prohibition to facilitate their modification

of motor vehicles so that persons with disabilities can drive or ride

in them. The exemption would permit modifications that have an

unavoidable adverse effect on safety equipment or features installed

pursuant to some, but not all requirements of the Federal safety

standards. The requirements tentatively selected for inclusion in the

exemption were chosen after carefully balancing their safety

significance against the types of modifications needed for persons with

disabilities. By specifying which modifications may be made, the

proposal rule would provide universal, comprehensive guidance to all

modifiers and would thereby enhance the safety of vehicles modified to

accommodate people with disabilities.

DATES: Comments must be received by December 28, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Comments should refer to the docket number of this proposed

rule and be submitted to: Docket Management, Room PL-401, 400 Seventh

Street, SW, Washington, DC 20590 (Docket Room hours are 10:00 a.m.-5

p.m., Monday through Friday.)

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

For non-legal issues: Gayle Dalrymple, Office of Crash Avoidance

Standards, NPS-20, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400

Seventh Street, SW, Washington, DC 20590, telephone (202) 366-5559.

For legal issues: Nicole Fradette, Office of Chief Counsel,

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW,

Washington, DC 20590, telephone (202) 366-2992, facsimile (202) 366-

3820.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Background and Overview

II. Proposed Exemption

A. Summary

B. Specifics of the Proposed Exemption

C. Scope of Proposed Exemption

1. Standards for which Permission would be Granted to Make

Safety Features Inoperative

2. Standards for which Permission would not be Granted to Make

Safety Features Inoperative

III. Explanation of Procedural Differences Between Proposed

Exemption and Existing Exemption re Air Bag On-Off Switches

IV. Additional Considerations

V. Request for Comments

VI. Proposed Effective Date

VII. Regulatory Analyses and Notices

VIII. Comments

I. Background and Overview

The U.S. Census Bureau estimates that nearly 49 million Americans,

or 19.4 percent of the American population, have some type of physical,

mental or other disability.1 Their disabilities provide

special challenges for these people in obtaining and using various

necessities of life. One of those necessities is transportation.

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

\1\ John McNeil, Disability, U.S. Census Bureau (May 9, 1997).

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

Persons with disabilities often need their motor vehicles modified

to allow them to drive or ride in those vehicles. For example,

wheelchair lifts, power seats and hand controls are often installed to

enable paraplegics to enter and operate vehicles. The National Highway

Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) estimates that some 383,000

vehicles have some type of adaptive equipment installed in them to

accommodate a driver or passenger with a disability.2 The

agency believes the number of vehicles modified annually will increase

as a greater percentage of the population ages and as the Americans

With Disabilities Act (ADA) 3 improves access to employment,

travel, and recreation for people with disabilities.4

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

\2\ Estimating the Number of Vehicles Adapted for Use by Persons

with Disabilities, NHTSA Research Note, Dec. 1997.

\3\ Pub. L. 101-336, 42 U.S.C. sections 12101, et seq.

\4\ The ADA sweepingly endorsed the rights of persons with

disabilities and greatly expanded the existing obligations of the

public sector towards persons with disabilities under the

Rehabilitation Act of 1973 ( 29 U.S.C. sections 701 et seq.). The

ADA created specific affirmative obligations on private entities who

conduct business with the general public.

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

Modifying vehicles often involves removing equipment or features

installed pursuant to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards

(standards) promulgated by NHTSA or altering them so as to reduce their

performance. 5 For example, some individuals who have

limited range of motion in their arms need to replace the vehicle's

original steering wheel with a reduced diameter steering wheel so that

they can operate the vehicle. Removing the original steering wheel and

air bag and replacing it with a smaller steering wheel that lacks an

air bag affects the vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 208,

Occupant Crash Protection, which requires the vehicle to be equipped

with a driver's side air bag.

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

\5\ NHTSA issues safety standards that specify performance

requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle

equipment. 49 U.S.C. 30111 and 49 CFR Part 571. Vehicle and

equipment manufacturers must certify that their new products comply

with all applicable standards before they sell their products. For

vehicles manufactured by two or more manufacturers, the final-stage

manufacturer is ultimately responsible for certifying the vehicle. A

final-stage manufacturer is defined as a person who performs such

manufacturing operations on an incomplete vehicle that it becomes a

completed vehicle. 49 CFR 568.3. If a completed, certified vehicle

is modified prior to its first retail sale (other than by the

addition, substitution, or removal of readily attachable

components), the person making the modification is an alterer and is

required to certify that, as altered, the vehicle continues to

comply with all applicable standards. 49 CFR 567.7. Businesses that

modify a vehicle after its first sale for purposes other than resale

are not required to certify that the vehicle, as modified, continues

to comply with the standards.

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

Such removal or alteration violates a statutory provision which

prohibits certain parties from making such equipment and features

inoperative. Section 30122 of Title 49 of the United States Codes

provides that manufacturers, distributors, dealers,6 and

repair businesses 7 may not knowingly make inoperative any

part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor

vehicle in compliance with an applicable standard. The agency

interprets ``make inoperative'' to mean any action that removes or

disables safety equipment or features installed to comply with an

applicable standard, or degrades the performance of such equipment or

features.8 Violations of this provision are punishable by

civil penalties of up to $1,100 per violation.

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

\6\ Section 30102 of 49 U.S.C. defines ``dealer'' as ``a person

selling and distributing new motor vehicles or motor vehicle

equipment primarily to purchasers that in good faith purchase the

vehicles or equipment other than for resale.''

\7\ Section 30122(a) of 49 U.S.C. defines ``motor vehicle repair

business'' as ``a person holding itself out to the public to repair

for compensation a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment.'' NHTSA

has interpreted this term to include businesses that service

vehicles by adding features or components to or otherwise

customizing those vehicles.

\8\ For example, Standard 208, Occupant crash protection,

requires certain vehicles to be equipped with air bags and to meet

specified injury criteria in a crash. Deactivating or removing the

air bag would make inoperative the air bag installed to comply with

the standard. Cutting the knee bolster could affect the femur load

criterion and, therefore, degrade the performance of the vehicle in

a crash.

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

The statute authorizes NHTSA to issue regulations exempting a

person from the make inoperative prohibition and specifying which

equipment and features may be made inoperative. 49 U.S.C. 30122(c)(1).

Such a regulation may be issued for an individual or for a class of

individuals.9 The legislative

[[Page 51549]]

history of the Act makes it clear that one of the intended purposes of

the exemption was to accommodate the need of individuals with

disabilities for vehicle modifications.10

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

\9\ Section 30122(c)(1) of Title 49 of the United States Code

authorizes the agency ``to exempt a person from'' the make

inoperative provision if the agency ``decides the exemption is

consistent with motor vehicle safety. * * *'' The question of

whether the agency has the authority to exempt classes of people

from the make inoperative prohibition or is limited to exempting

individuals on a case-by-case basis arose in the agency's rulemaking

on air bag on-off switches. 62 FR 62406; November 21, 1997. The

agency believes that Congress intended to permit an exemption based

on classes of people. The singular includes the plural, absent

contrary statutory language or purpose. Section 30122 neither

contains any language nor has any purpose that would preclude

reading ``person'' in the plural. NHTSA notes that similar use of

the singular in 15 U.S.C. 1402(e), the statutory predecessor to 49

U.S.C. 30118(a) regarding the making of a defect and noncompliance

determination concerning a motor vehicle or replacement equipment,

has repeatedly been judicially interpreted to permit NHTSA to make

determinations regarding classes of vehicles or equipment. Section

30118(a) was enacted in the same public law, Pub. L. No. 93-492,

that contained the make inoperative prohibition.

\10\ The report stated that ``exemptions may be warranted for

owners with special medical problems, who require special controls.

* * *'' H. Rep. accompanying 1974 Amendments to the Motor Vehicle

Safety Act (1974).

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

To date, the agency has not issued a regulation exempting modifiers

as a class from the make inoperative provision for the purpose of

modifying vehicles to accommodate individuals with

disabilities.11 Instead, the agency considers requests from

individual modifiers for permission to modify vehicles for individuals

with disabilities and responds on a request by request basis. In some

cases, the Chief Counsel of NHTSA has issued letters stating that the

agency will not institute enforcement proceedings against the motor

vehicle dealer or repair business for modifying a particular vehicle to

accommodate a person's disability. Such letters also caution that only

necessary modifications may be made and that the person making the

modifications should consider the safety consequences of the

modifications. While this approach eliminates the risk of civil

penalties, it still leaves vehicle dealers and repair businesses in

technical violation of the make inoperative prohibition. Further, it

does not provide guidance to modifiers as to which Federally-required

safety equipment and features may be modified consistent with the

interests of motor vehicle safety. In addition, the agency is concerned

that the process is largely bypassed by most modifiers.

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

\11\ NHTSA recently issued its first regulation exempting motor

vehicle dealers and repair businesses from the statutory prohibition

against making federally-required safety equipment inoperative so

that they may install retrofit manual on-off switches for air bags

in vehicles owned by or used by people whose requests for switches

have been approved by NHTSA. 62 FR 62406; Nov. 21, 1997.

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

The agency believes that many modifiers modify vehicles without

requesting agency permission, and without receiving any agency

guidance.12 Although approximately 383,000 vehicles have

been modified to date 13 and there are an estimated 400

modifiers,14 the agency has only received a total of

approximately 250 requests 15 for permission to modify a

particular vehicle to accommodate a driver or passenger with a

disability. While NHTSA estimates that approximately 200 of the

modifiers receive some guidance on making vehicle modifications from

industry associations and others, the balance apparently receive no

guidance at all.16

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

\12\ The agency believes that several factors account for this

situation. First, NHTSA believes that some modifiers may be unaware

of the statutory make inoperative prohibition. Others may not be

aware that they should seek the agency's permission before modifying

a vehicle in a way that compromises the vehicle's compliance with

any of the standards. Third, some vehicle modifiers believe that

their modifications do not make inoperative any device or element of

design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with the

standards. Agency staff discussions with modifiers revealed that

much of this was due to a lack of familiarity with the standards

rather than poor engineering judgment. In general, NHTSA found that

once modifiers understood and familiarized themselves with the

standards, most modifiers exercised sound engineering judgment with

respect to modifying the vehicles. For example, the agency learned

that some modifiers were unaware that replacing the original

steering wheel and column with horizontal steering affected the

vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 203, Impact protection for

the driver from the steering control system, Standard No. 204,

Steering control rearward displacement, and Standard No. 208,

Occupant crash protection. Some thought they had only affected

compliance with Standard No. 208's air bag requirement. Thus, many

modifiers only requested permission to deactivate the air bag. NHTSA

is increasing its efforts to raise the level of knowledge of the

standards and the make inoperative prohibition within both the

disabled community and the vehicle modification industry to address

this problem. Finally, some dealers and repair businesses who are

aware of the need to seek permission simply ignore that requirement

because they consider the requirement to write a letter for every

vehicle modification onerous.

\13\ The agency notes that some of these modifications did not

adversely affect the vehicles' compliance with any applicable safety

standards and, therefore, did not violate the make inoperative

prohibition.

\14\ This estimate is from the National Mobility Equipment

Dealers Association (NMEDA).

\15\ The majority of these requests were made in the past few

years. Since all of the modifications were based on the need to

accommodate a person's disability, the agency granted all of the

requests.

\16\ NMEDA, a professional association composed of vehicle

alterers, modifiers, equipment manufacturers, occupational

therapists (OTs), and driver trainers, has issued recommended

practice guidelines for particular types of vehicle modifications,

such as dropping a floor to accommodate a wheelchair or installing a

power seat base, to assist its members in modifying vehicles safely.

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

The making of modifications without sufficient guidance raises

concerns about the ability of persons with disabilities to have their

vehicles modified in ways that do not unnecessarily or excessively

affect the safety of their vehicles. Modifiers tend to be small

businesses with limited engineering and other resources. Most do not

have the resources to test whether a particular modification would

affect a vehicle's compliance with a particular standard.17

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

\17\ NHTSA notes that NMEDA has tried to address this issue by

developing a Quality Assurance Program (QAP) and conducting crash

tests of modified vehicles. In addition, the agency is aware that

alterers who also certify vehicles built to accommodate persons with

disabilities prior to their first retail sale have also performed

crash tests on modified vehicles.

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

The agency's experience with the vehicle modification industry

indicates that knowledge of the standards varies among the modifiers.

While some modifiers are very knowledgeable of the standards and the

need to preserve a vehicle's compliance with them, others are less

knowledgeable. Many modifiers do not possess sufficient knowledge of

the standards to judge whether a particular modification may affect a

vehicle's compliance with the standards.

To address these safety concerns, the agency has attempted to

increase the level of knowledge by participating in national industry

conferences and through other means.18 As a result,

modifiers have increasingly sought NHTSA's guidance with respect to the

specific modifications they wish to perform for individuals with

disabilities. The agency has also amended several of its standards to

address particular needs of persons with disabilities.19

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

\18\ For example, NHTSA has required manufacturers to recall

adaptive equipment, investigated complaints about a modified vehicle

and a hand control, participated in outside research groups

concerned with modified vehicles and adaptive equipment, and

researched air bag interaction with, and injury potential from,

steering control devices.

\19\ See for example, Standard No. 213, Child restraint systems,

final rule, 51 FR 5335; February 13, 1986 and 49 CFR Part

571.213.S6.1.2.(a)(1)(I); Standard No. 222, School bus passenger

seating and crash protection, final rule, 58 FR 4586; January 15,

1993 and technical amendment, 58 FR 46873; September 3, 1993;

Standard No. 208, Occupant crash protection, 58 FR 11975; March 2,

1993, amended Standard No. 208 to provide manufacturers of light

trucks and vans (LTVs) ``designed to be driven by persons with

disabilities'' an alternative to complying with the dynamic testing

requirement for manual seat belts at outboard seating positions.

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

However, NHTSA believes that a more comprehensive method is needed

now to address all of the standards and to reach the industry as a

whole. The agency believes that a regulation is needed to assist

modifiers and members of the disabled population in making appropriate

decisions with respect to

[[Page 51550]]

the majority of vehicle modifications.20 To this end, the

agency is proposing an exemption from the make inoperative prohibition

that will:

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

\20\ The agency notes that industry members, including NMEDA,

and members of the disabled community have urged NHTSA to issue

clearer guidance in the area of modifying vehicles for the

individuals with disabilities.

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

Promote the mobility and safety of persons with

disabilities by providing comprehensive, universally available

guidance;

Improve the industry's ability to assess what

modifications are consistent with the statutory provision and the

interests of safety;

Improve the agency's ability to achieve its safety goals;

and

Relieve modifiers of the burden of writing a letter to the

agency for each and every modification they wish to perform.

II. Proposed Exemption

A. Summary

NHTSA is proposing a limited exemption from the statutory provision

prohibiting motor vehicle dealers, repair businesses and other

specified commercial entities from removing or altering safety

equipment or features installed pursuant to the Federal motor vehicle

safety standards so as to make them inoperative. Repair businesses and

dealers would be exempted from the make inoperative prohibition for the

purpose of modifying motor vehicles after the first retail sale to

accommodate a person with a disability. The exemption would permit

modifications affecting some, but not all, standards.

B. Specifics of the Proposed Exemption

While NHTSA believes that all individuals should, to the extent

possible, be provided with an equivalent level of vehicle safety, it

also believes that all Americans should, to the extent possible, be

provided with an equivalent level of mobility. Vehicles must often be

modified to make them accessible to and usable by people with

disabilities. These modifications often make features installed in

compliance with the standards inoperative.

Among persons with disabilities, the type and severity of physical

impairments that affect a person's ability to access and use a vehicle

vary from person to person. Different impairments require different

vehicle modifications.21 Each different modification may

affect a vehicle's compliance with the standards in a different way.

Consequently, due to the wide range of disabilities and the various

modifications needed to accommodate them, it would be difficult for the

agency to attempt to develop a regulation that lists each type and

level of severity of disability and that specifies the particular set

of standards that may be adversely affected by the modifications

suitable for each of those listed types and levels of severity of

disability. Instead, the agency has decided to issue the proposed

regulation, which would take a more general approach and provide

modifiers with the flexibility and guidance they need to accommodate

various people with disabilities while preserving the safety of the

vehicle to the greatest extent possible.

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

\21\ For example, a paraplegic may need to drop the floor of a

vehicle and install a lift and hand controls to accommodate his

entering the vehicle and transferring to a power seat to drive,

while a person with limited range of motion in her right arm may

simply need to install a knob on the vehicle's steering wheel.

Another individual may need to have the right-front passenger seat

removed and a wheelchair restraint installed so that he may ride in

the vehicle while seated in a wheelchair.

Further, two paraplegics with similar limited range of motion

could require different modifications. One individual may be able to

operate the vehicle with the steering wheel originally installed by

the manufacturer while another might require a smaller steering

wheel to be installed. The first modification would not require

removal of the air bag, the second would.

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

For a modification to be exempt from the make inoperative

prohibition, a dealer or repair business would have to meet certain

conditions. The modification would be permitted to affect compliance

with the standards specified, in whole or in part, below. However, the

exemption would not grant permission with respect to any other

standards.22 Although it is not expressly required, the

agency expects that the dealer or motor vehicle repair business would

not modify the vehicle in a manner that adversely affects the vehicle's

compliance with those specified standards any more than is reasonably

necessary, considering cost and available technology, to accommodate

the person with the disability.

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

\22\ For a full discussion of the standards proposed for

inclusion in the exemption as well as some of the standards not

proposed for inclusion, see Section II. C. of this notice.

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

The standards and portions thereof proposed for exemption are

specified below:

Standard No. 101, Controls and displays, S5.1 (a), which

governs the symbols and abbreviations used for certain controls;

S5.3.1, which requires illumination of certain controls when the head

lights are on; S5.3.2 which governs the color of telltales; or S5.3.5

which requires cabin lighting forward of the driver's H point

23 to be able to be adjustable or turned off. The purpose of

Standard No. 101 is to limit driver distraction from the driving task.

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

\23\ The H-point is the manufacturer's reference point for

determining where the passenger's hip joint should be located for

testing purposes. The hip joint's location affects the head's

location.

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

S5.1.1.5 of Standard No. 108, Lamps, reflective devices,

and associated equipment, where the vehicle is modified to be driven

without a steering wheel and where it is not feasible to retain the

original equipment manufacturer (OEM) turn signal lever required by

S5.1.1.5. The purpose of Standard No. 108 is to ensure that roadways

are illuminated, drivers can signal their intentions, and vehicles are

conspicuous.

S4(a) of Standard No. 118, Power-operated window,

partition, and roof panel systems, where a remote ignition device is

necessary. Standard No. 118 specifies requirements for the operation of

power-operated windows, partitions, and roof panels to help prevent

injury or death from a window, partition, or panel closing on a vehicle

occupant (particularly children).

S5.3.1 of Standard No. 135, Passenger car brake systems,

where the foot control must be removed to accommodate a person's

disability. Standard No. 135 specifies requirements for service brake

and associated parking brake systems to ensure safe braking performance

under normal and emergency driving conditions.

Standard No. 202, Head restraints, where (1) a vehicle

modified for a wheelchair seated driver or right front passenger and

where no other seat is supplied with the vehicle for the driver or

right front passenger seating position or (2) where the head restraint

must be altered to accommodate a driver's impairment. To reduce the

frequency and severity of neck injuries in rear-end and other

collisions, Standard No. 202 requires all vehicles to be equipped with

a head restraint at each front outboard seating position that meets

specific size and performance requirements.

S5.1 Standard No. 203, Impact protection for the driver

from the steering control system, where the modification requires a

structural change to, or removal of, the OEM steering shaft. The

standard serves to reduce the likelihood and severity of head, chest,

neck, and facial injuries from impact with the steering wheel.

Standard No. 204, Steering control rearward displacement,

where the modification requires a structural change to, or removal of,

the OEM

[[Page 51551]]

steering shaft. The standard serves to reduce the likelihood and

severity of head, chest, neck, and facial injuries due to vehicle

components forcing the steering shaft rearward toward the driver in a

crash.

Standard No. 207, Seating systems, where a vehicle is

modified to be driven by a person seated in a wheelchair and no other

seat is supplied with the vehicle for the driver; provided, that a

wheelchair securement device is installed at the driver's position. To

minimize the likelihood that a seat will collapse during a collision,

Standard No. 207 establishes performance, installation, and attachment

requirements for seats.

Standard No. 208, Occupant crash protection, provided that

Type 2 or 2A seat belts meeting the requirements of Standard No. 209

and anchorages meeting the requirements of Standard No. 210 are

installed. The purpose of Standard 208 is to reduce the number of

vehicle occupant deaths and the severity of vehicle occupant injuries

incurred in a collision.

S5 (the dynamic performance requirement only) of Standard

No. 214, Side impact protection, where the seat position must be

changed to accommodate a person's disability. Standard No. 214's

requirements serve to minimize the risk of serious and fatal injuries

to vehicle occupants in side impact collisions.

Under the proposed procedure, modifiers would no longer have to

seek the agency's approval before modifying a vehicle to accommodate a

person with a disability. The modifier could make the necessary

modifications as long as the modifications are needed to accommodate a

person's disability and only affect the vehicle's compliance with the

specified standards. The agency has not proposed to require modifiers

to maintain records of the vehicles they modify or notify the agency of

such modifications. Further, the agency has not proposed to require

modifiers to affix a label to the vehicle stating that the vehicle has

been modified and may no longer comply with all standards. A complete

discussion of these issues and requests for comments are contained in

Sections III, IV and Section V of this notice.

C. Scope of Proposed Exemption

The agency believes that compliance with certain standards is

potentially often affected by the manner in which vehicle modifications

are currently made for persons with disabilities. NHTSA has tried to

identify those standards and determine whether they are appropriate

candidates for inclusion in the proposed exemption.

In making this determination, the agency was mindful that its

authority to grant exemptions from the make inoperative exemption is

limited, as noted above, to those cases in which an exemption is

consistent with safety. In light of the legislative history indicating

that one of the intended purposes of the exemption was to accommodate

persons with disabilities, NHTSA interprets this limitation as

requiring that an exemption not lead to any unnecessary reduction in

safety. A stricter reading of the limitation would defeat the goal of

allowing those modifications necessary to facilitate the mobility needs

of those persons. Although some modifications to a vehicle may result

in a decrease in safety to the vehicle's occupants, without such

modifications, persons with disabilities often cannot use their

vehicles.

Accordingly, in developing this proposal, the agency has sought to

accommodate the mobility needs of people with disabilities, while

preserving safety to the extent possible. The agency is proposing to

grant an exemption from the make inoperative prohibition only with

respect to those standards or portions of standards requiring safety

devices or features whose performance would unavoidably have to be

compromised to accommodate a person's disability.

In determining whether to propose inclusion of modifications

affecting devices or features installed pursuant to a particular

standard, NHTSA first considered the range of specific disabilities

that need to be accommodated to enable people with disabilities to

operate or ride in a vehicle. Second, the agency considered what type

of modifications would be necessary to accommodate such disabilities.

The following table includes illustrative examples of disabilities and

identifies the common vehicle modifications made to accommodate those

disabilities. These items are included here only as examples and are,

by no means, all inclusive.

Examples of Vehicle Modifications to Accommodate Particular Disabilities

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

For driver or passenger Disability Vehicle type Modification needed

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

Driver.................... Right side hemiplegia Passenger car................... Install a left foot

due to stroke. accelerator.

Driver.................... Lower level paraplegia, Passenger car................... Install hand controls

multiple sclerosis, or for brake and throttle,

a double leg amputee. a spinner knob steering

control device, and a

wheelchair hoist to

lift chair into or on

top of vehicle for

storage.

Driver.................... Lower level paraplegia, Pickup truck.................... Install hand controls

multiple sclerosis, or for brake and throttle,

a double leg amputee. a spinner knob steering

control device, a

wheelchair hoist to

lift chair into or on

top of vehicle for

storage, and a transfer

seat to lift driver

into seat.

Driver.................... Higher level paraplegia Mini van........................ Lower floor and install

or lower level a lift or ramp, hand

quadriplegia, a controls (manual or

wheelchair user who power assist), a power

does not want to lift seat base or a

the wheelchair in and wheelchair tie down, a

out of a car. reduced diameter

steering wheel, and

reduced effort braking

and/or steering

Driver.................... Higher level Full-sized van.................. Lower floor and raise

quadriplegia. body off the suspension

or raise the roof and

install a lift, a

wheelchair tie down,

power assist hand

controls or joy stick

steering, and brake and

throttle control.

Passenger................. Higher level paraplegia Mini van........................ Lower floor and install

or lower level a lift or ramp, a power

quadriplegia, a seat base or a

wheelchair user who wheelchair tie down.

does not want to lift

the wheelchair in and

out of a car, a child

with cerebral palsy.

[[Page 51552]]

Passenger................. Lower level paraplegia, Passenger car................... Install a wheelchair

multiple sclerosis, or hoist to lift chair

a child with muscular into or on top of

dystrophy or cerebral vehicle for storage.

palsy. Passenger car.

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

Third, after considering the array of disabilities, NHTSA used its

engineering judgment to determine tentatively which safety devices or

features required by the standards might be affected by the variety of

modifications needed to accommodate individuals with those

disabilities. For each standard whose required device or feature might

be affected by a vehicle modification, the agency considered whether

modifications to enable a person with disabilities to operate or occupy

a motor vehicle could be made reasonably without violating the make

inoperative prohibition. Many modifications can be made without

compromising a vehicle's compliance with the standards. If the agency

believed that compliance could be preserved easily or with a reasonable

amount of cost and effort, it did not include modifications involving

that standard in the proposed exemption.

The following cases illustrate how the agency determined whether a

particular modification should be exempt from the make inoperative

prohibition:

Case 1. A modifier may need to replace the original vehicle floor

covering with a material that is more conducive to the motion of a

wheelchair's wheels. With a minimum amount of effort, the original

floor covering can be replaced with a material that preserves the

vehicle's certification to Standard No. 302, Flammability of interior

materials. Thus, NHTSA did not propose to include Standard No. 302 in

the proposed exemption.

Case 2. A modifier may have to remove the driver's seat and install

wheelchair restraints to enable a quadriplegic to drive from a

wheelchair. Since Standard No. 207, Seating systems, requires that a

driver's seat be installed in the vehicle, removing the driver's seat

would violate the make inoperative prohibition. Since the only way the

person could drive is from a wheelchair, NHTSA tentatively determined

that the modification was necessary and that an exemption would,

therefore, be appropriate.

Case 3. A modifier may have to lower the floor of the vehicle to

accommodate a person with a disability. Lowering the floor may require

relocating the vehicle's fuel tank which could affect the vehicle's

compliance with Standard No. 301, Fuel system integrity, which sets

performance requirements for fuel systems in crashes. The agency

determined that it is possible to make the modification without

compromising compliance with the standard. The agency determined that

permitting a modifier to compromise compliance with the standard was

unacceptable since it could unnecessarily expose occupants to an

increased risk of fire.

Following is a discussion of the standards the agency believes are

appropriate candidates for the exemption and those it believes are

inappropriate. The discussion addresses only those standards the agency

believes might be affected by common vehicle modifications. The

following standards will not be discussed and are not recommended for

exemption because the agency believes there are no common vehicle

modifications that should affect the vehicles, vehicle systems, or

equipment to which they apply:

Standard No. 106, Brake hoses

Standard No. 109, New pneumatic tires

Standard No. 110, Tire selection and rims

Standard No. 114, Theft protection

Standard No. 116, Motor vehicle brake fluids

Standard No. 117, Retreaded pneumatic tires

Standard No. 119, New pneumatic tires for vehicles other than passenger

cars

Standard No. 120, Tire selection and rims for vehicles other than

passenger cars

Standard No. 122, Motorcycle brake systems

Standard No. 123, Motorcycle controls and displays

Standard No. 125, Warning devices

Standard No. 129, Non-pneumatic tires for passenger cars

Standard No. 131, School bus pedestrian safety devices

Standard No. 205, Glazing materials

Standard No. 212, Windshield mounting

Standard No. 213, Child restraint systems

Standard No. 217, Bus emergency exits and window retention and release

Standard No. 218, Motorcycle helmets

Standard No. 219, Windshield zone intrusion

Standard No. 220, School bus rollover protection

Standard No. 221, School bus body joint strength

Standard No. 222, School bus passenger seating and crash protection

Standard No. 223, Rear impact guards

Standard No. 224, Rear impact protection

Standard No. 304, Compressed natural gas fuel container integrity

1. Standards for Which Permission Would Be Granted To Make Safety

Features Inoperative

a. Standard No. 101, Controls and displays. The purpose of Standard

101 is to limit driver distraction from the driving task. The standard

does not require or prescribe exact locations or methods of operation

for any control or display. The standard does, however, require that if

certain controls are provided, they ``shall be operable by the driver''

and that if certain displays are furnished, they ``shall be visible to

the driver.'' The standard also directs that the driver be restrained

for testing and lists which controls must be illuminated when the

vehicle's headlights are on.

Controls and displays, as well as the driver's seating position,

are often moved when a vehicle is modified. These changes create the

potential to take the vehicle out of compliance with 49 CFR 571.101 in

three ways. First, controls or displays may be moved to a position that

is not visible to the driver when the driver is looking forward (e.g.

switches may be moved to a door mounted touch panel to be operated by

the driver's elbow, or switches may be mounted in a head rest). Second,

a change in the driver's seating position may result in the driver's

inability to see or reach an OEM control or display. Finally, changing

the restraint system can make it impossible to comply with section 6 of

the standard which requires the driver to be restrained pursuant to the

requirements of Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. The agency

believes that such changes do not create a safety problem since the

purpose of the modification is to make as many functions as possible

operable by the disabled driver.

NHTSA is aware that other drivers may occasionally use the modified

[[Page 51553]]

vehicle; however, the agency does not believe this presents a serious

problem. The vehicle is primarily designed for the disabled person and

that individual will be accustomed to the availability and placement of

controls and displays in his or her vehicle. The controls can still be

placed in a way that minimizes any potential distraction for the driver

with a disability. NHTSA believes that most of the vehicles will be

driven by someone other than the disabled driver only infrequently. For

these reasons, NHTSA believes a limited exemption from the make

inoperative exemption for Standard No. 101 is appropriate. NHTSA does

not believe that an exemption would be appropriate from S5.1(a), which

governs the symbols and abbreviations used for certain controls;

S5.3.1, which requires illumination of certain controls when the head

lights are on; S5.3.2 which governs the color of telltales; or S5.3.5

which requires cabin lighting forward of the driver's H point

24 to be able to be adjustable or turned off.

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

\24\ The H-point is the manufacturer's reference point for

determining where the passenger's hip joint should be located for

testing purposes. The hip joint's location affects the head's

location.

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

b. Standard No. 108, Lamps, reflective devices, and associated

equipment. The purpose of Standard No. 108 is to ensure that roadways

are illuminated, drivers can signal their intentions, and vehicles are

conspicuous. NHTSA is aware of only two situations in which common

vehicle modifications could take the vehicle out of compliance with 49

CFR Sec. 571.108. NHTSA believes the make inoperative exemption is

necessary for only one of the modifications; the other modification can

be performed in a way that preserves the vehicle's compliance with the

standard.

The agency believes that vehicles that are modified so that they no

longer have a steering wheel cannot conform to S5.1.1.5, which requires

turn signals to be self-canceling by the steering wheel rotation.

Although NHTSA believes that such cases are rare, the agency believes

that such a modification cannot be made without taking the vehicle out

of compliance with Standard No. 108. Other modifications to the self-

canceling feature of the turn signal are made without removing the

steering wheel. For example, touch pads that control the vehicle's turn

signals can be installed without removing the steering wheel. Some

touch pad actuated turn signals are canceled by a timer, not the

steering wheel rotation. In all cases known to NHTSA where a touch pad

is installed to control the vehicle's turn signals and the steering

wheel is not removed, the OEM turn signal lever and canceling feature

is retained on the vehicle. Since the OEM turn signal lever and

canceling feature is retained on the vehicle, the modification would

not compromise the compliance of the OEM equipment provided to meet

S5.1.1.5.

The standard requires the installation of a center high-mounted

stop lamp (CHMSL) and specifies its location. 49 CFR Secs. 571.108,

S5.1.1.27, S5.3.1.8(a). Certain vans which require the installation of

a raised roof to accommodate a wheelchair seated occupant will require

the CHMSL to be moved. NHTSA believes that the CHMSL can be reinstalled

in a way that preserves the vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 108.

NHTSA is unaware of any situations in which this cannot be done. For

example, sometimes in a van conversion rear doors must be lengthened

when a raised roof is installed. If the van originally had one CHMSL

above the doors, the lengthened doors could be retrofitted with two

CHMSLs pursuant to S5.1.1.27(b) of the standard.25

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

\25\ S5.1.1.27(b) of Standard No. 108 provides that: ``Each

multipurpose passenger vehicle, truck and bus whose overall width is

less than 80 inches, whose GVWR is 10,000 pounds or less, whose

vertical centerline, when the vehicle is viewed from the rear, is

not located on a fixed body panel but separates one or two movable

body sections, such as doors, which lacks sufficient space to

install a single high-mounted stop lamp on the centerline above such

body sections, and which is manufactured on or after September 1,

1993, shall have two high mounted stop lamps which:

(1) Are identical in size and shape and have an effective

projected luminous area not less than 2\1/4\ inches each.

(2) Together have a signal to the rear visible as specified in

paragraph (a)(2) of this S5.1.1.27.

(3) Together have the minimum photometric values specified in

paragraph (a)(3) of this S5.1.1.27.

(4) Shall provide access for convenient replacement of the bulbs

without special tools. 49 CFR Sec. 571.108, S5.1.1.27(b).

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

NHTSA believes a make inoperative exemption from S5.1.1.5 of

Standard No. 108 is appropriate only where a vehicle is modified to be

driven without a steering wheel and where it is not feasible to retain

the OEM turn signal lever. NHTSA seeks comment on whether there are

cases in which the OEM turn signal actuating device and function is not

retained for the use of drivers other than the driver for whom the

vehicle was modified. If such cases exist, do the substitute turn

signal controls installed for the driver with a disability have the

self-canceling feature required by Standard No. 108 S5.1.1.5? Do they

have some self-canceling feature other than steering wheel rotation?

c. Standard No. 118, Power-operated window, partition, and roof

panel systems. Standard No. 118 specifies requirements for the

operation of power-operated windows, partitions, and roof panels to

help prevent injury or death from a window, partition, or panel closing

on a vehicle occupant (particularly children). NHTSA knows of only one

situation where a modification would take the vehicle out of compliance

with Standard No. 118. Disabled persons who have trouble maintaining a

constant body temperature (e.g. quadraplegics and burn victims) and

live in very cold or very hot climates use a remote control ignition

device so that the occupant compartment can be warmed or cooled before

they enter. Section 4(a) of the standard requires that before a power

operated window, partition, or roof panel system can be closed, the key

that activates the vehicle's engine must be in the `` `ON', `START', or

`ACCESSORY' position.'' In the modified vehicle under discussion here,

the vehicle is running when the person enters, hence the person has

control of the power operated windows even though there is no key in

the ignition. Thus, NHTSA believes make inoperative exemption from

S4(a) of Standard No. 118 is appropriate where a remote ignition device

is necessary to accommodate a disability.

d. Standard No. 135, Passenger car brake systems. Standard No. 135

specifies requirements for service brake and associated parking brake

systems to ensure safe braking performance under normal and emergency

driving conditions.26 The addition of some sort of hand

control to the OEM system--usually a system that attaches in some

manner to the brake pedal--is the most common modification made to any

brake system for a driver with a disability. Normally these systems

maintain the OEM brake control. Also common are modifications made to

the level of effort (pressure) required of the driver to operate the

brake. Such modifications are known as low-effort and zero-effort

braking and increase the amount of power assist to the driver. Low-

effort and zero-effort braking is accomplished by reworking the OEM

power brake system. Most of these modifications preserve the OEM foot

pedal and affect only the method of actuation of the braking system.

The agency believes that some, relatively

[[Page 51554]]

uncommon, modifications may require removal of the OEM foot pedal. For

example, a disabled person who experiences involuntary muscle spasms in

his legs may have to have the OEM foot control removed to prevent him

from inadvertently activating the vehicle's brake during a spasm.

S5.3.1 of Standard No. 135 specifies that the service brakes be

activated by a foot control. Consequently, NHTSA has tentatively

concluded that exemption from S5.3.1 of Standard No. 135 may be

appropriate in those situations where the foot pedal must be removed to

accommodate a person's disability. NHTSA seeks comment on whether its

tentative conclusion is correct. Are there disabilities which require

removal of the OEM foot pedal? The agency also seeks comment from the

vehicle manufacturers, hand control manufacturers, vehicle modifiers,

those who adapt power brake systems, and users, as to whether there are

brake modifications that incapacitate the OEM brake controls and would

affect the vehicle's performance in any of the required tests.

Specifically, does any joy stick driving control prevent the use of the

OEM brake pedal or affect the vehicle's potential to perform the

braking tests? Does increasing the power assist to the brakes affect

the vehicle's potential to perform the braking test? The agency also

seeks comment as to whether there are modifications made to the

accelerator control that do not preserve the OEM performance and

function.

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

\26\ Until August 31, 2000, manufacturers of passenger cars may

elect to comply with Standard No. 135 instead of Standard No. 105,

Hydraulic Brake Systems, Passenger cars manufactured on or after

September 1, 2000 will have to comply with Standard No. 135.

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

e. Standard No. 202, Head restraints. To reduce the frequency and

severity of neck injuries in rear-end and other collisions, Standard

No. 202 requires each front outboard seating position in all vehicles

to be equipped with a head restraint that meets specific size and

performance requirements. Vehicles may be modified to accommodate a

wheelchair seated driver or right front seat passenger. Such a

modification requires the removal of the OEM seat and, as a

consequence, the head restraint. NHTSA is aware that some wheelchairs

are equipped with head rests or positioning devices and that some

vehicles modified to be driven by wheelchair seated drivers are

equipped with swing-away head rests. Although the agency does not know

for certain, it doubts that the head rests installed on some

wheelchairs or the swing away head rests attached to vehicles comply

with Standard No. 202. Thus, NHTSA believes that compliance with

Standard No. 202 may be compromised when the OEM seat is permanently

removed to accommodate a wheelchair-seated occupant at either of the

front outboard seating positions.

In addition to the case of a wheelchair seated occupant, NHTSA

knows of another modification that could make Standard No. 202

inoperative. Some drivers (such as a driver with poor peripheral

vision) may need to alter the size of their vehicle's head restraint so

it no longer interferes with their ability to see rearward over their

shoulders.27 Reducing the size of the head restraint could

affect the vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 202 in a variety of

ways. If the head restraint is altered so that the remaining height of

the head restraint is less than 27.5 inches above the seating reference

point, the remaining width is less than 10 inches on a bench seat, or

the remaining width is less than 6.75 inches on an individual

seat,28 the vehicle may no longer comply with the

requirements of Standard No. 202. Even smaller reductions in the size

of a head restraint affect the head restraint's ability to meet the

performance requirements of S4.3 of Standard No. 202.

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

\27\ See, e.g., Letter from Ms. Jessie Flautt, to Chief Counsel

in 1991, requesting permission to cut the width of a head restraint

for a driver with poor peripheral vision.

\28\ 49 CFR Part 571.202 S4.3(b)(1) and (2), respectively.

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

In light of the above, NHTSA believes an exemption from the make

inoperative prohibition with regard to Standard No. 202 is warranted in

two situations only. First, where the OEM seat is permanently removed

so that only a wheelchair seated driver or right front passenger can

occupy either or both front outboard seating positions. If the vehicle

is modified to have a detachable driver or right front passenger seat,

the detachable seat must comply with Standard No. 202.29 If

an OEM driver or passenger seat is supplied with the vehicle, that seat

must comply with Standard No. 202. Second, an exemption would be

warranted if the head restraint must be altered to accommodate a

driver's disability. NHTSA solicits comment on whether the head rests

used on some wheelchairs would meet Standard No. 202's requirements.

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

\29\ In most instances when a vehicle is modified to allow a

person to drive from a wheelchair, an additional driver's seat and a

means for attaching the seat to the vehicle floor are provided. An

attachable passenger's seat is also usually provided.

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

f. Standard No. 203, Impact protection for the driver from the

steering control system and Standard No. 204, Steering control rearward

displacement. Standard No. 203 and Standard No. 204 serve to reduce the

likelihood and severity of head, chest, neck, and facial injuries due

to contact with the steering wheel. Standard No. 203 requires (1) that

the impact force developed on a chest body block impacting the steering

wheel at 15 mph be less than 2,500 pounds in a three millisecond

interval,30 and (2) that no steering control system

components catch the driver's clothing or jewelry. The standard does

not apply to vehicles that conform to S5.1, Standard No. 208 (i.e., air

bag requirements). Standard No. 204 requires that the upper end of the

steering column 31 be displaced less than five inches when

the vehicle impacts a fixed full frontal barrier at 30 mph.

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

\30\ Essentially, this requires that the steering column must

have an energy absorbing feature.

\31\ Steering shaft means a component that transmits steering

torque from the steering wheel to the steering gear. Steering column

means a structural housing that surrounds a steering shaft. 49 CFR

Part 571.204, S3.

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

These two standards assume that the vehicle uses the type of

steering system typically installed in a vehicle: the steering column

longitudinal axis points toward the driver and a steering wheel,

mounted at the end of the column, is used by the driver to steer the

vehicle. Vehicles modified to be driven by persons with disabilities do

not always have such steering systems. Some individuals with

disabilities require alternative steering systems such as joystick

steering (usually mounted to one side of the driver), horizontal

steering (the column points toward the driver, but the face plane of

the steering wheel is parallel to the column), foot steering, or the

Scott steering system to accommodate their particular

disability.32 In addition, extensions are sometimes added to

the OEM steering shaft to allow a wheelchair seated driver to sit

further back in the vehicle than the OEM shaft will allow (usually

because his or her wheelchair will not fit into the area reachable by

the OEM system).

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

\32\ The Scott steering system is similar to the steering system

used on airplanes and is used primarily by quadraplegics.

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

The agency would like to point out the difference between the

steering ``shaft'' and the steering ``column''. While the words

``steering column'' are often used in everyday conversation when

referring to the system consisting of the steering shaft, covered by

the steering column, S3 of Standard 204 specifically defines the

steering shaft as ``a component that transmits steering torque from the

steering wheel to the steering gear,'' while the steering column is ``a

structural housing that surrounds a steering shaft.'' It is the

agency's intent to discriminate between fairly minor modifications that

may

[[Page 51555]]

involve attaching equipment to the steering column, or cutting away a

portion of that housing, from more serious modifications that require a

change to the component that connects the driver control to the

steering gear, because it is the steering shaft that is most likely to

transmit crash loads from the engine compartment of the vehicle to the

driver. Therefore, NHTSA believes that a person modifying a vehicle for

a person with disabilities should preserve the vehicle's certification

with respect to the requirements of Standard Nos. 203 and 204 except

when a modification requires a structural change to, or removal of, the

original steering shaft. NHTSA does not believe that the simple

addition of a piece of adaptive equipment (AE), such as a hand control,

to the steering column constitutes a change to the steering shaft. The

agency requests comment on whether the following modifications can be

performed in a manner that preserves the vehicle's compliance with

Standard No. 204's steering column displacement requirements: (1) the

extension of the steering shaft, (2) the installation of horizontal

steering, or (3) the installation of mechanical hand controls. The

agency also seeks comment on whether there are modifications which

require changes to the steering column, without a change to the

steering shaft, and which can only be made in a way that would affect

the vehicle's compliance with S5.1 of Standard No. 203 or with Standard

No. 204.

g. Standard No. 207, Seating systems. To minimize the likelihood

that a seat will collapse during a collision, Standard No. 207, Seating

systems establishes performance, installation, and attachment

requirements for seats. The standard requires vehicles to be equipped

with a driver's seat and requires all seats installed in a vehicle to

both withstand and remain in their adjusted position when certain loads

are applied in various directions to the seats. The standard also

requires folding seats to be equipped with a restraining device and a

release mechanism. NHTSA knows of only one vehicle modification in

which certification to Standard No. 207 cannot be maintained--the

permanent removal of the driver's seat so that the vehicle can be

driven by a driver seated in a wheelchair. In most instances when the

driver for whom the vehicle is modified is sitting in a wheelchair, an

additional driver's seat and a means for attaching the seat to the

vehicle floor are provided. This seat and the attachment mechanism

should conform to the requirements of Standard No. 207; NHTSA knows of

no reason why it cannot.

NHTSA believes that only a limited exemption from Standard No. 207

is appropriate. Wheelchairs and other non-automotive seats are not

designed to withstand loads and remain in position during a collision.

NHTSA believes that only vehicles modified to be driven by a person

seated in a wheelchair and that are equipped with a wheelchair

securement device should be exempt from compliance with Standard No.

207. The exemption would not apply to any vehicle equipped with a

detachable driver's seat; in that case, the detachable seat would have

to comply with the standard's requirements.

The agency is aware that some commenters may argue that the

installation of a six-way power seat base (allowing a wheelchair user

to transfer to the OEM driver's seat) requires exemption from Standard

No. 207. NHTSA disagrees. The agency believes that it is reasonable and

practicable to attach these seat bases to a vehicle in a manner that

would not compromise a vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 207.

Thus, NHTSA believes that an exemption from the make inoperative

prohibition for the installation of a power seat base is inappropriate.

h. Standard No. 208, Occupant crash protection. The purpose of

Standard No. 208 is to reduce the number of vehicle occupant deaths and

the severity of vehicle occupant injuries in a crash. The standard

requires vehicles to be equipped with specific manual and automatic

restraint systems (e.g. seat belts and air bags) and to meet specified

injury criteria during a crash test.33 Many vehicle

modifications could affect a vehicle's compliance with this standard.

The agency has tried to determine how various modifications might

affect a vehicle's compliance with the standard. NHTSA knows that some

types of modifications unavoidably affect a vehicle's compliance with

Standard No. 208. For example, any modification that requires the

removal of the OEM steering wheel, and hence the driver air bag,

affects the vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 208. In addition,

any modification to the seat which requires removing an air bag sensor

located under the seat compromises a vehicle's compliance with the

standard. Based on the results of testing, NHTSA knows of other

modifications that will not affect a vehicle's compliance with the

standard. For example, the results of a crash test conducted at the

University of Virginia indicate that raising the body off the frame or

lowering the floor of a full size van will not compromise a vehicle's

compliance with Standard No. 208, at least for a driver seated in a

modified OEM seat.34 In addition, NHTSA believes that the

simple attachment of a steering control device on the OEM steering

wheel will not affect a vehicle's compliance with Standard No.

208.35

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

\33\ Passenger cars and light trucks and vans with a curb weight

of 5,500 pounds or a Gross Vehicle Weight Rating (GVWR) of 8,500

pounds or less are required to be equipped with air bags at both

front outboard seating positions. Heavier vehicles are not required

to have air bags at both front outboard seating positions and may

instead be equipped with a belt system.

\34\ University of Virginia, Automobile Safety Laboratory crash

test of Ford E150 van for NMEDA.

\35\ ``Air Bag Interaction with and Injury Potential from Common

Steering Control Devices,'' final report DOT-HS-808-580, Nov. 1996;

Pilkey et al. Univ. of Virginia Automobile Safety Lab.

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

The agency is also aware that there are some modifications which

may take a vehicle out of compliance with Standard No. 208. For

example, nearly every modification to the occupant compartment forward

of the B pillar could compromise a vehicle's compliance with Standard

No. 208. At this point in time, the agency lacks the data or test

results needed to determine whether some modifications affect a

vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 208.36 For example,

the agency does not know if cutting the knee bolster to accommodate the

push rods in a standard set of mechanical hand controls affects the

vehicle's ability to meet the injury criteria in a crash. The agency is

also uncertain whether cutting the vehicle floor to install a power pan

in the driver's area or whether cutting the roof adversely affects the

vehicle's structural response in a crash to the point that Standard No.

208's criteria can no longer be met. Finally, NHTSA does not know

whether removing pretensioners during a modification of the belt system

makes it impossible to meet the criteria of Standard No. 208.

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

\36\ The fact that OEMs refuse to pass through certification for

Standard No. 208 in any case where the vehicle is changed forward of

the B-pillar indicates the difficulty of knowing whether certain

modifications will affect a vehicle's compliance with Standard No.

208. In addition, the OEMs instruct modifiers not to place any

equipment in the air bag deployment zone.

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

In light of the standard's complexity and the uncertainty

concerning the effect of some modifications on a vehicle's compliance

with Standard No. 208, NHTSA believes that exemption from the make

inoperative prohibition for Standard No. 208 should be granted for any

modification necessary to accommodate a disability, provided the

[[Page 51556]]

modifier installs Type 2 37 or Type 2A 38 belts

that comply with Standard No. 209, and provided the belt anchorages

comply with Standard No. 210. The agency notes, however, that the

exemption would not apply in any situation where compliance with the

standard could be preserved and a person's disability could be

accommodated by the installation of an air bag on-off switch. NHTSA

seeks comment from drop floor minivan alterers on whether they have

been able to certify their vehicles to Standard No. 208 since September

1, 1997 (the date the section 4.2 exclusion expired). The agency also

seeks comment from hand control manufacturers as to whether they

believe OEM components installed to meet Standard No. 208 (e.g. knee

bolsters) are made inoperable by the installation of their controls.

The agency seeks comments from modifiers on how, how often, and why

they must disable seat pretensioners.

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

\37\ An integrated lap and shoulder belt.

\38\ A separate lap and shoulder belt.

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

i. Standard No. 214, Side impact protection. Standard No. 214's

requirements serve to minimize the risk of serious and fatal injuries

to vehicle occupants in side impact collisions. The standard specifies

injury criteria to be measured during a crash test and sets strength

requirements for doors. With respect to the dynamic performance

requirement of Standard No. 214, NHTSA believes that an exemption from

the make inoperative prohibition is warranted for cases in which the

seat position must be changed to accommodate a person's disability. The

agency discovered during the course of the development of the test

procedure for the side impact crash test that data indicating injury to

the dummy will be affected by seat height, fore/aft position, and the

distance between the dummy and the door interior surface. (The use of

occupant restraints, however, did not affect the test results

significantly.) The agency requests comments on whether OEMs or

modifiers believe there are modifications, other than those that change

the seat position, that would affect the vehicle's compliance with S5

of Standard No. 214. NHTSA does not believe there are any modifications

which would necessarily reduce door strength to an extent that the

strength requirement of Standard No. 214 could not be met. Thus, NHTSA

does not believe a make inoperative exemption is warranted for that

portion of the standard. NHTSA requests comment on whether OEMs or

modifiers believe there are modifications which must be done in a

manner that necessarily compromises door strength.

2. Standards for Which Permission Would Not Be Granted To Make Safety

Features Inoperative

a. Standard No. 102, Transmission shift lever sequence, starter

interlock, and transmission braking effect. Standard No. 102 requires

automatic transmissions to have: (1) a specified transmission shift

lever sequence, (2) a starter interlock, and (3) at least one forward

drive transmission position that provides a greater degree of engine

braking than the highest speed transmission ratio (i.e. one low gear).

To accommodate certain disabilities, some modifications are made to the

method by which the vehicle is started and the transmission gear is

selected. A common modification is the attachment of an extension lever

to the column-mounted gear selection lever in a passenger car to permit

left-handed gear selection. NHTSA is unaware of any modification which

would need to change the transmission gear selection sequence, disable

the starter interlock, or disable the lower forward drive gear ratios

so there is no longer a low gear. Thus, NHTSA does not believe a make

inoperative exemption for Standard No. 102 is appropriate. NHTSA

solicits comment on whether modifications to the method by which the

vehicle is started and the transmission gear is selected are necessary

to accommodate a person with a disability.

b. Standard No. 103, Windshield defrosting and defogging systems,

and Standard No. 104, Windshield wiping and washing systems. Standard

No. 103 and Standard No. 104 specify requirements for the area of the

windshield that must be cleared by the defrosting and defogging and

windshield wiping and washing systems, respectively. Vehicle

modifications commonly result in the relocation of switches and a

reduction in the features normally available to the driver while the

vehicle is in motion. For example, if the OEM provides three or four

wiper speeds on a dial control, a disabled driver who needs a touch pad

or other switch panel may have access to only two speeds. However,

neither this situation nor any other modification to these systems that

NHTSA knows of are violations of the make inoperative prohibition since

the minimum requirements of the standard are met. The agency is unaware

of any reason why a modification would affect the performance level of

these systems to the extent that the vehicle no longer complied with

these standards. NHTSA, therefore, does not believe an exemption for

Standard No. 103 or Standard No. 104 is appropriate.

c. Braking Standards. Standard No. 105, Hydraulic brake systems and

Standard No. 121, Air brake systems govern the performance of various

braking systems in different types of vehicles. Standard No. 105

applies to multipurpose passenger vehicles (MPVs), trucks, buses and

passenger cars (manufactured before September 1, 2000) with hydraulic

brake systems. Standard No. 121 applies to trucks, buses and trailers

equipped with air brake systems. Manufacturers of passenger cars may

elect to comply with Standard No. 135 instead of Standard No. 105 until

August 31, 2000.39 All of these standards help ensure safe

vehicle braking performance in normal and emergency driving situations.

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

\39\ Passenger cars manufactured on or after September 1, 2000

will have to comply with Standard No. 135. See discussion of

Standard No. 135 in Section II, C, 1, d above.

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

The most common modification to any brake system when adapting a

vehicle to be driven by a person with a disability is the addition of

some sort of hand control to the OEM system--usually a system that

attaches in some manner to the brake pedal. Normally these systems

maintain the OEM brake control. Also common are modifications to the

level of effort (pressure) required of the driver to operate the brake.

These modifications are called low-effort and zero-effort braking and

increase the amount of power assist to the driver. This is accomplished

by reworking the OEM power brake system. Since these modifications are

only to the method of actuation and in most cases preserve the OEM foot

pedals, NHTSA does not believe that these modifications take a vehicle

out of compliance with any part of these braking standards. Unlike

Standard No. 135, Standard Nos. 105 and 121 do not specify that the

service brakes be activated by a foot control. Therefore, NHTSA does

not believe that make inoperative exemption for Standard Nos. 105 and

121 is warranted. The agency seeks comment from the vehicle

manufacturers, hand control manufacturers, vehicle modifiers, those who

adapt power brake systems, and users, as to whether there are brake

modifications that incapacitate the OEM brake controls and would affect

the vehicle's performance in any of the required tests. Specifically,

does any joy stick driving control prevent the use of the OEM brake

pedal or affect the vehicle's potential to perform the braking tests?

Does increasing the power assist to the brakes affect the vehicle's

potential to perform the braking test?

[[Page 51557]]

The agency also seeks comment as to whether there are modifications

made to the accelerator control that do not preserve the OEM

performance and function.

d. Standard No. 111, Rearview mirrors. To ensure that drivers have

a clear and unobstructed view to the rear of the vehicle, the standard

specifies the location, field of view, magnification and labeling of

rearview mirrors on all vehicles. While mirrors are relocated, extra

mirrors added, or larger mirrors substituted for the OEM when vehicles

are modified for persons with disabilities, NHTSA does not believe

these modifications should affect the vehicles' certification to

Standard No. 111. Since there should be no situation in which non-

compliance with the standard is necessary or advised, NHTSA is not

proposing a make inoperative exemption from Standard No. 111.

e. Standard No. 113, Hood latch systems. Standard No. 113 requires

that cars, MPVs, trucks and buses have a second latch position on the

hood latch system to prevent the hood from unlatching, opening and

blocking a driver's view through the windshield. NHTSA is not aware of

any modifications that are made to hood latch systems when a vehicle is

modified to accommodate a person with a disability. NHTSA is aware that

a modification to the method of unlatching might be necessary to allow

a person with reduced range of motion or strength, or seated in a

wheelchair to open the hood. NHTSA does not believe, however, that a

modification to the method of unlatching would require the elimination

of the second latch position; thus, the agency does not believe a make

inoperative exemption for Standard No. 113 is warranted. The agency

seeks comment on whether there are modifications that would require

eliminating the second latch position.

f. Standard No. 124, Accelerator control systems. Accelerator

control systems is intended to help prevent runaway acceleration of

vehicles. The standard requires a vehicle's throttle to return to its

idle position when the driver withdraws all force from the accelerator

control or when there is a disconnection in the accelerator system

between the control and the engine. The vehicle modification situation

with respect to Standard No. 124 is directly analogous to the previous

discussion of the braking standards. Most modifications to the

accelerator system involve the addition of hand operated controls to

the OEM system. NHTSA does not believe, therefore, that the vehicle is

taken out of compliance with the standard as long as the OEM

performance and function are preserved. Thus, NHTSA does not believe an

exemption for Standard No. 124 is justified. The agency seeks comment

from the vehicle manufacturers, hand control manufacturers, vehicle

modifiers, those who adapt acceleration systems, and users, as to

whether there are accelerator modifications that incapacitate the OEM

accelerator controls and would affect the vehicle's performance in any

of the required tests. Are there modifications made to the accelerator

control that do not preserve the OEM performance and function?

g. Standard No. 201, Occupant protection in interior impact. The

purpose of this standard is to protect vehicle occupants from serious

injury from impacts with interior components in a collision. The

certification of a vehicle to the current standard would most likely be

affected, if at all, through the installation of adaptive equipment

(AE) for secondary controls. Special switches or touch pads are often

installed to allow a person to reach and operate the controls for power

windows, washer/wipers, and headlights. These controls can be mounted

almost anywhere: on the side door panel, the arm rest, the front

instrument panel, or the windshield header. It does not appear that

these controls are large, heavy or rigid enough to cause significant

injury upon occupant impact, although they may inflict lacerations.

NHTSA seeks comments from OEMs and modifiers on whether or not the

addition of adaptive equipment and devices, such as hand controls or

knobs, affect the results of tests required by 49 CFR 571.201, S5.1,

``Instrument Panels''?

NHTSA believes, however, that there may be a problem with van

conversions for wheelchair-seated drivers when the new requirements for

impact testing to the upper interior components become effective. The

extra padding needed on the windshield header to comply with the new

requirements may interfere with a driver's line of sight, since a

wheelchair-seated driver sits higher above the vehicle floor than a

driver using an OEM seat. NHTSA believes this could be accommodated by

lowering the floor in the driver area; the agency is aware that this

will not be a solution for everyone. Those drivers who are very tall,

or for whom the floor cannot be lowered enough, may need to have

sections of padding on the header removed. Also, it may be much safer

to remove padding from the header than to lower the floor of the

vehicle further than would be necessary if the header were not padded.

NHTSA seeks comments from OEMs on how they expect upper interior

components to change under the new requirements. Specifically, if the

eye ellipse of a wheelchair-seated driver is higher than that of a 95th

percentile male, will increased padding or other design changes affect

that driver's line of sight?

h. Standard No. 206, Door locks and door retention components. To

minimize the likelihood that vehicle occupants will be ejected from a

vehicle during a crash, Standard No. 206, Door locks and door retention

components, requires hinged doors to have latches with two positions:

fully latched and secondarily latched. The latch and striker must not

separate under certain longitudinal, transverse, and inertial load and

the door hinges must not separate under certain longitudinal and

transverse loads. The standard also specifies that track and slide

combinations on sliding doors must not separate under a 4,000 pound

transverse load. The standard also requires vehicles to have door locks

operable from the interior of the vehicle. Standard No. 206 excludes

``* * * side doors which are equipped with wheelchair lifts and which

are linked to an alarm system.'' The agency has granted a petition

asking to expand this exclusion to side doors fitted with

ramps.40 This action by the agency does not mean that the

action desired by the petitioner will be taken, only that NHTSA will

examine the issue.

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

\40\ 61 FR 27325; May 31, 1996.

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

Several vehicle modifications have the potential to affect door

closures and the doors' ability to remain closed during impact.

Examples include electrically operated door openers for both hinged and

sliding doors and lengthened doors that are sometimes installed when

the vehicle roof is raised. Standard 206 is crucial in preventing the

ejection of occupants in a crash. NHTSA has no compelling evidence that

the OEM door latching mechanism cannot be preserved, or its equivalent

installed, in the course of door modifications. Therefore, NHTSA does

not believe exemption from the make inoperative prohibition for

Standard No. 206 is justified. The agency also solicits comment on

whether door latching and locking mechanisms must be disabled or

changed in the course of vehicle modifications in a manner that takes

them out of compliance with Standard No. 206, Door locks and door

retention components.

i. Standard No. 209, Seat belt assemblies. This standard sets out

requirements for seat belt assemblies as items of motor vehicle

equipment.

[[Page 51558]]

NHTSA is not proposing exemption from the make inoperative prohibition

since the agency sees no reason why modifiers cannot use Standard No.

209-compliant systems.

j. Standard No. 210, Seat belt assembly anchorages. Standard No.

210 is a vehicle standard that establishes strength and location

requirements for seat belt assembly anchorages. The requirements ensure

that the belt loads during a crash are transferred to the skeleton of

the occupant and not to the occupant's soft tissue. The standard also

ensures that the restraint anchorages are strong enough to withstand

the force of a crash. Compliance with the criteria is fairly simple to

measure. Traditionally, NHTSA has said that a vehicle may comply with

Standard No. 210 as manufactured or as modified. The agency does not

believe, therefore, that exemption from make inoperative with respect

to Standard No. 210 is necessary. If belt anchorages are moved, or

otherwise modified, to accommodate a person with a disability, NHTSA

believes measurements, calculations, or engineering judgement can be

used to ensure that Standard No. 210 is met in the new position.

k. Standard No. 216, Roof crush resistance. The purpose of Standard

No. 216 is to reduce the number of deaths and injuries caused by a roof

crushing into the vehicle during a rollover. The standard establishes

static strength requirements for both car and LTV roofs. A common

modification that could compromise a vehicle's certification to this

standard is the installation of a raised roof (most often made of

fiberglass). The agency believes that modifiers almost always, if not

exclusively, achieve this roof modification by purchasing a replacement

roof from a roof manufacturer and installing the new roof according to

the roof manufacturer's instructions. NHTSA believes that the roof

manufacturer should be able to provide guidance to the vehicle modifier

on the strength of the roof and the vehicle make/models for which

installation of that roof is appropriate. The agency does not believe

that it is necessary for a raised roof to be installed in a manner that

takes a vehicle out of compliance with Standard No. 216. NHTSA invites

roof manufacturers and vehicle modifiers to comment on whether there

are raised roofs which must be installed in a way that adversely

affects the vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 216, Roof crush

resistance, or if there are instances in which a raised roof is

achieved by some method other than installing a replacement roof.

l. Standard No. 301, Fuel system integrity and Standard No. 303,

Fuel system integrity of compressed natural gas vehicles. To reduce

deaths and injuries occurring from fires caused by leaking fuel during

and after a crash, Standard No. 301, Fuel system integrity and Standard

No. 303, Fuel system integrity of compressed natural gas vehicles set

performance requirements for fuel systems in crashes. Preserving fuel

system integrity in a crash to prevent occupant exposure to fire is

extremely important to all persons, but perhaps even more so for

persons with disabilities since they often require more time to exit a

vehicle.

Vehicle certification to Standard No. 301 can be compromised when

the fuel tank, supply lines, and filler neck are moved in the process

of lowering the floor of a van or minivan. NHTSA believes it is

essential for safety that anyone working on a motor vehicle place a

tank in such a way that it is not subject to impact by the sharp edges

of the vehicle's structures, that fuel lines are not routed near hot

surfaces, and that the fuel filler neck is not installed in such a way

that it will separate from the tank, or be sheared off in a collision.

In addition, NHTSA is aware of one tank manufacturer who has

demonstrated that when its tank was correctly installed in the rear of

a 1992 Ford E150 with a lowered floor and raised body, the vehicle met

the performance requirements of Standard No. 301. The points discussed

under Standard No. 301 are applicable to Standard No. 303, Fuel system

integrity of compressed natural gas vehicles. NHTSA, therefore,

believes strongly that a make inoperative exemption for Standard No.

301 and Standard No. 303 is not justified.

m. Standard No. 302, Flammability of interior materials. To reduce

the occurrence of deaths and injuries to vehicle occupants from fire,

especially those which originate in the vehicle's interior, Standard

302, Flammability of interior materials specifies that any material

within one-half inch of the occupant compartment air space shall not

``burn, nor transmit a flame front across its surface, at a rate of

more than four inches per minute.'' Materials meeting this standard are

readily available and the test procedure described in the standard is

fairly simple.

There are many modifications which have the potential to compromise

a vehicle's certification to Standard No. 302. One example is the

replacement of OEM carpet in vans with a surface which is easier for

wheelchairs to roll on. Carpet may also be replaced in the process of

lowering a floor. Some vehicle modifiers have told NHTSA staff that

they do not use OEM materials when making changes because these

materials are much more expensive than others more commonly available.

The agency believes that fire safety for persons with disabilities

should not be compromised during vehicle modification. Even if OEM

materials are not used, modifiers can employ substitutes that comply

with Standard No. 302. NHTSA believes it is the duty of the vehicle

modifier to get information from its suppliers on the fire resistance

of the materials it uses. Suppliers should be able to tell modifiers

whether the material will meet Standard No. 302 requirements. The

agency is not proposing a make inoperative exemption for Standard No.

302.

III. Explanation of Procedural Differences Between Proposed

Exemption and Existing Exemption re Air Bag On-Off Switches

In developing the procedures for implementing the proposed

exemption, the agency considered the detailed eligibility procedures it

adopted as part of the make inoperative exemption that it issued in

November 1997 to permit the retrofit installation of on-off switches

for air bags. Generally, the agency tentatively concluded that the

circumstances warranting the detailed procedures in that rulemaking are

not present in this rulemaking.

The agency included detailed paperwork and agency authorization

procedures for individual requests for on-off switches because

information in the media and from the commenters indicated that many

people misperceived the extent and source of the risk associated with

air bags. The agency was concerned that many people who were not at

risk for death or injury from an air bag would reduce their safety by

unnecessarily installing and using switches. Therefore, NHTSA drafted

the regulation granting the exemption to counteract that misperception

and its potential consequences. The regulation requires vehicle owners

to first read an information brochure explaining the actual risks

associated with air bags and what most owners can do to virtually

eliminate the risks to themselves and the users of their vehicle and to

then submit a request for a switch to the agency. The vehicle owner may

obtain a switch only after the agency sends the owner a letter

authorizing a motor vehicle dealer or repair business to install it.

The regulation also requires dealers or repair businesses to provide

[[Page 51559]]

the vehicle owner with information about the potential safety

consequences of using the switch to turn off an air bag when they

install a switch. In addition, dealers and repair businesses must

notify the agency when they install a switch.

The agency has not proposed any of those procedural provisions as

part of the exemption from the make inoperative prohibition for persons

who modify vehicles to accommodate people with disabilities. More

specifically, the agency has not proposed to require that vehicle

owners or modifiers perform any of the tasks: fill out written

requests, certify the need for modifications, certify having read the

information concerning the safety consequences of modifications, or

obtain prior agency approval of their requests. Similarly, the agency

has not proposed to require that modifiers notify the agency of the

modifications they make or provide vehicle owners with information

concerning the safety consequences of the modifications.

The proposed exemption addresses the requests for modifications

based on objective physical inability to use an unmodified vehicle, not

any potentially overgeneralized or overstated fear of an item of

vehicle equipment, as in the case of air bags. Thus, there is no gap

between the actual need for modifications and the perceived need for

them. Further, there is a limitation on the modifications that vehicle

owners can obtain under the exemption. The modifications must be

necessary to accommodate a particular disability. There is little

likelihood that persons lacking disabilities will seek the types of

modifications addressed by this proposed exemption. Most such

modifications have appeal only to those with a need for them. In

addition, most of these modifications are expensive. For example, a

fairly extensive modification to allow a quadriplegic to drive costs

anywhere from $27,000 to $80,000 (for the most advanced modifications).

Even a relatively simple set of hand controls costs between $300 and

$500. Further, the agency believes that most modifications,

particularly the most extensive, are paid for in whole or in part by

organizations that generally require individuals desiring vehicle

modifications to be evaluated by an occupational therapist (OT), or

other appropriate professional 41 before vehicles are

modified. These organizations include the U.S. Department of Veterans

Affairs (VA),42 the states,43 or third party

payers, such as workman's compensation or disability

insurers.44 The OT assesses the severity of the person's

disability and issues a prescription specifying the vehicle

modifications that are needed to accommodate the person's disability.

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

\41\ Medical doctors, rehabilitation specialists, and driver

trainer/evaluators also evaluate persons with disabilities for

vehicle modifications.

\42\ Disabled veterans are eligible for financial assistance

from the VA to help defray the cost of their vehicle modifications.

\43\ Funding for vehicle modifications is available in most

states through the Vocational Rehabilitation Departments to a person

with a disability who needs a personal vehicle to travel to work or

school.

\44\ In addition, most major vehicle manufacturers offer rebates

to people with disabilities who purchase their vehicles to help

defray the cost of vehicle modifications and adaptive equipment.

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

A final factor that would tend to discourage persons without

disabilities from attempting to obtain the modifications at issue in

this proposed exemption is that those modifications take a considerable

period of time. This is in part because modifiers must typically

customize the vehicle to fit the person with a disability. For example,

the modifications for a quadriplegic could take from several weeks to

several months to complete. The modifier must take measurements and

ensure that the location and alignment of all the controls and

equipment are accessible to and operable by the person with a

disability. In order to do this, a modifier must often schedule several

``fittings'' with the person for whom the vehicle is being modified.

Based on these considerations, the agency tentatively concluded

that there is no need to propose special procedural provisions to limit

the availability of modifications under the proposed exemption. There

is little risk that people would seek to have their vehicles modified

unless the modification was genuinely needed to accommodate a person's

disability. The agency also believes there is little risk that

modifiers would agree to modify vehicles for persons without

disabilities. The exemption would not apply to any modifications

performed for the convenience of an able-bodied person and modifiers

would be subject to civil penalties for any such modifications. For the

same reasons, the agency tentatively concludes also that there is no

need for modifiers to inform the agency when it makes modifications

under the exemption.

NHTSA seeks comment on whether its tentative conclusions

are correct. Is there a significant risk that individuals would seek

modifications unrelated to the accommodation of persons with

disabilities? Should the agency require any paperwork or record

retention requirements to ensure either that the intended beneficiary

is a person with disabilities or that the modifications are necessary

to accommodate a specific disability or set of disabilities?

Finally, virtually all the businesses who perform vehicle

modifications for individuals with disabilities are small businesses.

The agency does not want to impose any unnecessary requirements on

these businesses. The agency is concerned that requiring dealers and

repair businesses to submit a complete copy of an authorization form to

NHTSA would impose an unnecessary burden on these businesses. Under

such a requirement, modifiers would incur the additional costs

associated with preparing, printing, and maintaining such forms, and

then mailing them after they have been filled in and signed.

NHTSA requests comment on whether it should require

dealers and repair businesses to submit such information to NHTSA and

what the estimated burden for these businesses would be.

IV. Additional Issues and Considerations

NHTSA strongly encourages those who modify vehicles for disabled

drivers and passengers to strive to ensure that disabled people receive

a level of safety that is as close as possible to that provided able-

bodied drivers and passengers. In order to operate, or ride in, motor

vehicles, many disabled individuals have no choice but to accept a

lower level of safety in their vehicle due to their disability and the

technology that is currently available. For example, a disabled person

with limited range of motion may have to sit extremely close to the

steering wheel in order to drive. Sitting too close to the steering

wheel places that person at increased risk of head, neck, and chest

injuries in a crash.

NHTSA notes that in addition to the guidance that would be provided

under this proposal, there is guidance available from the best

available industry standards, such as the Society of Automotive

Engineers (SAE) Recommended Practices, Test Procedures, and Information

Reports. The agency urges modifiers to consult these materials. NHTSA

encourages vehicle manufacturers to work closely with those who modify

vehicles for persons with disabilities to develop vehicle designs which

minimize the need for aftermarket modifications, and to develop

appropriate mobility arrangements, adaptive devices, and other hardware

that will work harmoniously with the requirements of all applicable

standards.

[[Page 51560]]

The agency believes that the proposed exemption would meet the

needs of most persons with disabilities seeking necessary vehicle

modifications, but recognizes that there might be instances in which

relief might be appropriate, but would not be available under the

conditions of the exemption. For example, additional exemptions may be

required due to advances in technology, amendments to the current

standards, or to accommodate an extremely rare disability or condition.

Consequently, to the extent consistent with this rulemaking, NHTSA

would continue to review written requests for an exemption from the

make inoperative prohibition for vehicle modifications not covered

under this rulemaking.

V. Request for Comments

In addition to the questions raised above with respect to specific

safety standards and the procedural differences between today's

proposal and the existing exemption for air bag on-off switches, NHTSA

requests comments about the appropriateness of the provisions of the

proposed exemption. Among the specific issues are the following:

NHTSA solicits comment on whether the standards proposed

for inclusion under the exemption are appropriate. Are additional

limitations needed with respect to these standards? The agency is

particularly interested in the results of any tests that have been

performed on modified vehicles and adaptive equipment. NHTSA seeks

comment on whether there are modifications that would necessarily take

a vehicle out of compliance with a standard but are not included in the

proposed exemption. For the standard requirements that NHTSA is not

proposing for inclusion in the exemption, the agency solicits comment

on whether the agency's analysis is correct or whether any of those

standards' requirements warrant inclusion in the exemption, and, if so,

why?

NHTSA seeks comment on the use of vehicle modification

prescriptions in the vehicle modification industry. How often do

vehicle owners provide modifiers with a prescription? Do modifiers

generally follow the prescription's exact specifications or do they use

the prescription as a general guide to how they should modify a

vehicle? How often do vehicle owners provide modifiers with a license

restriction identifying the needed accommodation? Should NHTSA

expressly require motor vehicle dealers or repair businesses to obtain

from vehicle owners either a prescription or a valid restricted

driver's license? Would such a requirement improve safety? What effect

would such a requirement have on individuals with disabilities? Would

requiring individuals without a prescription or license restriction to

submit a request to modify to NHTSA be unduly burdensome? Is such a

requirement needed to ensure that modifications are performed only to

accommodate a person's disability and not for the convenience of an

able bodied individual?

The agency is aware of one situation in which a person

with a disability did not have a prescription because he did not seek

medical treatment due to his personal religious beliefs. The agency

solicits comment on whether people who do not consult medical

professionals for religious reasons consult some other trained

professional for advice on vehicle modifications. If they do consult

another professional, what type of professional is it? The agency also

requests comment on whether there are professionals other than doctors,

occupational therapists, or driver specialists who evaluate persons

with disabilities and recommend vehicle modifications.

The agency seeks comment on the type of information that

modifiers currently provide consumers concerning the specific vehicle

modifications that they make to accommodate persons with disabilities

and concerning the potential safety consequences of those

modifications. Should NHTSA require the disclosure of such information

by all modifiers? Should motor vehicle dealers and repair businesses be

required to identify any steps they would take to minimize the

vehicle's noncompliance with the particular standards?

The agency seeks comment on whether it should require

modifiers to disclose particular safety related information to the

consumer. If so, what information should that be? Should NHTSA require

the information to be presented in a particular way?

The agency solicits comments on the appropriateness of

requiring modifiers to obtain a written authorization from the vehicle

owner before any modifications can be made. Do dealers and repair

businesses already require such authorizations? The agency solicits

comment from modifiers who currently obtain written authorization on

how much time is involved in gathering and maintaining the forms.

The agency seeks comment on whether it should require

dealers or motor vehicle repair businesses to affix a permanent label

to the vehicle to ensure that subsequent purchasers are aware that the

vehicle has been modified and of the possible safety implications

associated with such modifications. If the agency were to require a

label, what should the format and the content of the label be? Where

should it be placed? Do modifiers currently affix labels? If so, what

does the label look like?

The agency seeks comment on the cost of vehicle

modifications made to accommodate people with disabilities.

The agency requests comment on any state efforts to

regulate the business of modifying vehicles to accommodate a person

with a disability and the potential effect the proposed rule would have

on those states' regulatory efforts.

Finally, the agency has posted information on vehicle

modifications and adaptive equipment at its Website

(``www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/rules/adaptive''). The agency requests

comment on whether this information is presented in a useful way. Is

there information that is not available at the Website that modifiers

and people with disabilities would like to have posted?

VI. Proposed Effective Date

Since this proposal would remove a restriction on the modification

of vehicles for persons with disabilities, NHTSA anticipates making

this amendment effective 30 days after publication of a final rule

under the Administrative Procedures Act. 5 U.S.C. Sec. 553(d). The

agency requests comment as to the appropriateness of the effective

date.

VII. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures

NHTSA has considered the impact of this rulemaking action under

E.O. 12866 and the Department of Transportation's regulatory policies

and procedures. This rulemaking document was not reviewed under E.O.

12866, ``Regulatory Planning and Review.'' NHTSA has analyzed this

proposal and determined that it is not ``significant'' within the

meaning of the Department of Transportation's regulatory policies and

procedures. NHTSA has, therefore, determined that a regulatory

evaluation, designed to discuss the benefits/disbenefits and consumer

costs/cost savings of a proposal, is not needed to support the subject

rulemaking.

Clearly, modifying a vehicle in a way that degrades the performance

of certain federal motor vehicle safety standards would produce some

negative safety benefits for the occupants of the vehicle. However, the

number of safety

[[Page 51561]]

standards affected would be very small and the number of vehicles

potentially modified would be very few in number. Thus, the agency

believes the disbenefits, if any exist, would be minimal. This is

essentially the trade-off that NHTSA is faced with when increasing

mobility for persons with disabilities--when necessary vehicle

modifications are made, some safety may unavoidably be lost.

It is cost prohibitive to have every vehicle modification tested in

advance for safety performance or safety compliance. The vehicle

modifications being made today to accommodate disabled persons are

based on engineering experience/judgment and have proven to be

successful in the real-world. For this particular proposal, which is

administrative in nature, no costs will be imposed by the agency's

actions. The cost of doing business for the vehicle modification

industry will not be changed by the subject proposal. If anything,

there could be a cost savings due to eliminating the requirements that

the modifier contact the agency about pending vehicle modifications.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

NHTSA has also considered the impacts of this notice under the

Regulatory Flexibility Act. Most dealerships and repair businesses are

considered small entities, and a substantial number of these businesses

modify vehicles to accommodate individuals with disabilities. I hereby

certify that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic

impact on a substantial number of small entities. As explained above,

this action would create a formal procedure to replace the current

requirement that dealers or repair businesses write to NHTSA and

request permission each time they need to modify a vehicle in a way

that compromises a vehicle's compliance with any standard to

accommodate an individual with a disability. While most dealers and

repair businesses would be considered small entities, the proposed

requirements would not impose any mandatory significant economic impact

on them considering that: (1) for the vast majority of cases, the

agency believes the rule codifies standard industry practices and

procedures used to make vehicle modifications, (2) the proposed rule

would assist dealers and repair businesses in making appropriate design

choices, and (3) the proposed rule would eliminate the costs associated

with submitting a written request to NHTSA to modify each vehicle as

well as the costs associated with waiting for the agency's response.

Therefore, a Preliminary Regulatory Flexibility Analysis is not

required as the subject rule does not impose any significant costs on

small business entities.

Paperwork Reduction Act

NHTSA has analyzed this proposed rule under the Paperwork Reduction

Act of 1995 (P.L. 104-13) and determined that it would not impose any

information collection requirements as that term is defined by the

Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in 5 CFR part 1320.

The National Environmental Policy Act

NHTSA has also analyzed this proposed rule under the National

Environmental Policy Act and determined that it would have no

significant impact on the human environment.

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-4)

requires agencies to prepare a written assessment of the costs,

benefits and other effects of proposed or final rules that include a

Federal mandate likely to result in the expenditure by State, local or

tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of more

than $100 million annually. This proposed rule does not meet the

definition of a Federal mandate, because it is completely permissive.

In addition, annual expenditures will not exceed the $100 million

threshold.

Executive Order 12612 (Federalism)

The agency has analyzed this proposed rule in accordance with the

principles and criteria set forth in Executive Order 12612. NHTSA has

determined that this proposed rule would not have sufficient federalism

implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.

Civil Justice Reform

This proposed rule has no retroactive effect. NHTSA is not aware of

any state law that would be preempted by this proposed rule. This

proposed rule would not repeal any existing Federal law or regulation.

It would modify existing law only to the extent that it replaces an

agency procedure under which dealers and repair businesses had to

obtain the agency's permission to modify a vehicle to accommodate a

person with a disability in a way that compromised the vehicle's

compliance with the Standard. This proposed rule would not require

submission of a petition for reconsideration or the initiation of other

administrative proceedings before a party may file suit in court.

VIII. Comments

NHTSA is providing a 90 day comment period. Interested persons are

invited to submit comments on this proposal. It is requested but not

required that 2 copies be submitted.

All comments should not exceed 15 pages in length (49 CFR 553.21).

Necessary attachments may be appended to these submissions without

regard to the 15 page limit. The limitation is intended to encourage

commenters to detail their primary arguments in a concise fashion.

If a commenter wishes to submit certain information under a claim

of confidentiality, three copies of the complete submission, including

the purportedly confidential business information, should be submitted

to the Chief Counsel, NHTSA, 400 7th Street, SW, Room 5219, Washington,

DC 20590, and two copies from which the purportedly confidential

information has been deleted should be submitted to the NHTSA Docket

Section. A request for confidentiality should be accompanied by a cover

letter setting forth the information specified in the agency's

confidential business information regulation. 49 CFR Part 512.

All comments received by NHTSA before the close of business on the

comment closing date indicated above for the proposal will be

considered, and will be available for examination in the docket at the

above address both before and after that date. To the extent possible,

comments filed after the closing date will also be considered. Comments

received too late for consideration in regard to the final rule will be

considered as suggestions for further rulemaking action. Comments on

the proposal will be available for inspection in the docket. The NHTSA

will continue to file relevant information as it becomes available in

the docket after the closing date, and recommends that interested

persons continue to examine the docket for new material.

Those persons desiring to be notified upon receipt of their

comments in the rulemaking docket should enclose a self-addressed,

stamped postcard in the envelope with their comments. Upon receiving

the comments, the docket supervisor will return the postcard by mail.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 595

Imports, Motor vehicle safety, Motor vehicles, Disability.

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, NHTSA proposes to amend

Part 595 of Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

[[Page 51562]]

PART 595--EXEMPTIONS FROM THE MAKE INOPERATIVE PROHIBITION

1. The authority citation for part 595 would continue to read as

follows:

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117, 30122, and 30166;

delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.

2. The heading of part 595 would be revised to read as set forth

above.

3. Sections 595.1, 595.2, 595.3, and 595.4 would be designated as

``Subpart A--General''.

4. Section 595.1 would be revised to read as follows:

Sec. 595.1 Scope.

This part establishes conditions under which the compliance of

motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment with the Federal motor

vehicle safety standards is to be made inoperative.

5. Section 595.2 would be revised to read as follows:

Sec. 595.2 Purpose.

The purpose of this part is to provide an exemption from the ``make

inoperative'' provision of 49 U.S.C. 30122 that permits motor vehicle

dealers and motor vehicle repair businesses to install retrofit on-off

switches for air bags and to otherwise modify motor vehicles to enable

people with disabilities to operate or ride as a passenger in a motor

vehicle.

6. Section 595.5 is designated as ``Subpart B--Retrofit On-off

Switches for Air Bags''.

7. The heading of Section 595.5 would be revised to read as

follows: ``Requirements for Retrofit Air Bag On-off Switches.''

8. Subpart C would be added to read as follows:

Subpart C--Vehicle Modifications To Accommodate People With

Disabilities

Sec. 595.6 Requirements for Vehicle Modifications To Accommodate

People With Disabilities.

(a) Any dealer or motor vehicle repair business that modifies a

motor vehicle to enable a person with a disability to operate or ride

as a passenger in the motor vehicle is exempted from the ``make

inoperative'' prohibition of 49 U.S.C. 30122 to the extent that those

modifications affect the motor vehicle's compliance with the Federal

motor vehicle safety standards or portions thereof specified in

paragraph (b) of this section. No other Federal motor vehicle safety

standards, or portions thereof, are included.

(b)(1) 49 CFR 571.101, except for S5.1 (a), S5.3.1, S5.3.2, and

S5.3.5 of that section.

(2) Paragraph S5.1.1.5 of 49 CFR 571.108, in the case of a motor

vehicle that is modified to be driven without a steering wheel or for

which it is not feasible to retain the turn signal lever installed by

the vehicle manufacturer.

(3) Paragraph S4(a) of 49 CFR 571.118, in cases in which the

medical condition of the person for whom the vehicle is modified

necessitates a remote ignition switch to start the vehicle.

(4) Paragraph S5.3.1 of 49 CFR 571.135, in cases in which the

modification requires removal of the original equipment manufacturer

foot pedal.

(5) 49 CFR 571.202, in any case in which:

(i) a motor vehicle is modified to be operated by a driver seated

in a wheelchair and no other seat is supplied with the vehicle for the

driver;

(ii) a motor vehicle is modified to transport a right front

passenger seated in a wheelchair and no other right front passenger

seat is supplied with the vehicle; or

(iii) the driver's head restraint must be modified to accommodate a

driver with a disability.

(6) Paragraph S5.1 of 49 CFR 571.203, in cases in which the

modification requires a structural change to, or removal of, the

original equipment manufacturer steering shaft.

(7) 49 CFR 571.204, in cases in which the modification requires a

structural change to, or removal of, the original equipment

manufacturer steering shaft.

(8) 49 CFR 571.207, in cases in which a vehicle is modified to be

driven by a person seated in a wheelchair and no other driver's seat is

supplied with the vehicle, provided that a wheelchair securement device

is installed at the driver's position.

(9) 49 CFR 571.208, provided Type 2 or 2A seat belts meeting the

requirements of 571.209 and 571.210 of this chapter are installed.

(10) Paragraph S5 of 49 CFR 571.214, in cases in which the

restraint system and/or seat must be changed to accommodate a person

with a disability.

Issued on September 22, 1998.

L. Robert Shelton,

Associate Administrator for Safety Performance Standards.

[FR Doc. 98-25761 Filed 9-23-98; 1:40 pm]

BILLING CODE 4910-59-P