[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 180 (Friday, September 17, 2004)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 56018-56023]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-20922]



[[Page 56018]]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 595

[Docket No. NHTSA-2004-19092]
RIN 2127-AJ07


Retro Fit On-Off Switches for Air Bags; Vehicle Modifications To 
Accommodate People With Disabilities

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

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: To facilitate further the modification of vehicles to 
accommodate individuals with disabilities, the agency is proposing to 
expand the existing exemption from a statutory provision that prohibits 
specified types of commercial entities from either removing safety 
equipment or features installed on motor vehicles pursuant to the 
Federal motor vehicle safety standards or altering the equipment or 
features so as to adversely affect their performance. In response to 
petitions for rulemaking from members of the mobility industry, we are 
proposing to include provisions from the advanced air bag requirements, 
the child seat anchorage system requirements, and the upper interior 
head protection requirements in this exemption.

DATES: You should submit comments early enough to ensure that Docket 
Management receives them not later than November 16, 2004.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by DOT DMS Docket Number 
above by any of the following methods:
     Web Site: http://dms.dot.gov. Follow the instructions for 
submitting comments on the DOT electronic docket site.
     Fax: (202) 493-2251.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of 
Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, Room PL-401, 
Washington, DC 20590-001.
     Hand Delivery: Room PL-401 on the plaza level of the 
Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC, between 9 
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting 
comments.
    Instructions: All submissions must include the agency name and 
docket number or Regulatory Identification Number (RIN) for this 
rulemaking. For detailed instructions on submitting comments and 
additional information on the rulemaking process, see the Submission of 
Comments heading under the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this 
document. Note that all comments received will be posted without change 
to http://dms.dot.gov, including any personal information provided. 
Please see the information regarding the Privacy Act under the Comments 
heading.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or 
comments received, go to http://dms.dot.gov at any time or to Room PL-
401 on the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., 
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, 
except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The following persons at the National 
Highway Traffic Safety Administration:
    For non-legal issues: Gayle Dalrymple of the NHTSA Office of Crash 
Avoidance Standards at (202) 366-5559.
    For legal issues: Christopher Calamita of the NHTSA Office of Chief 
Counsel at (202) 366-2992.
    You may send mail to both of these officials at the National 
Highway Traffic and Safety Administration, 400 Seventh St., SW., 
Washington, DC 20590.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Background
II. Proposed Exemptions
    A. Advanced Air Bag Requirements
    B. LATCH Requirements
    C. Upper Interior Head Protection Requirements
III. Part 595 Title
IV. Proposed Effective Date
V. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
VI. Submission of Comments

I. Background

    In order to facilitate the modification of motor vehicles for 
persons with disabilities, NHTSA provides a limited exception from a 
statutory provision that prohibits specified types of commercial 
entities from either removing safety equipment or features installed on 
motor vehicles pursuant to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards 
or altering the equipment so as to adversely affect their performance.
    Federal law requires vehicle manufacturers to certify that their 
vehicles comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety 
standards (49 U.S.C. 30112). A manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or 
repair business may not then knowingly make inoperative any part or 
device or element of design installed in or on a motor vehicle that is 
in compliance with an applicable standard (49 U.S.C. 30122; make 
inoperative provision). Any action that removes or disables safety 
equipment or features installed to comply with an applicable standard, 
or that degrades the performance of such equipment or features 
qualifies as a ``making inoperative'' and could lead to the assessment 
of civil penalties.
    This prohibition poses a problem for persons with disabilities. 
While a vast majority of Americans can drive and ride in a motor 
vehicle as produced and certified by manufacturers, individuals with 
disabilities often require special modifications to accommodate their 
particular needs. Some of these modifications may require removal of 
federally required safety equipment. In order for individuals with 
disabilities to drive and ride in a motor vehicle in these instances, 
federally required safety features must be made inoperative.
    Recognizing the specialized transportation needs of individuals 
with disabilities, NHTSA established an exemption from the make 
inoperative provision. 49 CFR 595 subpart C, Vehicle Modifications To 
Accommodate People With Disabilities, permits repair businesses to 
modify certain types of federally required safety equipment and 
features under specified circumstances. This exemption from the make 
inoperative provision was established because the previous policy of 
considering and responding to requests on a case-by-case basis was not 
effective or efficient for the vehicle modifiers, the persons requiring 
the modifications, or the agency. (66 FR 12638; February 27, 2001.)
    When establishing the exemption from the make inoperative 
provision, the agency considered that, as of 1997, we estimated that 
approximately 383,000 vehicles had some type of adaptive equipment 
installed in them to accommodate a driver or passenger with a 
disability.\1\ We also recognized that the modification of vehicles to 
accommodate persons with disabilities would increase in frequency as 
the population ages and as a greater number of individuals with 
physical disabilities take advantage of opportunities presented by the 
Americans With Disabilities Act.\2\ In 2002, the Bureau of 
Transportation Statistics estimated between one million and 2.3 million 
households in the U.S. owned at least one modified vehicle.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Estimating the Number of Vehicles Adapted for Use by Persons 
With Disabilities, NHTSA Research Note, 1997.
    \2\ 42 U.S.C. 12101, et seq.
    \3\ 2002 National Transportation Availability and Use Survey, 
Bureau of Transportation Statistics.

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

[[Page 56019]]

    The exemption from the make inoperative provision facilitates 
modifications by providing guidance to modifiers on the type of 
modifications that can be made without unduly decreasing the level of 
safety provided to the vehicle occupants and to others. Included in the 
exemption are the seat belt and passive restraint requirements for 
passenger cars, and light trucks, buses and multipurpose passenger 
vehicles, under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 208, 
Occupant crash protection \4\ and head impact protection requirements 
for certain target points under FMVSS No. 201, Occupant protection in 
interior impacts.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Under 49 CFR 595.7(c)(14).
    \5\ 49 CFR 595.7(c)(7).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On February 5, 2002, Bruno Independent Living Aids (Bruno) 
submitted a petition to expand the specified requirements of FMVSS No. 
208 exempted in Sec.  595.7. We granted the petition for rulemaking 
from Bruno. The agency also received petitions for rulemaking from the 
Adaptive Driving Alliance (ADA) \6\ and the National Mobility Equipment 
Dealers Association (NMEDA) to include the requirements of FMVSS No. 
225, Child restraint anchorage systems, in Sec.  595.7, on August 8, 
2002, and January 13, 2003, respectively. The agency granted the FMVSS 
No. 225/part 595 petitions from the ADA and NMEDA. Later, the ADA and 
the NMEDA petitioned the agency to expand the specified requirements of 
FMVSS No. 201 exempted in Sec.  595.7. Again, the agency granted the 
petitions for rulemaking from ADA and NMEDA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The ADA is a trade association representing dealers and 
manufacturers that modify and sell vehicles adapted for people with 
disabilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Proposed Exemptions

    To facilitate the modification of vehicles for persons with 
disabilities, the agency is proposing to amend the exemption from the 
make inoperative provision under 49 CFR part 595, by adding the FMVSS 
No. 208 advanced air bag requirements, a limited exemption for the 
FMVSS No. 225 LATCH requirements, and a limited exemption for the FMVSS 
No. 201 upper interior head protection requirements.

A. Advanced Air Bag Requirements

    After the exemption from the make inoperative provision was 
published, the agency published a final rule that added requirements to 
FMVSS No. 208 to reduce the risk of serious air bag-induced injuries, 
especially to small women and young children, and to improve the safety 
for all occupants by means that include advanced air bag technology. 
(65 FR 30680; May 12, 2002; Advanced Air Bag Rule.) The advanced air 
bag technology requirements are being phased in beginning September 1, 
2003, with full compliance required September 1, 2006. Motor vehicles 
subject to the phase-in will be required to minimize air bag risks by 
automatically turning off the air bag in the presence of an occupant 
who is a young child or deploy the air bag in a manner less likely to 
cause serious or fatal injury to an out of position occupant. \7\ Among 
the technologies used to comply with these requirements are a variety 
of seat position, occupant weight, and pattern sensors incorporated 
into the seat structure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ A majority of vehicle manufacturers are required to certify 
that a percentage of their fleet complies with these requirements 
according to the following phase-in schedule: September 1, 2003 to 
August 31, 2004--20 percent; September 1, 2004 to August 31, 2005--
65 percent; September 1, 2005 to August 31, 2006--100 percent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In its petition for rulemaking, Bruno requested that the advanced 
air bag requirements be included with the other FMVSS No. 208 
requirements excluded from the make inoperative provision. Bruno stated 
that the installation of one of its mobility aid products, the Turning 
Automotive Seat (TAS) \8\ could be accomplished without making a 
conventional air bag inoperative, but would require deactivation of 
advanced air bag features. Bruno stated that maintaining the operation 
of seat position and occupant sensing devices used to comply with the 
advanced air bag requirements for numerous makes and models of motor 
vehicles is beyond its capability.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Bruno described the TAS as seat replacement that is designed 
to pivot from the forward-facing position to the side-facing entry 
position, extend outward and lower the occupant to a suitable 
transfer height.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The August 8, 2002 ADA petition provided additional support for 
Bruno's request. The ADA argued that it is no more feasible for 
modifiers to comply with the advanced air bag requirements than the 
``existing air bag requirements,'' which are currently exempted. 
Petitioners argued that maintaining compliance with the advanced air 
bag requirements would require modifiers to reinstall, modify, or 
design complex components of the air bag system. Petitioners stated 
that this was beyond the capabilities of most vehicle modifiers and 
would severely limit the opportunity for an individual needing to 
replace the driver's seat or front passenger seat in order to 
accommodate a disability to obtain such an accommodation.
    Petitioners further argued that just as the current FMVSS No. 208 
sections exempted under part 595 are incompatible with the one-of-a 
kind, custom fitted, nature of vehicle modifications designed to 
accommodate a specific individual's disability, so are the advanced air 
bag requirements. Petitioners explained that often when a vehicle is 
modified to accommodate a person with a disability, the nature of the 
work requires removal of the air bag or some part of the crash sensing 
system connected to the air bag. As with the Bruno TAS, modifications 
may require removal or disconnection of the seat position, occupant 
weight, and pattern sensors that are part of the seat structure. Since 
these modifications are unique to each vehicle and individual, 
petitioners stated that modifiers do not have the ability (engineering 
or financial) to develop alternative air bags or crash sensing systems.
    To address this issue, we are proposing to add the following 
sections of FMVSS No. 208 to the make inoperative exemptions 
established at 49 CFR 595.7(c)(14):

S15, Rigid barrier test requirements using 5th percentile adult female 
dummies;
S17, Offset frontal deformable barrier requirements using 5th 
percentile adult female test dummies;
S19, Requirements to provide protection for infants in rear facing and 
convertible child restraints and car beds;
S21, Requirements using 3-year-old child dummies;
S23, Requirements using 6-year-old child dummies;
S25, Requirements using an out-of-position 5th percentile adult female 
at the driver position.

    In most instances, a vehicle modification requiring an exemption 
for the advanced air bag requirements would also rely on the current 
exemption from the occupant crash protection requirements of S5, 
Occupant crash protection requirements for the 50th percentile adult 
male dummy, of FMVSS No. 208. We expect that modifications requiring an 
exemption from the advanced air bag requirements in conjunction with 
the exemption from S5, as well as those requiring only an exemption 
from the advanced air bag regulations, would affect a very small number 
of motor vehicles each year in comparison to the overall number of 
motor vehicles in the country. The agency has tentatively concluded 
that these modifications would be essential to enable individuals with 
a disability to use a motor vehicle. Additionally, seating positions 
modified under the proposed exemption would

[[Page 56020]]

accommodate specific, individual needs making it less likely that these 
seating positions would be used by other occupants who would benefit 
either from the air bag itself, or from those features designed to 
minimize air bag risk.

B. LATCH Requirements

    Prior to establishing the exemption from the make inoperative 
provision, the agency established FMVSS No. 225, which requires motor 
vehicles to be equipped with a lower anchorage and tether anchorage 
(LATCH) system designed exclusively to secure child restraint systems. 
(64 FR 10786; March 5, 1999; LATCH Rule) The lower anchorage consists 
of a straight rod, or bar that is attached to the vehicle in the 
location of the intersection of the seat cushion and seat back.
    FMVSS No. 225 requires vehicles with three or more forward-facing 
rear designated seating positions, manufactured on or after September 
1, 2002, to be equipped with (1) a LATCH system at not fewer than two 
forward-facing rear designated seating positions, with at least one 
system installed at a forward facing seating position in the second row 
in each vehicle that has three or more rows, and (2) a tether anchorage 
at a third forward-facing rear designated seating position.\9\ Under 
S5(b) of FMVSS No. 225 a vehicle may be equipped with a built-in child 
restraint system conforming to the requirements of FMVSS No. 213, Child 
restraint systems, instead of one of the required tether anchorages or 
child restraint anchorage systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Alternatively, until September 1, 2004, multipurpose 
passenger vehicles that have five or fewer forward-facing designated 
seating positions are not required to have a tether anchorage at a 
third seating position.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    These LATCH requirements provide a more uniform method of securing 
a child restraint system and reduce the likelihood that a child 
restraint will be installed incorrectly.
    In its petition for rulemaking, the ADA stated that compliance with 
LATCH requirements, like compliance with the advanced air bag 
requirements, would be impractical, and possibly not feasible for 
businesses modifying motor vehicles to accommodate disabled drivers and 
passengers. The ADA stated that such compliance would ``likely serve as 
a prohibition against the use of motor vehicles for people with 
disabilities,'' as well as ``significantly impact small businesses'' 
and ``unreasonably decrease consumer choice.'' The ADA explained that:

When, as part of modifying a vehicle for a disabled individual, an 
entire row of seats needs to be modified or removed (e.g. to allow 
wheelchair egress and ingress), then Part 595 must permit removal of 
the tethers and child restraint anchorages at those modified or 
removed locations. Otherwise, vehicle modifiers will be required to 
reengineer child restraint anchorages for installation at locations 
not contemplated by [the vehicle manufacturers].

    The ADA suggested amending 49 CFR Sec.  595.7 to include a limited 
exception to FMVSS No. 225 as follows:

(c)(16) 49 CFR 571.225 for the designated seating position modified 
or removed, in any cases in which the restraint system and/or seat 
at that position must be modified or removed to accommodate a person 
with a disability, provided that at least one child restraint 
anchorage system under 571.225 or built-in child restraint system 
under 571.213 is present in the vehicle.

    The agency is proposing a limited exemption from the make 
inoperative provision for the vehicle LATCH requirements under FMVSS 
No. 225. The necessity for this exemption arises when a modifier makes 
changes to a vehicle, usually a van (standard size or minivan), to 
accommodate a wheelchair user. As explained by the ADA, typically one 
row of seats must be removed to allow a wheelchair user to enter the 
vehicle through either the side or rear door (fitted with either a ramp 
or a lift). The wheelchair is then either restrained in the space made 
vacant by the removed seats, maneuvered to permit a transfer to the 
driver's seat, or maneuvered into the driver's station to allow the 
user to drive from the wheelchair. In any event, at least one row of 
seats (typically two or three designated seating positions) must be 
removed.
    Modifying a vehicle to accommodate a wheel chair could result in 
seating configurations that would take the vehicle out of compliance 
with FMVSS No. 225. If a vehicle with three rows of seating were to 
have LATCH systems only at the second row and the third row consisted 
of three designated seating positions, removal of that second row to 
permit wheelchair access to the driver's seat would remove the vehicle 
from compliance with FMVSS No. 225. Beyond this example, there are a 
myriad of van seating arrangements, desired wheelchair restraint 
positions, and vehicle entry/exit applications that could remove a 
vehicle from compliance with FMVSS No. 225.
    The agency cannot anticipate all of these potential combinations 
and provide modifiers specific instructions for each situation. 
Therefore, we are proposing an amendment that would establish 
flexibility in the modification configurations and still allow a child 
seat to be restrained safely. NHTSA proposes to that an exemption be 
added to 49 CFR 595.7, to read as follows:

(c)(16) 49 CFR 571.225 in any case in which an existing child 
restraint anchorage system, or built-in child restraint system 
relied upon for compliance with 571.225 must be removed to 
accommodate a person with a disability, provided the vehicle 
contains at least one tether anchorage which complies with 49 CFR 
571.225 S6, S7 and S8 in one of the rear passenger designated 
seating positions. If no rear designated seating position exists 
after the vehicle modification, a tether anchorage complying with 
the requirements described above must be located at a front 
passenger seat. Any tether anchorage attached to a seat that is 
relocated shall continue to comply with the requirements of 49 CFR 
571.225 S6, S7 and S8.

    The proposed exemption is less demanding than that suggested by the 
ADA. Under the petitioner's language, if a vehicle complies with FMVSS 
No. 225 by having two LATCH systems and a tether anchorage in the 
second row of seating and no LATCH anchorages in the third row of 
seating, any modification resulting in the removal of the second row of 
seating would require the modifier to install complete LATCH systems in 
the third row of seating. Modifiers may not have the engineering and 
fabrication capabilities to install the lower anchorages in a seating 
position that was not originally equipped with the LATCH system. Under 
the agency's proposal, the modifier would only be required to install a 
tether anchorage. A child seat could still be installed in a modified 
vehicle through the use of the vehicle's seat belt system and still 
have the advantage of the tether.
    Modifiers should note that if agency's proposal were made final, 
the tether anchorage(s) attached to any relocated seat would be 
required to remain compliant with 49 CFR 571.225 S6, S7 and S8 upon 
relocation. We tentatively conclude that this requirement to be within 
the capabilities of modifiers.
    49 CFR 571.225 S4.4(c) requires that vehicles, manufactured on or 
after September 1, 2002, that do not have any forward-facing rear 
designated seating positions must have a compliant tether anchorage at 
each front passenger designated seating position. If a vehicle were to 
be modified such that only front designated seating positions remained, 
we expect that modifiers would have the capabilities to install 
conforming tether anchorages at the front forward-facing passenger 
designated seating positions (if not already provided by the original 
vehicle manufacturer).
    The agency is seeking comment on whether or not modifiers should be 
required to add tether anchorages to

[[Page 56021]]

designated seating positions that were not so equipped by the original 
vehicle manufacturer.

C. Upper Interior Head Protection Requirements

    On August 18, 1995, the agency issued a final rule amending FMVSS 
No. 201 to improve head protection in impacts with upper interior 
components of certain vehicles (60 FR 43031). The final rule, which 
mandated compliance with the new requirements, significantly expanded 
the scope of FMVSS No. 201. Previously, the standard applied to the 
instrument panel, seat backs, interior compartment doors, arm rests and 
sun visors only. To determine compliance with the upper interior impact 
requirements, the final rule added procedures for a new in-vehicle 
component test in which a Free Motion Headform (FMH) is fired at 
certain target locations on the upper interior of a vehicle at an 
impact speed of up to and including 24 km/h (15 mph). The resultant 
data must not exceed a Head Injury Criterion score of 1000.
    The standard, as further amended on April 8, 1997 (67 FR 16718), 
provided manufacturers with four alternate phase-in schedules for 
complying with the upper interior impact requirements. Twice the agency 
extended the effective date for manufacturers of vehicles built in two 
or more stages, which now must comply with the expanded FMVSS No. 201 
requirements on and after September 1, 2006 (68 FR 51706; August 28, 
2003).
    In the rulemaking that established the make inoperative exemption, 
we recognized that compliance with FMVSS No. 201 at some target points 
could be problematic for certain modifications, specifically the 
installation of a platform lift. Currently, part 595 includes an 
exemption to FMVSS No. 201 with respect to:
    (i) Targets located on the right siderail, the right B-pillar and 
the first right side ``other'' pillar adjacent to the stowed platform 
of a lift or ramp that stows vertically, inside the vehicle.
    (ii) Targets located on the left siderail, the left B-pillar and 
the first left side ``other'' pillar adjacent to the stowed platform of 
a lift or ramp that stows vertically, inside the vehicle.
    (iii) Targets located on the rear header and the rearmost pillars 
adjacent to the stowed platform of a lift or ramp that stows 
vertically, inside the vehicle (49 CFR 595.7(c)(7)).
    The ADA and NMEDA each submitted a separate petition for rulemaking 
requesting that NHTSA expand the exemption of FMVSS No. 201 to include 
the provisions pertaining to upper interior head protection. According 
to the ADA petition, the addition of handles and vertical stanchion 
bars,\10\ as well as the raising or lowering of vehicle roofs or 
floors, creates a situation in which compliance with the upper interior 
head impact protection requirements would be ``infeasible.'' The ADA 
asserted that such modifications are often unique to an individual 
customer's needs, size, and disability, and create the potential for 
many different configurations, each of which would have to be tested 
under FMVSS No. 201. The ADA requested that 49 CFR 595.7 be amended to 
include exemptions for requirements related to: (1) Targets located on 
any hand grip or vertical stanchion bar; and (2) all of S6 of 571.201 
in any case in which accommodating a person's disability necessitates 
raising the roof or door, or lowering the floor of the vehicle.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Handles and stanchion bars are added to vehicles to aid a 
disabled individual in entering or exiting a vehicle, or 
transferring from a wheel chair to the driver's seat.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The agency is proposing to amend the exemption from the make 
inoperative provision by adding a limited exemption from the upper 
interior head protection requirements of FMVSS No. 201. This amendment 
would facilitate the raising of a vehicle roof and the lowering of a 
vehicle floor in order to accommodate individuals with a disability. 
Also, in instances where a vehicle is not equipped with a grab bar, or 
the originally equipped grab bar is insufficient to accommodate an 
individual with a disability, the proposal would facilitate the 
installing of handles or stanchion bars.
    The agency has already recognized the potential impact of the upper 
interior head protection requirements on manufacturers of vehicles 
manufactured in two or more stages and has provided additional lead 
time for compliance. The potential impacts of the upper interior head 
protection requirements on vehicle modifiers are analogous to those on 
manufacturers of vehicles manufactured in two or more stages.
    We are making this proposal for the reasons stated by the 
petitioner.

III. Part 595 Title

    The agency is also proposing to amend the title of part 595 to read 
``MAKE INOPERATIVE PROVISIONS.'' This amendment would reflect the fact 
that 49 CFR part 595 currently covers more than the retrofit of motor 
vehicles with on-off switches for air bags.

IV. Proposed Effective Date

    This proposal would remove a restriction on the modification of 
vehicles for persons with disabilities. To further the interest of 
providing vehicle modifiers the flexibility required to accommodate 
these individuals, we are proposing that, if adopted, this amendment 
would become effective 60 days after the publication of the final rule. 
The agency requests comments on the appropriateness of the effective 
date.

V. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

A. Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures

    NHTSA has considered the impact of this proposed rule under 
Executive Order 12866 and the Department of Transportation's regulatory 
policies and procedures. This rulemaking document was not reviewed 
under E.O. 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and Review.'' This action has 
been determined to be ``nonsignificant'' under the Department of 
Transportation's regulatory policies and procedures. NHTSA has 
determined that the impacts of this proposal would be so minimal that a 
full regulatory evaluation is not warranted.
    The agency believes that the expanded exemptions might not have any 
adverse safety effects on individuals with disabilities. The proposed 
exemptions would allow an individual with a disability to operate or 
ride in a motor vehicle, while maintaining the benefit of all of the 
compatible safety standards. Absent the modifications that would be 
permitted by this rulemaking, individuals with disabilities might not 
be able to use the vehicles in question.
    Modifying a vehicle to allow disabled individuals to operate or 
ride in a motor vehicle may result in some loss of safety for any 
individuals without disabilities who may operate or ride in those motor 
vehicles. However, any loss of safety would be minimal. We do not 
expect many individuals without a disability to use seating positions 
specially modified for individuals with a disability. Further, as noted 
above, the number of affected standards would remain small and the 
number of vehicles that would be modified would be relatively small.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    We have considered the effects of this rulemaking action under the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) Most motor vehicle 
modifiers are considered small entities. I hereby certify that this 
proposal would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities. As explained above, this action would add 
several occupant crash protection

[[Page 56022]]

requirements, vehicle LATCH requirements, and upper interior head 
protection requirements to the current list of requirements exempted 
from the Make Inoperative Provision. While most modifiers are 
considered small entities, the proposal would not impose any mandatory 
significant impact on them since the proposal would permit greater 
flexibility when modifying a vehicle to accommodate an individual with 
a disability.

C. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The collection of information burden under the labeling and 
recordkeeping requirements of 49 CFR 595.7, OMB clearance numbers 2127-
0512 and 2127-0635, respectively, would not increase under the proposed 
rule. The agency anticipates that any vehicle modification using one of 
the proposed exemptions would be made in conjunction with one or more 
modifications based on the current exemptions. A vehicle modifier using 
one of the proposed exemptions would only be required to list the 
proposed exemption along with the other exemptions on the required 
disclosure to the consumer. The vehicle labeling and record keeping 
requirements do not vary on the number of exemptions per vehicle, only 
on the total number of vehicles modified.

D. National Environmental Policy Act

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

E. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

    Executive Order 13132 requires NHTSA to develop an accountable 
process to ensure ``meaningful and timely input by State and local 
officials in the development of regulatory policies that have 
federalism implications.'' The phrase ``policies that have federalism 
implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations 
that have ``substantial direct effects on the States, on the 
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the 
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of 
government.'' Under Executive Order 13132, the agency may not issue a 
regulation with federalism implications, that imposes substantial 
direct costs, and that is not required by statute, unless the Federal 
government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance 
costs incurred by State and local governments, or the agency consults 
with State and local officials early in the process of developing the 
proposed regulation. NHTSA may also not issue a regulation with 
federalism implications and that preempts State law unless the agency 
consults with State and local officials early in the process of 
developing the proposed regulation.
    The agency has analyzed this rulemaking action in accordance with 
the principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 13132 and has 
determined that it would not have sufficient federalism implications to 
warrant consultation with State and local officials or the preparation 
of a federalism summary impact statement. The proposed rule would have 
no substantial effects on the States, or on the current Federal-State 
relationship, or on the current distribution of power and 
responsibilities among the various local officials.

F. Executive Order 12778 (Civil Justice Reform)

    This proposed rule would not have any retroactive effect. The 
proposed rule would not repeal any existing federal law or regulation. 
Additionally, the proposed rule would not preempt any causes of action 
in state or Federal court. If made final, the proposed rule would not 
require submission of a petition for reconsideration or other 
administrative proceedings before parties may file suit in court.

G. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Pub. L. 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272) 
directs us to use voluntary consensus standards in regulatory 
activities unless doing so would be inconsistent with applicable law or 
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical 
standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling 
procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by 
voluntary consensus standards bodies, such as the Society of Automotive 
Engineers (SAE). The NTTAA directs us to provide Congress, through OMB, 
explanations when we decide not to use available and applicable 
voluntary consensus standards.
    This proposed rule is procedural in nature and if adopted would not 
establish any standards, consensus-based or otherwise.

H. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) 
requires Federal 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 in any one year (adjusted for inflation with base 
year of 1995). Before promulgating a rule for which a written statement 
is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires NHTSA to identify 
and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt 
the least costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative 
that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205 
do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, 
section 205 allows NHTSA to adopt an alternative other than the least 
costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative if the 
agency publishes with the final rule an explanation why that 
alternative was not adopted.
    This proposed rule would not impose any unfunded mandates under the 
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995. This proposed rule would not 
result in costs of $100 million or more to either State, local, or 
tribal governments, in the aggregate, or to the private sector. Thus, 
this proposed rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 
and 205 of the UMRA.

I. Regulation Identifier Number (RIN)

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

VI. Submission of Comments

How Do I Prepare and Submit Comments?

    Your comments must be written and in English. To ensure that your 
comments are filed correctly in the Docket, please include the docket 
number of this document in your comments.
    Your comments must not be more than 15 pages long. (49 CFR 553.21) 
NHTSA established this limit to encourage you to write your primary 
comments in a concise fashion. However, you may attach necessary 
additional documents to your

[[Page 56023]]

comments. There is no limit on the length of the attachments.
    Please submit two copies of your comments, including the 
attachments, to Docket Management at the address given above under 
ADDRESSES. You may also submit your comments to the docket 
electronically by logging onto the Docket Management System (DMS) Web 
site at http://dms.dot.gov. Click on ``Help & Information'' or ``Help/
Info'' to obtain instructions for filing your comments electronically. 
Please note, if you are submitting comments electronically as a PDF 
(Adobe) file, we ask that the documents submitted be scanned using 
Optical Character Recognition (OCR) process, thus allowing the agency 
to search and copy certain portions of your submissions.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Optical character recognition (OCR) is the process of 
converting an image of text, such as a scanned paper document or 
electronic fax file, into computer-editable text.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

How Can I Be Sure That My Comments Were Received?

    If you wish Docket Management to notify you upon its receipt of 
your comments, enclose a self-addressed, stamped postcard in the 
envelope containing your comments. Upon receiving your comments, Docket 
Management will return the postcard by mail.

How Do I Submit Confidential Business Information?

    If you wish to submit any information under a claim of 
confidentiality, you should submit three copies of your complete 
submission, including the information you claim to be confidential 
business information, to the Chief Counsel, NHTSA, at the address given 
above under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. In addition, you should 
submit two copies, from which you have deleted the claimed confidential 
business information, to Docket Management at the address given above 
under ADDRESSES. When you send a comment containing information claimed 
to be confidential business information, you should include a cover 
letter setting forth the information specified in NHTSA's confidential 
business information regulation (49 CFR part 512).

Will the Agency Consider Late Comments?

    NHTSA will consider all comments that Docket Management receives 
before the close of business on the comment closing date indicated 
above under DATES. To the extent possible, the agency will also 
consider comments that Docket Management receives after that date. If 
Docket Management receives a comment too late for the agency to 
consider it in developing a final rule (assuming that one is issued), 
the agency will consider that comment as an informal suggestion for 
future rulemaking action.

How Can I Read the Comments Submitted by Other People?

    You may read the comments received by Docket Management at the 
address given above under ADDRESSES. The hours of the Docket are 
indicated above in the same location.
    You may also see the comments on the Internet. To read the comments 
on the Internet, take the following steps:
    1. Go to the Docket Management System (DMS) Web page of the 
Department of Transportation (http://dms.dot.gov).
    2. On that page, click on ``search.''
    3. On the next page (http://dms.dot.gov/search), type in the four-
digit docket number shown at the beginning of this document. Example: 
If the docket number were ``NHTSA-1998-1234,'' you would type ``1234.'' 
After typing the docket number, click on ``search.''
    4. On the next page, which contains docket summary information for 
the docket you selected, click on the desired comments. You may 
download the comments. Although the comments are imaged documents, 
instead of word processing documents, the ``pdf'' versions of the 
documents are word searchable.
    Please note that even after the comment closing date, NHTSA will 
continue to file relevant information in the Docket as it becomes 
available. Further, some people may submit late comments. Accordingly, 
the agency recommends that you periodically check the Docket for new 
material.
    Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments 
received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual 
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf 
of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's 
complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on 
April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages 19477-78) or you may visit 
http://dms.dot.gov.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 595

    Motor vehicle safety, Motor vehicles.
    1. The title to part 595 would be revised to read as follows:

PART 595--MAKE INOPERATIVE EXEMPTIONS

    2. 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.

    3. Section 595.7 would be amended by adding paragraphs (c)(7)(iv) 
and (v), revising paragraph (c)(14), and adding paragraph (c)(16) to 
read as follows:


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

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (7) * * *
    (iv) Targets located on any hand grip or vertical stanchion bar.
    (v) All of S6 of 571.201 in any case in which the disability 
necessitates raising the roof or door, or lowering the floor of the 
vehicle.
* * * * *
    (14) S4.1.5(a)(1), S4.1.5.1(a)(3), S4.2.6.2, S5, S7.1, S7.2, S7.4, 
S15, S16, S17, S18, S19, S20, S21, S22, S23, S24, S25, S26 and S27 of 
49 CFR 571.208 for the designated seating position modified, provided 
Type 2 or Type 2A seat belts meeting the requirements of 49 CFR 571.209 
and 571.210 are installed at that position.
* * * * *
    (16) 49 CFR 571.225 in any case in which an existing child 
restraint anchorage system, or built-in child restraint system relied 
upon for compliance with 571.225 must be removed to accommodate a 
person with a disability, provided the vehicle contains at least one 
tether anchorage which complies with 49 CFR 571.225 S6, S7 and S8 in 
one of the rear passenger designated seating positions. If no rear 
designated seating position exists after the vehicle modification, a 
tether anchorage complying with the requirements described above must 
be located at a front passenger seat. Any tether anchorage attached to 
a seat that is relocated shall continue to comply with the requirements 
of 49 CFR 571.225 S6, S7 and S8.
* * * * *

    Issued on: September 13, 2004.
Stephen R. Kratzke,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 04-20922 Filed 9-16-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P