[Federal Register: August 31, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 168)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 51673-51679]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr31au05-19]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
49 CFR Part 595
[Docket No. NHTSA-2004-19092]
RIN 2127-AJ07
Make Inoperative Provisions; Vehicle Modifications To Accommodate
People With Disabilities
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: To facilitate further the modification of vehicles to
accommodate individuals with disabilities, this final rule expands the
existing exemptions from the ``make inoperative'' provision of the
Vehicle Safety Act. Responding to petitions for rulemaking from members
of the mobility industry, this document expands the exemption to
include exemptions from provisions of the advanced air bag
requirements, the child restraint anchorage system requirements, and
the upper interior head protection requirements.
DATES: The effective date for this final rule is October 31, 2005.
Petitions for reconsideration. Petitions for reconsideration of
this final rule must received not later than October 17, 2005.
ADDRESSES: Petitions for reconsideration of the final rule must refer
to the docket and notice number set forth above and be submitted to the
Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400
Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590, with a copy to Docket
Management, Room PL-401, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For non-legal issues, you may call Ms.
Gayle Dalrymple, Office of Crash Avoidance Standards at (202) 366-5559.
Her fax number is (202) 366-7002. For legal issues, you may call Ms.
Dorothy Nakama, Office of Chief Counsel at (202) 366-2992. Her fax
number is (202) 366-3820. 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:
I. Background
The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act requires vehicle
manufacturers to certify that their vehicles comply with all applicable
Federal motor vehicle safety standards (49 U.S.C. 30112 et seq.). The
Act further prohibits manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and repair
businesses from knowingly making 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 could
lead to the assessment of civil penalties. Section 30122 authorizes
regulations to exempt a person from the make inoperative provision if
the agency decides the exemption is consistent with motor vehicle
safety and the purpose and policy of the Safety Act.
To facilitate the modification of motor vehicles for persons with
disabilities, NHTSA provides a limited exception from the make
inoperative provision. 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
[[Page 51674]]
federally required safety equipment. In these instances, if individuals
with disabilities are 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, 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\ Using 2002 data from the Bureau of Transportation Statistics,
we estimate the number of personal motor vehicles modified for use by
persons with disabilities existing in the U.S. in 2002 was about
1,123,000, with a 95 percent confidence interval from 743,000 to
1,504,000. An estimated 75 percent of modified vehicles were modified
for the driver (including vehicles modified for both driver and
passenger). The estimated proportion of the U.S. personal motor vehicle
fleet that are modified for use by people with disabilities is 0.0051
(0.51 percent) with a confidence interval from 0.0034 to 0.0067. We
estimate that in 2002, 814,000 households had one modified vehicle and
another 155,000 households had two modified vehicles.\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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
In response to petitions for rulemaking from Bruno Independent
Living Aids (Bruno), the Adaptive Driving Alliance (ADA) \6\ and the
National Mobility Equipment Dealers Association (NMEDA), NHTSA
published a notice of proposed rulemaking on September 17, 2004 (69 FR
56018) (DOT Docket No. NHTSA-2004-19092). The agency proposed 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. Each of the proposed changes is summarized below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ The ADA is a trade association representing dealers and
manufacturers that modify and sell vehicles adapted for people with
disabilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Advanced Air Bag Requirements
After the exemption from the make inoperative provision was
published on February 27, 2001, 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.) 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. 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.
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) 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.
ADA's August 8, 2002 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 further
argued that the advanced air bag requirements are just as incompatible
with the one-of-a kind, custom-fitted nature of vehicle modifications
to accommodate a specific individual's disability as the current FMVSS
No. 208 requirements in Part 595.
In response to the petitions for rulemaking, NHTSA proposed to
expand the make inoperative exemptions established at 49 CFR
595.7(c)(14) by adding to it the following sections of FMVSS No. 208:
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 many instances, a vehicle modification requiring an exemption
for the advanced air bag requirements would also rely on the current
[[Page 51675]]
exemption from the occupant crash protection requirements of S5,
Occupant crash protection requirements for the 50th percentile adult
male dummy, of FMVSS No. 208. NHTSA stated that it expected 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.
In the NPRM, the agency 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 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.
We recognize that in most cases, the decision to deactivate the air
bag, or not, will be a product of the equipment, the vehicle and the
method of installation. We strongly urge the vehicle manufacturers,
equipment manufacturers, and modifiers to work together to determine
whether the air bag actually needs to be deactivated for these
different combinations. There may be seating, equipment and vehicle
combinations in which air bag deactivation is not necessary. However,
these situations should be studied carefully so that modification does
not result in inadvertent air bag suppression or overly forceful
deployment.
LATCH Requirements
Prior to establishing the exemption from the make inoperative
provision (published on February 27, 2001), the agency established
FMVSS No. 225, which requires motor vehicles to be equipped with a
lower anchorage and tether anchorage (LATCH \7\) system designed
exclusively to secure child restraint systems. (64 FR 10786; March 5,
1999; ``LATCH rule''.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ ``LATCH'' stands for ``Lower Anchors and Tethers for
Children,'' a term that was developed by child restraint
manufacturers and retailers to refer to the standardized child
restraint anchorage system required by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
Standards No. 225, Child Restraint Anchorage Systems (49 CFR
571.225). This system has two lower anchorages and one tether
anchorage. Each lower anchorage includes a rigid round rod or bar
onto which the connector of a child restraint system can be snapped.
The bars will be loated at the intersection of the vehicle seat
cushion and seat back. The upper anchorage is a fixture to which the
tether of a child restraint system can be hooked.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
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. 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 would possibly not be feasible for businesses
modifying motor vehicles to accommodate disabled drivers and
passengers. 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].
Modifying a vehicle to accommodate a wheelchair 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 in the second and third rows, 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.
Since the agency could not anticipate all of these potential
combinations and provide modifiers specific instructions for each
situation, NHTSA proposed in the NPRM an amendment that would establish
flexibility in the modification configurations and still allow a child
seat to be restrained safely. NHTSA proposed 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.
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.
The proposed exemption was based on the approach suggested by the
ADA. The ADA suggested that 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. Under the agency's proposal, the modifier was
only required to install a tether anchorage. NHTSA noted that if the
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. NHTSA tentatively concluded that
this requirement was within the capabilities of modifiers.
FMVSS No. 225 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 (S4.4(c)). In the September 17,
2004 NPRM, NHTSA stated that if a vehicle were to be modified such that
only front designated seating positions remained, the agency expected
that modifiers would be able to install conforming tether anchorages at
the front forward-facing passenger designated seating positions (if not
already provided by the original vehicle manufacturer).
NHTSA sought comment on whether modifiers should be required to add
tether anchorages to designated seating positions that were not so
equipped by the original vehicle manufacturer.
[[Page 51676]]
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
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,
NHTSA recognized that compliance with FMVSS No. 201 at some target
points could be problematic for certain modifications, specifically the
installation of a platform lift. Thus, currently, Part 595 includes an
exemption to FMVSS No. 201 with respect to:
(a) 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.
(b) 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.
(c) 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. 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.
In the NPRM, the agency proposed 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 disabilities.
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.
In the NPRM, the agency stated that it 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.
Part 595 Title
The agency also proposed to amend the title of Part 595 from
``Retrofit On-Off Switches for Air Bags,'' to ``Make Inoperative
Provisions.'' In the NPRM, NHTSA stated that this amendment would
reflect the fact that 49 CFR Part 595 addresses more matters than the
retrofit of motor vehicles with on-off switches for air bags.
III. Public Comments and Final Rule
In response to the NPRM, NHTSA received comments from: the Adaptive
Driving Alliance (ADA); the California Department of Vocational
Rehabilitation (CDVR), the National Automobile Dealers Association
(NADA); and the National Mobility Equipment Dealers Association
(NMEDA). The commenters supported the proposed changes, as discussed
below.
Overview
In supporting the NPRM, the NADA stated that the proposed
exemptions ``would facilitate vehicle alterations and modifications
designed to satisfy the needs of disabled customers.'' The NMEDA
provided specific comments regarding the proposed changes regarding the
LATCH requirements. NMEDA stated that requiring a tether anchorage in
the second row will provide a means to secure a child seat in the
vehicle, and that NMEDA will be able to provide guidance to the
modifiers for installation of a tether anchorage in the event that the
existing seat does not have one installed at the original equipment
manufacturer's level. NMEDA further stated that considering the
allowable area in which the tether anchorage may be installed, it did
not foresee difficulty in locating or safely installing such an anchor.
Since most of the ``concerned vehicles'' have a second row seat, NMEDA
stated that it did not anticipate that the front row seat would have to
be equipped with a tether anchorage.
Specific Questions
Although it supported the rulemaking, the ADA commented on the
proposed changes affecting FMVSS No. 208 and No. 225. Regarding FMVSS
No. 208, the ADA stated its belief that since S14 of FMVSS No. 208
``mandates compliance with the advanced air bag requirements,'' S14
should be added to the list of sections set forth in 49 CFR
595.7(c)(14). NHTSA agrees. We note that S14.5 of FMVSS No. 208
specifies differing requirements for meeting barrier test requirements
using 50th percentile adult male dummies, depending on which S14
provision a vehicle is certified as meeting. Since some provisions
mandate compliance, this final rule amends 49 CFR 595.7(c)(14) to
include S14 of FMVSS No. 208.
The ADA also addressed the proposed inclusion in Part 595 of FMVSS
No. 225 requirements, questioning whether the final sentence proposed
for 49 CFR 595.7(c)(16): ``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'' is appropriate. The ADA commented that:
Proposed (c)(16) would require that ``* * * the vehicle contain
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.'' It is
thus not clear why the proposed final sentence of (c)(16) is
necessary, given that relocating a seat could cause issues as
regards maintaining the tether.
NHTSA's response is that the ADA's comment appears to assume that
after modification, only one tether anchorage will remain in the rear.
Therefore, if a vehicle must have a compliant tether anchorage and
there is only one tether
[[Page 51677]]
anchorage present, the last sentence of the proposed regulatory
language would be redundant. However, there may be other tether
anchorages in the vehicle, in addition to the tether anchorage in the
relocated seat, that comply with S6, S7, and S8 at rear seating
positions. Without the last sentence, if there are other tether
anchorages, the relocated tether(s) would not have to comply with the
applicable provisions of FMVSS No. 225. It is NHTSA's position, (with
which NMEDA agreed in its comments) that vehicle modifiers should have
the technical capability to relocate a tether anchorage such that the
relocated tether anchorage complies with S6, S7, and S8 of FMVSS No.
225. Further, all tether anchorages should meet the requirements of
FMVSS No. 225, since they will likely be used with the child restraint.
For these reasons, in the final rule, the last sentence of 595.7(c)(16)
is retained.
Upper Interior Head Protection Requirements
NHTSA received no public comments in response to the proposed
exemption from the make inoperative provision by adding limited
exemptions from the upper interior head protection requirements of
FMVSS No. 201. Therefore, NHTSA adopts as final the language proposed
at 595.7(c)(7)(iv) and (v).
Other Issues
The California Department of Vocational Rehabilitation (CDVR)
sought to bring attention to issues involving side air bags and
``transfer seat bases.'' The CDVR explained that these seat bases move
the original equipment manufacturers' (OEM) seat back to allow a
wheelchair user to move more easily from the wheelchair into the OEM
seat. The OEM seat is then powered back into the driver's position. The
CDVR noted that some of the OEM seats have side air bags in the seat
backs, but there appeared to be nothing in the NPRM requiring the OEM
wiring to the seat backs to be retained to maintain the functioning of
the airbag.
Agency response: The ``make inoperative'' exemptions proposed in
the NPRM did not include exemptions for the side air bags in the seat
backs. Provisions relating to side air bags in seat backs is outside
the scope of the rulemaking.
Conclusion
The comments supported the changes to Part 595. This final rule
makes final the language (with the exception of adding an exception for
S14 to S595.7(c)(14)) proposed in the NPRM of September 17, 2004.
Further, since we received no comments on the proposed change to the
title of Part 595, in this final rule, we are changing the title of
Part 595 to: ``Make Inoperative Provisions.''
IV. Effective Date
In the NPRM, NHTSA proposed an effective date of 60 days after the
final rule is published. None of the public comments addressed the
effective date issue. NHTSA notes that this final rule removes 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, since good
cause has been shown to do so, and since NHTSA has determined it would
be in the public interest to do so, the changes in this final rule
becomes effective 60 days after the publication in the Federal
Register.
V. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
A. Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures
NHTSA has considered the impact of this final 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 rule are so minimal that a full
regulatory evaluation is not warranted.
The agency believes that the expanded exemptions will not have any
avoidable adverse safety effects on individuals with disabilities. The
exemptions 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 permitted by this
rulemaking, individuals with disabilities might not be able to use the
vehicles in question, resulting in less freedom of mobility.
Furthermore, NHTSA does not expect many individuals without a
disability to use seating positions specially modified for individuals
with a disability. As previously noted above, the number of affected
standards remains small and the number of vehicles that modified in
accordance with this final rule is 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 affected by this final rule are considered small entities. I
hereby certify that this final rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The
statement of the factual basis for this certification is that, as
explained above, this final rule adds several occupant crash protection
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 final rule results in no significant
economic impact on small entities since the final rule permits greater
flexibility when modifying a vehicle to accommodate an individual with
a disability. There may be slight economically beneficial effects of
this final rule, because the affected small manufacturers would not
have to ensure that they ``make inoperative'' compliance of a vehicle
with provisions of the occupant crash protection requirements, vehicle
LATCH requirements, and upper interior head protection requirements,
when the vehicles are modified 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, will not increase as a result of this
final rule. The agency anticipates that any vehicle modification using
one of the exemptions will be made in conjunction with one or more
modifications based on the current exemptions. A vehicle modifier using
one of the exemptions permitted in this final rule will only be
required to list the exemption along with the other exemptions on the
required disclosure label to the consumer. The vehicle labeling and
recordkeeping requirements vary not according to the number of
exemptions per vehicle, but by the total number of vehicles modified.
D. National Environmental Policy Act
NHTSA has analyzed this final rule for the purposes of the National
Environmental Policy Act and determined that it will not have any
significant impact on the quality of the human environment.
E. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)
Executive Order 13132 requires NHTSA to develop an accountable
process to ensure ``meaningful and
[[Page 51678]]
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 will not have sufficient federalism implications to
warrant consultation with State and local officials or the preparation
of a federalism summary impact statement. The final rule will 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 12988 (Civil Justice Reform)
Pursuant to Executive Order 12988 ``Civil Justice Reform,'' we have
considered whether this final rule would have any retroactive effect.
NHTSA concludes that this final rule will not have any retroactive
effect. Under 49 U.S.C. 30103, whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety
standard is in effect, a State may not adopt or maintain a safety
standard applicable to the same aspect of performance which is not
identical to the Federal standard, except to the extent that the State
requirement imposes a higher level of performance and applies only to
vehicles procured for the State's use. 49 U.S.C. 30161 sets forth a
procedure for judicial review of final rules establishing, amending, or
revoking Federal motor vehicle safety standards. That section does 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), Public Law 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. We have sought for but did not find any
voluntary consensus standard bearing on this rulemaking.
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 final rule will not impose any unfunded mandates under the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995. This final rule will not result
in the expenditure by State, local or tribal governments, in the
aggregate, or by the private sector of more than $100 million annually.
Accordingly, this final rule is not subject to the requirements of
sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.
I. Plain Language
Executive Order 12866 requires each agency to write all rules in
plain language. Application of the principles of plain language
includes consideration of the following questions:
--Have we organized the material to suit the public's needs?
--Are the requirements in the rule clearly stated?
--Does the rule contain technical language or jargon that is not clear?
--Would a different format (grouping and order of sections, use of
headings, paragraphing) make the rule easier to understand?
--Would more (but shorter sections be better?
--Could we improve clarity by adding tables, lists, or diagrams?
--What else could we do to make this rulemaking easier to understand?
If you have any responses to these questions, please address them
to the persons listed in the For Further Information Contact: section
at the beginning of this document.
J. 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.
List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 595
Motor vehicle safety, Motor vehicles.
0
In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA is amending 49 CFR part 595 as
follows:
0
1. The heading to Part 595 is revised to read as follows:
PART 595--MAKE INOPERATIVE EXEMPTIONS
0
2. The authority citation for Part 595 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117, 30122 and 30166;
delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.
0
3. Section 595.7 is amended by adding paragraphs (c)(7)(iv) and (v), by
revising paragraph (c)(14) and by adding paragraph (c)(16) to read as
follows:
Sec. 595.7 Requirements for vehicle modifications to accommodate
people with disabilities.
* * * * *
[[Page 51679]]
(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,
S14, 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: August 25, 2005.
Jeffrey W. Runge,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 05-17244 Filed 8-30-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P