[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 50 (Tuesday, March 15, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 14406-14419]
[FR Doc No: 2022-05293]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 595

[Docket No. NHTSA-2016-0031]
RIN 2127-AL67

Make Inoperative Exemptions; Vehicle Modifications To Accommodate
People With Disabilities; Modifications by Rental Car Companies

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This final rule amends NHTSA's regulations regarding
exemptions to the make inoperative prohibition to accommodate
disabilities to include new exemptions relating to the Federal motor
vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) for roof crush resistance, rear
visibility, and air bags. The air bag provision permits rental car
companies to make inoperative a knee bolster air bag, on a temporary
basis, to permit the temporary installation of hand controls to
accommodate persons with physical disabilities seeking to rent the
vehicle. We have drafted this rule to facilitate the mobility of
drivers and passengers with physical disabilities in a manner that
balances safety and accessibility. This rulemaking responds to a
petition for rulemaking from the National Mobility Equipment Dealers
Association and from Bruno Independent Living Aids, Inc., and to an
inquiry from Enterprise Holdings Co.

DATES: This rule is effective March 15, 2022.
    Petitions for Reconsideration: Petitions for reconsideration of
this final rule must be received at the address below by April 29,
2022.

ADDRESSES: If you wish to petition for reconsideration of this rule,
submit your petition to the following address so that it is received by
NHTSA by the date above: Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building, Washington,
DC 20590. You should refer in your petition to the docket number of
this document. The petition will be placed in the docket. Note that all
submissions received will be posted without change to https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided.
Please see the Privacy Act heading below.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gunyoung Lee, NHTSA Office of Crash
Avoidance Standards (phone: 202-366-

6005; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>); Daniel Koblenz, NHTSA Office of Chief Counsel
(phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>); or David Jasinski (phone: 202-
366-5552; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>. The mailing address for these officials is:
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue
SE, Washington, DC 20590.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Introduction
II. Background
III. FMVSS No. 216a (Roof Crush Resistance)
    a. The Standard
    b. NMEDA Petition for Rulemaking
    c. NPRM
    d. Comments on the NPRM
    e. Agency Decision
IV. FMVSS No. 111 (Rear Visibility)
    a. The Standard
    b. Bruno Petition for Rulemaking
    c. SNPRM
    d. Comments on the NPRM
    e. Agency Decision
V. FMVSS No. 208 (Occupant Crash Protection)
    a. FAST Act
    b. Enterprise Request for Interpretation
    c. SNPRM
    d. Response to Comments
    e. Agency Decision
VI. Effective Date
VII. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

I. Introduction

    This final rule amends 49 CFR part 595, subpart C, ``Make
Inoperative Exemptions, Vehicle Modifications to Accommodate People
With Disabilities,'' in response to petitions from the National
Mobility Equipment Dealers Association (NMEDA), Bruno Independent
Living Aids, Inc. (Bruno), and a request from Enterprise Holdings Co.
(Enterprise).
    This final rule is preceded by two rulemaking proposals. First,
NHTSA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) on March 11,
2016 (81 FR 12852), relating to NMEDA's petition on the roof crush
resistance standard. Second, the agency published a supplemental notice
of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM) on December 28, 2020 (85 FR 84281) on
Bruno's petition on the rear visibility standard. The SNPRM also
responded to Enterprise's inquiry seeking to permit rental car
companies the ability to temporarily make inoperative knee bolster air
bags to facilitate installation of hand controls.\1\ NHTSA received no
comments opposing adoption of the proposals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ NHTSA decided to combine the rulemakings into RIN 2127-AL67
for the convenience of readers and to simplify administrative
procedures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Background

    The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (49 U.S.C.
Chapter 301) (Safety Act) and NHTSA's regulations require vehicle
manufacturers to certify that their vehicles comply with all applicable
FMVSSs (49 U.S.C. 30112; 49 CFR part 567) at the time of manufacture. A
vehicle manufacturer, distributor, dealer, rental company or repair
business, except as indicated below, may not knowingly make inoperative
any part of a device or element of design installed in or on a motor
vehicle in compliance with an applicable FMVSS (49 U.S.C. 30122). NHTSA
has the authority to issue regulations that exempt regulated entities
from the ``make inoperative'' provision (49 U.S.C. 30122(c)). The
agency has used that authority to adopt 49 CFR part 595, ``Make
Inoperative Exemptions.''
    The provisions at 49 CFR part 595, subpart C, sets forth exemptions
from the make inoperative provision to permit, under limited
circumstances, vehicle modifications that take the vehicles out of
compliance with certain FMVSSs when the vehicles are modified to be
used by persons with disabilities after the first retail sale of the
vehicle for purposes other than resale. The regulation was promulgated
to facilitate the modification of motor vehicles so that persons with
disabilities can drive or ride in them. The regulation involves
information and disclosure requirements and limits the extent of
modifications that may be made. A motor vehicle repair business that
avails itself of the exemption provided by subpart C must register
itself with NHTSA. The modifier is exempted from the make inoperative
provision only to the extent that the modifications affect the
vehicle's compliance with the FMVSSs specified in 49 CFR 595.7(c) and
only to the extent specified in Sec.  595.7(c). Modifications that
would take the vehicle out of compliance with any other FMVSS, or with
an FMVSS listed in Sec.  595.7(c) but in a manner not specified in
paragraph (c), are not exempted by the regulation.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The modifier must also affix a permanent label to the
vehicle identifying itself as the modifier and the vehicle as no
longer complying with all FMVSS in effect at original manufacture,
and must provide and retain a document listing the FMVSSs with which
the vehicle no longer complies and indicating any reduction in the
load carrying capacity of the vehicle of more than 100 kilograms
(kg) (220 pounds (lb)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. FMVSS No. 216a (Roof Crush Resistance)

a. The Standard

    FMVSS No. 216a, ``Roof crush resistance; Upgraded standard,''
requires that the vehicle roof meet two requirements when subjected to
a test force applied by a large steel test plate first to one side of
the roof, and then to the other side: The lower surface of the test
plate must not move more than 127 millimeters (mm); and the load
applied to a headform positioned on a test device in the corresponding
front outboard seat must not exceed 222 Newtons. Vehicles with a gross
vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 2,722 kg (6,000 lb) or less must
withstand a test force of up to 3 times the vehicle's unloaded weight.
For vehicles with a GVWR greater than 2,722 kg (6,000 lb) and up to
4,536 kg (10,000 lb), the test force is up to 1.5 times the vehicle's
unloaded wight. The standard applies, with some exceptions, to
passenger cars, trucks, multipurpose passenger vehicles, and buses
other than school buses.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ This upgraded roof crush standard was adopted May 12, 2009
(74 FR 22348).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The standard provides an alternative compliance option for vehicles
built in two or more stages (other than vehicles built using a chassis
cab) and vehicles with a GVWR greater than 2,722 kg (6,000 lb) with an
altered roof.\4\ Manufacturers of these vehicles may certify to the
roof crush requirements of FMVSS No. 220, ``School bus rollover
protection,'' instead of the upgraded roof crush requirements in FMVSS
No. 216a. (The FMVSS No. 220 requirements are explained below.) Vehicle
modifiers,\5\ however, are (prior to this final rule) prohibited from
making any vehicle modifications to vehicles meeting FMVSS No. 216a--
such as raising the vehicle roof--unless the vehicle continues to
comply with FMVSS No. 216a, due to the make inoperative prohibition.
Part 595 does not, prior to today's final rule, provide an exemption
from FMVSS No. 216a for modifiers that raise the roof on vehicles to
accommodate people with disabilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ S3.1(b).
    \5\ The term ``vehicle modifier'' refers to entities that make
changes to a vehicle after the first purchase other than for resale.
The terms ``alterer'' and ``multistage manufacturer'' refer to
entities that makes changes to vehicles prior to the vehicle being
sold to the end user (i.e., prior to first purchase other than for
resale). See 49 CFR parts 567 and 568.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. NMEDA Petition for Rulemaking

    NMEDA requested that NHTSA amend 49 CFR part 595 to provide an
exemption from FMVSS No. 216a for

modifiers that raise the vehicle roof to meet the special needs of
occupants with disabilities. NMEDA requested that such modifications be
permitted as long as the vehicle is not made inoperative with the
requirements of FMVSS No. 220.
    NMEDA explained that (presumably prior to the effective date of
FMVSS No. 216a), raising the roof of a vehicle was an everyday
manufacturing operation for hundreds of NMEDA members, most of which
are modifiers of vehicles with a GVWR greater than 2,722 kg (6,000 lb),
but not greater than 4,536 kg (10,000 lb). NMEDA explained that there
is a need for modifiers to raise the roofs of vehicles after first sale
to meet the mobility needs of consumers with disabilities. In many
cases, a consumer will purchase a vehicle, usually over 2,722 kg (6,000
lb) GVWR and then approach a modifier to have a roof raised. Generally,
customers ask to raise the roof 305 to 356 mm (12 to 14 inches) to suit
their particular needs. In other cases, a public agency or independent
transportation company will purchase a vehicle to have the roof raised
to provide public transportation for persons needing accommodation.
    NMEDA further argued that FMVSS No. 216a and the make inoperative
prohibition make it impossible for such modifiers to raise the roof and
ensure continued compliance with FMVSS No. 216a. It explained that,
prior to the upgrade to FMVSS No. 216a, NMEDA had tested and provided
consortium test and installation instruction to its members for a
tubular structure, or roll cage, to comply with the requirements in
FMVSS No. 220. Petitioner conducted this testing mainly because it
believed that FMVSS No. 220 is a comparatively simpler test and the
roll cage is less expensive to install. NMEDA indicated, however, that
the modification procedure it developed is no longer performed; it
would violate the make inoperative prohibition because it was intended
to ensure compliance with FMVSS No. 220, not with FMVSS No. 216a. NMEDA
also stated that it is not practical for it to design a FMVSS No. 216a-
compliant roof to fit the various makes and models of vehicles that
would be modified. The petitioner further explained that, while
modifiers would have difficultly ensuring a modified roof continues to
meet FMVSS No. 216a, they would be able to ensure that it meets FMVSS
No. 220.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ NMEDA also appeared to suggest that while roof suppliers
could (in theory) design, build, and provide vehicle modifiers with
roofs capable of meeting FMVSS No. 216a, this is not likely to
happen because the business of its members alone is not sufficient
incentive for a roof supplier to design and certify a roof that
meets FMVSS No. 216a.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

c. NPRM

    NHTSA granted NMEDA's petition and, on March 11, 2016, published an
NPRM (81 FR 12852) proposing to amend part 595 to add an exemption to
the upgraded roof strength requirements of FMVSS No. 216a. We proposed
to condition this exemption on the installation of a roof meeting the
performance requirements of FMVSS No. 220.
    In the NPRM we stated that we tentatively agreed with the
petitioner that there may be a need to accommodate persons with special
mobility needs by raising the vehicle roof and that FMVSS No. 216a
essentially prevents vehicle modifiers from doing so. Prior to the
promulgation of FMVSS No. 216a, the vast majority of the vehicles being
modified for this purpose did not have to comply with any roof crush
requirements because they were vehicles with a GVWR between 2,722 kg
(6,000 lb) and 4,536 kg (10,000 lb), to which FMVSS No. 216 (the pre-
upgrade standard) did not apply. Thus, prior to the 2009 upgrade,
modifiers could replace the roof on such vehicles without violating the
make inoperative prohibition.
    We explained that, while such vehicles now have requirements under
FMVSS No. 216a, the need to accommodate persons with disabilities
remains. A raised roof makes it easier for someone to enter the vehicle
seated in a wheelchair or for a personal care attendant to tend to them
or walk in and out of the entrance. Doors may be raised in conjunction
with a roof to enable a person in a wheelchair to enter without having
to bend over or have a personal care attendant tilt the wheelchair
back. Larger wheelchairs or motorized wheelchairs may also require
modifications to the roof height to improve ingress and egress of the
occupant. These modifications to the roof could take the vehicle out of
compliance with the requirements of FMVSS No. 216a.
    Accordingly, we tentatively agreed with NMEDA that there is a need
to provide an exemption in part 595 for modifications that involve
raising the vehicle roof to accommodate persons with special mobility
needs. We also tentatively agreed with NMEDA's suggestion that FMVSS
No. 220 is a reasonable alternative to ensure a minimum level of roof
strength to protect the occupants of vehicles modified in this manner.
    Similar to the rationale we expressed in the 2009 final rule (74 FR
22348, May 12, 2009) for allowing alterers and multistage manufacturers
the option of certifying to FMVSS No. 220 instead of FMVSS No. 216a, we
explained that there are technical problems involved with ensuring that
a vehicle that has its roof raised continues to meet the requirements
of FMVSS No. 216a. For example, if a van is altered by replacing the
roof with a taller roof surface and structure, this would change the
location of the FMVSS No. 216a test plate with respect to the original
roof surface and structure. If a vehicle was modified and the roof was
raised to the heights suggested by NMEDA (305 to 356 mm), the 127 mm of
test device travel specified in the requirements would likely be
exceeded prior to the test device engaging the original vehicle's roof
structure in the FMVSS No. 216a test. We further stated that it would
be difficult for modifiers (generally small businesses) to raise the
roof of a vehicle to these types of heights and ensure that the vehicle
remains compliant with FMVSS No. 216a, given the small volume, variety
of roof heights needed to accommodate different disabilities, and
variety of vehicle models.
    We further stated our tentative belief that providing modifiers an
exemption from FMVSS No. 216a, as long as the modified vehicle meets
FMVSS No. 220, strikes an appropriate balance between the need to
modify these vehicles to accommodate persons with disabilities and the
need to ensure that vehicle roofs are sufficiently strong. Providing
the qualified exemption would enable modifiers to use a whole raised
roof that is designed to be installed on the vehicle. Further, such a
raised roof could be applied to vehicles of varying height and would
still be able to absorb the load of the test plate in the FMVSS No. 220
test. As NMEDA stated, such a roof structure has been designed and is
available to modifiers.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ NMEDA developed raised roof manufacturing guidelines which
provide their members with roof structure designs and installation
considerations such that the modified vehicle would meet the minimum
load requirements in FMVSS No. 220. See NMEDA, Raised Roof
Manufacturing Guidelines--Ford E series GM/Chevrolet Savana/Express
Model years 2008-2009-2010, Revision 2, January 19, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We also explained that we believed the requirements of FMVSS No.
220 offer a reasonable avenue for increasing safety in rollover
crashes. We noted that, at the time of the 2009 upgrade, several states
required ``para-transit'' vans and other buses, which are typically
manufactured in multiple

stages, to comply with the roof crush requirements of FMVSS No. 220.
Further, we noted that our crash data showed that FMVSS No. 220 has
been effective for protecting school buses during rollover crashes. We
also stated that we believed the strength requirements for FMVSS Nos.
216a and 220 are comparable. FMVSS No. 216a requires the roof on
vehicles with a GVWR greater than 2,722 kg (6,000 lb) to withstand a
force of 1.5 times the vehicle's unloaded weight, applied sequentially
to the front corners of the roof by an angled plate. The roof must
withstand the force such that it does not crush to the point of
allowing the lower surface of the test plate to travel more than 127
millimeters,\8\ and the load applied to a headform located at the
corresponding front outboard seating position does not exceed 222
Newtons.\9\ The FMVSS No. 220 test uses a single horizontal plate over
the whole roof of the vehicle to apply a load to the vehicle's roof.
That standard requires the roof to withstand a force of 1.5 times the
vehicle's unloaded weight prior to 130 mm of plate travel.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ S5.1(a).
    \9\ S5.1(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

d. Comments on the NPRM

    The agency received one comment to the NPRM from an individual who
supported the proposal.

e. Agency Decision

    NHTSA has decided to finalize the proposal and add an exemption
from FMVSS No. 216a to part 595 for the reasons provided in the NPRM.
We recognize the concerns raised by NMEDA regarding continued mobility
for people with disabilities and have concluded that its request to
allow modifiers the option of meeting the performance requirements of
FMVSS No. 220 is reasonable. The agency continues to believe the
requirements of FMVSS No. 220 have been effective for school buses, and
these requirements are permitted as a compliance option in FMVSS No.
216a for alterers and multistage manufacturers who complete or add
raised roofs to vehicles prior to first retail sale. In the context of
the NMEDA's petition and its development of raised roof manufacturing
guidelines for its members, we believe FMVSS No. 220 appropriately
balances safety and practicability.
    We note that in the 2009 roof crush upgrade rulemaking (in the
context of the decision to specify FMVSS No. 220 as an alternative
compliance option for certain multistage manufacturers and alterers),
we expressed some concern that, while the requirements in FMVSS No. 220
have been effective for school buses, they might not be as effective
for other vehicle types (e.g., light vehicles) as FMVSS No. 216a
because that test results in roof deformations that are consistent with
the crush patterns in the real world for light vehicles. However, at
the same time we acknowledged that requiring multistage manufacturers
and alterers to meet FMVSS No. 216a would fail to consider the
practicability problems and special issues those entities face. In
those circumstances, NHTSA believed that the requirements of FMVSS No.
220 offered a reasonable balance between practicability and safety.
    Similarly, while we believe that ensuring light vehicles'
compliance with FMVSS No. 220 may not provide the same high level of
safety as ensuring compliance with FMVSS No. 216a, we also believe that
FMVSS No. 220 offers a reasonable avenue to balance the need to modify
vehicles to accommodate persons with a disability and the need to
increase safety in rollover crashes. We do encourage modifiers only to
raise or alter the roof when there are no other options. For this
reason, we encourage modifiers to contact the respective manufacturer
or seek advice from groups like NMEDA to address questions or concerns
related to the modification(s) that may compromise a safety system. It
is the agency's position that a modification that deactivates any
safety system or takes a vehicle out of compliance from any FMVSS that
is exempted in part 595 should be pursued only when all other options
have been reasonably exhausted given the circumstances.
    Therefore, for the reasons provided here and in the NPRM, we are
amending 49 CFR 595.7(c) to exempt vehicle modifications in which the
roof is raised so long as the modified vehicle meets the roof crush
requirements of FMVSS No. 220. We note that the final regulatory text
incorporates some technical changes to the proposed regulatory text.
The final regulatory text clarifies that the exemption only applies to
modifications involving a raised roof. The final regulatory text also
makes clear that the exemption applies to the entirety of FMVSS No.
216a, not just S5.2(b).

IV. FMVSS No. 111 (Rear Visibility)

a. The Standard

    FMVSS No. 111 requires light vehicles to be equipped with a backup
rear visibility system that, among other things, displays an image of
the area directly behind the vehicle. The standard requires that each
passenger car must display a rearview image to the driver that meets
the requirements of FMVSS No. 111 S5.5.1 through S5.5.7, and that each
multipurpose passenger vehicle, low-speed vehicle, truck, bus, and
school bus with a GVWR of 4,536 kg (10,000 lb) or less must meet the
requirements of S6.2.1 through S6.2.7. It is NHTSA's understanding that
all manufacturers comply with the rearview image requirements using a
backup camera system (i.e., a rear-facing camera behind the vehicle
that transmits a video image to a digital display in view of the
driver).
    During the rulemaking that established the FMVSS No. 111 rear
visibility requirements, the issue of temporary equipment obstructing a
backup camera system's field of view was raised by a commenter. The
commenter (the National Truck Equipment Association) noted that,
because it was expected that manufacturers would meet the new rear
visibility requirements with a backup camera system, it would be
possible for the camera's field of view to be obstructed by the
installation of certain types of temporarily-attached vehicle
equipment, such as a salt or sand spreader, which can be temporarily
mounted to the trailer hitch of a pickup truck. NHTSA responded to this
comment in the final rule by stating that the rule was not intended to
apply ``to trailers and other temporary equipment that can be installed
by the vehicle owner.'' However, NHTSA did not address the question of
whether the installation of such equipment would violate the make
inoperative prohibition (49 U.S.C. 30122) if done by an entity subject
to section 30122.

b. Bruno Petition for Rulemaking

    Bruno requested that NHTSA amend subpart C so that it would include
paragraphs S5.5 and S6.2 of FMVSS No. 111. Bruno is a manufacturer of
several products that allow a vehicle owner to transport unoccupied
personal mobility devices (PMD) such as wheelchairs, powered
wheelchairs, and powered scooters intended for use by vehicle occupants
with mobility impairments. Bruno stated that there are two types of PMD
transport devices that it manufactures. The first type is what the
petitioner describes as a platform lift that can be attached to the
exterior of the vehicle by means of a trailer hitch. This type of PMD
transport device is fully supported by the trailer receiver hitch
without ground contact. The second type of PMD transport device is
supported in part by contact with the

ground. As such it is a ``trailer'' under NHTSA's definitions.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 49 CFR 571.3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Bruno stated that most backup cameras that are installed pursuant
to FMVSS No. 111 are mounted at a low height along the horizontal
centerline of the vehicle, often near the vehicle's rear license plate
mounting. The placement of the backup camera in this location means
that it may be obstructed by a rear-mounted PMD transport device, or by
a PMD that is mounted onto the transport device. Since the PMD
transport devices may obstruct the rear view from the vehicle's
rearview video system, installation of the devices could arguably
violate the ``make inoperative'' prohibition (49 U.S.C. 30122). Bruno
stated that, to avoid potential uncertainty regarding the manufacture,
sale or installation of both types of PMD transport devices it
manufactures, it requests that subpart C be amended to cover the backup
camera requirements (S5.5 and S6.2) of FMVSS No. 111.

c. SNPRM

    NHTSA granted Bruno's petition and proposed to add S5.5 and S6.2 of
FMVSS No. 111 to the list of exemptions in part 595, subpart C, so that
modifiers would know that NHTSA would not consider the temporary
installation of a PMD transport device that blocks a vehicle's required
backup camera to be a ``make inoperative'' violation. However, to
maximize safety, we proposed to write the ``make inoperative''
exemption narrowly to apply only to the ``field of view'' and ``size''
requirements for backup cameras in FMVSS No. 111 (S5.5.1, S5.5.2,
S6.2.1, and S6.2.2), and only to the temporary installation of a PMD
transport device.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ We noted in the SNPRM that NHTSA issued an interpretation
letter explicitly stating that NHTSA would not consider an owner
installing a PMD transport device that obstructs the backup camera
to be a ``make inoperative'' violation. Letter to Richard A. Keller,
III (May 3, 2019), available at https://isearch.nhtsa.gov/files/571.111%20--%20Camera%20Obstruction%20--%20Keller%20--%2018-0661.htm. However, it is NHTSA's understanding that PMDs transport
devices are generally installed by dealers and motor vehicle repair
businesses that specialize in modifications to provide mobility
solutions to people with physical disabilities, both of which are
subject to the make inoperative prohibition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

d. Comments on the SNPRM

    NHTSA received eight comments on the proposed expansion of part 595
to the ``field of view'' and ``size'' requirements for backup cameras
in FMVSS No. 111, all supportive of the proposal. These comments were
from disability rights advocates, trade associations, individual
commenters, and Bruno itself. The comments supported the proposed
exemption due to the mobility benefits it would provide to persons who
use PMDs. Commenters who discussed NHTSA's reasoning supported the
agency's decision to draft the exemption narrowly, so that it would
only apply to temporary (rather than permanent) disabling of the backup
camera system, since doing so preserves the safety benefits of the
backup camera system to the greatest extent possible.

e. Agency Decision

    NHTSA has balanced the safety benefits of the camera system for
rear visibility with the enhanced mobility for people with disabilities
that this exemption would enable. We are adopting the make inoperative
exemption for the field of view and size requirements for backup
cameras in FMVSS No. 111 (S5.5.1, S5.5.2, S6.2.1, and S6.2.2) but only
for temporary situations. The modifications permitted under the
exemption do not permanently affect the vehicle's design or structure
and will not be available beyond the population of persons with
disabilities who wish to have a covered entity install a PMD transport
device on their vehicle. NHTSA believes, and the commenters agree, that
this exemption allowing only a temporary disabling of the backup camera
system is narrowly focused and maintains the safety provided by the
backup camera system in most circumstances, while recognizing the needs
of persons with disabilities to transport PMDs.
    We also emphasize that, while this final rule's exemption permits a
temporary disengagement of the field of view and size requirements, we
believe that modifiers should consider whether there are supplemental
backup cameras that could be used with the PMD conveyances so that rear
visibility could be maintained. We are not requiring the installation
of such a system because the cost and complexity of wiring such a
system into a vehicle could be significant enough to prevent some
persons with disabilities from being able to install a PMD transport
device.\12\ Installing such a system could also affect the compliance
of the original backup camera system that drivers would resume relying
on once a temporarily installed PMD transport device is removed.
Nonetheless, NHTSA encourages modifiers to consider the feasibility of
a supplemental backup camera to offset the blockage of the original
equipment rear visibility system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ This point was raised by Bruno in its comment, where Bruno
states that requiring that a vehicle remain compliant with FMVSS No.
111 could significantly increase the cost of PMD transport devices,
by as much as 25%-30%.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. FMVSS No. 208 (Occupant Crash Protection)

a. FAST Act

    The Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act (FAST Act), Public
Law 114-94 (December 4, 2015), made rental companies subject to the
``make inoperative'' prohibition. The FAST Act also defined terms
related to rental companies. For example, a ``rental company'' is
defined as a person who is engaged in the business of renting covered
rental vehicles and uses for rental purposes a motor vehicle fleet of
35 or more covered rental vehicles, on average, during the calendar
year. A ``covered rental vehicle'' is defined as a vehicle that meets
three requirements: (1) It has a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less; (2) it
is rented without a driver for an initial term of less than four
months; and (3) it is part of a motor vehicle fleet of 35 or more motor
vehicles that are used for rental purposes by a rental company.
    Thus, beginning in December 2015, rental companies, as the term is
defined in the FAST Act, were subject to the make inoperative
prohibition for the first time. One effect of this FAST Act provision
was to subject rental companies to Sec.  30122 prohibitions for making
inoperative systems installed to comply with the FMVSS--even if doing
so to accommodate the installation of adaptive equipment for use by
persons with disabilities, and even if the modification were only
temporary.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Although the make inoperative prohibition does contain an
exception for temporarily taking vehicles or equipment out of
compliance, that limited exception only applies where the entity
taking the vehicles out of compliance does not believe the vehicle
or equipment will not be used when the device is inoperative.
Obviously, a rental company would intend a rental vehicle that has a
device or element temporarily ``made inoperative'' to accommodate a
disability to be used while the device or element is inoperative.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Enterprise Request for Interpretation

    In a letter dated August 12, 2019, Enterprise submitted a request
for interpretation to NHTSA regarding the effect of the ``make
inoperative'' prohibition on its obligations under the Americans with
Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA).\14\ Specifically, Enterprise asked
whether the ``make inoperative'' prohibition applies to modifications
by rental companies to temporarily disable knee bolster air bags to
accommodate the installation of hand controls for drivers with physical
disabilities.

Following receipt of the letter, NHTSA met with Enterprise to discuss
its request further.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ A copy of this letter has been included in the docket
number identified at the beginning of this document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In its letter, Enterprise stated that, to provide service to
customers with disabilities and ensure compliance with the ADA, rental
companies install adaptive equipment, such as hand controls, upon
request. Enterprise stated that, when installing adaptive equipment in
a motor vehicle, ``equipment or features that were installed in
compliance with NHTSA's safety standards may need to be modified. In
these cases, the vehicle modification may render the affected equipment
or features, as originally certified, `inoperative.' ''
    Enterprise specifically addressed safety concerns with installing
hand controls in rental vehicles equipped with knee bolster air
bags.\15\ Hand controls consist of a metal bar that connects to the
accelerator and brake pedals of a vehicle to enable operation by a
person unable to control the pedals with their feet. Knee bolster air
bags are installed by manufacturers to prevent or reduce the severity
of leg injuries and generally help control occupant kinematics in the
event of a frontal collision. Since knee bolster air bags, like all air
bags, deploy at high speeds with a great degree of force, installed
hand controls in the path of knee bolster air bag deployment could
break apart, propelling components of the hand control into the driver
with great forces--which would create a serious safety risk.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Enterprise did not provide an example other than the
situation posed by installation of hand controls and its effect on
knee bolster air bags.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Enterprise stated that manufacturers of hand controls owned by
Enterprise specify that a driver's side knee bolster air bag must be
disabled (including removal in some instances) \16\ for safe operation
of the hand controls, both because the presence of a knee bolster air
bag may interfere with safe operation of the hand controls, and because
the presence of hand controls would interfere with the air bag should
it be deployed in the event of a crash.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ This document generally refers to the act of ``disabling''
the knee bolster air bag. For the purposes of the applicability of
the ``make inoperative'' prohibition and exemption discussed in this
document, the act of ``disabling'' the knee bolster air bag may also
include removing the air bag. In other words, removal is one means
of disabling the air bag.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Enterprise noted that 49 CFR part 595, subpart C, includes
exemptions for certain entities from the make inoperative prohibition
in certain circumstances to accommodate the modification of vehicles
for persons with disabilities. However, as the subpart pre-dated the
FAST Act, the subpart does not include rental companies within the
entities who could use those exemptions.
    Pertaining specifically to knee bolster air bags, Enterprise noted
that they are not specifically required by FMVSS No. 208. However,
Enterprise observed that vehicle manufacturers are increasingly making
knee bolster air bags standard equipment on all models such that it is
becoming difficult for Enterprise to purchase new vehicles that do not
include knee bolster air bags. Further, Enterprise stated that vehicles
with knee bolster air bags are not crash tested with the knee bolster
air bags removed or disabled, meaning Enterprise cannot know whether
disabling knee bolster air bags affects compliance with FMVSS No. 208.
    Enterprise concluded that, based upon its ADA obligations to
provide hand controls for drivers requesting them and the increasing
trend of knee bolster air bags being standard equipment, knee bolster
air bags would have to be temporarily disabled on rental vehicles to
continue to make vehicles available to rent by drivers with physical
disabilities. Enterprise requested NHTSA's help in answering whether
disabling the knee bolster air bag would constitute a violation of the
make inoperative prohibition, and if it would, how Enterprise could
provide hand controls to serve its customers.

c. SNPRM

    NHTSA decided to issue the SNPRM to address the problem raised by
Enterprise. NHTSA explained that it did not have sufficient information
to determine whether the knee bolster air bag is a part or element of
design installed ``in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle
safety standard,'' but noted that knee bolster air bags are installed
to reduce femur loading, and FMVSS No. 208 does provide specific
requirements for femur load.\17\ NHTSA determined that, as knee bolster
air bags are already becoming standard equipment across much of the
light duty fleet, this situation could result in rental companies
facing the untenable position of being forced to either: (1) Retain a
number of older vehicles in its fleet (without knee bolster air bags)
and on its premises to rent to drivers requesting hand controls; (2)
cease the rental of vehicles to drivers requesting hand controls; (3)
disable the air bag and potentially violate section 30122; or (4)
install hand controls on vehicles with knee bolster air bags and create
serious safety risks for their customers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See 49 CFR 571.208, S15.3.5. NHTSA noted that it had made
general inquiries with vehicle manufacturers through their trade
association about whether knee bolster air bags are installed as
part of an element of design installed in compliance with the motor
vehicle safety standards, but their association did not provided
information to resolve this question.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    None of these results was acceptable to NHTSA. The first action
would prevent Enterprise from providing for rent newer vehicles, which
include newer safety innovations, to drivers requiring the use of hand
controls, which NHTSA deemed unacceptable because all drivers should be
afforded the protections of new safety technologies. Further, the
action would be impracticable given the inability to guarantee
availability of sufficient vehicles at all relevant rental facilities.
The second action was unacceptable as it would eliminate a critical
service for people with disabilities and may be contrary to the ADA.
The third action would potentially violate the Safety Act. The fourth
option would create an unreasonable risk to the safety of rental
customers with physical disabilities.
    NHTSA issued the December 2020 SNPRM after balancing NHTSA's
primary interest in promoting motor vehicle safety with the interest
(including the statutory interest implicit within the ADA) to provide
access to mobility for persons with disabilities. NHTSA tentatively
concluded that it should exercise its statutory authority to exempt
rental companies from the make inoperative prohibition in certain
circumstances, and with certain conditions, so that rental companies
may rent vehicles to drivers requesting hand controls. The action would
be consistent with NHTSA's decision to promulgate 49 CFR part 595,
subpart C, to exempt motor vehicle repair businesses from the make
inoperative prohibition to accommodate persons with disabilities. NHTSA
proposed to add a new section to 49 CFR part 595 specifically for
rental companies having to disable a knee bolster air bag to install
hand controls.

d. Response to Comments

    NHTSA received 42 comments on the SNPRM. Twenty-one comments
directly addressed the issue of the proposed make inoperative exemption
for rental companies.\18\ All were generally

supportive of the rulemaking, with a few raising issues with specific
aspects of the proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ A number of comments addressed broad issues not discussed
in the rulemaking. For example, two anonymous commenters raised
issues related to the safety of deaf drivers. An individual raised
the issue of the availability of left foot drive rental cars.
Another expressed a desire for vehicles that are accessible with
ramps and low steps for people who are mobility impaired. An
individual suggested that induction loops for car rentals be
mandated so people with hearing loss can receive effective
communication when they rent a car. An individual supported the
rulemaking, but believed that additional steps should be taken such
as adaptive equipment for deaf and the hard of hearing, and that
people with disabilities should be able to rent a car for a
spontaneous trip if they desire to do so without waiting for a
modification to be completed. An anonymous commenter stated that
more must be done because it costs five times more to rent an
accessible vehicle than a generic vehicle. Another stated that NHTSA
should work with automobile manufacturers to make modifications more
financially accessible. These comments provided helpful information
to NHTSA regarding issues related to accessibility. To the extent
the comments are beyond the scope of this rulemaking, they are not
further discussed in this document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To learn more about this area, NHTSA presented 11 questions in the
SNPRM regarding the scope of an exemption to rental companies, and the
logistics of granting those exemptions. In this section, NHTSA presents
the questions, summarizes and responds to the comments, and indicates
any changes made to the proposal in response to those comments.
1. Should rental companies be provided exemptions from the make
inoperative prohibitions to make temporary vehicle modifications,
permanent vehicle modifications, or both?
    The wording of the proposed regulatory text allowed only temporary
modifications by rental companies that would include the duration of
the rental agreement and a reasonable period before and after
modification, to allow the rental company to make and reverse the
modification, respectively. If the vehicle would be rented to a second
person requiring the same modification immediately after the
termination of the first rental agreement, a rental company would not
be required to reverse the modification and then immediately modify the
vehicle again.
    All commenters who addressed the issue supported allowing temporary
modifications. Enterprise stated in its comment that it only
anticipates making temporary modifications to vehicles. Enterprise
stated that, while it was unlikely that the same vehicle would be
rented to two people requiring the same modification consecutively, it
supported the proposed allowance that, if a vehicle were to be rented
to a second person requiring the same modification, the rental company
would not be required to reverse the modification and then immediately
modify the vehicle again.
    The Paralyzed Veterans of America (PVA), National Automobile
Dealers Association (NADA), and NMEDA supported only providing
temporary modifications. The rental companies did not express a need
for an exemption for permanent modifications. This final rule only
pertains to temporary modifications by rental companies. Given that
this rulemaking was initiated in response to a request for temporary
relief from a rental company and that no information was provided on
the need or merits of permanent modifications, NHTSA has determined
that it is unnecessary for this rule to provide for permanent
modifications. Accordingly, this final rule will only allow for
temporary modifications to rental cars to accommodate customers with
disabilities.
    The City of Los Angeles supported temporary modifications only for
the driver's seating position, not the passenger's seating position.
NHTSA focused on the position that would need the hand controls, which
presumably was only the driver's seating position. The scope of the
exemption will not cover modifications other than those necessary to
install hand controls.
    An individual stated that the exemption should only be granted if
it could be reasonably assured that the modification is an appropriate
type for a person's specific disability, the equipment was manufactured
and tested according to applicable standards, regulations, and
guidelines, that all modifications are performed by factory trained and
certified technicians, and that rental companies prohibit adding a
second driver without a disability to the rental contract. NHTSA
declines to adopt these suggestions. As to the first suggestion, NHTSA
believes that requiring a rental company to verify a customer's need
for a specific accommodation is more appropriately addressed by State
and Federal civil and disability rights law. Second, the Safety Act
already requires that all motor vehicle equipment comply with all
applicable FMVSSs and that they be free of safety-related defects.
Regarding the third suggestion, NHTSA declines to condition the
availability of exemptions to accommodate persons with disabilities on
the credentialing of technicians by third parties. (Nevertheless, NHTSA
urges all rental companies modifying vehicles to follow manufacturer-
recommended practices related to the disabling of knee bolster air bags
to ensure the safety of both their customers and the employees who
modify vehicles.) Finally, NHTSA declines to adopt a rule prohibiting
adding a second driver to the rental contract, as such a requirement
appears overly restrictive at this time.
2. Should NHTSA provide a make inoperative exemption for other
installations of adaptive equipment by rental companies?
    Commenters such as Enterprise, the American Car Rental Association
(ACRA), PVA, the City of Los Angeles, and NMEDA suggested that NHTSA
could grant similar exemptions for other accommodations. An individual
expressed a concern with sitting too close to the air bags and
suggested rental companies could disable air bags on a case-by-case
basis with the customer acknowledging the risks of removing the air
bag. NHTSA has not included any additional make inoperative exemptions
in this final rule. If rental companies or others believe that further
make inoperative exemptions are necessary, they may submit a petition
for rulemaking.
3. If a temporary modification to install adaptive equipment causes the
air bag malfunction telltale required by FMVSS No. 208 to illuminate,
should the rental company be allowed to disable the telltale?
    In its conversations with NHTSA prior to the NPRM, Enterprise
stated that its procedure for disabling the knee bolster air bag would
involve the installation of a shunt within the electrical circuitry of
the air bag system. NHTSA believed that the installation of such a
shunt would allow the air bag system, upon its diagnostic check at the
time the vehicle is started, to conclude that there is no malfunction
within the air bag system. Accordingly, NHTSA was concerned about
potential safety implications if, after the diagnostic check, the air
bag malfunction telltale would not illuminate even though the knee
bolster air bag was disabled. Conversely, the illumination of the air
bag malfunction telltale where the knee bolster air bag is disabled
also raises concern. If the air bag malfunction telltale is illuminated
for the duration of the rental to a driver with a disability, that
driver would not have the benefit of the telltale illuminating the
event of any other malfunction within the air bag system, including
malfunctions affecting air bags that are installed pursuant to FMVSS
No. 208.
    Commenters were divided in their views. For example, Enterprise,
ACRA, PVA, the Alliance for Automotive Innovation, the City of Los
Angeles, and NMEDA believed that the telltale should not illuminate
when using the shunt so that it could alert the driver of some other
air bag system malfunction. Enterprise and Terry Sturgis both noted
that the driver would already be aware

of the disablement of the knee bolster air bag. In contrast, NADA and
Eugene Blumkin supported illuminating the telltale when using the
shunt.
    The arguments presented by the commenters largely echoed the
competing safety interests that were discussed in the SNPRM. After
considering the comments, NHTSA has decided either illumination status
is acceptable. If the air bag malfunction telltale illuminates because
of disabling the knee bolster air bag, it is correctly warning about a
problem with the air bag system. A telltale that does not illuminate
due to a shunt is also acceptable as a related outcome to this final
rule's permitting the modification to the knee bolster air bag.
Further, an unilluminated telltale may be able to notify the occupants
of malfunctions with other air bags in the vehicle. In both situations,
the telltale must be restored to operating status when the knee bolster
air bag system is returned to its pre-rental state. NHTSA suggests that
rental companies inform their customers what it means if the telltale
is illuminated in the vehicle.
4. Would a hand control (or any other adaptive equipment typically
installed by rental companies) interfere with devices or elements of
designs installed in compliance with any other FMVSS?
    In response to this question, Enterprise stated its belief that the
mere installation of adaptive equipment would not constitute a make
inoperative violation. NADA did not address the legal question but
stated its desire to limit the exemption to temporary hand control
installation and knee bolster air bag deactivation. NMEDA suggested
that some hand control designs may interfere with compliance with FMVSS
No. 124, which pertains to accelerator control systems. However, NMEDA
did not indicate what aspect of FMVSS No. 124 would be made inoperative
by the installation of hand controls or whether such hand controls
might be commonly used by rental companies.
    Having considered the issue and the comments received, the agency
is focusing this final rule on the application of FMVSS No. 208 (the
disablement of the knee bolster air bag for the installation of hand
controls). NHTSA believes that the wording of the exemption
sufficiently addresses all make inoperative issues caused by the
installation of the hand controls.
5. Should rental companies need to request an exemption from NHTSA or
should the exemption be provided automatically within the regulation?
    NHTSA tentatively concluded in the NPRM that rental companies
should not have to seek an exemption from NHTSA prior to disabling the
knee bolster air bags to install hand controls. Rather, NHTSA proposed
to grant the exemption to rental companies conditionally on their
compliance with the proposed amendments to 49 CFR part 595.
    All commenters who addressed this issue agreed that rental
companies should not have to seek an exemption from NHTSA. In the
SNPRM, NHTSA observed that a rental company may be required to make
modifications quickly to provide accommodations when a customer
requests a vehicle with hand controls. As a practical matter, NHTSA
would not be able to evaluate and respond to requests for exemption
quickly enough in situations where customers are waiting at the rental
car counter. Accordingly, this final rule does not require that rental
companies seek permission from NHTSA prior to making modifications to
vehicles. This approach is consistent with other exemptions in Sec.
595.7.
6. Should rental companies be required to notify NHTSA of modifications
to vehicles?
    As provided in 49 CFR 595.6, a motor vehicle repair business that
modifies a vehicle pursuant to part 595 must, not later than 30 days
after it modifies a vehicle pursuant to the ``make inoperative''
exemption in part 595, identify itself to NHTSA. In the SNPRM, NHTSA
tentatively concluded that a similar requirement is not warranted for
rental companies. First, there are far fewer rental companies than
there are motor vehicle repair businesses, such that NHTSA is aware of
the existence of large rental companies. Second, the modifier
information furnished to NHTSA under 49 CFR 595.6 is used, in part, to
populate a database available to the public of entities that perform
modifications to motor vehicles to accommodate persons with
disabilities.\19\ Regarding rental companies, they are modifying
vehicles to accommodate customers with physical disabilities as part of
their business operations, and as part of their efforts to comply with
the ADA. Thus, a list of rental companies able to modify vehicles
pursuant to 49 CFR part 595 would likely be a list of all rental
companies. Such a list would be of limited utility to the public and
would impose a paperwork burden on all rental companies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ This list of entities is not intended as an endorsement of
any entity but is solely provided for informational purposes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Enterprise, the City of Los Angeles and NMEDA supported not
requiring rental companies to identify themselves to NHTSA or notify
NHTSA when making a vehicle modification. Conversely, an individual and
NADA asserted that rental companies should have to identify themselves
to NHTSA prior to making modifications pursuant to this make
inoperative exemption. NMEDA suggested that NHTSA consider requiring
rental companies to submit annual reports of modifications and other
information pertinent to modifications such as the location, number of
installations, types of controls installed, serial number, make/model
of vehicles modified, and reports of any incidents.
    NHTSA does not believe that the regular reporting of modifications
made pursuant to the make inoperative exemption is needed. Safety-
related incidents may be reported to NHTSA by anyone via an internet
portal at https://www.nhtsa.gov/report-a-safety-problem, or by
contacting NHTSA's vehicle safety hotline. If NHTSA discovers a safety
issue in the future that justifies regular reporting of vehicle
modifications, NHTSA may consider a requirement in the future. However,
at this time, NHTSA is not aware of any safety issue that would justify
the burden and expense of regular reporting of vehicle modifications.
Accordingly, NHTSA is not requiring any regular reporting to NHTSA of
modifications.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ However, records of modifications that are kept by rental
companies may be subject to disclosure to NHTSA in the context of a
specific investigation or enforcement action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

7. Should rental companies be required to notify customers that the air
bag in the vehicle they rented is disengaged to accommodate the
installation of adaptive equipment?
    The SNPRM proposed requiring that the rental company affix a
temporary label, meant to remain affixed during the rental, indicating
that the knee bolster air bag is disabled. This label would serve both
to inform persons driving the vehicle of the status of the air bag and
to remind the rental company to reactivate the air bag at the
conclusion of the rental.
    Commenters were generally supportive of this proposed labeling
requirement. Enterprise, NADA and others agreed that a temporary label
was a practicable means of notifying the

driver that the vehicle has been modified. PVA, the City of Los
Angeles, NMEDA, and Eugene Blumkin supported the requirement that
rental companies notify customers that the knee bolster air bag has
been disabled. Terry Sturgis suggested an inward facing windshield
sticker or a tag on the key ring.
    NHTSA is adopting the requirement, but declines to specify a
location for the label. NHTSA is concerned that some States may have
laws preventing the placing of such a label on the windshield, hanging
from a rearview mirror or in a similarly view-obstructing location.
NHTSA believes a label on the key ring would not be sufficient to
satisfy the requirement that the label must be in the vehicle's
passenger compartment.
    In the SNPRM, NHTSA also proposed that renters of modified vehicles
would have to be informed of the name and address of the rental company
modifying the vehicle and again that the knee bolster air bag has been
temporarily disabled. NHTSA believed that this notification could be
accomplished simply by annotating the invoice or rental agreement at
the rental counter, which would take a minimum amount of time, and that
the costs to meet this requirement would be insignificant.
    NADA, PVA, the City of Los Angeles, NMEDA, and Eugene Blumkin
supported the requirement of separately notifying the renter of the
modification, for example, by providing information in the rental
agreement. Terry Sturgis suggested that notification directly to the
customer may not be necessary because they would likely know about the
modification already, having requested it. Enterprise and ACRA opposed
the separate notification in the rental agreement. Both commenters
found the second notification to be unnecessary and not practical. Both
indicated that rental companies did not have systems in place to append
such notifications at the time of the execution of the rental
agreement. In contrast to NHTSA's estimate that the burden of this
notification would be minimal, Enterprise and ACRA suggested that
implementing such a system could cause substantial expense. Further,
the commenters noted that, in some cases, the customer does not execute
a rental agreement at the time of rental. Instead, renters sign a
master rental agreement and then, after placing a reservation, can
choose an eligible vehicle and leave.
    NHTSA agrees with Enterprise, ACRA, and Terry Sturgis that this
separate notification is unnecessary. The notification directly to the
customer is duplicative of the notification that would be provided in
the passenger compartment of the vehicle itself. Finally, NHTSA accepts
that the annotation of rental agreements may be a greater burden than
estimated in the SNPRM. Accordingly, this final rule does not include
the requirement that a rental company provide a separate notification
directly to the renter at the time the vehicle is rented.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ It is unclear to us, however, how a master agreement would
apply to when the customer is renting a vehicle that has been
modified under the exemption. Prior to the customer arriving, the
rental company would be required to modify a specific vehicle by
disabling or removing the knee bolster air bag, installing hand
controls and placing the consumer notification information in the
passenger compartment. NHTSA believes that such a modified vehicle
would be removed from any general circulation until the customer
requesting the modification arrives to rent the vehicle.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

8. Should rental companies be required to retain records of vehicles
modified pursuant to this ``make inoperative'' exemption. If so, what
information and for how long?
    Motor vehicle repair businesses that permanently modify vehicles
pursuant to the make inoperative exemption in 49 CFR part 595, subpart
C, are required to retain, for five years, information provided to
owners of vehicles that are modified. In the SNPRM, NHTSA proposed that
this type of record retention should be required of rental companies as
well. The information would facilitate enforcement by NHTSA in the
event of potential violations of the terms of the make inoperative
exemption, or if a safety problem arises in the vehicle at a later date
that could possibly relate to the deactivation of the air bag. NHTSA
stated that the costs associated with this record retention would be
minimal since the record could be the rental agreement or invoice
itself, which can be stored as part of their general record retention
process, electronically or in paper format at their discretion.
    NADA and Eugene Blumkin agreed with NHTSA's proposal that rental
companies be subject to similar record retention requirements applying
to motor vehicle repair businesses. NADA suggested that rental
companies should have to keep records for each vehicle modified,
including vehicle identification information, dates when modifications
were made, dates restored, and how and when the company disposed of the
vehicle. NMEDA suggested that rental companies be subject to record
retention requirements as to customer, equipment, vehicle, technician,
installation, and inspection information. The Disability Rights
Education and Defense Fund and the Consortium for Citizens with
Disabilities Transportation Task Force supported a five-year
recordkeeping requirement.
    Enterprise and ACRA suggested that rental companies may lack a
system to provide and retain a copy of the notice that would be
provided to renters. After reading Enterprise's and ACRA's comments, it
was unclear to us whether they objected only to retaining the document
proposed to be provided to the customer (but not adopted by this final
rule), or whether Enterprise objected to the record retention
requirement generally. NHTSA sought further clarification from
Enterprise. In response, the commenter stated it could reasonably
maintain records of a rental company location making the modification,
the vehicle being modified, and the device or element of design that is
made inoperative.
    After considering the comments, NHTSA has decided to require a
record consisting of the following be retained: (1) The name and
address of the company making the modifications; (2) clear
identification of the vehicle being modified; and (3) identification of
the devices of elements of design modified. Further, (4) the record
must be retained for five years. (Because this final rule does not
include the requirement that a rental company provide a copy of the
notice placed in the passenger compartment to the customer at the time
of execution of the rental agreement, there is no requirement in this
final rule that such a document be retained.)
    However, this final rule does modify one of the above record
requirements. There was some ambiguity in the proposal regarding
whether modifications were required to be made by the rental company or
whether rental companies may contract with a motor vehicle repair
business to perform the modifications. NHTSA did not intend in the
SNPRM to limit a rental company's ability to choose whether to use its
own employees to perform the modification or to contract with a motor
vehicle repair business to perform the modification. This final rule
makes this explicit by replacing the proposed requirement that the
retained record contain the name and physical address of the rental
company making the modification with a requirement that the rental
company retain the name and physical address of the rental company and
any entity that performed or reversed the modification on behalf of the
rental company. In the clarification of its comments, Enterprise stated
that its internal recordkeeping systems could not keep track of work
provided by third

parties. However, we believe that any invoices or any other record
provided by such third parties to Enterprise or created by Enterprise
(whether in paper or electronic form) can be reasonably maintained. To
allow for the fact that relevant records may be created by more than
one entity, NHTSA has changed the term ``document'' to the plural
``documents'' in order to remove any implication that the information
required to be retained must all be contained within a single document.
    As with the existing record retention requirement for motor vehicle
repair businesses that permanently modify vehicles for people with
disabilities, NHTSA is specifying a five-year recordkeeping
requirement. In its clarification, Enterprise stated this its record
retention policy requires records be retained for three years. We
believe it is not unreasonable and would result in minimal added
expense for records related to the rentals of modified vehicles be
retained for five years. A five-year period better ensures that data
will be available in case safety problems arise with the performance of
the knee bolster air bags, hand controls, or related equipment in
vehicles modified pursuant to this exemption. NHTSA is not requiring
any regular reporting to the agency of modifications made pursuant to
this exemption, so retaining the records for five years better
guarantees the availability of data. A five-year period is also
consistent with a similar requirement in part 595, subpart C, that has
been workable.
    NHTSA considers the costs of the recordkeeping requirements in a
section below discussing the Paperwork Reduction Act.
9. Should rental companies be required to notify subsequent renters
and/or purchasers of rental vehicles that the vehicle was previously
modified?
    In the SNPRM, NHTSA expressed its view that subsequent renters or
purchasers of rental vehicles need not be notified of prior temporary
modifications. Enterprise, ACRA, Terry Sturgis, and Eugene Blumkin
agreed that rental companies should not be required to disclose prior
temporary modifications that were reversed. In contrast, NADA suggested
that rental companies should be required to notify purchasers of rental
vehicles of prior modifications. NMEDA stated that notification to
subsequent renters would be ethical, reasonable, and not overly
burdensome. PVA suggested that subsequent purchasers may benefit from
knowing that the vehicle could be modified to accommodate hand
controls.
    NHTSA concludes there is not a sufficient need for a NHTSA
requirement that rental companies be required to notify subsequent
renters or purchasers of rental vehicles that have been modified
pursuant to this make inoperative exemption. As noted by ACRA, the
installation and removal of hand controls and disabling and reenabling
of the knee bolster air bag typically have no permanent effect on the
vehicle. NHTSA agrees these are straightforward processes that are
unlikely to compromise the safety performance of the vehicle once the
vehicle is restored.
    Further, NHTSA believes that State law may be better equipped to
handle any general or specific retail disclosure obligations. Nothing
in this rulemaking should be construed as affecting any notification
obligation imposed by State or other Federal law. In response to PVA,
NHTSA believes that it might make more sense if information that a
vehicle is capable of being modified to accommodate hand controls were
provided by the vehicle manufacturer rather than the rental company.
10. What procedures should NHTSA require of rental companies to ensure
the knee bolster air bag will be reenabled when the rental vehicle is
returned and the hand controls are disabled?
    The proposed make inoperative exemption would only apply for the
period during which a covered rental vehicle is rented to a person with
a disability and a reasonable period before and after the rental
agreement in order to perform and subsequently reverse the modification
to accommodate a driver with physical disabilities. However, the
proposal did not include any specific requirements for rental companies
for reversing modifications to rental vehicles. NHTSA requested
comments on whether NHTSA should impose requirements related to
reversing a vehicle modification and if so, what those requirements
should be.
    ACRA stated that rental companies should have their own procedures
for ensuring that the knee bolster air bag is replaced and reenabled.
PVA and NADA agreed that rental companies should be required to
reenable the knee bolster air bag, but did not suggest any specific
procedure NHTSA could require to provide assurance that it would be
done. An individual stated that rental companies should follow the
procedures specified by vehicle and air bag manufacturers.
    This final rule does not adopt procedures for reversing the
modifications. Each rental company will have protocols and business
practices best suited to ensure the air bag is restored. NHTSA believes
that the notification in the passenger compartment and the presence of
hand controls should be sufficient to ensure that the rental company
reinstalls and reenables the knee bolster air bag prior to renting the
vehicle to another customer. Nothing in this rulemaking precludes the
use of other cues such as a special key ring. However, NHTSA does not
believe at this time that mandating secondary cues is necessary to
achieve the required reenabling of the air bag.
11. To the extent car sharing companies (e.g., Zipcar) qualify as a
``rental company'' under 49 U.S.C. 30102, would all aspects of this
proposal be reasonably applied to ride sharing companies, or would
procedural requirements need to be different for them?
    In the SNPRM, NHTSA stated that all aspects of this proposal would
be equally applicable to a car sharing company that qualifies as a
``rental company'' under the definition in 49 U.S.C. 30102. Commenters
who addressed this issue, such as ACRA, the Disability Right Education
and Defense Fund, the Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities
Transportation Task Force, PVA, and Eugene Blumkin agreed that car
sharing companies who met the definition of a ``rental company'' should
be held to the same standard. Terry Sturgis stated that procedural
requirements for ride sharing companies may need to be different, but
provided no specific suggestions.
    NHTSA agrees with the commenters that car sharing companies who
qualify as a ``rental company'' should be held to the same requirements
as any other rental company. Having received no specific suggestion of
any special procedural accommodations that might be required based on
the process for car sharing, NHTSA is not providing any different
accommodations for car sharing companies who may avail themselves of
this make inoperative exemption.

e. Agency Decision

    For the reasons discussed above and in the NPRM, we are amending
subpart C to permit rental car companies to make inoperative a knee
bolster air bag, on a temporary basis, to permit the temporary
installation of hand controls to accommodate persons with physical
disabilities seeking to rent the vehicle. The exemption extends only
for the period during which the covered rental vehicle is rented to the
person with a

disability and must be reversed after the rental is over. The rental
company must affix a label in the passenger compartment, in a visible
location, informing the driver that the vehicle has had its knee
bolster air bags temporarily disabled. Information about the
modification must be kept by the rental company for five years. NHTSA
has issued this final rule after balancing vehicle safety with the
interest (including the statutory interest implicit within the ADA) to
provide access to mobility for persons with disabilities.

VI. Effective Date

    As this final rule relieves the regulatory burdens on various
entities and facilitates the mobility of persons with disabilities, the
agency finds that there is good cause for an immediate effective date.

VII. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review), E.O.
13563, and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures

    We have considered the potential impact of this final rule under
Executive Order 12866, Executive Order 13563, and DOT Order 2100.6A.
This final rule is not significant and so was not reviewed by the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under E.O. 12866 and is not of
special note to the Department under DOT Order 2100.6A. This rulemaking
imposes no costs on the vehicle modification or car rental industry. If
anything, there could be a cost savings due to the exemptions. NHTSA
has qualitatively assessed the benefits and costs of the rule.
    FMVSS No. 216a: With respect to benefits, as noted above we believe
that while ensuring compliance with FMVSS No. 220 may not provide the
same level of safety as ensuring compliance with FMVSS No. 216a, we
believe that, in light of the mobility needs of individuals with
disabilities, in this particular case FMVSS No. 220 offers a reasonable
avenue to balance the need to modify vehicles to accommodate persons
with a disability and the need to increase safety in rollover crashes.
We have made the exemption narrow and conditioned on maintaining the
integrity of the roof. Further, this conditional exemption ensures a
higher level of safety than prior to the roof crush upgrade, when FMVSS
No. 216 did not apply to any vehicles over 6,000 lb.
    With respect to costs, prior to this final rule modifiers needed to
ensure that a vehicle on which the roof had been raised continued to
meet FMVSS No. 216a. The final rule requires that modifiers instead
ensure that the modified vehicle meets FMVSS No. 220. Because the FMVSS
No. 220 test is, as NMEDA argued in its petition, less complicated than
the FMVSS No. 216a test (and NMEDA has provided its members with
information and instructions on how to install an FMVSS No. 220-
compliant roll cage when raising a vehicle roof), the final rule will
be less costly for modifiers to comply with than the current
requirement.
    The roof crush resistance rule does not contain new reporting
requirements or requests for information beyond what is already
required by 49 CFR part 595, subpart C.
    FMVSS No. 111: Modifying a vehicle to install a trailer for PMD
transport device not only increases business for entities making these
modifications, but also increases consumer choices regarding the
vehicles they can use to ride in. Because of this rule, a consumer may
now ride in a vehicle that cannot fit a PMD because the PMD could be
stowed on a carrier.
    Modifying a vehicle in a way that reduces the rear visibility of a
backup camera by installing a trailer or carrying a PMD could reduce
crash avoidance features of the vehicle when the vehicle is reversing.
However, few vehicles would be potentially modified and the agency has
made the exemption temporary and not permanent. We have made the
exemption as narrow as possible to achieve the goal of increasing
mobility of drivers and passengers with physical disabilities while
maintaining a level of vehicle safety.
    The rear visibility rule does not contain new reporting
requirements or requests for information beyond what is already
required by 49 CFR part 595, subpart C.
    FMVSS No. 208: Rental companies choosing to deactivate knee bolster
air bags to facilitate installation of hand controls will not incur
costs beyond those of their own choosing. This rulemaking will have
minor labeling and recordkeeping costs on rental companies that install
temporary hand controls and disable the knee bolster air bag; the
increased revenue due to increase rentals of vehicles modified with
hand controls will likely offset the minor labeling and recordkeeping
requirements.
    The labeling and recordkeeping costs are necessary to ensure that
the renter knows the knee bolster air bag is nonfunctional and to
assist in having the knee bolster air bag restored when the rental is
over. The 5-year record retention requirement facilitates enforcement
by NHTSA in the event of potential violations of the terms of the make
inoperative exemption in this rule, and facilitates the investigation
and identification of vehicles in the event a subsequent safety problem
arises relative to the deactivation of the air bags. NHTSA believes
that the costs associated with retaining this record are minimized
since the record could be the rental invoice or agreement itself, which
can be stored by rental companies in the same manner that they store
their invoices, including electronically.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.,
as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
(SBREFA) of 1996), whenever an agency is required to publish a notice
of proposed rulemaking or final rule, it must prepare and make
available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis that
describes the effect of the rule on small entities (i.e., small
businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions).
The Small Business Administration's regulations at 13 CFR part 121
define a small business, in part, as a business entity ``which operates
primarily within the United States.'' (13 CFR 121.105(a)). No
regulatory flexibility analysis is required if the head of an agency
certifies the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. SBREFA amended the Regulatory
Flexibility Act to require Federal agencies to provide a statement of
the factual basis for certifying that a rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
    NHTSA has considered the effects of this rule under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act. I certify that this rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
    FMVSS No. 216a: Most dealerships and repair businesses are
considered small entities, and some proportion of these modify vehicles
to accommodate individuals with disabilities. However, NHTSA expects
that the number of such modifications that are made every year is not
so large as to involve a substantial number of small entities. We also
note that it should be more practicable for modifiers to comply with
the make inoperative provision after this final rule than in the
absence of the final rule. Therefore, the impacts on any small
businesses affected by this rulemaking will not be substantial.

    FMVSS No. 111: The entities installing the trailers and PMD
transport devices could be small entities. However, the impacts on them
are not expected to be significant. The exemption provides flexibility
to these entities with minimal requirements (there are some labeling
and recordkeeping requirements), but overall the agency does not
believe there would be a large number of PMD transporters installed.
Therefore, the impacts on any small businesses affected by this
rulemaking would not be significant.
    FMVSS No. 208: A substantial number of rental companies could be
small entities, but NHTSA does not believe the impacts on them will be
significant. The exemption provides additional flexibility to install
hand controls with minimal requirements (there are some labeling and
recordkeeping requirements), but overall NHTSA does not believe there
will be a large number of rental car transactions affected by this
rulemaking. This final rule's impact on small businesses will not be
significant.

Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

    NHTSA has examined this final rule pursuant to Executive Order
13132 (64 FR 43255; Aug. 10, 1999) and concludes that no additional
consultation with States, local governments, or their representatives
is mandated beyond the rulemaking process. The agency has concluded
that the rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to
warrant consultation with State and local officials or the preparation
of a federalism summary impact statement. The rule does not 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.''
    NHTSA rules can have preemptive effect in two ways. First, the
National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act contains an express
preemption provision stating that a State (or a political subdivision
of a State) may prescribe or continue to enforce a standard that
applies to an aspect of performance of a motor vehicle or motor vehicle
equipment only if the standard is identical to the FMVSS governing the
same aspect of performance. See 49 U.S.C. 30103(b)(1). This provision
is not relevant because this final rule does not involve establishing,
amending, or revoking a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. Second,
the Supreme Court has recognized the possibility, in some instances, of
implied preemption of State requirements imposed on motor vehicle
manufacturers, including sanctions imposed by State tort law.
    NHTSA is aware of a State law that might be seen as differing from
this rule.\22\ However, the agency does not see a preemption issue.
This rule strikes a balance between safety and accessibility
appropriate to NHTSA's make inoperative exemptions, 49 CFR part 595,
subpart C. NHTSA has struck this balance by setting the performance
requirements that must be met so as not to violate section 30122.
States can decide if that balance speaks to their safety goals. The
agency requested comments on any specific State law or action that
would prohibit the disabling of a knee bolster air bag. No comments
were received. In sum, NHTSA does not anticipate that this final rule
will preempt any State law.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See, e.g., N.J. Admin. 16:53-1.3(f) (``Roof modifications
shall meet the requirements of the roof crush resistance standard
set forth in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 216 (49 CFR
571.216), incorporated herein by reference, as amended and
supplemented.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Civil Justice Reform

    When promulgating a regulation, agencies are required under
Executive Order 12988 to make every reasonable effort to ensure that
the regulation, as appropriate: (1) Specifies in clear language the
preemptive effect; (2) specifies in clear language the effect on
existing Federal law or regulation, including all provisions repealed,
circumscribed, displaced, impaired, or modified; (3) provides a clear
legal standard for affected conduct rather than a general standard,
while promoting simplification and burden reduction; (4) specifies in
clear language the retroactive effect; (5) specifies whether
administrative proceedings are to be required before parties may file
suit in court; (6) explicitly or implicitly defines key terms; and (7)
addresses other important issues affecting clarity and general
draftsmanship of regulations.
    Pursuant to this order, NHTSA notes as follows. The preemptive
effect of this rule is discussed above. NHTSA notes further that there
is no requirement that individuals submit a petition for
reconsideration or pursue other administrative proceeding before they
may file suit in court.

National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Under the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995
(NTTAA) (Pub. L. 104-113), ``all Federal agencies and departments shall
use technical standards that are developed or adopted by voluntary
consensus standards bodies, using such technical standards as a means
to carry out policy objectives or activities determined by the agencies
and departments.'' 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 SAE International.
The NTTAA directs us to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations
when we decide not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus
standards. No voluntary standards exist regarding this exemption for
modification of vehicles to accommodate persons with disabilities.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

National Environmental Policy Act

    NHTSA has analyzed this rulemaking action for the purposes of the
National Environmental Policy Act. The agency has determined that
implementation of this action will not have any significant impact on
the quality of the human environment.

Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), a Federal agency must
receive approval from OMB before it collects certain information from
the public and a person is not required to respond to a collection of
information by a Federal agency unless the collection displays a valid
OMB control number. This rulemaking creates new information collection
requirements and is expected to increase the number of respondents
under a previously approved Information Collection Request (ICR). The
information collection requirements found in 49 CFR part 595, subpart
C, were covered by a previously approved ICR that expired on August 31,
2021, titled ``Exemption for the Make Inoperative Prohibition to
Accommodate People with Disabilities'' (OMB Control No. 2127-0635).
NHTSA has initiated the process of reinstating

the previously approved ICR in a request for comment published in the
Federal Register on January 12, 2022 (87 FR 1829). To continue the
process to request reinstatement of the previously approved information
collection with modification to include the new reporting requirements
for rental companies, NHTSA will be publishing a separate notice
announcing that NHTSA is submitting the request to OMB for review
approval, providing a 30-day comment period, and directing that
comments be submitted to OMB.
    The aspects of this final rule pertaining to roof crush and rear
visibility would not result in any additional information collection
burdens beyond what is already required by subpart C. NHTSA expects
that the vehicles modified under these new exemptions would already be
modified under existing exemptions in subpart C.
    In the December 2020 SNPRM, NHTSA noted that the portion of this
final rule pertaining to rental vehicles would include new reporting
requirements or requests for information beyond what was already
required by subpart C. The primary source of this recordkeeping burden
was the proposed requirement that rental companies provide to a renter
of a modified vehicle the information regarding the modifications and
containing a copy of the label that must be placed in the vehicle.
NHTSA presumed that this information would be included in the invoice
provided to a renter and would result in an additional 1,333 burden-
hours expended annually by rental companies to comply. However, as
discussed earlier in this document, NHTSA has not included in this
final rule the requirement that rental companies provide renters with
this information separately from the label that must be placed in the
occupant compartment.
    The other information collection burden associated with the portion
of the final rule pertaining to rental vehicles is the requirement that
the rental company retain, for each applicable vehicle, a document
listing the modifications made to the vehicle. In the December 2020
SNPRM, NHTSA concluded that there was no additional cost or time burden
associated with compliance with this requirement because NHTSA believed
it was normal and customary in the ordinary course of business to
prepare and retain such documents. NHTSA has made changes to this final
rule to ensure that this is the case. First, NHTSA has not included the
proposed requirement that the renter be provided with a copy of the
label that must be placed in the vehicle in response to comments.
Commenters such as Enterprise and ACRA identified this requirement as
potentially burdensome and not something kept in the ordinary course of
business. Second, NHTSA has clarified that third parties may modify
vehicles in accordance with this exemption. The records or receipts
provided by these third parties to rental companies may be sufficient
to satisfy the recordkeeping requirements.
    Based on the foregoing, NHTSA believes that there will be no
additional burdens beyond the ordinary course of business associated
with collections of information subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act
as part of this final rule.
    A discussion of the new information collection requirements will be
included in the 30-day notice announcing NHTSA's submission to OMB of a
request for reinstatement of its previously approved collection for
part 595.

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
isn't 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 the rule easier to
understand?
    If you have any responses to these questions, please send them to
the NHTSA officials listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section at the beginning of this document.

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.

Privacy Act

    Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all submissions to
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 (65 FR
19477-78).

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 595

    Motor vehicle safety, Motor vehicles.

    In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA amends 49 CFR part 595 to
read as follows:

PART 595--MAKE INOPERATIVE EXEMPTIONS

0
1. The authority citation for part 595 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117, 30122 and 30166;
delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.95.

0
2. Revise Sec.  595.3 to read as follows:

Sec.  595.3  Applicability.

    This part applies to dealers, motor vehicle repair businesses, and
rental companies.

0
3. Revise Sec.  595.4 to read as follows:

Sec.  595.4  Definitions.

    Covered rental vehicle is defined as it is in 49 U.S.C. 30102(a).
    Dealer, defined in 49 U.S.C. 30102(a), is used in accordance with
its statutory meaning.
    Motor vehicle repair business is defined as it is in 49 U.S.C.
30122(a). This term includes businesses that receive compensation for
servicing vehicles without malfunctioning or broken parts or systems by
adding or removing features or components to or from those vehicles or
otherwise customizing those vehicles.
    Rental company is defined as it is in 49 U.S.C. 30102(a).

0
4. Amend Sec.  595.7 by adding paragraphs (c)(18) and (19) to read as
follows:

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

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (18) 49 CFR 571.216a, in any case in which:
    (i) The disability necessitates raising the roof; and,
    (ii) The vehicle, after modification, meets 49 CFR 571.220.
    (19) S5.5.1, S5.5.2, S6.2.1, and S6.2.2 of 49 CFR 571.111, in any
case in which a personal mobility device transporter is temporarily
installed on a vehicle by way of a trailer hitch to carry a personal
mobility device (e.g., a wheelchair,

powered wheelchair, or powered scooter) used by a driver or a passenger
with a disability.
* * * * *

0
5. Add Sec.  595.8 to read as follows:

Sec.  595.8  Modifications by rental companies.

    (a) A rental company that modifies a motor vehicle temporarily in
order to rent a covered rental vehicle to a person with a disability to
operate, or ride as a passenger in, the motor vehicle is exempted from
the ``make inoperative'' prohibition in 49 U.S.C. 30122 to the extent
that those modifications make inoperative any part of a device or
element of design installed on or in the motor vehicle in compliance
with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards or portions thereof
specified in paragraph (d) of this section. Modifications that would
make inoperative devices or elements of design installed in compliance
with any other Federal motor vehicle safety standards, or portions
thereof, are not covered by the exemption in this paragraph (a).
    (b) The exemption described in paragraph (a) of this section
extends only for the period during which the covered rental vehicle is
rented to a person with a disability and a reasonable period before and
after the rental agreement in order to perform and reverse the
modification described in paragraph (d) of this section.
    (c) Any rental company that temporarily modifies a motor vehicle to
enable a person with a disability to operate, or ride as a passenger
in, the motor vehicle in such a manner as to make inoperative any part
of a device or element of design installed on or in the motor vehicle
in compliance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard or portion
thereof specified in paragraph (d) of this section must affix to the
motor vehicle a label of the type and in the manner described in
paragraph (e) of this section and must retain documents of the type and
in the manner described in paragraph (f) of this section.
    (d)(1) 49 CFR 571.208, in the case of the disablement of a knee
bolster air bag to allow the installation of hand controls.
    (2) [Reserved]
    (e) The label required by paragraph (c) of this section shall:
    (1) Be affixed within the passenger compartment of the vehicle;
    (2) Be affixed in a location visible to the driver in a manner that
does not obstruct the driver's view while operating the vehicle;
    (3) Contain the statement ``WARNING--To accommodate installation of
hand controls, this rental vehicle has had its knee bolster air bag
temporarily disabled;'' and,
    (4) Be removed when the modifications described in paragraph (d) of
this section are reversed.
    (f) The retained documents required by paragraph (c) of this
section shall:
    (1) Contain the name and physical address of the rental company and
any entity making or reversing the temporary modifications on behalf of
the rental company;
    (2) Be kept in original or photocopied paper form, or retained
electronically, by the rental company for a period of not less than
five years after the conclusion of the rental agreement for which the
modification is made;
    (3) Be clearly identifiable as to the vehicle that has been
modified; and
    (4) Identify the devices or elements of design installed on or in a
motor vehicle in compliance with a Federal motor vehicle safety
standard made inoperative by the rental company.

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117, 30122 and 30166;
delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.95.

Steven S. Cliff,
Deputy Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2022-05293 Filed 3-14-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P