[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 126 (Tuesday, July 1, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 35538-35539]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-17106]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration


Denial of Petition for Rulemaking

    This notice sets forth the reasons for the denial of a petition 
submitted to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) 
under 49 U.S.C. 30142 and 49 CFR part 552 to initiate rulemaking to 
amend the Federal Bumper Standard at 49 CFR part 581.
    The Coalition of Small Volume Automobile Manufacturers, Inc. 
(COSVAM), which describes itself as a non-profit association comprised 
of small volume motor vehicle manufacturers (producing less than 5,000 
vehicles per year), petitioned NHTSA to amend the Federal Bumper 
Standard. The amendment sought by COSVAM would provide an exemption 
from the standard's requirements if compliance with those requirements 
would cause a manufacturer substantial economic hardship.
    As conceived by COSVAM, the exemption would only be available to 
manufacturers who did not manufacture in, and/or import into, the 
United States in the previous calendar year more than 10,000 vehicles. 
COSVAM contended that NHTSA's requirements impose a proportionately 
greater burden on small volume manufacturers due to their limited 
resources and low production. Additionally, COSVAM contended that small 
volume manufacturers have more limited access to technology than their 
larger counterparts, and must sustain enormous costs for research and 
development and other expenses allocated on a ``per vehicle'' basis, 
given the small number of vehicles over which these costs must be 
spread.
    COSVAM noted that 49 U.S.C. 30113 authorizes NHTSA to exempt motor 
vehicles from compliance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard 
based, in part, on a finding that ``compliance with the standard would 
cause substantial economic hardship to a manufacturer * * *.'' 49 
U.S.C. 30113(b)(3)(B)(i). The organization noted that comparable 
language is not found in 49 U.S.C. 32502, the statute that mandated the 
issuance of the Federal Bumper Standard. That section instead provides 
that an exemption from the standard may be granted, for good cause, to 
``(1) a multipurpose passenger vehicle; or (2) a make, model, or class 
of a passenger motor vehicle manufactured for a special use, if the 
standard would interfere unreasonably with the special use of the 
vehicle.'' 49 U.S.C. 32502(c) (1) and (2).
    COSVAM contended that the vehicles produced by its members are 
manufactured for a special use, specifically for ``unusual, collector 
niche, or special purposes.'' The organization described these vehicles 
as typically being used as ``week-end cars,'' as opposed to being given 
everyday use. COSVAM further

[[Page 35539]]

contended that ``compliance with the bumper standard interferes 
unreasonably with such `special use' when compliance causes 
`substantial economic hardship' to the (small volume manufacturer).'' 
Elaborating on this concept, the organization observed that ``(i)f the 
(small volume manufacturer) produces no vehicles (or fewer vehicles) 
because of the burdens of the standard, and thus incurs substantial 
economic hardship, the `special usage' of the vehicles by the vehicles' 
owners is diminished or `unreasonably interfered with.'''
    COSVAM's final contention was that adoption of an exemption from 
the bumper standard will be a ``significant step towards international 
harmonization from the perspective of the (small volume 
manufacturer).''
    After a full and careful analysis of COSVAM's petition and its 
supporting rationale, NHTSA has decided to deny the petition. The 
agency notes that 49 U.S.C. 32502, the statute under which the bumper 
standard was issued, provides no basis for exempting vehicles on the 
grounds of economic hardship. Even if such a basis did exist, the 
agency notes that COSVAM did not provide any financial information 
demonstrating how compliance with the bumper standard causes 
substantial economic hardship to small volume manufacturers.
    More significantly, COSVAM did not demonstrate that vehicles 
produced by small volume manufacturers are manufactured for a special 
use. The agency believes that an exotic car licensed and used on public 
roads cannot be considered a ``special use'' vehicle. Absent the 
showing of such a special use, and that compliance with the bumper 
standard would unreasonably interfere with that special use, there is 
no basis for exempting a vehicle from the standard under 49 U.S.C. 
32502(c)(2).
    NHTSA can only exempt a manufacturer from a bumper standard for 
reasons specified in section 32502(c). There is no implied authority 
for the agency to grant exemptions in situations not covered by that 
section. Courts have strictly construed the statutes administered by 
NHTSA in determining the scope of the agency's exemption granting 
authority. See, e.g., Nader v. Volpe, 475 F. 2d 916 (D.C. Cir., 1973), 
holding that the agency's authority to grant temporary exemptions from 
the Federal motor vehicle safety standards is limited to the explicit 
wording of the statute authorizing such exemptions, now codified at 49 
U.S.C. 30113.
    Finally, NHTSA does not believe that adoption of the requested 
exemption from the bumper standard will further the goals of 
international harmonization. Those goals are directed, in part, at 
reducing non-tariff barriers to trade, such as those that result from 
differences in test standards that apply to vehicles sold in various 
markets. Compliance with the bumper standard does not impose such an 
impediment to trade because it would not restrict the entry of a 
compliant vehicle into other markets.
    For the reasons discussed above, NHTSA has concluded that it has no 
authority to amend 49 CFR part 581 to exempt small volume manufacturers 
from the bumper standard, as requested in COSVAM's petition.
    Accordingly, that petition is denied.

    Issued on June 25, 1997.
L. Robert Shelton,
Associate Administrator for Safety Performance Standards.
[FR Doc. 97-17106 Filed 6-30-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P