[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 125 (Wednesday, June 29, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 38270-38279]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-16222]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA-2010-0154]
Terrafugia, Inc.; Grant of Application for Temporary Exemption
From Certain Requirements of FMVSS No. 110, Tire Selection and Rims for
Motor Vehicles, FMVSS No. 126, Electronic Stability Control Systems,
FMVSS No. 205, Glazing Materials, and FMVSS No. 208, Occupant Crash
Protection
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Notice of grant of petition for temporary exemption from
certain provisions of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No.
110, Tire Selection and Rims and Motor Home/Recreation Vehicle Trailer
Load Carrying Capacity Information for Motor Vehicles With a GVWR of
4,536 kilograms (10,000 pounds) or Less, FMVSS No. 126, Electronic
Stability Control Systems, FMVSS No. 205, Glazing Materials, and FMVSS
No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This notice grants the petition of Terrafugia for a temporary
exemption from certain FMVSS requirements for tire selection and rims
for motor vehicles (FMVSS No. 110), electronic stability control (ESC)
systems (FMVSS No. 126), glazing materials (FMVSS No. 205), and
advanced air bag requirements (FMVSS No. 208). The basis for the
exemption is that compliance with these requirements would cause
substantial economic hardship to a manufacturer that has tried in good
faith to comply with the standard. This action follows our publication
in the Federal Register of a document announcing receipt of
[[Page 38271]]
Terrafugia's petition and soliciting public comments.
DATES: The exemption from FMVSS No. 126 and from the advanced air bag
requirements of FMVSS No. 208 is effective from June 1, 2012, through
May 31, 2013. The exemption from certain provisions of FMVSS No. 110
and FMVSS No. 205 is effective from June 1, 2012, through May 31, 2015.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: William H. Shakely, Office of the
Chief Counsel, NCC-112, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration,
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building 4th Floor, Room W41-318,
Washington, DC 20590. Telephone: (202) 366-2992; Fax: (202) 366-3820.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Statutory Basis for Requested Part 555 Exemption
The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, as amended,
codified as 49 U.S.C. chapter 301, provides the Secretary of
Transportation authority to exempt, on a temporary basis and under
specified circumstances, motor vehicles from a motor vehicle safety
standard or bumper standard. This authority is set forth at 49 U.S.C.
30113. The Secretary has delegated the authority for this section to
NHTSA.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 49 CFR 1.50.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NHTSA established part 555, Temporary Exemption from Motor Vehicle
Safety and Bumper Standards, to implement the statutory provisions
concerning temporary exemptions. Vehicle manufacturers may apply for
temporary exemptions on several bases, one of which is that compliance
would cause substantial economic hardship to a manufacturer that has
tried in good faith to comply with the standard.
A petitioner must provide specified information in submitting a
petition for exemption.\2\ Foremost among these requirements are that
the petitioner must set forth the basis of the application under
Section 555.6, and the reasons why the exemption would be in the public
interest and, as applicable, consistent with the objectives of 49
U.S.C. chapter 301.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ 49 CFR 555.5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Only small manufacturers can obtain a hardship exemption. A
manufacturer is eligible to apply for a hardship exemption if its total
motor vehicle production in its most recent year of production did not
exceed 10,000 vehicles, as determined by the NHTSA Administrator.\3\ In
determining whether a manufacturer of a vehicle meets that criterion,
NHTSA considers whether a second vehicle manufacturer also might be
deemed the manufacturer of that vehicle.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ 49 U.S.C. 30113(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, while 49 U.S.C. 30113(b) states that exemptions from an
FMVSS prescribed under Chapter 301 are to be granted on a ``temporary
basis,'' the statute also expressly provides for renewal of an
exemption on reapplication.\4\ Manufacturers are nevertheless cautioned
that the agency's decision to grant an initial petition in no way
predetermines that the agency will repeatedly grant renewal petitions.
Exempted manufacturers seeking renewal must bear in mind that the
agency is directed to consider financial hardship as but one factor,
along with the manufacturer's ongoing good faith efforts to comply with
the regulation and the public interest, among other factors provided in
the statute.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ 49 U.S.C. 30113(b)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Terrafugia's Petition
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 30113 and the procedures in 49 CFR
part 555, Terrafugia has petitioned (dated July 20, 2010) the agency
for a temporary exemption from certain FMVSS requirements for the
Transition,[supreg] a Light Sport Aircraft (LSA) that has road-going
capability. In addition to its original petition, Terrafugia has
submitted additional information regarding its compliance efforts,
which has been posted to the public docket.
Terrafugia requested an exemption from certain provisions of the
tire selection and rim requirements for motor vehicles (S4.1 and S4.4
of FMVSS No. 110), the ESC system requirements (FMVSS No. 126), the
glazing materials requirements (S5 of FMVSS No. 205), and the advanced
air bag requirements (S14 of FMVSS No. 208). The basis for the
application is that compliance would cause substantial economic
hardship to a manufacturer that has tried in good faith to comply with
the standard. Terrafugia has requested a three-year hardship exemption.
A copy of the petition is available for review and has been placed in
the docket of this notice.\5\ In a subsequent submission, Terrafugia
clarified its plans with respect to S14 of FMVSS No. 208, stating that
it will certify its vehicles to comply with the belted 50th percentile
male barrier impact test (S14.5.1(a)). Terrafugia has also since stated
that it plans to certify to the unbelted 50th percentile male barrier
impact test in force prior to September 1, 2006 (S5.1.2(a)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ To view the petition, go to http://www.regulations.gov and
enter the docket number set forth in the heading of this document.
The company requested confidential treatment under 49 CFR part 512
for certain business and financial information submitted as part of
its petition for temporary exemption. Accordingly, the information
placed in the docket does not contain such information that the
agency has determined to be confidential.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to the petition, Terrafugia is a small, privately held
company that was incorporated in the state of Delaware in 2006 and
maintains headquarters in Woburn, Massachusetts. Terrafugia states that
the company employs ten full-time employees. The company identified
itself as a Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) spin-off
company, but stated that it does not have access to MIT's financial
resources. The company also stated that it is not affiliated with any
other aircraft or automobile manufacturer.
Terrafugia has designed and built the first prototype of the
Transition,[supreg] which it described as a ``Roadable Aircraft.''
Terrafugia characterized the Transition[supreg] as an LSA, as defined
by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), and stated that the
vehicle's road-going capability will provide a significant increase in
operational functionality and safety for the General Aviation \6\ pilot
community by allowing pilots to safely continue their travel plans in
the event of inclement weather.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Terrafugia explained that General Aviation is the segment of
the air transportation industry characterized by flight outside of
the commercial airline system and military operations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To date, Terrafugia has not produced any vehicles for sale, but
intends to begin delivery of the Transition[supreg] in late-2012 \7\
and anticipates producing 200 vehicles during the three-year requested
exemption period. Terrafugia stated that it expects to remain a low-
volume manufacturer for the foreseeable future, continuing to market
the Transition[supreg] as an aircraft with road-going capability, not
as a ``flying car.'' Thus, the primary market for the
Transition[supreg] will be U.S. pilots.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Terrafugia initially stated that it planned to begin
production in late-2011 but subsequently indicated that its
production plans had been delayed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Terrafugia's basis for the petition is that requiring compliance
with the stated provisions would cause substantial economic hardship to
a manufacturer that has tried to comply with the standard in good faith
(49 U.S.C. 30113(b)(3)(B)(i)).
A. Terrafugia's General Statement of Economic Hardship
Terrafugia stated that the denial of the requested exemption will
result in substantial economic hardship. The company indicated that it
has spent
[[Page 38272]]
approximately $3.5 million since 2006 on the development of the
Transition[supreg] and has had no appreciable revenue during that time.
Terrafugia acknowledged that it has received over 80 orders for
vehicles but that, due to escrow agreements for each deposit, these
funds are not accessible operating funds.
The Transition's[supreg] dual purpose as an aircraft and ground
vehicle has necessitated the application of both FAA regulations for
LSA and the FMVSSs established by NHTSA for new motor vehicles and
motor vehicle equipment. Terrafugia contended that ``it is not always
possible to completely merge the two regulations without compromising
safety, incurring prohibitive costs, and/or reducing core
functionality.'' \8\ Specifically, Terrafugia stated that in order to
maintain compliance with the FAA's maximum weight requirement for
LSAs,\9\ weight must be removed from the vehicle to offset any extra
weight that is added for motor vehicle safety equipment. Terrafugia
calculated that for each additional pound removed, it costs $14,500
\10\ in development costs and adds $4,200 \11\ to the cost of the
aircraft.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Terrafugia Petition, p. 3.
\9\ Terrafugia obtained a partial grant of exemption from the
FAA (FAA Docket No. FAA-2009-1087), allowing the Transition[supreg]
to have a maximum takeoff weight (MTOW) of 1,430 pounds (650 kg)
instead of the general MTOW requirement of 1,320 pounds (600 kg).
\10\ Terrafugia explained that this is based on the experience
of removing weight between the Proof of Concept vehicle to the
prototype and the fact that as more and more weight must be removed,
it becomes increasingly more difficult to do so.
\11\ Terrafugia explained that this figure is based on
identified cost vs. weight trade-offs, such as material replacement,
and a minimal margin.
\12\ Terrafugia noted that there is a physical limitation as to
how much weight can be removed from the vehicle, at any cost, before
it is no longer capable of safely performing its function. The
dollar values provided by Terrafugia are applicable until that limit
is reached, past which very little can be done at any price and the
product is no longer viable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Terrafugia stated that a grant of the requested exemption would
allow the company to continue with LSA certification for the
Transition[supreg] while pursuing lightweight compliance solutions and
researching additional ways of reducing the weight of non-safety-
critical systems for the aircraft.
Terrafugia noted that the Transition[supreg] is currently its only
product line. Accordingly, a denial would force the company to delay
all production until compliance is achieved. The company stated that a
denial would delay customer delivery and initial revenue generation by
at least two years and that this delay, coupled with the sharply
decreased probability of the company reaching profitability, would make
additional investment capital extremely difficult to secure. Terrafugia
calculated that the revenue difference between a grant and a denial of
the exemption would be $19.4 million and would double the price point
of the Transition[supreg]. Accordingly, Terrafugia opined that a denial
would likely force the company to abandon LSA certification and the
development of the Transition[supreg].\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Terrafugia stated that not being able to certify the
Transition[supreg] as an LSA would increase certification costs by
up to $100 million and would force the company to dissolve.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Terrafugia's Statement of the Costs of Compliance and Good Faith
Efforts To Comply
Terrafugia provided a detailed description of its efforts to comply
and the compliance costs it faces. The company stated that although it
might have been easier to design the Transition[supreg] as a three-
wheel vehicle and certify it as a motorcycle, due to the light weight
of the vehicle and the exposed side area of the folded wings, a more
stable four-wheel configuration was chosen.
Below is a summary of the compliance efforts and costs for each of
the requirements from which Terrafugia seeks exemption.
1. FMVSS No. 110, Tire Selection and Rims and Motor Home/Recreation
Vehicle Trailer Load Carrying Capacity Information for Motor Vehicles
With a GVWR of 4,536 Kilograms (10,000 Pounds) or Less, Paragraphs
S4.1, S4.4\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ 49 CFR 571.110.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Terrafugia seeks an exemption from the general tire requirements
(S4.1) and rim requirements (S4.4) of FMVSS No. 110. Terrafugia stated
that compliance with these requirements would cause substantial
economic hardship due to the cost of reducing the weight of the vehicle
in order to offset the weight of the tires and rims required by the
standard, which have significantly higher speed and load ratings than
that needed for the Transition[supreg]. As part of its efforts to
comply with the standard, Terrafugia evaluated several passenger car
tire and rim combinations. The company also investigated the
development of a lighter custom rim and tire combination that would
meet the requirements of FMVSS No. 110.
Based on conversations with Continental Tire, Terrafugia estimated
that development and certification costs for custom tires would be
approximately $120,000 and that it would have to place a minimum order
of 3,000 units at an expense $450,000, for a total cost of $570,000.
Terrafugia also stated that it had experienced difficulty in finding a
major tire manufacturer to work on the project. The company indicated
that an exemption would provide time to gather data on tire usage to
justify a larger custom tire purchase, would allow the company to build
relationships with tire manufacturers to facilitate custom tire
development, and would provide revenue to offset the cost of the custom
tire program.
If granted an exemption, Terrafugia intends to use tires and rims
with proper load and speed ratings, which are certified for motorcycle
use (See 49 CFR 571.119). The company stated that it had already
performed takeoff and landing testing using the lighter motorcycle
tires and rims, and the company asserted that they would provide an
equivalent level of safety as compared to tires certified for
traditional passenger vehicles, while allowing for weight savings of 25
pounds (11.3 kg). The company stated that it intended to perform
handling and brake testing using the motorcycle tires and rims.
Terrafugia stated that, to date, it has spent $50,290 towards
finding a compliant rim and tire combination that would meet the speed,
loading, and weight requirements for the Transition[supreg].
2. FMVSS No. 126, Electronic Stability Control Systems\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ 49 CFR 571.126.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Terrafugia seeks an exemption from the ESC system requirements of
FMVSS No. 126. ESC systems employ automatic computer-controlled braking
of individual wheels to assist the driver in maintaining control in
critical driving situations.\16\ NHTSA's crash data study shows that
ESC systems reduce fatal single-vehicle crashes of passenger cars by 36
percent and fatal single-vehicle crashes of LTVs (light trucks and
vans, including pickup trucks, SUVs, minivans, and full-size vans) by
63 percent.\17\ The agency further estimates that ESC has the potential
to prevent 70 percent of the fatal passenger car rollovers and 88
percent of the fatal LTV rollovers that would otherwise occur in
single-vehicle crashes.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ 73 FR 54526, 54527 (September 22, 2008).
\17\ Dang, J., Statistical Analysis of the Effectiveness of
Electronic Stability Control (ESC) Systems--Final Report, DOT HS 810
794, U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, DC (July 2007).
Available at Docket No. NHTSA-2007-28629, item 2.
\18\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Terrafugia stated that it faces two challenges with an off-the-
shelf ESC unit. First, an ESC system would add 6
[[Page 38273]]
pounds of weight to the Transition[supreg]. Removing this amount of
weight from elsewhere in the vehicle would involve development costs of
$87,000 and would raise the price of the vehicle by $25,200. These
costs would be in addition to the purchase and integration costs for
the system, which were not available at the time the petition was
filed. Second, Terrafugia contended that an ESC system would pose a
flight safety risk because, by design, an ESC system may automatically
cut the engine power when activated in a vehicle, which would create a
single point failure that could shut down the Transition's[supreg]
engine in flight. Terrafugia indicated its belief that this additional
safety risk outweighs the safety benefit of the ESC system on the
ground.
Terrafugia stated that it had approached Bosch Engineering Group
about developing an ESC system for the Transition,[supreg] but those
discussions were terminated by Bosch due to liability concerns about
installing the system on an airplane. Terrafugia indicated that it was
in the process of evaluating other vendors. The company stated that it
had also investigated the feasibility of developing an ESC system in-
house but had determined that such a program beyond its current
capabilities. Terrafugia indicated that an exemption would allow it to
further investigate the issues associated with an ESC system, which
might result in a petition for rulemaking to reflect the aviation
safety concerns of such a system.
3. FMVSS No. 205, Glazing Materials, Paragraph S5\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ 49 CFR 571.205.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Terrafugia seeks an exemption from the glazing material
requirements (S5 of FMVSS No. 205), which affect the
Transition's[supreg] windshield and side windows. Terrafugia stated
that installing compliant glazing materials, such as traditional
laminated safety glass, would result in 29 pounds (13.2 kg) of
additional weight. Terrafugia equipped its Proof of Concept vehicle
with custom-made FMVSS-compliant safety glass, but this vehicle was not
light enough to comply with the LSA weight restrictions, and Terrafugia
was unable to remove sufficient weight from the aircraft to accommodate
compliant glazing materials. Terrafugia calculated that the removal of
29 pounds from the Transition[supreg] would cost $420,500 in
development costs, would increase the price of each vehicle by a
minimum of $121,800, and would delay production of the vehicles.
The company also determined that, in the event of a bird strike,
FMVSS-compliant safety glass would either shatter or craze to a degree
that would substantially inhibit the pilot's view. Accordingly,
Terrafugia investigated the possibility of using an FMVSS-compliant
polycarbonate windshield. According to the petition, the polycarbonate
material passed intrusion tests without cracking, but Terrafugia was
still pursuing options for a scratch-resistant coating that could meet
the abrasion tests. The company stated that one vendor informed them
that its coating would likely pass the abrasion tests but that such
tests had not yet been performed. Terrafugia indicated that it is
engaged in discussions with several vendors and is planning future
compliance testing of coated polycarbonate materials. In the meantime,
Terrafugia stated that the Transition[supreg] would be equipped with
polycarbonate glazing, and each vehicle would be required to undergo
regular, frequent inspections, at which time windshields with degraded
visibility would be identified and replaced.
4. FMVSS No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, Paragraph S14 (Advanced
Air Bags)\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ 49 CFR 571.208.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Terrafugia seeks an exemption from the advanced air bag
requirements of FMVSS No. 208 (S14) because the company currently does
not have the financial resources to design and install an advanced air
bag system, which it calculated would cost approximately $2.4 million
and result in production delays of at least 18 months.
In the meantime, the company intends to install basic air bags in
the Transition[supreg], as well as a carbon fiber omega beam ``safety
cage'' surrounding the passenger compartment, energy-absorbing crush
structures, seat belts, and other necessary passenger safety equipment
not traditionally installed in an LSA. In its supplementary
submissions, Terrafugia indicated that it was working with Multimatic
and Tass to develop its occupant protection system and that it will
certify compliance with the belted 50th percentile male barrier impact
test (S14.5.1(a)). Terrafugia has also stated that it plans to certify
to the unbelted 50th percentile male barrier impact test in force prior
to September 1, 2006 (S5.1.2(a)).
To date, Terrafugia has spent approximately $161,000 in its efforts
to comply with FMVSS No. 208. Terrafugia anticipated using the sales
revenue generated during the exemption period to pursue the development
of an advanced air bag system, ideally one that would be able to
differentiate between the needs of an automotive crash and an aviation
crash.
5. Future Compliance Efforts
Terrafugia included a schedule of its future compliance efforts
during the proposed exemption period and stated that it was working
toward full compliance by the end of that period. However, Terrafugia
noted that the success of its plan was dependent on the availability of
sufficient investment capital and the willingness of third parties to
work with it. The company reiterated that it was also considering
petitioning NHTSA and FAA for rulemakings to address the unique dual-
purpose nature of the Transition[supreg].
C. Terrafugia's Statement of Public Interest
Terrafugia asserted that the requested exemption is in the public
interest because the Transition[supreg] will increase the safety of
flight for General Aviation in the United States, contribute to the
advancement of technology for light aircraft and light-weight, fuel
efficient automobiles, and improve the environment and economy.
According to Terrafugia's petition, one of the most significant
causes of General Aviation accidents and fatalities is weather, and a
leading cause of weather-related accidents is when pilots using visual
references, rather than flight instruments, for primary orientation and
navigation (Visual Flight Rules or VFR) fly into weather conditions
with insufficient visibility to provide a safe visual reference
(instrument meteorological conditions or IMC). In such situations,
pilots can get disoriented and enter an unrecoverable situation that
results in an often fatal accident. According to Terrafugia, the
Transition[supreg] offers a new alternative to pilots by allowing them
to divert to the nearest airport and continue the trip on the ground.
Although the trip may take longer, Terrafugia stated that the
Transition[supreg] is expected to eliminate the possibility of an
indeterminately long delay caused by either retracing the flight route
to clearer weather or diverting and waiting for the weather to pass.
Accordingly, Terrafugia expects that the Transition[supreg] will help
reduce these types of crashes, while also making General Aviation more
appealing and accessible to a greater number of people. Additionally,
because the Transition[supreg] is equipped with basic FMVSS occupant
crash protection features, Terrafugia argued that it is advancing
passenger safety technology in light aircraft.
[[Page 38274]]
The Transition[supreg] uses an FAA-certified, four cylinder, 100
horsepower, unleaded gasoline-fueled aircraft engine to power the
vehicle both in the air and on the ground. Terrafugia contended that
the use of unleaded gasoline will provide ``significant ecological and
energy benefits,'' as compared to the leaded gasoline used in other
General Aviation aircraft. Terrafugia also opined that one day a future
version of the Transition[supreg] might play a role in reducing highway
congestion and CO2 emissions by enabling more people to
shift from highway-based travel to a combination of flight and road use
for mid-range trips. Terrafugia stated that the Transition[supreg] will
cruise in the air at approximately 105 miles per hour and maintain
highway speeds on the ground, while attaining between 25 and 40 miles
per gallon in flight and on the road.
Terrafugia anticipated that the Transition[supreg] will only be
operated on public roadways in conjunction with a flight. The company
stated that it expects that the typical recreational owner will operate
the vehicle as an aircraft for at least 65 percent of its engine-on-
time and will drive the vehicle on the road less than 2,000 miles
annually. Terrafugia contended that the combination of low sales volume
and limited use on roadways limits the Transition's[supreg] overall
impact on motor vehicle safety.
Terrafugia estimated that by 2015, the production of the
Transition[supreg] will provide 500 manufacturing, engineering, and
support jobs to the U.S. economy.
III. Notice of Receipt and Summary of Comments
On November 16, 2010 we published a notice of receipt of
Terrafugia's petition for temporary exemption in the Federal Register
(75 FR 70071), and provided an opportunity for public comment. We
received ten comments in response to the notice, as well as a response
from Terrafugia.
Five commenters submitted six comments supporting the grant of the
exemption requested by Terrafugia. These commenters included Women in
Aviation International (WAI), a nonprofit organization dedicated to the
encouragement and advancement of women in aviation career fields and
interests, the Experimental Aircraft Association (EAA), a group of
aviation enthusiasts, pilots, and aircraft owners, the Aircraft Owners
and Pilots Association (AOPA), a not-for-profit membership organization
consisting of more than 400,000 pilots, Sherry Grobstein, a private
pilot with over 35 years of experience who has placed a deposit on a
Transition[supreg], and Kenneth J. Ramsey. Four comments raised
questions regarding Terrafugia's petition. One of these comments was
submitted by John Dritten, a pilot, and the other three were anonymous
comments.
All of the supporting comments described the dangers associated
with VFR flights entering IMC and emphasized the Transition's[supreg]
ability to reduce these types of crashes by encouraging pilots to land
when they encounter bad weather. WAI, EAA, and Mr. Ramsey also
discussed the safety features equipped on the Transition[supreg]. WAI
stated that the Transition[supreg] offers a significantly higher level
of crash safety than that found in light aircraft, EAA indicated that
the Transition's[supreg] safety features had the potential to reduce
crash-landing fatalities, and Mr. Ramsey opined that the
Transition's[supreg] safety features would provide an adequate safety
margin under most circumstances.
Mr. Dritten, however, questioned Terrafugia's petition, noting that
it appeared that most of the exemptions sought would be unnecessary if
the Transition[supreg] was equipped with only three wheels and
certified as a motorcycle. Mr. Dritten further stated that removing one
wheel would eliminate approximately 100 pounds of weight from the
vehicle.
Mr. Dritten also questioned Terrafugia's efforts to comply and
whether the exemption sought was in the public interest. Mr. Dritten
noted that development of the Transition[supreg] began in 2006 and
questioned why Terrafugia had not requested an exemption earlier.
One of the anonymous commenters responded to the question we raised
in the notice of receipt concerning whether the safety benefits of
reducing weather-related accidents for flights of the
Transition[supreg] outweigh the safety risks associated with road use
of the Transition[supreg] in inclement weather. The commenter noted
that an LSA piloted by a sport pilot can only be flown in daytime VFR
conditions, which requires three miles of visibility. The commenter
indicated that, accordingly, a pilot should not even see inclement
weather if the pilot is flying legally. The commenter stated that in
the face of inclement weather, VFR pilots in normal aircraft would not
fly, fly around the weather, or land the aircraft and wait until the
bad weather passes, and that any of these options would be safer than
flying or driving the Transition[supreg] in inclement weather. The
commenter indicated that without electronic stability control, non-DOT
car tires and rims, no laminated safety glass, and no advanced air
bags, driving the Transition[supreg] would be less safe than flying the
Transition[supreg] legally (in good weather). The commenter stated that
comparing driving the Transition[supreg] in inclement weather to flying
the Transition[supreg] in inclement weather (i.e., illegally) was not
as valuable as determining whether and to what extent granting the
exemption would increase the risk of accident and injury to the
occupants of the Transition[supreg] as compared to a motor vehicle that
meets all FMVSSs.
The commenters offered the following comments on each of the
specific exemptions sought by Terrafugia:
FMVSS No. 110, S4.1 and S4.4--Ms. Grobstein stated that the tires
on the Transition[supreg] must allow cross wind landings as well as
safe operation on the road and should be appropriate for the light
weight of the vehicle. Accordingly, she opined that heavier tires would
provide no benefit and take up weight that could be used for a
passenger or baggage. EAA commented that it was the group's
understanding that the type of tires used on the Transition[supreg] are
permitted on vehicles of comparable wheel load. EAA also noted that
Terrafugia's Proof of Concept vehicle successfully tested using these
tires and opined that compliance appeared to involve a regulatory
technicality rather than a safety matter. Mr. Ramsey opined that the
tires proposed by Terrafugia would be suitable and provide an
appropriate safety margin during takeoff and landing as well as while
driving.
FMVSS No. 126--Ms. Grobstein and Mr. Ramsey stated that the
Transition[supreg] has a low center of gravity and would be unlikely to
roll over, and that, accordingly, an ESC system is unnecessary. EAA
noted it was not unusual for suppliers to refuse to work with aircraft
companies due to low production volumes and product liability concerns.
EAA opined that given the physical characteristics of the
Transition[supreg], including its relatively long wheel base, wide
track, low center of gravity, and low mass, it appeared that the
Transition[supreg] was significantly different than vehicles displaying
rollover tendencies, which drove the adoption of the ESC requirement.
Accordingly, given the economic hardship Terrafugia would encounter in
terms of complying with the FAA weight requirement and developing its
own ESC system, EAA stated that an exemption would be in the public
interest.
An anonymous commenter indicated that NHTSA's own statistics showed
[[Page 38275]]
that ESC systems have the ability to prevent crashes other than
rollovers, which are independent of the vehicle's center of
gravity.\21\ The commenter also indicated that he had purchased off-
the-shelf ESC systems and never had to disclose the intended use of the
systems. The commenter opined that the ESC requirements should not be
ignored because of engineering and development expense.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ The commenter did not cite a source for the statistics
listed. As stated above, NHTSA's crash studies have shown that ESC
systems reduce fatal single-vehicle crashes of passenger cars by 36
percent, and fatal single-vehicle crashes of LTVs by 63 percent. The
studies further estimated that ESC systems would prevent 70 percent
of passenger car rollovers and 88 percent of LTV rollovers in single
vehicle crashes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FMVSS No. 205, S5--Ms. Grobstein, EAA, and Mr. Ramsey all stated
that due to the danger of bird-strikes while in flight, a polycarbonate
windshield was safer for the Transition[supreg] than one that was
compliant with FMVSS No. 205. Ms. Grobstein also noted that an FMVSS-
compliant windshield would be heavier, and Mr. Ramsey indicated that a
polycarbonate windshield would provide adequate protection while the
Transition[supreg] was being driven. Additionally, EAA stated that the
Transition[supreg] would be subject to annual airworthiness condition
inspections, and any windshield scratches that could obscure the
operator's vision would be discovered and remedied during such
inspections.
An anonymous commenter stated that a polycarbonate windshield would
quickly scratch and haze when exposed to road conditions, especially
with the use of windshield wipers in rainy weather. The commenter also
stated that, in the event of a crash, emergency personnel would have a
difficult time removing a polycarbonate windshield.
FMVSS No. 208, S14--WAI stated that pilots are more accustomed to
following seat belt and other usage guidelines than the average driver,
making the installation of advanced air bags less critical. Ms.
Grobstein stated that the Transition[supreg] was not an appropriate
vehicle to ride long distances with a child and that her companion
would not be one that required a car seat. Accordingly, she opined that
advanced air bags would provide no extra safety and would only add
expense and weight to the vehicle. EAA stated that due to the
difficulty of finding a supplier for an advanced air bag system that
would be compatible with both road travel and flight, the development
of such a system would represent a significant financial burden to
Terrafugia. Mr. Ramsey stated that given the Transition's[supreg]
design, it was unlikely that an unbelted out-of-position child would be
in the vehicle, and, accordingly, an advanced air bag system was not
warranted.
On the other hand, Mr. Dritten questioned the safety of driving the
Transition[supreg]. He indicated that children would undoubtedly ride
in the vehicle, noting that he flew with his own children and would
continue to do so if he owned the Transition[supreg]. One anonymous
commenter agreed that children would likely be riding in the vehicle,
noting that EAA is a proponent of giving children the opportunity to
fly with its Young Eagles program and that many of the flights in this
program involve LSA.
Terrafugia submitted a response to the public comments described
above. Regarding the decision to create a four-wheel, rather than
three-wheel, vehicle, the company reiterated that it recognized that
significant additional effort would be required to meet the applicable
safety standards but indicated that it made the decision to develop a
four-wheel vehicle based on its determination that a such a vehicle
would be safer and more stable.
Terrafugia also discussed the probability of children riding in the
Transition[supreg]. The company acknowledged that children may
occasionally be driven or flown in the Transition[supreg], but that it
was not expected to be a common occurrence. The company noted that most
of the customers who could afford the Transition[supreg] are beyond the
age at which they would have young children and, as trained pilots,
would understand the associated risks. Terrafugia further stated that
the benefit garnered by occasionally giving children the opportunity to
ride in the Transition[supreg] offsets the occasional, well-considered
risk.
IV. Agency Analysis and Decision
In this section, we provide our analysis and decision regarding
Terrafugia's temporary exemption request from the requirements of
various FMVSSs.
As discussed below, we are granting Terrafugia's petition for the
Transition[supreg] to be exempted from S4.1 and S4.4 of FMVSS No. 110,
FMVSS No. 126, S5 of FMVSS No. 205, and S14 (apart from S14.5.1.(a)) of
FMVSS No. 208 beginning on June 1, 2012. The Transition[supreg] is
exempted from FMVSS No. 126 and S14 (apart from S14.5.1.(a)) of FMVSS
No. 208 for a period of one year and is exempted from S4.1 and S4.4 of
FMVSS No. 110 and S5 of FMVSS No. 205 for a period of three years. In
addition to certifying compliance with the belted 50th percentile adult
male dummy barrier impact requirements in S14.5.1(a) of FMVSS No. 208,
Terrafugia must certify to the unbelted 50th percentile adult male
dummy barrier impact test requirement that applied prior to September
1, 2006 (S5.1.2(a) of FMVSS No. 208). For purposes of this exemption,
the unbelted sled test in S13 of FMVSS No. 208 is an acceptable option
for that requirement. The agency's rationale for this decision is as
follows:
A. Eligibility
As discussed above, a manufacturer is eligible to apply for an
economic hardship exemption if its total motor vehicle production in
its most recent year of production did not exceed 10,000 vehicles, as
determined by the NHTSA Administrator (49 U.S.C. 30113). Terrafugia
indicated that at the time of the application, it had not produced any
vehicles for sale and stated that it predicted producing 200 vehicles
during the exemption period if an exemption is granted. Furthermore,
the company stated that it is not affiliated with any other aircraft or
automobile manufacturer. Accordingly, we have determined that
Terrafugia is eligible to apply for an economic hardship exemption.
B. Economic Hardship
Terrafugia stated that it has spent approximately $3.5 million
since 2006 on the development of the Transition[supreg] and has had no
appreciable revenue during that time. Terrafugia acknowledged that it
has received over 80 orders for vehicles but that due to escrow
agreements for each deposit, these funds are not accessible operating
funds. Terrafugia's confidential records support its assertion that it
has experienced a continuing and cumulative net loss position.
Additionally, one commenter agreed with Terrafugia that the cost of
complying with the advanced air bag requirements and the ESC system
requirements would represent a significant financial burden to
Terrafugia.
The touchstone that NHTSA uses in determining the existence of
substantial economic hardship is an applicant's financial health, as
indicated by its income statements. NHTSA has tended to consider a
continuing and a cumulative net loss position as strong
[[Page 38276]]
evidence of hardship.\22\ The theory behind NHTSA's rationale is that,
if a company with a continuing net loss is required to divert its
limited resources to resolve a compliance problem on an immediate
basis, it may be unable to use those resources to solve other problems
that may affect its viability. The agency has considered this
especially important in its treatment of corporate petitioners during
their infancy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ Grant of petition of Bugatti Automobili, S.p.A., 59 FR
11649, 11650 (Mar. 11, 1994).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additionally, Terrafugia stated that the Transition[supreg] is
currently its only product line. Accordingly, a denial would force the
company to delay all production until compliance is achieved.
Terrafugia stated that a denial would delay customer delivery and
initial revenue generation by at least two years and that this delay,
coupled with the sharply decreased probability of the company reaching
profitability, would make additional investment capital extremely
difficult to secure. Terrafugia calculated that the difference between
a grant and a denial of its petition was $19.4 million in revenue and
indicated that a denial would likely put the company out of business.
Based on these factors, we conclude that Terrafugia has
demonstrated the requisite economic hardship.
C. Good Faith Efforts To Comply
Terrafugia described in detail its efforts to comply with the
listed FMVSSs as well as its plans for compliance by the end of the
proposed exemption period. In particular, Terrafugia provided a plan to
achieve full compliance with FMVSS Nos. 110, 205, and 208 within the
three-year period. Although Terrafugia budgeted for FMVSS No. 126
compliance research and indicated that it was working towards
compliance with all FMVSSs by the end of the requested exemption
period, the company also stated that it was currently evaluating
vendors to work with to develop an ESC system and indicated that
further research might lead the company to petition for rulemaking on
this issue. Accordingly, it appears that Terrafugia does not know at
this time whether the Transition[supreg] will be able to comply with
FMVSS No. 126 by the end of the requested exemption period.
One of the public comments questioned Terrafugia's general efforts
to comply. Specifically, the commenter noted that Terrafugia could have
designed the Transition[supreg] with three wheels instead of four, thus
saving weight, allowing for the installation of additional safety
features, and avoiding the need to comply with the safety standards
required for four-wheel vehicles. The commenter also questioned why
Terrafugia did not request an exemption earlier in the development
process.
Regarding the decision to design a four-wheel, rather than three-
wheel, vehicle, Terrafugia stated in its petition and its response to
the public comments that it was aware that using a three-wheel design
would lessen its regulatory burden. However, due to the light weight of
the vehicle and the exposed side area of the folded wings, the company
chose a four-wheel design to increase stability and make the vehicle
safer. Given Terrafugia's rationale for its decision to use a four-
wheel design, the agency does not believe that this decision reflects
negatively on Terrafugia's efforts to comply with the FMVSSs.
Likewise, the agency does not consider the timing of Terrafugia's
petition for exemption to reflect negatively on the company's efforts
to comply. Terrafugia's petition is dated July 20, 2010. In the
petition, Terrafugia requested an exemption beginning with the first
Transition[supreg] delivery on or near December 1, 2011, over 16 months
later. The agency considers this to be a sufficient period to carefully
consider the merits of Terrafugia's petition and make a reasoned
decision.
After reviewing Terrafugia's petition and the public comments, we
believe that the company has made good faith efforts to comply with the
standards from which it is seeking exemption. Terrafugia is a new
company, and the Transition[supreg] is a unique, dual-purpose vehicle
designed for both flying and driving. Many of the impediments to
compliance that Terrafugia has encountered are a direct result of the
dual nature of the Transition[supreg], including the need to meet the
strict weight requirements of an LSA. Despite these impediments,
Terrafugia has devoted significant resources towards compliance, has
attempted to mitigate the risks associated with noncompliance, and has
developed a plan for full compliance with three of the four listed
FMVSSs by the end of the requested three-year period.
In sum, we believe that, considering Terrafugia's overall
situation, the efforts that the company has made to date, and the plans
it has in place, Terrafugia has made good faith efforts to comply with
the requirements from which it seeks a temporary exemption.
D. Public Interest Considerations
NHTSA has traditionally found that the public interest is served by
affording consumers a wider variety of motor vehicles and providing
additional employment opportunities. We believe that both of these
public interest considerations would be served by granting Terrafugia's
petition. The Transition[supreg] is a unique vehicle that uses a
variety of new technologies. An exemption would allow for the
evaluation of the market for this type of vehicle as well as the
further development of these new technologies. Additionally, Terrafugia
estimated that by 2015, the production of the Transition[supreg] will
provide 500 manufacturing, engineering, and support jobs to the U.S.
economy.
Furthermore, by reducing the disincentive associated with landing
an aircraft prior to reaching the pilot's planned destination, the
Transition[supreg] has the potential to reduce aircraft crashes
involving a pilot using VFR flying into inclement weather. One
commenter noted that VFR pilots are not supposed to fly into inclement
weather and asserted that comparing flying and driving in inclement
weather was not as useful as focusing on the increased risk to
occupants of the Transition[supreg] when it is operated on the road. We
note that Terrafugia cited a report describing the occurrence of these
VFR-into-IMC crashes, and the company stated that one of the purposes
of the Transition[supreg] is to attempt to reduce their occurrence.
Additionally, five of the comments discussed the danger of such types
of crashes and supported Terrafugia's assertion that the
Transition[supreg] has the potential to reduce their occurrence.
Accordingly, we believe that the Transition's[supreg] stated purpose
supports Terrafugia's assertion that the requested exemption is
consistent with the public interest.
We have also considered motor vehicle safety issues related to the
exemption requested by Terrafugia. We believe that, in general, the
requested exemption will have a limited impact on motor vehicle safety
because of the low number of vehicles expected to be produced and
because each vehicle is likely to travel on public roads only
infrequently. Terrafugia predicted producing 200 vehicles during the
exemption period and estimated that, on average, each vehicle would
spend less than 2,000 miles on the road annually.
However, as explained in detail below, after considering the
individual requirements from which exemption is sought, the public
comments, and the agency's policy on granting exemptions, we have
determined that the three-year exemption requested for the ESC system
requirements and the advanced air bag requirements is not warranted.
Instead,
[[Page 38277]]
we are granting a one-year exemption from these requirements.
Terrafugia indicated that the tires and rims it plans on using have
appropriate load and speed ratings for the Transition[supreg] and
stated that it had already flight-tested this equipment. Most of the
public comments supported exempting Terrafugia from the tire and rim
requirements of FMVSS No. 110. One commenter expressed concern about
the safety of driving the Transition[supreg] without the FMVSS-required
safety equipment, including tires and rims, but did not specifically
comment on any consequences of Terrafugia's proposed use of motorcycle
tires and rims.
After considering these factors, we believe that the requested
three-year exemption from S4.1 and S4.4 of FMVSS No. 110 is consistent
with the public interest.
Regarding the ESC system requirements of FMVSS No. 126, several
commenters asserted that the design of the Transition[supreg] was
significantly different than vehicles displaying rollover tendencies,
which drove the adoption of the ESC requirement, and, therefore,
meeting the ESC system requirements would have a minor safety impact.
However, one commenter asserted that, in light of NHTSA's own
statistics indicating the ability of ESC systems to prevent crashes
other than rollovers, the ESC requirements should not be ignored
because of the associated engineering and development expense.
The agency's research has shown that ESC systems have the ability
to prevent 36 percent of fatal single-vehicle crashes of passenger cars
and 63 percent of fatal single-vehicle crashes of LTVs. These
statistics include crashes that do not involve vehicle rollovers.
Accordingly, we believe that, in spite of the Transition's[supreg]
design, an ESC system will improve the safety of the vehicle.
Additionally, Terrafugia expressed concern that an ESC system would
create a potential hazard while the Transition[supreg] is in flight.
However, the agency notes that FMVSS No. 126 explicitly allows vehicles
to be equipped with an ``ESC Off'' control that puts the ESC system
into a mode in which it will no longer meet the performance
requirements described in the standard. Terrafugia did not discuss this
provision or explain why such a control would not be feasible for the
Transition[supreg].
Weighing these factors, the agency does not believe that a three-
year exemption from FMVSS No. 126 is warranted. Instead, we are
granting Terrafugia a one-year exemption. Although this period is
shorter than that requested by the company, the exemption will allow
Terrafugia to begin production and continue to work towards compliance.
Regarding the glazing requirements of FMVSS No. 205, Terrafugia
stated that using automobile safety glass would cause a potential
hazard in the event of an in-flight bird strike. Several commenters
supported this assertion. However, one commenter expressed concern that
the polycarbonate windshield and windows equipped in the
Transition[supreg] would scratch and haze easily when exposed to road
conditions and the use of windshield wipers. The commenter also stated
that emergency personnel would have a difficult time removing the
polycarbonate windshield. We acknowledge that a polycarbonate
windshield may be subject to more scratching and hazing than an FMVSS-
compliant windshield. However, we believe that these concerns are
mitigated by the Transition's[supreg] limited expected road use and by
Terrafugia's assertions that each Transition[supreg] would be required
to undergo regular, frequent inspections, at which time windshields
with degraded visibility would be identified and replaced.
Additionally, we do not believe that a polycarbonate windshield would
meaningfully hamper rescue efforts by emergency personnel. Accordingly,
we believe that the requested three-year exemption from S5 of FMVSS No.
205 is consistent with the public interest.
Finally, regarding the exemption from the advanced air bag
requirements of FMVSS No. 208, there was disagreement among the
commenters as to whether children would likely be riding in the
Transition[supreg], with some commenters indicating they do not fly
with children in their aircraft and others indicating that they do. One
commenter noted that at least one organization encourages children to
fly and has set up a program to provide such opportunities. Terrafugia
acknowledged that children might ride in the Transition[supreg] but
indicated that, in light of the average age of the customers purchasing
the vehicle, it was not expected to be a common occurrence.
In 2000, NHTSA upgraded the requirements for air bags in passenger
cars and light trucks, requiring what are commonly known as ``advanced
air bags.'' \23\ The upgrade was designed to meet the twin goals of
improving protection for occupants of all sizes, belted and unbelted,
in moderate-to-high-speed crashes, and of minimizing the risks posed by
air bags to infants, children, and other occupants, especially in low-
speed crashes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ See 65 FR 30680 (May 12, 2000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The issuance of the advanced air bag requirements was a culmination
of a comprehensive plan that the agency announced in 1996 to address
the adverse effects of air bags. This plan also included an extensive
consumer education program to encourage the placement of children in
rear seats.
The new requirements were phased-in, beginning with the 2004 model
year. Small volume manufacturers were not subject to the advanced air
bag requirements until the end of the phase-in period, i.e., September
1, 2006.
In recent years, NHTSA has addressed a number of petitions for
exemption from the advanced air bag requirements of FMVSS No. 208. The
majority of these requests have come from small manufacturers, each of
which has petitioned on the basis that compliance would cause it
substantial economic hardship and that it has tried in good faith to
comply with the standard. In recognition of the more limited resources
and capabilities of small motor vehicle manufacturers, authority to
grant exemptions based on substantial economic hardship and good faith
efforts was added to the Vehicle Safety Act in 1972 to enable the
agency to give those manufacturers additional time to comply with the
Federal safety standards.
NHTSA has granted a number of these petitions, usually in
situations in which the manufacturer is supplying standard air bags in
lieu of advanced air bags.\24\ In addressing these petitions, NHTSA has
recognized that small manufacturers may face particular difficulties in
acquiring or developing advanced air bag systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ See, e.g., grant of petition to Panoz, 72 FR 28759 (May 22,
2007), or grant of petition to Koenigsegg, 72 FR 17608 (April 9,
2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notwithstanding those previous grants of exemption, NHTSA is
considering two key issues--
(1) Whether it is in the public interest to continue to grant such
petitions, particularly in the same manner as in the past, given the
number of years these requirements have now been in effect and the
benefits of advanced air bags, and (2) to the extent such petitions are
granted, what plans and countermeasures to protect child and infant
occupants, short of compliance with the advanced air bag requirements,
should be expected.
While the exemption authority was created to address the problems
of small manufacturers and the agency wishes to be appropriately
attentive to those problems, it was not anticipated by the
[[Page 38278]]
agency that use of this authority would result in small manufacturers
being given much more than relatively short term exemptions from
recently implemented safety standards, especially those addressing
particularly significant safety problems.
Given the passage of time since the advanced air bag requirements
were established and implemented, and in light of the benefits of
advanced air bags, NHTSA is considering whether it is in the public
interest to continue to grant exemptions from these requirements,
particularly under the same terms as in the past. The costs of
compliance with the advanced air bag requirements of FMVSS No. 208 are
costs that all entrants to the U.S. automobile marketplace should
expect to bear. Furthermore, NHTSA understands that, in contrast to the
initial years after the advanced air bag requirements went into effect,
low volume manufacturers now have access to advanced air bag
technology. Accordingly, NHTSA tentatively concludes that the expense
of advanced air bag technology may not now be sufficient, in and of
itself, to justify the grant of a petition for a hardship exemption
from the advanced air bag requirements.
As part of the review of the agency's policy regarding exemptions
from the advanced air bag requirements, we have published several
notices of receipt that include requests for public comment on these
issues.
The agency acknowledges that Terrafugia faces impediments beyond
the expense of advanced air bag technology and believes that it is
consistent with the public interest to grant the requested exemption.
However, in light of NHTSA's reexamination of the agency's policy
regarding exemptions from the advanced air bag requirements, we do not
believe that the three-year exemption requested is warranted. Instead,
we are granting Terrafugia a one-year exemption from the advanced air
bag requirements. Although this period is shorter than that requested
by Terrafugia, this exemption will allow Terrafugia to begin production
and continue its efforts toward full compliance.
As a condition of this exemption, the Transition[supreg] must have
the permanently affixed ``sun visor air bag warning label'' and the
removable ``warning label on the dashboard'' that NHTSA developed/
requires for vehicles without advanced air bags.
The agency acknowledges that Terrafugia's petition indicated that a
three-year exemption was required to comply with the FMVSSs and that
the company may not be able to achieve full compliance with the
requirements of FMVSS No. 126 and the advanced air bag requirements of
FMVSS No. 208 within the one-year exemption period granted by this
notice. However, as stated above, this exemption will allow Terrafugia
to begin production and continue its efforts toward full compliance
with these standards. Additionally, we note that Part 555 allows a
manufacturer to apply for renewal of a temporary exemption, and we
emphasize that our decision to grant a more limited exemption than that
requested does not foreclose Terrafugia from applying for such an
extension at the end of the exemption period.
E. Labels
We note that, as explained below, prospective purchasers will be
notified that the vehicle is exempted from the specified requirements
of FMVSS Nos. 110, 126, 205, and 208. Under Sec. 555.9(b), a
manufacturer of an exempted vehicle must affix securely to the
windshield or side window of each exempted vehicle a label containing a
statement that the vehicle conforms to all applicable FMVSSs in effect
on the date of manufacture ``except for Standard Nos. [listing the
standards by number and title for which an exemption has been granted]
exempted pursuant to NHTSA Exemption No. ------------.'' This label
notifies prospective purchasers about the exemption and its subject.
Under Sec. 555.9(c), this information must also be included on the
vehicle's certification label.
The text of Sec. 555.9 does not expressly indicate how the
required statement on the two labels should read in situations in which
an exemption covers part but not all of an FMVSS. We believe that a
statement that the vehicle has been exempted from an FMVSS generally,
without an indication that the exemption is limited to the specified
provisions, could be misleading. A consumer might incorrectly believe
that the vehicle has been exempted from all of the standard's
requirements. Moreover, we believe that the addition of a reference to
such provisions by number would be of little use to consumers, since
they would not know the subject of those specific provisions. For these
reasons, we believe that, in reference to this exemption, the two
labels should read in, relevant part, ``except for the General Tire
Requirements and Rim Requirements of Standard No. 110, Tire Selection
and Rims and Motor Home/Recreation Vehicle Trailer Load Carrying
Capacity Information for Motor Vehicles with a GVWR of 4,536 kilograms
(10,000 pounds) or less, Standard No. 126, Electronic Stability Control
Systems, the Glazing Requirements of Standard No. 205, Glazing
Materials, and the Advanced Air Bag Requirements of Standard No. 208,
Occupant Crash Protection, exempted pursuant to * * *.'' We note that
the phrases used to describe the specific exempted provisions are
abbreviated forms of the titles of the sections of the standards from
which Terrafugia is exempted. We believe it is reasonable to interpret
Sec. 555.9 as requiring this language.
Additionally, the Transition[supreg] must have the permanently
affixed ``sun visor air bag warning label'' and the removable ``warning
label on the dashboard'' that NHTSA developed/requires for vehicles
without advanced air bags. The requirements for these labels are
described in paragraph S4.5.1 of FMVSS No. 208.
F. Decision
In consideration of the foregoing, we conclude that compliance with
certain requirements of FMVSS No. 110, Tire Selection and Rims and
Motor Home/Recreation Vehicle Trailer Load Carrying Capacity
Information for Motor Vehicles With a GVWR of 4,536 kilograms (10,000
pounds) or Less, FMVSS No. 126, Electronic Stability Control Systems,
FMVSS No. 205, Glazing Materials, and the advanced air bag requirements
of FMVSS No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, would cause substantial
economic hardship to a manufacturer that has tried in good faith to
comply with the standard. We further conclude that the granting of an
exemption from these requirements would be in the public interest and
consistent with the objectives of traffic safety.
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 30113(b)(3)(B)(i), Terrafugia is
granted NHTSA Temporary Exemption No. EX 11-02, from S4.1 and S4.4 of
FMVSS No. 110, FMVSS No. 126, S5 of FMVSS No. 205, and S14 (apart from
S14.5.1(a)) of FMVSS No. 208 beginning on June 1, 2012. In addition to
certifying compliance with the belted 50th percentile adult male dummy
barrier impact requirements in S14.5.1(a) of FMVSS No. 208, Terrafugia
must certify to the unbelted 50th percentile adult male dummy barrier
impact test requirement that applied prior to September 1, 2006
(S5.1.2(a) of FMVSS No. 208). For purposes of this exemption, the
unbelted sled test in S13 of FMVSS No. 208 is an acceptable option for
that requirement.
[[Page 38279]]
This exemption is for the Transition[supreg]. The exemption from
FMVSS No. 126 and S14 (apart from S14.5.1(a)) of FMVSS No. 208 shall
remain in effect for one year from the effective date, and the
exemption from S4.1 and S4.4 of FMVSS No. 110 and S5 of FMVSS No. 205
shall remain in effect for three years from the effective date, as
indicated in the DATES section of this document. (49 U.S.C. 30113;
delegations of authority at 49 CFR 1.50. and 501.8)
Issued on: June 16, 2011.
David L. Strickland,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2011-16222 Filed 6-28-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P