[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 123 (Tuesday, June 26, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 38129-38132]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-15585]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA-2012-0085]
Vision Motor Cars, Inc.; Receipt of Petition for Temporary
Exemption From Certain Requirements of FMVSS No. 126, FMVSS No. 201,
and FMVSS No. 208
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Notice of receipt of petition for temporary exemption.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In accordance with the procedures in 49 CFR part 555, Vision
Motor Cars, Inc., (VMCI) has petitioned the agency for temporary
exemption from certain requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
Standard (FMVSS) No. 126, Electronic Stability Control Systems, FMVSS
No. 201, Occupant Protection in Interior Impact, and FMVSS No. 208,
Occupant Crash Protection. The basis for the application is that the
petitioner avers that compliance would cause it substantial economic
hardship and that it has tried in good faith to comply with the
standards.\1\ This notice of receipt of an application for a temporary
exemption is published in accordance with statutory and administrative
provisions. NHTSA has made no judgment on the merits of the
application.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ To view the petition, go to http://www.regulations.gov and
enter the docket number set forth in the heading of this document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DATES: You should submit your comments not later than July 26, 2012.
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.
ADDRESSES: We invite you to submit comments on the application
described above. You may submit comments identified by docket number at
the heading of this notice by any of the following methods:
Web Site: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments on the electronic docket site by
clicking on ``Help and Information'' or ``Help/Info.''
Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington,
DC 20590.
Hand Delivery: 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building
Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays.
Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
Instructions: All submissions must include the agency name and
docket number. Note that all comments received will be posted without
change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal
information provided. Please see the Privacy Act discussion below. We
will consider all comments received before the close of business on the
comment closing date indicated above. To the extent possible, we will
also consider comments filed after the closing date.
Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov at any time or to
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140,
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal Holidays. Telephone: (202) 366-9826.
Privacy Act: Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all
comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf
of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's
complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on
April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages 19477-78) or you may visit
http://www.dot.gov/privacy.html.
Confidential Business Information: If you wish to submit any
information under a claim of confidentiality, you should submit three
copies of your complete submission, including the information you claim
to be confidential business information, to the Chief Counsel, NHTSA,
at the address given under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. In
addition, you should submit two copies, from which you have deleted the
claimed confidential business information, to Docket Management at the
address given above. When you send a comment containing information
claimed to be confidential business information, you should include a
cover letter setting forth the information specified in our
confidential business information regulation (49 CFR part 512).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Statutory Basis for Temporary Exemptions
The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act),
codified as 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, authorizes the Secretary of
Transportation 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 in this section to NHTSA.
NHTSA established 49 CFR part 555, Temporary Exemption from Motor
Vehicle Safety and Bumper Standards, to implement the statutory
provisions concerning temporary exemptions. A vehicle manufacturer
wishing to obtain an exemption from a standard must demonstrate in its
application (A) that an exemption would be in the public interest and
consistent with the Safety Act and (B) that the manufacturer satisfies
one of the following four bases for an exemption: (i) Compliance with
the standard would cause substantial economic hardship to a
manufacturer that has tried to comply with the
[[Page 38130]]
standard in good faith; (ii) the exemption would make easier the
development or field evaluation of a new motor vehicle safety feature
providing a safety level at least equal to the safety level of the
standard; (iii) the exemption would make the development or field
evaluation of a low-emission motor vehicle easier and would not
unreasonably lower the safety level of that vehicle; or (iv) compliance
with the standard would prevent the manufacturer from selling a motor
vehicle with an overall safety level at least equal to the overall
safety level of nonexempt vehicles.
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 (49 U.S.C. 30113).
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. The statutory
provisions governing motor vehicle safety (49 U.S.C. Chapter 301) do
not state that a manufacturer has substantial responsibility as
manufacturer of a vehicle simply because it owns or controls a second
manufacturer that assembled that vehicle. However, the agency considers
the statutory definition of ``manufacturer'' (49 U.S.C. 30102) to be
sufficiently broad to include sponsors, depending on the circumstances.
Thus, NHTSA has stated that a manufacturer may be deemed to be a
sponsor and thus a manufacturer of a vehicle assembled by a second
manufacturer if the first manufacturer had a substantial role in the
development and manufacturing process of that vehicle.
II. Air Bag Requirements and Small Volume Manufacturers
All trucks with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 8,500
pounds or less and an unloaded vehicle weight of 5,500 pounds or less
manufactured on or after September 1, 1998, are required to have air
bags at the driver and right front passenger positions, and the vehicle
must meet certain injury criteria as measured by test dummies during
specified test procedures.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ 49 CFR 571.208, S4.2.6.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The requirements for standard air bags are longstanding, and a
number of small volume manufacturers have found ways to meet them.
Although NHTSA granted a small number of exemptions from the standard
air bag requirements in the past, the agency announced in 2007 that
given the large benefits of frontal air bags, the number of years that
the requirements had been in effect and the fact that a number of small
volume manufacturers had been able to meet the requirements, the agency
had determined that it was generally not in the public interest or
consistent with the Safety Act to grant new exemptions from these
requirements.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See denial of petition of SS II of America, 72 FR 30426 (May
31, 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 2000, NHTSA upgraded the requirements for air bags in passenger
cars and light trucks, requiring what are commonly known as ``advanced
air bags.'' \4\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ 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 volume 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 volume 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.\5\ In addressing these petitions, NHTSA has
recognized that small volume manufacturers may face particular
difficulties in acquiring or developing advanced air bag systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ 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 has
considered 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 bags, 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 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 has determined that it is not in the public
interest to continue to grant exemptions from these requirements under
the same terms as in the past.\6\ 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 has concluded that the expense of advanced air bag
technology is not now sufficient, in and of itself, to justify the
grant of a petition for a hardship exemption from the advanced air bag
requirements.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ See denial of petition of Pagani Automobili SpA, 76 FR
47641-42 (Aug. 5, 2011).
\7\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NHTSA further notes that the granting of hardship exemptions from
motor vehicle safety standards is subject to the agency's finding that
the petitioning manufacturer has ``tried to comply with the standard in
good faith.'' \8\ In response to prior petitions, NHTSA has granted
temporary exemptions from the advanced air bag requirements as a
[[Page 38131]]
means of affording eligible manufacturers an additional transition
period to comply with the exempted standard. In deciding whether to
grant an exemption based on substantial economic hardship and good
faith efforts, NHTSA considers the steps that the manufacturer has
already taken to achieve compliance, as well as the future steps the
manufacturer plans to take during the exemption period and the
estimated date by which full compliance will be achieved.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ 49 U.S.C. 30113(b)(3)(B)(i).
\9\ 49 CFR 555.6(a)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NHTSA invites comment on how these considerations relate to VMCI's
petition for an exemption from the standard and advanced air bag
requirements of FMVSS No. 208.
III. Electronic Stability Control Systems Requirement
In April 2007, NHTSA published a final rule requiring that vehicles
with a gross vehicle weight rating of 4,536 kg (10,000 pounds) or less
be equipped with electronic stability control (ESC) systems. ESC
systems use automatic computer-controlled braking of individual wheels
to assist the driver in maintaining control in critical driving
situations in which the vehicle is beginning to lose directional
stability at the rear wheels (spin out) or directional control at the
front wheels (plow out). An anti-lock brake system (ABS) is a
prerequisite for an ESC system because ESC uses many of the same
components as ABS. Thus, the cost of complying with FMVSS No. 126 is
less for vehicle models already equipped with ABS.
Preventing single-vehicle loss-of-control crashes is the most
effective way to reduce deaths resulting from rollover crashes. This is
because most loss-of-control crashes culminate in the vehicle leaving
the roadway, which dramatically increases the probability of a
rollover. NHTSA's crash data study of existing vehicles equipped with
ESC demonstrated that these systems reduce fatal single-vehicle crashes
of passenger cars by 55 percent and fatal single-vehicle crashes of
light trucks and vans (LTVs) by 50 percent.\10\ NHTSA estimates that
ESC has the potential to prevent 56 percent of the fatal passenger car
rollovers and 74 percent of the fatal LTV first-event rollovers that
would otherwise occur in single-vehicle crashes.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Sivinski, R., Crash Prevention Effectiveness of Light-
Vehicle Electronic Stability Control: An Update of the 2007 NHTSA
Evaluation; DOT HS 811 486 (June 2011).
\11\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The ESC requirement became effective for substantially all vehicles
on September 1, 2011.
IV. Occupant Protection in Interior Impact Requirement
FMVSS No. 201, Occupant Protection in Interior Impact applies to
vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating of 4,536 kg (10,000 pounds)
or less. The standard establishes performance requirements designed to
reduce the risk of injury in the event an occupant strikes the interior
of a vehicle during a crash. Specifically, certain areas within the
vehicle must be properly padded or otherwise have energy absorbing
properties to minimize head injury in the event of a crash. Head impact
protection performance is determined, in part, by testing specific
targets on the vehicle interior. FMVSS No. 201 further specifies that
doors to interior compartments must remain latched when subjected to
certain forces that might be experienced in a crash.
V. Overview of Petition
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 30113 and the procedures in 49 CFR
part 555, VMCI submitted a petition asking the agency for a temporary
exemption from the electronic stability control requirements of FMVSS
No. 126, certain requirements of FMVSS No. 201, and the standard and
advanced air bag requirements of FMVSS No. 208.\12\ Specifically, VMCI
requested exemption from all of FMVSS No. 126; the requirements in S5.1
(requirements for instrument panels), S5.2 (requirements for seat
backs), S5.3 (requirements for interior compartment doors), S6
(requirements for upper interior components), S8 (test conditions and
specification of target locations), S9 (orthogonal reference system),
and S10 (specification of target locations) of FMVSS No. 201; and the
requirements in paragraphs S4.2.6.2 (standard air bag requirements for
light trucks), S14 (advanced air bag requirements), S15 (rigid barrier
test requirements using 5th percentile adult female dummies), S17
(offset frontal deformable barrier requirements using 5th percentile
adult female dummies), S19 (except for S19.2.2) (requirements to
provide protection for infants in rear facing and convertible child
restraints and car beds), S20 (test procedure for infant requirements),
S21 (requirements using 3-year-old child dummies), S22 (test procedure
for 3-year-old requirements), S23 (requirements using 6-year-old child
dummies), S24 (test procedure for 6-year-old requirements), S25
(requirements using an out-of-position 5th percentile adult female
dummy at the driver position), and S26 (procedure for low risk
deployment tests of driver air bag) of FMVSS No. 208. The petition for
exemption is for the Everest model, a two-seat, all-electric light
delivery truck.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ In response to a request for clarification from the agency,
VMCI clarified in an email certain background information and from
which requirements of FMVSS No. 208 the company was seeking
exemption. A copy of this email will be posted to the docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The basis for the application is that compliance would cause the
petitioner substantial economic hardship and that the petitioner has
tried in good faith to comply with the standard. VMCI has requested an
exemption for the Everest model for 36 months. VMCI asserts that over
$3 million has been spent so far to comply with the FMVSSs. However,
the company states that the additional capital required to accomplish
FMVSS certification at this time presents a hardship to the company and
that an exemption would provide feedback and revenue in order to bring
the Everest into compliance. VMCI states that the company intends to
comply with the requirements of FMVSS Nos. 126, 201, and 208 by the end
of the exemption period. VMCI is a Tennessee corporation with its
headquarters in North Carolina. The company manufactured 6 vehicles in
the 12 month period prior to filing the petition. The company states
that it plans to produce approximately 2,500 vehicles annually during
the exemption period.
Regarding FMVSS No. 126, VMCI asserts that the equipment design,
fitting, testing and certification of the Everest for compliance with
the ESC requirements would cost approximately $1.4 million, and that
these costs pose an economic hardship to the company. VMCI requests an
exemption from the ESC requirements for 36 months. VMCI states that the
lightweight nature of the vehicle (GVWR of 1,400 kg) and the fact that
it will be equipped with front disc brakes and rear drum or disc
braking will keep the vehicle stable in all braking conditions. VMCI
further states that the placement of the vehicle's battery packs below
the center of gravity will result in a much lower chance of vehicle
rollover in most driving conditions. VMCI asserts that, accordingly,
the risk presented to the public by the exemption is low.
Regarding the specified requirements of FMVSS No. 201, VMCI states
that the Everest will be equipped with energy-absorbing materials in
the interior passenger compartment target zones of potential impact.
However, VMCI requests an exemption from certain requirements because,
according to VMCI, the costs of testing to certify
[[Page 38132]]
compliance would present an economic hardship to the company.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ VMCI has 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 the information
that is the subject of this request. The precise costs of testing
and certification are provided in the confidential version of the
petition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
VMCI requests exemption from the standard and advanced air bag
requirements of FMVSS No. 208 because, according to VMCI, the costs of
testing to certify compliance would present an economic hardship to the
company.\14\ VMCI states that the Everest will be equipped with air
bags on the driver and passenger sides, retracting seat belts, and
reinforced doors. However, the company asserts that the cost of
certifying the vehicle to the FMVSS requirements is prohibitive prior
to production.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ The precise costs of testing and certification are provided
in the confidential version of the petition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
VMCI further states that the Everest will be equipped with an
interlock that will prevent the vehicle from moving if occupants are
not properly belted. The company asserts that this mitigates the risks
of an exemption from the unbelted occupant requirements. Additionally,
VMCI states that it is unlikely that an infant or child would be riding
in the Everest because it is being targeted to the commercial light
delivery market. However, the Everest will be equipped with a key
switch to deactivate the passenger side air bag and a compliant air bag
status telltale.
VMCI asserts that granting the exemption would serve the public
good by making an all electric, affordable, practical work truck
available, by creating jobs, and by reducing pollution and dependence
on foreign sources of oil.
VI. Completeness and Comment Period
Upon receiving a petition, NHTSA conducts an initial review of the
petition with respect to whether the petition is complete. The agency
has tentatively concluded that the petition from VMCI is complete. The
agency has not made any judgment on the merits of the petition, and is
placing a non-confidential copy of the petition in the docket.
The agency seeks comment from the public on the merits of VMCI's
petition for a temporary exemption from FMVSS No. 126, certain
requirements of FMVSS No. 201, and the standard and advanced air bag
requirements of FMVSS No. 208. We are providing a 30-day comment
period. After considering public comments and other available
information, we will publish a notice of final action on the petition
in the Federal Register.
Issued on: June 15, 2012.
Lori Summers,
Director, Office of Crashworthiness Standards.
[FR Doc. 2012-15585 Filed 6-25-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P