Saleen Automotive Inc.; Receipt of Petition for a Temporary Exemption From all Requirements of FMVSS No. 126 and the Air Bag Requirements of FMVSS No. 208 |
|---|
Topics: Saleen S1, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards
|
Heidi Renate King
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
12 June 2019
[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 113 (Wednesday, June 12, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 27392-27395]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-12332]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA-2019-0053]
Saleen Automotive Inc.; Receipt of Petition for a Temporary
Exemption From all Requirements of FMVSS No. 126 and the Air Bag
Requirements of FMVSS No. 208
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Notice of receipt of a petition for a temporary exemption,
request for comment.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Saleen Automotive Inc. has petitioned NHTSA for a temporary
exemption from all requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
Standard (FMVSS) No. 126, ``Electronic stability control for light
vehicles,'' and from the air bag requirements of FMVSS No. 208,
``Occupant crash protection,'' for its newly-designed S1 model. Saleen
is seeking a one-year exemption from these standards, asserting that
compliance with these standards would cause substantial economic
hardship, and that it has tried in good faith to comply with the
standards. NHTSA is publishing this notice of receipt of the
application in accordance with its exemption regulations, and has not
made any judgment on the merits of the application.
DATES: If you would like to comment on the petition, you should submit
your comments not later than July 12, 2019.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For electronic stability control:
David Jasinski. For air bags: Daniel Koblenz. Both of these officials
can be reached at: Office of Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.
Telephone: 202-366-2992; Facsimile: 202-366-3820.
ADDRESSES: You may submit your comment, identified by the docket number
in the heading of this document, by any of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
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.
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. NHTSA will
consider all comments received before the close of business on the
comment closing date indicated above. To the extent possible, NHTSA
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: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits
comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT
posts these comments, without edit, to www.regulations.gov, as
described in the system of records notice, DOT/ALL-14 FDMS, accessible
through www.dot.gov/privacy. In order to facilitate comment tracking
and response, the agency encourages commenters to provide their name,
or the name of their organization; however, submission of names is
completely
[[Page 27393]]
optional. Whether or not commenters identify themselves, all timely
comments will be fully considered. If you wish to provide comments
containing proprietary or confidential information, please see below.
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 a copy, 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 Authority for Temporary Exemptions
The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act),
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 implementing this
section to NHTSA.
A manufacturer may request an exemption under one of four
enumerated statutory bases, one of which is ``economic hardship.'' To
grant an economic hardship exemption, NHTSA must find that an exemption
is consistent with the public interest and the Safety Act, and that
``compliance with the standard would cause substantial economic
hardship to a manufacturer that has tried to comply with the standard
in good faith.'' If NHTSA is able to make the requisite findings to
grant an economic hardship exemption, NHTSA is authorized to grant a
manufacturer an exemption to produce for sale or otherwise deploy in
interstate commerce not more than 10,000 motor vehicles annually, on
such terms NHTSA deems appropriate.
NHTSA established Part 555, Temporary Exemption from Motor Vehicle
Safety and Bumper Standards, to implement the statutory provisions
concerning temporary exemptions. Under Part 555, a petitioner must
provide specified information in submitting a petition for exemption.
These requirements are specified in 49 CFR 555.5, and include a number
of items. Foremost among them are that the petitioner must set forth
the basis of the application under Sec. 555.6, and the reasons why the
exemption would be in the public interest and consistent with the
objectives of 49 U.S.C. chapter 301.
A manufacturer is only 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 (49 U.S.C. 30113).
While 49 U.S.C. 30113(b) states that exemptions from a Safety Act
standard are to be granted on a ``temporary basis,'' \1\ this refers to
the period of production, and not the period during which exempted
vehicles may be operated. The statute also expressly provides for
renewal of an exemption on reapplication.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 49 U.S.C. 30113(b)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Background on Electronic Stability Control Requirements
In April 2007, NHTSA published a final rule establishing FMVSS No.
126, to require vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating of 4,536
kilograms (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 address critical situations
in which a driver may lose control of the vehicle.
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.\2\ 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.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Sivinski, R., Crash Prevention Effectiveness of Light-
Vehicle Electronic Stability Control: An Update of the 2007 NHTSA
Evaluation; DOT HS 811 486 (June 2011).
\3\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The ESC requirement became effective for substantially all light
vehicles on September 1, 2011. Since then, NHTSA has received two
exemption requests from the ESC requirement under the ``economic
hardship'' basis, one of which was withdrawn and the other of which the
agency granted.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ See 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, 76 FR 38270 (June 1, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. Background on Air Bag Requirements
In 2000, NHTSA upgraded the requirements in FMVSS No. 208 for air
bags in passenger cars and light trucks, to require what are commonly
known as ``advanced air bags.'' This upgrade was intended 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. The ``advanced air bag'' rule was the
culmination of a comprehensive plan that the agency announced in 1996
to address the adverse effects of air bags, especially with regard to
out-of-position children. The rule accomplished this primarily by
establishing new test requirements and injury criteria and specifying
the use of an entire family of test dummies: The then-existing dummy
representing 50th percentile adult males, and new dummies representing
5th percentile adult females, 6-year-old children, 3-year-old children,
and 1-year-old infants. 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 the years immediately following NHTSA's publication of the 2000
advanced air bag rule, NHTSA received and granted a number of
``economic hardship'' exemptions to permit the manufacture and sale of
vehicles without any air bags.\5\ NHTSA granted these exemptions due to
the relative newness of the technology at the time, and the high costs
associated with developing any kind of air bag system for limited-run
vehicles. However, by the time the advanced air bag requirements became
effective in 2006, air bag technology had matured to the point that
most low-volume manufacturers were seeking a hardship exemption from
only the advanced air bag requirements in FMVSS No. 208.
[[Page 27394]]
Those manufacturers were providing standard (non-advanced) air bags,
even when they found that advanced air bags were still not economically
feasible.\6\ Given the increased availability of non-advanced air bags
to low-volume manufacturers, NHTSA announced in 2007 that ``it is
generally not in the public interest or consistent with the Safety Act
to grant new economic hardship exemptions to permit light vehicles to
be sold without air bags.'' \7\ As advanced air bag systems have become
increasingly feasible for small manufacturers to provide, NHTSA has
become increasingly skeptical of granting exemptions from advanced air
bag requirements, noting in 2011 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.'' \8\ Since announcing this change in policy, NHTSA has
received two very limited requests for an exemption from advanced air
bag requirements based on economic hardship, both of which the agency
granted.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ E.g., Panoz Auto Development Company; Grant of Application
for Temporary Exemption From Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard
No. 208, 66 FR 6757 (Jan. 22, 2001).
\6\ E.g., Ferrari S.p.A and Ferrari North America, Inc. Grant of
Application for a Temporary Exemption From S14.2 of Federal Motor
Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208, 71 FR 166 (May 22, 2006).
\7\ SS II of America, Inc.; Denial of Application for a
Temporary Exemption From the Air Bag Requirements of FMVSS No. 208,
72 FR 30426 (May 31, 2007).
\8\ See Pagani Automobili SpA; Denial of Application for
Temporary Exemption From Advanced Air Bag Requirements of FMVSS No.
208, 76 FR 47641 (August 5, 2011).
\9\ See, e.g., Group Lotus plc; Grant of Petition for a
Temporary Exemption From an Advanced Air Bag Requirement of FMVSS
No. 208, 78 FR 15114 (March 8, 2013) (exemption from only the 35 MPH
belted test requirement using 5th percentile adult female dummies);
Tesla Motors, Inc. Grant of Petition for Renewal of a Temporary
Exemption From the Advanced Air Bag Requirements of FMVSS No. 208,
76 FR 60118 (Sept. 28, 2011) (exemption limited to 40 days to
accommodate the end of production of Roadster model).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
IV. Overview of Petitions
On March 14, 2019, Saleen Automotive Inc. (Saleen) submitted a
petition for a temporary exemption from the electronic stability
control requirements of FMVSS No. 126. On the same date, Saleen
separately sought an exemption from the air bag requirements of FMVSS
No. 208.\10\ Both petitions request an exemption on the basis that
compliance would cause the petitioner substantial economic hardship and
that the petitioner has tried in good faith to comply with the
standard. To view non-confidential versions of the petitions, go to
http://www.regulations.gov and enter the docket number set forth in the
heading of this document. For administrative purposes, NHTSA is
addressing both petitions in this notice. NHTSA will evaluate the
merits of granting each exemption request separately. However, as part
of the assessment of the merits of each petition, NHTSA will also
consider the cumulative effect of granting multiple exemptions to the
same manufacturer for the same vehicle.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ NHTA has previously granted Saleen exemptions from the air
bag requirements of FMVSS No. 208. In 2001, NHTSA granted Saleen a
three-year exemption from the standard air bag requirements of FMVSS
No. 208 on the basis of economic hardship, which NHTSA renewed for
another three years in 2004. In 2006, when the advanced air bag
requirements were being phased in, Saleen again requested NHTSA to
renew its exemption from the standard air bag requirements for three
years, and also requested a new three-year exemption from the
advanced air bag requirements. Although NHTSA granted Saleen's
request for a three-year exemption from the advanced air bag
requirements in full, the agency renewed Saleen's exemption from the
standard air bag requirements for only one year. NHTSA explained
that this was because granting a renewal for three years would not
be in the public interest considering the safety benefits that air
bags provide. See Saleen, Inc.; Response to Application for
Temporary Exemption From Certain Provisions of Federal Motor Vehicle
Safety Standard No. 208, 71 FR 52869 (September 7, 2006).
It is important to note that Saleen requested these earlier
exemptions in order to modify vehicles manufactured by other
companies. By contrast, today's petition concerns a line of vehicles
that Saleen intends to manufacture itself.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Saleen is a U.S. company incorporated under the laws of the State
of Nevada. Saleen's headquarters is in Corona, California. Saleen has
not manufactured any vehicles in the 12 months prior to filing its
exemption requests.
Saleen seeks an exemption to permit the manufacture and sale of its
S1 model, which is a new passenger car model. Saleen provides various
vehicle and engine specifications for the S1 in its petitions. Saleen
seeks a one-year exemption from June 15, 2019 to June 15, 2020. Saleen
states that it plans to produce no more than 3,500 units under the
exemption in the United States. Saleen states that it expects to fully
comply with both FMVSS Nos. 126 and 208 at the end of the one-year
exemption period.
Electronic Stability Control (ESC)
It appears from the petition that exempted vehicles will not be
equipped with an electronic stability control (ESC) system. Saleen
asserts that it will need to expend approximately 2,000 man-hours to
complete ESC certification.\11\ Saleen states that the expenditures on
the system would be the same whether it receives an exemption or not.
However, Saleen states that it will take approximately 15 months to
develop and validate an ESC system and that sales from an exempt
vehicle can be used to finance that development. Without an exemption,
Saleen states that it may not be able to sustain the development of the
vehicle, which would cause financial hardship to the company.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Saleen does not specify what activities these man-hours
will be spent on.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Saleen states that, as an alternative to having an ESC system
developed specifically for the S1, it sought to use an available ESC
system from another vehicle in the automotive market. However, Saleen
found that all ESC systems are designed to the specific geometry,
deployment, occupant arrangement, and styling features of a vehicle.
Air Bags
It appears from the petition that exempted vehicles will not be
equipped with frontal air bags of any type (neither standard nor
advanced). Saleen asserts that it will need to expend 3,300 man-hours
to develop air bags that comply with FMVSS No. 208.\12\ Saleen states
that the expenditures toward a compliant occupant crash protection
system would be the same whether it receives an exemption or not.
However, Saleen states that it will take approximately 18 months to
develop and validate an occupant crash protection
system,13 14 and that sales from an exempt vehicle can be
used to finance that development. Without an exemption, Saleen states
that it may not be able to sustain the development of the vehicle,
which would cause financial hardship to the company.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Saleen does not specify what activities these man-hours
will be spent on.
\13\ Saleen's FMVSS No. 208 petition contained a discrepancy
regarding the development time for a compliant air bag system. On
page 6, the petition stated that the development time would be 15
months, but on page 8, the petition stated the development time
would be 18 months. NHTSA reached out to Saleen by email to clarify
this discrepancy, to which Saleen replied that the development time
would be 18 months. A copy of this email exchange has been placed in
the docket indicated in the header of this notice.
\14\ We note that the 18-month time period to develop a
compliant air bag system indicated by Saleen could extend past the
end date of Saleen's requested 1-year exemption period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Saleen states that it tried three separate avenues to achieve
compliance with FMVSS No. 208. First, Saleen investigated using
available air bag systems currently used in other vehicles on the
market. However, Saleen found this was not a viable option because the
air bags are designed to fit the specific geometry of a vehicle, and
the S1 is a new vehicle with a different design geometry. Second,
Saleen investigated equipping the S1 with a single-stage
[[Page 27395]]
(i.e., non-advanced) air bag, such as those used in non-US markets.
Saleen found that, in addition to these single-stage systems not being
FMVSS No. 208-compliant, adapting these single-stage air bag systems so
that they can be installed in the S1 would take a similar amount of
time as developing a compliant advanced air bag system, and thus would
not meet Saleen's start-of-production deadline. Third, Saleen
investigated providing a computer simulation analysis to show that the
S1 would ``comply structurally'' with several crashworthiness
standards, including FMVSS No. 208.\15\ However, Saleen states that
this simulation testing was not scheduled to begin until the first
quarter of 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ The petition does not explain what is meant by ``comply
structurally.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Public Interest
Saleen states in both petitions that an exemption would be in the
public interest and consistent with the objective of the Safety Act
because the development of the S1 provides direct employment to
approximately 30 employees and indirect employment to over 100
employees. Saleen further projects that, once production of the S1
starts, the S1 would support numerous additional jobs relating to the
distribution and sale of the vehicle.
V. Comment Period
NHTSA seeks comment from the public on the merits of Saleen's
application for a temporary exemption from FMVSS No. 126 and the air
bag requirements of FMVSS No. 208. After considering public comments
and other available information, NHTSA will publish a notice of final
action on the application in the Federal Register.
(Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30113; delegation of authority at 49 CFR
1.95.)
Issued under authority delegated in 49 CFR 1.95 and 501.5.
Heidi Renate King,
Deputy Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2019-12332 Filed 6-11-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P