This site displays a prototype of a “Web 2.0” version of the daily Federal Register. It is not an official legal edition of the Federal Register, and does not replace the official print version or the official electronic version on GPO’s govinfo.gov.
The documents posted on this site are XML renditions of published Federal Register documents. Each document posted on the site includes a link to the corresponding official PDF file on govinfo.gov. This prototype edition of the daily Federal Register on FederalRegister.gov will remain an unofficial informational resource until the Administrative Committee of the Federal Register (ACFR) issues a regulation granting it official legal status. For complete information about, and access to, our official publications and services, go to About the Federal Register on NARA's archives.gov.
The OFR/GPO partnership is committed to presenting accurate and reliable regulatory information on FederalRegister.gov with the objective of establishing the XML-based Federal Register as an ACFR-sanctioned publication in the future. While every effort has been made to ensure that the material on FederalRegister.gov is accurately displayed, consistent with the official SGML-based PDF version on govinfo.gov, those relying on it for legal research should verify their results against an official edition of the Federal Register. Until the ACFR grants it official status, the XML rendition of the daily Federal Register on FederalRegister.gov does not provide legal notice to the public or judicial notice to the courts.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice of receipt of petition for temporary exemption from provisions of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection.
In accordance with the procedures in 49 CFR Part 555, Mosler Automotive has petitioned the agency for a temporary exemption from certain advanced air bag requirements 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.
This notice of receipt of an application for temporary exemption is published in accordance with the statutory provisions of 49 U.S.C. 30113(b)(2). NHTSA has made no judgment on the merits of the application.
You should submit your comments not later than July 12, 2007.Start Further Info
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mr. Ed Glancy or Ms. Rebecca Schade, Office of the Chief Counsel, NCC-112, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building 4th Floor, Room W41-326, Washington, DC 20590. Telephone: (202) 366-2992; Fax: (202) 366-3820.
Comments: 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://dms.dot.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments on the DOT 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 or Regulatory Identification Number (RIN) for this rulemaking. For detailed instructions on submitting comments and additional information on the rulemaking process, see the Public Participation heading of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document. Note that all comments received will be posted without change to http://dms.dot.gov, including any personal information provided. Please see the Privacy Act discussion under the Public Participation heading.
Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or comments received, go to http://dms.dot.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://dms.dot.gov.
We shall consider all comments received before the close of business on the comment closing date indicated above. To the extent possible, we shall also consider comments filed after the closing date.
I. Advanced Air Bag Requirements and Small Volume Manufacturers
In 2000, NHTSA upgraded the requirements for air bags in passenger cars and light trucks, requiring what are commonly known as “advanced air Start Printed Page 32393bags.”  The upgrade was designed to meet the 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 requirements were 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 September 1, 2006, but their efforts to bring their respective vehicles into compliance with these requirements began several years before that. However, because the new requirements were challenging, major air bag suppliers have concentrated their efforts on working with large volume manufacturers, and thus, until recently, small volume manufacturers had limited access to advanced air bag technology. Because of the nature of the requirements for protecting out-of-position occupants, “off-the-shelf” systems could not be readily adopted. Further complicating matters, because small volume manufacturers build so few vehicles, the costs of developing custom advanced air bag systems compared to potential profits discouraged some air bag suppliers from working with small volume manufacturers.
The agency has carefully tracked occupant fatalities resulting from air bag deployment. Our data indicate that the agency's efforts in the area of consumer education and manufacturers' providing depowered air bags were successful in reducing air bag fatalities even before advanced air bag requirements were implemented.
As always, we are concerned about the potential safety implication of any temporary exemptions granted by this agency. In the present case, we are seeking comments on a petition for a temporary exemption from the advanced air bag requirements submitted by a manufacturer of very expensive, low volume, exotic sports cars.
II. Overview of Petition for Economic Hardship Exemption
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 30113 and the procedures in 49 CFR part 555, Mosler Automotive has petitioned the agency for a temporary exemption from certain advanced air bag requirements 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. A copy of the petition  is available for review and has been placed in the docket for this notice.
III. Statutory Background for Economic Hardship Exemptions
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 include any provision indicating that a manufacturer might have substantial responsibility as a 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.
IV. Petition of Mosler Automotive
Background. Mosler Automotive is a U.S. company, organized as a Florida corporation in 1987 and owned by a single American shareholder. Mosler began production in 1998 of high performance sports cars based on an aluminum honeycomb monocoque chassis. This application concerns the MT900 (MY 2004, currently the company's only model), which is expected to retail for $189,900. To date, the MT900 has been in and out of production, with the following numbers of vehicles being produced over the past three years: 12 vehicles in 2004; 8 vehicles in 2005; and 13 vehicles in 2006. Worldwide sales, as of the time of the petition, were 10 race cars, 3 U.S. street cars, and 8 European specification cars.
According to the petition, the company has determined that it cannot finance the work necessary to develop and install advanced air bags in its vehicles unless U.S. sales continue. It argued that NHTSA has previously “confirmed the appropriateness of an exemption when the sales of exempted vehicles generate income to fund air bag development expenditures in order to comply with Standard 208 at the end of the exemption period. 64 FR 6736.” Mosler Automotive stated that it “therefore needs USA exempted-vehicle sales to ‘bridge the gap.’ ” The petitioner further stated that it “will suffer a significant market loss—the U.S.—in the event it does not receive the exemption.”
The petitioner argued that it tried in good faith, but could not bring the vehicle into compliance with the advanced air bag requirements, and would incur substantial economic hardship if it cannot sell vehicles in the U.S. Mosler Automotive has an extremely long product cycle (for the MT900, the company estimates a lifespan of 11 years), which has thus far prevented it from recouping its $600,000 investment in its current standard air bag occupant restraint system. The petitioner states that significant engineering and funding will be necessary to upgrade to an advanced air bag system, and that the projected overall cost of approximately $2.0 to $2.5 million is beyond the company's current capabilities.
Eligibility. As discussed in the petition, Mosler Automotive is independently owned by a single American shareholder. The entire organization currently employs 25 people in the U.S. No other vehicle manufacturer has an ownership interest in Mosler Automotive. Stated another way, Mosler Automotive is an independent automobile manufacturer which does not have any common control nor is otherwise affiliated with any other vehicle manufacturer.
The company is a small volume manufacturer whose total production has ranged from 8 to 13 vehicles per year over the period from 2004 to 2006. According to its current forecasts, Mosler Automotive anticipates that approximately 75 vehicles would be sold in the U.S. during the three-year period for its requested exemption, if such request were granted.
Requested exemption. Mosler Automotive is requesting an exemption Start Printed Page 32394for the MT900 from all of the advanced air bag requirements in S14 of FMVSS No. 208, the rigid barrier test requirement using the 5th percentile adult female test dummy (belted and unbelted, S15), the offset deformable barrier test requirement using the 5th percentile adult female test dummy (S17), the requirements to provide protection for infants and children (S19, S21, and S23) and the requirement using an out-of-position 5th percentile adult female test dummy at the driver position (S25).
Mosler Automotive stated its intention to have its advanced air bag system ready in 2009. Accordingly, the company seeks an exemption from the above-specified requirements of FMVSS No. 208 from June 1, 2007 to December 31, 2009.
Economic hardship. Publicly available information and also the financial documents submitted to NHTSA by the petitioner indicate that the MT900 project will result in financial losses unless Mosler Automotive obtains a temporary exemption.
Over the period 2004-2006, Mosler Automotive has had net operational losses totaling over $3 million, and the retained deficit of the company exceeds over $23 million. The costs associated with development of an advanced air bag system for the vehicle have been estimated at about $2.0 to $2.5 million. The company has stated that it cannot hope to attain profitability if it incurs additional research and development expenses at this time.
Mosler Automotive stated that the estimated $2.0 to $2.5 million in costs associated with advanced air bag engineering and development included research and development, testing, tooling, and test vehicles, as well as internal costs. In its petition, Mosler Automotive reasoned that sales in the U.S. market must commence in order to finance this work and that non-U.S. sales alone cannot generate sufficient income for this purpose. In essence, Mosler Automotive argued that the exemption is necessary to allow the company to “bridge the gap” until fully compliant vehicles can be funded, developed, tooled, and introduced for the U.S. market.
If the exemption is denied, Mosler Automotive projects a net loss of over $3 million during the period from 2007-2009. However, if the petition is granted, the company anticipates a profit of nearly $6.4 million during that same period. The petitioner argued that a denial of this petition could preclude financing of the project for U.S.-compliant vehicles, a development which would have a highly adverse impact on the company.
Good faith efforts to comply. Mosler Automotive began production of the latest version of the MT900 in 2004, at which time it was certified for U.S. road use. The company has invested over $23 million on research and development and tooling for the MT900 program. In that time, the company was able to bring the vehicle into compliance with all applicable NHTSA regulations, except for the advanced air bag provisions of FMVSS No. 208.
In light of limited resources, the petitioner stated that it was necessary to first develop the vehicle with a standard U.S. air bag system. The company has spent $600,000 to re-engineer the MT900 to include a standard air bag system, which it stated will then be developed into an advanced air bag system.
According to its petition, even though advanced air bags are beyond its current capabilities, Mosler Automotive is nonetheless planning for the introduction of these devices. The company stated that Siemens Restraint Systems will spearhead this effort, and current plans estimate a cost of between $2.0 and $2.5 million (excluding internal costs) and a minimum lead time of 24 months for the advanced air bag project. Mosler Automotive stated that the following engineering efforts are needed to upgrade the MT900's standard air bag system to an advanced air bag system: (1) Tooling for prototypes and production vehicles; (2) contractor engineering; (3) air bag system materials; (4) cost of test vehicles; (5) integration of air bag electronics; (6) radio frequency interference/electromagnetic compatibility testing; (7) significant design and development of interior components including seats and dashboard; (8) crash testing; and (9) system validation. NHTSA notes that this estimate is based on a quotation from Siemens that appears to have expired, and has requested updated information from the petitioner to ensure that the estimate is still accurate.
In addition, Mosler Automotive emphasized that finding suppliers willing to work with a manufacturer with very low production volumes has proven extremely difficult, and as a result, the company must wait for technology to “trickle down” from larger manufacturers and suppliers. Mosler Automotive further stated that, as a small volume manufacturer, the company simply does not have the internal resources to do full U.S. homologation projects without reliance on outside suppliers of advanced engineering technologies.
In short, Mosler Automotive argued that, despite good faith efforts, limited resources prevent it from bringing the vehicle into compliance with all applicable requirements, and it is beyond the company's current capabilities to bring the vehicle into full compliance until such time as additional resources become available as a result of U.S. sales. Mosler Automotive stated in its petition that it expects its advanced air bag system to be ready in 2009, and that an exemption would allow it to maintain continued operations until then.
Mosler Automotive argues that an exemption would be in the public interest. The petitioner put forth several arguments in favor of a finding that the requested exemption is consistent with the public interest and would not have a significant adverse impact on safety. Specifically, Mosler Automotive argued that the vehicle would be equipped with a fully-compliant standard U.S. air bag system (i.e., one meeting all requirements of FMVSS No. 208 prior to implementation of S14). Furthermore, the company emphasized that the MT900 will comply with all other applicable FMVSSs.
The company asserted that granting the exemption will benefit U.S. employment, companies, and citizens, because Mosler Automotive is a U.S. company and employs 25 people at its Florida facility. Mosler Automotive also argued that denial of the exemption request would have an adverse impact on consumer choice. The company also argued that an exemption is unlikely to have a significant safety impact because these vehicles are not expected to be used extensively by their owners, due to their “second vehicle” nature, extreme design and high cost. The company also reasoned that given the nature of the vehicle, it is less likely to be used to transport young children than most other vehicles.
As an additional basis for showing that its requested exemption would be in the public interest, Mosler Automotive stated that the MT900 has an extremely strong chassis, which is composed of aluminum tubes and composite structural parts. According to Mosler Automotive, the vehicle design is such that occupants are effectively placed in a “protective ‘cell’ ” with the chassis structure built around them.
V. Issuance of Notice of Final Action
We are providing a 30-day comment period. After considering public comments and other available information, we will publish a notice of Start Printed Page 32395final action on the application in the Federal Register.Start Signature
Issued on: June 5, 2007.
Stephen R. Kratzke,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
1. To view the application, go to: http://dms.dot.gov/search/searchFormSimple.cfm and enter the docket number set forth in the heading of this document.Back to Citation
3. 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 information subject to a claim of confidentiality.Back to Citation
[FR Doc. E7-11259 Filed 6-11-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P