20082 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 69 / Monday, April 11, 2011 / Notices 

1See 65 FR 30680 (May 12, 2000) (Docket No. 

NHTSA–2000–7013). 

2See, 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). 

[FR Doc. 2011–8532 Filed 4–8–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–81–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

[Docket No. NHTSA–2011–0006] 

Koenigsegg Automotive AB; Morgan 

Motor Company Limited; Receipt of 

Applications for Renewals of 

Temporary Exemptions From the 

Advanced Air Bag Requirements of 

FMVSS No. 208 

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration (NHTSA), 

Department of Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Notice of receipt of applications 

for renewals of temporary exemptions 

and request for comments. 

SUMMARY: In accordance with the 

procedures in 49 CFR Part 555, 

Koenigsegg Automotive AB 

Koenigsegg’’) and Morgan Motor 

Company Limited (‘‘Morgan’’) have 

petitioned the agency for renewals of 

temporary exemption from advanced air 

bag requirements of FMVSS No. 208, 

‘‘Occupant crash protection.’’The basis 

for each 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 applications 

for renewal of temporary exemptions is 

published in accordance with the 

statutory provisions of 49 U.S.C. 

30113(b)(2). Please note that we are 

publishing together the notice of receipt 

of the two applications for renewal to 

ensure efficient use of agency resources 

and to facilitate processing of the 

applications. NHTSA has made no 

judgments on the merits of each 

application. NHTSA will consider each 

application separately. We ask that 

commenters also consider each 

application separately and submit 

comments specific to individual 

applications. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before May 11, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

to the docket number identified 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. 

• Mail: Docket Management Facility, 

M–30, U.S. Department of 

Transportation, West Building, Ground 

Floor, Rm. W12–140, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. 

• Hand Delivery or Courier: West 

Building Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., between 

9 a.m. and 5 p.m. Eastern Time, Monday 

through Friday, except Federal holidays. 

• Fax: (202) 493–2251. 

Regardless of how you submit your 

comments, you should mention the 

docket number of this document. 

You may call the Docket at 202–366– 

9324. 

Instructions: 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:// 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided. Please 

see the Privacy Act discussion below. 

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 (65 FR 

19477–78). 

We shall consider all comments 

received before the close of business on 

the comment closing date indicated 

below. To the extent possible, we shall 

also consider comments filed after the 

closing date. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Dorothy Nakama, Office of the Chief 

Counsel, NCC–112, National Highway 

Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New 

Jersey Ave., SE., Washington, DC 20590. 

Telephone: (202) 366–2992; Fax: (202) 

366–3820. 

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 

bags.’’ 1 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 lowspeed crashes. The rule accomplished 

this 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 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 (i.e., 

original vehicle manufacturers 

producing or assembling fewer than 

5,000 vehicles annually for sale in the 

United States) were not subject to the 

advanced air bag requirements until 

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 which have petitioned on 

the basis of substantial economic 

hardship to a manufacturer that has 

tried in good faith to comply with the 

standard. 

Although NHTSA has granted a 

number of these petitions in situations 

where the manufacturer is supplying 

standard air bags in lieu of advanced air 

bags,2 NHTSA is considering (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. 

Given the passage of time since the 

advanced air bag requirements were 

established and have been 

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 in 

the same manner 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 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 69 / Monday, April 11, 2011 / Notices 20083 

3 49 U.S.C. 30113(b)(1). 

4 49 CFR 555.6(a)(2). 

5See, e.g., grant of petition of Think Technology 

AS, 74 FR 40634–01 (Aug. 12, 2009); grant of 

petition of Ferrari S.p.A., 74 FR 36303–02 (July 22, 

2009). 

6When considering financial matters involving 

companies based in the European Union (EU), it is 

important to recognize that EU and U.S. accounting 

principles have certain differences in their 

treatment of revenue, expenses, and profits. Public 

statements by EU manufacturers relating to 

financial results should be understood in this 

context. This agency analyzes claims of financial 

hardship carefully and in accordance with U.S. 

accounting principles. 

7Morgan 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 

such information that the agency has determined to 

be confidential. 

8The Safety Act is codified as Title 49, United 

States Code, Chapter 301. 

9 49 U.S.C 30113(b)(1). 

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. 

NHTSA further notes that exemptions 

from motor vehicle safety standards are 

to be granted on a ‘‘temporary basis.’’ 3

In prior petitions NHTSA has granted 

temporary exemptions from the 

advanced air bag requirements as a 

means of affording eligible 

manufacturers a transition period to 

comply with the exempted standard. 

Accordingly, in deciding whether to 

grant an exemption based on substantial 

economic hardship, NHTSA ordinarily 

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.4

NHTSA invites comment on whether 

and in what circumstances (e.g., nature 

of vehicles, number of vehicles, level of 

efforts to comply with the requirements, 

timing as to number of years since the 

requirements were implemented, etc.) it 

should continue to grant petitions for 

exemptions from the advanced air bag 

requirements of FMVSS No. 208. We 

note that any policy statements we may 

make in this area would not have the 

effect of precluding manufacturers from 

submitting subsequent petitions for 

exemption. However, we believe it 

could be helpful for manufacturers to 

know our general views in advance of 

submitting a petition. 

We also request comment on the issue 

of, 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. We note that in responding to 

some recent petitions for exemption 

from the advanced air bag requirements 

of FMVSS No. 208, NHTSA has 

considered the fact that the petitioner 

planned to install some 

countermeasures for the protection of 

child passengers.5

NHTSA also invites comment on the 

likelihood that a child or infant will be 

a passenger in either a Morgan or 

Koenigsegg vehicle sold in the U.S. 

As always, we are concerned about 

the potential safety implication of any 

temporary exemption granted by this 

agency. In the present case, we are 

addressing two petitions that seek 

renewals of temporary exemptions from 

the advanced air bag requirements. Each 

petitioner is a manufacturer of low 

volume, specialty sports cars. 

II. Overview of Petitions for Economic 

Hardship Exemption 

In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 30113 

and the procedures in 49 CFR Part 555, 

Koenigsegg Automotive AB 

(‘‘Koenigsegg’’) and Morgan Motor 

Company (‘‘Morgan’’) have petitioned 

the agency for renewals of temporary 

exemptions from certain advanced air 

bag requirements of FMVSS No. 208 

(S14). 

The basis for Koenigsegg’s application 

and for Morgan’s application is that 

compliance would cause substantial 

economic hardship 6 to a manufacturer 

that has tried in good faith to comply 

with that standard. A copy of each 

petition 7 is available for review and has 

been placed in the docket for this 

notice. The agency closely examines 

and considers the information provided 

by manufacturers in support of these 

factors, and, in addition, pursuant to 

49 U.S.C. 30113(b)(3)(A), determines 

whether exemption is in the public 

interest and consistent with the Safety 

Act.8

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). 

Finally, while 49 U.S.C. 30113(b) 

states that exemptions from a Safety Act 

standard are to be granted on a 

‘‘temporary basis,’’ 9 the statute also 

expressly provides for renewal of an 

exemption on reapplication. 

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, 

thereby imparting semi-permanent 

exemption from a safety standard. 

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 on-going good faith 

efforts to comply with the regulation, 

the public interest, consistency with the 

Safety Act, generally, as well as other 

such matters provided in the statute. 

We note that under 49 CFR 555.8(e), 

‘‘If an application for renewal of 

temporary exemption that meets the 

requirements of § 555.5 has been filed 

not later than 60 days before the 

termination date of an exemption, the 

exemption does not terminate until the 

Administrator grants or denies the 

application for renewal.’’ In the case of 

the petitions for renewal from both 

Koenigsegg and Morgan, each 

manufacturer submitted its petition for 

renewal by the deadline stated in 

49 CFR 555.8(e). 

III. Petition of Koenigsegg 

Background—Koenigsegg Automotive 

is a Swedish corporation formed in 1999 

to produce high-performance sports 

cars, which are not intended for daily 

commuting purposes. Koenigsegg is a 

privately owned company with fewer 

than 100 shareholders, and 

manufactures fewer than 50 cars per 

year. At the time Koenigsegg applied for 

its initial exemption, the Koenigsegg 

product line for U.S. sale consisted of 

the CC model. The Koenigsegg CCX was 

developed as the next generation of 

Koenigsegg vehicles after production of 

the CCR model ended on December 30, 

2005. The CCX model (the subject of 

Koenigsegg’s petitions for temporary 

exemption) was scheduled to go into 

production in 2006 and to continue at 

least through the end of 2009. 

Originally, planning to sell vehicles 

only in the European, Mid-East, and 

Far-East markets, Koenigsegg decided in 

late 2005 to seek entry to the U.S. 

market for reasons related to ongoing 

financial viability. The retail price of the 

CCX is reported to be over $700,000 per 

vehicle. 

In a Federal Register document of 

April 9, 2007 (72 FR 17608), Koenigsegg 

was granted a temporary exemption 

from the advanced air bag requirements 

of FMVSS No. 208, Occupant Crash 

Protection, and from certain provisions 

of FMVSS No. 108, Lamps, Reflective 

Devices, and Associated Equipment for 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
20084 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 69 / Monday, April 11, 2011 / Notices 

10All dollar amounts cited are based on an 

exchange rate of 6.8 krona to the U.S. dollar. 

11 Koenigsegg did not specify the amount of the 

increase in price. 

12 In footnote 1 in its petition, Koenigsegg 

describes the ‘‘Quant concept car’’ as follows: ‘‘The 

Quant project was a commission from NLG, a Swiss 

high tech company specializing in the development 

of new patented solar cell and rechargeable battery 

technologies, who wanted a high profile concept car 

to showcase their technologies. Koenigsegg was 

responsible for the vehicle concept, styling and 

showcar manufacturing and painting, show ready 

***’’ 

13All dollar amounts cited are based on an 

exchange rate of 6.8 krona to the U.S. dollar. 

14 Koenigsegg states it will make a profit of 

$178,281 in CY 2009 (the last year of the temporary 

exemption from advanced air bag and FMVSS No. 

108 requirements), and without a renewal of the 

temporary exemption from advanced air bag 

requirements, forecasts that it will incur a loss of 

$2,607,200 in CY 2010, and that it will incur a loss 

of $704,785 in CY 2011. 

15With a renewal of the temporary exemption 

from advanced air bag requirements, Koenigsegg 

forecasts that it will make a profit of $6,636 

(assuming U.S. sales of 10 CCX vehicles) in CY 

2010, make a profit of $1,131,449 (assuming U.S. 

sales of 12 CCX vehicles) in CY 2011, and will make 

a profit of $2,493,698 (assuming U.S. sales of 17 

CCX vehicles) in CY 2012. 

the CCX. The exemption was granted for 

the period from April 9, 2007 (the date 

of Federal Register publication of the 

grant of Koenigsegg’s petition) through 

December 31, 2009. In accordance with 

49 CFR part 555, the basis for the grant 

was that compliance would cause 

substantial economic hardship to a 

manufacturer that has tried in good faith 

to comply with the standard, and the 

exemption would have a negligible 

impact on motor vehicle safety. 

In a submission dated October 29, 

2009, Koenigsegg petitioned for a partial 

renewal of its temporary exemption, 

seeking a temporary exemption from the 

advanced air bag requirements only for 

the CCX. Koenigsegg did not seek 

renewal of the exemption from FMVSS 

No. 108 requirements. Koenigsegg 

sought a renewal of temporary 

exemption from the advanced air bag 

requirements for the CCX for an 

additional three years, from January 1, 

2010 through December 31, 2012. 

As discussed in further detail below, 

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 continue to sell 

vehicles in the U.S. 

Eligibility. Koenigsegg is a small, 

privately-owned company with at 

present, 40 full-time staff members and 

several part-time employees. Koenigsegg 

advises NHTSA that it is not affiliated 

with any other automobile 

manufacturer. At the time Koenigsegg 

submitted its petition to NHTSA, 

Koenigsegg was negotiating to purchase 

SAAB Automobile, but SAAB was not 

sold to Koenigsegg. 

The company is a small volume 

manufacturer whose total production 

has been between four and eight 

vehicles per year for the past four years. 

According to profit and loss accounts 

provided by Koenigsegg, the company 

has experienced losses in calendar year 

(CY) 2006 of $3,771,571,10 losses in CY 

2007 of $3,673,124, and losses in CY 

2008 of $274,255. In CY 2009, 

Koenigsegg reported a profit of 

$178,281. 

Since it was granted the exemption 

from advanced air bags in 2007, 

Koenigsegg stated that worldwide 

economic conditions required a reevaluation of its business and sales 

projections. Koenigsegg’s earlier plan to 

manufacture as many as 50 vehicles per 

year has been adjusted to approximately 

20 vehicles per year. Recently, 

Koenigsegg has initiated a ‘‘Custom 

Vision’’ program that allows customers a 

measure of customization (within 

vehicle specification boundaries) of 

their vehicles. This initiative has 

increased the costs of building the 

vehicles and resulted in an increase in 

the retail sales price of each vehicle.11

As an additional source of income, 

Koenigsegg has been able to sell its 

engineering services to third parties and 

cites the ‘‘Quant concept car’’ 12 as one 

project. 

According to forecasts presented in its 

petition, Koenigsegg anticipates the 

following number of CCX vehicles 

would be imported into the United 

States, if its requested renewal of 

exemption were to be granted: 10 CCXs 

in CY 2010; 12 CCXs in CY 2011, and 

17 CCXs in CY 2012. 

Requested Exemptions. Koenigsegg 

stated that it intends to certify the CCX 

as complying with the rigid barrier 

belted test requirement using the 50th 

percentile adult male test dummy set 

forth in S14.5.1 of FMVSS No. 208. The 

petitioner stated that it previously 

determined the CCX’s compliance with 

rigid barrier unbelted test requirements 

using the 50th percentile adult male test 

dummy through the S13 sled test using 

a generic pulse rather than a full vehicle 

test. Koenigsegg stated that it, therefore, 

cannot at present say with certainty that 

the CCX will comply with the unbelted 

test requirement under S14.5.2, which is 

a 20–25 mph rigid barrier test. As for the 

CCX’s compliance with the other 

advanced air bag requirements, 

Koenigsegg stated that it does not know 

whether the CCX will be compliant 

because to date it has not had the 

financial ability to conduct the 

necessary testing. As such, Koenigsegg 

is requesting an exemption for the CCX 

from the rigid barrier unbelted test 

requirement with the 50th percentile 

adult male test dummy (S14.5.2), 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). 

Koenigsegg’s Statement of Economic 

Hardship—Publicly available 

information and financial documents 

submitted to NHTSA by the petitioner 

indicate that sales of the CCX will result 

in greater financial losses unless 

Koenigsegg obtains renewal of the 

temporary exemption from the 

advanced air bag requirements. 

Koenigsegg states that the U.S. 

accounts for approximately 35 to 40 

percent of the worldwide market for the 

CCX. Koenigsegg states that for CY 2006 

through 2008, its financial statements 

have shown losses of over $7.7 million 

dollars.13

Koenigsegg states that if the renewal 

of the temporary exemption from 

advanced air bag requirements is not 

granted, there will be losses over CYs 

2009–2011 of more than $3.3 million.14

With a renewal of the temporary 

exemption from advanced air bag 

requirements, Koenigsegg forecasts 

profits of $3.6 million for CYs 2010 

through 2012.15

Koenigsegg states that without the 

renewal of the temporary exemption, 

the CCX cannot be sold in the U.S. from 

CY 2010 through 2012, and it needs the 

income from U.S. sales until the next 

version of the CCX is produced in 2013 

with advanced air bags. Koenigsegg 

asserts that the financial impact of a 

denial of renewal of the temporary 

exemption would be more than lost 

sales. Koenigsegg’s view is that with no 

U.S. sales for a three year period, it will 

‘‘surrender’’ its small, but, in 

Koenigsegg’s view, ‘‘significant’’ market 

share to competitors, and expressed 

concern that it will not be able to regain 

that lost market share. Furthermore, 

because the CYs 2010 through 2012 U.S. 

sales of the CCX are expected to make 

up half of worldwide sales of the CCX, 

Koenigsegg stated it is ‘‘likely’’ that it 

would no longer be viable for 

Koenigsegg to continue to produce the 

CCX for any market. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 69 / Monday, April 11, 2011 / Notices 20085 

16 72 FR 17608, at 17611, April 9, 2007. 

17A manufacturer is eligible to apply for a 

hardship exemption if its total motor vehicle 

production in its most recent year of production 

does not exceed 10,000, as determined by the 

NHTSA Administrator (15 U.S.C. 1410(d)(1)). 

Koenigsegg’s Statement of Good Faith 

Efforts to Comply With Advanced Air 

Bag Requirements—Koenigsegg 

provided the following information in 

support of its statement that it has made 

the requisite good faith efforts to meet 

advanced air bag requirements. In its 

initial petition for temporary exemption 

from advanced air bag requirements, 

Koenigsegg anticipated ‘‘that two years 

would be needed to install an advanced 

air bag system on the CCX.’’ 16 At that 

time, Koenigsegg planned to produce a 

second generation of the CCX model by 

late 2009, which would be certified as 

complying with all applicable U.S. 

standards, including those for advanced 

air bags. 

However, Koenigsegg is facing 

unanticipated financial challenges. 

Since it was granted the temporary 

exemption from advanced air bag 

requirements in April 2007, Koenigsegg 

cited ‘‘unexpected events’’ that have 

necessitated the product cycle of the 

CCX to be extended from December 

2009 to December 2012. The 

introduction of the successor vehicle to 

the CCX has been delayed for three 

years because Koenigsegg has used 

available funds to comply with the 

California Air Resources Board (CARB) 

requirements for the U.S. market. The 

world economic situation has hindered 

Koenigsegg’s search for outside 

financing to develop the new model. 

Koenigsegg stated that: ‘‘The limited 

funds available are felt to be better 

utilized on improving the CCX with 

regards to 35 mph occupant protection.’’ 

Koenigsegg stated that expenditures 

also went to meeting U.S. and European 

carbon dioxide emissions requirements 

and FMVSS No. 108 headlamp 

requirements. 

In 2009, when it realized the 

successor vehicle to the CCX was going 

to be delayed, Koenigsegg once again 

looked into the possibility of fitting 

advanced air bags into the current CCX. 

Koenigsegg had hoped that 

technological and supplier availability 

had changed since it made its last 

review in 2005. After its 2009 review, 

Koenigsegg concluded that advanced air 

bags for the current CCX were not 

available. 

Nevertheless, there has been some 

progress in developing advanced air 

bags for the CCX. Koenigsegg states that 

it has undertaken significant work and 

through many iterations of crash 

analysis simulation, now understands 

the extent of redesign. Koenigsegg states 

that complete compliance with FMVSS 

No. 208 is hindered by the number of 

crash test vehicles needed to validate all 

the test cases. Koenigsegg states that in 

adopting the new development plan, it 

would take three vehicles and 10 full 

front end assemblies, at a cost to 

Koenigsegg of $4.5 million. Koenigsegg 

states that at present, this amount of 

money is neither financially or 

commercially feasible. 

Koenigsegg explained how it has 

focused on developing advanced air 

bags for the CCX successor vehicle. 

Koenigsegg has started working with a 

consortium consisting of IDIADA, 

Bosch, and Key Safety Systems, to 

develop a ‘‘low risk’’ advanced air bag 

development program that would be 

feasible for a small volume 

manufacturer to complete. This effort is 

primarily based on a drastic reduction 

in the number of test vehicles, and is 

based on continued rebuild and repair 

of frontal structures that are bolted on 

to the vehicle. Koenigsegg stated that 

this was possible because of the 

‘‘advanced monococque chassis 

concept’’ upon which the CCX successor 

will be based. Koenigsegg further stated 

that the successor to the CCX will 

comply with the FMVSS No. 214 Side 

Impact Protection pole test criteria. 

Koenigsegg described how the work 

initiated for the advanced air bag 

program will be shared: Koenigsegg will 

take overall vehicle engineering 

responsibility; IDIADA will perform all 

CAE (computer aided engineering) and 

manage the crash test program; Bosch 

will be responsible for the air bag ECU 

(electronic control unit) hardware/ 

software development; and Key Safety 

Systems (KSS) will be responsible for 

the DAB (driver side air bag)/PAB 

(passenger side air bag) and restraint 

system hardware adaptation and 

calibration, including all sled tests. 

Koenigsegg’s plan is to spend over 

$1.3 million in outside development 

costs plus $2.8 million for the cost of 

development vehicles. Because of the 

worldwide economic situation, which 

has affected automotive sales, 

Koenigsegg states that it needs more 

time to be able to raise the capital to 

meet the advanced air bag development 

expenditures. 

Koenigsegg Argues an Exemption 

Would Be in the Public Interest. The 

petitioner put forth several arguments in 

favor of a finding that the requested 

renewal of an exemption from advanced 

air bag requirements would be 

consistent with the public interest. 

Specifically, Koenigsegg argued that the 

vehicle would be equipped with a fullycompliant standard U.S. air bag system. 

Other than the lack of an advanced air 

bag, Koenigsegg emphasized that the 

CCX will comply with applicable 

FMVSSs and with Part 581, Bumper 

Standard. 

As additional bases for showing that 

its requested renewal of an exemption 

would be in the public interest, 

Koenigsegg offered the following. The 

company asserted that there is 

consumer demand in the U.S. for the 

CCX, and granting this application will 

allow the demand to be met, thereby 

expanding consumer choice. The 

company also suggested another reason 

why granting the renewal of the 

exemption would not be expected to 

have a significant impact on safety, 

specifically because the vehicle is 

unlikely to be used extensively by 

owners, due to its ‘‘sporty (second car) 

nature.’’ Finally, Koenigsegg indicated 

that the CCX incorporates advanced 

engineering and certain advanced safety 

features that are not required by the 

FMVSSs, including racing brakes with 

anti-lock capability and traction control. 

In addition, the company argued that 

the CCX has enhanced fuel efficiency 

due to its highly aerodynamic design. 

IV. Petition of Morgan 

Background—Founded in 1909, 

Morgan is a small, privately-owned 

vehicle manufacturer producing 

approximately 650 specialty sports cars 

per year.17 Morgan manufactures several 

models, but at present, only sells the 

Aero 8 in the U.S. Morgan intended to 

produce a vehicle line specific to the 

U.S. market, with Ford supplying the 

engine and transmission. However, for 

technical reasons, the project did not 

come to fruition, and Morgan 

temporarily stopped selling vehicles in 

the U.S. in 2004. In May 2005, Morgan 

obtained a temporary exemption from 

this agency’s bumper standard and 

began selling the Aero 8 in the U.S. 

On July 12, 2006 (71 FR 39386), 

NHTSA published a notice of receipt of 

five applications for temporary 

exemptions from the advanced air bag 

requirements of FMVSS No. 208. 

Among these petitions was one from 

Morgan, for the Aero 8, which is 

discussed at pages 39390–39391. 

Morgan’s petition is included in the 

docket for that notice, i.e., Docket 

NHTSA–2006–25324. 

We granted Morgan’s petition for 

temporary exemption in a Federal 

Register notice of September 7, 2006 (71 

FR 52851). The discussion of Morgan’s 

grant is on pages 52862 though 52865. 

The grant of temporary exemption is for 

the Morgan Aero 8 ‘‘From S15.2, S17, 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
20086 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 69 / Monday, April 11, 2011 / Notices 

18 49 U.S.C. 30113(b)(1). 

S19, S21, S23, and S25 of 49 CFR 

571.208.’’ The exemption was granted 

for the period from September 1, 2006 

to August 31, 2009. 

In a petition dated June 11, 2009, 

Morgan asked for a renewal of the 

temporary exemption for a two year 

period, from September 1, 2009 to 

August 31, 2011. NHTSA’s statute at 49 

U.S.C. 30113(b) states that exemptions 

from a Federal motor vehicle safety 

standard are to be granted on a 

‘‘temporary basis.’’ 18 However, the 

statute also expressly provides for 

renewal of an exemption on 

reapplication. 

Morgan’s petition would apply to the 

Aero 8 and the Aero Super Sport, an 

interim vehicle also based on the Aero 

platform. The Aero Super Sport will be 

available on an interim basis until a 

successor vehicle (code named the 

AP8), is complete and ready for sale. 

Morgan’s Statement of Economic 

Hardship—In its petition for temporary 

exemption for the Aero 8 for September 

1, 2006 through August 31, 2009, 

Morgan estimated that U.S. sales of the 

Aero 8 would be several hundred 

vehicles a year. In the June 11, 2009 

petition, Morgan reports that it has sold 

19 Aero 8s in the U.S. from September 

2006 to the present. The 19 vehicles 

represent ‘‘less than 3% of what had 

been expected.’’ 

Morgan stated it has been focusing 

over the last two years on the Aero 

model range successor, (code named the 

AP8) which will be a completely new 

design. However, since the original 

petition was granted in 2006, it was 

decided to extend the availability of the 

present Aero model from September 

2009 to the fall of 2011, in large part due 

to world economic conditions. 

Because, over the past few years, 

Morgan did not sell as many vehicles in 

the U.S. as it had hoped, and because of 

other economic considerations, Morgan 

decided to delay development of the 

new AP8. In order to ‘‘improve available 

funds,’’ Morgan decided to concentrate 

on the Aero Super Sport, an interim 

project based on the Aero platform, 

which Morgan hopes will be able to 

generate enough revenue so that Morgan 

can continue to develop the AP8. The 

Aero Super Sport was slated to be 

available in the U.S. in January 2010. 

Morgan seeks an extension of the 

temporary exemption from the 

advanced air bag requirements for the 

Aero Super Sport. Morgan intends to 

use the exemption to cover a ‘‘limited 

production run of 50 U.S. Aero Super 

Sport cars.’’ Morgan states the Aero 

Super Sport will be the last model that 

is based on the Aero chassis and that 

uses the standard air bag system. 

Morgan states that the Aero ‘‘must’’ 

come to an end in 2011 because the 

production of the steering wheel has 

ended, and no further stock, other than 

that already owned by Morgan, is 

available. Morgan stated that this 

essentially forced end to production is 

important because ‘‘it essentially 

precludes further requests by Morgan to 

NHTSA to prolong the Aero platform in 

the U.S.’’ 

Morgan estimates that, assuming 50 

Aero Super Sports are sold in the U.S., 

the total number of exempted vehicles 

that Morgan manufactures and sells in 

the U.S. will be 69 (50 Aero Super 

Sports plus the 19 Aero 8s already sold). 

If Morgan can sell 69 vehicles, that will 

be 656 fewer vehicles than the projected 

sales in Morgan’s first petition for 

temporary exemption in 2005. 

Morgan’s Statement of Good Faith 

Efforts to Comply—In its previous 

submission, Morgan stated that it has 

been working with the air bag supplier 

Siemens to develop an advanced air bag 

system for the Aero 8. However, a lack 

of funds and technical problems 

precluded the implementation of an 

advanced air bag system for the Aero 8. 

It said that the minimum time needed 

to develop an advanced air bag system 

(provided that there is a source of 

revenue) is two years. Specific technical 

challenges include the following. 

Morgan does not have access to the 

necessary sensor technology to pursue 

the ‘‘full suppression’’ passenger air bag 

option. Due to the design of the Aero 8 

platform dashboard, an entirely new 

interior solution and design must be 

developed. Chassis modifications are 

anticipated due to the originally stiff 

chassis design. 

In its February 2006 petition, Morgan 

stated that for vehicles to be built 

between September 2006–September 

2009, the Aero 8 vehicles will have (and 

in fact, did have) standard air bags. Back 

then, Morgan stated its belief that when 

its advanced air bag system is ready in 

2009, the air bag system will 

simultaneously be installed in both the 

Aero and other models. 

Morgan’s Statement of Public 

Interest—In its original petition 

concerning the Aero, Morgan put forth 

several arguments supporting its view 

that the requested exemption is 

consistent with the public interest. 

According to Morgan, if the exemption 

was denied and Morgan stops U.S. sales, 

Morgan’s U.S. dealers would 

unavoidably have numerous lay-offs, 

resulting in U.S. unemployment. Denial 

of an exemption would reduce 

consumer choice in the specialty sports 

car market sector in which Morgan cars 

compete. That company argued that the 

Morgan vehicles will not be used 

extensively by owners, and are unlikely 

to carry small children. Finally, 

according to Morgan, granting an 

exemption would assure the continued 

availability of proper parts and service 

support for existing Morgan owners. 

Without an exemption, Morgan would 

be forced from the U.S. market, and 

Morgan dealers would find it difficult to 

support existing customers. 

In its petition asking for a renewal of 

the temporary exemption from FMVSS 

No. 208, Morgan reiterated these points. 

V. Public Comment Period 

We are providing a 30-day comment 

period on Koenigsegg’s and Morgan’s 

petitions for an extension of a temporary 

exemption from the advanced air bag 

requirement of FMVSS No. 208. After 

considering public comments and other 

available information, we will publish a 

notice of final action addressing each 

application in the Federal Register. 

VI. Public Participation 

How do I prepare and submit 

comments? 

Your comments must be written and 

in English. To ensure that your 

comments are correctly filed in the 

Docket, please include the docket 

number of this document in your 

comments. 

Your comments must not be more 

than 15 pages long. (49 CFR 553.21). We 

established this limit to encourage you 

to write your primary comments in a 

concise fashion. However, you may 

attach necessary additional documents 

to your comments. There is no limit on 

the length of the attachments. 

Please submit two copies of your 

comments, including the attachments, 

to the Docket at the address given above 

under ADDRESSES. 

Comments may also be submitted to 

the docket electronically by logging into 

http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

online instructions for submitting 

comments. 

Please note that pursuant to the Data 

Quality Act, in order for substantive 

data to be relied upon and used by the 

agency, it must meet the information 

quality standards set forth in the OMB 

and DOT Data Quality Act guidelines. 

Accordingly, we encourage you to 

consult the guidelines in preparing your 

comments. OMB’s guidelines may be 

accessed at http://www.whitehouse.gov/ 

omb/fedreg/reproducible.html. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 69 / Monday, April 11, 2011 / Notices 20087 

1Each OFA must be accompanied by the filing 

fee, which is currently set at $1,500. See 49 CFR 

1002.2(f)(25). 

2Because this is a discontinuance proceeding and 

not an abandonment, trail use/rail banking and 

public use conditions are not appropriate. Likewise, 

no environmental or historic documentation is 

required here under 49 CFR 1105.6(c) and 49 CFR 

1105.8(b), respectively. 

How can I be sure that my comments 

were received? 

If you wish Docket Management to 

notify you upon its receipt of your 

comments, enclose a self-addressed, 

stamped postcard in the envelope 

containing your comments. Upon 

receiving your comments, Docket 

Management will return the postcard by 

mail. 

How do I submit 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 

above 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 

under ADDRESSES. 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.) 

Will the agency consider late 

comments? 

We will consider all comments that 

Docket Management receives before the 

close of business on the comment 

closing date indicated above under 

DATES. To the extent possible, we will 

also consider comments that Docket 

Management receives after that date. If 

Docket Management receives a comment 

too late for us to consider in developing 

a final rule (assuming that one is 

issued), we will consider that comment 

as an informal suggestion for future 

rulemaking action. 

How can I read the comments submitted 

by other people? 

You may read the comments received 

by Docket Management at the address 

given above under ADDRESSES. The 

hours of the Docket are indicated above 

in the same location. You may also see 

the comments on the Internet. To read 

the comments on the Internet, go to 

http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

online instructions for accessing the 

dockets. 

Please note that even after the 

comment closing date, we will continue 

to file relevant information in the 

Docket as it becomes available. Further, 

some people may submit late comments. 

Accordingly, we recommend that you 

periodically check the Docket for new 

material. 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30113; delegations of 

authority at 49 CFR 1.50. and 501.8. 

Issued on: April 5, 2011. 

Joseph S. Carra, 

Acting Associate Administrator for 

Rulemaking. 

[FR Doc. 2011–8468 Filed 4–8–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Surface Transportation Board 

[Docket No. AB 55 (Sub-No. 705X)] 

CSX Transportation, Inc.— 

Discontinuance of Service 

Exemption—in Pinellas County, Fla. 

CSX Transportation, Inc. (CSXT) filed 

a verified notice of exemption under 49 

CFR part 1152 subpart F—Exempt 

Abandonments and Discontinuances of 

Service to discontinue service over 

approximately a 0.45-mile rail line on 

CSXT’s Southern Region, Jacksonville 

Division, Clearwater Subdivision, 

extending between milepost ARE 897.55 

near 16th Street North and milepost 

ARE 898.00 at the junction of 1st 

Avenue South and Dr. Martin Luther 

King Street in St. Petersburg, Pinellas 

County, Fla. The line traverses United 

States Postal Service Zip Code 33707. 

CSXT has certified that: (1) No local 

traffic has moved over the line for at 

least 2 years; (2) there is no overhead 

traffic to be rerouted over other lines; (3) 

no formal complaint filed by a user of 

rail service on the line (or by a state or 

local government entity acting on behalf 

of such user) regarding cessation of 

service over the line either is pending 

with the Surface Transportation Board 

or with any U.S. District Court or has 

been decided in favor of complainant 

within the 2-year period; and (4) the 

requirements at 49 CFR 1105.12 

(newspaper publication) and 49 CFR 

1152.50(d)(1) (notice to governmental 

agencies) have been met. 

As a condition to this exemption, any 

employee adversely affected by the 

discontinuance of service shall be 

protected under Oregon Short Line 

Railroad—Abandonment Portion 

Goshen Branch Between Firth & 

Ammon, in Bingham & Bonneville 

Counties, Idaho, 360 I.C.C. 91 (1979). To 

address whether this condition 

adequately protects affected employees, 

a petition for partial revocation under 

49 U.S.C. § 10502(d) must be filed. 

Provided no formal expression of 

intent to file an offer of financial 

assistance (OFA) has been received, this 

exemption will be effective on May 11, 

2011, unless stayed pending 

reconsideration. Petitions to stay that do 

not involve environmental issues and 

formal expressions of intent to file an 

OFA for continued rail service under 49 

CFR 1152.27(c)(2) 1 must be filed by 

April 21, 2011.2 Petitions to reopen 

must be filed by May 2, 2011, with the 

Surface Transportation Board, 395 E 

Street, SW., Washington, DC 20423– 

0001. 

A copy of any petition filed with the 

Board should be sent to CSXT’s 

representative: Louis E. Gitomer, Law 

Offices of Louis E. Gitomer, LLC, 600 

Baltimore Avenue, Suite 301, Towson, 

MD 21204. 

If the verified notice contains false or 

misleading information, the exemption 

is void ab initio. 

Board decisions and notices are 

available on our Web site at http:// 

www.stb.dot.gov. 

Decided: April 1, 2011. 

By the Board, Rachel D. Campbell, 

Director, Office of Proceedings. 

Jeffrey Herzig, 

Clearance Clerk. 

[FR Doc. 2011–8439 Filed 4–8–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4915–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY 

Proposed Collection; Comment 

Request; State Small Business Credit 

Initiative Allocation Agreement 

AGENCY: Departmental Offices, Small 

Business Lending Funds, Treasury. 

ACTION: Notice and request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: In accordance with the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 

Public Law 104–13 (44 U.S.C. 

3506(c)(2)(A)), this notice invites the 

general public and other public agencies 

to comment on a proposed information 

collection for which approval from the 

Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) will be requested. The proposed 

collection would be an extension of a 

currently approved collection under 

OMB No. 1505–0227 which is due to 

expire June 30, 2011. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before June 10, 2011 to 

be assured of consideration. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES