Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 165 / Monday, August 30, 2021 / Notices 48471 

1 49 CFR 1.95. 

2 49 U.S.C. 30113(b)(3)(A). 

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

4 49 U.S.C. 30113(b)(3)(B)(iii). 

environmental concerns that affect the 

proposed action or its impacts). 

Michael L. Culotta, 

Deputy Regional Administrator, Federal 

Transit Administration—Region II. 

[FR Doc. 2021–18657 Filed 8–27–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–57–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

[Docket No. NHTSA–2021–0063] 

Polaris Industries Inc. and Goupil 

Industrie SA; Receipt of Petition for 

Temporary Exemption 

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration (NHTSA), 

Department of Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Notice of receipt of petition for 

temporary exemption; request for 

comment. 

SUMMARY: In accordance with statutory 

and regulatory requirements, Polaris 

Industries Inc. and Goupil Industrie SA 

(collectively, ‘‘petitioners’’), have 

petitioned NHTSA for an exemption of 

the ‘‘Picnic-G6,’’ an all-electric truck 

that the petitioners state will be used as 

part of a grocery delivery service. The 

petitioners seek exemption from nine 

Federal motor vehicle safety standards 

(FMVSS) on the basis that an exemption 

would make the development or field 

evaluation of a low-emission vehicle 

easier and would not unreasonably 

lower the safety or impact protection 

level of that vehicle. NHTSA is 

publishing this document in accordance 

with statutory and administrative 

provisions, and requests comments on 

the petition. NHTSA has made no 

judgment at this time on the merits of 

the petition. 

DATES: Comments on this petition must 

be submitted by October 29, 2021. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Daniel Koblenz, NHTSA Office of Chief 

Counsel, telephone: 202–366–5823, 

facsimile: 202–366–3820, address: 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590. 

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. 

• 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. To be sure someone is there to 

help you, please call 202–366–9322 

before coming. 

• Fax: 202–493–2251. 

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. 

Privacy Act: In accordance with 5 

U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments 

from the public to better inform its 

decision-making process. DOT posts 

these comments, without edit, including 

any personal information the 

commenter provides, to 

www.regulations.gov, as described in 

the system of records notice (DOT/ALL– 

14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at 

www.transportation.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 

optional. Whether or not commenters 

identify themselves, all timely 

comments will be fully considered. 

Docket: For access to the docket to 

read background documents or 

comments received, go to 

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. To be sure 

someone is there to help you, please call 

202–366–9826 before coming. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Statutory and Regulatory 

Requirements 

The National Traffic and Motor 

Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act), codified 

at 49 U.S.C. 30113, authorizes the 

Secretary of Transportation (NHTSA by 

delegation), to exempt motor vehicles 

from an FMVSS or bumper standard on 

a temporary basis, under specified 

circumstances and on terms the agency 

deems appropriate. The Secretary has 

delegated the authority for 

implementing this section to NHTSA.1

The Safety Act authorizes NHTSA (by 

delegation) to grant, in whole or in part, 

a temporary exemption to a vehicle 

manufacturer if certain specified 

findings are made. The agency must 

find that the exemption is consistent 

with the public interest and with the 

objectives of the Safety Act.2 In 

addition, exemptions under § 30113 

must meet one of the following bases: 

(i) Compliance with the standard[s] 

[from which exemption is sought] 

would cause substantial economic 

hardship to a manufacturer that has 

tried to comply with the standard[s] 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.3

The petitioners have submitted a 

petition under the third of these bases. 

The petitioners request that NHTSA 

grant their petition based on a finding 

that the exemption is consistent with 

the public interest and the Safety Act, 

and that the exemption would facilitate 

the development or field evaluation of 

a low-emission motor vehicle and 

would not unreasonably reduce the 

safety level of that vehicle.4 Under the 

Safety Act, entities applying for 

exemptions under this subsection must 

include, among other things, ‘‘a record 

of the research, development, and 

testing establishing that the motor 

vehicle is a low-emission motor vehicle 

and that the safety level of the vehicle 

is not lowered unreasonably by 

exemption from the standard.’’ 

NHTSA established 49 CFR part 555, 

‘‘Temporary Exemption from Motor 

Vehicle Safety and Bumper Standards,’’ 

to implement the statutory provisions 

concerning § 30113 temporary 

exemptions. The requirements in 49 

CFR 555.5 state that the petitioner must 

set forth the basis of the petition by 

providing the information required 

under 49 CFR 555.6, and the reasons 

why the exemption would be in the 

public interest and consistent with the 

objectives of the Safety Act. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
48472 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 165 / Monday, August 30, 2021 / Notices 

5The petitioners have provided the G6’s type 

approval certificate as Exhibit 1. 6The full specifications of a baseline G6 can be 

found in Exhibit 2. 7We note that the petitioners do not specify 

whether the acoustic alert system complies with 

FMVSS No. 141, Minimum Sound Requirements for 

Hybrid and Electric Vehicles. FMVSS No. 141’s 

requirements are more stringent than its European 

counterpart, UNECE Regulation 138, Uniform 

Provisions Concerning the Approval of Quiet Road 

Transport Vehicles with Regard to their Reduced 

Audibility. 

8 49 U.S.C. 30113(a). 

9 It is not clear from the petition which ISO brake 

symbol would be used, or if the indicators would 

be combined. The various ISO brake symbols can 

be found through a search of ISO’s Online Browsing 

Platform, https://www.iso.org/obp/ui#home. In 

addition, Exhibit 5 to the petition includes excerpts 

from the vehicle manual detailing the symbol. 

A petition submitted on the lowemission vehicle (LEV) exemption basis 

must include the following information 

specified in 49 CFR 555.6(c): 

(1) Substantiation that the vehicle is 

a low-emission vehicle; 

(2) Research, development, and 

testing documentation establishing that 

a temporary exemption would not 

unreasonably degrade the safety or 

impact protection of the vehicle; 

(i) A detailed description of how the 

motor vehicle equipped with the lowemission engine would, if exempted, 

differ from one that complies with the 

standard; 

(ii) If the petitioner is presently 

manufacturing a vehicle conforming to 

the standard, the results of tests 

conducted to substantiate certification 

to the standard; 

(iii) The results of any tests conducted 

on the vehicle that demonstrate its 

failure to meet the standard, expressed 

as comparative performance levels; and 

(iv) Reasons why the failure to meet 

the standard does not unreasonably 

degrade the safety or impact protection 

of the vehicle. 

(3) Substantiation that a temporary 

exemption would facilitate the 

development or field evaluation of the 

vehicle; and 

(4) A statement of whether the 

petitioner intends to conform to the 

standard at the end of the exemption 

period; and 

(5) A statement that not more than 

2,500 exempted vehicles will be sold in 

the U.S. in any 12-month period for 

which an exemption may be granted. 

II. Summary of Petition 

On September 16, 2020, in accordance 

with NHTSA’s statutes and regulations, 

petitioners Polaris Industries Inc. and 

Goupil Industrie SA petitioned NHTSA 

for a temporary exemption from the 

requirements of ten FMVSS on the basis 

that an 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. On 

December 2, 2020, the petitioners 

submitted a supplemental petition that 

revised their original petition by 

withdrawing their request for an 

exemption from FMVSS No. 203 

(reducing the total number of standards 

in the exemption request to nine), and 

by revising their analysis concerning 

their request from an exemption from 

FMVSS No. 226. Public versions of the 

petitioners’ submissions can be found 

on regulations.gov in the docket stated 

in the header of this notice. 

a. Description of the Picnic-G6 

The petitioners have requested an 

exemption to produce up to 100 

specialized vehicles, which they intend 

to sell to Picnic, a grocery delivery 

company, which will use them to 

operate a grocery delivery service. The 

petitioners refer to the potentially 

exempted vehicles as ‘‘Picnic-G6’’ 

vehicles. According to the petitioners, 

the Picnic-G6 is a modified version of 

the ‘‘G6,’’ an electric utility truck that 

they produce for the European market.5

Based on the information the petitioners 

provided, it appears that the G6 is a 

light truck with a GVWR of 2,600 

kilograms (approximately 5,732 

pounds).6 According to the petitioners, 

a standard G6 vehicle has a maximum 

speed of 80 km/h (49.7 mph), and 

‘‘provides multiple other safety 

elements, including an acoustic alerting 

system to alert pedestrians to its 

presence, automatic headlamp and 

wiper activation, a robust steel chassis 

design, advanced crumple zone, and 

front-wheel drive.’’ 7

The petitioners state that, unlike the 

a standard G6, the Picnic-G6 would be 

modified to have a maximum speed of 

50 km/h (31 mph). In addition, all but 

10 of the Picnic-G6 vehicles would have 

a single designated seating position, for 

the driver. The petitioners state that the 

10 Picnic-G6 that also have a front 

passenger seat would be used to train 

drivers. None of the vehicles would 

have more than two seating positions. 

The petitioners state that the Picnic-G6 

would have a range of about 90 miles. 

According to the petitioners, the 

vehicles will be modified to include a 

‘‘specialized grocery carrying box’’ on 

the vehicle’s chassis after being sold to 

Picnic for use in its grocery delivery 

pilot. 

In terms of how the vehicles will be 

operated, the petitioners state 

repeatedly throughout the petition that 

Picnic would operate the Picnic-G6 

vehicles on lower-speed streets in dense 

urban and suburban areas. The 

petitioners also state that the vehicles 

would travel at low speeds due to the 

need to make frequent delivery stops. 

The petitioners state that Picnic will 

train its employees to operate the 

Picnic-G6 vehicles, and that the 

company will forbid private use of the 

vehicles and require that all occupants 

be age 16 or older. The petitioners also 

state that these restrictions will be 

stated in warning labels placed on the 

vehicles. 

A more detailed explanation of the 

Picnic grocery delivery service, as well 

as illustrations of what the Picnic-G6 

may look like, can be found in the 

petition. 

b. Petitioners’ Explanation for Why the 

Picnic-G6 Would Be a Low-Emission 

Vehicle 

To be eligible for an exemption under 

the LEV basis, the Picnic-G6 must be 

considered an LEV under section 202 of 

the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7521) at the 

time the vehicle is manufactured, and 

must emit a level of regulated air 

pollutants that is in an amount 

significantly below one of those 

standards.8

According to the petitioners, the 

Picnic-G6 would be an all-electric 

vehicle that emits zero emissions, and 

therefore would be eligible for an 

exemption under the LEV basis. 

c. Petitioners’ Explanation for Why 

Granting an Exemption Would Not 

Unreasonably Lower the Safety of the 

Picnic-G6 

FMVSS No. 101, Controls and Displays 

& FMVSS No. 135, Light Vehicle Brake 

Systems 

To ensure that the driver is informed 

of brake system malfunctions, FMVSS 

No. 101 and FMVSS No. 135 require 

that all light vehicles are required to 

have a telltale that informs the driver of 

various different types of issues with the 

vehicle’s braking system. 

According to the petitioners, rather 

than displaying the word ‘‘Brake’’ to 

indicate brake system malfunctions, low 

brake fluid conditions, and the 

application of the parking brake, as 

required under S5.5.5 of FMVSS No. 

135, the Picnic-G6 will display the ISO 

brake symbol.9 The petitioners argue 

that this will not unreasonably lower 

safety because the Picnic-G6 will only 

be operated by trained Picnic employees 

who will understand the meaning of the 

ISO brake symbol. The petitioners 

further argue that NHTSA has, in the 

past, found that, in some instances, 

noncompliance with the brake system 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 165 / Monday, August 30, 2021 / Notices 48473 

10Sivinski, R., Crash Prevention Effectiveness of 

Light-Vehicle Electronic Stability Control: An 

Update of the 2007 NHTSA Evaluation; DOT HS 

811 486 (June 2011). 

11We note that the petitioners have requested an 

exemption from the entire standard, not just the 

requirement that the vehicle be equipped with air 

bags. However, it appears from the petition that the 

Picnic-G6 would be equipped with some occupant 

protection features, including seat belts. The 

petitioner has not sought exemptions from FMVSS 

No. 209, Seat belt assemblies, or FMVSS No. 210, 

Seat belt assembly anchorages. 

12UNECE standards established under the 1958 

UN ECE Agreement Concerning the Adoption of 

Uniform Conditions of Approval and Reciprocal 

Recognition of Approval for Motor Vehicle 

Equipment and Parts (the ‘‘1958 Agreement’’) are 

type approval standards. The 1958 Agreement is an 

international agreement that provides procedures 

for establishing uniform regulations regarding new 

motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment and 

for reciprocal acceptance of type-approvals issued 

under these regulations by contracting countries. 

While the United States is a member of the UN ECE, 

it is not a contracting party to the 1958 Agreement, 

and thus is not bound by standards established 

under the 1958 Agreement. 

telltale requirement is not consequential 

to safety due to driver familiarity with 

the ISO brake symbol. 

FMVSS No. 118, Power-Operated 

Window, Partition, and Roof Panel 

Systems 

The purpose of FMVSS No. 118 is to 

reduce the likelihood of death or injury 

due to accidental operation of a 

vehicle’s power-operated window, 

partition, and roof paneled systems. 

NHTSA established the standard 

primarily to address the particular 

safety concern of child strangulation 

due to accidental operation of powered 

windows. The petitioners have 

requested an exemption from S6(c) of 

the standard, which specifies that the 

actuation device for closing a poweroperated window must operate by 

pulling away from the surface on which 

it is mounted. 

The petitioners provide several 

reasons that an exemption from FMVSS 

No. 118 would not unreasonably lower 

the safety of the Picnic-G6. First, the 

petitioners explain that Picnic intends 

to prohibit children below the age of 16 

from riding in the Picnic-G6. The 

petitioners also argue that most of the 

exempted vehicles would be used for 

Picnic’s delivery service, and so would 

be unlikely to be occupied be people 

other than Picnic employees. The 

petitioners also state that the power 

window controls are located on the 

center console, away from the windows, 

which makes accidental activation of 

the controls unlikely. Finally, the 

petitioners note that only 10 of the 

Picnic-G6 vehicles would have a front 

passenger seat, and those are used for 

training purposes, so it is unlikely that 

an adult or child would be present to 

accidentally activate the power window 

controls. 

FMVSS No. 126, Electronic Stability 

Control Systems 

To reduce the risk of deaths due to 

rollover crashes, FMVSS No. 126 

requires that all vehicles with a gross 

vehicle weight rating of 4,536 kilograms 

(kg) (10,000 pounds) or less be equipped 

with an electronic stability control 

(ESC) system. 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 singlevehicle loss-of-control crashes is the 

most effective way to reduce deaths 

resulting from rollover crashes 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. 

The petitioners have requested an 

exemption from FMVSS No. 126 in its 

entirety. According to the petitioners, an 

exemption would not unreasonably 

lower the safety of the Picnic-G6 

because the vehicle has similar handling 

and stability as comparable vehicles 

equipped with ESC, and there are 

mitigating factors that reduce the 

likelihood that the Picnic-G6 would be 

involved in a loss-of-control crash. 

To demonstrate that the Picnic-G6 

would have similar handling and 

stability to a comparable vehicle that is 

equipped with ESC, the petitioners have 

provided a dynamic test report (Exhibit 

6 to the petition) comparing the 

performance of the Picnic-G6, which is 

not equipped with anti-lock brakes or 

ESC, with a Nissan e-NV200, which the 

petitioners state is a comparable vehicle 

that is equipped with these features. 

The petitioners state that the report 

found that there were small differences 

in performance between the two 

vehicles that could be explained by the 

absence of anti-lock brake and ESC 

systems on the Picnic-G6. However, the 

petitioners state that ‘‘both vehicles had 

‘same behavior with understeer chassis 

balance, non-surprising behavior during 

weight transfer maneuvers and [were] 

easy to control at the limit.’ ’’ In 

addition, the petitioners provided a 

static stability test report (Exhibit 7) that 

the petitioners claim shows that the 

Picnic-G6 has a static stability that is 

comparable to pickup trucks and 

passenger vans. (NHTSA notes that the 

petitioners have requested that the 

entirety of both of these reports be 

withheld from public view because they 

contain confidential business 

information.) 

The petitioners also state that the 

Picnic-G6’s limited speed and range 

reduce the risk of loss-of-control events, 

which, petitioners argue, were relevant 

factors to NHTSA in the past in making 

the findings needed to grant an 

exemption from FMVSS No. 126 under 

the LEV basis. The petitioners also argue 

that, unlike other light trucks and 

delivery vehicles, the Picnic-G6 would 

not be operated at high speeds or over 

moderate and long distance, so the risk 

of a loss-of-control crash would be 

relatively lower, and should such a 

crash occur, the risk of injury would 

also be lower. Finally, the petitioners 

state that drivers would be trained to 

operate the exempted vehicle without 

ESC. 

FMVSS No. 208, Occupant Crash 

Protection 

To reduce the number of fatalities due 

to crashes, FMVSS No. 208 sets 

minimum performance requirements 

relating to protection of occupants 

inside the vehicle, which includes the 

requirements that most vehicles be 

equipped with seat belts and advanced 

air bags. Per FMVSS No. 208, passenger 

cars and light trucks are required to 

provide protection using air bags for 

both belted and unbelted front outboard 

seated occupants of all sizes, including 

protections for out-of-position children 

in the front outboard passenger seat. 

The petitioners request an exemption 

from the entire standard, because the 

Picnic-G6 is not equipped with air bags 

of any type.11

The petitioners provide the following 

rationale for their request. First, 

according to the petitioners, the PicnicG6 is compliant with the United Nations 

Economic Commission for Europe 

(UNECE) regulation 12 for the 

protection of the driver against the 

steering mechanism in the event of 

impact, and UNECE regulation 29 for 

the protection of the occupants of the 

cab of a commercial vehicle.12

Moreover, the petitioners state that, 

despite the Picnic-G6’s lack of air bags, 

an exemption would not lower the 

safety risk of the vehicle for several 

reasons. First, they argue that the 

Picnic-G6 would be able to meet the S6 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
48474 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 165 / Monday, August 30, 2021 / Notices 

13A report of the results of this simulation testing 

was attached as Exhibit 9. 

14Standard No. 214 defines a ‘‘walk-in van’’ as ‘‘a 

special cargo/mail delivery vehicle that has only 

one designated seating position. That designated 

seating position must be forward facing and for use 

only by the driver. The vehicle usually has a thin 

and light sliding (or folding) side door for easy 

operation and a high roof clearance that a person 

of medium stature can enter the passenger 

compartment area in an up-right position.’’ 

15NHTSA notes that, in the final rule adopting 

FMVSS No. 214, the agency stated that it excluded 

walk-in vans from the standard not because walkin vans would be used for deliveries, but because 

‘‘it is impracticable for such vehicles to meet the 

side door strength requirements because of their 

special design features.’’ 56 FR 27427, 27431. 

16See FMVSS No. 225, S5(c)(1)(i) & (iii). 

17Note that FMVSS No. 226 prohibits the use of 

‘‘movable glazing’’ as the sole means of meeting the 

displacement requirements. S4.2.1.1. That is, 

laminated glazing alone cannot be used to meet 

FMVSS No. 226 if the window with the glazing can 

be rolled down. The glazing on the petitioners’ 

vehicles is movable, and thus the laminated glazing 

countermeasure is not sufficient to meet FMVSS 

No. 226. 

18Per FMVSS No. 226, the vehicle must meet the 

requirements of S4.2.1 after the window glazing has 

undergone the ‘‘pre-breaking’’ procedure described 

in S5.4.1. It is not clear from the petition whether 

the Picnic-G6 would be able to meet the 

requirements of S4.2.1 using window glazing alone 

if the glazing is pre-broken. 

injury criteria requirements (aside from 

chest compression) for the Hybrid III 

(50th percentile male) test dummy. The 

petitioners have provided simulation 

data to support this claim as Exhibit 8. 

The petitioners also argue that the 

absence of air bags would have ‘‘little 

impact’’ on the level of safety of the 

Picnic-G6 because of the vehicle’s use 

profile. Specifically, the petitioners 

argue that the Picnic-G6’s maximum 

speed of 31 mph, its limited ∼90-mile 

range, and its likely use on exclusively 

urban and ‘‘dense-suburban’’ local 

roads, mean that the Picnic-G6 has a 

low probability of being involved in a 

crash, and that any crashes that do 

occur will be lower speed and thus have 

a reduced risk of injury. The petitioners 

also argue that the low number of 

vehicles they intend to produce 

pursuant to this exemption will limit 

risk, and support a finding that safety 

would not be unreasonably lowered. 

In addition, the petitioners argue that 

an exemption for the Picnic-G6 would 

be consistent with the standard’s carveouts for ‘‘walk-in’’ vans and U.S. Postal 

Service vans that are equipped with 

type-2 (lap and shoulder) seat belt 

assemblies. The petitioners argue that 

the reasoning behind these carve-outs is 

that these vehicles are at a low risk of 

being involved in a serious crash 

because they are used to make deliveries 

in urban and suburban areas where the 

driver makes frequent stops. Moreover, 

the petitioners note that NHTSA 

declined to require air bags for U.S. 

Postal Service vehicles because the 

agency believed that they would 

provide a marginal safety benefit to 

postal workers given their use profile 

and the fact that the U.S. Postal Service 

requires employees to wear seat belts 

while working. The petitioners state 

that, like the U.S. Postal Service, Picnic 

intends to require all Picnic-G6 

occupants to wear seat belts. 

Finally, the petitioners argue that the 

lack of occupant protection 

requirements that are intended to 

protect children would not reduce 

safety because all but 10 of the 

exempted Picnic-G6 vehicles would not 

have a passenger seat. Moreover, for the 

10 training vehicles that do have 

passenger seats, the petitioners state that 

Picnic would prohibit passengers under 

the age of 16, would forbid private use 

of the exempted vehicles, and would 

place warning stickers to inform 

occupants of these restrictions. 

FMVSS No. 214, Side Impact Protection 

To reduce the risk of injuries to 

vehicle occupants in side impact 

crashes, FMVSS No. 214 sets out 

requirements for door crush resistance 

and side-impact crash performance, 

including a moving deformable barrier 

and vehicle-to-pole crash tests. The 

petitioners seek an exemption from this 

standard in its entirety. 

According to the petitioners, an 

exemption would not unreasonably 

lower the safety of the Picnic-G6 

because, while the vehicle would not be 

certified to FMVSS No. 214, simulated 

testing shows it would meet door crush 

and moving deformable barrier tests, 

and the vehicle would meet the vehicleto-pole test requirements using the 50th 

percentile male dummy for all injury 

criteria except head injury and lower-rib 

deflection (the petitioners specify that 

lower-rib deflection is 0.3 mm outside 

the standard’s limit).13 In addition, the 

petitioners claim the Picnic-G6 would 

comply with the UNECE regulation 135 

with regard to their Pole Side Impact 

performance. 

The petitioners also argue that the 

Picnic-G6 is similar to ‘‘walk-in’’ vans, 

which are excluded from the standard.14

The petitioners argue that the nontraining Picnic-G6 vehicles would only 

have a driver’s seat, and while they 

would not have room for a person to 

enter the cargo area of the vehicle, the 

‘‘use profile’’ of the Picnic-G6 would be 

similar to that of walk-in vans. That is, 

petitioners state, both vehicle types are 

designed to make deliveries in urban 

and suburban areas where the driver 

makes frequent stops and operates the 

vehicle at low speeds that reduce crash 

risk.15

Finally, the petitioners argue that the 

low volume of vehicles permitted under 

the exemption will limit safety risk, and 

point out that NHTSA has cited this as 

a consideration in prior exemption 

grants. 

FMVSS No. 225, Child Restraint 

Anchorage Systems 

FMVSS No. 225 requires, and 

specifies standards for, child restraint 

anchorage systems to reduce the risk of 

anchorage system failure, increase the 

likelihood that child restraints are 

properly secured, and more fully 

achieve the potential effectiveness of 

child restraint systems in motor 

vehicles. This standard requires the 

front outboard passenger seat in a 

vehicle that has no rear seats to have a 

tether anchorage, and requires a full 

child restraint anchorage system in the 

front outboard seating position in a 

vehicle that has no air bag at that 

position due to a grant of a part 555 

exemption.16 The petitioners have 

requested an exemption from the entire 

standard for the 10 training vehicles. 

The petitioners argue that an 

exemption would not unreasonably 

lower the safety of the training PicnicG6 vehicles because Picnic would 

implement a company policy that 

would forbid the use of the vehicle with 

passengers under age 16, forbid private 

use of the vehicle, and place stickers in 

the vehicle warning of these restrictions. 

The petitioners further argue that the 

use of the Picnic-G6 as a delivery makes 

it unlikely that children will ride in it, 

and that an exemption would be 

consistent with the FMVSS No. 226’s 

carve-out for funeral coaches. Finally, 

the petitioners argue the small number 

of training Picnic-G6 vehicle makes it 

unlikely that children would be 

passengers. 

FMVSS No. 226, Ejection Mitigation 

FMVSS No. 226 relates to ejection 

mitigation in the event of a rollover. The 

purpose of this standard is to reduce the 

likelihood of ejections of vehicle 

occupants through side windows during 

rollovers or side impact crashes. The 

petitioners seek an exemption from this 

standard in its entirety. 

The petitioners make three arguments 

for why an exemption from FMVSS No. 

226 would not unreasonably lower the 

safety of the Picnic-G6. First, they argue 

that the Picnic-G6 would be able to meet 

the displacement requirements under 

S4.2.1 of the standard using laminatedglazing side windows as the sole means 

of achieving displacement 

performance.17 18 The petitioners argue 

that the glazing will mitigate the risk of 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 165 / Monday, August 30, 2021 / Notices 48475 

19See Exhibit 14. 

20The standard defines a walk-in van as ‘‘special 

cargo/mail delivery vehicle that only has a driver 

designated seating position. The vehicle has a 

sliding (or folding) side door and a roof clearance 

that enables a person of medium stature to enter the 

passenger compartment area in an up-right 

position.’’ FMVSS No. 226, S3. 

21 In the final rule establishing FMVSS No. 226, 

the agency justified excluding walk-in vans solely 

‘‘on practicability grounds.’’ 76 FR 3211, 3291. 

ejection, especially when the window is 

in the closed position. The petitioners 

have provided documentation of 

computer-simulated testing 

demonstrating that the Picnic-G6 will 

meet the displacement requirements of 

FMVSS No. 226 when the windows are 

closed.19

Second, the petitioners argue that the 

Picnic-G6’s limited speed (maximum 31 

mph), its limited range (∼90 miles), and 

the types of roads on which Picnic 

intends to operate it (urban and dense 

suburban local roads) make the risk of 

a crash low, and any crash that does 

occur would likely occur at a lower 

speed. Lastly, the petitioners argue that 

the Picnic-G6 is similar to ‘‘walk-in’’ 

vans, which are excluded from the 

standard.20 21 The petitioners argue the 

non-training versions of the vehicles 

would only have a driver’s seat, and 

while they would not have room for a 

person to walk into the cargo area of the 

vehicle, the ‘‘use profile’’ of the PicnicG6 (making deliveries in urban and dens 

suburban areas) would be similar to that 

of walk-in vans. 

FMVSS No. 305, Electric-Powered 

Vehicles; Electrolyte Spillage and Shock 

Protection 

FMVSS No. 305 establishes 

requirements to reduce deaths and 

injuries during and after a crash that 

occur because of electrolyte spillage 

from electric energy storage devices, 

intrusion of electric energy storage/ 

conversion devices into the occupant 

compartment, and electric shock. The 

petitioners have requested an exemption 

from several requirements relating to 

shock protection. 

According to the petitioners, an 

exemption would not unreasonably 

lower the safety of the Picnic-G6 

because, while the vehicle is not 

certified to FMVSS No. 305, it does 

meet the analogous European 

regulations for electrical safety in 

UNECE regulation 100. A side-by-side 

comparison of the two standards can be 

found in the petition, as well as 

documentation relating to type approval 

for UNECE regulation 100. 

d. Petitioners’ Explanation for How an 

Exemption Would Facilitate the 

Development and Field Evaluation of 

the Vehicle 

The petitioners state that an 

exemption would facilitate the 

development and the field evaluation of 

the Picnic-G6 in several ways. First, the 

petitioners state that an exemption 

would enable the collection and 

analysis of information from real-world 

use to assist with the development of 

current or future low-emission vehicles. 

Second, an exemption would facilitate 

production of future FMVSS-compliant 

low-emission vehicle models while the 

petitioners work to achieve FMVSS 

compliance. Third, it would enable 

further evaluation of the market for lowemission vehicles by allowing the 

petitioners to assess the Picnic-G6’s 

viability in the U.S. market, and the 

viability of the Picnic grocery delivery 

pilot. Fourth, the petitioners argue that 

an exemption would demonstrate to the 

public the capabilities of electric 

vehicles, which could further encourage 

consumers to acquire goods through 

ecommerce options that rely on 

infrastructure that has a low-carbon 

footprint and on delivery models that 

reduce road congestion. Finally, an 

exemption would provide consumers 

with a ‘‘safe, all-electric option’’ as the 

petitioners develop modifications to the 

Picnic-G6 to make it FMVSS-compliant, 

thereby accelerating the entry of a smallsized, speed-limited, all-electric utility 

vehicle option among a field that 

typically consists of larger, gasolinepowered vehicles or LSVs. 

e. Petitioners’ Explanation for Why an 

Exemption Would Be in the Public 

Interest 

The petitioners argue that an 

exemption would be in the public 

interest because it would increase 

consumer choice and improve access to 

goods deliveries by zero-emission 

vehicles. The petitioners also argue that 

an exemption would demonstrate to the 

public the viability of all-electric utility 

vehicles through the Picnic pilot. The 

petitioners further state that the 

exemption would allow for the 

petitioners to evaluate both the viability 

of delivery models like the Picnic pilot, 

as well as the performance of its allelectric utility vehicles generally. In 

addition, the petitioners argue an 

exemption would allow for the 

collection of information that would 

assist with the further development of 

all-electric utility vehicles. The 

petitioners also argue that the Picnic 

pilot would provide employment 

opportunities to an estimated 600 

people relating to its delivery service. 

Further, the petitioners state that, if the 

Picnic pilot is successful, the exemption 

could pave the way for additional jobs 

relating to the development of an 

FMVSS-compliant version of the PicnicG6, which the petitioners expect would 

be manufactured at one of its U.S. 

factories. 

III. Request for Comment 

The agency seeks comment from the 

public on the merits of Polaris/Goupil’s 

application for a temporary exemption. 

In addition, we seek comment on what 

restrictions, if any, the agency should 

place on an exemption should the 

agency determine an exemption is 

appropriate (e.g., operational 

restrictions, limits on transfer of 

ownership, etc.). After considering 

public comments and other available 

information, we will publish a notice of 

final action on the application in the 

Federal Register. 

NHTSA has made no judgment at this 

time on the merits of the petition. 

IV. Public Participation 

How long do I have to submit 

comments? 

Please see DATES section at the 

beginning of this document. 

How do I prepare and submit 

comments? 

• Your comments must be written in 

English. 

• To ensure that your comments are 

correctly filed in the Docket, please 

include the Docket Number shown at 

the beginning of this document in your 

comments. 

• If you are submitting comments 

electronically as a PDF (Adobe) File, 

NHTSA asks that the documents be 

submitted using the Optical Character 

Recognition (OCR) process, thus 

allowing NHTSA to search and copy 

certain portions of your submissions. 

Comments may be submitted to the 

docket electronically by logging onto the 

Docket Management System website at 

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

online instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• You may also submit two copies of 

your comments, including the 

attachments, to Docket Management at 

the address given above under 

ADDRESSES. 

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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
48476 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 165 / Monday, August 30, 2021 / Notices 

consult the guidelines in preparing your 

comments. OMB’s guidelines may be 

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

omb/fedreg/reproducible.html. DOT’s 

guidelines may be accessed at http://

www.bts.gov/programs/statistical_

policy_and_research/data_quality_

guidelines. 

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). To facilitate social distancing 

during COVID–19, NHTSA is 

temporarily accepting confidential 

business information electronically. 

Please see https://www.nhtsa.gov/ 

coronavirus/submission-confidentialbusiness-information for details. 

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 for this 

rulemaking, 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 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. 

Issued under authority delegated in 

49 CFR 1.95 and 501.4. 

Steven S. Cliff, 

Acting Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2021–18634 Filed 8–27–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

[Docket No. NHTSA–2020–0054; Notice 1] 

Notice of Receipt of Petition for 

Decision That Nonconforming Model 

Year 2019 Schuler Spezialfahrzeuge 

GmbH Trailers Are Eligible for 

Importation 

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration, Department of 

Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Receipt of petition. 

SUMMARY: This document announces the 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration (NHTSA) receipt of a 

petition for a decision that model year 

(MY) 2019 Schuler Spezialfahrzeuge 

GmbH trailers that were not originally 

manufactured to comply with all 

applicable Federal motor vehicle safety 

standards (FMVSS), are eligible for 

importation into the United States 

because they are capable of being 

readily altered to conform to the 

standards. 

DATES: The closing date for comments 

on the petition is September 29, 2021. 

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are 

invited to submit written data, views, 

and arguments on this petition. 

Comments must refer to the docket and 

notice number cited in the title of this 

notice and may be submitted by any of 

the following methods: 

• Mail: Send comments by mail 

addressed to the U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Docket Operations, 

M–30, West Building Ground Floor, 

Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590. 

• Hand Delivery: Deliver comments 

by hand to the U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Docket Operations, 

M–30, West Building Ground Floor, 

Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590. The 

Docket Section is open on weekdays 

from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. except for Federal 

Holidays. 

• Electronically: Submit comments 

electronically by logging onto the 

Federal Docket Management System 

(FDMS) website at https://

www.regulations.gov/. Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Comments may also be faxed to 

(202) 493–2251. 

Comments must be written in the 

English language, and be no greater than 

15 pages in length, although there is no 

limit to the length of necessary 

attachments to the comments. If 

comments are submitted in hard copy 

form, please ensure that two copies are 

provided. If you wish to receive 

confirmation that comments you have 

submitted by mail were received, please 

enclose a stamped, self-addressed 

postcard along with the comments. Note 

that all comments received will be 

posted without change to https://

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided. 

All comments and supporting 

materials received before the close of 

business on the closing date indicated 

above will be filed in the docket and 

will be considered. All comments and 

supporting materials received after the 

closing date will also be filed and will 

be considered to the fullest extent 

possible. 

All comments, background 

documentation, and supporting 

materials submitted to the docket may 

be viewed by anyone at the address and 

times given above. The documents may 

also be viewed on the internet at https:// 

www.regulations.gov by following the 

online instructions for accessing the 

dockets. The docket ID number for this 

petition is shown in the heading of this 

notice. 

DOT’s complete Privacy Act 

Statement is available for review in a 

Federal Register notice published on 

April 11, 2000, (65 FR 19477–78). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Robert Mazurowski, Office of Vehicle 

Safety Compliance, NHTSA (202–366– 

1012). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

Under 49 U.S.C. 30141(a)(1)(A), a 

motor vehicle that was not originally 

manufactured to conform to all 

applicable FMVSS shall be refused 

admission into the United States unless 

NHTSA has decided that the motor 

vehicle is substantially similar to a 

motor vehicle originally manufactured 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES