[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 184 (Monday, September 22, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 54660-54662]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-22082]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2008-0152]


Think Technology AS; Receipt of Application for a Temporary 
Exemption 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 petition for temporary exemption from 
certain provisions of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 
208, Occupant Crash Protection.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: In accordance with the procedures in 49 CFR Part 555, Think 
Technology AS 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 the 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 the 
vehicle.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ To view the application, go to http://www.regulations.gov 
and enter the docket number set forth in the heading of this 
document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This notice of receipt of an application for temporary exemption is 
published in accordance with the applicable statutory provisions. NHTSA 
has not made any judgment on the merits of the application.

DATES: You should submit your comments not later than October 22, 2008.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ari Scott, 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:
    <bullet> Web Site: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 
instructions for submitting comments on the electronic docket site by 
clicking on ``Help and Information'' or ``Help/Info.''
    <bullet> Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
    <bullet> Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket 
Operations, M-30, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE, Washington, 
DC 20590.
    <bullet> Hand Delivery: 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building 
Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC, between 9 am and 5 pm, 
Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays.
    <bullet> Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting 
comments.
    Instructions: All submissions must include the agency name and 
docket number. Note that all comments received will be posted without 
change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal 
information provided.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or 
comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov at any time or to 
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 am and 5 pm, Monday through Friday, 
except Federal Holidays. Telephone: (202) 366-9826.
    Privacy Act: Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all 
comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual 
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf 
of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's 
complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on 
April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages 19477-78), or you may visit 
http://www.dot.gov/privacy.html.
    Confidential Business Information: If you wish to submit any 
information under a claim of confidentiality, you should submit three 
copies of your complete submission, including the information you claim 
to be confidential business information, to the Chief Counsel, NHTSA, 
at the address given under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. In 
addition, you should submit two copies, from which you have deleted the 
claimed confidential business information, to Docket Management at the 
address given above. When you send a comment containing information 
claimed to be confidential business information, you should include a 
cover letter setting forth the information specified in our 
confidential business information regulation (49 CFR Part 512).
    We will 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

    In 2000, NHTSA upgraded the requirements for air bags in passenger 
cars and light trucks, requiring what are commonly known as ``advanced 
air bags.'' \2\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See 65 FR 30680 (May 12, 2000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.

[[Page 54661]]

    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 Think Technology 
AS, a Norwegian manufacturer of battery electric vehicles, which 
utilize chemical energy stored in rechargeable battery packs and 
electric motors instead of internal combustion engines. The vehicle at 
issue is entitled the Think City EV, a zero-emissions vehicle.

II. Background of Manufacturer

    The Think City EV originally began as a project started in 1998 by 
PIVCO AS in Norway. According to the petitioner, in 2000, the PIVCO 
project was acquired by Ford Motor Company, a major U.S. automobile 
manufacturer, as part of an effort to comply with the State of 
California's Zero Emissions Vehicle mandate. Ford created a project 
called Think, which produced 350 Think City EV cars based on the PIVCO 
project in 2000, which were leased as part of a demonstration and 
testing project. However, in light of the California Air Resources 
Board's decision in 2003 to essentially end the requirement for 
``pure'' electric cars, Ford sold the Think project to KamKorp, a 
company based in Switzerland. In 2006, a new ownership occurred 
creating Think Global AS.
    Think Technology AS is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Think Global 
AS, a holding company that possesses the intellectual property rights 
to the Think City EV. The current owners of Think Global AS include the 
founders of the PIVCO project, the precursor to the Think City EV, as 
well as various other entities in Norway and other countries. Neither 
Think Global AS nor Think Technology AS (hereinafter, ``Think'') has 
sold any vehicles in the U.S. to date.

III. Statutory Basis for Requested Part 555 Exemption

    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 30113 and the procedures in 49 CFR 
Part 555, Think 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 the 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 the 
vehicle. A copy of the petition is available for review and has been 
placed in the docket for this notice. Specifically, Think has requested 
an exemption for a period of two years upon the grant of the petition. 
This requested exemption includes the advanced air bag requirements in 
S14.5.2 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). The petitioner stated that the vehicle will be equipped 
with standard air bags and will comply with the rigid barrier belted 
test requirement using the 50th percentile adult male test dummy set 
forth in S14.5.1(a) of FMVSS No. 208.

IV. Summary of Information Provided by Petitioner and Supporting 
Arguments

    A petitioner must provide specified information in submitting a 
petition for exemption. These requirements are specified in 49 CFR 
555.5, and include a number of items. Foremost among them are that the 
petitioner must set forth the basis of the application under Sec.  
555.6, and the reasons why the exemption would be in the public 
interest and consistent with the objectives of 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301.
    This section summarizes the information provided by the petitioner 
and its supporting arguments. In this case, the basis of the 
application is to facilitate the development and evaluation of a low 
emission vehicle, the requirements of which are given in Sec.  
555.6(c). The main requirements of this section include: (1) 
Substantiation that the vehicle is a low-emission vehicle; (2) 
documentation establishing that a temporary exemption would not 
unreasonably degrade the safety of the vehicle; (3) substantiation that 
a temporary exemption would facilitate the development or field 
evaluation of the vehicle; (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 United States in any 12-month period for which an exemption 
may be granted.

a. Petitioner's Statement That the Think City EV Is a Low-Emission 
Vehicle

    Think asserts that the Think City EV is a low-emission vehicle. It 
states that 49 U.S.C. 30113(a) defines a low-emission vehicle as one 
that conforms to the applicable standards for new vehicles contained in 
section 202 of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7521), and whose emissions 
are significantly below on of those standards. Section 202 of the Clear 
Air Act currently controls hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide, oxides of 
nitrogen, and particulate matter. Think asserts that the Think City EV 
emits none of the listed pollutants. It also asserts that the vehicle 
has no additional systems installed that could produce the named 
pollutants, e.g., a fuel-fired heating system.

b. Petitioner's Statement That a Temporary Exemption Would Not 
Unreasonably Degrade Safety

    This portion of the regulation requires that the petitioner provide 
four items of information. The first is a detailed description of how 
the low-emission vehicle would differ from one that complies with the 
standard. The second, required only of manufacturers currently 
producing a vehicle conforming to the standard, is the results of tests 
conducted to substantiate certification with the standard. The third 
requirement is for the petitioner to provide the results of any tests 
that demonstrate the vehicle's failure to meet the standard, expressed 
in as comparative performance levels. Finally, the fourth requirement 
is for the petitioner to provide reasons why the failure to meet the 
standard does not unreasonably degrade the safety or impact protection 
of the vehicle.
i. Petitioner's Description of How the Think City Would Differ From a 
Vehicle That Complies With FMVSS No. 208
    Think is applying for an exemption from the advanced air bag 
requirements of Standard No. 208. However, the Think City EV is not 
without air bags. Think states that the Think City EV will comply with 
the pre-advanced air bag requirements of FMVSS No. 208. As stated in 
the petition, the only differences between a compliant vehicle and the 
Think City EV are the items discussed above in the requested exemption. 
Namely, these are limited to the provisions in requirements in S14.5.2 
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

[[Page 54662]]

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).
ii. Testing Results Substantiating Certification With the Standard
    As Think has not designed vehicles that conform to FMVSS No. 208, 
it is not required nor able to show testing results substantiating 
certification with the standard.
iii. Any Testing Results Demonstrating the Vehicle's Failure To Meet 
the Standard
    Think has not provided the results of testing demonstrating that 
the Think City EV has specifically failed the advanced air bag 
requirement. We note that generally a manufacturer would only be able 
to meet those requirements by installing an air bag system specifically 
designed to meet those requirements.
iv. Petitioner's Reasons as to Why the Vehicle Does Not Unreasonably 
Degrade Safety or Impact Protection
    Think argues that safety and impact protection are not unreasonably 
degraded by the requested exemption. The petitioner claimed that the 
vehicle was designed, engineered and tested by Ford to meet all 2003 
NHTSA requirements. It states further that the Think City EV will:
    <bullet> Meet the new belted test requirements of S14.5.1(a), which 
imposes more stringent limits for head injury criteria, chest, and neck 
deflection than the old version to which the vehicle was originally 
designed;
    <bullet> Meet the new, more stringent criteria for injury 
prevention under S13, with regard to the unbelted sled test;
    <bullet> Have FMVSS No. 209 and 210 compliant belts and anchorages, 
together with pretensioners and load limiters;
    <bullet> Have a passenger air bag on-off switch permitted by FMVSS 
No. 208; and
    <bullet> Meet all other requirements of the FMVSSs.

Therefore, the petitioner argues that the Think City EV will not 
unreasonably degrade safety or impact protection.

c. Petitioner's Statement That a Temporary Exemption Would Facilitate 
the Development or Evaluation of the Think City EV

    Think states that the temporary exemption it seeks would facilitate 
the evaluation and development of the Think City EV. The petitioner 
claims that it currently does not have the ability to design or acquire 
an air bag system that meets the advanced air bag requirements of 
Standard No. 208. While the Think City EV air bag's system is a dual 
stage system, it is currently designed with a fixed phase delay as 
Think does not yet have an electrical control unit or hardware, such as 
seat position sensing, that can meet all of the advanced air bag 
requirements. Think also asserts that off-the-shelf systems that meet 
the requirements are not currently available, and that the sourcing of 
a custom designed system is not straightforward or financially viable 
at this time.
    The requested exemption will facilitate the development of the 
Think City EV by allowing Think to enter the U.S. market, a key target 
market for the vehicle at issue. Think states that this will enable the 
company to evaluate the vehicle, and based on this evaluation, continue 
development, including successive models. Specifically, Think claims 
that the two year exemption will permit:
    <bullet> Evaluation and further development of alternative battery 
concepts;
    <bullet> Evaluation and further development of vehicle systems 
based on real-world usage under U.S.-specific driving and storage 
conditions;
    <bullet> Product evaluation through U.S. warranty analysis and 
customer feedback;
    <bullet> Further evaluation of the company's plan to establish a 
U.S. manufacturing operation; and
    <bullet> Development of a compliant advanced air bag system.

d. Petitioner's Statement of Intent To Comply or Cease Production Upon 
Expiration of the Temporary Exemption

    On the third page of its petition, Think states, ``[a]t the end of 
the exemption period, Think intends to conform with all advanced air 
bag requirements.''

e. Petitioner's Statement as to the Number of Vehicles To Be Produced 
in Any 12-Month Period Covered by the Temporary Exemption

    Think has provided figures for the projected U.S. vehicle sales of 
the Think City EV during the period of the requested exemption. For the 
first year, Think projects that it will sell 500 Think City EVs. For 
the second year, the company projects that it will sell 2500 Think City 
EVs. Think stated that if the petition is granted, it undertakes not to 
sell in the U.S. in excess of 2500 Think City exempted vehicles during 
any 12-month period during the duration of the exemption.

f. Petitioner's Statement Regarding Public Interest Considerations for 
Granting a Temporary Exemption

    Under Sec.  555.5(b)(7), a petitioner must set forth reasons why 
the granting of the petition would be in the public interest and 
consistent with the objectives of 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301. We are 
providing a summary of the petitioner's arguments and note that more 
detailed arguments can be found by examining the petition.
    Think argued that the risk to safety is de minimis. Among other 
things, it stated, as indicated above, that the Think City will be 
equipped with a standard air bag system, and will also meet all other 
FMVSSs.
    Think also argued that the Think City is a major step forward in 
transportation that will help the environment, and that granting the 
exemption will protect U.S. consumer choice and will benefit the 
environment.
    Think provided the following reasons battery electric vehicles 
(BEVs) are important:
    <bullet> BEVs can reduce dependence on oil since electric power can 
be generated in environmentally friendly ways, including from wind, 
solar rays, waves, or geothermal power, and not just from fossil fuel.
    <bullet> BEVs can be far more energy efficient compared to Internal 
Combustion Engine (ICE) powered cars. Think's analysis indicates that 
urban driving of a Think City compared with other fuel efficient cars 
reduces CO2 emissions per driver kilometer by about 96% in Norway 
(where electricity is generated from hydroelectric sources) and 30% in 
the UK, where electricity is generated primarily from fossil fuels.
    <bullet> BEVs are themselves zero-emissions vehicles and are not a 
source of air pollution.
    <bullet> BEVs recharging costs are more predictable than gasoline 
prices, and not as subject to volatile international incidents.

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 
final action on the application in the Federal Register.

    Issued on: September 16, 2008.
Stephen R. Kratzke,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. E8-22082 Filed 9-19-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P