Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 182 / Tuesday, September 21, 2010 / Notices 57549 

1See 65 FR 30680 (May 12, 2000). 

for public and agency review and 

comment prior to the public hearings. 

To ensure that the full range of issues 

related to this proposed action are 

identified and taken into account, 

comments and suggestions are invited 

from all interested parties. Comments 

and questions concerning the proposed 

action should be directed to the FHWA 

contact person identified above at the 

address provided above. 

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance 

Program Number 20.205, Highway Planning 

and Construction. The regulations 

implementing Executive Order 12372 

regarding intergovernmental consultation on 

Federal programs and activities apply to this 

proposed program). 

Charles J. O’Neill, 

Planning & Program Mgmt. Team Leader, 

Nashville, TN. 

[FR Doc. 2010–23527 Filed 9–20–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Highway Administration 

Notice To Rescind a Notice of Intent To 

Prepare a Supplemental Environmental 

Impact Statement (SEIS): Route 475 

(Knoxville Parkway), From Interstate 75 

South of Knoxville to Interstate 75 

North of Knoxville, Loudon, Knox, and 

Anderson Counties, TN 

AGENCY: Federal Highway 

Administration (FHWA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of intent. 

SUMMARY: The Federal Highway 

Administration (FHWA) is issuing this 

notice to advise the public that the 

Notice of Intent published on November 

4, 2005 to prepare a SEIS for the 

proposed Route 475 (Knoxville 

Parkway) from Interstate 75 south of 

Knoxville to Interstate 75 north of 

Knoxville, Loudon, Knox, and Anderson 

Counties, Tennessee, is being rescinded. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Charles J. O’Neill, Planning and 

Program Management Team Leader, 

Federal Highway Administration— 

Tennessee Division Office, 404 BNA 

Drive, Suite 508, Nashville, TN 37217. 

615–781–5770. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

FHWA, in cooperation with the 

Tennessee Department of 

Transportation, is rescinding the notice 

of intent to prepare a SEIS for the 

proposed Route 475 (Knoxville 

Parkway) from Interstate 75 south of 

Knoxville to Interstate 75 north of 

Knoxville, Loudon, Knox, and Anderson 

Counties, Tennessee. The proposed 

project was approximately 36 miles in 

length. 

The project as described in the 

December 18, 2001 Draft Environmental 

Impact Statement (DEIS) was proposed 

to improve the regional transportation 

system in the area. 

Since the original Draft 

Environmental Impact was approved, 

the alternative development and 

screening process for the project has 

continued through a Context Sensitive 

Solution Process (CSS). This CSS 

process identified new alternatives to 

follow the general alignment of the 

Orange alternative, but had been shifted 

at various locations based on input from 

the CSS process. In addition, the 

number and type of access points along 

the route have been modified. The 

purpose of the SDEIS was to study and 

develop the new alternatives. The NoBuild and three Build Alternatives were 

proposed to be studied in the SDEIS. 

Revised traffic projections show a 

much lower level of traffic using the 

new proposed Route 475 (Knoxville 

Parkway) and a smaller diversion of 

traffic from Interstate 40 and Interstate 

75 than was originally projected. In 

addition, the estimated cost of 

approximately one billion dollars was 

determined to be prohibitive. 

To ensure that the full range of issues 

related to this proposed action are 

identified and taken into account, 

comments and suggestions are invited 

from all interested parties. Comments 

and questions concerning the proposed 

action should be directed to the FHWA 

contact person identified above at the 

address provided above. 

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance 

Program Number 20.205, Highway Planning 

and Construction. The regulations 

implementing Executive Order 12372 

regarding intergovernmental consultation on 

Federal programs and activities apply to this 

proposed program.) 

Charles J. O’Neill, 

Planning and Program Mgmt., Team Leader, 

Nashville, TN. 

[FR Doc. 2010–23525 Filed 9–20–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

[Docket No. NHTSA–2010–0069] 

Fisker Automotive; Grant of 

Application for Temporary Exemption 

From Advanced Air Bag Requirements 

of FMVSS No. 208 

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration (NHTSA), 

Department of Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Notice of grant of petition for 

temporary exemption from certain 

provisions of Federal Motor Vehicle 

Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 208, 

Occupant Crash Protection. 

SUMMARY: This notice grants the petition 

of Fisker Automotive Corporation 

(Fisker) from certain advanced air bag 

requirements of FMVSS No. 208, for the 

Karma model. The basis for the 

application is that compliance would 

cause substantial economic hardship to 

a manufacturer that has tried in good 

faith to comply with the standard. This 

action follows our publication in the 

Federal Register of a document 

announcing receipt of Fisker’s petition 

and soliciting public comments. 

DATES: The exemption is effective 

immediately and remains in effect until 

September 21, 2011. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Edward Glancy, 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. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

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 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 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
57550 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 182 / Tuesday, September 21, 2010 / Notices 

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

4The July 30. 2010 submission was submitted on 

behalf of Fisker by Global Vehicle Services 

Corporation. 

encourage the placement of children in 

rear seats. 

The new requirements were phased in 

beginning with the 2004 model year. 

Small volume manufacturers were not 

subject to the advanced air bag 

requirements until September 1, 2006. 

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. NHTSA has granted a number 

of these petitions, usually in situations 

where the manufacturer is supplying 

standard air bags in lieu of advanced air 

bags.2 In addressing these petitions, 

NHTSA has recognized that small 

manufacturers may face particular 

difficulties in acquiring or developing 

advanced air bag systems. 

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 exemption granted by this 

agency. In the present case, we are 

addressing a petition for a temporary 

exemption from the advanced air bag 

requirements submitted by a 

manufacturer of a plug-in hybrid 

electric car. The basis of the petition 

was substantial economic hardship to a 

manufacturer that has tried in good faith 

to comply with the standard. 

II. Statutory Basis for Requested Part 

555 Exemption 

The National Traffic and Motor 

Vehicle Safety Act, codified as 49 U.S.C. 

Chapter 301, provides the Secretary of 

Transportation authority to exempt, on 

a temporary basis and under specified 

circumstances, motor vehicles from a 

motor vehicle safety standard or bumper 

standard. This authority is set forth at 

49 U.S.C. 30113. The Secretary has 

delegated the authority for this section 

to NHTSA. 

NHTSA established part 555, 

Temporary Exemption from Motor 

Vehicle Safety and Bumper Standards, 

to implement the statutory provisions 

concerning temporary exemptions. 

Vehicle manufacturers may apply for 

temporary exemptions on several bases, 

one of which is that compliance would 

cause substantial economic hardship to 

a manufacturer that has tried in good 

faith to comply with the standard. 

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 

§ 555.6, and the reasons why the 

exemption would be in the public 

interest and consistent with the 

objectives of 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301. 

A manufacturer is eligible to apply for 

a hardship exemption if its total motor 

vehicle production in its most recent 

year of production did not exceed 

10,000 vehicles, as determined by the 

NHTSA Administrator (49 U.S.C. 

30113). 

In determining whether a 

manufacturer of a vehicle meets that 

criterion, NHTSA considers whether a 

second vehicle manufacturer also might 

be deemed the manufacturer of that 

vehicle. The statutory provisions 

governing motor vehicle safety (49 

U.S.C. Chapter 301) do not state that a 

manufacturer has substantial 

responsibility as manufacturer of a 

vehicle simply because it owns or 

controls a second manufacturer that 

assembled that vehicle. However, the 

agency considers the statutory 

definition of ‘‘manufacturer’’ (49 U.S.C. 

30102) to be sufficiently broad to 

include sponsors, depending on the 

circumstances. Thus, NHTSA has stated 

that a manufacturer may be deemed to 

be a sponsor and thus a manufacturer of 

a vehicle assembled by a second 

manufacturer if the first manufacturer 

had a substantial role in the 

development and manufacturing 

process of that vehicle. 

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

states that exemptions from a Safety Act 

standard are to be granted on a 

‘‘temporary basis,’’ 3 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. 

III. Fisker’s Petition 

Fisker submitted a petition for 

exemption from certain requirements of 

FMVSS No. 208, Occupant Crash 

Protection, pursuant to 49 CFR part 555, 

Temporary Exemption from Motor 

Vehicle Safety and Bumper Standards. 

Specifically, the petition requested an 

exemption from paragraphs S14, S15, 

S17, S19, S21, S23, and S25 of FMVSS 

No. 208, which relate to the advanced 

air bag requirements. However, the 

petitioner stated that it will be 

compliant with S14.5.1(b), barrier test 

requirements using belted 50th 

percentile adult male dummies. The 

basis of the petition was substantial 

economic hardship to a manufacturer 

that has tried in good faith to comply 

with the standard. 

In its petition, Fisker requested an 

exemption for the Karma model ‘‘for a 

period of one year from the date of 

NHTSA approval or until May 24, 2011, 

by which time Fisker will be able to 

fully comply with the requirements of 

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 

208.’’ In a submission dated July 30, 

2010, Fisker 4 stated that due to delays 

in vehicle availability for air bag system 

development and testing, it was 

requesting that the exemption be for ‘‘a 

period of one year from the date of 

NHTSA approval, by which time Fisker 

will be able to fully comply with the 

requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle 

Safety Standard 208.’’ 

According to the petition, Fisker is a 

privately held company incorporated in 

the State of Delaware, with headquarters 

in California. Its total motor vehicle 

production during the 12 months 

preceding the filing of the petition was 

0 vehicles. We note that Fisker 

Automotive was established in 

September 2007 as a joint venture of 

Fisker Coachbuild, LLC and Quantum 

Fuel System Technologies Worldwide, 

Inc. 

The petitioner stated that the Fisker 

Karma is a completely new passenger 

car model. Design and development of 

the Karma began in late 2007. The 

Karma is being designed and developed 

to meet all applicable FMVSS and EEC 

regulations, including the installation of 

eight air bags on the coupe version and 

six air bags on the convertible version. 

Fisker stated the air bag system is being 

developed through cooperation with 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 182 / Tuesday, September 21, 2010 / Notices 57551 

5Chrysler submitted a comment noting that the 

petition from Fisker was not posted in the docket 

until late in the comment period, and requested a 

‘‘nominal amount of time (<10 business days)’’ to 

fully consider the petition and finalize comments. 

However, Chrysler did not subsequently submit a 

substantive comment. 

6See grant of petition to Tesla Motors, Inc., 73 FR 

4944, 4948 (Jan. 28, 2008). 

Takata, Tass, and Bosch, which have 

been granted contracts to complete the 

development of the air bag systems. The 

petitioner stated that these companies 

were retained in 2008/2009 and are 

continuing the efforts to develop an air 

bag system that is fully compliant with 

the requirements of FMVSS No. 208. 

Fisker stated that it subcontracted the 

advanced air bag system development to 

experienced outside companies, and 

that the air bag development costs 

represent a very significant expenditure 

to the company. It provided information 

to show that its costs total $7,714,857. 

Fisker stated that without a temporary 

exemption, which would enable the 

company to generate funds through the 

sale of vehicles, it may not be able to 

sustain the air bag and vehicle 

development programs, causing 

substantial economic hardship to the 

company. 

The petitioner stated that if the 

exemption petition is approved, the 

Karma models sold under the 

exemption will be compliant with all 

FMVSSs, with the exception of certain 

sections of FMVSS No. 208. Fisker 

stated that the coupe version will be 

equipped with eight functional air bags 

(front, side, knee and curtain air bags), 

and the convertible version will be 

equipped with six functional air bags 

(front, side and knee air bags). Both 

versions will include seat belts with 

pretensioners and load limiters. Also, 

according to the petitioner, both models 

will be compliant with the 50th 

percentile adult male dummy unbelted 

test requirements contained in section 

13 of the standard. 

Fisker argued that sales of the Karma 

are in the public interest. It stated that 

the Karma ‘‘is leading the way towards 

the introduction of advanced lowemission vehicle technologies to the US 

and world markets.’’ Fisker stated that 

the Karma will be the first plug-in 

hybrid passenger car available for 

purchase by the general public. It also 

cited benefits of employment 

opportunities. 

IV. Notice of Receipt 

On June 2, 2010 we published in the 

Federal Register (75 FR 30900) a notice 

of receipt of Fisker’s petition for 

temporary exemption, and provided an 

opportunity for public comment. We 

did not receive any substantive 

comments.5

V. Agency Analysis and Decision 

In this section we provide our 

analysis and decision regarding Fisker’s 

temporary exemption request 

concerning advanced air bag 

requirements of FMVSS No. 208. 

As discussed below, we are granting 

Fisker’s petition for the Karma to be 

exempted, for a period of one year, from 

S14 (apart from S14.5.1(b)), S15, S17, 

S19, S21, S23, and S25 of FMVSS No. 

208. In addition to certifying 

compliance with the belted 50th 

percentile adult male dummy barrier 

impact requirements in S14.5.1(b), 

Fisker must certify to the unbelted 50th 

percentile adult male dummy barrier 

impact test requirement that applied 

prior to September 1, 2006 (S5.1.2(a)). 

For purposes of this exemption, the 

unbelted sled test in S13 is an 

acceptable option for that requirement. 

a. Issues Related to Eligibility 

As discussed above, a manufacturer is 

eligible to apply for an economic 

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). Moreover, in determining 

whether a manufacturer of a vehicle 

meets that criterion, NHTSA considers 

whether a second vehicle manufacturer 

also might be deemed the manufacturer 

of that vehicle. 

While Fisker developed the Karma, 

the vehicle will be assembled in Finland 

by Valmet Automotive (Valmet). The 

petitioner can be considered a 

manufacturer of the Karma as a 

‘‘sponsor,’’ even though the vehicle will 

be assembled by Valmet. 

In considering the issue of eligibility 

in the present situation, Fisker does not 

currently manufacture any vehicles. 

Therefore, there is no issue as to 

whether it manufactures vehicles other 

than the Karma. 

We next consider whether persons 

other than Fisker can be considered to 

manufacture the Karma. The answer is 

yes. Valmet will be a manufacturer of 

the Karma by virtue of assembling it. 

See 49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(5). 

Given that both Fisker and Valmet can 

be considered manufacturers of the 

Karma, there are a number of potential 

issues concerning how the agency 

should analyze the petition, e.g., 

whether to consider one or both 

companies with respect to the 10,000 

vehicle limitation for eligibility, 

hardship, good faith efforts, etc. We 

note, for example, that we have in the 

past cited the possible situation of large 

manufacturers potentially avoiding the 

statutory 10,000 vehicle limit by 

engaging in joint ventures with small 

companies and having the small 

company submit the petition.6

Valmet is a company which is known 

as a contract manufacturer of specialty 

cars. Among other things, it has 

manufactured the Boxster and Cayman 

for Porsche. 

Fisker introduced the Karma in 

January 2008 at the North American 

International Auto Show in Detroit. In 

July 2008, Valmet issued a press release 

titled ‘‘Valmet Automotive announces a 

Letter of Intent for an Assembly 

Contract with Fisker Automotive.’’ The 

press release indicated that Valmet was 

chosen as the engineering and 

manufacturing supplier for Fisker after 

an extensive global search. In November 

2008, Valmet issued a press release 

titled ‘‘Valmet Automotive and Fisker 

Automotive have signed the cooperation 

agreement.’’ 

As noted above, Fisker stated in its 

petition that the Karma is a completely 

new passenger car model. According to 

the petitioner, the chassis, body, and 

powertrain are being designed and 

developed by Fisker with assistance 

from a large number of suppliers, which 

include EDAG, Magna International, 

Quantum Technologies, TRW, Tass, 

Lear, Visteon, Rousch, Global Vehicle 

Services, General Motors, ESG, and 

Takata Holdings. 

Based on the available information, 

we believe that Valmet’s role with the 

Karma is primarily that of an assembly 

contractor, i.e., Valmet did not play a 

significant role in the development of 

the vehicle at issue. We also note that, 

as indicated above, the petitioner stated 

that the Karma is a completely new 

passenger car model. 

Given the above, we believe Fisker 

should be considered eligible to apply 

for an economic hardship exemption 

without regard to the circumstances of 

Valmet. While Valmet is also considered 

a manufacturer of the Karma by virtue 

of assembling it, the role of an assembly 

contractor is a relatively limited one in 

the overall production of a vehicle. We 

believe that this particular situation 

does not raise concerns along the lines 

of a large manufacturer potentially 

avoiding the statutory 10,000 vehicle 

limit by engaging in a joint venture with 

a small company and having the small 

company submit the petition. 

It is not necessary in responding to 

this petition to resolve all potential 

issues related to eligibility that may 

arise in a situation where more than one 

company can be considered a 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
57552 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 182 / Tuesday, September 21, 2010 / Notices 

manufacturer of a vehicle that is the 

subject of an economic hardship 

exemption. We will address these issues 

as necessary in the context of a specific 

petition or contemplated manufacturer 

relationship that is brought before us. 

b. Economic Hardship 

As noted earlier, Fisker stated that it 

subcontracted the advanced air bag 

system development to experienced 

outside companies, and that the air bag 

development costs represent a very 

significant expenditure to the company. 

It provided information to show that its 

costs total $7,714,857. Fisker stated that 

without a temporary exemption, which 

would enable the company to generate 

funds through the sale of vehicles, it 

may not be able to sustain the air bag 

and vehicle development programs, 

causing substantial financial economic 

hardship to the company. 

Fisker estimated that if the exemption 

is approved, it would have net income 

(loss) of $ (21,724,141) in 2011 and net 

income of $ 188,768,234 in 2012. The 

petitioner estimated that without the 

exemption, it would have net income 

(loss) of $ (50,592,209) in 2011 and net 

income (loss) of $ (132,268,961) in 2012. 

After reviewing the financial and 

other information provided by Fisker, 

we believe that company has shown 

substantial economic hardship. Without 

the exemption, Fisker will not be able 

to begin manufacturing and selling the 

Karma during the one-year period it 

needs to complete the design and 

development programs necessary to 

meet the advanced air bag requirements. 

Moreover, the company does not have 

any other models to sell. Considering 

the overall circumstances of the 

company, the financial impacts would 

represent substantial economic 

hardship. 

c. Good Faith Efforts To Comply 

As noted earlier, the petitioner stated 

that the Fisker Karma is a completely 

new passenger car model. Design and 

development of the Karma began in late 

2007. The Karma is being designed and 

developed to meet all applicable 

FMVSSs and European Economic 

Community (EEC) regulations, including 

the installation of eight air bags on the 

coupe version and six air bags on the 

convertible version. Fisker stated the air 

bag system is being developed through 

cooperation with Takata, Tass, and 

Bosch, which have been granted 

contracts to complete the development 

of the air bag systems. The petitioner 

stated that these companies were 

retained in 2008/2009 and are 

continuing the efforts to develop an air 

bag system that is fully compliant with 

the requirements of FMVSS No. 208. 

Fisker stated that it subcontracted the 

advanced air bag system development to 

experienced outside companies, and 

that the air bag development costs 

represent a very significant expenditure 

to the company. It provided information 

to show that its costs total $7,714,857. 

Fisker stated that without a temporary 

exemption, which would enable the 

company to generate funds through the 

sale of vehicles, it may not be able to 

sustain the air bag and vehicle 

development programs, causing 

substantial financial economic hardship 

to the company. 

After reviewing Fisker’s petition, we 

believe that company has made good 

faith efforts to comply with the 

advanced air bag requirements. Fisker is 

a new company, and the Karma is a 

completely new passenger car model. 

While the company is designing and 

developing the Karma to comply with 

all of the FMVSSs, it is requesting a oneyear exemption from the advanced air 

bag requirements to enable it to begin 

manufacturing and selling vehicles 

while it completes the design and 

development programs necessary to 

meet the advanced air bag requirements. 

We note that Fisker has contracts in 

place for this development. 

We also note that Fisker has made 

significant financial investments in the 

Karma, including the occupant 

protection system. Fisker stated if the 

exemption petition is approved, the 

Karma models sold under the 

exemption will be compliant with all 

FMVSSs with the exception of the 

advanced air bag provisions. The coupe 

version will be equipped with eight 

functional air bags (front, side, knee and 

curtain air bags). The convertible 

version will be equipped with six 

functional air bags (front, side and knee 

air bags). Both versions will include seat 

belts with pretensioners and load 

limiters. According to the petitioner, 

both models with be compliant with the 

50th percentile male unbelted test 

requirements contained in S13 of 

FMVSS No. 208. 

In sum, we believe that considering 

Fisker’s overall situation, the efforts that 

company has made to date, the plans it 

has in place, and the fact that it intends 

to fully comply with the advanced air 

bag requirements within one year, 

Fisker has made good faith efforts to 

comply with those requirements. 

d. Public Interest Considerations 

NHTSA has traditionally found that 

the public interest is served by affording 

consumers a wider variety of motor 

vehicles, by encouraging the 

development of fuel-efficient and 

alternative-energy vehicles, and 

providing additional employment 

opportunities. We believe that all three 

of these public interest considerations 

would be served by granting Fisker’s 

petition. 

We note that on April 23, 2010, the 

Department of Energy (DOE) issued a 

press release announcing the closing of 

a $529 million loan to Fisker for the 

development and production of two 

lines of plug-in hybrid electric vehicles 

(PHEV). DOE stated that ‘‘the loan will 

support the Karma, a full-size, four-door 

sports sedan, and a line of family 

oriented models being developed under 

the company’s Project NINA program.’’ 

DOE stated that Fisker expects to 

manufacture the Karma and Project 

NINA lines at a recently shuttered 

General Motors (GM) factory in 

Wilmington, Delaware, and that the 

company anticipates that it will employ 

2,000 American assembly workers. 

Industry experts expect that domestic 

parts suppliers and service providers 

also will increase employment 

substantially. 

According to the DOE press release: 

• Fisker’s plug-in hybrid products 

will be among the first to market and 

will help to accelerate the introduction 

of fuel-saving electrified vehicles in the 

U.S. 

• Initially, Fisker will use the 

proceeds of the loan for qualifying 

engineering integration costs as it works 

with primarily U.S. suppliers to 

incorporate components into the 

Karma’s design. The engineering 

integration work will be conducted in 

Irvine, California, where engineers will 

design tools and equipment and develop 

manufacturing processes. The Karma is 

scheduled to appear in showrooms in 

late 2010. The second stage will involve 

the purchase and retooling of the former 

GM plant to manufacture the Project 

NINA line of PHEVs, which is expected 

to begin rolling off the assembly line in 

late 2012. 

• Fisker automobiles are driven by 

electric motors that get their power from 

a rechargeable Lithium-ion battery, or, 

when that is depleted, by a generator 

driven by an efficient gas-powered 

engine. The Karma and Project NINA 

models will have an all-electric, 

tailpipe-emission-free range of 40 to 50 

miles on a full charge, more than most 

Americans drive each day. The battery 

can be charged at home overnight. Using 

gas and electric power, Fisker plug-in 

hybrids are expected to have a cruising 

range of up to 300 miles. 

While some of the items discussed in 

the DOE press release are longer-term, 

the granting of Fisker’s petition will 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 182 / Tuesday, September 21, 2010 / Notices 57553 

7Lower Anchors and Tethers for Children 

(LATCH) Restraint System. 

1 Montana Rail Link, Inc., and Wisconsin Central 

Ltd., Joint Petition For Rulemaking With Respect To 

49 CFR Part 1201, 8 I.C.C. 2d 625 (1992) raised the 

revenue classification level for Class I railroads 

from $50 million (1978 dollars) to $250 million 

(1991 dollars), effective for the reporting year 

beginning January 1, 1992. The Class II threshold 

was also raised from $10 million (1978 dollars) to 

$20 million (1991 dollars). 

enable it to begin the manufacture and 

sale of the Karma earlier than it could 

otherwise. This will provide additional 

consumer choice in selecting a motor 

vehicle, encourage the development of 

fuel-efficient and alternative-energy 

vehicles, and provide additional 

employment opportunities. It will also 

enable Fisker to generate funds through 

the sale of vehicles, which will help it 

sustain vehicle development plans, 

including meeting the advanced air bag 

requirements. 

We have also considered safety issues 

related to the exemption requested by 

Fisker. With respect to transporting 

children, Fisker noted that the Karma is 

equipped with two rear seats. Each rear 

seat is equipped with a child seat 

LATCH system.7 Fisker stated that child 

seats may be safely placed in these rear 

seat positions. The Karma will also have 

the permanently affixed ‘‘sun visor air 

bag warning label’’ and a removable 

‘‘warning label on the dashboard’’ that 

NHTSA developed/requires for vehicles 

without advanced air bags. Thus, 

parents and others will be able to 

transport children in the rear seats of 

the Karma without exposing them to the 

risks of air bags, and the vehicles will 

have warning labels concerning the 

risks of air bags. This helps minimize 

any safety disbenefits of the vehicle not 

meeting requirements for advanced air 

bags. 

We also note again that the coupe 

version of the Karma will be equipped 

with eight functional air bags (front, 

side, knee and curtain air bags). The 

convertible version will be equipped 

with six functional air bags (front, side 

and knee air bags). Both versions will 

include seat belts with pretensioners 

and load limiters. 

Given the relatively small number of 

vehicles that will be produced during 

the one-year exemption and the above 

discussion, we believe that the 

requested exemption would have a 

negligible effect on motor vehicle safety. 

We note that, as explained below, 

prospective purchasers will be notified 

that the vehicle is exempted from the 

specified advanced air bag requirements 

of Standard No. 208. Under § 555.9(b), 

a manufacturer of an exempted 

passenger car must affix securely to the 

windshield or side window of each 

exempted vehicle a label containing a 

statement that the vehicle conforms to 

all applicable FMVSSs in effect on the 

date of manufacture ‘‘except for 

Standard Nos. [listing the standards by 

number and title for which an 

exemption has been granted] exempted 

pursuant to NHTSA Exemption No. 

lllll.’’ This label notifies 

prospective purchasers about the 

exemption and its subject. Under 

§ 555.9(c), this information must also be 

included on the vehicle’s certification 

label. 

The text of § 555.9 does not expressly 

indicate how the required statement on 

the two labels should read in situations 

where an exemption covers part but not 

all of a FMVSS. In this case, we believe 

that a statement that the vehicle has 

been exempted from Standard No. 208 

generally, without an indication that the 

exemption is limited to the specified 

advanced air bag provisions, could be 

misleading. A consumer might 

incorrectly believe that the vehicle has 

been exempted from all of Standard No. 

208’s requirements. Moreover, we 

believe that the addition of a reference 

to such provisions by number without 

an indication of its subject matter would 

be of little use to consumers, since they 

would not know the subject of those 

specific provisions. For these reasons, 

we believe the two labels should read in 

relevant part, ‘‘except for S14 (apart 

from S14.5.1(b)), S15, S17, S19, S21, 

S23, and S25 (Advanced Air Bag 

Requirements) of Standard No. 208, 

Occupant Crash Protection, exempted 

pursuant to * * *.’’ We note that the 

phrase ‘‘Advanced Air Bag 

Requirements’’ is an abbreviated form of 

the title of S14 of Standard No. 208. We 

believe it is reasonable to interpret 

§ 555.9 as requiring this language. 

e. Decision 

In consideration of the foregoing, we 

conclude that compliance with the 

advanced air bag requirements of 

FMVSS No. 208, Occupant Crash 

Protection, would cause substantial 

economic hardship to a manufacturer 

that has tried in good faith to comply 

with the standard. We further conclude 

that granting of an exemption would be 

in the public interest and consistent 

with the objectives of traffic safety. 

In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 

30113(b)(3)(B)(i), Fisker is granted 

NHTSA Temporary Exemption No. EX 

10–01, from S14 (apart from S14.5.1(b)), 

S15, S17, S19, S21, S23, and S25 of 

FMVSS No. 208. In addition to 

certifying compliance with the belted 

50th percentile adult male dummy 

barrier impact requirements in 

S14.5.1(b), Fisker must certify to the 

unbelted 50th percentile adult male 

dummy barrier impact test requirement 

that applied prior to September 1, 2006 

(S5.1.2(a)). For purposes of this 

exemption, the unbelted sled test in S13 

is an acceptable option for that 

requirement. 

The exemption is for the Karma and 

shall remain in effect for one year as 

indicated in the DATES section of this 

document. 

(49 U.S.C. 30113; delegations of authority 

at 49 CFR 1.50. and 501.8) 

Issued on: September 15, 2010. 

David L. Strickland, 

Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2010–23472 Filed 9–20–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Surface Transportation Board 

[STB Docket No. CU 159] 

Indexing the Annual Operating 

Revenues of Railroads 

The Surface Transportation Board 

(STB) is publishing the annual inflationadjusted index factors for 2009. These 

factors are used by the railroads to 

adjust their gross annual operating 

revenues for classification purposes. 

This indexing methodology insures that 

railroads are classified based on real 

business expansion and not from the 

affects of inflation. Classification is 

important because it determines the 

extent to which individual railroads 

must comply with STB reporting 

requirements. 

The STB’s annual inflation-adjusted 

factors are based on the annual average 

Railroad’s Freight Price Index which is 

developed by the Bureau of Labor 

Statistics (BLS). The STB’s deflator 

factor is used to deflate revenues for 

comparison with established revenue 

thresholds. 

The base year for railroads is 1991. 

The inflation index factors are presented 

as follows: 

STB RAILROAD INFLATION-ADJUSTED

INDEX AND DEFLATOR FACTOR TABLE

Year Index Deflator 

1991 .......................... 409.50 1100.00 

1992 .......................... 411.80 99.45 

1993 .......................... 415.50 98.55 

1994 .......................... 418.80 97.70 

1995 .......................... 418.17 97.85 

1996 .......................... 417.46 98.02 

1997 .......................... 419.67 97.50 

1998 .......................... 424.54 96.38 

1999 .......................... 423.01 96.72 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES