Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 22, 2009 / Notices 36303 

the authority vested in me by the Act of 

October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 

2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 

27, 1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and 

Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 

2681, et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 6501 note, et 

seq.), Delegation of Authority No. 234 of 

October 1, 1999, Delegation of Authority 

No. 236 of October 19, 1999, as 

amended, and Delegation of Authority 

No. 257 of April 15, 2003 [68 FR 19875], 

I hereby determine that the objects in 

the exhibition: ‘‘Roaring Tigers and 

Leaping Carp: Decoding the Symbolic 

Language of Chinese Animal Painting,’’ 

imported from abroad for temporary 

exhibition within the United States, are 

of cultural significance. The objects are 

imported pursuant to loan agreements 

with the foreign owners or custodians. 

I also determine that the exhibition or 

display of the exhibit objects at the 

Cincinnati Art Museum, Cincinnati, OH, 

from on or about October 9, 2009, until 

on or about January 3, 2010, and at 

possible additional exhibitions or 

venues yet to be determined, is in the 

national interest. Public Notice of these 

Determinations is ordered to be 

published in the Federal Register. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

further information, including a list of 

the exhibit objects, contact Julie 

Simpson, Attorney-Adviser, Office of 

the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of 

State (telephone: (202–453–8050). The 

address is U.S. Department of State, SA– 

44, 301 4th Street, SW., Room 700, 

Washington, DC 20547–0001. 

Dated: July 14, 2009. 

C. Miller Crouch, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Educational 

and Cultural Affairs, Department of State. 

[FR Doc. E9–17464 Filed 7–21–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4710–05–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Research & Innovative Technology 

Administration 

[Docket ID Number: RITA 2008–0002] 

Agency Information Collection; 

Activity Under OMB Review; Report of 

Extension of Credit to Political 

Candidates 

AGENCY: Research & Innovative 

Technology Administration (RITA), 

Bureau of Transportation Statistics 

(BTS), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: In compliance with the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), this notice 

announces that the Information 

Collection Request (ICR) abstracted 

below has been forwarded to the Office 

of Management and Budget (OMB) for 

extension of currently approved 

collections. The ICR describes the 

nature of the information collection and 

its expected burden. The Federal 

Register Notice with a 60-day comment 

period soliciting comments on the 

following collection of information was 

published on March 16, 2009 (74 FR 

11177–11178). 

DATES: Written comments should be 

submitted by August 21, 2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Bernie Stankus, Office of Airline 

Information, RTS–42, Room E34–409, 

RITA, BTS, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, 

SE., Washington, DC 20590–0001, 

Telephone Number (202) 366–4387, Fax 

Number (202) 366–3383 or E–MAIL 

bernard.stankus@dot.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

OMB Approval No. 2138–0016 

Title: Report of Extension of Credit to 

Political Candidates—Form 183 14 CFR 

Part 374a. 

Form No.: 183. 

Type of Review: Extension of a 

currently approved collection. 

Respondents: Certificated air carriers. 

Number of Respondents: 2 (Monthly 

Average). 

Number of Responses: 24. 

Estimated Time per Response: 1 hour. 

Total Annual Burden: 24 hours. 

Needs and Uses: The Department uses 

this form as the means to fulfill its 

obligation under the Federal Election 

Campaign Act of 1971 (the Act). The 

Act’s legislative history indicates that 

one of its statutory goals is to prevent 

candidates for Federal political office 

from incurring large amounts of 

unsecured debt with regulated 

transportation companies (e.g. airlines). 

This information collection allows the 

Department to monitor and disclose the 

amount of unsecured credit extended by 

airlines to candidates for Federal office. 

All certificated air carriers are required 

to submit this information. 

The Confidential Information 

Protection and Statistical Efficiency Act 

of 2002 (44 USC 3501), requires a 

statistical agency to clearly identify 

information it collects for non-statistical 

purposes. BTS hereby notifies the 

respondents and the public that BTS 

uses the information it collects under 

this OMB approval for non-statistical 

purposes including, but not limited to, 

transmission of both respondent’s 

identity and its data to the Federal 

Elections Commission. 

ADDRESSES: Send comments to the 

Office of Information and Regulatory 

Affairs, Office of Management and 

Budget, 725–17th Street, NW., 

Washington, DC 20503, Attention BTS 

Desk Officer. 

Comments are invited on: Whether 

the proposed collection of information 

is necessary for the proper performance 

of the functions of the Department. 

Comments should address whether the 

information will have practical utility; 

the accuracy of the Department’s 

estimate of the burden of the proposed 

information collection; ways to enhance 

the quality, utility and clarity of the 

information to be collected; and ways to 

minimize the burden of the collection of 

information on respondents, including 

the use of automated collection 

techniques or other forms of information 

technology. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on July 16, 

2009. 

Anne Suissa, 

Director, Office of Airline Information. 

[FR Doc. E9–17393 Filed 7–21–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–HY–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

[Docket No. NHTSA–2009–0063] 

Ferrari S.p.A and Ferrari North 

America, Inc.; Grant of Application for 

Extension of 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: Grant of petition for extension 

of a temporary exemption from certain 

provisions of Federal Motor Vehicle 

Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 208, 

Occupant Crash Protection. 

SUMMARY: This notice grants the Ferrari 

S.p.A and Ferrari North America, Inc. 

application for extension of a temporary 

exemption from some requirements of 

FMVSS No. 208, Occupant Crash 

Protection. The exemption applies to 

the F430 vehicle line. In accordance 

with 49 CFR part 555, the basis for the 

grant is that compliance would cause 

substantial economic hardship to a lowvolume manufacturer that has tried in 

good faith to comply with the standard, 

and the exemption would have a 

negligible impact on motor vehicle 

safety. The exemption is effective 

through August 31, 2009. 

In accordance with the requirements 

of 49 U.S.C. 30113(b)(2), we published 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
36304 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 22, 2009 / Notices 

1To view the application or public comments, 

please go to: http://www.regulations.gov (Docket 

No. NHTSA–2007–0020). 

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

3The petition is available at http:// 

www.regulations.gov, Docket No. NHTSA–2007– 

0020. 

4The original petition of Ferrari is available at 

http://www.regulations.gov, Docket No. NHTSA– 

2005–23093. Furthermore, the notice granting that 

petition, Ferrari S.p.A and Ferrari North America, 

Inc. Grant of Application for a Temporary 

Exemption From S14.2 of Federal Motor Vehicle 

Safety Standard No. 208, was published at 71 FR 

29389, May 22, 2006. 5 49 U.S.C 30113(b)(1). 

a notice of receipt of the application and 

asked for public comments.1

DATES: The exemption from the 

applicable FMVSSs is effective from 

July 22, 2009 through August 31, 2009. 

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; e-mail: ari.scott@dot.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Advanced Air Bag Requirements and Small 

Volume Manufacturers 

II. Overview and Statutory Background of 

Petition for Economic Hardship 

III. Petition of Ferrari 

IV. Federal Register Notice of November 26, 

2007 

V. NHTSA Analysis of Petition 

VI. Agency Decision 

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.’’ 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 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 

encourage the placement of children in 

rear seats. The new requirements were 

phased in beginning with the 2004 

model year. 

Small volume manufacturers were not 

subject to the advanced air bag 

requirements until September 1, 2006, 

but their efforts to bring their respective 

vehicles into compliance with these 

requirements began several years earlier. 

However, because the new requirements 

were challenging, major air bag 

suppliers concentrated their efforts on 

working with large volume 

manufacturers, and thus, until recently, 

small volume manufacturers had 

limited access to advanced air bag 

technology. Because of the nature of the 

requirements for protecting out-ofposition occupants, ‘‘off-the-shelf’’ 

systems could not be readily adopted. 

Further complicating matters, because 

small volume manufacturers build so 

few vehicles, the costs of developing 

custom advanced air bag systems 

compared to potential profits 

discouraged some air bag suppliers from 

working with small volume 

manufacturers. 

The agency has carefully tracked 

occupant fatalities resulting from air bag 

deployment. Our data indicate that the 

agency’s efforts in the area of consumer 

education and manufacturers’ providing 

depowered air bags were successful in 

reducing air bag fatalities even before 

advanced air bag requirements were 

implemented. As always, we are 

concerned about the potential safety 

implication of any temporary 

exemptions granted by this agency. 

In a petition submitted on July 26, 

2007,3 Ferrari S.p.A and Ferrari North 

America, Inc. (‘‘Ferrari’’) requested an 

extension of the temporary exemption 

that it previously received,4 exempting 

it from certain advanced air bag 

provisions of FMVSS No. 208 with 

respect to the Ferrari F430 vehicles. 

Specifically, Ferrari is requesting an 

extension of an exemption from the 

requirements in S19, S21, and S23 of 

the standard, which establish 

requirements using infant, three-yearold child, and six-year-old child 

dummies, respectively. Ferrari 

requested a one-year extension through 

August 31, 2009. The rationale for this 

extension is that while Ferrari had 

originally anticipated launching a 

redesigned vehicle (that would be fully 

compliant) in 2008, delays have pushed 

that date back to 2009, and the company 

would like to extend its existing 

exemption to allow it to continue to sell 

the F430 until the compliant successor 

vehicle is launched. 

II. Overview and Statutory Background 

of Petition for Economic Hardship 

In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 20112 

and the procedures in 49 CFR Part 555, 

Ferrari has petitioned the agency for 

extension of a temporary exemption 

from certain advanced air bag 

requirements of FMVSS No. 208, 

Occupant Crash Protection, for the F430 

vehicles. The basis of the application 

was that compliance would cause 

substantial economic hardship to a 

manufacturer that has tried in good faith 

to comply with the standard. A 

manufacturer is eligible to apply for a 

hardship exemption if its total motor 

vehicle production in its most recent 

year of production did not exceed 

10,000 vehicles, as determined by the 

NHTSA Administrator (49 U.S.C. 

30113). 

In determining whether a 

manufacturer of a vehicle meets that 

criterion, NHTSA considers whether a 

second vehicle manufacturer also might 

be deemed the manufacturer of that 

vehicle. The statutory provisions 

governing motor vehicle safety (49 

U.S.C. Chapter 301) do not include any 

provision indicating that a manufacturer 

might have substantial responsibility as 

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,’’ 5 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, and consistency 

with the Safety Act, generally, as well 

as other such matters provided in the 

statute. 

III. Petition of Ferrari 

Background. NHTSA notes that a 

manufacturer is eligible to apply for a 

hardship exemption if its total motor 

vehicle production in its most recent 

year of production does not exceed 

10,000, as determined by the NHTSA 

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

While Fiat S.p.A., a major vehicle 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 22, 2009 / Notices 36305 

6 54 FR 46321; November 2, 1989. 

7 70 FR 71372, November 28, 2005. 

8We note that under 49 CFR 555.8(e), ‘‘if an 

application for renewal of temporary exemption 

that meets the requirements of § 555.5 has been 

filed not later than 60 days before the termination 

date of an exemption, the exemption does not 

terminate until the Administrator grants or denies 

the application for renewal.’’ 

manufacturer, holds a majority interest 

in Ferrari, NHTSA still considers that 

Ferrari’s production will not exceed that 

number. Consistent with past 

determinations, NHTSA has determined 

that Fiat’s interest in Ferrari does not 

result in the production threshold being 

exceeded 6 (see 70 FR 71372). In its 

current petition, Ferrari states that 

during the twelve month period from 

June 1, 2006 to June 1, 2007, Ferrari’s 

worldwide production of motor vehicles 

was 6,249. If the requested exemption is 

granted, Ferrari anticipates that its 

production during the extension year of 

the exemption will be approximately 

7,200 vehicles. 

In response to Ferrari’s original 

petition for exemption in 2005,7 the 

agency stated that the Ferrari F430 bears 

no resemblance to any motor vehicle 

designed or manufactured by Fiat, and 

that the agency understood that the 

F430 was designed and engineered 

without assistance from Fiat. Further, 

the agency stated that such assistance as 

Ferrari may receive from Fiat relating to 

use of test facilities and the like is an 

arms length transaction for which 

Ferrari pays Fiat. Therefore, NHTSA 

concluded that Fiat was not a 

manufacturer of Ferrari vehicles by 

virtue of being a sponsor. We continue 

to believe this is the case. 

Requested exemption. Ferrari is 

requesting an extension of the 

temporary exemption that it previously 

received, exempting it from the 

advanced air bag provisions of FMVSS 

No. 208 with respect to the Ferrari F430 

vehicles. Specifically, Ferrari is 

requesting an extension of its exemption 

from the requirements in S19, S21, and 

S23 of the Standard, which establishes 

requirements using infant, three-yearold child, and six-year-old child 

dummies, respectively. Ferrari 

originally planned to produce the F430 

only until late 2008. Thus, Ferrari only 

sought and received the current 

exemption, which extended until 

August 31, 2008.8 However, Ferrari 

states that unexpected developments, 

including the need to assure that the 

replacement model complies with new, 

more stringent European carbon dioxide 

and noise regulations and new 

requirements promulgated by the 

California Air Resources Board, have 

delayed the replacement vehicle until 

late 2009. Therefore, Ferrari is 

requesting a one year extension of the 

current exemption, through August 31, 

2009. 

The petitioner indicated that it 

intends to replace the F430 in 2009 with 

a new model, which will comply with 

all applicable FMVSSs. Therefore, need 

for the exemption is not expected to last 

beyond the date of the exemption. 

Economic hardship. The petitioner 

states that the inability to sell F430 

vehicles manufactured after August 31, 

2008 would have severe economic 

consequences for Ferrari S.p.A. and 

Ferrari North America (FNA). 

Specifically, Ferrari S.p.A., while 

remaining a profitable enterprise, would 

suffer approximately $77 million in lost 

sales during the one year period of the 

extended exemption, and additional lost 

sales in later years. Furthermore, FNA 

would suffer $9 million in lost sales in 

2009, and would suffer an overall loss 

in that year. Additionally, failure to 

obtain the exemption would cause an 

adverse financial effect through lost 

sales of replacement parts for several 

years in the future. 

Good faith efforts to comply. Ferrari 

states that it considered alternate means 

of compliance, but found that 

compliance with the advanced air bag 

requirements of FMVSS No. 208 was not 

possible. As described in the notice of 

Ferrari’s original petition for exemption, 

the F430 was originally designed in the 

mid-1990s as the 360 model, and was 

designed to comply with all of the 

requirements of the FMVSSs in effect at 

the time the 360 was originally 

designed. The petitioner stated that the 

provisions of FMVSS No. 208 

established in 2000 (65 FR 30680; May 

12, 2000; Advanced Air Bag rule) were 

not anticipated by Ferrari when the 360 

vehicle model was designed. The F430 

was introduced in 2004. Ferrari had 

originally intended to replace the F430 

in 2008, but now anticipates the 

replacement model being ready in 2009. 

As described in the notice of receipt 

of Ferrari’s previous petition, Ferrari 

stated that it has been able to bring the 

F430 into compliance with all of the 

high-speed belted and unbelted crash 

test requirements of the Advanced Air 

Bag rule. However, it stated that it has 

not been able to bring the vehicle into 

compliance with the child out-ofposition requirements (S19, S21, and 

S23). Ferrari also noted that despite 

efforts to involve numerous potential 

suppliers, it was unable to identify any 

that are willing to work with the 

company to develop an occupant 

classification system that would comply 

with the requirements in S19, S21, and 

S23. Moreover, Ferrari had stated that it 

was unable to reconfigure the F430 to 

accommodate an occupant classification 

system and air bag design that would 

comply with these requirements. 

In its current request, Ferrari states 

that when it realized that it would need 

to continue production of the F430 

beyond September 1, 2008, it again 

contacted several potential suppliers 

regarding the procurement of advanced 

air bag systems. This attempt, Ferrari 

states, was also unsuccessful. 

Additionally, Ferrari notes that since 

filing its initial petition, it has 

continued to work on compliance 

issues, and has been able to bring the 

F430 into full compliance with S25 of 

the standard. Paragraph S25 specifies 

the test requirements for using an outof-position 5th percentile adult female 

dummy at the driver position. 

Ferrari states that further efforts to 

bring the F430 vehicles into full 

compliance with FMVSS No. 208 during 

the term of the requested exemption 

would be futile. However, Ferrari states 

that it is taking steps to minimize the 

negative safety consequences of the 

exemption. First, Ferrari will continue 

to equip the F430 with a manual air bag 

on/off switch for the passenger air bag 

as standard equipment, in order to 

prevent the possibility of an air bag 

deployment when a child is present. 

Second, Ferrari will continue to offer to 

provide purchasers with child restraint 

systems designed to automatically 

suppress the passenger air bag when the 

restraint is present, at no cost. 

Ferrari argues that an exemption 

would be in the public interest. The 

petitioner put forth several arguments in 

favor of a finding that the requested 

exemption is consistent with the public 

interest and would not have a 

significant adverse impact on safety. 

Specifically, Ferrari argues that the 

public interest is served by four factors. 

These include: (1) Satisfying the public 

interest in offering consumers a wider 

variety of motor vehicle choices; (2) 

affording continued employment to the 

petitioner’s U.S. workforce; (3) there 

would be minimal safety impact from 

granting this exemption; and (4) that it 

would be inequitable to prevent Ferrari 

from importing the F430 until 2009, 

when other vehicles have been granted 

similar exemptions. 

Ferrari states that there is consumer 

demand in the United States for highperformance sports cars such as the 

F430. It argues that compliance with the 

advanced air bag requirements is 

virtually impossible for vehicles such as 

the F430, which was designed before 

the advanced air bag rule was proposed. 

Ferrari notes that NHTSA has, in the 

past, stated that it believes the public 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
36306 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 22, 2009 / Notices 

9See 71 FR 52951; 71 FR 68888; and 72 FR 

17609. 

10The precise figures are provided in the 

confidential version of the petition. 

interest is often served by affording 

consumers a wider variety of motor 

vehicle choices. The petitioner also 

states that the public interest will be 

served in affording continued 

employment to the petitioner’s U.S. 

work force, which would be affected by 

the granting or denial of the exemption. 

Ferrari also argues that the safety 

drawbacks of granting an exemption 

will be minimal. The F430 is designed 

and marketed as a high performance 

vehicle, and therefore would have 

relatively little on-road operation 

compared with other motor vehicles. 

Furthermore, the petitioner states that it 

is unlikely that young children would 

be passengers in the vehicle, and that 

other safety measures, such as passenger 

air bag on/off switches and child 

restraint systems, are available at no 

cost. In addition, in its original petition 

for exemption, the petitioner stated that 

the F430 also has a variety of passive 

safety features not required under the 

FMVSS, including seat belt 

pretensioners, among other systems. 

Thus, Ferrari argues, an exemption 

would have a minimal impact on safety. 

Finally, the petitioner suggested that 

this petition is similar to other petitions 

for exemptions from the advanced air 

bag standards for similar vehicles. 

Specifically, Ferrari stated that NHTSA 

has granted exemptions to several of 

Ferrari’s competitors that extend until at 

least August 31, 2009. These 

exemptions extend to the Lamborghini 

Murcielago, the Lotus Elise, the Morgan 

Aero 8, theYES! Roadster, and the 

Koenigsegg CCX.9 Ferrari argues that it 

would be inequitable for the agency to 

deny its petition for an extension of the 

F430 exemption until August 31, 2009. 

IV. Federal Register Notice of 

November 26, 2007 

In the Federal Register of November 

26, 2007 (72 FR 66028), we published a 

notice announcing receipt of an 

application from Ferrari for a temporary 

exemption from the advanced air bag 

requirements of FMVSS No. 208 for the 

F430. We invited public comment on 

Ferrari’s application. We received no 

comments in response to this 

publication. 

V. NHTSA Analysis of Petition 

The following discussion provides 

our decision regarding Ferrari’s 

temporary exemption request pertaining 

to the advanced air bag requirement of 

FMVSS No. 208. 

The fundamental problem which is 

causing Ferrari to be unable to fully 

comply with the advanced air bag 

requirements relates to the design cycle 

of the vehicle. As stated in the original 

petition for exemption, the model at 

issue here, the F430, is based on the 

design of the model 360. This model 

was designed in the 1990s, before 

Ferrari had any reason to anticipate that 

FMVSS No. 208 would be amended to 

impose the advanced air bag 

requirements. Despite significant 

expenditures of capital and labor in 

pursuit of compliance,10 Ferrari was 

unable to bring its vehicle into 

compliance (although, we note, it was 

able to comply with paragraph S25 of 

Standard No. 208). Ferrari believes that 

the only achievable solution to bring the 

F430 into compliance is a complete 

redesign of the vehicle, which, due to 

the long design cycle, is scheduled for 

2009. 

In its petition for renewal, Ferrari 

argued that the obstacle to compliance 

is not cost, but, rather, compliance is an 

impossibility. Numerous design 

elements, including the chassis, the 

interior occupant compartment case, the 

space behind the instrument panel, the 

air bags, and the seats, were designed in 

a manner that preclude compliance with 

the new requirements. The vehicle 

chassis has an extremely low profile and 

ride height that preclude the addition of 

any available occupant classification 

system, and the limited room behind the 

instrument panel and in the occupant 

compartment make it impossible to 

install air bags that satisfy all of the 

advanced air bag requirements. 

Additionally, there are no air bags 

available that Ferrari can purchase that 

could be installed in the F430. The 

compliant air bags that Ferrari uses on 

its 12-cylinder 612 Scaglietti and 599 

GTB vehicles cannot be used in the 

F430 because the former vehicles have 

a larger occupant compartment and 

utilize occupant classification sensors 

that cannot, due to size and design, be 

installed on the F430. 

Ferrari stated that its inability to sell 

the F430 in the United States after 

September 1, 2008 would lead to a 

substantial loss of sales and revenue. 

Ferrari projected that if it were unable 

to sell the F430 model in the U.S., it 

would realize a decrease in net profit of 

approximately 56 million Euros 

($77,000,000, as of the time of the 

petition) during this period. Ferrari 

stated that such consequences 

demonstrate ‘‘substantial economic 

hardship’’ within the meaning of 49 

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

The petitioner cited a number of 

effects that would result from this 

hardship. A denial of the petition would 

have substantial effects on FNA’s 

income in 2009 (over $9 million in lost 

income), leading to a pre-tax loss in that 

year. It would also have a negative 

impact on the company’s sales of 

replacement parts for several years, as 

well as impact several small specialty 

service providers. Finally, it would have 

a significant effect on the network of 

Ferrari dealers in the United States, 

including a potential loss of jobs among 

employees of those dealerships. 

Ferrari has requested that additional 

specific details regarding its finances 

and financial forecasts be afforded 

confidential treatment under 49 CFR 

512.4, asserting a claim for confidential 

information. We have determined that 

this information is to be afforded such 

treatment. 

While it complies with a significant 

portion of the requirements of FMVSS 

No. 208, the petitioner has not been able 

to achieve full compliance despite 

considerable effort put to that end. As 

described in the notice of receipt of 

Ferrari’s previous petition, Ferrari has 

been able to bring the F430 into 

compliance with all of the high-speed 

belted and unbelted crash test 

requirements of the Advanced Air Bag 

rule. However, it has still not been able 

to bring the vehicle into compliance 

with the child out-of-position 

requirements (S19, S21, and S23). 

Furthermore, despite efforts to involve 

numerous potential suppliers, it was 

unable to identify any that are willing 

to work with the company to develop an 

occupant classification system that 

would comply with the requirements in 

S19, S21, and S23. Moreover, Ferrari 

had stated that it was unable to 

reconfigure the F430 to accommodate an 

occupant classification system and air 

bag design that would comply with 

these requirements. 

Despite the fact that it had already 

obtained an exemption through August 

21, 2008, when Ferrari realized that it 

would need to continue production of 

the F430 beyond September 1, 2008, it 

again contacted several potential 

suppliers regarding the procurement of 

advanced air bag systems. This attempt, 

like previous efforts to induce largescale component suppliers to design a 

custom advanced air bag system, was 

unsuccessful. Additionally, as stated 

previously, Ferrari notes that since 

filing its initial petition, it has 

continued to work on compliance 

issues, and has been able to bring the 

F430 into full compliance with S25 of 

the standard. Paragraph S25 specifies 

the test requirements for using an outVerDate Nov<24>2008 16:04 Jul 21, 2009 Jkt 217001 PO 00000 Frm 00144 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\22JYN1.SGM 22JYN1

jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 22, 2009 / Notices 36307 

11See 71 FR 29389, at 29391. 

12According to the petitioner, the ‘‘Skyhook’’ 

strategy detaches the vehicle body, as a sprung 

mass, from what is taking place on the axles and 

wheels by calming the movement of the body. In 

addition to improved comfort, this provides for 

optimal control of the vehicle body at all times. 

of-position 5th percentile adult female 

dummy at the driver position. 

NHTSA is aware that Ferrari will not 

be undertaking additional efforts during 

the term of this extension to bring the 

F430 vehicles into full compliance with 

FMVSS No. 208. Instead, the company 

intends to achieve full compliance with 

the launch of the redesigned vehicle in 

2009. However, during the year of this 

extension, Ferrari will be taking steps to 

minimize the negative safety 

consequences of the exemption. First, 

Ferrari will continue to equip the F430 

with a manual air bag on/off switch for 

the passenger air bag as standard 

equipment, in order to prevent the 

possibility of an air bag deployment 

when a child is present. Second, Ferrari 

will continue to offer to provide 

purchasers with child restraint systems 

designed to automatically suppress the 

passenger air bag when the restraint is 

present, at no cost. 

As stated above, Ferrari does not 

intend to bring the F430 into 

compliance with FMVSS No. 208 during 

the period of this exemption. Instead, by 

the end of the requested extension, 

Ferrari will cease selling the F430. 

We believe that there are a number of 

public interest considerations served by 

granting this petition. These include: (1) 

The general consideration of affording 

consumers a wider variety of motor 

vehicle choices; (2) the economic 

benefits of affording continued 

employment to the petitioner’s U.S. 

work force; (3) the estimated minimal 

impact due to the relatively low-use 

nature of the vehicle and the rare use of 

the vehicle by young children; (4) the 

additional safety features of the vehicle 

as described by the petitioner; and (5) 

the petitioner’s willingness to provide 

additional child safety features to 

consumers at no cost. Each of these is 

discussed below. We note that while no 

one factor is dispositive in our decision, 

overall, we believe that they, in 

combination with Ferrari’s continuous 

efforts to meet the advanced air bag 

requirements for the redesigned vehicle, 

present a persuasive case for the current 

exemption to be extended one year. 

As discussed in previous decisions on 

temporary exemption applications, the 

agency believes that the public interest 

is served by affording consumers a 

wider variety of motor vehicle choices. 

Traditionally, the agency has 

concluded that the public interest is 

served in affording continued 

employment to the petitioner’s U.S. 

work force. We note that Ferrari is a 

well-established company with a small 

but not insignificant U.S. presence and 

we believe that the sales reduction 

would negatively affect U.S. 

employment. Specifically, reduction in 

sales would likely affect employment 

not only at FNA, but also at Ferrari 

dealers, repair specialists, and several 

small service providers that transport 

Ferrari vehicles from the port of entry to 

the rest of the United States. 

We believe this exemption will have 

negligible impact on motor vehicle 

safety for several reasons. One reason is 

the limited number of vehicles affected 

and the fact that Ferrari vehicles, like 

other high-cost, high-performance sports 

cars, are not typically used for daily 

transportation. NHTSA is well aware 

that the yearly usage of a vehicle such 

as an F430 is substantially lower 

compared to vehicles used for everyday 

transportation. 

Additionally, the agency examined 

the Fatality Analysis Reporting System 

(FARS) and the National Automotive 

Sampling System Crashworthiness Data 

System (NASS CDS) data for years 

1995–2007. These data indicate that 

over the past 13 years, there was one 

severe injury in a NASS CDS case, and 

five fatalities in FARS cases involving 

the 360 Modena or the F430. None of 

the injured or killed occupants in these 

vehicles were children. Thus, there 

were no children involved in crashes of 

Ferrari 360 or F430 vehicles included in 

these databases, which further mitigates 

the safety impact of noncompliance 

with portions of FMVSS No. 208. 

The petitioner put forth a variety of 

public interest considerations in its 

original petition for exemption. In the 

Federal Register notice granting the 

original petition for exemption, the 

agency summarized those arguments.11

With regard to additional safety 

features, we noted that: 

Ferrari states that the vehicle is equipped 

with a variety of ‘‘active safety’’ systems 

beyond that required by the FMVSSs and that 

these systems ‘‘significantly improve vehicle 

handling and enhance controllability.’’ Such 

systems include the Manettino control 

system, which adjusts vehicle handling and 

stability to specific driving conditions; the 

Control Stability System, an electronic 

stability control system; Electro-Hydraulic 

Differential, a system that manages torque 

distribution between the two rear wheels to 

improve stability; Continuous Damping 

Control, a system that adjusts to road 

conditions in order to improve braking; and 

a ‘‘Sky-Hook’’ strategy.12

While the availability of these features 

is not critical to our decision, it is a 

factor in considering whether the 

exemption is in the public interest. 

Specifically, we believe that these safety 

features will help to mitigate the safety 

disbenefits of not complying with all of 

the advanced air bag requirements. 

A final factor that played into our 

decision to grant this exemption is that 

Ferrari has voluntarily included two 

alternative means for passenger air bag 

suppression for the protection of 

children being transported in the right 

front seating position, which was also 

discussed in the original petition for 

exemption and the accompanying 

notices. First, Ferrari has provided a 

manual on/off switch. This enables the 

passenger air bag to be manually turned 

off when a child is present, which will 

help to prevent certain air bag-induced 

injuries. Second, Ferrari offers a special 

child restraint system that automatically 

suppresses the passenger air bag when 

it is properly installed in the right front 

passenger seat. Ferrari offers this 

automatic child restraint system at no 

cost to the consumer, upon request. 

Both of these features offer passenger air 

bag suppression capability in the event 

a child needs to be transported in the 

right front seating position, and support 

our findings that this exemption will 

have negligible impact on motor vehicle 

safety. 

VI. Agency 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), Ferrari is granted an 

extension of NHTSA Temporary 

Exemption No. EX 06–1. The exemption 

shall remain until August 31, 2009 as 

indicated in the DATES section of this 

notice. 

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

at 49 CFR 1.50. and 501.8) 

Issued on: July 16, 2009. 

Ronald L. Medford, 

Acting Deputy Administrator. 

[FR Doc. E9–17384 Filed 7–21–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES