Polaris Industries Inc. and Goupil Industrie SA; Receipt of Petition for Temporary Exemption |
|---|
Topics: Goupil G6
|
Steven S. Cliff
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
30 August 2021
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 165 (Monday, August 30, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 48471-48476]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-18634]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA-2021-0063]
Polaris Industries Inc. and Goupil Industrie SA; Receipt of
Petition for Temporary Exemption
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Notice of receipt of petition for temporary exemption; request
for comment.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In accordance with statutory and regulatory requirements,
Polaris Industries Inc. and Goupil Industrie SA (collectively,
``petitioners''), have petitioned NHTSA for an exemption of the
``Picnic-G6,'' an all-electric truck that the petitioners state will be
used as part of a grocery delivery service. The petitioners seek
exemption from nine Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) on
the basis that an exemption would make the development or field
evaluation of a low-emission vehicle easier and would not unreasonably
lower the safety or impact protection level of that vehicle. NHTSA is
publishing this document in accordance with statutory and
administrative provisions, and requests comments on the petition. NHTSA
has made no judgment at this time on the merits of the petition.
DATES: Comments on this petition must be submitted by October 29, 2021.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Daniel Koblenz, NHTSA Office of Chief
Counsel, telephone: 202-366-5823, facsimile: 202-366-3820, address:
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue
SE, Washington, DC 20590.
ADDRESSES: You may submit your comment, identified by the docket number
in the heading of this document, by any of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
Mail: Docket Management Facility, M-30, U.S. Department of
Transportation, West Building, Ground Floor, Rm. W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE, Washington, DC 20590.
Hand Delivery or Courier: West Building, Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.
Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. To be
sure someone is there to help you, please call 202-366-9322 before
coming.
Fax: 202-493-2251.
Instructions: For detailed instructions on submitting comments and
additional information on the rulemaking process, see the Public
Participation heading of the Supplementary Information section of this
document. Note that all comments received will be posted without change
to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided.
Privacy Act: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits
comments from the public to better inform its decision-making process.
DOT posts these comments, without edit, including any personal
information the commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov, as
described in the system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can
be reviewed at www.transportation.gov/privacy. In order to facilitate
comment tracking and response, the agency encourages commenters to
provide their name, or the name of their organization; however,
submission of names is completely optional. Whether or not commenters
identify themselves, all timely comments will be fully considered.
Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments received, go to www.regulations.gov at any time, or to 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140,
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. Monday through Friday,
except Federal Holidays. To be sure someone is there to help you,
please call 202-366-9826 before coming.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Statutory and Regulatory Requirements
The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act),
codified at 49 U.S.C. 30113, authorizes the Secretary of Transportation
(NHTSA by delegation), to exempt motor vehicles from an FMVSS or bumper
standard on a temporary basis, under specified circumstances and on
terms the agency deems appropriate. The Secretary has delegated the
authority for implementing this section to NHTSA.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 49 CFR 1.95.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Safety Act authorizes NHTSA (by delegation) to grant, in whole
or in part, a temporary exemption to a vehicle manufacturer if certain
specified findings are made. The agency must find that the exemption is
consistent with the public interest and with the objectives of the
Safety Act.\2\ In addition, exemptions under Sec. 30113 must meet one
of the following bases:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ 49 U.S.C. 30113(b)(3)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(i) Compliance with the standard[s] [from which exemption is
sought] would cause substantial economic hardship to a manufacturer
that has tried to comply with the standard[s] in good faith;
(ii) the exemption would make easier the development or field
evaluation of a new motor vehicle safety feature providing a safety
level at least equal to the safety level of the standard;
(iii) the exemption would make the development or field evaluation
of a low-emission motor vehicle easier and would not unreasonably lower
the safety level of that vehicle; or
(iv) compliance with the standard would prevent the manufacturer
from selling a motor vehicle with an overall safety level at least
equal to the overall safety level of nonexempt vehicles.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ 49 U.S.C. 30113(b)(3)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The petitioners have submitted a petition under the third of these
bases. The petitioners request that NHTSA grant their petition based on
a finding that the exemption is consistent with the public interest and
the Safety Act, and that the exemption would facilitate the development
or field evaluation of a low-emission motor vehicle and would not
unreasonably reduce the safety level of that vehicle.\4\ Under the
Safety Act, entities applying for exemptions under this subsection must
include, among other things, ``a record of the research, development,
and testing establishing that the motor vehicle is a low-emission motor
vehicle and that the safety level of the vehicle is not lowered
unreasonably by exemption from the standard.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ 49 U.S.C. 30113(b)(3)(B)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NHTSA established 49 CFR part 555, ``Temporary Exemption from Motor
Vehicle Safety and Bumper Standards,'' to implement the statutory
provisions concerning Sec. 30113 temporary exemptions. The
requirements in 49 CFR 555.5 state that the petitioner must set forth
the basis of the petition by providing the information required under
49 CFR 555.6, and the reasons why the exemption would be in the public
interest and consistent with the objectives of the Safety Act.
[[Page 48472]]
A petition submitted on the low-emission vehicle (LEV) exemption
basis must include the following information specified in 49 CFR
555.6(c):
(1) Substantiation that the vehicle is a low-emission vehicle;
(2) Research, development, and testing documentation establishing
that a temporary exemption would not unreasonably degrade the safety or
impact protection of the vehicle;
(i) A detailed description of how the motor vehicle equipped with
the low-emission engine would, if exempted, differ from one that
complies with the standard;
(ii) If the petitioner is presently manufacturing a vehicle
conforming to the standard, the results of tests conducted to
substantiate certification to the standard;
(iii) The results of any tests conducted on the vehicle that
demonstrate its failure to meet the standard, expressed as comparative
performance levels; and
(iv) Reasons why the failure to meet the standard does not
unreasonably degrade the safety or impact protection of the vehicle.
(3) Substantiation that a temporary exemption would facilitate the
development or field evaluation of the vehicle; and
(4) A statement of whether the petitioner intends to conform to the
standard at the end of the exemption period; and
(5) A statement that not more than 2,500 exempted vehicles will be
sold in the U.S. in any 12-month period for which an exemption may be
granted.
II. Summary of Petition
On September 16, 2020, in accordance with NHTSA's statutes and
regulations, petitioners Polaris Industries Inc. and Goupil Industrie
SA petitioned NHTSA for a temporary exemption from the requirements of
ten FMVSS on the basis that an exemption would make the development or
field evaluation of a low-emission motor vehicle easier and would not
unreasonably lower the safety level of that vehicle. On December 2,
2020, the petitioners submitted a supplemental petition that revised
their original petition by withdrawing their request for an exemption
from FMVSS No. 203 (reducing the total number of standards in the
exemption request to nine), and by revising their analysis concerning
their request from an exemption from FMVSS No. 226. Public versions of
the petitioners' submissions can be found on regulations.gov in the
docket stated in the header of this notice.
a. Description of the Picnic-G6
The petitioners have requested an exemption to produce up to 100
specialized vehicles, which they intend to sell to Picnic, a grocery
delivery company, which will use them to operate a grocery delivery
service. The petitioners refer to the potentially exempted vehicles as
``Picnic-G6'' vehicles. According to the petitioners, the Picnic-G6 is
a modified version of the ``G6,'' an electric utility truck that they
produce for the European market.\5\ Based on the information the
petitioners provided, it appears that the G6 is a light truck with a
GVWR of 2,600 kilograms (approximately 5,732 pounds).\6\ According to
the petitioners, a standard G6 vehicle has a maximum speed of 80 km/h
(49.7 mph), and ``provides multiple other safety elements, including an
acoustic alerting system to alert pedestrians to its presence,
automatic headlamp and wiper activation, a robust steel chassis design,
advanced crumple zone, and front-wheel drive.'' \7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ The petitioners have provided the G6's type approval
certificate as Exhibit 1.
\6\ The full specifications of a baseline G6 can be found in
Exhibit 2.
\7\ We note that the petitioners do not specify whether the
acoustic alert system complies with FMVSS No. 141, Minimum Sound
Requirements for Hybrid and Electric Vehicles. FMVSS No. 141's
requirements are more stringent than its European counterpart, UNECE
Regulation 138, Uniform Provisions Concerning the Approval of Quiet
Road Transport Vehicles with Regard to their Reduced Audibility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The petitioners state that, unlike the a standard G6, the Picnic-G6
would be modified to have a maximum speed of 50 km/h (31 mph). In
addition, all but 10 of the Picnic-G6 vehicles would have a single
designated seating position, for the driver. The petitioners state that
the 10 Picnic-G6 that also have a front passenger seat would be used to
train drivers. None of the vehicles would have more than two seating
positions. The petitioners state that the Picnic-G6 would have a range
of about 90 miles. According to the petitioners, the vehicles will be
modified to include a ``specialized grocery carrying box'' on the
vehicle's chassis after being sold to Picnic for use in its grocery
delivery pilot.
In terms of how the vehicles will be operated, the petitioners
state repeatedly throughout the petition that Picnic would operate the
Picnic-G6 vehicles on lower-speed streets in dense urban and suburban
areas. The petitioners also state that the vehicles would travel at low
speeds due to the need to make frequent delivery stops. The petitioners
state that Picnic will train its employees to operate the Picnic-G6
vehicles, and that the company will forbid private use of the vehicles
and require that all occupants be age 16 or older. The petitioners also
state that these restrictions will be stated in warning labels placed
on the vehicles.
A more detailed explanation of the Picnic grocery delivery service,
as well as illustrations of what the Picnic-G6 may look like, can be
found in the petition.
b. Petitioners' Explanation for Why the Picnic-G6 Would Be a Low-
Emission Vehicle
To be eligible for an exemption under the LEV basis, the Picnic-G6
must be considered an LEV under section 202 of the Clean Air Act (42
U.S.C. 7521) at the time the vehicle is manufactured, and must emit a
level of regulated air pollutants that is in an amount significantly
below one of those standards.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ 49 U.S.C. 30113(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to the petitioners, the Picnic-G6 would be an all-
electric vehicle that emits zero emissions, and therefore would be
eligible for an exemption under the LEV basis.
c. Petitioners' Explanation for Why Granting an Exemption Would Not
Unreasonably Lower the Safety of the Picnic-G6
FMVSS No. 101, Controls and Displays & FMVSS No. 135, Light Vehicle
Brake Systems
To ensure that the driver is informed of brake system malfunctions,
FMVSS No. 101 and FMVSS No. 135 require that all light vehicles are
required to have a telltale that informs the driver of various
different types of issues with the vehicle's braking system.
According to the petitioners, rather than displaying the word
``Brake'' to indicate brake system malfunctions, low brake fluid
conditions, and the application of the parking brake, as required under
S5.5.5 of FMVSS No. 135, the Picnic-G6 will display the ISO brake
symbol.\9\ The petitioners argue that this will not unreasonably lower
safety because the Picnic-G6 will only be operated by trained Picnic
employees who will understand the meaning of the ISO brake symbol. The
petitioners further argue that NHTSA has, in the past, found that, in
some instances, noncompliance with the brake system
[[Page 48473]]
telltale requirement is not consequential to safety due to driver
familiarity with the ISO brake symbol.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ It is not clear from the petition which ISO brake symbol
would be used, or if the indicators would be combined. The various
ISO brake symbols can be found through a search of ISO's Online
Browsing Platform, https://www.iso.org/obp/ui#home. In addition,
Exhibit 5 to the petition includes excerpts from the vehicle manual
detailing the symbol.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FMVSS No. 118, Power-Operated Window, Partition, and Roof Panel Systems
The purpose of FMVSS No. 118 is to reduce the likelihood of death
or injury due to accidental operation of a vehicle's power-operated
window, partition, and roof paneled systems. NHTSA established the
standard primarily to address the particular safety concern of child
strangulation due to accidental operation of powered windows. The
petitioners have requested an exemption from S6(c) of the standard,
which specifies that the actuation device for closing a power-operated
window must operate by pulling away from the surface on which it is
mounted.
The petitioners provide several reasons that an exemption from
FMVSS No. 118 would not unreasonably lower the safety of the Picnic-G6.
First, the petitioners explain that Picnic intends to prohibit children
below the age of 16 from riding in the Picnic-G6. The petitioners also
argue that most of the exempted vehicles would be used for Picnic's
delivery service, and so would be unlikely to be occupied be people
other than Picnic employees. The petitioners also state that the power
window controls are located on the center console, away from the
windows, which makes accidental activation of the controls unlikely.
Finally, the petitioners note that only 10 of the Picnic-G6 vehicles
would have a front passenger seat, and those are used for training
purposes, so it is unlikely that an adult or child would be present to
accidentally activate the power window controls.
FMVSS No. 126, Electronic Stability Control Systems
To reduce the risk of deaths due to rollover crashes, FMVSS No. 126
requires that all vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating of 4,536
kilograms (kg) (10,000 pounds) or less be equipped with an electronic
stability control (ESC) system. ESC systems use automatic computer-
controlled braking of individual wheels to address critical situations
in which a driver may lose control of the vehicle. Preventing single-
vehicle loss-of-control crashes is the most effective way to reduce
deaths resulting from rollover crashes because most loss-of-control
crashes culminate in the vehicle leaving the roadway, which
dramatically increases the probability of a rollover. NHTSA's crash
data study of existing vehicles equipped with ESC demonstrated that
these systems reduce fatal single-vehicle crashes of passenger cars by
55 percent and fatal single-vehicle crashes of light trucks and vans
(LTVs) by 50 percent.\10\ NHTSA estimates that ESC has the potential to
prevent 56 percent of the fatal passenger car rollovers and 74 percent
of the fatal LTV first-event rollovers that would otherwise occur in
single-vehicle crashes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Sivinski, R., Crash Prevention Effectiveness of Light-
Vehicle Electronic Stability Control: An Update of the 2007 NHTSA
Evaluation; DOT HS 811 486 (June 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The petitioners have requested an exemption from FMVSS No. 126 in
its entirety. According to the petitioners, an exemption would not
unreasonably lower the safety of the Picnic-G6 because the vehicle has
similar handling and stability as comparable vehicles equipped with
ESC, and there are mitigating factors that reduce the likelihood that
the Picnic-G6 would be involved in a loss-of-control crash.
To demonstrate that the Picnic-G6 would have similar handling and
stability to a comparable vehicle that is equipped with ESC, the
petitioners have provided a dynamic test report (Exhibit 6 to the
petition) comparing the performance of the Picnic-G6, which is not
equipped with anti-lock brakes or ESC, with a Nissan e-NV200, which the
petitioners state is a comparable vehicle that is equipped with these
features. The petitioners state that the report found that there were
small differences in performance between the two vehicles that could be
explained by the absence of anti-lock brake and ESC systems on the
Picnic-G6. However, the petitioners state that ``both vehicles had
`same behavior with understeer chassis balance, non-surprising behavior
during weight transfer maneuvers and [were] easy to control at the
limit.' '' In addition, the petitioners provided a static stability
test report (Exhibit 7) that the petitioners claim shows that the
Picnic-G6 has a static stability that is comparable to pickup trucks
and passenger vans. (NHTSA notes that the petitioners have requested
that the entirety of both of these reports be withheld from public view
because they contain confidential business information.)
The petitioners also state that the Picnic-G6's limited speed and
range reduce the risk of loss-of-control events, which, petitioners
argue, were relevant factors to NHTSA in the past in making the
findings needed to grant an exemption from FMVSS No. 126 under the LEV
basis. The petitioners also argue that, unlike other light trucks and
delivery vehicles, the Picnic-G6 would not be operated at high speeds
or over moderate and long distance, so the risk of a loss-of-control
crash would be relatively lower, and should such a crash occur, the
risk of injury would also be lower. Finally, the petitioners state that
drivers would be trained to operate the exempted vehicle without ESC.
FMVSS No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection
To reduce the number of fatalities due to crashes, FMVSS No. 208
sets minimum performance requirements relating to protection of
occupants inside the vehicle, which includes the requirements that most
vehicles be equipped with seat belts and advanced air bags. Per FMVSS
No. 208, passenger cars and light trucks are required to provide
protection using air bags for both belted and unbelted front outboard
seated occupants of all sizes, including protections for out-of-
position children in the front outboard passenger seat. The petitioners
request an exemption from the entire standard, because the Picnic-G6 is
not equipped with air bags of any type.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ We note that the petitioners have requested an exemption
from the entire standard, not just the requirement that the vehicle
be equipped with air bags. However, it appears from the petition
that the Picnic-G6 would be equipped with some occupant protection
features, including seat belts. The petitioner has not sought
exemptions from FMVSS No. 209, Seat belt assemblies, or FMVSS No.
210, Seat belt assembly anchorages.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The petitioners provide the following rationale for their request.
First, according to the petitioners, the Picnic-G6 is compliant with
the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) regulation 12
for the protection of the driver against the steering mechanism in the
event of impact, and UNECE regulation 29 for the protection of the
occupants of the cab of a commercial vehicle.\12\ Moreover, the
petitioners state that, despite the Picnic-G6's lack of air bags, an
exemption would not lower the safety risk of the vehicle for several
reasons. First, they argue that the Picnic-G6 would be able to meet the
S6
[[Page 48474]]
injury criteria requirements (aside from chest compression) for the
Hybrid III (50th percentile male) test dummy. The petitioners have
provided simulation data to support this claim as Exhibit 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ UNECE standards established under the 1958 UN ECE Agreement
Concerning the Adoption of Uniform Conditions of Approval and
Reciprocal Recognition of Approval for Motor Vehicle Equipment and
Parts (the ``1958 Agreement'') are type approval standards. The 1958
Agreement is an international agreement that provides procedures for
establishing uniform regulations regarding new motor vehicles and
motor vehicle equipment and for reciprocal acceptance of type-
approvals issued under these regulations by contracting countries.
While the United States is a member of the UN ECE, it is not a
contracting party to the 1958 Agreement, and thus is not bound by
standards established under the 1958 Agreement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The petitioners also argue that the absence of air bags would have
``little impact'' on the level of safety of the Picnic-G6 because of
the vehicle's use profile. Specifically, the petitioners argue that the
Picnic-G6's maximum speed of 31 mph, its limited ~90-mile range, and
its likely use on exclusively urban and ``dense-suburban'' local roads,
mean that the Picnic-G6 has a low probability of being involved in a
crash, and that any crashes that do occur will be lower speed and thus
have a reduced risk of injury. The petitioners also argue that the low
number of vehicles they intend to produce pursuant to this exemption
will limit risk, and support a finding that safety would not be
unreasonably lowered.
In addition, the petitioners argue that an exemption for the
Picnic-G6 would be consistent with the standard's carve-outs for
``walk-in'' vans and U.S. Postal Service vans that are equipped with
type-2 (lap and shoulder) seat belt assemblies. The petitioners argue
that the reasoning behind these carve-outs is that these vehicles are
at a low risk of being involved in a serious crash because they are
used to make deliveries in urban and suburban areas where the driver
makes frequent stops. Moreover, the petitioners note that NHTSA
declined to require air bags for U.S. Postal Service vehicles because
the agency believed that they would provide a marginal safety benefit
to postal workers given their use profile and the fact that the U.S.
Postal Service requires employees to wear seat belts while working. The
petitioners state that, like the U.S. Postal Service, Picnic intends to
require all Picnic-G6 occupants to wear seat belts.
Finally, the petitioners argue that the lack of occupant protection
requirements that are intended to protect children would not reduce
safety because all but 10 of the exempted Picnic-G6 vehicles would not
have a passenger seat. Moreover, for the 10 training vehicles that do
have passenger seats, the petitioners state that Picnic would prohibit
passengers under the age of 16, would forbid private use of the
exempted vehicles, and would place warning stickers to inform occupants
of these restrictions.
FMVSS No. 214, Side Impact Protection
To reduce the risk of injuries to vehicle occupants in side impact
crashes, FMVSS No. 214 sets out requirements for door crush resistance
and side-impact crash performance, including a moving deformable
barrier and vehicle-to-pole crash tests. The petitioners seek an
exemption from this standard in its entirety.
According to the petitioners, an exemption would not unreasonably
lower the safety of the Picnic-G6 because, while the vehicle would not
be certified to FMVSS No. 214, simulated testing shows it would meet
door crush and moving deformable barrier tests, and the vehicle would
meet the vehicle-to-pole test requirements using the 50th percentile
male dummy for all injury criteria except head injury and lower-rib
deflection (the petitioners specify that lower-rib deflection is 0.3 mm
outside the standard's limit).\13\ In addition, the petitioners claim
the Picnic-G6 would comply with the UNECE regulation 135 with regard to
their Pole Side Impact performance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ A report of the results of this simulation testing was
attached as Exhibit 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The petitioners also argue that the Picnic-G6 is similar to ``walk-
in'' vans, which are excluded from the standard.\14\ The petitioners
argue that the non-training Picnic-G6 vehicles would only have a
driver's seat, and while they would not have room for a person to enter
the cargo area of the vehicle, the ``use profile'' of the Picnic-G6
would be similar to that of walk-in vans. That is, petitioners state,
both vehicle types are designed to make deliveries in urban and
suburban areas where the driver makes frequent stops and operates the
vehicle at low speeds that reduce crash risk.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ Standard No. 214 defines a ``walk-in van'' as ``a special
cargo/mail delivery vehicle that has only one designated seating
position. That designated seating position must be forward facing
and for use only by the driver. The vehicle usually has a thin and
light sliding (or folding) side door for easy operation and a high
roof clearance that a person of medium stature can enter the
passenger compartment area in an up-right position.''
\15\ NHTSA notes that, in the final rule adopting FMVSS No. 214,
the agency stated that it excluded walk-in vans from the standard
not because walk-in vans would be used for deliveries, but because
``it is impracticable for such vehicles to meet the side door
strength requirements because of their special design features.'' 56
FR 27427, 27431.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, the petitioners argue that the low volume of vehicles
permitted under the exemption will limit safety risk, and point out
that NHTSA has cited this as a consideration in prior exemption grants.
FMVSS No. 225, Child Restraint Anchorage Systems
FMVSS No. 225 requires, and specifies standards for, child
restraint anchorage systems to reduce the risk of anchorage system
failure, increase the likelihood that child restraints are properly
secured, and more fully achieve the potential effectiveness of child
restraint systems in motor vehicles. This standard requires the front
outboard passenger seat in a vehicle that has no rear seats to have a
tether anchorage, and requires a full child restraint anchorage system
in the front outboard seating position in a vehicle that has no air bag
at that position due to a grant of a part 555 exemption.\16\ The
petitioners have requested an exemption from the entire standard for
the 10 training vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ See FMVSS No. 225, S5(c)(1)(i) & (iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The petitioners argue that an exemption would not unreasonably
lower the safety of the training Picnic-G6 vehicles because Picnic
would implement a company policy that would forbid the use of the
vehicle with passengers under age 16, forbid private use of the
vehicle, and place stickers in the vehicle warning of these
restrictions. The petitioners further argue that the use of the Picnic-
G6 as a delivery makes it unlikely that children will ride in it, and
that an exemption would be consistent with the FMVSS No. 226's carve-
out for funeral coaches. Finally, the petitioners argue the small
number of training Picnic-G6 vehicle makes it unlikely that children
would be passengers.
FMVSS No. 226, Ejection Mitigation
FMVSS No. 226 relates to ejection mitigation in the event of a
rollover. The purpose of this standard is to reduce the likelihood of
ejections of vehicle occupants through side windows during rollovers or
side impact crashes. The petitioners seek an exemption from this
standard in its entirety.
The petitioners make three arguments for why an exemption from
FMVSS No. 226 would not unreasonably lower the safety of the Picnic-G6.
First, they argue that the Picnic-G6 would be able to meet the
displacement requirements under S4.2.1 of the standard using laminated-
glazing side windows as the sole means of achieving displacement
performance.17 18 The petitioners argue that the glazing
will mitigate the risk of
[[Page 48475]]
ejection, especially when the window is in the closed position. The
petitioners have provided documentation of computer-simulated testing
demonstrating that the Picnic-G6 will meet the displacement
requirements of FMVSS No. 226 when the windows are closed.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ Note that FMVSS No. 226 prohibits the use of ``movable
glazing'' as the sole means of meeting the displacement
requirements. S4.2.1.1. That is, laminated glazing alone cannot be
used to meet FMVSS No. 226 if the window with the glazing can be
rolled down. The glazing on the petitioners' vehicles is movable,
and thus the laminated glazing countermeasure is not sufficient to
meet FMVSS No. 226.
\18\ Per FMVSS No. 226, the vehicle must meet the requirements
of S4.2.1 after the window glazing has undergone the ``pre-
breaking'' procedure described in S5.4.1. It is not clear from the
petition whether the Picnic-G6 would be able to meet the
requirements of S4.2.1 using window glazing alone if the glazing is
pre-broken.
\19\ See Exhibit 14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Second, the petitioners argue that the Picnic-G6's limited speed
(maximum 31 mph), its limited range (~90 miles), and the types of roads
on which Picnic intends to operate it (urban and dense suburban local
roads) make the risk of a crash low, and any crash that does occur
would likely occur at a lower speed. Lastly, the petitioners argue that
the Picnic-G6 is similar to ``walk-in'' vans, which are excluded from
the standard.20 21 The petitioners argue the non-training
versions of the vehicles would only have a driver's seat, and while
they would not have room for a person to walk into the cargo area of
the vehicle, the ``use profile'' of the Picnic-G6 (making deliveries in
urban and dens suburban areas) would be similar to that of walk-in
vans.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ The standard defines a walk-in van as ``special cargo/mail
delivery vehicle that only has a driver designated seating position.
The vehicle has a sliding (or folding) side door and a roof
clearance that enables a person of medium stature to enter the
passenger compartment area in an up-right position.'' FMVSS No. 226,
S3.
\21\ In the final rule establishing FMVSS No. 226, the agency
justified excluding walk-in vans solely ``on practicability
grounds.'' 76 FR 3211, 3291.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FMVSS No. 305, Electric-Powered Vehicles; Electrolyte Spillage and
Shock Protection
FMVSS No. 305 establishes requirements to reduce deaths and
injuries during and after a crash that occur because of electrolyte
spillage from electric energy storage devices, intrusion of electric
energy storage/conversion devices into the occupant compartment, and
electric shock. The petitioners have requested an exemption from
several requirements relating to shock protection.
According to the petitioners, an exemption would not unreasonably
lower the safety of the Picnic-G6 because, while the vehicle is not
certified to FMVSS No. 305, it does meet the analogous European
regulations for electrical safety in UNECE regulation 100. A side-by-
side comparison of the two standards can be found in the petition, as
well as documentation relating to type approval for UNECE regulation
100.
d. Petitioners' Explanation for How an Exemption Would Facilitate the
Development and Field Evaluation of the Vehicle
The petitioners state that an exemption would facilitate the
development and the field evaluation of the Picnic-G6 in several ways.
First, the petitioners state that an exemption would enable the
collection and analysis of information from real-world use to assist
with the development of current or future low-emission vehicles.
Second, an exemption would facilitate production of future FMVSS-
compliant low-emission vehicle models while the petitioners work to
achieve FMVSS compliance. Third, it would enable further evaluation of
the market for low-emission vehicles by allowing the petitioners to
assess the Picnic-G6's viability in the U.S. market, and the viability
of the Picnic grocery delivery pilot. Fourth, the petitioners argue
that an exemption would demonstrate to the public the capabilities of
electric vehicles, which could further encourage consumers to acquire
goods through ecommerce options that rely on infrastructure that has a
low-carbon footprint and on delivery models that reduce road
congestion. Finally, an exemption would provide consumers with a
``safe, all-electric option'' as the petitioners develop modifications
to the Picnic-G6 to make it FMVSS-compliant, thereby accelerating the
entry of a small-sized, speed-limited, all-electric utility vehicle
option among a field that typically consists of larger, gasoline-
powered vehicles or LSVs.
e. Petitioners' Explanation for Why an Exemption Would Be in the Public
Interest
The petitioners argue that an exemption would be in the public
interest because it would increase consumer choice and improve access
to goods deliveries by zero-emission vehicles. The petitioners also
argue that an exemption would demonstrate to the public the viability
of all-electric utility vehicles through the Picnic pilot. The
petitioners further state that the exemption would allow for the
petitioners to evaluate both the viability of delivery models like the
Picnic pilot, as well as the performance of its all-electric utility
vehicles generally. In addition, the petitioners argue an exemption
would allow for the collection of information that would assist with
the further development of all-electric utility vehicles. The
petitioners also argue that the Picnic pilot would provide employment
opportunities to an estimated 600 people relating to its delivery
service. Further, the petitioners state that, if the Picnic pilot is
successful, the exemption could pave the way for additional jobs
relating to the development of an FMVSS-compliant version of the
Picnic-G6, which the petitioners expect would be manufactured at one of
its U.S. factories.
III. Request for Comment
The agency seeks comment from the public on the merits of Polaris/
Goupil's application for a temporary exemption. In addition, we seek
comment on what restrictions, if any, the agency should place on an
exemption should the agency determine an exemption is appropriate
(e.g., operational restrictions, limits on transfer of ownership,
etc.). After considering public comments and other available
information, we will publish a notice of final action on the
application in the Federal Register.
NHTSA has made no judgment at this time on the merits of the
petition.
IV. Public Participation
How long do I have to submit comments?
Please see DATES section at the beginning of this document.
How do I prepare and submit comments?
Your comments must be written in English.
To ensure that your comments are correctly filed in the
Docket, please include the Docket Number shown at the beginning of this
document in your comments.
If you are submitting comments electronically as a PDF
(Adobe) File, NHTSA asks that the documents be submitted using the
Optical Character Recognition (OCR) process, thus allowing NHTSA to
search and copy certain portions of your submissions. Comments may be
submitted to the docket electronically by logging onto the Docket
Management System website at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
online instructions for submitting comments.
You may also submit two copies of your comments, including
the attachments, to Docket Management at the address given above under
ADDRESSES.
Please note that pursuant to the Data Quality Act, in order for
substantive data to be relied upon and used by the agency, it must meet
the information quality standards set forth in the OMB and DOT Data
Quality Act guidelines. Accordingly, we encourage you to
[[Page 48476]]
consult the guidelines in preparing your comments. OMB's guidelines may
be accessed at http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/fedreg/reproducible.html.
DOT's guidelines may be accessed at http://www.bts.gov/programs/statistical_policy_and_research/data_quality_guidelines.
How can I be sure that my comments were received?
If you wish Docket Management to notify you upon its receipt of
your comments, enclose a self-addressed, stamped postcard in the
envelope containing your comments. Upon receiving your comments, Docket
Management will return the postcard by mail.
How do I submit confidential business information?
If you wish to submit any information under a claim of
confidentiality, you should submit three copies of your complete
submission, including the information you claim to be confidential
business information, to the Chief Counsel, NHTSA, at the address given
above under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. In addition, you should
submit two copies, from which you have deleted the claimed confidential
business information, to Docket Management at the address given above
under ADDRESSES. When you send a comment containing information claimed
to be confidential business information, you should include a cover
letter setting forth the information specified in our confidential
business information regulation. (49 CFR part 512). To facilitate
social distancing during COVID-19, NHTSA is temporarily accepting
confidential business information electronically. Please see https://www.nhtsa.gov/coronavirus/submission-confidential-business-information
for details.
Will the Agency consider late comments?
We will consider all comments that Docket Management receives
before the close of business on the comment closing date indicated
above under DATES. To the extent possible, we will also consider
comments that Docket Management receives after that date. If Docket
Management receives a comment too late for us to consider for this
rulemaking, we will consider that comment as an informal suggestion for
future rulemaking action.
How can I read the comments submitted by other people?
You may see the comments on the internet. To read the comments on
the internet, go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for accessing the dockets.
Please note that, even after the comment closing date, we will
continue to file relevant information in the Docket as it becomes
available. Further, some people may submit late comments. Accordingly,
we recommend that you periodically check the Docket for new material.
Issued under authority delegated in 49 CFR 1.95 and 501.4.
Steven S. Cliff,
Acting Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2021-18634 Filed 8-27-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P