Fisker Automotive; Grant of Application for Temporary Exemption From Advanced Air Bag Requirements of FMVSS No. 208 |
|---|
Topics: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Fisker Karma
|
David L. Strickland
September 21, 2010
[Federal Register: September 21, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 182)]
[Notices]
[Page 57549-57553]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr21se10-144]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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 low-
speed crashes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See 65 FR 30680 (May 12, 2000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The advanced air bag requirements were a culmination of a
comprehensive plan that the agency announced in 1996 to address the
adverse effects of air bags. This plan also included an extensive
consumer education program to
[[Page 57550]]
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See, 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 Sec.
555.6, and the reasons why the exemption would be in the public
interest and consistent with the objectives of 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301.
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ 49 U.S.C. 30113(b)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ The July 30. 2010 submission was submitted on behalf of
Fisker by Global Vehicle Services Corporation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
[[Page 57551]]
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 low-emission 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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Chrysler 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ See grant of petition to Tesla Motors, Inc., 73 FR 4944,
4948 (Jan. 28, 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
[[Page 57552]]
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 one-year 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
[[Page 57553]]
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Lower Anchors and Tethers for Children (LATCH) Restraint
System.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 Sec. 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. ----------.'' This label
notifies prospective purchasers about the exemption and its subject.
Under Sec. 555.9(c), this information must also be included on the
vehicle's certification label.
The text of Sec. 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
Sec. 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