Tesla Motors, Inc.; Receipt of Petition for Temporary Exemption From the Electronic Stability Control Requirements of FMVSS No. 126 |
|---|
Topics: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Tesla Roadster
|
Christopher J. Bonanti
Federal Register
August 5, 2011
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 151 (Friday, August 5, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 47639-47641]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-19914]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA-2011-0110]
Tesla Motors, Inc.; Receipt of Petition for Temporary Exemption
From the Electronic Stability Control Requirements of FMVSS No. 126
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Notice of receipt of a petition for temporary exemption from
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 126, Electronic
Stability Control Systems.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In accordance with the procedures in 49 CFR part 555, Tesla
Motors, Inc., has petitioned the agency for a temporary exemption from
the electronic stability control requirements of FMVSS No. 126. The
bases for the application are that the petitioner avers that the
exemption would make the development or field evaluation of a low-
emission vehicle easier and would not unreasonably lower the safety
level of that vehicle and that compliance would cause it substantial
economic hardship and that it has tried in good faith to comply with
the standard.\1\ This notice of receipt of an application for a
temporary exemption is published in accordance with statutory and
administrative provisions. NHTSA has made no judgment on the merits of
the application.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ To view the application, go to http://www.regulations.gov
and enter the docket number set forth in the heading of this
document.
DATES: You should submit your comments not later than September 6,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2011.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Jasinski, Office of the Chief
Counsel, NCC-112, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200
New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building 4th Floor, Room W41-213,
Washington, DC 20590. Telephone: (202) 366-2992; Fax: (202) 366-3820.
ADDRESSES: We invite you to submit comments on the application
described above. You may submit comments identified by docket number at
the heading of this notice by any of the following methods:
Web Site: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments on the electronic docket site by
clicking on ``Help and Information'' or ``Help/Info.''
Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE.,
Washington, DC 20590.
Hand Delivery: 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building
Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays.
Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
Instructions: All submissions must include the agency name and
docket number. Note that all comments received will be posted without
change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal
information provided. Please see the Privacy Act discussion below. We
will consider all comments received before the close of business on the
comment closing date indicated above. To the extent possible, we will
also consider comments filed after the closing date.
Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov at any time or to
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140,
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 am and 5 pm, Monday through Friday,
except Federal Holidays. Telephone: (202) 366-9826. Privacy Act: Anyone
is able to search the electronic form of all comments received into any
of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or
signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association,
business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act
Statement in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (Volume
65, Number 70; Pages 19477-78) or you may visit http://www.dot.gov/privacy.html.
Confidential Business Information: If you wish to submit any
information under a claim of confidentiality, you should submit three
copies of your complete submission, including the information you claim
to be confidential business information, to the Chief Counsel, NHTSA,
at the address given under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. In
addition, you should submit two copies, from which you have deleted the
claimed confidential business information, to Docket Management at the
address given above. When you send a comment containing information
claimed to be confidential business information, you should include a
cover letter setting forth the information specified in our
confidential business information regulation (49 CFR part 512).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Statutory Basis for Temporary Exemptions
The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act),
codified as 49 U.S.C. chapter 301, authorizes the Secretary of
Transportation 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 in this section to NHTSA.
NHTSA established 49 CFR part 555, Temporary Exemption from Motor
Vehicle Safety and Bumper Standards, to implement the statutory
provisions concerning temporary exemptions. A vehicle manufacturer
wishing to obtain an exemption from a standard must demonstrate in its
application (A) that an exemption would be in the public interest and
consistent with the Safety Act and (B) that the manufacturer satisfies
one of the following four bases for an exemption: (i) Compliance with
the standard would cause substantial economic hardship to a
manufacturer that has tried to comply with the standard 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.
Only small manufacturers can obtain an economic hardship exemption.
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.
[[Page 47640]]
30113). In determining whether a manufacturer of a vehicle meets that
criterion, NHTSA considers whether another entity also might be deemed
a manufacturer of that vehicle and whether the production volumes of
each of the two manufacturers should be combined in assessing whether
the criterion is met. A second entity might be deemed a manufacturer of
a vehicle in a variety of circumstances. For example, there are two
manufacturers if one entity produces an incomplete vehicle \2\ and
another entity then modifies the incomplete vehicle so as to produce a
completed vehicle.\3\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ 49 CFR 567.3.
\3\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For an exemption petition to be granted on the basis that 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 the vehicle, the petition must include specified
information set forth at 49 CFR 555.6(c). The main requirements of that
section include: (1) Substantiation that the vehicle is a low-emission
vehicle; (2) documentation establishing that a temporary exemption
would not unreasonably degrade the safety of a vehicle; (3)
substantiation that a temporary exemption would facilitate the
development or field evaluation of the vehicle; (4) a statement of
whether the petitioner intends to conform to the standard at the end of
the exemption period; and (5) a statement that not more than 2,500
exempted vehicles will be sold in the United States in any 12-month
period for which an exemption may be granted.
II. Electronic Stability Control Systems Requirement
In April 2007, NHTSA published a final rule requiring that vehicles
with a gross vehicle weight rating of 4,536 kilograms (kg) (10,000
pounds) or less be equipped with electronic stability control (ESC)
systems. ESC systems use automatic computer-controlled braking of
individual wheels to assist the driver in maintaining control in
critical driving situations in which the vehicle is beginning to lose
directional stability at the rear wheels (spin out) or directional
control at the front wheels (plow out). An anti-lock brake system (ABS)
is a prerequisite for an ESC system because ESC uses many of the same
components as ABS. Thus, the cost of complying with FMVSS No. 126 is
less for vehicle models already equipped with ABS.
Preventing single-vehicle loss-of-control crashes is the most
effective way to reduce deaths resulting from rollover crashes. This is
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 36 percent and fatal single-vehicle crashes of
sport utility vehicles (SUVs) by 63 percent.\4\ NHTSA estimates that
ESC has the potential to prevent 70 percent of the fatal passenger car
rollovers and 88 percent of the fatal SUV rollovers that would
otherwise occur in single-vehicle crashes.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Dang, J., Statistical Analysis of the Effectiveness of
Electronic Stability Control (ESC) Systems--Final Report, DOT HS 810
794, U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, DC (July 2007).
Available at Docket No. NHTSA-2007-28629, item 2.
\5\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The ESC requirement becomes effective for substantially all
vehicles on September 1, 2011.
III. Overview of Petition
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 30113 and the procedures in 49 CFR
part 555, Tesla Motors, Inc. (Tesla) submitted a petition dated June 7,
2001 asking the agency for a temporary exemption from the electronic
stability control requirements of FMVSS No. 126. The bases for the
application are, first, that the exemption would make the development
or field evaluation of a low-emission vehicle easier and would not
unreasonably lower the safety level of that vehicle and, second, that
compliance would cause substantial economic hardship to a petitioner
that has tried in good faith to comply with the standard. Tesla has
requested an exemption for the Roadster model for a period from
September 1, 2011 to December 31, 2011.
Tesla is a Delaware corporation headquartered in California with
sales offices throughout the United States and overseas. Tesla
currently manufactures and sells only one vehicle, the Roadster. Tesla
began production of the all-electric Roadster in 2008 plans to conclude
production for the United States market by December 31, 2011.
The Roadster has a single-speed electrically actuated automatic
transmission and three phase, four pole AC induction motor. The
Roadster has a combined range of 245 miles on a single charge. Under an
agreement with Group Lotus plc (Lotus), Tesla purchases the Roadster
``glider,'' which uses the chassis and several other systems of the
Lotus Elise. The gliders are manufactured under Tesla's supervision and
direction at a Lotus factory in the United Kingdom and then shipped to
Menlo Park, California, where installation of the power train and other
final steps are taken prior to sale of the vehicle in the United
States.
Tesla sold or leased 276 Roadsters in the United States during 2010
and 62 Roadsters during the first quarter of 2011. Tesla's worldwide
production for 2011 is planned to be fewer than 1,000 vehicles. Tesla
contends that its relationship with Lotus does not involve any time of
ownership, sponsorship, or any other type of control. However, Tesla
also observes that the combined production of Lotus and Tesla was less
than 10,000 vehicles for 2009 and 2010.
Tesla believes that granting the petition will support development
and evaluation of a highway-capable electric vehicle. Tesla states that
the development and sale of the Roadster model has allowed them to
develop their next all-electric vehicle, the Model S. Tesla states
that, with the permission of vehicle owners, it has used data from
computers installed in on-road Roadsters related to charging condition
and vehicle performance to determine how best to optimize its battery
design and vehicle software for future vehicle offerings such as the
Model S. Tesla believes that allowing the sale of additional Roadsters
will continue to add to its database of information for its future
vehicle offerings. Tesla states that it cannot replicate this data in
laboratory or other environmental conditions.
Tesla believes that safety will not be unduly compromised if the
exemption is granted. In support of this assertion, Tesla cites its
inclusion of a traction control system (TCS) on its vehicles. Tesla's
TCS is comprised of software, wheel speed sensors, and the drive system
electronic control unit (ECU). Tesla states that its TCS has many
elements of an ESC system required by FMVSS No. 126. Tesla claims that
the TCS system is able to detect slip in the drive wheels through the
vehicle's ECU and that the vehicle will limit drive power until wheel
spin is controlled. However, Tesla notes that the TCS system does not
have the capability to independently monitor or adjust steering inputs
to prevent oversteer or understeer, nor is it capable of applying
brakes independent of driver input, both of which are required by FMVSS
No. 126.
[[Page 47641]]
Further, Tesla believes that the lack of ESC systems on the
Roadster will not unduly compromise safety based on the intended use of
the Roadster. The Roadster is a low, two-seat sport coupe. Tesla
believes that, while the Roadster is capable of handling slippery roads
due to ice and snow, most owners either do not use their Roadsters
during winter months or sharply limit their use.
Tesla also contends that the failure to obtain the exemption would
result in substantial economic hardship. Tesla states that it has
incurred cumulative net losses of $464 million since inception and
nearly $50 million in the first three months of 2011. Tesla states that
the loss of the ability to sell the Roadster in the United States could
adversely impact its compliance with financial covenants with the U.S.
Department of Energy, potentially depriving it of a source of capital.
Further, because the Roadster is the only vehicle Tesla offers for sale
in the United States, Tesla contends that the cancellation of the
program would result in a significant loss of market for Tesla.
Tesla states that it spent between $2 million and $3 million
developing an ESC system for the Model S. Tesla does not have a precise
cost to equip the Roadster with an ESC system, but applying the per
vehicle cost of its Model S to the Roadster, it would cost as much as
$30,000 per vehicle to equip ESC systems onto Roadsters planned to be
sold under the exemption.
Tesla notes that its chassis is based upon the Lotus Elise, which
is equipped with ABS, but not an ESC system. Because Lotus is ending
production of the Elise for the United States market by August 2011,
Lotus will not invest in redesigns or additions to existing vehicle
systems, including changes to comply with the ESC system requirements.
Tesla states that, given the small number of Roadsters planned for
production during the exemption period and the short time frame
available to Tesla, it is technologically and economically infeasible
to develop an ESC system for the Roadster.
Tesla contends that it has exerted good faith efforts to achieve
compliance with FMVSS No. 126. Tesla has developed an ESC system for
the upcoming Model S, which is scheduled to be introduced in the United
States in 2012. Tesla also states that it has included a number of
features not mandated by the FMVSSs, including the TCS system discussed
earlier. Tesla notes that it had intended on ending Roadster production
prior to September 1, 2011 and, thus, would not have been required to
equip its vehicles with ESC systems. Thus, Tesla did not focus
development activities on meeting the requirements of FMVSS No. 126.
However, due to a shift in production priorities at Lotus, Tesla was
informed that an additional quantity of Roadster gliders could be
produced in 2011.
Tesla also believes that the exemption is in the public interest.
Tesla states that, without the exemption, it may be required to lay off
a significant number of employees. Further, Tesla notes that denying
this petition would result in fewer electric vehicles for sale in the
United States. Finally, Tesla believes that continuing to sell a long
range, highway-capable, battery-powered electric vehicle in the United
States will lead to more electric vehicles entering the fleet.
IV. Completeness and Comment Period
Upon receiving a petition, NHTSA conducts an initial review of the
petition with respect to whether the petition is complete and whether
the petitioner appears to be eligible to apply for the requested
petition. The agency has tentatively concluded that the petition from
Tesla is complete and that Tesla is eligible for a temporary exemption.
The agency has not made any judgment on the merits of the application,
and is placing a non-confidential copy of the petition in the docket.
We are providing a 30-day comment period. After considering public
comments and other available information, we will publish a notice of
final action on the application in the Federal Register.
Issued on: August 2, 2011.
Christopher J. Bonanti,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 2011-19914 Filed 8-4-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P