62038 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 203 / Friday, October 20, 2006 / Notices

PM1 vehicle. These functional checks may have national security or foreign or foreign policy interests that would include verifying proper operation of policy implications. require the FAA to prevent launches of PM1’s actuators, and that all valves, PM1. Thus, there are no national Four-Prong Test regulators, and avionics function security or foreign policy issues normally. During these tests, the PM1 The four-prong test used by the FAA associated with the launch processing of will contain no H2O2. Blue Origin will was originally raised by the House PM1. pressurize the PM1 helium tanks in the Science Committee in 1995, as guidance VPF before moving the PM1 to a test to the FAA to assist it in defining Summary and Conclusion ‘‘launch’’ under chapter 701. H.R. Rep. landing pad. A separate test, called the A waiver is in the public interest No. 233, 104th Cong., 1st Sess., at 60 ‘‘flight readiness test’’, will be because it accomplishes the goals of (1995). The guidance suggested that pre- performed after helium pressurization Chapter 701 and avoids unnecessary flight activities that should be regulated gas has been loaded on the vehicle, just regulation. The waiver will not before the vehicle is transported to the as part of a ‘‘launch’’, are those that: 1. Are closely proximate in time to jeopardize public health and safety or test landing pad. At the test landing safety of property because launch pad, Blue Origin will load the PM1 with ignition or lift-off, 2. Entail critical steps preparatory to processing activities for PM1 up to H2O2 and prepare it for flight. After helium pressurization conducted at landing, the PM1 and any support initiating flight, 3. Are unique to space launch, and West Texas Launch Site are benign to equipment will be returned to a safe the public. A waiver will not jeopardize condition. In accordance with this 4. Are inherently so hazardous as to warrant AST’s regulatory oversight national security and foreign policy waiver, under Blue Origin’s interests of the United States. experimental permit, launch begins under 49 U.S.C. chapter 701. As the FAA noted in the Scaled with pressurization of gaseous helium For the foregoing reasons, the FAA Waiver and in a Notice of Proposed bottles of the PM1 in the VPF and has waived the requirement for Blue Rulemaking, Experimental Permits for includes all preparation until flight of Origin to obtain a license for Blue Reusable Suborbital Rockets, 71 FR the vehicle. Origin’s launch processing until helium 16251 (Mar. 31, 2006), the four-prong pressurization conducted at West Texas By statute, for a suborbital rocket, test provides a rational approach to Launch Site. ‘‘launch’’ means to place or try to place determining whether to waive the a launch vehicle in a suborbital license requirement for launch Issued in Washington, DC, on October 13, trajectory, and includes activities processing. The many hazards involved 2006. involved in the preparation of a launch in the processing of expendable launch Stewart W. Jackson, vehicle or payload for launch, when vehicles led the FAA to define launch Manager, Systems Engineering and Training, those activities take place at a launch to begin with the arrival of a vehicle at Office of the Associate Administrator for site in the United States. 49 U.S.C. the launch site. Commercial Space Commercial Space Transportation. 70102(3). Chapter 701 requires FAA Transportation Licensing Regulations, [FR Doc. 06–8792 Filed 10–19–06; 8:45 am] authorization of Blue Origins’ launch 64 FR 19586, 19592 (Apr. 21, 1999); BILLING CODE 4910–13–P processing activities, by license or Scaled Waiver, 69 FR at 48550. With permit, unless waived by the FAA. 49 new technologies involving different U.S.C. 70104, 70105. By regulation, hazards, however, the FAA is willing to DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION launch begins with the arrival of a entertain requests for waivers. There launch vehicle at a U.S. launch site. 14 should be no concerns if the license National Highway Traffic Safety CFR 401.5.1 requirement is waived because the Administration Waiver Criteria nature and existence of hazards are addressed as part of the waiver process. [Docket No. NHTSA–2006–26109] Chapter 701 allows the FAA to waive the requirement to obtain a license for The Four-Prong Test Applied to PM1 Auto-Development Company; an individual license or experimental Launch Processing Receipt of Application for a Temporary permit applicant if the waiver is in the Prior to pressurization of the helium Exemption From the Advanced Air Bag public interest and will not jeopardize tanks, no launch processing activities Requirements of FMVSS No. 208 public health and safety, safety of meet all four prongs of the test. In property, national security and foreign particular, no inherently hazardous AGENCY: National Highway Traffic policy interests of the United States. 49 activities take place until pressurization. Safety Administration (NHTSA), U.S.C. 70105(b)(3). 2 To assess the Therefore, the FAA finds no activities Department of Transportation (DOT). impact on public health and safety and prior to pressurizing the vehicle helium ACTION: Notice of receipt of petition for safety of property, the FAA utilizes a tanks require oversight by the FAA. temporary exemption from provisions of four-prong test. The FAA also addresses Storage of the helium is not hazardous Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard any aspects of granting a waiver that because it is inert and will not react (FMVSS) No. 208, Occupant Crash with any other elements or compounds Protection. 1 Under current FAA policy, the FAA does not under ordinary conditions. The require Blue Origin to obtain a part 420 license for unfueled PM1 presents no risk of fire, the operation of West Texas Launch Site. explosion, debris, or unintended motor SUMMARY: In accordance with the Nonetheless, although not licensed, West Texas flight. procedures in 49 CFR part 555, Panoz Launch Site is still a launch site. To the extent that Auto-Development Company has the FAA has previously suggested that a license was National Security and Foreign Policy required for a launch site to be a launch site, see petitioned the agency for a temporary Waiver of License Requirement for Scaled Implications of PM1 Launch Processing exemption from certain advanced air Composites’ Pre-flight Preparatory Activities The FAA evaluation conducted in bag requirements of FMVSS No. 208. Conducted at a U.S. Launch Site, 69 FR 48549, The basis for the application is that 48550 (Aug. 10, 2004), that reasoning was incorrect. support of Blue Origins’ experimental 2 Chapter 701 does not provide the FAA authority permit concluded that there are no compliance would cause substantial to waive a permit. See id; see also 70105a(i). issues relating to U.S. national security economic hardship to a manufacturer

VerDate Aug<31>2005 15:52 Oct 19, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00093 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\20OCN1.SGM 20OCN1 jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 203 / Friday, October 20, 2006 / Notices 62039

that has tried in good faith to comply comment (or signing the comment, if agency’s efforts in the area of consumer with the standard.1 submitted on behalf of an association, education and manufacturers’ providing This notice of receipt of an business, labor union, etc.). You may depowered air bags were successful in application for temporary exemption is review DOT’s complete Privacy Act reducing air bag fatalities even before published in accordance with the Statement in the Federal Register advanced air bag requirements were statutory provisions of 49 U.S.C. published on April 11, 2000 (Volume implemented. 30113(b)(2). NHTSA has made no 65, Number 70; Pages 19477–78) or you As always, we are concerned about judgment on the merits of the may visit http://dms.dot.gov. the potential safety implication of any application. We shall consider all comments temporary exemptions granted by this DATES: You should submit your received before the close of business on agency. In the present case, we are comments not later than November 6, the comment closing date indicated seeking comments on a petition for a 2006. above. To the extent possible, we shall temporary exemption from the also consider comments filed after the advanced air bag requirements FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. closing date. submitted by a manufacturer of very Dorothy Nakama, Office of the Chief expensive, low volume, exotic sports I. Advanced Air Bag Requirements and Counsel, NCC–112, National Highway cars. Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Small Volume Manufacturers Seventh Street, SW., Room 5219, In 2000, NHTSA upgraded the II. Overview of Petition for Economic Washington, DC 20590. Telephone: requirements for air bags in passenger Hardship Exemption (202) 366–2992; Fax: (202) 366–3820. cars and light trucks, requiring what are In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 30113 Comments: We invite you to submit commonly known as ‘‘advanced air and the procedures in 49 CFR part 555, comments on the application described bags.’’ 2 The upgrade was designed to Panoz Auto-Development Company above. You may submit comments meet the goals of improving protection (Panoz) has petitioned the agency for a identified by docket number at the for occupants of all sizes, belted and temporary exemption from certain heading of this notice by any of the unbelted, in moderate-to-high-speed advanced air bag requirements of following methods: crashes, and of minimizing the risks FMVSS No. 208 Occupant Crash • Web site: http://dms.dot.gov. posed by air bags to infants, children, Protection for the only. Follow the instructions for submitting and other occupants, especially in low- The basis for the application is that comments on the DOT electronic docket speed crashes. compliance would cause substantial site by clicking on ‘‘Help and The advanced air bag requirements economic hardship to a manufacturer Information’’ or ‘‘Help/Info.’’ were a culmination of a comprehensive that has tried in good faith to comply • Fax: 1–(202)–493–2251. plan that the agency announced in 1996 with the standard. A copy of the • Mail: Docket Management Facility, to address the adverse effects of air bags. petition 3 is available for review and has U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 This plan also included an extensive been placed in the docket for this Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, consumer education program to notice. Room PL–401, Washington, DC 20590. encourage the placement of children in • Hand Delivery: Room PL–401 on rear seats. The new requirements were III. Statutory Background for Economic the plaza level of the Nassif Building, phased in beginning with the 2004 Hardship Exemptions 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, model year. A manufacturer is eligible to apply for DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday Small volume manufacturers were not a hardship exemption if its total motor through Friday, except Federal subject to the advanced air bag vehicle production in its most recent Holidays. requirements until September 1, 2006, year of production did not exceed • Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to but their efforts to bring their respective 10,000 vehicles, as determined by the http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the vehicles into compliance with these NHTSA Administrator (49 U.S.C. online instructions for submitting requirements began several years ago. 30113). comments. However, because the new requirements In determining whether a Instructions: All submissions must were challenging, major air bag manufacturer of a vehicle meets that include the agency name and docket suppliers concentrated their efforts on criterion, NHTSA considers whether a number. Note that all comments working with large volume second vehicle manufacturer also might received will be posted without change manufacturers, and thus, until recently, be deemed the manufacturer of that to http://dms.dot.gov, including any small volume manufacturers had vehicle. The statutory provisions personal information provided. limited access to advanced air bag governing motor vehicle safety (49 Docket: For access to the docket in technology. Because of the nature of the U.S.C. Chapter 301) do not include any order to read background documents or requirements for protecting out-of- provision indicating that a manufacturer comments received, go to http:// position occupants, ‘‘off-the-shelf’’ might have substantial responsibility as dms.dot.gov at any time or to Room PL– systems could not be readily adopted. manufacturer of a vehicle simply 401 on the plaza level of the Nassif Further complicating matters, because because it owns or controls a second Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., small volume manufacturers build so manufacturer that assembled that Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 few vehicles, the costs of developing vehicle. However, the agency considers p.m., Monday through Friday, except custom advanced air bag systems the statutory definition of Federal holidays. compared to potential profits ‘‘manufacturer’’ (49 U.S.C. 30102) to be Privacy Act: Anyone is able to search discouraged some air bag suppliers from sufficiently broad to include sponsors, the electronic form of all comments working with small volume depending on the circumstances. Thus, received into any of our dockets by the manufacturers. name of the individual submitting the The agency has carefully tracked 3 In an e-mail message of August 17, 2006 to Otto occupant fatalities resulting from air bag Matheke, Esq. of NHTSA’s Chief Counsel’s office, 1 To view the application, go to: http:// the company waived confidential treatment under dms.dot.gov/search/searchFormSimple.cfm and deployment. Our data indicate that the 49 CFR part 512 for certain business and financial enter the docket number set forth in the heading of information submitted as part of its petition for this document. 2 See 65 FR 30680 (May 12, 2000). temporary exemption.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 15:52 Oct 19, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00094 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\20OCN1.SGM 20OCN1 jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES 62040 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 203 / Friday, October 20, 2006 / Notices

NHTSA has stated that a manufacturer platform, resulting in a new S197 Ford during the past 12 months was 12 units. may be deemed to be a sponsor and thus platform; The 2006 calendar-year production to a manufacturer of a vehicle assembled 3. A delay in Panoz’s receiving the date is 10 vehicles.’’ by a second manufacturer if the first necessary information from Ford Panoz stated that the reduced sales manufacturer had a substantial role in regarding the new delayed revenue forced it to slow the advanced the development and manufacturing Panoz’s design and development of an air bag system and other programs and process of that vehicle. Esperante that can meet the advanced decrease staff by approximately 30 air bag requirements; percent. IV. Petition of Panoz Auto-Development 4. declared bankruptcy and Panoz cited the following Company eliminated their air bag system division; development work and modifications Panoz states that it seeks a temporary and related to the installation of an exemption from the advanced air bag 5. Advanced air bag systems advanced air bag system in the requirements of FMVSS No. 208 only components and technology are not Esperante. Panoz estimated the total for the Panoz Esperante, a two seat readily available to small volume cost to adapt an advanced driver and . Panoz states that manufacturers. Most vendors continue passenger-side air bag system within ‘‘[t]he Esperante is the only passenger to concentrate on large volume one or two years to be $1,928,000: car currently being produced by Panoz, manufacturers. 1. Develop a new chassis that would a small volume manufacturer.’’ Panoz How these issues have affected generate the same crash pulse as the states that it is an independent company Panoz’s inability to manufacture the S197 Mustang ($380,000); with no affiliation with other Esperante to meet the advanced air bag 2. Chassis tooling ($300,000); automobile manufacturers. requirements are discussed in the 3. Design a new firewall and Panoz began to sell the Esperante in following sections on Panoz’s surrounding structure in order to install 2001. The Esperante is equipped with a statements of economic hardship and the passenger side air bag from the driver and passenger side air bag. The good faith efforts to comply. Mustang ($187,000); driver side air bag is supplied by Breed Panoz states that while its petition is 4. Interior tooling ($150,000); and the passenger side air bag is under consideration, it will continue the 5. Installation of the Mustang steering supplied by Ford. Panoz states that it design and development of the column and driver side air bag spent a ‘‘significant’’ amount of money advanced air bag system. Panoz has ($85,000); in order to comply with the ‘‘inflatable assigned engineering personnel and test 6. Installation of a new passenger side restraint requirements’’ of FMVSS No. vehicles to this project and Panoz will seat with built-in sensors ($49,000); 208. Panoz was able to achieve continue to pursue full compliance with 7. Modifications to the vehicle wiring compliance with ‘‘extensive technical the requirements of FMVSS No. 208. harness ($65,000); support’’ from Visteon, who performed Panoz estimates that full compliance 8. Low (8 mph), medium (14 mph) all the calibration work on the air bag with FMVSS No. 208 requirements will and high (30 and 35 mph) speed barrier restraint module necessary for be achieved before July 2009. crash testing, including the cost of test compliance. vehicles and engineering support V. Panoz’s Statement of Economic (estimated at $235,000); Panoz stated that as a small volume Hardship 9. Undercarriage snag, pole snag, manufacturer with limited financial and Panoz has estimated that the addition rough-road testing, and engineering technical resources, Panoz must use of an advanced air bag system adds support, including the cost of test components produced by large volume approximately $6,129 to the cost of each vehicles (estimated at $98,000); manufacturers in order to meet safety vehicle. The impact of the cost increase 10. Barrier crash tests with 3 and 6 and emissions requirements. Panoz could reduce vehicle sales by year old dummies, including the cost of stated that it uses components approximately 8 percent. Panoz stated test vehicles ($228,000); developed by Ford for the Ford Mustang that as a result of development efforts 11. Testing for out-of-position ‘‘in order to meet the stringent necessary to comply with the ‘‘airbag occupant sensing ($46,000); regulations.’’ Panoz’s center tub and mandate’’ 4 and with Environmental 12. ‘‘Compliance-level’’ frontal barrier chassis design is based on the previous Protection Agency and California Air crash tests at 30 mph, including the cost generation Ford Mustang which Panoz Resources Board requirements, the of vehicles (estimated at $68,000); and referred to as the ‘‘SN95 platform.’’ The manufacturer’s suggested retail price 13. Continued evaluation of front chassis structure is engineered to (MSRP) of the Esperante was increased production vehicles under varying closely simulate the Ford Mustang crash to $121,326. As a result of the price ambient and road conditions (estimated pulse, so that the same air bag restraint increase and ‘‘prevailing market at $37,000). module could be used in the Esperante, conditions,’’ Panoz stated that: Panoz stated that this $1,928,000 with some calibration changes, as was expenditure represents a ‘‘significant used in the Mustang. The interior space actual sales were 35 units below projections sum.’’ Panoz stated it must continue the in the Esperante was designed to be in 2001, 30 units below projections in 2002, 72 units below projections in 2003, 77 units sale of the existing Esperante in order to similar to the Mustang so that the generate the revenue necessary to fund Mustang’s relationship of the air bags to below projections in 2004, 73 units below projections in 2005, and 43 units below this project. The three year extension the occupants was simulated in the projections in 2006.5 will provide Panoz the time necessary to Esperante. properly develop the advanced air bag Panoz cited the following issues as Panoz also stated: ‘‘The total production of Panoz Esperante vehicles system. contributing to its inability to meet the If the exemption is not granted by advanced air bag requirements of 4 NHTSA, Panoz stated that it will lose: FMVSS No. 208 by September 1, 2006: Panoz did not specify whether it meant the advanced air bag requirements or other FMVSS No. approximately $4,226,120.00 in sales 1. Actual sales of the Esperante have 208 air bag requirements. revenues in 2006 based on the projected been below projected sales; 5 Panoz did not provide actual sales figures or annual sales of 53 units, $6,339,180.00 in 2. In Model Year 2005, a complete production figures for the Esperante for any of these 2007 based on the projected sales of 60 units, change was made to the Mustang years. $10,565,300.00 in 2008 based on the

VerDate Aug<31>2005 15:52 Oct 19, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00095 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\20OCN1.SGM 20OCN1 jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 203 / Friday, October 20, 2006 / Notices 62041

projected sale of 100 units, and development purposes in 2004. control system, wiper/washer system, $15,847,950.00 in 2009 based on the However, Panoz did not receive an S197 and other major components are projected sale of 150 units. Mustang until March 2005, a delay of purchased from . Panoz further stated that denial of the approximately a year. Other parts are purchased from petition would cause substantial Panoz states that between October approximately 469 different companies. economic hardship and would keep it 2003 and July 2006, it spent 6,292 man- Panoz currently provides direct from meeting the advanced air bag hours and $630,000 to develop an employment to ‘‘35 full time employees requirements of FMVSS No. 208, advanced air bag system for the and one part time employee.’’ The Esperante. A large portion of these removing the Esperante from the U.S. Panoz Esperante is currently being sold resources went into designing a new market and jeopardizing the existence of through 20 dealers in the U.S. Panoz ‘‘compliant’’ chassis, with assistance the company. Panoz stated that a three- states that in addition to providing year exemption would spread the from Multimatic Corporation. The new chassis project began before Panoz direct employment to 36 employees, ‘‘at necessary expenditures to least 500 employees from over 469 approximately $1,928,000 divided by received a new Mustang from Ford. different companies remain involved in thirty-six months or $53,556 per month, Development of this chassis is ongoing. the Panoz project.’’ which would be sustained through the Panoz states that in addition to sales of Esperante vehicles. expenditures relating to the installation Panoz states that the Esperante of an advanced air bag system, ‘‘during remains as the only vehicle developed VI. Panoz’s Statement of Good Faith this period’’ Panoz spent approximately and sold in the U.S. which uses Efforts To Comply $1,910,000 towards compliance with extensive aluminum technology. Panoz Panoz states that the delay in the other Federal motor vehicle safety states that the Esperante is the only implementation of the advanced air bag standards and with Environmental vehicle to currently use molded Protection Agency and California Air system has mostly been due to aluminum body panels for the entire Resources Board emissions standards. ‘‘circumstances beyond the control of car. Application of aluminum Panoz.’’ Panoz states its intent to Panoz noted that Visteon developed and calibrated the restraint control technology continues to gain strength in ‘‘provide the safest vehicles possible to the U.S. . Several the public.’’ The three year exemption module installed in the Esperante. Panoz intended to enter into a contract new manufacturers have introduced from air bag requirements is necessary new models equipped with a large to develop and test the ‘‘most up-to-date with Visteon to develop the advanced number of aluminum components. airbag technology available.’’ Panoz air bag system and recalibrate the air bag Panoz asserts that ‘‘[w]ith the probable states that the Esperante will ‘‘remain restraint module for use with the mandate for greater fuel efficiency, the fully compliant with all FMVSS advanced air bag system. Panoz was standards during the extended unable to use this option when Visteon use of aluminum technology should exemption periods with the sole eliminated its air bag development continue to escalate.’’ Panoz states that exception of the advanced air bag group. the Esperante is a ‘‘showcase’’ for Panoz stated that it began the process requirements of standard 208.’’ Panoz aluminum technology. Several of complying with advanced air bag cited the following changes that must be companies have used some of the requirements in October 2003 by made to the Esperante in order to meet Esperante technology in their products. entering into a contract with Multimatic the advanced air bag requirements: Panoz states that it is an innovator in 1. Modify the chassis in order to Corporation to develop a chassis that vehicle technology. Panoz further states simulate the S197 Mustang crash pulse; simulates the crash pulse and duplicates that it continues to provide the public 2. Modify the interior in order to the interior packaging of the ‘‘S197 with ‘‘a classic alternative’’ to current Mustang.’’ Panoz stated that a large simulate the interior space of the S197 production vehicles. Mustang and the relationship between portion of the work has been the occupants and air bag system; accomplished, but because of financial VIII. Request for Comments 6 constraints and inability to obtain the 3. ‘‘Package’’ the new Mustang seats We are providing a 15-day comment which are equipped with sensors; necessary S197 crash pulse information, period, since the advanced air bag 4. ‘‘Package’’ the air bag system the work has not been completed. Panoz sensors, restraint control module and stated that the new chassis design requirements became effective for small wiring harness; dictates that it must develop a volume manufacturers on September 1, 5. Modify the dashboard and support proprietary fuel tank that is able to work 2006. After considering public structure to install the new passenger properly with the Ford On-Board- comments and other available side air bag; Diagnostic system, since the new information, we will publish a notice of 6. Install new driver side air bag; Mustang fuel tank will not fit in the final action on the application in the 7. Perform crash tests to determine Esperante. The new chassis also Federal Register. required redesign of the suspension compliance with the Federal motor Issued on: October 17, 2006. vehicle safety standards; and system. 8. Validate the advanced air bag Stephen R. Kratzke, VII. Panoz’s Statement of Public Associate Administrator for Rulemaking. system. Interest Panoz cited the following as a factor [FR Doc. E6–17605 Filed 10–19–06; 8:45 am] in ‘‘significantly’’ delaying its ability to The petitioner put forth several BILLING CODE 4910–59–P develop an Esperante model that meets arguments in favor of a finding that the advanced air bag requirements. Ford requested exemption is consistent with introduced the new Mustang in Model the public interest and would not have Year 2005. Panoz was scheduled to a significant adverse impact on safety. receive a preproduction Mustang for Specifically, Panoz states that the Esperante is a ‘‘unique’’ car produced in 6 Panoz did not explain what it means by the term the U.S. using ‘‘100 percent U.S. ‘‘package.’’ components.’’ The powertrain, climate

VerDate Aug<31>2005 15:52 Oct 19, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00096 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\20OCN1.SGM 20OCN1 jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES