[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 249 (Tuesday, December 30, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 67931-67932]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-33954]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA-97-3268]
Panoz Auto Development Company; Receipt of Application for Second
Renewal of Temporary Exemption From Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
Standard No. 208
Panoz Auto Development Company of Hoschton, GA., has applied for a
second renewal of its exemption from paragraph S4.1.4 of Federal Motor
Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208 Occupant Crash Protection. The basis of
the reapplication is that compliance will cause substantial economic
hardship to a manufacturer that has tried to comply with the standard
in good faith.
This notice of receipt of an application for renewal is published
in accordance with the requirements of 49 U.S.C. 30113(b)(2) and does
not represent any judgment of the agency on the merits of the
application.
Panoz received NHTSA Exemption No. 93-5 from S4.1.4 of Standard No.
208, an exemption for two years which was initially scheduled to expire
August 1, 1995 (58 FR 43007). It applied for, and received, a renewal
of this exemption for an additional two years, scheduled to expire on
November 1, 1997 (61 FR 2866). On August 28, 1997, NHTSA received
Panoz's application for second renewal, which was more than 60 days
before the scheduled expiration date of its exemption. In accordance
with 49 CFR 555.8(e), Panoz's filing of its application before the 60th
day stays the expiration until the Administrator grants or denies the
application for second renewal.
Panoz's original exemption was granted pursuant to the
representation that its Roadster would be equipped with a Ford-supplied
driver and passenger airbag system, and would comply with Standard No.
208 by April 5, 1995 after estimated expenditures of $472,000. As of
April 1993, the company had expended 750 man hours and $15,000 on the
project.
According to its 1995 application for renewal,
Panoz has continued the process of researching and developing the
installation of a driver and passenger side airbag system on the
Roadster since the original exemption petition was submitted to
NHTSA on April 5, 1993. To date, an estimated 1680 man-hours and
approximately $50,400 have been spent on this project.
At that time, Panoz used a 5.0L Ford Mustang GT engine and five
speed manual transmission in its car. Because ``the 1995 model year and
associated emission components were revised by Ford'', this caused
a delay in the implementation of the airbag system on the Roadster
due to further research and development time requirements and
expenditure of additional monies to evaluate the effects of these
changes on the airbag adaptation program.
Shortly before filing its application for first renewal, Panoz
learned that Ford was replacing the 5.0L engine and emission control
system on the 1996 Mustang and other passenger cars with a modular 4.6L
engine and associated emission components. The 1995 system did not meet
1996 On-Board Diagnostic emission control requirements, and Panoz was
faced with using the 1996 engine and emission control system as a
substitute. The majority of the money and man hours at that time had
been spent on adapting an airbag system to the 5.0L engine car, and the
applicant had to concentrate on adapting it to a 4.6L engine car. Panoz
listed eight types of modifications and testing necessary for
compliance that would cost it $337,000 if compliance were required at
the end of a one-year period. It asked for and received a two-year
renewal of its exemption.
However, Panoz found integration of the 4.6L engine into its
existing chassis more difficult than anticipated, primarily because the
4.6L was 10 inches wider than the engine it replaced. This required a
total redesign of the chassis, requiring expenditure of ``a significant
amount of resources.'' Simultaneously, it designed the vehicle to allow
for the integration of the Ford Mustang driver-side and passenger-side
airbag systems. Panoz describes these steps in some detail and
estimates that between May 1995 and August 1997 it spent 2200 man-hours
and $66,000 on these efforts. In the same time period, it spent $47,000
in static and dynamic crash testing of a 4.6L car related to airbag
system development. Panoz concludes by describing the additional
modifications and testing required to adapt the Ford system to its car.
These costs total $358,000. A two-year renewal of its exemption would
provide sufficient time to generate sufficient income (approximately
$15,000 a month through sales of vehicles and private
[[Page 67932]]
funding) to fund the modifications and testing.
Panoz sold 13 cars in 1993 and 13 more in 1994. It did not state
its sales in 1995. Because of the effort needed to meet Federal
emission and safety requirements, Panoz did not build any 1996 model
year vehicles. It reports sales of 23 model year 1997 vehicles in the
12 months preceding its application for second renewal. At the time of
its original petition, Panoz's cumulative net losses since
incorporation in 1989 were $1,265,176. It lost an additional $249,478
in 1993, $169,713 in 1994, $721,282 in 1995, and $1,349,241 in 1996.
The applicant reiterated its original arguments that an exemption
would be in the public interest and consistent with the objectives of
traffic safety. Specifically, the Roadster is built in the United
States and uses 100 percent U.S. components, bought from Ford and
approximately 80 other companies. It provides employment for 45 full
time and three part time employees. The Roadster is said to provide the
public with a classic alternative to current production vehicles. It is
the only vehicle that incorporates ``molded aluminum body panels for
the entire car'', a process which continues to be evaluated by other
manufacturers and which ``results in the reduction of overall vehicle
weight, improved fuel efficiency, shortened tooling lead times, and
increased body strength.'' With the exception of S4.1.4 of Standard No.
208, the Roadster meets all other Federal motor vehicle safety
standards including the 1997 side impact provisions of Standard No.
214.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on the
application described above. Comments should refer to the docket number
and the notice number, and be submitted to: Docket Section, National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration, room 5109, 400 Seventh Street,
SW, Washington, DC 20590. It is requested but not required that 10
copies be submitted.
All comments received before the close of business on the comment
closing date indicated below will be considered, and will be available
for examination in the docket at the above address both before and
after that date. To the extent possible, comments filed after the
closing date will also be considered. Notice of final action on the
application will be published in the Federal Register pursuant to the
authority indicated below.
Comment closing date: January 29, 1998.
(49 U.S.C. 30113; delegations of authority at 49 CFR 1.50. and
501.8)
Issued on December 23, 1997.
L. Robert Shelton,
Associate Administrator for Safety Performance Standards.
[FR Doc. 97-33954 Filed 12-29-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
