[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 162 (Tuesday, August 23, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-20635]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: August 23, 1994]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
49 CFR Part 555
[Docket 94-69; Notice 1]
Temporary Exemption From Motor Vehicle Safety Standards
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document requests comments on the recommendation by the
National Performance Review that the number of motor vehicles which may
be exempted from compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety
standards (FMVSSs) on the basis that they possess innovative safety
features be increased from the 2,500 per year presently specified by
statute. The recommendation is based on the belief that an increase may
encourage vehicle manufacturers to seek exemptions allowing them to
introduce safety innovations.
DATES: The closing date for comments is October 24, 1994.
ADDRESSES: Comments should refer to the docket number and the notice
number, and be submitted to: Docket Section, room 5109, Nassif
Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW, Washington, DC 20590. (Docket hours
are from 9:30 a.m. to 4 p.m.).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Noble Bowie, Office of Plans and
Programs, NHTSA (202-366-2549).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Existing Exemption Authority
NHTSA is directed by 49 U.S.C. 30111 (formerly 15 U.S.C. 1392) to
issue FMVSSs to reduce the number and severity of vehicle crashes and
to reduce the likelihood that deaths and injuries will occur in those
crashes. In recognition of the need to provide exemptions from the
FMVSSs in special, limited circumstances, NHTSA requested Congress in
1972 to give it express authority for this purpose. The authority was
intended to, among other things, permit the agency to grant exemptions
to permit vehicle manufacturers to allow them to incorporate new safety
features into their vehicles.
In response, Congress enacted legislation later that same year to
authorize the agency to exempt a motor vehicle manufacturer from any
FMVSS based on any one of four findings. 49 U.S.C. 30113 (formerly
section 123 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, 15
U.S.C. 1410). One was a finding that ``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.'' Such an exemption may be granted for a period that does
not exceed two years (subject to renewal). The exemption may not cover
``more than 2,500 vehicles to be sold in the United States in any 12-
month period''. (49 U.S.C. 30113 (d) and (e)).
There is scant legislative history regarding the congressional
intentions underlying this exemption provision.
A single sentence of explanation appeared in floor statements made
on October 6, 1972 by Senator Hartke:
The purpose of this provision is to enable manufacturers to
experiment with innovative safety concepts but not endanger the
health and safety of the motoring public.
(See pages S34207-34209)
In issuing FMVSSs, the agency drafts them to be as performance
oriented as possible to minimize the need to amend them to accommodate
future technological advances. If a vehicle manufacturer nevertheless
finds that a provision of an existing standard has the effect of
prohibiting a new device, it may petition the agency to amend that
provision so as to allow the device. At any given time, the agency is
conducting numerous rulemaking proceedings in response to such
petitions. In a very few cases since 1972, vehicle manufacturers have
petitioned for exemption under the provision relating to innovative
safety features. Indeed, exemption on the grounds of an innovative
safety feature has been the least frequently used of the four statutory
bases upon which a manufacturer may submit an exemption petition.
National Performance Review
This notice responds to a recommendation by The National
Performance Review (NPR), which was chaired by the Vice President of
the United States. The NPR reviewed NHTSA's statutes and regulations,
and recommended in its report, ``From Red Tape to Results,'' that the
number of vehicles that may be covered by a safety exemption be raised.
For the benefit of readers unfamiliar with this particular NPR
recommendation, the agency has set forth below the relevant passages
from the accompanying Report of the National Performance Review--
September 1993 (pp. 23-24):
Background
Technology and consumer preferences often change faster than the
rulemaking process of the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration (NHTSA) can move. Today, for example, automotive
safety is an important concern of consumers. Manufacturers who can
deliver the safety features their customers want are at a sales
advantage. Manufacturers, therefore, have a financial incentive for
investing time and money in new or improved safety features--if they
thought they could make their way through the NHTSA approval process
in time to capitalize on the current trends in consumer preference.
Current enabling legislation and the NHTSA rulemaking processes,
however, are too encumbering and time consuming to enable NHTSA to
turn short-term consumer trends into long-term safety advances. The
cost and time required to assemble the needed justification and the
average two-year duration of the rulemaking process can inhibit
manufacturers from introducing safety improvements. As a result,
consumers have to wait two years or more before improvements reach
the market.
Although NHTSA can grant a temporary exemption from standards to
help advance new safety systems, no more than 2,500 vehicles can be
sold per year for each exemption granted. This number is too low to
provide manufacturers with sufficient economic and marketing
incentives and to allow extensive, real-world evaluations.
Actions
1. Legislation should be enacted to raise the current 2,500-vehicle
limit on exemptions.
NHTSA should consider all factors that are relevant to expanding
the exemption provision into a more effective mechanism for
encouraging safety innovations. NHTSA should then determine what
higher exemption authority is desirable and draft legislation for
submission to Congress at the beginning of the next session (January
1995).
Legislation should be enacted to authorize NHTSA to grant such
exemptions after public notice and comment.
NHTSA should grant exemptions only after it is satisfied that a
manufacturer will thoroughly evaluate the actual ``on-road''
benefits (or problems) of the exempted safety system. NHTSA should
ensure that the manufacturers carry out the evaluation and help them
to do this.
Implications
By increasing the vehicle limits, NHTSA will promote cooperation
between government and industry, motivate industry to introduce new
safety devices because of the economic advantage of selling
innovative safety features, enhance support from industry and
consumers for possible safety improvements, and introduce some
safety advances to the marketplace sooner than might occur through
lengthy, costly, and contentious rulemaking.
Fiscal Impact
Both industry and government will be able to reduce costs
associated with research and evaluation. NHTSA will also realize a
reduction in staff resources currently devoted to rulemaking;
however, the specific fiscal implications will depend on the nature
and frequency of exemptions and cannot be estimated.
Issues for Public Comment
In order to assess the need for legislation and to prepare a
request for it by January 1995, if such is warranted, NHTSA requests
information that will assist it in identifying ways in which its
exemption authority could be amended to encourage manufacturers to seek
exemptions in order to incorporate new safety technologies in
production vehicles at the earliest time in advance of possible
amendments of relevant FMVSSs. Two particular concerns underlie the NPR
report: (1) the minimum size of production runs of new safety features
necessary to be economically feasible; and (2) the minimum number of
vehicles required to provide statistically significant data for
evaluation. Therefore, NHTSA asks vehicle manufacturers to quantify
these two minima, and explain the basis for their responses.
Manufacturers and other commenters should submit documents, analyses,
or other data that are germane to these concerns.
NHTSA also requests comments on the following issues--
1. Whether impediments exist, such as liability concerns, that
discourage vehicle manufacturers from using the exemption process to
evaluate safety innovations.
2. The identity of any specific existing or anticipated safety
innovations whose introduction might be prohibited by an existing or
proposed FMVSS and for which vehicle manufacturers would apply for
exemption if the number of vehicles covered were increased, and/or if
the exemption term were longer.
3. The level to which the number of exempted vehicles would have to
be increased and/or the extent to which exemption term would have to be
lengthened in order to encourage vehicle manufacturers to apply for
temporary exemptions.
4. Whether the number of exempted vehicles and/or term should be
left to the Administrator's discretion, instead of being statutorily
specified as at present.
5. Under expanded exemption authority, how the agency should
assess, in advance of the results of an on-the-road evaluation, the
likelihood that an innovative safety feature will yield equal or
superior safety benefits. The agency is mindful of the concern
expressed in the legislative history that the issuance of exemptions
for innovative safety features should not endanger the health and
safety of the motoring public. If the number of vehicles that can be
covered by in a single exemption is increased, there could be a
commensurate increase in the potential adverse consequences of an
erroneous judgment by the agency that an innovative feature will
provide safety benefits that equal or exceed those of complying
features.
6. Whether there are other amendments to NHTSA's existing statutory
authority, 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301--Motor Vehicle Safety (formerly 15
U.S.C. 1381 et seq., the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act)
which would encourage automotive safety innovations without
compromising safety.
7. The validity of the assumptions underlying NPR's analysis and
conclusions.
It is requested but not required that ten copies of each comment be
submitted. No comments may exceed 15 (fifteen) pages in length (49 CFR
553.21). Necessary attachments may be appended to submissions without
regard to the 15-page limit.
All comments received before the close of business on the comment
closing date listed above will be considered and will be available for
examination in the docket room and the above address both before and
after that date. To the extent possible, comments filed after the
closing date will be considered. The agency will continue to file
relevant information as it becomes available. It is recommended that
interested persons continue to examine the docket for new material.
Those commenters desiring to be notified upon receipt of their comments
by the docket section should include a self-addressed, stamped postcard
in the envelope with their comments. Upon receipt of their comments,
the docket supervisor will return the postcard by mail.
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30117.
Issued on: August 16, 1994.
Donald C. Bischoff,
Associate Administrator for Plans and Policy.
[FR Doc. 94-20635 Filed 8-22-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
