Ferrari S.p.A and Ferrari North America, Inc.; Receipt of Application for a Temporary Exemption From Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208, 71372-71373 [E5-6551]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
71372
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 227 / Monday, November 28, 2005 / Notices
• San Francisco on December 1,
2005—San Francisco Civic Center
Complex, Hiram Johnson Building,
Auditorium, 455 Golden Gate Avenue,
from 3 p.m. to 5 p.m. and 6 p.m. to 8
p.m.
• Livermore on December 5, 2005—
Livermore public San Francisco Civic
Center Complex, Hiram Johnson
Building, San Diego Room, 455 Golden
Gate Avenue, from 3 p.m. to 5 p.m. and
6 p.m. to 8 p.m.
• Modesto on December 6, 2005—
DoubleTree Hotel, 1150 Ninth Street,
Modesto, from 3 p.m. to 5 p.m. and 6
p.m. to 8 p.m.
• Suisun City on December 8, 2005—
Suisun City Hall, Council Chambers,
701 Civic Center Blvd., from 3 p.m. to
5 p.m. and 6 p.m. to 8 p.m.
Persons interested in providing
comments on the scope of the
programmatic EIR/EIS should do so by
December 16, 2005. Comments can be
sent in writing to Mr. David Valenstein
at the FRA address identified above.
Comments may also be addressed to Mr.
Dan Leavitt of the Authority at their
address identified above. Information
and documents regarding the
environmental review process will also
be made available through the
Authority’s Internet site: https://
www.cahighspeedrail.gov/.
Issued in Washington, DC, on November
18, 2005.
Mark E. Yachmetz,
Associate Administrator for Railroad
Development.
[FR Doc. E5–6526 Filed 11–25–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–06–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA–2005–23093]
Ferrari S.p.A and Ferrari North
America, Inc.; Receipt of Application
for a Temporary Exemption From
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard
No. 208
In accordance with the procedures of
49 CFR part 555, Ferrari S.p.A. and
Ferrari North America (collectively,
‘‘Ferrari’’) have applied for a Temporary
Exemption from S14.2 of Federal Motor
Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No.
208, Occupant Crash Protection, for the
Ferrari F430 model vehicle. The basis of
the application is that compliance
would cause substantial economic
hardship to a manufacturer that has
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:28 Nov 25, 2005
Jkt 208001
tried in good faith to comply with the
standard.1
We are publishing this notice of
receipt of the application in accordance
with the requirements of 49 U.S.C.
30113(b)(2), and have made no
judgment on the merits of the
application.
NHTSA concludes that Fiat is not a
manufacturer of Ferrari vehicles by
virtue of being a sponsor.
You should submit your
comments not later than December 28,
2005.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Chris Calamita in the Office of Chief
Counsel, NCC–112, (Phone: 202–366–
2992; Fax 202–366–3820; E-Mail:
Christopher.calamita@nhtsa.dot.gov).
Ferrari states that the F430 was
originally designed in the mid-1990s
and was originally designated as the 360
model. The petitioner states that the
Modena (coupe) version of the 360 was
launched in 1999, followed by the
Spider (convertible) version in 2000,
and the Challenge Stradale in 2003.
Production of these vehicles continued
until the end of 2004. According to the
petitioner, shortly thereafter Ferrari
began an aesthetic redesign of the
vehicle, relying on the same chassis.
Ferrari stated that the redesigned
vehicle, the F430, will be produced
until late 2008. According to Ferrari,
2008 will mark the end of the life cycle
for the 360/F430 vehicle. The petitioner
states that the 360 and F430 were
designed to comply, and do comply,
with all of the FMVSSs in effect at the
time the 360 was originally designed.
The petitioner stated that the provisions
of FMVSS No. 208 established in 2000
(65 FR 30680; May 12, 2000; Advanced
Air Bag rule) were not anticipated by
Ferrari when the 360 vehicle model was
designed.
Ferrari stated that it has been able to
bring the F430 into compliance with all
of the high-speed belted and unbelted
crash test requirements of the Advanced
Air Bag rule. However, it stated that it
has not been able to bring the vehicle
into compliance with the child out-ofposition requirements (S19, S21, and
S23), and the 5th percentile adult
female out-of-position requirements for
the driver seat (S25).
Ferrari stated that despite efforts to
involve numerous potential suppliers, it
has not identified any that are willing to
work with the company to develop an
occupant classification system that
would comply with the S19, S21, S23,
and S25. Moreover, Ferrari stated that it
is unable to reconfigure the F430 to
accommodate an occupant classification
system and air bag design that would
comply with these requirements.
Ferrari has requested an exemption
for the F430 from the advanced air bag
provisions in FMVSS No. 208 during
model years 2007 and 2008 (i.e.,
September 1, 2006 through August 31,
2008). Ferrari claims that compliance
with the advanced air bag provisions
would result in substantial economic
hardship and has filed this petition
under 49 CFR 555.6(a).
DATES:
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
I. Background
A manufacturer is eligible to apply for
a hardship exemption if its total motor
vehicle production in its most recent
year of production does not exceed
10,000, as determined by the NHTSA
Administrator (15 U.S.C. 1410(d)(1)).
Ferrari’s total production is
approximately 4,000 vehicles per year.
Fiat S.p.A., a major vehicle
manufacturer, holds a majority interest
in Ferrari. Consistent with past
determinations, NHTSA has determined
that Fiat’s interest in Ferrari does not
result in the production threshold being
exceeded (see, 54 FR 46321; November
2, 1989).
The statutory provisions governing
motor vehicle safety (49 U.S.C. Chapter
301) do not include any provision
indicating that a person is a
manufacturer of a vehicle by virtue of
ownership or control of another person
that is a manufacturer. NHTSA has
stated, however, that a person may be a
manufacturer of a vehicle manufactured
by another person if the first person has
a sufficiently substantial role in the
manufacturing process that it can be
deemed the sponsor of the vehicle. The
agency considers the statutory
definition of ‘‘manufacturer’’ (15 U.S.C.
1391(5)) to be sufficiently broad to
include sponsors, depending on the
circumstances.
In the present instance, the Ferrari
F430 bears no resemblance to any motor
vehicle designed or manufactured by
Fiat, and the agency understands that
the F430 was designed and engineered
without assistance from Fiat. Further,
the agency understands that such
assistance as Ferrari may receive from
Fiat relating to use of test facilities and
the like is an arms length transaction for
which Ferrari pays Fiat. Accordingly,
1 To view the application using the Docket
number listed above, please go to: https://
dms.dot.gov/search/searchFormSimple.cfm.
PO 00000
Frm 00111
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
II. Why Ferrari Needs a Temporary
Exemption and How Ferrari Has Tried
in Good Faith to Comply With FMVSS
No. 208
E:\FR\FM\28NON1.SGM
28NON1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 227 / Monday, November 28, 2005 / Notices
Ferrari stated that its inability to sell
the F430 in the United States through
2007 would lead to a substantial loss of
sales and revenue. Ferrari stated that in
2004, sales of the 8-cylinder 360
models, those models being replaced by
the F430, accounted for 86 percent of its
U.S. sales. Ferrari projected that if it
were unable to sell the F430 model in
the U.S., it would realize a decrease in
net profit of approximately 44 million
Euros ($53,000,000) in 2007. Ferrari
stated that such consequences
demonstrate ‘‘substantial economic
hardship’’ within the meaning of 49
U.S.C. 30113(b)(3)(B)(i).
Ferrari has requested that additional
specific details regarding its finances
and financial forecasts be afforded
confidential treatment under 49 CFR
512.4, Asserting a claim for confidential
information. We have determined that
this information is to be afforded such
treatment.
III. Why an Exemption Would Be in the
Public Interest
The petitioner put forth several
arguments in favor of a finding that the
requested exemption is consistent with
the public interest. Specifically:
1. Ferrari states that the vehicle is
equipped with a variety of ‘‘active
safety’’ systems beyond that required by
the FMVSSs and that these systems
‘‘significantly improve vehicle handling
and enhance controllability.’’ Such
systems include the Manettino control
system, which adjusts vehicle handling
and stability to specific driving
conditions; the Control Stability System,
an electronic stability control system;
Electro-Hydraulic Differential, a system
that manages torque distribution
between the two rear wheels to improve
stability; Continuous Damping Control,
a system that adjusts to road conditions
in order to improve braking; and ‘‘SkyHook’’ strategy.2
2. The petitioner states that the F430
also has a variety of passive safety
features not required under the FMVSS,
including seat belt pretensioners and a
fuel system that complies with the
upgraded fuel system integrity
requirements in advance of the
compliance date.
3. Ferrari notes that the requirements
for which the F430 does not comply are
primarily designed to protect children
from injuries due to air bag deployment.
Ferrari argues that it is unlikely that
2 The ‘‘Skyhook’’ strategy detaches the vehicle
body, as a sprung mass, from what is taking place
on the axles and wheels by calming the movement
of the body * * * In addition to improved comfort,
this provides for ‘‘optimal control of the vehicle
body at all times.’’ Page 10 of the petition.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:28 Nov 25, 2005
Jkt 208001
young children would be passengers in
the vehicles covered by the exemption.
4. Ferrari states that the F430 will
have a manual on/off switch for the
passenger air bag. Ferrari also notes that
a child restraint system that
automatically suppresses the passenger
air bag when properly installed would
be available upon request of a consumer
at no cost.
5. Ferrari states that the F430 was
designed and marketed as a high
performance, racing type vehicle, and
therefore would have negligible on-road
operation. Thus, Ferrari states, the
impact of the exemption is expected to
be minimal.
6. Ferrari argues that granting the
exemption would increase choices
available to the U.S. driving population
in the high-performance vehicle
segment.
7. The petitioner argues that granting
the exemption would maintain the
viability of U.S. firms associated with
the sales and maintenance associated
with the F430. Ferrari projects the F430
to be a major part of Ferrari sales in the
U.S. during the two-year period for
which an exemption has been
requested.
IV. How You May Comment on the
Ferrari Application
We invite you to submit comments on
the application described above. You
may submit comments [identified by the
DOT Docket number in the heading of
this document] by any of the following
methods:
• Web Site: https://dms.dot.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting
comments on the DOT electronic docket
site by clicking on ‘‘Help and
Information’’ or ‘‘Help/Info.’’
• Fax: 1–202–493–2251.
• Mail: Docket Management Facility,
U.S. Department of Transportation, 400
Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building,
Room PL–401, Washington, DC 20590.
• Hand Delivery: Room PL–401 on
the plaza level of the Nassif Building,
400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington,
DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal
Holidays.
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to
https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
online instructions for submitting
comments.
Instructions: All submissions must
include the agency name and docket
number or Regulatory Identification
Number (RIN) for this rulemaking. Note
that all comments received will be
posted without change to https://
dms.dot.gov, including any personal
information provided.
PO 00000
Frm 00112
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
71373
Docket: For access to the docket in
order to read background documents or
comments received, go to https://
dms.dot.gov at any time or to Room PL–
401 on the plaza level of the Nassif
Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except
Federal holidays.
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 https://dms.dot.gov.
We shall consider all comments
received before the close of business on
the comment closing date indicated
below. To the extent possible, we shall
also consider comments filed after the
closing date. We shall publish a notice
of final action on the application in the
Federal Register pursuant to the
authority indicated below.
(49 U.S.C. 30113; delegations of authority at
49 CFR 1.50. and 501.8)
Issued on: November 18, 2005.
Roger A. Saul,
Director, Office of Crashworthiness
Standards.
[FR Doc. E5–6551 Filed 11–25–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–59–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA–2005–23083]
Notice of Receipt of Petition for
Decision That Nonconforming 2005
Lamborghini Murcielago Roadster
Passenger Cars Are Eligible for
Importation
National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration, DOT.
ACTION: Notice of receipt of petition for
decision that nonconforming 2005
Lamborghini Murcielago roadster
passenger cars are eligible for
importation.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: This document announces
receipt by the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA) of a
petition for a decision that 2005
Lamborghini Murcielago roadster
passenger cars that were not originally
manufactured to comply with all
applicable Federal motor vehicle safety
E:\FR\FM\28NON1.SGM
28NON1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 227 (Monday, November 28, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 71372-71373]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E5-6551]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA-2005-23093]
Ferrari S.p.A and Ferrari North America, Inc.; Receipt of
Application for a Temporary Exemption From Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
Standard No. 208
In accordance with the procedures of 49 CFR part 555, Ferrari
S.p.A. and Ferrari North America (collectively, ``Ferrari'') have
applied for a Temporary Exemption from S14.2 of Federal Motor Vehicle
Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, for the
Ferrari F430 model vehicle. The basis of the application is that
compliance would cause substantial economic hardship to a manufacturer
that has tried in good faith to comply with the standard.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ To view the application using the Docket number listed
above, please go to: https://dms.dot.gov/search/searchFormSimple.cfm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We are publishing this notice of receipt of the application in
accordance with the requirements of 49 U.S.C. 30113(b)(2), and have
made no judgment on the merits of the application.
DATES: You should submit your comments not later than December 28,
2005.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Chris Calamita in the Office of Chief
Counsel, NCC-112, (Phone: 202-366-2992; Fax 202-366-3820; E-Mail:
Christopher.calamita@nhtsa.dot.gov).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
I. Background
A manufacturer is eligible to apply for a hardship exemption if its
total motor vehicle production in its most recent year of production
does not exceed 10,000, as determined by the NHTSA Administrator (15
U.S.C. 1410(d)(1)). Ferrari's total production is approximately 4,000
vehicles per year. Fiat S.p.A., a major vehicle manufacturer, holds a
majority interest in Ferrari. Consistent with past determinations,
NHTSA has determined that Fiat's interest in Ferrari does not result in
the production threshold being exceeded (see, 54 FR 46321; November 2,
1989).
The statutory provisions governing motor vehicle safety (49 U.S.C.
Chapter 301) do not include any provision indicating that a person is a
manufacturer of a vehicle by virtue of ownership or control of another
person that is a manufacturer. NHTSA has stated, however, that a person
may be a manufacturer of a vehicle manufactured by another person if
the first person has a sufficiently substantial role in the
manufacturing process that it can be deemed the sponsor of the vehicle.
The agency considers the statutory definition of ``manufacturer'' (15
U.S.C. 1391(5)) to be sufficiently broad to include sponsors, depending
on the circumstances.
In the present instance, the Ferrari F430 bears no resemblance to
any motor vehicle designed or manufactured by Fiat, and the agency
understands that the F430 was designed and engineered without
assistance from Fiat. Further, the agency understands that such
assistance as Ferrari may receive from Fiat relating to use of test
facilities and the like is an arms length transaction for which Ferrari
pays Fiat. Accordingly, NHTSA concludes that Fiat is not a manufacturer
of Ferrari vehicles by virtue of being a sponsor.
II. Why Ferrari Needs a Temporary Exemption and How Ferrari Has Tried
in Good Faith to Comply With FMVSS No. 208
Ferrari states that the F430 was originally designed in the mid-
1990s and was originally designated as the 360 model. The petitioner
states that the Modena (coupe) version of the 360 was launched in 1999,
followed by the Spider (convertible) version in 2000, and the Challenge
Stradale in 2003. Production of these vehicles continued until the end
of 2004. According to the petitioner, shortly thereafter Ferrari began
an aesthetic redesign of the vehicle, relying on the same chassis.
Ferrari stated that the redesigned vehicle, the F430, will be produced
until late 2008. According to Ferrari, 2008 will mark the end of the
life cycle for the 360/F430 vehicle. The petitioner states that the 360
and F430 were designed to comply, and do comply, with all of the FMVSSs
in effect at the time the 360 was originally designed. The petitioner
stated that the provisions of FMVSS No. 208 established in 2000 (65 FR
30680; May 12, 2000; Advanced Air Bag rule) were not anticipated by
Ferrari when the 360 vehicle model was designed.
Ferrari stated that it has been able to bring the F430 into
compliance with all of the high-speed belted and unbelted crash test
requirements of the Advanced Air Bag rule. However, it stated that it
has not been able to bring the vehicle into compliance with the child
out-of-position requirements (S19, S21, and S23), and the 5th
percentile adult female out-of-position requirements for the driver
seat (S25).
Ferrari stated that despite efforts to involve numerous potential
suppliers, it has not identified any that are willing to work with the
company to develop an occupant classification system that would comply
with the S19, S21, S23, and S25. Moreover, Ferrari stated that it is
unable to reconfigure the F430 to accommodate an occupant
classification system and air bag design that would comply with these
requirements.
Ferrari has requested an exemption for the F430 from the advanced
air bag provisions in FMVSS No. 208 during model years 2007 and 2008
(i.e., September 1, 2006 through August 31, 2008). Ferrari claims that
compliance with the advanced air bag provisions would result in
substantial economic hardship and has filed this petition under 49 CFR
555.6(a).
[[Page 71373]]
Ferrari stated that its inability to sell the F430 in the United
States through 2007 would lead to a substantial loss of sales and
revenue. Ferrari stated that in 2004, sales of the 8-cylinder 360
models, those models being replaced by the F430, accounted for 86
percent of its U.S. sales. Ferrari projected that if it were unable to
sell the F430 model in the U.S., it would realize a decrease in net
profit of approximately 44 million Euros ($53,000,000) in 2007. Ferrari
stated that such consequences demonstrate ``substantial economic
hardship'' within the meaning of 49 U.S.C. 30113(b)(3)(B)(i).
Ferrari has requested that additional specific details regarding
its finances and financial forecasts be afforded confidential treatment
under 49 CFR 512.4, Asserting a claim for confidential information. We
have determined that this information is to be afforded such treatment.
III. Why an Exemption Would Be in the Public Interest
The petitioner put forth several arguments in favor of a finding
that the requested exemption is consistent with the public interest.
Specifically:
1. Ferrari states that the vehicle is equipped with a variety of
``active safety'' systems beyond that required by the FMVSSs and that
these systems ``significantly improve vehicle handling and enhance
controllability.'' Such systems include the Manettino control system,
which adjusts vehicle handling and stability to specific driving
conditions; the Control Stability System, an electronic stability
control system; Electro-Hydraulic Differential, a system that manages
torque distribution between the two rear wheels to improve stability;
Continuous Damping Control, a system that adjusts to road conditions in
order to improve braking; and ``Sky-Hook'' strategy.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The ``Skyhook'' strategy detaches the vehicle body, as a
sprung mass, from what is taking place on the axles and wheels by
calming the movement of the body * * * In addition to improved
comfort, this provides for ``optimal control of the vehicle body at
all times.'' Page 10 of the petition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. The petitioner states that the F430 also has a variety of
passive safety features not required under the FMVSS, including seat
belt pretensioners and a fuel system that complies with the upgraded
fuel system integrity requirements in advance of the compliance date.
3. Ferrari notes that the requirements for which the F430 does not
comply are primarily designed to protect children from injuries due to
air bag deployment. Ferrari argues that it is unlikely that young
children would be passengers in the vehicles covered by the exemption.
4. Ferrari states that the F430 will have a manual on/off switch
for the passenger air bag. Ferrari also notes that a child restraint
system that automatically suppresses the passenger air bag when
properly installed would be available upon request of a consumer at no
cost.
5. Ferrari states that the F430 was designed and marketed as a high
performance, racing type vehicle, and therefore would have negligible
on-road operation. Thus, Ferrari states, the impact of the exemption is
expected to be minimal.
6. Ferrari argues that granting the exemption would increase
choices available to the U.S. driving population in the high-
performance vehicle segment.
7. The petitioner argues that granting the exemption would maintain
the viability of U.S. firms associated with the sales and maintenance
associated with the F430. Ferrari projects the F430 to be a major part
of Ferrari sales in the U.S. during the two-year period for which an
exemption has been requested.
IV. How You May Comment on the Ferrari Application
We invite you to submit comments on the application described
above. You may submit comments [identified by the DOT Docket number in
the heading of this document] by any of the following methods:
Web Site: https://dms.dot.gov. Follow the instructions for
submitting comments on the DOT electronic docket site by clicking on
``Help and Information'' or ``Help/Info.''
Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
Mail: Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, Room PL-401,
Washington, DC 20590.
Hand Delivery: Room PL-401 on the plaza level of the
Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC, between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays.
Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
Instructions: All submissions must include the agency name and
docket number or Regulatory Identification Number (RIN) for this
rulemaking. Note that all comments received will be posted without
change to https://dms.dot.gov, including any personal information
provided.
Docket: For access to the docket in order to read background
documents or comments received, go to https://dms.dot.gov at any time or
to Room PL-401 on the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh
Street, SW., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays.
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
https://dms.dot.gov.
We shall consider all comments received before the close of
business on the comment closing date indicated below. To the extent
possible, we shall also consider comments filed after the closing date.
We shall publish a notice of final action on the application in the
Federal Register pursuant to the authority indicated below.
(49 U.S.C. 30113; delegations of authority at 49 CFR 1.50. and
501.8)
Issued on: November 18, 2005.
Roger A. Saul,
Director, Office of Crashworthiness Standards.
[FR Doc. E5-6551 Filed 11-25-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
