Exemptions From Average Fuel Economy Standards; Passenger Automobile Average Fuel Economy Standards, 49407-49410 [E6-13957]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 163 / Wednesday, August 23, 2006 / Proposed Rules
49407
The FAR rule requires that agencies
acquire PIV products and services that
comply with the FIPS PUB 201 standard. The
impact on small entities will, therefore, vary
depending on the approval process for
vendor products and services.
4. Description of projected reporting,
recordkeeping, and other compliance
requirements of the rule, including an
estimate of the classes of small entities which
will be subject to the requirement and the
type of professional skills necessary for
preparation of the report or record.
The rule does not impose any new
reporting, recordkeeping, or compliance
requirements.
5. Identification, to the extent practicable,
of all relevant Federal rules which may
duplicate, overlap, or conflict with the rule.
The rule does not duplicate, overlap, or
conflict with any other Federal rules.
6. Description of any significant
alternatives to the rule which accomplish the
stated objectives of applicable statutes and
which minimize any significant economic
impact of the rule on small entities.
There are no practical alternatives that will
accomplish the objectives of HSPD–12.
Sec.
4.1300 Scope of subpart.
4.1301 Contractual implementation of
personal identity verification
requirement.
4.1302 Acquisition of approved products
and services for personal identity
verification.
4.1303 Contract clause.
(2) Ensuring interoperability and
conformance to applicable Federal
standards for the lifecycle of the
components; and
(3) Maintaining a written plan for
ensuring ongoing conformance to
applicable Federal standards for the
lifecycle of the components.
4.1300
4.1303
This subpart provides policy and
procedures associated with Personal
Identity Verification as required by—
(a) Federal Information Processing
Standards Publication (FIPS PUB)
Number 201, ‘‘Personal Identity
Verification of Federal Employees and
Contractors’’; and
(b) Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) guidance M–05–24, dated
August 5, 2005, ‘‘Implementation of
Homeland Security Presidential
Directive (HSPD) 12—Policy for a
Common Identification Standard for
Federal Employees and Contractors’’.
The Contracting Officer shall insert
the clause at 52.204–9, Personal Identity
Verification of Contractor Personnel, in
solicitations and contracts when
contract performance requires
contractors to have physical access to a
federally-controlled facility or access to
a federally-controlled information
system.
The FAR Secretariat has submitted a
copy of the IRFA to the Chief Counsel
for Advocacy of the Small Business
Administration. A copy of the IRFA may
be obtained from the FAR Secretariat.
The Councils will consider comments
from small entities concerning the
affected FAR Part 4 in accordance with
5 U.S.C. 610. Comments must be
submitted separately and should cite 5
U.S.C 601, et seq. (FAR case 2005–017),
in correspondence.
4.1301 Contractual implementation of
personal identity verification requirement.
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration
C. Paperwork Reduction Act
The Paperwork Reduction Act does
not apply because the proposed changes
to the FAR do not impose information
collection requirements that require the
approval of the Office of Management
and Budget under 44 U.S.C. 3501, et
seq.
Government procurement.
Dated: August 17, 2006.
Ralph De Stefano,
Director, Contract Policy Division.
Therefore, DoD, GSA, and NASA
propose amending 48 CFR part 4 as set
forth below:
PART 4—ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
Authority: 40 U.S.C. 121(c); 10 U.S.C.
chapter 137; and 42 U.S.C. 2473(c).
2. Revise Subpart 4.13 to read as
follows:
Subpart 4.13—Personal Identity
Verification
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:07 Aug 22, 2006
Jkt 208001
(a) Agencies must follow FIPS PUB
201 and the associated OMB
implementation guidance for personal
identity verification for all affected
contractor and subcontractor personnel
when contract performance requires
contractors to have physical access to a
federally-controlled facility or access to
a Federal information system.
(b) Agencies must include their
implementation of FIPS PUB 201 and
OMB guidance M–05–24, in
solicitations and contracts that require
the contractor to have physical access to
a federally-controlled facility or access
to a Federal information system.
(c) Agencies must designate an official
responsible for verifying contractor
employee personal identity.
4.1302 Acquisition of approved products
and services for personal identity
verification.
List of Subjects in 48 CFR Part 4
1. The authority citation for 48 CFR
part 4 continues to read as follows:
Scope of subpart.
(a) In order to comply with FIPS PUB
201, agencies must only purchase
approved personal identity verification
products and services. Agencies may
acquire the approved products and
services from the GSA, Federal Supply
Schedule 70, Special Item Number (SIN)
132–62, HSPD–12 Product and Service
Components.
(b) When acquiring personal identity
verification products and services not
using the process in paragraph (a) of this
section, agencies must ensure that the
applicable products and services are
approved as compliant with FIPS PUB
201 including—
(1) Certifying the products and
services procured meet all applicable
Federal standards and requirements;
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Contract clause.
[FR Doc. 06–7088 Filed 8–22–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6820–EP–S
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
49 CFR Part 531
[Docket No. NHTSA–2006–25593]
Exemptions From Average Fuel
Economy Standards; Passenger
Automobile Average Fuel Economy
Standards
National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Proposed Decision to Grant
Exemption.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: This proposed decision
responds to a petition filed by Spyker
Automobielen B.V. (Spyker) requesting
that it be exempted from the generally
applicable average fuel economy
standard of 27.5 miles per gallon (mpg)
for model years 2006 and 2007, and
that, for Spyker, lower alternative
standards be established. In this
document, NHTSA proposes that the
requested exemption be granted to
Spyker and that alternative standards of
18.9 mpg be established for MY’s 2006
and 2007.
DATES: Comments on this proposed
decision must be received on or before
September 22, 2006.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
by any of the following methods:
• Web site: https://dms.dot.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting
comments on the DOT electronic docket
site.
• Fax: 1–202–493–2251.
• Mail: Docket Management Facility;
U.S. Department of Transportation, 400
E:\FR\FM\23AUP1.SGM
23AUP1
49408
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 163 / Wednesday, August 23, 2006 / Proposed Rules
Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building,
Room PL–401, Washington, DC 20590–
001.
• 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. For
detailed instructions on submitting
comments and additional information
on the rulemaking process, see the
Request for Comments heading of the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of
this document. Note that all comments
received will be posted without change
to https://dms.dot.gov, including any
personal information provided. Please
see the Privacy Act heading under
Rulemaking Analyses and Notices.
Docket: For access to the docket 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.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For
technical issues, contact Ken Katz, Lead
Engineer, Fuel Economy Division,
Office of International Policy, Fuel
Economy, and Consumer Programs, at
(202) 366–0846, facsimile (202) 493–
2290, electronic mail
kkatz@nhtsa.dot.gov. For legal issues,
contact Stephen Wood of the Office of
the Chief Counsel, at (202) 366–2992.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
Statutory Background
Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. section
32902(d), NHTSA may exempt a low
volume manufacturer of passenger
automobiles from the generally
applicable average fuel economy
standards if NHTSA concludes that
those standards are more stringent than
the maximum feasible average fuel
economy for that manufacturer and if
NHTSA establishes an alternative
standard for that manufacturer at its
maximum feasible level. Under the
statute, a low volume manufacturer is
one that manufactured (worldwide)
fewer than 10,000 passenger
automobiles in the second model year
before the model year for which the
exemption is sought (the affected model
year) and that will manufacture fewer
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:59 Aug 22, 2006
Jkt 208001
than 10,000 passenger automobiles in
the affected model year. In determining
the maximum feasible average fuel
economy, the agency is required under
49 U.S.C. 32902(f) to consider:
(1) Technological feasibility
(2) Economic practicability
(3) The effect of other Federal motor
vehicle standards on fuel economy, and
(4) The need of the United States to
conserve energy.
The statute permits NHTSA to
establish alternative average fuel
economy standards applicable to
exempted low volume manufacturers in
one of three ways: (1) A separate
standard for each exempted
manufacturer; (2) a separate average fuel
economy standard applicable to each
class of exempted automobiles (classes
would be based on design, size, price,
or other factors); or (3) a single standard
for all exempted manufacturers.
Background Information on Spyker
Spyker is a Dutch company, which
manufacturers limited-production
sports cars, built to individual order.
Spyker debuted its first in vehicle 2000.
The company operations are located in
Zeewolde, The Netherlands. The
petitioner stated that in 2003, Spyker of
North America LLC was incorporated in
Delaware as a subsidiary of Spyker in
order to address U.S. distribution. The
petitioner also stated that in 2004,
Spyker took the company public by
means of an initial public offering. It is
listed on the Amsterdam Stock
Exchange.
As stated by petitioner, Spyker has
teamed up with Cosworth Technologies,
a 100 percent-owned subsidiary of
Audi, to integrate the LEV V8
powertrain of the Audi A8 into the
Spyker chassis.
The petitioner stated that it
manufactured a total of 51 vehicles
between 2002 and 2004, and projects
that it will manufacturer no more than
160 vehicles per year between 2005 and
2007. In 2006 and 2007, the years for
which an alternative standard is
requested, Spyker projects that 77 and
112 vehicles, respectively, will be
exported to the U.S.
The Spyker Petition
NHTSA’s regulations on low volume
exemptions from CAFE standards state
that petitions for exemption are
submitted ‘‘not later than 24 months
before the beginning of the affected
model year, unless good cause for later
submission is shown’’ (49 CFR
525.6(b)).
NHTSA received a petition from
Spyker on May 11, 2005, seeking
exemption from the passenger
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
automobile fuel economy standards for
MYs 2006 and 2007. This petition was
filed less than 24 months before the
beginning of MYs 2006 and 2007 and
was therefore untimely under 49 CFR
526.6(b). Spyker indicated that its
decision to enter the U.S. market for MY
2006 was not made until late 2004 after
it reached an agreement with Audi that
allowed Spyker to use a U.S. certified
powerplant.
Under the circumstances, NHTSA
concludes that Spyker took reasonable
measures to submit a petition in as
timely a manner as possible. The agency
notes that Spyker’s ability to enter the
U.S. market apparently hinged on
obtaining a U.S.-certified powerplant.
This, according to Spyker, was not
possible or feasible until it reached an
agreement with Audi to provide the
required engine. Therefore, the agency
has determined that good cause exists
for the late submission of the petition.
This is consistent with a previous
determination made by the agency with
regard to the timeliness of a petition
submitted by DeTomaso Automobiles,
Ltd. (see, 64 FR 73476; December 30,
1999; Docket No. NHTSA–99–6676).
Methodology Used To Project
Maximum Feasible Average Fuel
Economy Level for Spyker
Baseline Fuel Economy
To project the level of fuel economy
which could be achieved by Spyker in
the 2006 and 2007 model years, NHTSA
considered whether there were
technical or other improvements that
would be feasible for these vehicles, and
whether the company currently plans to
incorporate such improvements in the
vehicles. The agency reviewed the
technological feasibility of any changes
and their economic practicability.
NHTSA interprets ‘‘technological
feasibility’’ as meaning that technology
which would be available to Spyker for
use on its 2006 and 2007 model year
automobiles, and which would improve
the fuel economy of those automobiles.
The areas examined for technologically
feasible improvements were weight
reduction, aerodynamic improvements,
engine improvements, drive line
improvements, and reduced rolling
resistance.
The agency interprets ‘‘economic
practicability’’ for the purpose of
petitions filed under 49 CFR part 525 as
meaning the financial capability of the
manufacturer to improve its average fuel
economy by incorporating
technologically feasible changes to its
2006 and 2007 model year automobiles.
In assuming that capability, the agency
has always considered market demand
E:\FR\FM\23AUP1.SGM
23AUP1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 163 / Wednesday, August 23, 2006 / Proposed Rules
as an implicit part of the concept of
economic practicability. Consumers
need not purchase what they do not
want.
In accordance with the concerns of
economic practicability, NHTSA has
considered only those improvements
that would be compatible with the basic
design concepts of Spyker’s automobile.
Since NHTSA assumes that Spyker will
continue to build high performance
cars, design changes that would remove
items traditionally offered on these
types of vehicles were not considered.
Such changes to the basic design would
be economically impracticable since
they might well significantly reduce the
demand for these automobiles, thereby
reducing sales and causing significant
economic injury to the low volume
manufacturer.
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
Technology for Fuel Economy
Improvement
The nature of Spyker’s vehicles
generally do not result in high fuel
economy values. Also, Spyker lags in
having the latest developments in fuel
efficiency technology because suppliers
generally provide components and
technology to small manufacturers only
after supplying large manufacturers.
Spyker states that the requested
alternative fuel economy values
represent the best possible CAFE that
Spyker can achieve for the 2006 and
2007 model years. For MYs 2006 and
2007, Spyker stated that the fuel
economy value of 18.9 mpg 1 represents
the best possible CAFE that it can
achieve.
Spyker produces a small lightweight
innovative sports vehicle. Performance
is achieved through obtaining maximum
output per unit of engine displacement
and the use of lightweight aerodynamic
body designs. The vehicle’s compact
dimensions provide efficient
performance coupled with a strong and
relatively lightweight aerodynamic body
construction. Since the chassis/body
configuration is small, aerodynamic and
lightweight, further fuel economy
improvements through changes to the
chassis and body appear to be limited.
Spyker has stated that it is unable to
change the supplier of the vehicle’s
engine and that the engine is the most
advanced engine available to a small
1 Spyker based this fuel economy on the
combined fuel economy of 19.1 obtained at the U.S.
EPA, reduced by 0.15 mpg in order to allow for
potential production variation. As opposed to
reducing 19.1 mpg value by 0.15 mpg, Spyker
added 0.15 mpg to the value in the petition. Given
that fuel economy compliance is determined in
tenths of mpg, the agency confirmed with a
representative of Spyker that the petition is
requesting an alternative fuel economy requirement
of 18.9 mpg.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:59 Aug 22, 2006
Jkt 208001
vehicle manufacturer from an outside
source. As such, the ability to obtain
further fuel economy improvements
from engine and drive train
modifications is limited. The petitioner
also stated that the fuel economy label
values of the vehicle are similar to those
of similar vehicles, e.g., Cadillac XLR,
Dodge Viper, Porsche 911.
Model Mix
Spyker has no opportunity to improve
its fuel economy by changing its fleet
mix since it has stated that it will only
export one model to the U.S. during the
years for which this petition was filed.
Effect of Other Federal Motor Vehicle
Standards
Federal motor vehicle safety
standards (FMVSS) and regulations are
anticipated to have an adverse effect on
the fuel economy of Spyker’s vehicles.
These standards include 49 CFR part
581, Bumper Standard and FMVSS 208,
Occupant crash protection. These
standards may reduce achievable fuel
economy values, since they result in
increased vehicle weight. Spyker’s
projection reflected the impact of these
standards. Spyker is a small company
and engineering resources are limited,
limiting the amount of resources Spyker
can apply to comply with both the
mandatory standards and the fuel
economy requirements.
Additionally, as a small volume
manufacturer, the more stringent
California evaporative emission
standards will apply to Spyker
beginning in MY 2006, and the U.S.
EPA Tier 2–LEV II exhaust standards
will be applicable in MY 2007. A
portion of Spyker’s limited engineering
resources will have to be expended to
comply with these more stringent
emissions standards including, but not
limited to, evaporative emission
standards.
The Need of the United States To
Conserve Energy
The agency recognizes there is a need
to conserve energy, to promote energy
security, and to improve balance of
payments. However, as stated above,
NHTSA has tentatively determined that
it is not technologically feasible or
economically practicable for Spyker to
achieve an average fuel economy in
MYs 2006 and 2007 above the levels set
forth in this proposed decision.
Granting an exemption to Spyker and
setting an alternative standard at that
level would result in only a negligible
increase in fuel consumption and would
not affect the need of the United States
to conserve energy. In fact, there would
not be any increase since Spyker cannot
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
49409
attain those generally applicable
standards. Nevertheless, the agency
estimates that the additional fuel
consumed by operating the MYs 2006
and 2007 fleets of Spyker vehicles at the
CAFE of 18.9 mpg (compared to a
hypothetical 27.5 mpg fleet) is 13,138
barrels of fuel. Obviously, this is
insignificant compared to the fuel used
daily by the entire motor vehicle fleet,
which amounts to 8.4 million barrels
per day for passenger cars in the United
States in 2003 (USDOE/EIA, Monthly
Energy Review, April 2005, Table 11.2).
Maximum Feasible Average Fuel
Economy for Spyker
The agency has tentatively concluded
that it would not be technologically
feasible and economically practicable
for Spyker to improve the fuel economy
of its MY 2006 and 2007 fleet above an
average of 18.9 mpg for those years, that
Federal automobile standards would not
adversely affect achievable fuel
economy beyond the amount already
factored into Spyker’s projections, and
that the national effort to conserve
energy would not be affected by
granting the requested exemption and
establishing an alternative standard.
Consequently, the agency tentatively
concludes that the maximum feasible
average fuel economy for Spyker is 18.9
mpg for MYs 2006 and 2007.
Chapter 329 permits NHTSA to
establish an alternative average fuel
economy standard applicable to
exempted manufacturers in one of three
ways: (1) A separate standard may be
established for each exempted
manufacturer; (2) classes, based on
design, size, price or other factors, may
be established for the automobiles of
exempted manufacturers, with a
separate fuel economy standard
applicable to each class; or (3) a single
standard may be established for all
exempted manufacturers. The agency
tentatively concludes that it would be
appropriate to establish a separate
standard for Spyker.
While the agency has the option of
establishing a single standard for all
exempted manufacturers, we note that
previous exemptions have been granted
to manufacturers of high-performance
cars, luxury cars and specialized
vehicles for the transportation of
persons with physical impairments. The
agency’s experience in establishing
exemptions indicates that selection of a
single standard would be inappropriate.
Such a standard would have little
impact on energy conservation while
doing little to ease the burdens faced by
small manufacturers which cannot meet
the fuel economy standards applicable
to larger manufacturers. Similarly, the
E:\FR\FM\23AUP1.SGM
23AUP1
49410
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 163 / Wednesday, August 23, 2006 / Proposed Rules
agency is not proposing to establish
alternative standards based on different
classes of vehicles. Again, the agency’s
experience has been that vehicles
manufactured by low volume
manufacturers may differ widely in size,
price, design or other factors. Based on
the information available at this time,
we do not believe it would be
appropriate to establish class-based
alternative standards.
Regulatory Impact Analyses
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
NHTSA has analyzed this proposal
and determined that neither Executive
Order 12866 nor the Department of
Transportation’s regulatory policies and
procedures apply. Under Executive
Order 12866, the proposal would not
establish a ‘‘rule,’’ which is defined in
the Executive Order as ‘‘an agency
statement of general applicability and
future effect.’’ The proposed exemption
is not generally applicable, since it
would apply only to Spyker, as
discussed in this notice. Under DOT
regulatory policies and procedures, the
proposed exemption would not be a
‘‘significant regulation.’’ If Departmental
policies and procedures were
applicable, the agency would have
determined that this proposed action is
not significant. The principal impact of
this proposal is that the exempted
company would not be required to pay
civil penalties if its maximum feasible
average fuel economy were achieved,
and purchasers of those vehicles would
not have to bear the indirect burden of
those civil penalties in the form of
higher prices. Since this proposal is for
an alternative standard at the level
tentatively determined to be the
maximum feasible levels for Spyker for
MYs 2006 and 2007, no fuel would be
saved by establishing a higher
alternative standard. NHTSA finds in
the Section on ‘‘The Need of the United
States to Conserve Energy’’ that because
of the small size of the Spyker fleet, that
incremental usage of gasoline by
Spyker’s customers would not affect the
United States’ need to conserve
gasoline. There would not be any
impacts for the public at large.
The agency has also considered the
environmental implications of this
proposed exemption in accordance with
the Environmental Policy Act and
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:59 Aug 22, 2006
Jkt 208001
determined that this proposed
exemption if adopted, would not
significantly affect the human
environment. Regardless of the fuel
economy of the exempted vehicles, they
must pass the emissions standards
which measure the amount of emissions
per mile traveled. Thus, the quality of
the air is not affected by the proposed
exemptions and alternative standards.
Further, since the exempted passenger
automobiles cannot achieve better fuel
economy than is proposed herein,
granting these proposed exemptions
would not affect the amount of fuel
used.
How You May Comment on the Spyker
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
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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 will 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 will publish a notice of
final action on the application in the
Federal Register pursuant to the
authority indicated below.
List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 531
Energy conservation, Gasoline,
Imports, Motor Vehicles.
In consideration of the foregoing, 49
CFR part 531 would be amended to read
as follows:
PART 531—[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 531
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 32902, delegation of
authority at 49 CFR 1.50.
2. Section 531.5 would be amended
by adding paragraph (b)(15) to read as
follows:
§ 531.5
*
Fuel economy standards.
*
*
*
*
(b) * * *
(15) Spyker Automobielen B.V.
AVERAGE FUEL ECONOMY STANDARD
Model year
2006 ........................................
2007 ........................................
(Miles per
gallon)
18.9
18.9
Issued on: August 17, 2006.
H. Keith Brewer,
Director, Crash Avoidance Standards.
[FR Doc. E6–13957 Filed 8–22–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–59–P
E:\FR\FM\23AUP1.SGM
23AUP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 163 (Wednesday, August 23, 2006)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 49407-49410]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-13957]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
49 CFR Part 531
[Docket No. NHTSA-2006-25593]
Exemptions From Average Fuel Economy Standards; Passenger
Automobile Average Fuel Economy Standards
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Proposed Decision to Grant Exemption.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This proposed decision responds to a petition filed by Spyker
Automobielen B.V. (Spyker) requesting that it be exempted from the
generally applicable average fuel economy standard of 27.5 miles per
gallon (mpg) for model years 2006 and 2007, and that, for Spyker, lower
alternative standards be established. In this document, NHTSA proposes
that the requested exemption be granted to Spyker and that alternative
standards of 18.9 mpg be established for MY's 2006 and 2007.
DATES: Comments on this proposed decision must be received on or before
September 22, 2006.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
Web site: https://dms.dot.gov. Follow the instructions for
submitting comments on the DOT electronic docket site.
Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
Mail: Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of
Transportation, 400
[[Page 49408]]
Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, Room PL-401, Washington, DC
20590-001.
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. For detailed instructions on submitting comments and
additional information on the rulemaking process, see the Request for
Comments heading of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this
document. Note that all comments received will be posted without change
to https://dms.dot.gov, including any personal information provided.
Please see the Privacy Act heading under Rulemaking Analyses and
Notices.
Docket: For access to the docket 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.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical issues, contact Ken
Katz, Lead Engineer, Fuel Economy Division, Office of International
Policy, Fuel Economy, and Consumer Programs, at (202) 366-0846,
facsimile (202) 493-2290, electronic mail kkatz@nhtsa.dot.gov. For
legal issues, contact Stephen Wood of the Office of the Chief Counsel,
at (202) 366-2992.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Statutory Background
Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. section 32902(d), NHTSA may exempt a low
volume manufacturer of passenger automobiles from the generally
applicable average fuel economy standards if NHTSA concludes that those
standards are more stringent than the maximum feasible average fuel
economy for that manufacturer and if NHTSA establishes an alternative
standard for that manufacturer at its maximum feasible level. Under the
statute, a low volume manufacturer is one that manufactured (worldwide)
fewer than 10,000 passenger automobiles in the second model year before
the model year for which the exemption is sought (the affected model
year) and that will manufacture fewer than 10,000 passenger automobiles
in the affected model year. In determining the maximum feasible average
fuel economy, the agency is required under 49 U.S.C. 32902(f) to
consider:
(1) Technological feasibility
(2) Economic practicability
(3) The effect of other Federal motor vehicle standards on fuel
economy, and
(4) The need of the United States to conserve energy.
The statute permits NHTSA to establish alternative average fuel
economy standards applicable to exempted low volume manufacturers in
one of three ways: (1) A separate standard for each exempted
manufacturer; (2) a separate average fuel economy standard applicable
to each class of exempted automobiles (classes would be based on
design, size, price, or other factors); or (3) a single standard for
all exempted manufacturers.
Background Information on Spyker
Spyker is a Dutch company, which manufacturers limited-production
sports cars, built to individual order. Spyker debuted its first in
vehicle 2000. The company operations are located in Zeewolde, The
Netherlands. The petitioner stated that in 2003, Spyker of North
America LLC was incorporated in Delaware as a subsidiary of Spyker in
order to address U.S. distribution. The petitioner also stated that in
2004, Spyker took the company public by means of an initial public
offering. It is listed on the Amsterdam Stock Exchange.
As stated by petitioner, Spyker has teamed up with Cosworth
Technologies, a 100 percent-owned subsidiary of Audi, to integrate the
LEV V8 powertrain of the Audi A8 into the Spyker chassis.
The petitioner stated that it manufactured a total of 51 vehicles
between 2002 and 2004, and projects that it will manufacturer no more
than 160 vehicles per year between 2005 and 2007. In 2006 and 2007, the
years for which an alternative standard is requested, Spyker projects
that 77 and 112 vehicles, respectively, will be exported to the U.S.
The Spyker Petition
NHTSA's regulations on low volume exemptions from CAFE standards
state that petitions for exemption are submitted ``not later than 24
months before the beginning of the affected model year, unless good
cause for later submission is shown'' (49 CFR 525.6(b)).
NHTSA received a petition from Spyker on May 11, 2005, seeking
exemption from the passenger automobile fuel economy standards for MYs
2006 and 2007. This petition was filed less than 24 months before the
beginning of MYs 2006 and 2007 and was therefore untimely under 49 CFR
526.6(b). Spyker indicated that its decision to enter the U.S. market
for MY 2006 was not made until late 2004 after it reached an agreement
with Audi that allowed Spyker to use a U.S. certified powerplant.
Under the circumstances, NHTSA concludes that Spyker took
reasonable measures to submit a petition in as timely a manner as
possible. The agency notes that Spyker's ability to enter the U.S.
market apparently hinged on obtaining a U.S.-certified powerplant.
This, according to Spyker, was not possible or feasible until it
reached an agreement with Audi to provide the required engine.
Therefore, the agency has determined that good cause exists for the
late submission of the petition. This is consistent with a previous
determination made by the agency with regard to the timeliness of a
petition submitted by DeTomaso Automobiles, Ltd. (see, 64 FR 73476;
December 30, 1999; Docket No. NHTSA-99-6676).
Methodology Used To Project Maximum Feasible Average Fuel Economy Level
for Spyker
Baseline Fuel Economy
To project the level of fuel economy which could be achieved by
Spyker in the 2006 and 2007 model years, NHTSA considered whether there
were technical or other improvements that would be feasible for these
vehicles, and whether the company currently plans to incorporate such
improvements in the vehicles. The agency reviewed the technological
feasibility of any changes and their economic practicability.
NHTSA interprets ``technological feasibility'' as meaning that
technology which would be available to Spyker for use on its 2006 and
2007 model year automobiles, and which would improve the fuel economy
of those automobiles. The areas examined for technologically feasible
improvements were weight reduction, aerodynamic improvements, engine
improvements, drive line improvements, and reduced rolling resistance.
The agency interprets ``economic practicability'' for the purpose
of petitions filed under 49 CFR part 525 as meaning the financial
capability of the manufacturer to improve its average fuel economy by
incorporating technologically feasible changes to its 2006 and 2007
model year automobiles. In assuming that capability, the agency has
always considered market demand
[[Page 49409]]
as an implicit part of the concept of economic practicability.
Consumers need not purchase what they do not want.
In accordance with the concerns of economic practicability, NHTSA
has considered only those improvements that would be compatible with
the basic design concepts of Spyker's automobile. Since NHTSA assumes
that Spyker will continue to build high performance cars, design
changes that would remove items traditionally offered on these types of
vehicles were not considered. Such changes to the basic design would be
economically impracticable since they might well significantly reduce
the demand for these automobiles, thereby reducing sales and causing
significant economic injury to the low volume manufacturer.
Technology for Fuel Economy Improvement
The nature of Spyker's vehicles generally do not result in high
fuel economy values. Also, Spyker lags in having the latest
developments in fuel efficiency technology because suppliers generally
provide components and technology to small manufacturers only after
supplying large manufacturers.
Spyker states that the requested alternative fuel economy values
represent the best possible CAFE that Spyker can achieve for the 2006
and 2007 model years. For MYs 2006 and 2007, Spyker stated that the
fuel economy value of 18.9 mpg \1\ represents the best possible CAFE
that it can achieve.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Spyker based this fuel economy on the combined fuel economy
of 19.1 obtained at the U.S. EPA, reduced by 0.15 mpg in order to
allow for potential production variation. As opposed to reducing
19.1 mpg value by 0.15 mpg, Spyker added 0.15 mpg to the value in
the petition. Given that fuel economy compliance is determined in
tenths of mpg, the agency confirmed with a representative of Spyker
that the petition is requesting an alternative fuel economy
requirement of 18.9 mpg.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Spyker produces a small lightweight innovative sports vehicle.
Performance is achieved through obtaining maximum output per unit of
engine displacement and the use of lightweight aerodynamic body
designs. The vehicle's compact dimensions provide efficient performance
coupled with a strong and relatively lightweight aerodynamic body
construction. Since the chassis/body configuration is small,
aerodynamic and lightweight, further fuel economy improvements through
changes to the chassis and body appear to be limited.
Spyker has stated that it is unable to change the supplier of the
vehicle's engine and that the engine is the most advanced engine
available to a small vehicle manufacturer from an outside source. As
such, the ability to obtain further fuel economy improvements from
engine and drive train modifications is limited. The petitioner also
stated that the fuel economy label values of the vehicle are similar to
those of similar vehicles, e.g., Cadillac XLR, Dodge Viper, Porsche
911.
Model Mix
Spyker has no opportunity to improve its fuel economy by changing
its fleet mix since it has stated that it will only export one model to
the U.S. during the years for which this petition was filed.
Effect of Other Federal Motor Vehicle Standards
Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) and regulations are
anticipated to have an adverse effect on the fuel economy of Spyker's
vehicles. These standards include 49 CFR part 581, Bumper Standard and
FMVSS 208, Occupant crash protection. These standards may reduce
achievable fuel economy values, since they result in increased vehicle
weight. Spyker's projection reflected the impact of these standards.
Spyker is a small company and engineering resources are limited,
limiting the amount of resources Spyker can apply to comply with both
the mandatory standards and the fuel economy requirements.
Additionally, as a small volume manufacturer, the more stringent
California evaporative emission standards will apply to Spyker
beginning in MY 2006, and the U.S. EPA Tier 2-LEV II exhaust standards
will be applicable in MY 2007. A portion of Spyker's limited
engineering resources will have to be expended to comply with these
more stringent emissions standards including, but not limited to,
evaporative emission standards.
The Need of the United States To Conserve Energy
The agency recognizes there is a need to conserve energy, to
promote energy security, and to improve balance of payments. However,
as stated above, NHTSA has tentatively determined that it is not
technologically feasible or economically practicable for Spyker to
achieve an average fuel economy in MYs 2006 and 2007 above the levels
set forth in this proposed decision. Granting an exemption to Spyker
and setting an alternative standard at that level would result in only
a negligible increase in fuel consumption and would not affect the need
of the United States to conserve energy. In fact, there would not be
any increase since Spyker cannot attain those generally applicable
standards. Nevertheless, the agency estimates that the additional fuel
consumed by operating the MYs 2006 and 2007 fleets of Spyker vehicles
at the CAFE of 18.9 mpg (compared to a hypothetical 27.5 mpg fleet) is
13,138 barrels of fuel. Obviously, this is insignificant compared to
the fuel used daily by the entire motor vehicle fleet, which amounts to
8.4 million barrels per day for passenger cars in the United States in
2003 (USDOE/EIA, Monthly Energy Review, April 2005, Table 11.2).
Maximum Feasible Average Fuel Economy for Spyker
The agency has tentatively concluded that it would not be
technologically feasible and economically practicable for Spyker to
improve the fuel economy of its MY 2006 and 2007 fleet above an average
of 18.9 mpg for those years, that Federal automobile standards would
not adversely affect achievable fuel economy beyond the amount already
factored into Spyker's projections, and that the national effort to
conserve energy would not be affected by granting the requested
exemption and establishing an alternative standard.
Consequently, the agency tentatively concludes that the maximum
feasible average fuel economy for Spyker is 18.9 mpg for MYs 2006 and
2007.
Chapter 329 permits NHTSA to establish an alternative average fuel
economy standard applicable to exempted manufacturers in one of three
ways: (1) A separate standard may be established for each exempted
manufacturer; (2) classes, based on design, size, price or other
factors, may be established for the automobiles of exempted
manufacturers, with a separate fuel economy standard applicable to each
class; or (3) a single standard may be established for all exempted
manufacturers. The agency tentatively concludes that it would be
appropriate to establish a separate standard for Spyker.
While the agency has the option of establishing a single standard
for all exempted manufacturers, we note that previous exemptions have
been granted to manufacturers of high-performance cars, luxury cars and
specialized vehicles for the transportation of persons with physical
impairments. The agency's experience in establishing exemptions
indicates that selection of a single standard would be inappropriate.
Such a standard would have little impact on energy conservation while
doing little to ease the burdens faced by small manufacturers which
cannot meet the fuel economy standards applicable to larger
manufacturers. Similarly, the
[[Page 49410]]
agency is not proposing to establish alternative standards based on
different classes of vehicles. Again, the agency's experience has been
that vehicles manufactured by low volume manufacturers may differ
widely in size, price, design or other factors. Based on the
information available at this time, we do not believe it would be
appropriate to establish class-based alternative standards.
Regulatory Impact Analyses
NHTSA has analyzed this proposal and determined that neither
Executive Order 12866 nor the Department of Transportation's regulatory
policies and procedures apply. Under Executive Order 12866, the
proposal would not establish a ``rule,'' which is defined in the
Executive Order as ``an agency statement of general applicability and
future effect.'' The proposed exemption is not generally applicable,
since it would apply only to Spyker, as discussed in this notice. Under
DOT regulatory policies and procedures, the proposed exemption would
not be a ``significant regulation.'' If Departmental policies and
procedures were applicable, the agency would have determined that this
proposed action is not significant. The principal impact of this
proposal is that the exempted company would not be required to pay
civil penalties if its maximum feasible average fuel economy were
achieved, and purchasers of those vehicles would not have to bear the
indirect burden of those civil penalties in the form of higher prices.
Since this proposal is for an alternative standard at the level
tentatively determined to be the maximum feasible levels for Spyker for
MYs 2006 and 2007, no fuel would be saved by establishing a higher
alternative standard. NHTSA finds in the Section on ``The Need of the
United States to Conserve Energy'' that because of the small size of
the Spyker fleet, that incremental usage of gasoline by Spyker's
customers would not affect the United States' need to conserve
gasoline. There would not be any impacts for the public at large.
The agency has also considered the environmental implications of
this proposed exemption in accordance with the Environmental Policy Act
and determined that this proposed exemption if adopted, would not
significantly affect the human environment. Regardless of the fuel
economy of the exempted vehicles, they must pass the emissions
standards which measure the amount of emissions per mile traveled.
Thus, the quality of the air is not affected by the proposed exemptions
and alternative standards. Further, since the exempted passenger
automobiles cannot achieve better fuel economy than is proposed herein,
granting these proposed exemptions would not affect the amount of fuel
used.
How You May Comment on the Spyker 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 will 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 will
publish a notice of final action on the application in the Federal
Register pursuant to the authority indicated below.
List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 531
Energy conservation, Gasoline, Imports, Motor Vehicles.
In consideration of the foregoing, 49 CFR part 531 would be amended
to read as follows:
PART 531--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 531 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 32902, delegation of authority at 49 CFR
1.50.
2. Section 531.5 would be amended by adding paragraph (b)(15) to
read as follows:
Sec. 531.5 Fuel economy standards.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(15) Spyker Automobielen B.V.
Average Fuel Economy Standard
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Miles per
Model year gallon)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2006...................................................... 18.9
2007...................................................... 18.9
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Issued on: August 17, 2006.
H. Keith Brewer,
Director, Crash Avoidance Standards.
[FR Doc. E6-13957 Filed 8-22-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
