Czinger Vehicles-Grant of Petition for Temporary Exemption From Certain Requirements of FMVSS No. 205, Glazing Materials, 34919-34926 [2023-11453]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 104 / Wednesday, May 31, 2023 / Notices
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
facilitate understanding. Pursuant to the
Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, the
proposed National Safety Plan also
includes precautionary and reactive
actions to ensure public and personnel
safety and health during an emergency.
FTA coordinated with the Department
of Health and Human Services on the
list of such recommended actions.
Safety Performance Measures
Under FTA’s PTASP regulation,
transit agencies must set performance
targets based on the safety performance
measures established in the National
Safety Plan (49 CFR 673.11(a)(3)). The
2017 version of the National Safety Plan
identified seven performance measures
to support PTASP performance target
setting. The proposed update to the
National Safety Plan increases the
number of these measures from seven to
14. The proposed seven new
performance measures are: Collision
Rate, Pedestrian Collision Rate,
Vehicular Collision Rate, Transit
Worker Fatality Rate, Transit Worker
Injury Rate, Assaults on Transit
Workers, and Rate of Assaults on
Transit Workers. These additions are
consistent with the Bipartisan
Infrastructure Law’s increased focus on
bus collisions and transit worker safety.
In addition to the measures described
above, the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law
directs FTA to include performance
measures for the safety risk reduction
program required under 49 U.S.C.
5329(d)(1)(I) in the National Safety Plan.
In accordance with 49 U.S.C.
5329(b)(2)(A), the National Safety Plan
identifies eight measures required for
safety risk reduction programs, which
apply to Section 5307 recipients that
serve an urbanized area of 200,000 or
more: Major Events, Major Events Rate,
Collisions, Collisions Rate, Injuries,
Injury Rate, Assaults on Transit
Workers, and Rate of Assaults on
Transit Workers. FTA is proposing these
measures as they align with the goals of
the safety risk reduction program as
described in FTA’s PTASP notice of
proposed rulemaking, namely reducing
the number and rates of safety events
and injuries, reducing vehicular and
pedestrian safety events involving
transit vehicles, and mitigating assaults
on transit workers. FTA’s proposal to
identify Major Events, Major Event Rate;
Injuries, and Injury Rate as performance
measures addresses the safety risk
reduction program goal of reducing the
number and rates of safety events and
injuries. Similarly, proposing Collisions
and Collisions Rate as performance
measures addresses the goal of reducing
vehicular and pedestrian safety events
and the measures of Assaults on Transit
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:50 May 30, 2023
Jkt 259001
Workers and Rate of Assaults on Transit
Workers address the reduction of
assaults on transit workers.
Pursuant to the Bipartisan
Infrastructure Law, performance targets
for the risk reduction program must be
set based on a 3-year rolling average of
NTD data. FTA recognizes that certain
transit agencies may not yet report
detailed safety event information to the
NTD that corresponds to these
performance measures. FTA proposed
requirements to address this situation in
a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for the
PTASP regulation, which was published
in the Federal Register on April 26,
2023 (88 FR 25336).
FTA also notes that some of the eight
performance measures for the safety risk
reduction program overlap with the 14
measures for all agencies subject to the
PTASP regulation described above.
Section 5307 recipients that serve an
urbanized area with a population of
200,000 or more may choose to use the
same target for both measures, provided
the target for the safety risk reduction
program is based on a 3-year rolling
average of NTD data.
Performance targets for a risk
reduction program at 49 U.S.C.
5329(d)(4) are not required until FTA
has finalized the National Safety Plan to
include these performance measures.
However, nothing precludes an Agency
from implementing a risk reduction
program in advance and updating it
once the performance measures are
finalized.
In the National Safety Plan, FTA also
proposes that when setting safety
performance targets, transit agencies
should use the following modal groups:
rail, fixed route bus, and non-fixed route
bus. This is responsive to 49 U.S.C.
5329(b)(2)(A), which requires FTA to
identify safety performance criteria for
all modes of public transportation.
After reviewing and responding to the
comments received on this proposed
National Safety Plan, FTA will issue a
final National Safety Plan.
Nuria I. Fernandez,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2023–11551 Filed 5–30–23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–57–P
PO 00000
34919
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA–2022–0057]
Czinger Vehicles—Grant of Petition for
Temporary Exemption From Certain
Requirements of FMVSS No. 205,
Glazing Materials
National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Notice of grant of petition for
temporary exemption.
AGENCY:
This notice grants the petition
of Czinger Vehicles (Czinger) for a
temporary exemption from windshield
abrasion resistance requirements in
Federal motor vehicle safety standard
(FMVSS) No. 205, Glazing materials.
The basis for the exemption is that
compliance with these requirements
would cause substantial economic
hardship to a low volume manufacturer
that has tried in good faith to comply
with the standard. This action follows
our publication in the Federal Register
of a document announcing receipt of
Czinger’s petition and soliciting public
comments. We received no comments
on the petition.
DATES: The exemption from the
windshield abrasion resistance
requirements in FMVSS No. 205 is
effective from August 1, 2023, through
July 31, 2026.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Callie Roach, Office of the Chief
Counsel, National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.
Telephone: 202–366–2992; Fax: 202–
366–3820.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NHTSA is
granting a request from Czinger for a
temporary exemption from FMVSS No.
205’s abrasion resistance requirements
for windshields for its first vehicle
model, the 21C. In accordance with
statutory and regulatory requirements,
NHTSA is granting the petition on the
basis that compliance would cause
substantial economic hardship to a low
volume manufacturer that has tried in
good faith to comply with the standard.
SUMMARY:
I. Relevant Legal Authority and
Regulations
a. Statutory and Regulatory
Requirements for Temporary
Exemptions
NHTSA is responsible for
promulgating and enforcing FMVSS
designed to improve motor vehicle
safety. Generally, a manufacturer may
Frm 00098
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\31MYN1.SGM
31MYN1
34920
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 104 / Wednesday, May 31, 2023 / Notices
not manufacture for sale, sell, offer for
sale, or introduce or deliver for
introduction into interstate commerce a
vehicle that does not comply with all
applicable FMVSS.1 There are limited
exceptions to this general prohibition.2
One path permits manufacturers to
petition NHTSA for an exemption for
noncompliant vehicles under specified
statutory bases.3
The National Traffic and Motor
Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act), codified
at 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, authorizes the
Secretary of Transportation to exempt,
on a temporary basis and under
specified circumstances, and on terms
the Secretary considers appropriate,
motor vehicles from a FMVSS or
bumper standard. This authority is set
forth at 49 U.S.C. 30113. The Secretary
has delegated the authority for
implementing this section to NHTSA.4
The Safety Act authorizes NHTSA (by
delegation) to grant, in whole or in part,
a temporary exemption to a vehicle
manufacturer if certain specified
findings are made.5 The agency must
find that the exemption is consistent
with the public interest and the
objectives of the Safety Act.6 In
addition, exemptions under § 30113
must meet one of four bases. Czinger
petitioned under the first of these bases,
asserting that ‘‘[c]ompliance with the
standard[s] [from which exemption is
sought] would cause substantial
economic hardship to a manufacturer
that has tried to comply with the
standard[s] in good faith.’’ 7
NHTSA established 49 CFR part 555,
Temporary Exemption from Motor
Vehicle Safety and Bumper Standards,
to implement the statutory provisions
concerning temporary exemptions. The
requirements in 49 CFR 555.5 state that
the petitioner must set forth the basis of
the petition by providing the
information required under 49 CFR
555.6, and the reasons why the
exemption would be in the public
interest and consistent with the
objectives of the Safety Act. A petition
submitted on the substantial economic
hardship basis must include the
information specified in 49 CFR
555.6(a).
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
b. FMVSS No. 205 Abrasion
Requirements for Windshields
Czinger’s petition seeks an exemption
from requirements in FMVSS No. 205,
1 49
U.S.C. 30112(a)(1).
U.S.C. 30112(b); 49 U.S.C. 30113; 49 U.S.C.
30114.
3 49 U.S.C. 30113.
4 49 CFR 1.95.
5 49 U.S.C. 30113(b)(3).
6 49 U.S.C. 30113(b)(3)(A).
7 49 U.S.C. 30113(b)(3)(B)(i).
2 49
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:50 May 30, 2023
Jkt 259001
Glazing materials. The purpose of
FMVSS No. 205 is to reduce injuries
(e.g., lacerations) resulting from impact
to glazing surfaces, to ensure a
necessary degree of transparency in
motor vehicle windows for driver
visibility, and to minimize the
possibility of occupants being thrown
through the windows in collisions. Most
of the performance requirements for
glazing, including the requirement from
which Czinger is seeking an exemption,
are found in an industry standard, the
‘‘American National Standards Institute
American National Standard for Safety
Glazing Materials for Glazing Motor
Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment
Operating on Land Highways-Safety
Standard’’ (ANSI/SAE Z26.1–1996),
which FMVSS No. 205 incorporates by
reference.
Czinger’s petition concerns
requirements for glazing used in
windshields. ANSI/SAE Z26.1–1996
sets forth groups of tests that must be
met by different glazing types. The
standard explains that ‘‘[s]afety glazing
materials in motor vehicles shall
comply with the applicable
requirements listed in this subsection
and shown in Table 1, item by item, in
definite groupings of tests that are
appropriate for the safety glazing
material in question, and the location in
the motor vehicle in which it is
intended to be used.’’ For example, AS–
1 glazing may be used anywhere in
vehicles, including windshields. For
AS–1 glazing, the standard provides a
list of tests for Laminated Glass, Class 1
Multiple Glazed Unit, and Class 2
Multiple Glazed Unit. For AS–1 glazing,
Laminated Glass must meet Test Nos. 1,
2, 3, 4, 9, 12, 15, 18, and 26. As
additional background, although the
glazing Czinger proposes to use in the
21C’s windshield is polycarbonate,
NHTSA does not prohibit the material
from being used in windshields so long
as it meets the tests for one of the
glazing types listed. In an interpretation
letter issued to Exatec, LLC, NHTSA
explained that glazing types not listed
in the standard may be used
interchangeably with the corresponding
materials specified in the standard if
and when other materials are developed
that possess properties such that they
meet one or another of the prescribed
groups of tests.8
Czinger’s petition requests an
exemption from the requirement that
windshield glazing meet the
performance requirements specified in
Test 18 for abrasion resistance. The
8 See letter to Mr. Clemens Kaiser (September 23,
2005), available at https://www.nhtsa.gov/
interpretations/04-005908drn.
PO 00000
Frm 00099
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
purpose of these abrasion requirements
is to ensure that the glazing will resist
scratching that can distort the driver’s
view and thus reduce visibility. Test 18
requires that a specimen of the glazing
be subjected to abrasion for 1000 cycles
in the manner described in ANSI/SAE
Z26.1–1996 section 5.17. After the
specimen has been abraded, the amount
of light scattered by the specimen
cannot exceed 2.0%.
II. Czinger’s Petition and Supplemental
Information
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 30113
and the procedures in 49 CFR part 555,
Czinger submitted a petition on
December 12, 2021 for a temporary
exemption from the windshield
abrasion resistance requirements in
FMVSS No. 205, Glazing materials. In
addition to its original petition, Czinger
submitted supplemental information on
October 21, 2022 and January 25, 2023.
Copies of these materials have been
placed in the docket identified at the
beginning of this document.
In its petition, Czinger describes itself
as a small volume start-up producer of
innovative sports cars.9 Czinger states
that it is located in Los Angeles,
California and was founded in 2021.10
Czinger further states that once
production begins in 2023, the company
will produce approximately 50 cars per
year worldwide.11 The forecasted
production and US sales estimates
provided by Czinger indicate that, for
the three years for which Czinger is
requesting a temporary exemption,
Czinger expects to sell a total of 55
vehicles to the U.S. market.12
Czinger is seeking an exemption for
the Czinger 21C model. Czinger states
that its 21C model vehicle is presently
under development and describes it as
a hypercar comprised of lightweight
materials and a hybrid electric
powertrain system as its foundation.13
Czinger describes the 21C as a ‘‘still-in
development high-technology, ultrahigh performance, high quality
Hypercar.’’ 14 In support of these
assertions, Czinger states that the
‘‘advanced AI developed multi material
chassis delivers exceptional light
weight’’ and that the ‘‘crash structures
have been optimized to deliver the
safest Hyper-sports car on the
9 Czinger
petition at page 3.
10 Id.
11 Id.
12 Id. at page 6. Czinger’s forecasted production
for Model Years 2023, 2024, and 2025 is 20
vehicles, 50 vehicles, and 10 vehicles respectively,
with an estimated 10 vehicles, 35 vehicles, and 10
vehicles sold in the U.S. in those years.
13 Id. at page 3.
14 Id.
E:\FR\FM\31MYN1.SGM
31MYN1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 104 / Wednesday, May 31, 2023 / Notices
market.’’ 15 Czinger states that the 21C’s
hybrid power train uses the world’s
most power-dense production internal
combustion engine as its foundation and
that the total strong hybrid system
delivers a peak output of 1250hp
(1233bhp).16 Czinger also states that the
21C’s low drag configuration optimizes
light-weighting and aerodynamics,
allowing for greater efficiency at all
speeds.17 Czinger explains that the
vehicle is produced using Additive
Manufacturing technology (the
industrial production name for 3D
printing), which Czinger asserts requires
less material, less energy, and less
infrastructure than current, widely used,
production techniques.18
Requested Exemption. Czinger
petitioned for an exemption from
requirements for glazing it seeks to use
in the windshield of Czinger’s 21C
model on the basis that compliance with
the standard would cause substantial
economic hardship. Czinger is seeking a
temporary exemption for three years to
allow Czinger to produce a total of 55
noncompliant vehicles. Czinger states
that all glazing on the 21C will be
compliant with FMVSS No. 205 with
the exception of the windshield.19
Czinger states that it believes that the
only requirements with which the
windshield will not comply are those
regarding abrasion resistance.20 In
supplemental information submitted on
October 21, 2022, Czinger confirmed
that the glazing for use in the 21C’s
windshield meets the performance
requirements in Tests Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 9,
12, 15, and 26.21 Czinger also confirmed
that the glazing is not expected to meet
the abrasion requirements in Test 18.22
Eligibility. To be eligible for a
temporary exemption on the substantial
economic hardship basis, the
petitioner’s total motor vehicle
production in the most recent year of
production must be not more than
10,000 vehicles.23 To demonstrate
compliance with this requirement, and
pursuant to 49 CFR 555.6(a)(2)(v),
Czinger stated that it has not produced
any motor vehicles to date.24
Substantial economic hardship. In
support of its claim that compliance
with the windshield abrasion resistance
requirements would cause substantial
15 Id.
25 Id.
16 Id.
26 Id.
17 Id.
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
economic hardship, Czinger states that
it is experiencing substantial economic
hardship, which would be exacerbated
by the denial of its exemption
petition.25 Czinger states that it has 35
employees and has been operating since
2021 without any sales.26 Czinger states
that, in a best-case scenario, the
company will have two additional years
with high expenses and no sales while
product development for the 21C is
completed.27
Czinger states that compliance with
the standard would result in an extra
loss of $38 million.28 Czinger explains
that the additional loss would result
from an additional $3.7 million in
research and development costs, a 6month delay bringing its product to
market, and a 15% loss of 21C sales due
to the car’s modified aesthetics (as
necessitated by a laminated
windshield).29
In further support of its petition,
Czinger notes that it has been enduring
the pandemic and supply chain issues
which, Czinger states, are straining even
established OEMs.30 As a startup,
Czinger states that it needs flexibility to
endure these challenges.31
In supplemental information
submitted in January 2023, Czinger
indicated that because compliance with
the windshield abrasion requirement
cannot be achieved with the current
vehicle design, in the absence of an
exemption, Czinger would produce the
vehicle for export only.32 Czinger states
that if the exemption were granted for
only one year, production for the U.S.
market would be reduced by 82% and
if the exemption were granted for only
two years, production for the U.S.
market would be reduced by 18%.33
Czinger also provided information about
the losses of revenue associated with
those lower production volumes. Given
the development costs Czinger has
incurred to date, Czinger states that the
loss in sales from not being able to sell
vehicles in the U.S. would result in
financial failure of the business.34
In the supplemental information
submitted in January 2023, Czinger also
stated that if the exemption were
granted, it would allow Czinger to
‘‘secure revenue essential to its
continuation and allow it to form a
18 Id.
28 Id.
37 Id.
38 Czinger’s
at page 7.
29 Id.
20 Id.
30 Id.
21 Czinger’s
31 Id.
41 Id.
32 Czinger’s
42 Id.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:50 May 30, 2023
Jkt 259001
40 Id.
at page 8.
Supplemental Information
Submission from January 2023 at page 3.
33 Id.
34 Id.
PO 00000
petition at page 8.
39 Id.
19 Id.
Supplemental Information
Submission from October 2022 at page 2.
22 Id. at page 2.
23 49 U.S.C. 30113(d).
24 Czinger petition at page 4.
at page 2.
36 Id.
27 Id.
at page 4.
bridge to be in a position to produce
vehicles where such exemptions are not
required.’’ 35 Czinger noted that while
its first vehicle model, the 21C, is a low
volume hypercar, the majority of
Czinger’s future business will be higher
volume vehicles such as the Czinger
Hyper GT which was revealed at
Monterey Car Week in August 2022.36
This subsequent model, Czinger states,
uses a more conventional windshield
shape for which the production material
will be conventional automotive glass.37
Good Faith Efforts to Comply.
Pursuant to 49 CFR 555.6(a)(2), a
petition for a temporary exemption
made under the substantial economic
hardship basis must include a
description of the petitioner’s efforts to
comply with the standard for which the
exemption is sought. In support of its
petition, Czinger asserts that it has put
considerable good faith efforts into
FMVSS compliance.38
Czinger states that the 21C has been
designed with in-line seating for two
occupants.39 The central seating
position, Czinger explains, allows for an
extremely streamlined frontal profile,
reducing drag and improving fuel
economy, as well as improving
performance.40 Czinger states that this
‘‘fighter jet’’ design has been highly
regarded by media, and more
significantly, by prospective clients.41
Czinger states that the wrap-around
cockpit is realized by a unique double
curvature windscreen, which, during
prototype stage, was produced in
polycarbonate by Isoclima, a supplier in
Europe.42 Czinger states that the hard
polycarbonate material passes European
requirements in accordance with ECE
R43, including impact performance and
abrasion haze resistance.43 Czinger
states that because of the extreme size
and shape of the 21C windshield, its
supplier, Isoclima, has informed Czinger
that the windshield must be produced
in polycarbonate.44
Czinger also states that at an early
stage in the development of the 21C, its
supplier Isoclima indicated that it
believed the polycarbonate windshield
would meet regulatory requirements for
the USA market.45 Czinger states that,
based on this information, Czinger
35 Id.
at page 6.
Frm 00100
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
34921
43 Id.
44 Id.
at page 9.
45 Id.
E:\FR\FM\31MYN1.SGM
31MYN1
34922
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 104 / Wednesday, May 31, 2023 / Notices
proceeded with the polycarbonate
windshield development.46
Czinger also states that, despite
Isoclima’s opinion that the shape of the
21C windshield could not be produced
in laminated glass, Czinger invested
time and money trying to develop, with
the help of multiple suppliers, the
planned windshield shape in laminated
glass.47 Specifically, Czinger states that
it engaged a Los Angeles-based artisan
glazing supplier and tried 20 iterations
of tooling strategies, produced over 80
test samples, and made some design
changes to improve formability.48 These
efforts, Czinger states, have not been
successful.49
In supplemental information
submitted in January 2023, Czinger
stated that it undertook a
comprehensive assessment, at a cost of
$80,000, of different physical
manufacturing techniques with its
windshield supplier, Isoclima, in a
concerted effort to achieve a solution to
manufacture the windshield in glass.50
The effort, Czinger states, proved
unsuccessful and the conclusion was
that due to the geometry of the
windshield, it could not be
manufactured in glass.51
Public Interest. Czinger asserts that
granting its petition is consistent with
the public interest and the Safety Act for
the following reasons:
1. The 21C model range will comply with
all FMVSS other than the windshield
requirements in FMVSS 205.52
2. The exempted cars will have a
windshield that meets all EU requirements.53
3. The exempted cars will not present an
unacceptable safety risk.54
In support of this assertion, Czinger
states that the 21C’s crash performance
and occupant protection performance is
improved when using polycarbonate,
compared to laminated glass.55 Czinger
states that it has run crash simulations
measuring occupant injury criteria and
observes overall improvements in
performance with the polycarbonate
windshield.56 Czinger also notes that
the 21C has an advanced dynamic knee
bolster that deploys a lower IP surface
to minimize forward movement of the
driver in an unbelted impact scenario.57
46 Id.
47 Id.
48 Id.
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
49 Id.
50 Czinger’s Supplemental Information
Submission from January 2023 at page 2.
51 Id.
52 Id. at page 10.
53 Id.
54 Id. at pages 10–11.
55 Id. at page 11.
56 Id. at page 11.
57 Id.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:50 May 30, 2023
Jkt 259001
Czinger asserts that this system, in
combination with the highly optimized
DAPS (Divergent Adaptive Production
System) front crash structure, virtually
negates the possibility of head impact to
the windshield.58
As regards visibility, Czinger states its
belief that since polycarbonate
windshields are permitted in aircrafts,
the risks of unacceptable impaired
driver visibility due to abrasion are de
minimis. Czinger also states that 21C’s
windshield glazing passes the European
requirements for abrasion haze
resistance in ECE R43.59 In
supplemental information submitted in
October 2022, Czinger stated that the
21C’s polycarbonate windshield will
also meet all of the required tests for
AS–4 glazing, which is rigid plastic
glazing for use in specific areas of
vehicles.60 AS–4 glazing is required to
meet Test Nos. 2, 10, 13, 16, 17, 19, 20,
21, and 24 . In support of its assertion
that the 21C’s windshield glazing meets
the AS–4 requirements, Czinger
submitted a copy of a 2016 third party
laboratory test report that states that the
3mm and 6mm thick samples of the
Isoclima material, which Czinger states
that it is using in its windshield, have
passed Item 4 (AS4) testing. A copy of
this report is included in Czinger’s
supplementary submission from
October 2022 and available in the
docket identified at the beginning of this
notice.
4. The 21C will be produced in the
U.S. in very low numbers and will not
be used daily due to its unconventional
design.61
In support of this assertion, Czinger
states that the 21C will be a hand-built
specialty car, high-priced and with an
unusual design.62 Czinger states that it
believes owners of 21C vehicles will use
58 Id.
at page 8.
glazing may be used in the windshield
of low-speed vehicles, in interior partitions and
auxiliary wind deflectors, folding doors, standee
windows in buses, flexible curtains or readily
removable windows or in ventilators used in
conjunction with readily removable windows,
openings in the roof not requisite for driving
visibility, trailers, glazing to the rear of the driver
in trucks or truck tractor cabs where other means
of affording visibility of the highway to the side and
rear of the vehicle are provided, the rear windows
of convertible passenger car tops, the rear doors of
taxicabs, readily removable windows of buses
having a GVWR of more than 4540 kg (10,000lb),
windows and doors in motorhomes (except for the
windshields and windows to the immediate right or
left of the driver), windows and doors in slide-in
campers and pickup covers, and windows and
doors in buses except for the windshield, windows
to the immediate right or left of the driver, and
rearmost windows if used for driving visibility. See
49 CFR 571.205 S5.4 and ANSI/SAE Z26.1–1996
page 8.
61 Czinger Petition at page 11.
62 Id.
their vehicles occasionally, rather than
for regular transportation, and predicts
that the 21Cs will be driven a mere 350
miles per year.63 In support of this
estimate, Czinger provided data for 33
hypercars valued at more than $1
million demonstrating an average
accumulated mileage of 259 miles per
year.64 Czinger provided additional
information about the hypercar use case
in the supplemental information
submitted in October 2022. Czinger
stated that a hypercar is atypical when
compared to more conventional
vehicles.65 Czinger also stated that it
performed some analysis with a sample
of 53 hypercars across a range of brands
and found that the average mileage of
these vehicles was 266 miles per year.66
5. The denial of the exemption
request could have a negative effect on
U.S. employment.67
In support of this assertion, Czinger
states that denying its petition could
result in temporary job loses, not only
at Czinger, but throughout its
distribution chain.68 Czinger also notes
that the same negative effect was
identified by NHTSA in a 2006 decision
notice granting an exemption to
Ferrari.69
6. The 21C’s innovative technology is
a benefit to the public.70
In support of this assertion, Czinger
states that the 21C offers very significant
public interest benefits—the use of
Additive Manufacturing technology,
weight-saving technology, advanced
hybrid drivetrain technology, and
innovative crash protection
technology.71 Czinger states that
granting its requested exemption would
expedite bringing these technologies to
the U.S. market.72
Additional Czinger Steps. Czinger
states that each 21C sold under an
exemption will undergo regular,
59 Id.
60 AS–4
PO 00000
Frm 00101
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
63 Id.
64 Id.
at page 15.
Supplemental Information submitted
in October 2022 at page 3.
66 Id.
67 Id. at page 11.
68 Id.
69 Id. at 11 citing a May 22, 2006 notice (71 FR
29389) stating ‘‘[w]e note that Ferrari is a wellestablished company with a small but not
insignificant U.S. presence, and we believe that an
85 percent sales reduction would negatively affect
U.S. employment. Specifically, reduction in sales
would likely affect employment not only at Ferrari
North America, but also at Ferrari dealers, repair
specialists, and several small service providers that
transport Ferrari vehicles from the port of entry to
the rest of the United States. Traditionally, the
agency has concluded that the public interest is
served in affording continued employment to the
petitioner’s U.S. work force.’’
70 Id at page 12.
71 Id.
72 Id.
65 Czinger’s
E:\FR\FM\31MYN1.SGM
31MYN1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 104 / Wednesday, May 31, 2023 / Notices
frequent inspections, and any
windshield with degraded visibility will
be identified and replaced free of
charge. In supplemental information
submitted in October 2022, Czinger
stated that it would be willing to install
tear offs, which are thin protective
films.73 Czinger states that it could
install these films on the windshield
and the films could be a regular service
item.74
III. Request for Public Comment
On July 7, 2022, NHTSA published a
notice in the Federal Register
announcing receipt of Czinger’s petition
and requesting public comment.75 The
notice provided a 30-day comment
period, which closed on August 8, 2022.
No comments were received.
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
IV. Agency Analysis and Decision
In this section we provide our
analysis and decision regarding
Czinger’s temporary exemption request
from certain requirements in FMVSS
No. 205. As explained below, we are
granting Czinger’s petition for the 21C to
be exempted from the requirement for
the glazing materials in the 21C’s
windshield to meet Test 18. The
agency’s rationale for this decision is as
follows:
Eligibility. As discussed above, a
manufacturer is eligible to apply for an
economic hardship exemption if its total
motor vehicle production in its most
recent year of production did not exceed
10,000 vehicles. In its petition, Czinger
indicated that at the time of submitting
the petition, it had not produced any
vehicles for sale and stated that it
predicted producing 55 vehicles during
the exemption period if an exemption
were granted. Accordingly, we have
determined that Czinger is eligible to
apply for an economic hardship
exemption as a low volume
manufacturer.
Economic Hardship. Czinger states
that compliance with the standard will
result in an extra loss of $38 million.76
Czinger states that it has 35 employees
and has been operating since 2021
without any sales.77 Czinger states that,
in a best case scenario, the company
will have two additional years with high
expenses and no sales while product
development for the 21C is completed.78
Czinger explains that denial of its
petition would result in an additional
loss of $3.7 million in research and
73 Czinger’s Supplemental Information submitted
in October 2022 at page 3.
74 Id.
75 87 FR 40585.
76 Id. at page 7.
77 Id.
78 Id.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:50 May 30, 2023
Jkt 259001
development costs, a 6-month delay
bringing its product to market, and an
estimated 15% loss of 21C sales due to
the car’s modified aesthetics (as
necessitated by a laminated
windshield).79 The confidential
information Czinger submitted in its
petition supports its assertion that it is
experiencing substantial economic
hardship, which would be exacerbated
by the denial of its exemption petition.
The touchstone that NHTSA uses in
determining the existence of substantial
economic hardship is an applicant’s
financial health, as indicated by its
income statements. NHTSA has tended
to consider a continuing and cumulative
net loss position as strong evidence of
hardship.80 The theory behind NHTSA’s
rationale is that if a company with a
continuing net loss is required to divert
its limited resources to resolve a
compliance problem on an immediate
basis, it may be unable to use those
resources to resolve other problems that
may affect its viability. The agency has
considered this especially important in
its treatment of petitioners that are just
starting to manufacture vehicles. Based
on these factors, we conclude that
Czinger has demonstrated the requisite
economic hardship.
Good Faith Efforts to Comply. In
addition to demonstrating that
compliance with the standard for which
it is seeking an exemption would result
in substantial economic hardship,
Czinger must demonstrate that it has
made good faith efforts to comply with
the standard. NHTSA believes Czinger
has met this requirement.
In this present case, NHTSA finds that
Czinger had reason to believe that it
would be able to create a FMVSScompliant version of its unique vehicle
design. Despite the vehicle’s unique
inline cockpit seating arrangement
necessitating a unique double curvature
windshield, Czinger had early
assurances that its supplier would be
able to produce a windshield that met
Czinger’s shape requirements while also
meeting FMVSS requirements. NHTSA
also finds that, at the point that Czinger
realized that the 21C’s windshield
would not meet the abrasion resistance
requirements, it took good faith efforts
to try to source a compliant windshield.
Specifically, we note Czinger’s
statement that it began efforts in August
2020 to locate a supplier that could
produce the windshield shape in
laminated glass. Czinger stated that it
engaged a Los Angeles-based artisan
glazing supplier and tried 20 iterations
79 Id.
80 March 11, 1994 grant of petition of Bugatti
Automobili, S.p.A., (59 FR 11649 at 11650).
PO 00000
Frm 00102
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
34923
of tooling strategies, produced over 80
test samples and made some design
changes to improve formability. When
these efforts were not successful,
Czinger sought this exemption.
As explained in its petition and
supplemental information from January
2023, Czinger intends to stop
production of the 21C for the U.S.
market at the end of the requested
exemption period because it has
determined that it is not possible to
create a FMVSS No. 205 compliant
windshield in the shape required for the
21C. NHTSA has no reason to doubt this
statement and believes that it further
demonstrates that Czinger has made
good faith efforts to comply with the
standard but is unable to do so.
Public Interest. The final
consideration for granting an exemption
under 49 U.S.C. 30113 and Part 555 is
whether granting the exemption is in
the public interest and consistent with
the objectives of the Safety Act. NHTSA
finds that in Czinger’s case it is.
In its petition, Czinger cites six
reasons that granting its petition is in
the public interest. The first four of
these reasons are related to safety.
Czinger states, first, that the 21C will
comply with all applicable FMVSS
except for windshield glazing
requirements in FMVSS No. 205;
second, that the exempted vehicles will
have a windshield that meets all EU
requirements; third, that the exempted
vehicles will not present an
unacceptable safety risk; and fourth,
that the 21C will be built in small
numbers and will not be driven daily
due to its unconventional design.
While NHTSA acknowledges that
Czinger is only requesting an exemption
from one requirement and Czinger will
only produce a small number of the
vehicles, this information alone is
insufficient to demonstrate that granting
the exemption is in the public interest.
That is, a request for exemption from a
single requirement for a small number
of vehicles could be inconsistent with
the public interest if that one exemption
presents an unreasonable risk to motor
vehicle safety. For this reason, NHTSA
first considered how granting the
exemption would impact safety.
Czinger’s request is for an exemption
from certain requirements for
windshield glazing. The abrasion
resistance requirements are considered
to be crash avoidance requirements
because the safety benefit of the
requirements is derived from the
prevention of crashes as opposed to the
mitigation of the results of crash
impacts (i.e., crashworthiness). This
means that instead of just considering
how the exemption may impact the
E:\FR\FM\31MYN1.SGM
31MYN1
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
34924
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 104 / Wednesday, May 31, 2023 / Notices
safety to occupants of an exempt
vehicle, we must also consider how the
exemption may impact the safety of
other road users.
We now turn to Czinger’s second
point and its assertions about how it is
able to assure that the 21C’s windshield
will provide adequate driving visibility
despite not meeting the abrasion
resistance requirements in Test No. 18
in ANSI/SAE Z26.1–1996. Czinger
asserts that the exemption presents
minimal risk to safety because the
windshield complies with all European
requirements for windshield glazing,
including the abrasion resistance
requirements in ECE R43. While
NHTSA has not conducted a full
analysis of the differences between Test
18 and the requirements in ECE R43,
NHTSA does consider compliance with
the ECE standard to be an indication
that the glazing used for the 21C’s
windshield has some level of resistance
to abrasion, which is expected to help
maintain driver visibility.
In further support of the assertion that
the exemption’s safety impact will be
limited, Czinger provided information
regarding the compliance of the 21C’s
windshield with another abrasion
resistance requirement in ANSI/SAE
Z26.1–1996. Specifically, Czinger states
that the glazing for use in windshields
would meet all requirements for AS–4
glazing, including requirements for
abrasion resistance. AS–4 glazing is
permitted to be used in specific
locations in a motor vehicle and must
comply with Test Nos. 2, 10, 13, 16, 17,
19, 20, 21, and 24. The abrasion
resistance requirements are found in
Test 17 and differ from the requirements
in Test 18 in two key aspects. First,
while Test 17 and Test 18 use the same
test method, specimens are abraded for
100 cycles in Test 17 and 1000 cycles
in Test 18. Second, while Test 17
requires that the light scattered by the
specimens not exceed 15.0%, Test 18
requires that the light scattered by the
specimens not exceed 2.0%. As with the
information regarding compliance with
ECE R43, NHTSA considers the
information regarding compliance with
the less stringent AS–4 requirements of
Test 17 to be some indication of the
windshield’s abrasion resistance. This
information is supportive of Czinger’s
assertion that the safety impacts of
granting the exemption would be
minimal.
The decision to grant or deny an
economic hardship exemption under
part 555 does not turn on whether the
failure to meet the standard is
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:50 May 30, 2023
Jkt 259001
consequential to safety.81 Instead, the
decision is based on whether the
petitioner meets the criteria for an
economic hardship exemption and
whether, on balance, granting the
petition is in the public interest and
consistent with the Safety Act.82 In
implementing this authority, NHTSA
considers the risk associated with the
particular noncompliance and
determines whether the specific
circumstances warrant granting an
exemption to a low volume
manufacturer that would otherwise face
economic hardship. NHTSA also
considers whether granting the
exemption would introduce a defect
that presents an unreasonable risk to
safety. The presence of such a defect
would implicate NHTSA’s defect
authority under the Safety Act and
NHTSA would be compelled to find that
granting the exemption is not consistent
with the Safety Act.
Considering the impacts of not
meeting the abrasion resistance
requirements is just one part of
NHTSA’s consideration of the overall
safety impacts of granting Czinger’s
exemption request. NHTSA also
considers whether there are mitigating
factors that may reduce the risk
associated with exemption, as well as
whether there are any other safety risks
associated with the vehicle.
In order to mitigate risks associated
with the noncompliance, Czinger
proposed two different additional steps
that it could take. First, in its petition,
Czinger notes that each 21C sold under
the exemption would undergo regular,
frequent inspections. Czinger states that
any windshield with degraded visibility
would be identified and replaced freeof-charge. NHTSA believes that this is
an appropriate mitigation measure and
has decided to grant Czinger’s
exemption subject to this term.
Czinger also suggested that it could
install tear off screen protectors on the
windshield that could be periodically
replaced. NHTSA does not have
81 However, as this glazing does not provide the
same level of safety performance as compliant
glazing, NHTSA notes that it views the failure to
meet the abrasion resistance requirements of Test
18 as ‘‘consequential’’ to motor vehicle safety, and
not as a basis, e.g., for grant of a petition for
inconsequential non-compliance under 49 CFR part
556.
82 In contrast to the other three statutory bases for
exemptions under 49 U.S.C. 30113(b)(3)(B), which
articulate safety limitations (‘‘safety level at least
equal to the safety level of the standard,’’ ‘‘not
unreasonably lower the safety level of that vehicle,’’
and ‘‘overall safety level at least equal to the overall
safety level of nonexempt vehicles’’), the economic
hardship exemption contains no such limitation.
NHTSA is left to apply the exemption in a manner
that is in the public interest and consistent with the
Safety Act.
PO 00000
Frm 00103
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
sufficient information to evaluate the
performance or safety impact of these
tear off protectors. In particular, NHTSA
does not know whether installation of
the tear off protectors could decrease the
overall safety of the vehicle.
Accordingly, NHTSA is not requiring
Czinger to install a protective screen on
the 21C’s windshield. Additionally,
NHTSA cautions Czinger that if it
chooses to install such a screen, it
should take steps to ensure that the
screen does not impair the safety of the
windshield.
NHTSA has considered the
information provided by Czinger in its
petition and supplemental
documentation and concludes that
noncompliance with the abrasion
resistance requirements, if mitigated by
frequent inspection, would not result in
an unreasonable risk to safety.
Apart from consideration of the risks
associated with not meeting the
abrasion resistance requirements,
NHTSA believes it is appropriate to
consider how polycarbonate
windshields may differ from glass
windshields in other ways. Czinger’s
petition is novel in that it is requesting
an exemption from a requirement that
has posed a barrier to the use of
polycarbonate glazing and other plastics
in vehicle windshields other than in
low-speed vehicles.83 Because of this
requirement, windshield glazing has,
until now and to NHTSA’s knowledge,
included a glass component that
enabled the glazing to comply with the
abrasion resistance requirements in Test
18. Heretofore, there has not been a
need for NHTSA to consider whether
there are any additional requirements
that should be met for windshields
beyond those considered for glass
glazing. This is an important
consideration when evaluating a request
for an exemption from the abrasion
resistance requirements. Glass and
plastic have different characteristics,
such that when plastic glazing is
permitted for use in other locations in
a vehicle (e.g., AS–4 glazing), the
glazing must also comply with tests that
would not be applicable to glass glazing,
such as those for dimensional stability,
chemical resistance, weathering, and
flammability. By providing information
supporting its assertion that the plastic
glazing meets requirements for AS–4
glazing, Czinger has addressed much of
this concern. However, because AS–4
glazing is not permitted for exterior
windows in areas requisite for driving
visibility, NHTSA notes that the safety
performance of AS–4 plastic glazing is
83 49
E:\FR\FM\31MYN1.SGM
CFR 571.205 S5.4.
31MYN1
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 104 / Wednesday, May 31, 2023 / Notices
not equivalent to glass glazing permitted
for use in windshields.
Czinger’s third statement supporting
its assertion that granting its exemption
request is in the public interest and
consistent with the Safety Act pertains
to additional safety features included in
the 21C. Czinger asserts that the
vehicles will not present an
unacceptable safety risk and states that
the crash performance and occupant
protection performance of the vehicles
is improved when using polycarbonate,
compared to laminated glazing.
Specifically, Czinger states that it has
performed crash simulations measuring
occupant injury criteria and has
observed overall improvements in
performance. Czinger also states that the
21C has an advanced knee bolster
system to minimize forward movement
of the driver in an unbelted impact
scenario, reducing the possibility of
head impact to the windscreen.
As noted earlier, NHTSA considers, as
part of its evaluation of whether
granting a petition is in the public
interest and consistent with the Safety
Act, the impact on safety resulting from
the noncompliance. If the
noncompliance presented an
unreasonable risk to motor vehicle
safety, NHTSA would deny the
exemption, regardless of whether the
vehicles contained other features that
increased the overall safety of the
vehicles. That is, safety improvements
in one area cannot offset unreasonable
risks to safety in another. Therefore,
NHTSA does not consider Czinger’s
addition of the advanced
crashworthiness features described
above as having a direct bearing on
whether noncompliance with the
specific crash avoidance feature (glazing
abrasion resistance) from which it seeks
exemption presents an unreasonable
risk to safety. However, NHTSA does
consider the addition of such safety
features when considering the overall
safety impact of the exemption and the
public interest benefits of supporting a
start-up manufacturer that is working to
develop and deploy new safety features.
In this context, NHTSA has taken into
account Czinger’s addition of these
advanced crashworthiness features in
today’s decision.
Czinger’s fourth assertion is that the
21C will be produced in very small
numbers and will not be used daily due
to its unconventional design. Czinger
asserts that the safety risks associated
with the exemption would be minimal
because the exempt vehicles would be
driven significantly less than
conventional vehicles. In support of this
assertion, Czinger states that the 21C
vehicles will cost more than $2 million
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:50 May 30, 2023
Jkt 259001
and will likely be purchased as
collectors’ items and be well cared for
throughout their life. Czinger also
provided mileage data from other
hypercars demonstrating an average of
266 miles traveled per year. NHTSA
agrees that it is appropriate to compare
the 21C to other hypercars when
considering the likely use of the
vehicles. For this reason, NHTSA
believes that Czinger’s projection that
the vehicles will be driven, on average,
350 miles a year is reasonable. NHTSA
also agrees that limited use on public
roads would minimize the risks
associated with granting the exemption.
Czinger estimates that it will only
produce 55 vehicles for the U.S. market
over the exemption period. While not
impacting the safety of the use of
individual vehicles, the limited
production run of the vehicle would
minimize the overall safety impact of
granting the exemption.
Overall, NHTSA has considered the
safety risks associated with Czinger’s
exemption request and believes that the
safety impacts of granting the request
would be minimal given the limited
nature of the exemption, the limited
number of vehicles affected, the
expected limited use of the vehicles,
and Czinger’s commitment to inspect
the windshields frequently and replace
abraded windshields free of charge.
We now turn to Czinger’s last two
assertions supporting its argument that
granting the petition is in the public
interest. Czinger states that the denial of
the exemption request could have a
negative effect on U.S. employment and
that the 21C’s innovative technology is
a benefit to the public. The information
Czinger submitted indicating that it
would face financial failure if the
exemption were denied also supports
Czinger’s assertion that denying the
petition would have a negative impact
on U.S. employment, not just on
Czinger’s 35 employees, but also on its
U.S. suppliers. In support of its
assertion that the 21C’s innovative
technology is a benefit to the public,
Czinger notes that the 21C uses Additive
Manufacturing technology, weightsaving technology, advanced hybrid
drivetrain technology, and innovative
crash protection technology. NHTSA
agrees that both of these points weigh in
favor of granting Czinger’s petition.
Based on the information Czinger
provided, NHTSA believes that, on
balance, given the criteria for an
economic hardship exemption, the
limited nature of the exemption, the
limited number of vehicles affected, the
expected limited use of the vehicles,
and Czinger’s commitment to inspect
the windshields frequently and replace
PO 00000
Frm 00104
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
34925
abraded windshields free of charge,
granting Czinger’s petition is in the
public interest and consistent with the
Safety Act. NHTSA believes that the
exemption will have minimal impact on
motor vehicle safety due to the limited
number of vehicles affected and the
mitigating factors that reduce the safety
risks associated with the requested
exemption. NHTSA also finds that
granting Czinger’s exemption request
will help a start-up company
manufacture vehicles in the U.S.,
creating U.S. manufacturing jobs while
also supporting development of
innovative manufacturing processes in
the automotive sector and affording
consumers a wider variety of motor
vehicle choices.
Number of Exempt Vehicles. The
statutory cap for exemptions for lowvolume manufacturers seeking a
substantial hardship exemption requires
that the manufacturer must have an
annual world-wide production of 10,000
vehicles or less. Czinger originally
petitioned for an exemption of up to 55
vehicles over the exemption period.
However, in supplemental information
submitted in January 2023, Czinger
noted that it intended to produce up to
110 vehicles during the three-year
exemption period, a substantial portion
of which Czinger estimates will be
exported to other countries. This falls
well below the statutory cap, and
NHTSA is granting the exemption for
the entire estimated production of the
21C during the exemption period, for a
total of 110 vehicles that may be
manufactured and sold under the
exemption.
Effective Date of the Exemption. In
correspondence from April 5, 2023,
Czinger requested that, if granted, its
exemption begin on August 1, 2023.
NHTSA is granting this request.
V. Conclusion
In consideration of the foregoing, we
conclude that compliance with the
abrasion resistance requirements for
windshields in FMVSS No. 205 would
cause substantial economic hardship to
a manufacturer that has tried in good
faith to comply with the standard. We
further conclude that granting an
exemption from this requirement would
be in the public interest and consistent
with the Safety Act.
In accordance with 49 U.S.C.
30113(b)(3)(B)(i), the Czinger 21C is
granted NHTSA Temporary Exemption
No. EX 23–01, from the abrasion
resistance requirements for AS–1
glazing to be used in the 21C’s
windshield for up to 110 vehicles
produced over the exemption period.
E:\FR\FM\31MYN1.SGM
31MYN1
34926
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 104 / Wednesday, May 31, 2023 / Notices
This exemption is effective from August
1, 2023 until July 31, 2026.
As explained above, the grant of this
exemption is subject to the following
conditions.
1. Czinger shall provide inspections of
the windshield glazing of each 21C
produced under this exemption, free of
charge, at least once every six months
during the service life of the vehicle.
2. Czinger shall replace, free of
charge, the windshield of any exempted
21C vehicle produced under this
exemption if the windshield becomes
abraded due to normal wear and tear
such that the abrasion noticeably
impairs driver visibility.
3. Czinger shall report to NHTSA any
instances in which it replaced a
windshield on a 21C exempted vehicle
that had become abraded due to normal
use. Such report shall be made no later
than 30 calendar days after such
replacement.
4. The label required to be affixed
pursuant to 49 CFR 555.9 must read in
relevant part, ‘‘except for the abrasion
resistance requirements for windshields
in Standard No. 205, Glazing materials,
exempted pursuant to NHTSA
Exemption No. EX 23–01.’’
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30113 and 49
U.S.C. 30166; delegations of authority at
49 CFR 1.95 and 49 CFR 501.4.
Issued in Washington, DC, under authority
delegated in 49 CFR 1.95 and 501.4.
Sophie Shulman,
Deputy Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2023–11453 Filed 5–30–23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–59–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials
Safety Administration
[Docket No. PHMSA–2020–0044]
Pipeline Safety: Request for Special
Permit; Florida Gas Transmission
Company, LLC
Pipeline and Hazardous
Materials Safety Administration
(PHMSA); DOT.
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:
PHMSA is publishing this
notice to solicit public comments on a
request for a special permit received
from Florida Gas Transmission
Company, LLC (FGT). The special
permit request is seeking relief from
compliance with certain requirements
in the Federal pipeline safety
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:50 May 30, 2023
Jkt 259001
regulations. At the conclusion of the 30day comment period, PHMSA will
review the comments received from this
notice as part of its evaluation to grant
or deny the special permit request.
DATES: Submit any comments regarding
this special permit request by June 30,
2023.
ADDRESSES: Comments should reference
the docket number for the specific
special permit request and may be
submitted in the following ways:
• E-Gov Website: https://
www.Regulations.gov. This site allows
the public to enter comments on any
Federal Register notice issued by any
agency.
• Fax: 1–202–493–2251.
• Mail: Docket Management System:
U.S. Department of Transportation,
Docket Operations, M–30, West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12–140,
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE,
Washington, DC 20590.
• Hand Delivery: Docket Management
System: U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M–
30, West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE,
Washington, DC 20590, between 9:00
a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays.
Instructions: You should identify the
docket number for the special permit
request you are commenting on at the
beginning of your comments. If you
submit your comments by mail, please
submit two (2) copies. To receive
confirmation that PHMSA has received
your comments, please include a selfaddressed stamped postcard. Internet
users may submit comments at https://
www.Regulations.gov.
Note: There is a privacy statement
published on https://www.Regulations.gov.
Comments, including any personal
information provided, are posted without
changes or edits to https://
www.Regulations.gov.
Confidential Business Information:
Confidential Business Information (CBI)
is commercial or financial information
that is both customarily and actually
treated as private by its owner. Under
the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)
(5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from
public disclosure. If your comments
responsive to this notice contain
commercial or financial information
that is customarily treated as private,
that you actually treat as private, and
that is relevant or responsive to this
notice, it is important that you clearly
designate the submitted comments as
CBI. Pursuant to 49 Code of Federal
PO 00000
Frm 00105
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Regulations (CFR) 190.343, you may ask
PHMSA to give confidential treatment
to information you give to the agency by
taking the following steps: (1) mark each
page of the original document
submission containing CBI as
‘‘Confidential’’; (2) send PHMSA, along
with the original document, a second
copy of the original document with the
CBI deleted; and (3) explain why the
information you are submitting is CBI.
Unless you are notified otherwise,
PHMSA will treat such marked
submissions as confidential under the
FOIA, and they will not be placed in the
public docket of this notice.
Submissions containing CBI should be
sent to Kay McIver, DOT, PHMSA–
PHP–80, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE,
Washington, DC 20590–0001. Any
commentary PHMSA receives that is not
specifically designated as CBI will be
placed in the public docket for this
matter.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
General: Ms. Kay McIver by telephone
at 202–366–0113, or by email at
kay.mciver@dot.gov.
Technical: Mr. Steve Nanney by
telephone at 713–272–2855, or by email
at steve.nanney@dot.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: PHMSA
received a special permit request on
March 24, 2023, from FGT seeking a
waiver from the requirements of 49 CFR
192.611(a)(3)(iii): Change in class
location: Confirmation or revision of
maximum allowable operating pressure.
Section 49 CFR 192.611(a)(3)(iii)
requires a pressure test of 0.667 times
the alternative maximum allowable
operating (Alternative MAOP) for a
Class 2 to Class 3 location change. The
requested pipeline segment extensions
are proposed to be added to special
permit Docket Number PHMSA–2020–
0044, due to the pipeline segments
being contiguous to existing special
permit segments.
This special permit is being requested
for extending class location changes in
lieu of pressure testing or pressure
reduction for five (5) special permit
segment extensions totaling 10,219 feet
(approximately 1.935 miles) of the FGT
pipeline system. The proposed special
permit segments have been previously
pressure tested to either 1,899 pounds
per square inch gauge (psig), 1,920 psig,
or 1,925 psig. The pipe wall thickness
and strength meet the requirements of
49 CFR 192.611(a)(1)(ii) for a Class 2 to
Class 3 location change. The pipeline
segments are as follows:
E:\FR\FM\31MYN1.SGM
31MYN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 104 (Wednesday, May 31, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 34919-34926]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-11453]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA-2022-0057]
Czinger Vehicles--Grant of Petition for Temporary Exemption From
Certain Requirements of FMVSS No. 205, Glazing Materials
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Notice of grant of petition for temporary exemption.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This notice grants the petition of Czinger Vehicles (Czinger)
for a temporary exemption from windshield abrasion resistance
requirements in Federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS) No. 205,
Glazing materials. The basis for the exemption is that compliance with
these requirements would cause substantial economic hardship to a low
volume manufacturer that has tried in good faith to comply with the
standard. This action follows our publication in the Federal Register
of a document announcing receipt of Czinger's petition and soliciting
public comments. We received no comments on the petition.
DATES: The exemption from the windshield abrasion resistance
requirements in FMVSS No. 205 is effective from August 1, 2023, through
July 31, 2026.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Callie Roach, Office of the Chief
Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590. Telephone: 202-366-2992; Fax:
202-366-3820.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NHTSA is granting a request from Czinger for
a temporary exemption from FMVSS No. 205's abrasion resistance
requirements for windshields for its first vehicle model, the 21C. In
accordance with statutory and regulatory requirements, NHTSA is
granting the petition on the basis that compliance would cause
substantial economic hardship to a low volume manufacturer that has
tried in good faith to comply with the standard.
I. Relevant Legal Authority and Regulations
a. Statutory and Regulatory Requirements for Temporary Exemptions
NHTSA is responsible for promulgating and enforcing FMVSS designed
to improve motor vehicle safety. Generally, a manufacturer may
[[Page 34920]]
not manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, or introduce or deliver
for introduction into interstate commerce a vehicle that does not
comply with all applicable FMVSS.\1\ There are limited exceptions to
this general prohibition.\2\ One path permits manufacturers to petition
NHTSA for an exemption for noncompliant vehicles under specified
statutory bases.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 49 U.S.C. 30112(a)(1).
\2\ 49 U.S.C. 30112(b); 49 U.S.C. 30113; 49 U.S.C. 30114.
\3\ 49 U.S.C. 30113.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act),
codified at 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, authorizes the Secretary of
Transportation to exempt, on a temporary basis and under specified
circumstances, and on terms the Secretary considers appropriate, motor
vehicles from a FMVSS or bumper standard. This authority is set forth
at 49 U.S.C. 30113. The Secretary has delegated the authority for
implementing this section to NHTSA.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ 49 CFR 1.95.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Safety Act authorizes NHTSA (by delegation) to grant, in whole
or in part, a temporary exemption to a vehicle manufacturer if certain
specified findings are made.\5\ The agency must find that the exemption
is consistent with the public interest and the objectives of the Safety
Act.\6\ In addition, exemptions under Sec. 30113 must meet one of four
bases. Czinger petitioned under the first of these bases, asserting
that ``[c]ompliance with the standard[s] [from which exemption is
sought] would cause substantial economic hardship to a manufacturer
that has tried to comply with the standard[s] in good faith.'' \7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ 49 U.S.C. 30113(b)(3).
\6\ 49 U.S.C. 30113(b)(3)(A).
\7\ 49 U.S.C. 30113(b)(3)(B)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NHTSA established 49 CFR part 555, Temporary Exemption from Motor
Vehicle Safety and Bumper Standards, to implement the statutory
provisions concerning temporary exemptions. The requirements in 49 CFR
555.5 state that the petitioner must set forth the basis of the
petition by providing the information required under 49 CFR 555.6, and
the reasons why the exemption would be in the public interest and
consistent with the objectives of the Safety Act. A petition submitted
on the substantial economic hardship basis must include the information
specified in 49 CFR 555.6(a).
b. FMVSS No. 205 Abrasion Requirements for Windshields
Czinger's petition seeks an exemption from requirements in FMVSS
No. 205, Glazing materials. The purpose of FMVSS No. 205 is to reduce
injuries (e.g., lacerations) resulting from impact to glazing surfaces,
to ensure a necessary degree of transparency in motor vehicle windows
for driver visibility, and to minimize the possibility of occupants
being thrown through the windows in collisions. Most of the performance
requirements for glazing, including the requirement from which Czinger
is seeking an exemption, are found in an industry standard, the
``American National Standards Institute American National Standard for
Safety Glazing Materials for Glazing Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle
Equipment Operating on Land Highways-Safety Standard'' (ANSI/SAE Z26.1-
1996), which FMVSS No. 205 incorporates by reference.
Czinger's petition concerns requirements for glazing used in
windshields. ANSI/SAE Z26.1-1996 sets forth groups of tests that must
be met by different glazing types. The standard explains that
``[s]afety glazing materials in motor vehicles shall comply with the
applicable requirements listed in this subsection and shown in Table 1,
item by item, in definite groupings of tests that are appropriate for
the safety glazing material in question, and the location in the motor
vehicle in which it is intended to be used.'' For example, AS-1 glazing
may be used anywhere in vehicles, including windshields. For AS-1
glazing, the standard provides a list of tests for Laminated Glass,
Class 1 Multiple Glazed Unit, and Class 2 Multiple Glazed Unit. For AS-
1 glazing, Laminated Glass must meet Test Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 9, 12, 15,
18, and 26. As additional background, although the glazing Czinger
proposes to use in the 21C's windshield is polycarbonate, NHTSA does
not prohibit the material from being used in windshields so long as it
meets the tests for one of the glazing types listed. In an
interpretation letter issued to Exatec, LLC, NHTSA explained that
glazing types not listed in the standard may be used interchangeably
with the corresponding materials specified in the standard if and when
other materials are developed that possess properties such that they
meet one or another of the prescribed groups of tests.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ See letter to Mr. Clemens Kaiser (September 23, 2005),
available at https://www.nhtsa.gov/interpretations/04-005908drn.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Czinger's petition requests an exemption from the requirement that
windshield glazing meet the performance requirements specified in Test
18 for abrasion resistance. The purpose of these abrasion requirements
is to ensure that the glazing will resist scratching that can distort
the driver's view and thus reduce visibility. Test 18 requires that a
specimen of the glazing be subjected to abrasion for 1000 cycles in the
manner described in ANSI/SAE Z26.1-1996 section 5.17. After the
specimen has been abraded, the amount of light scattered by the
specimen cannot exceed 2.0%.
II. Czinger's Petition and Supplemental Information
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 30113 and the procedures in 49 CFR
part 555, Czinger submitted a petition on December 12, 2021 for a
temporary exemption from the windshield abrasion resistance
requirements in FMVSS No. 205, Glazing materials. In addition to its
original petition, Czinger submitted supplemental information on
October 21, 2022 and January 25, 2023. Copies of these materials have
been placed in the docket identified at the beginning of this document.
In its petition, Czinger describes itself as a small volume start-
up producer of innovative sports cars.\9\ Czinger states that it is
located in Los Angeles, California and was founded in 2021.\10\ Czinger
further states that once production begins in 2023, the company will
produce approximately 50 cars per year worldwide.\11\ The forecasted
production and US sales estimates provided by Czinger indicate that,
for the three years for which Czinger is requesting a temporary
exemption, Czinger expects to sell a total of 55 vehicles to the U.S.
market.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Czinger petition at page 3.
\10\ Id.
\11\ Id.
\12\ Id. at page 6. Czinger's forecasted production for Model
Years 2023, 2024, and 2025 is 20 vehicles, 50 vehicles, and 10
vehicles respectively, with an estimated 10 vehicles, 35 vehicles,
and 10 vehicles sold in the U.S. in those years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Czinger is seeking an exemption for the Czinger 21C model. Czinger
states that its 21C model vehicle is presently under development and
describes it as a hypercar comprised of lightweight materials and a
hybrid electric powertrain system as its foundation.\13\ Czinger
describes the 21C as a ``still-in development high-technology, ultra-
high performance, high quality Hypercar.'' \14\ In support of these
assertions, Czinger states that the ``advanced AI developed multi
material chassis delivers exceptional light weight'' and that the
``crash structures have been optimized to deliver the safest Hyper-
sports car on the
[[Page 34921]]
market.'' \15\ Czinger states that the 21C's hybrid power train uses
the world's most power-dense production internal combustion engine as
its foundation and that the total strong hybrid system delivers a peak
output of 1250hp (1233bhp).\16\ Czinger also states that the 21C's low
drag configuration optimizes light-weighting and aerodynamics, allowing
for greater efficiency at all speeds.\17\ Czinger explains that the
vehicle is produced using Additive Manufacturing technology (the
industrial production name for 3D printing), which Czinger asserts
requires less material, less energy, and less infrastructure than
current, widely used, production techniques.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Id. at page 3.
\14\ Id.
\15\ Id.
\16\ Id.
\17\ Id.
\18\ Id. at page 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Requested Exemption. Czinger petitioned for an exemption from
requirements for glazing it seeks to use in the windshield of Czinger's
21C model on the basis that compliance with the standard would cause
substantial economic hardship. Czinger is seeking a temporary exemption
for three years to allow Czinger to produce a total of 55 noncompliant
vehicles. Czinger states that all glazing on the 21C will be compliant
with FMVSS No. 205 with the exception of the windshield.\19\ Czinger
states that it believes that the only requirements with which the
windshield will not comply are those regarding abrasion resistance.\20\
In supplemental information submitted on October 21, 2022, Czinger
confirmed that the glazing for use in the 21C's windshield meets the
performance requirements in Tests Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 9, 12, 15, and
26.\21\ Czinger also confirmed that the glazing is not expected to meet
the abrasion requirements in Test 18.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ Id.
\20\ Id.
\21\ Czinger's Supplemental Information Submission from October
2022 at page 2.
\22\ Id. at page 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eligibility. To be eligible for a temporary exemption on the
substantial economic hardship basis, the petitioner's total motor
vehicle production in the most recent year of production must be not
more than 10,000 vehicles.\23\ To demonstrate compliance with this
requirement, and pursuant to 49 CFR 555.6(a)(2)(v), Czinger stated that
it has not produced any motor vehicles to date.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ 49 U.S.C. 30113(d).
\24\ Czinger petition at page 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Substantial economic hardship. In support of its claim that
compliance with the windshield abrasion resistance requirements would
cause substantial economic hardship, Czinger states that it is
experiencing substantial economic hardship, which would be exacerbated
by the denial of its exemption petition.\25\ Czinger states that it has
35 employees and has been operating since 2021 without any sales.\26\
Czinger states that, in a best-case scenario, the company will have two
additional years with high expenses and no sales while product
development for the 21C is completed.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ Id. at page 6.
\26\ Id.
\27\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Czinger states that compliance with the standard would result in an
extra loss of $38 million.\28\ Czinger explains that the additional
loss would result from an additional $3.7 million in research and
development costs, a 6-month delay bringing its product to market, and
a 15% loss of 21C sales due to the car's modified aesthetics (as
necessitated by a laminated windshield).\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ Id. at page 7.
\29\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In further support of its petition, Czinger notes that it has been
enduring the pandemic and supply chain issues which, Czinger states,
are straining even established OEMs.\30\ As a startup, Czinger states
that it needs flexibility to endure these challenges.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ Id. at page 8.
\31\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In supplemental information submitted in January 2023, Czinger
indicated that because compliance with the windshield abrasion
requirement cannot be achieved with the current vehicle design, in the
absence of an exemption, Czinger would produce the vehicle for export
only.\32\ Czinger states that if the exemption were granted for only
one year, production for the U.S. market would be reduced by 82% and if
the exemption were granted for only two years, production for the U.S.
market would be reduced by 18%.\33\ Czinger also provided information
about the losses of revenue associated with those lower production
volumes. Given the development costs Czinger has incurred to date,
Czinger states that the loss in sales from not being able to sell
vehicles in the U.S. would result in financial failure of the
business.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ Czinger's Supplemental Information Submission from January
2023 at page 3.
\33\ Id.
\34\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the supplemental information submitted in January 2023, Czinger
also stated that if the exemption were granted, it would allow Czinger
to ``secure revenue essential to its continuation and allow it to form
a bridge to be in a position to produce vehicles where such exemptions
are not required.'' \35\ Czinger noted that while its first vehicle
model, the 21C, is a low volume hypercar, the majority of Czinger's
future business will be higher volume vehicles such as the Czinger
Hyper GT which was revealed at Monterey Car Week in August 2022.\36\
This subsequent model, Czinger states, uses a more conventional
windshield shape for which the production material will be conventional
automotive glass.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ Id. at page 2.
\36\ Id.
\37\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Good Faith Efforts to Comply. Pursuant to 49 CFR 555.6(a)(2), a
petition for a temporary exemption made under the substantial economic
hardship basis must include a description of the petitioner's efforts
to comply with the standard for which the exemption is sought. In
support of its petition, Czinger asserts that it has put considerable
good faith efforts into FMVSS compliance.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\38\ Czinger's petition at page 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Czinger states that the 21C has been designed with in-line seating
for two occupants.\39\ The central seating position, Czinger explains,
allows for an extremely streamlined frontal profile, reducing drag and
improving fuel economy, as well as improving performance.\40\ Czinger
states that this ``fighter jet'' design has been highly regarded by
media, and more significantly, by prospective clients.\41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\ Id.
\40\ Id.
\41\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Czinger states that the wrap-around cockpit is realized by a unique
double curvature windscreen, which, during prototype stage, was
produced in polycarbonate by Isoclima, a supplier in Europe.\42\
Czinger states that the hard polycarbonate material passes European
requirements in accordance with ECE R43, including impact performance
and abrasion haze resistance.\43\ Czinger states that because of the
extreme size and shape of the 21C windshield, its supplier, Isoclima,
has informed Czinger that the windshield must be produced in
polycarbonate.\44\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\42\ Id.
\43\ Id.
\44\ Id. at page 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Czinger also states that at an early stage in the development of
the 21C, its supplier Isoclima indicated that it believed the
polycarbonate windshield would meet regulatory requirements for the USA
market.\45\ Czinger states that, based on this information, Czinger
[[Page 34922]]
proceeded with the polycarbonate windshield development.\46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\45\ Id.
\46\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Czinger also states that, despite Isoclima's opinion that the shape
of the 21C windshield could not be produced in laminated glass, Czinger
invested time and money trying to develop, with the help of multiple
suppliers, the planned windshield shape in laminated glass.\47\
Specifically, Czinger states that it engaged a Los Angeles-based
artisan glazing supplier and tried 20 iterations of tooling strategies,
produced over 80 test samples, and made some design changes to improve
formability.\48\ These efforts, Czinger states, have not been
successful.\49\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\47\ Id.
\48\ Id.
\49\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In supplemental information submitted in January 2023, Czinger
stated that it undertook a comprehensive assessment, at a cost of
$80,000, of different physical manufacturing techniques with its
windshield supplier, Isoclima, in a concerted effort to achieve a
solution to manufacture the windshield in glass.\50\ The effort,
Czinger states, proved unsuccessful and the conclusion was that due to
the geometry of the windshield, it could not be manufactured in
glass.\51\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\50\ Czinger's Supplemental Information Submission from January
2023 at page 2.
\51\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Public Interest. Czinger asserts that granting its petition is
consistent with the public interest and the Safety Act for the
following reasons:
1. The 21C model range will comply with all FMVSS other than the
windshield requirements in FMVSS 205.\52\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\52\ Id. at page 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. The exempted cars will have a windshield that meets all EU
requirements.\53\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\53\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. The exempted cars will not present an unacceptable safety
risk.\54\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\54\ Id. at pages 10-11.
In support of this assertion, Czinger states that the 21C's crash
performance and occupant protection performance is improved when using
polycarbonate, compared to laminated glass.\55\ Czinger states that it
has run crash simulations measuring occupant injury criteria and
observes overall improvements in performance with the polycarbonate
windshield.\56\ Czinger also notes that the 21C has an advanced dynamic
knee bolster that deploys a lower IP surface to minimize forward
movement of the driver in an unbelted impact scenario.\57\ Czinger
asserts that this system, in combination with the highly optimized DAPS
(Divergent Adaptive Production System) front crash structure, virtually
negates the possibility of head impact to the windshield.\58\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\55\ Id. at page 11.
\56\ Id. at page 11.
\57\ Id.
\58\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As regards visibility, Czinger states its belief that since
polycarbonate windshields are permitted in aircrafts, the risks of
unacceptable impaired driver visibility due to abrasion are de minimis.
Czinger also states that 21C's windshield glazing passes the European
requirements for abrasion haze resistance in ECE R43.\59\ In
supplemental information submitted in October 2022, Czinger stated that
the 21C's polycarbonate windshield will also meet all of the required
tests for AS-4 glazing, which is rigid plastic glazing for use in
specific areas of vehicles.\60\ AS-4 glazing is required to meet Test
Nos. 2, 10, 13, 16, 17, 19, 20, 21, and 24 . In support of its
assertion that the 21C's windshield glazing meets the AS-4
requirements, Czinger submitted a copy of a 2016 third party laboratory
test report that states that the 3mm and 6mm thick samples of the
Isoclima material, which Czinger states that it is using in its
windshield, have passed Item 4 (AS4) testing. A copy of this report is
included in Czinger's supplementary submission from October 2022 and
available in the docket identified at the beginning of this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\59\ Id. at page 8.
\60\ AS-4 glazing may be used in the windshield of low-speed
vehicles, in interior partitions and auxiliary wind deflectors,
folding doors, standee windows in buses, flexible curtains or
readily removable windows or in ventilators used in conjunction with
readily removable windows, openings in the roof not requisite for
driving visibility, trailers, glazing to the rear of the driver in
trucks or truck tractor cabs where other means of affording
visibility of the highway to the side and rear of the vehicle are
provided, the rear windows of convertible passenger car tops, the
rear doors of taxicabs, readily removable windows of buses having a
GVWR of more than 4540 kg (10,000lb), windows and doors in
motorhomes (except for the windshields and windows to the immediate
right or left of the driver), windows and doors in slide-in campers
and pickup covers, and windows and doors in buses except for the
windshield, windows to the immediate right or left of the driver,
and rearmost windows if used for driving visibility. See 49 CFR
571.205 S5.4 and ANSI/SAE Z26.1-1996 page 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. The 21C will be produced in the U.S. in very low numbers and
will not be used daily due to its unconventional design.\61\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\61\ Czinger Petition at page 11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In support of this assertion, Czinger states that the 21C will be a
hand-built specialty car, high-priced and with an unusual design.\62\
Czinger states that it believes owners of 21C vehicles will use their
vehicles occasionally, rather than for regular transportation, and
predicts that the 21Cs will be driven a mere 350 miles per year.\63\ In
support of this estimate, Czinger provided data for 33 hypercars valued
at more than $1 million demonstrating an average accumulated mileage of
259 miles per year.\64\ Czinger provided additional information about
the hypercar use case in the supplemental information submitted in
October 2022. Czinger stated that a hypercar is atypical when compared
to more conventional vehicles.\65\ Czinger also stated that it
performed some analysis with a sample of 53 hypercars across a range of
brands and found that the average mileage of these vehicles was 266
miles per year.\66\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\62\ Id.
\63\ Id.
\64\ Id. at page 15.
\65\ Czinger's Supplemental Information submitted in October
2022 at page 3.
\66\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. The denial of the exemption request could have a negative effect
on U.S. employment.\67\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\67\ Id. at page 11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In support of this assertion, Czinger states that denying its
petition could result in temporary job loses, not only at Czinger, but
throughout its distribution chain.\68\ Czinger also notes that the same
negative effect was identified by NHTSA in a 2006 decision notice
granting an exemption to Ferrari.\69\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\68\ Id.
\69\ Id. at 11 citing a May 22, 2006 notice (71 FR 29389)
stating ``[w]e note that Ferrari is a well-established company with
a small but not insignificant U.S. presence, and we believe that an
85 percent sales reduction would negatively affect U.S. employment.
Specifically, reduction in sales would likely affect employment not
only at Ferrari North America, but also at Ferrari dealers, repair
specialists, and several small service providers that transport
Ferrari vehicles from the port of entry to the rest of the United
States. Traditionally, the agency has concluded that the public
interest is served in affording continued employment to the
petitioner's U.S. work force.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. The 21C's innovative technology is a benefit to the public.\70\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\70\ Id at page 12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In support of this assertion, Czinger states that the 21C offers
very significant public interest benefits--the use of Additive
Manufacturing technology, weight-saving technology, advanced hybrid
drivetrain technology, and innovative crash protection technology.\71\
Czinger states that granting its requested exemption would expedite
bringing these technologies to the U.S. market.\72\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\71\ Id.
\72\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additional Czinger Steps. Czinger states that each 21C sold under
an exemption will undergo regular,
[[Page 34923]]
frequent inspections, and any windshield with degraded visibility will
be identified and replaced free of charge. In supplemental information
submitted in October 2022, Czinger stated that it would be willing to
install tear offs, which are thin protective films.\73\ Czinger states
that it could install these films on the windshield and the films could
be a regular service item.\74\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\73\ Czinger's Supplemental Information submitted in October
2022 at page 3.
\74\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. Request for Public Comment
On July 7, 2022, NHTSA published a notice in the Federal Register
announcing receipt of Czinger's petition and requesting public
comment.\75\ The notice provided a 30-day comment period, which closed
on August 8, 2022. No comments were received.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\75\ 87 FR 40585.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
IV. Agency Analysis and Decision
In this section we provide our analysis and decision regarding
Czinger's temporary exemption request from certain requirements in
FMVSS No. 205. As explained below, we are granting Czinger's petition
for the 21C to be exempted from the requirement for the glazing
materials in the 21C's windshield to meet Test 18. The agency's
rationale for this decision is as follows:
Eligibility. As discussed above, a manufacturer is eligible to
apply for an economic hardship exemption if its total motor vehicle
production in its most recent year of production did not exceed 10,000
vehicles. In its petition, Czinger indicated that at the time of
submitting the petition, it had not produced any vehicles for sale and
stated that it predicted producing 55 vehicles during the exemption
period if an exemption were granted. Accordingly, we have determined
that Czinger is eligible to apply for an economic hardship exemption as
a low volume manufacturer.
Economic Hardship. Czinger states that compliance with the standard
will result in an extra loss of $38 million.\76\ Czinger states that it
has 35 employees and has been operating since 2021 without any
sales.\77\ Czinger states that, in a best case scenario, the company
will have two additional years with high expenses and no sales while
product development for the 21C is completed.\78\ Czinger explains that
denial of its petition would result in an additional loss of $3.7
million in research and development costs, a 6-month delay bringing its
product to market, and an estimated 15% loss of 21C sales due to the
car's modified aesthetics (as necessitated by a laminated
windshield).\79\ The confidential information Czinger submitted in its
petition supports its assertion that it is experiencing substantial
economic hardship, which would be exacerbated by the denial of its
exemption petition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\76\ Id. at page 7.
\77\ Id.
\78\ Id.
\79\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The touchstone that NHTSA uses in determining the existence of
substantial economic hardship is an applicant's financial health, as
indicated by its income statements. NHTSA has tended to consider a
continuing and cumulative net loss position as strong evidence of
hardship.\80\ The theory behind NHTSA's rationale is that if a company
with a continuing net loss is required to divert its limited resources
to resolve a compliance problem on an immediate basis, it may be unable
to use those resources to resolve other problems that may affect its
viability. The agency has considered this especially important in its
treatment of petitioners that are just starting to manufacture
vehicles. Based on these factors, we conclude that Czinger has
demonstrated the requisite economic hardship.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\80\ March 11, 1994 grant of petition of Bugatti Automobili,
S.p.A., (59 FR 11649 at 11650).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Good Faith Efforts to Comply. In addition to demonstrating that
compliance with the standard for which it is seeking an exemption would
result in substantial economic hardship, Czinger must demonstrate that
it has made good faith efforts to comply with the standard. NHTSA
believes Czinger has met this requirement.
In this present case, NHTSA finds that Czinger had reason to
believe that it would be able to create a FMVSS-compliant version of
its unique vehicle design. Despite the vehicle's unique inline cockpit
seating arrangement necessitating a unique double curvature windshield,
Czinger had early assurances that its supplier would be able to produce
a windshield that met Czinger's shape requirements while also meeting
FMVSS requirements. NHTSA also finds that, at the point that Czinger
realized that the 21C's windshield would not meet the abrasion
resistance requirements, it took good faith efforts to try to source a
compliant windshield. Specifically, we note Czinger's statement that it
began efforts in August 2020 to locate a supplier that could produce
the windshield shape in laminated glass. Czinger stated that it engaged
a Los Angeles-based artisan glazing supplier and tried 20 iterations of
tooling strategies, produced over 80 test samples and made some design
changes to improve formability. When these efforts were not successful,
Czinger sought this exemption.
As explained in its petition and supplemental information from
January 2023, Czinger intends to stop production of the 21C for the
U.S. market at the end of the requested exemption period because it has
determined that it is not possible to create a FMVSS No. 205 compliant
windshield in the shape required for the 21C. NHTSA has no reason to
doubt this statement and believes that it further demonstrates that
Czinger has made good faith efforts to comply with the standard but is
unable to do so.
Public Interest. The final consideration for granting an exemption
under 49 U.S.C. 30113 and Part 555 is whether granting the exemption is
in the public interest and consistent with the objectives of the Safety
Act. NHTSA finds that in Czinger's case it is.
In its petition, Czinger cites six reasons that granting its
petition is in the public interest. The first four of these reasons are
related to safety. Czinger states, first, that the 21C will comply with
all applicable FMVSS except for windshield glazing requirements in
FMVSS No. 205; second, that the exempted vehicles will have a
windshield that meets all EU requirements; third, that the exempted
vehicles will not present an unacceptable safety risk; and fourth, that
the 21C will be built in small numbers and will not be driven daily due
to its unconventional design.
While NHTSA acknowledges that Czinger is only requesting an
exemption from one requirement and Czinger will only produce a small
number of the vehicles, this information alone is insufficient to
demonstrate that granting the exemption is in the public interest. That
is, a request for exemption from a single requirement for a small
number of vehicles could be inconsistent with the public interest if
that one exemption presents an unreasonable risk to motor vehicle
safety. For this reason, NHTSA first considered how granting the
exemption would impact safety.
Czinger's request is for an exemption from certain requirements for
windshield glazing. The abrasion resistance requirements are considered
to be crash avoidance requirements because the safety benefit of the
requirements is derived from the prevention of crashes as opposed to
the mitigation of the results of crash impacts (i.e., crashworthiness).
This means that instead of just considering how the exemption may
impact the
[[Page 34924]]
safety to occupants of an exempt vehicle, we must also consider how the
exemption may impact the safety of other road users.
We now turn to Czinger's second point and its assertions about how
it is able to assure that the 21C's windshield will provide adequate
driving visibility despite not meeting the abrasion resistance
requirements in Test No. 18 in ANSI/SAE Z26.1-1996. Czinger asserts
that the exemption presents minimal risk to safety because the
windshield complies with all European requirements for windshield
glazing, including the abrasion resistance requirements in ECE R43.
While NHTSA has not conducted a full analysis of the differences
between Test 18 and the requirements in ECE R43, NHTSA does consider
compliance with the ECE standard to be an indication that the glazing
used for the 21C's windshield has some level of resistance to abrasion,
which is expected to help maintain driver visibility.
In further support of the assertion that the exemption's safety
impact will be limited, Czinger provided information regarding the
compliance of the 21C's windshield with another abrasion resistance
requirement in ANSI/SAE Z26.1-1996. Specifically, Czinger states that
the glazing for use in windshields would meet all requirements for AS-4
glazing, including requirements for abrasion resistance. AS-4 glazing
is permitted to be used in specific locations in a motor vehicle and
must comply with Test Nos. 2, 10, 13, 16, 17, 19, 20, 21, and 24. The
abrasion resistance requirements are found in Test 17 and differ from
the requirements in Test 18 in two key aspects. First, while Test 17
and Test 18 use the same test method, specimens are abraded for 100
cycles in Test 17 and 1000 cycles in Test 18. Second, while Test 17
requires that the light scattered by the specimens not exceed 15.0%,
Test 18 requires that the light scattered by the specimens not exceed
2.0%. As with the information regarding compliance with ECE R43, NHTSA
considers the information regarding compliance with the less stringent
AS-4 requirements of Test 17 to be some indication of the windshield's
abrasion resistance. This information is supportive of Czinger's
assertion that the safety impacts of granting the exemption would be
minimal.
The decision to grant or deny an economic hardship exemption under
part 555 does not turn on whether the failure to meet the standard is
consequential to safety.\81\ Instead, the decision is based on whether
the petitioner meets the criteria for an economic hardship exemption
and whether, on balance, granting the petition is in the public
interest and consistent with the Safety Act.\82\ In implementing this
authority, NHTSA considers the risk associated with the particular
noncompliance and determines whether the specific circumstances warrant
granting an exemption to a low volume manufacturer that would otherwise
face economic hardship. NHTSA also considers whether granting the
exemption would introduce a defect that presents an unreasonable risk
to safety. The presence of such a defect would implicate NHTSA's defect
authority under the Safety Act and NHTSA would be compelled to find
that granting the exemption is not consistent with the Safety Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\81\ However, as this glazing does not provide the same level of
safety performance as compliant glazing, NHTSA notes that it views
the failure to meet the abrasion resistance requirements of Test 18
as ``consequential'' to motor vehicle safety, and not as a basis,
e.g., for grant of a petition for inconsequential non-compliance
under 49 CFR part 556.
\82\ In contrast to the other three statutory bases for
exemptions under 49 U.S.C. 30113(b)(3)(B), which articulate safety
limitations (``safety level at least equal to the safety level of
the standard,'' ``not unreasonably lower the safety level of that
vehicle,'' and ``overall safety level at least equal to the overall
safety level of nonexempt vehicles''), the economic hardship
exemption contains no such limitation. NHTSA is left to apply the
exemption in a manner that is in the public interest and consistent
with the Safety Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Considering the impacts of not meeting the abrasion resistance
requirements is just one part of NHTSA's consideration of the overall
safety impacts of granting Czinger's exemption request. NHTSA also
considers whether there are mitigating factors that may reduce the risk
associated with exemption, as well as whether there are any other
safety risks associated with the vehicle.
In order to mitigate risks associated with the noncompliance,
Czinger proposed two different additional steps that it could take.
First, in its petition, Czinger notes that each 21C sold under the
exemption would undergo regular, frequent inspections. Czinger states
that any windshield with degraded visibility would be identified and
replaced free-of-charge. NHTSA believes that this is an appropriate
mitigation measure and has decided to grant Czinger's exemption subject
to this term.
Czinger also suggested that it could install tear off screen
protectors on the windshield that could be periodically replaced. NHTSA
does not have sufficient information to evaluate the performance or
safety impact of these tear off protectors. In particular, NHTSA does
not know whether installation of the tear off protectors could decrease
the overall safety of the vehicle. Accordingly, NHTSA is not requiring
Czinger to install a protective screen on the 21C's windshield.
Additionally, NHTSA cautions Czinger that if it chooses to install such
a screen, it should take steps to ensure that the screen does not
impair the safety of the windshield.
NHTSA has considered the information provided by Czinger in its
petition and supplemental documentation and concludes that
noncompliance with the abrasion resistance requirements, if mitigated
by frequent inspection, would not result in an unreasonable risk to
safety.
Apart from consideration of the risks associated with not meeting
the abrasion resistance requirements, NHTSA believes it is appropriate
to consider how polycarbonate windshields may differ from glass
windshields in other ways. Czinger's petition is novel in that it is
requesting an exemption from a requirement that has posed a barrier to
the use of polycarbonate glazing and other plastics in vehicle
windshields other than in low-speed vehicles.\83\ Because of this
requirement, windshield glazing has, until now and to NHTSA's
knowledge, included a glass component that enabled the glazing to
comply with the abrasion resistance requirements in Test 18.
Heretofore, there has not been a need for NHTSA to consider whether
there are any additional requirements that should be met for
windshields beyond those considered for glass glazing. This is an
important consideration when evaluating a request for an exemption from
the abrasion resistance requirements. Glass and plastic have different
characteristics, such that when plastic glazing is permitted for use in
other locations in a vehicle (e.g., AS-4 glazing), the glazing must
also comply with tests that would not be applicable to glass glazing,
such as those for dimensional stability, chemical resistance,
weathering, and flammability. By providing information supporting its
assertion that the plastic glazing meets requirements for AS-4 glazing,
Czinger has addressed much of this concern. However, because AS-4
glazing is not permitted for exterior windows in areas requisite for
driving visibility, NHTSA notes that the safety performance of AS-4
plastic glazing is
[[Page 34925]]
not equivalent to glass glazing permitted for use in windshields.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\83\ 49 CFR 571.205 S5.4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Czinger's third statement supporting its assertion that granting
its exemption request is in the public interest and consistent with the
Safety Act pertains to additional safety features included in the 21C.
Czinger asserts that the vehicles will not present an unacceptable
safety risk and states that the crash performance and occupant
protection performance of the vehicles is improved when using
polycarbonate, compared to laminated glazing. Specifically, Czinger
states that it has performed crash simulations measuring occupant
injury criteria and has observed overall improvements in performance.
Czinger also states that the 21C has an advanced knee bolster system to
minimize forward movement of the driver in an unbelted impact scenario,
reducing the possibility of head impact to the windscreen.
As noted earlier, NHTSA considers, as part of its evaluation of
whether granting a petition is in the public interest and consistent
with the Safety Act, the impact on safety resulting from the
noncompliance. If the noncompliance presented an unreasonable risk to
motor vehicle safety, NHTSA would deny the exemption, regardless of
whether the vehicles contained other features that increased the
overall safety of the vehicles. That is, safety improvements in one
area cannot offset unreasonable risks to safety in another. Therefore,
NHTSA does not consider Czinger's addition of the advanced
crashworthiness features described above as having a direct bearing on
whether noncompliance with the specific crash avoidance feature
(glazing abrasion resistance) from which it seeks exemption presents an
unreasonable risk to safety. However, NHTSA does consider the addition
of such safety features when considering the overall safety impact of
the exemption and the public interest benefits of supporting a start-up
manufacturer that is working to develop and deploy new safety features.
In this context, NHTSA has taken into account Czinger's addition of
these advanced crashworthiness features in today's decision.
Czinger's fourth assertion is that the 21C will be produced in very
small numbers and will not be used daily due to its unconventional
design. Czinger asserts that the safety risks associated with the
exemption would be minimal because the exempt vehicles would be driven
significantly less than conventional vehicles. In support of this
assertion, Czinger states that the 21C vehicles will cost more than $2
million and will likely be purchased as collectors' items and be well
cared for throughout their life. Czinger also provided mileage data
from other hypercars demonstrating an average of 266 miles traveled per
year. NHTSA agrees that it is appropriate to compare the 21C to other
hypercars when considering the likely use of the vehicles. For this
reason, NHTSA believes that Czinger's projection that the vehicles will
be driven, on average, 350 miles a year is reasonable. NHTSA also
agrees that limited use on public roads would minimize the risks
associated with granting the exemption. Czinger estimates that it will
only produce 55 vehicles for the U.S. market over the exemption period.
While not impacting the safety of the use of individual vehicles, the
limited production run of the vehicle would minimize the overall safety
impact of granting the exemption.
Overall, NHTSA has considered the safety risks associated with
Czinger's exemption request and believes that the safety impacts of
granting the request would be minimal given the limited nature of the
exemption, the limited number of vehicles affected, the expected
limited use of the vehicles, and Czinger's commitment to inspect the
windshields frequently and replace abraded windshields free of charge.
We now turn to Czinger's last two assertions supporting its
argument that granting the petition is in the public interest. Czinger
states that the denial of the exemption request could have a negative
effect on U.S. employment and that the 21C's innovative technology is a
benefit to the public. The information Czinger submitted indicating
that it would face financial failure if the exemption were denied also
supports Czinger's assertion that denying the petition would have a
negative impact on U.S. employment, not just on Czinger's 35 employees,
but also on its U.S. suppliers. In support of its assertion that the
21C's innovative technology is a benefit to the public, Czinger notes
that the 21C uses Additive Manufacturing technology, weight-saving
technology, advanced hybrid drivetrain technology, and innovative crash
protection technology. NHTSA agrees that both of these points weigh in
favor of granting Czinger's petition.
Based on the information Czinger provided, NHTSA believes that, on
balance, given the criteria for an economic hardship exemption, the
limited nature of the exemption, the limited number of vehicles
affected, the expected limited use of the vehicles, and Czinger's
commitment to inspect the windshields frequently and replace abraded
windshields free of charge, granting Czinger's petition is in the
public interest and consistent with the Safety Act. NHTSA believes that
the exemption will have minimal impact on motor vehicle safety due to
the limited number of vehicles affected and the mitigating factors that
reduce the safety risks associated with the requested exemption. NHTSA
also finds that granting Czinger's exemption request will help a start-
up company manufacture vehicles in the U.S., creating U.S.
manufacturing jobs while also supporting development of innovative
manufacturing processes in the automotive sector and affording
consumers a wider variety of motor vehicle choices.
Number of Exempt Vehicles. The statutory cap for exemptions for
low-volume manufacturers seeking a substantial hardship exemption
requires that the manufacturer must have an annual world-wide
production of 10,000 vehicles or less. Czinger originally petitioned
for an exemption of up to 55 vehicles over the exemption period.
However, in supplemental information submitted in January 2023, Czinger
noted that it intended to produce up to 110 vehicles during the three-
year exemption period, a substantial portion of which Czinger estimates
will be exported to other countries. This falls well below the
statutory cap, and NHTSA is granting the exemption for the entire
estimated production of the 21C during the exemption period, for a
total of 110 vehicles that may be manufactured and sold under the
exemption.
Effective Date of the Exemption. In correspondence from April 5,
2023, Czinger requested that, if granted, its exemption begin on August
1, 2023. NHTSA is granting this request.
V. Conclusion
In consideration of the foregoing, we conclude that compliance with
the abrasion resistance requirements for windshields in FMVSS No. 205
would cause substantial economic hardship to a manufacturer that has
tried in good faith to comply with the standard. We further conclude
that granting an exemption from this requirement would be in the public
interest and consistent with the Safety Act.
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 30113(b)(3)(B)(i), the Czinger 21C is
granted NHTSA Temporary Exemption No. EX 23-01, from the abrasion
resistance requirements for AS-1 glazing to be used in the 21C's
windshield for up to 110 vehicles produced over the exemption period.
[[Page 34926]]
This exemption is effective from August 1, 2023 until July 31, 2026.
As explained above, the grant of this exemption is subject to the
following conditions.
1. Czinger shall provide inspections of the windshield glazing of
each 21C produced under this exemption, free of charge, at least once
every six months during the service life of the vehicle.
2. Czinger shall replace, free of charge, the windshield of any
exempted 21C vehicle produced under this exemption if the windshield
becomes abraded due to normal wear and tear such that the abrasion
noticeably impairs driver visibility.
3. Czinger shall report to NHTSA any instances in which it replaced
a windshield on a 21C exempted vehicle that had become abraded due to
normal use. Such report shall be made no later than 30 calendar days
after such replacement.
4. The label required to be affixed pursuant to 49 CFR 555.9 must
read in relevant part, ``except for the abrasion resistance
requirements for windshields in Standard No. 205, Glazing materials,
exempted pursuant to NHTSA Exemption No. EX 23-01.''
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30113 and 49 U.S.C. 30166; delegations of
authority at 49 CFR 1.95 and 49 CFR 501.4.
Issued in Washington, DC, under authority delegated in 49 CFR
1.95 and 501.4.
Sophie Shulman,
Deputy Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2023-11453 Filed 5-30-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
