Quiero saber acerca de...

khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES

48474

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 165 / Monday, August 30, 2021 / Notices
injury criteria requirements aside from chest compression for the Hybrid III
50th percentile male test dummy. The petitioners have provided simulation data to support this claim as Exhibit 8.
The petitioners also argue that the absence of air bags would have little impact on the level of safety of the Picnic-G6 because of the vehicles use profile. Specifically, the petitioners argue that the Picnic-G6s maximum speed of 31 mph, its limited 90-mile range, and its likely use on exclusively urban and dense-suburban local roads, mean that the Picnic-G6 has a low probability of being involved in a crash, and that any crashes that do occur will be lower speed and thus have a reduced risk of injury. The petitioners also argue that the low number of vehicles they intend to produce pursuant to this exemption will limit risk, and support a finding that safety would not be unreasonably lowered.
In addition, the petitioners argue that an exemption for the Picnic-G6 would be consistent with the standards carveouts for walk-in vans and U.S. Postal Service vans that are equipped with type-2 lap and shoulder seat belt assemblies. The petitioners argue that the reasoning behind these carve-outs is that these vehicles are at a low risk of being involved in a serious crash because they are used to make deliveries in urban and suburban areas where the driver makes frequent stops. Moreover, the petitioners note that NHTSA
declined to require air bags for U.S.
Postal Service vehicles because the agency believed that they would provide a marginal safety benefit to postal workers given their use profile and the fact that the U.S. Postal Service requires employees to wear seat belts while working. The petitioners state that, like the U.S. Postal Service, Picnic intends to require all Picnic-G6
occupants to wear seat belts.
Finally, the petitioners argue that the lack of occupant protection requirements that are intended to protect children would not reduce safety because all but 10 of the exempted Picnic-G6 vehicles would not have a passenger seat. Moreover, for the 10 training vehicles that do have passenger seats, the petitioners state that Picnic would prohibit passengers under the age of 16, would forbid private use of the exempted vehicles, and would place warning stickers to inform occupants of these restrictions.
FMVSS No. 214, Side Impact Protection To reduce the risk of injuries to vehicle occupants in side impact crashes, FMVSS No. 214 sets out requirements for door crush resistance
VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:40 Aug 27, 2021

Jkt 253001

and side-impact crash performance, including a moving deformable barrier and vehicle-to-pole crash tests. The petitioners seek an exemption from this standard in its entirety.
According to the petitioners, an exemption would not unreasonably lower the safety of the Picnic-G6
because, while the vehicle would not be certified to FMVSS No. 214, simulated testing shows it would meet door crush and moving deformable barrier tests, and the vehicle would meet the vehicleto-pole test requirements using the 50th percentile male dummy for all injury criteria except head injury and lower-rib deflection the petitioners specify that lower-rib deflection is 0.3 mm outside the standards limit.13 In addition, the petitioners claim the Picnic-G6 would comply with the UNECE regulation 135
with regard to their Pole Side Impact performance.
The petitioners also argue that the Picnic-G6 is similar to walk-in vans, which are excluded from the standard.14
The petitioners argue that the nontraining Picnic-G6 vehicles would only have a drivers seat, and while they would not have room for a person to enter the cargo area of the vehicle, the use profile of the Picnic-G6 would be similar to that of walk-in vans. That is, petitioners state, both vehicle types are designed to make deliveries in urban and suburban areas where the driver makes frequent stops and operates the vehicle at low speeds that reduce crash risk.15
Finally, the petitioners argue that the low volume of vehicles permitted under the exemption will limit safety risk, and point out that NHTSA has cited this as a consideration in prior exemption grants.
FMVSS No. 225, Child Restraint Anchorage Systems FMVSS No. 225 requires, and specifies standards for, child restraint anchorage systems to reduce the risk of anchorage system failure, increase the likelihood that child restraints are 13 A report of the results of this simulation testing was attached as Exhibit 9.
14 Standard No. 214 defines a walk-in van as a special cargo/mail delivery vehicle that has only one designated seating position. That designated seating position must be forward facing and for use only by the driver. The vehicle usually has a thin and light sliding or folding side door for easy operation and a high roof clearance that a person of medium stature can enter the passenger compartment area in an up-right position.
15 NHTSA notes that, in the final rule adopting FMVSS No. 214, the agency stated that it excluded walk-in vans from the standard not because walkin vans would be used for deliveries, but because it is impracticable for such vehicles to meet the side door strength requirements because of their special design features. 56 FR 27427, 27431.

PO 00000

Frm 00090

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

properly secured, and more fully achieve the potential effectiveness of child restraint systems in motor vehicles. This standard requires the front outboard passenger seat in a vehicle that has no rear seats to have a tether anchorage, and requires a full child restraint anchorage system in the front outboard seating position in a vehicle that has no air bag at that position due to a grant of a part 555
exemption.16 The petitioners have requested an exemption from the entire standard for the 10 training vehicles.
The petitioners argue that an exemption would not unreasonably lower the safety of the training PicnicG6 vehicles because Picnic would implement a company policy that would forbid the use of the vehicle with passengers under age 16, forbid private use of the vehicle, and place stickers in the vehicle warning of these restrictions.
The petitioners further argue that the use of the Picnic-G6 as a delivery makes it unlikely that children will ride in it, and that an exemption would be consistent with the FMVSS No. 226s carve-out for funeral coaches. Finally, the petitioners argue the small number of training Picnic-G6 vehicle makes it unlikely that children would be passengers.
FMVSS No. 226, Ejection Mitigation FMVSS No. 226 relates to ejection mitigation in the event of a rollover. The purpose of this standard is to reduce the likelihood of ejections of vehicle occupants through side windows during rollovers or side impact crashes. The petitioners seek an exemption from this standard in its entirety.
The petitioners make three arguments for why an exemption from FMVSS No.
226 would not unreasonably lower the safety of the Picnic-G6. First, they argue that the Picnic-G6 would be able to meet the displacement requirements under S4.2.1 of the standard using laminatedglazing side windows as the sole means of achieving displacement performance.17 18 The petitioners argue that the glazing will mitigate the risk of 16 See
FMVSS No. 225, S5c1i & iii.
that FMVSS No. 226 prohibits the use of movable glazing as the sole means of meeting the displacement requirements. S4.2.1.1. That is, laminated glazing alone cannot be used to meet FMVSS No. 226 if the window with the glazing can be rolled down. The glazing on the petitioners vehicles is movable, and thus the laminated glazing countermeasure is not sufficient to meet FMVSS
No. 226.
18 Per FMVSS No. 226, the vehicle must meet the requirements of S4.2.1 after the window glazing has undergone the pre-breaking procedure described in S5.4.1. It is not clear from the petition whether the Picnic-G6 would be able to meet the requirements of S4.2.1 using window glazing alone if the glazing is pre-broken.
17 Note
E:FRFM30AUN1.SGM

30AUN1