Quiero saber acerca de...

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 165 / Monday, August 30, 2021 / Notices ejection, especially when the window is in the closed position. The petitioners have provided documentation of computer-simulated testing demonstrating that the Picnic-G6 will meet the displacement requirements of FMVSS No. 226 when the windows are closed.19
Second, the petitioners argue that the Picnic-G6s limited speed maximum 31
mph, its limited range 90 miles, and the types of roads on which Picnic intends to operate it urban and dense suburban local roads make the risk of a crash low, and any crash that does occur would likely occur at a lower speed. Lastly, the petitioners argue that the Picnic-G6 is similar to walk-in vans, which are excluded from the standard.20 21 The petitioners argue the non-training versions of the vehicles would only have a drivers seat, and while they would not have room for a person to walk into the cargo area of the vehicle, the use profile of the PicnicG6 making deliveries in urban and dens suburban areas would be similar to that of walk-in vans.
FMVSS No. 305, Electric-Powered Vehicles; Electrolyte Spillage and Shock Protection FMVSS No. 305 establishes requirements to reduce deaths and injuries during and after a crash that occur because of electrolyte spillage from electric energy storage devices, intrusion of electric energy storage/
conversion devices into the occupant compartment, and electric shock. The petitioners have requested an exemption from several requirements relating to shock protection.
According to the petitioners, an exemption would not unreasonably lower the safety of the Picnic-G6
because, while the vehicle is not certified to FMVSS No. 305, it does meet the analogous European regulations for electrical safety in UNECE regulation 100. A side-by-side comparison of the two standards can be found in the petition, as well as documentation relating to type approval for UNECE regulation 100.

khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES

19 See
Exhibit 14.
standard defines a walk-in van as special cargo/mail delivery vehicle that only has a driver designated seating position. The vehicle has a sliding or folding side door and a roof clearance that enables a person of medium stature to enter the passenger compartment area in an up-right position. FMVSS No. 226, S3.
21 In the final rule establishing FMVSS No. 226, the agency justified excluding walk-in vans solely on practicability grounds. 76 FR 3211, 3291.
20 The
VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:40 Aug 27, 2021

Jkt 253001

d. Petitioners Explanation for How an Exemption Would Facilitate the Development and Field Evaluation of the Vehicle The petitioners state that an exemption would facilitate the development and the field evaluation of the Picnic-G6 in several ways. First, the petitioners state that an exemption would enable the collection and analysis of information from real-world use to assist with the development of current or future low-emission vehicles.
Second, an exemption would facilitate production of future FMVSS-compliant low-emission vehicle models while the petitioners work to achieve FMVSS
compliance. Third, it would enable further evaluation of the market for lowemission vehicles by allowing the petitioners to assess the Picnic-G6s viability in the U.S. market, and the viability of the Picnic grocery delivery pilot. Fourth, the petitioners argue that an exemption would demonstrate to the public the capabilities of electric vehicles, which could further encourage consumers to acquire goods through ecommerce options that rely on infrastructure that has a low-carbon footprint and on delivery models that reduce road congestion. Finally, an exemption would provide consumers with a safe, all-electric option as the petitioners develop modifications to the Picnic-G6 to make it FMVSS-compliant, thereby accelerating the entry of a smallsized, speed-limited, all-electric utility vehicle option among a field that typically consists of larger, gasolinepowered vehicles or LSVs.
e. Petitioners Explanation for Why an Exemption Would Be in the Public Interest The petitioners argue that an exemption would be in the public interest because it would increase consumer choice and improve access to goods deliveries by zero-emission vehicles. The petitioners also argue that an exemption would demonstrate to the public the viability of all-electric utility vehicles through the Picnic pilot. The petitioners further state that the exemption would allow for the petitioners to evaluate both the viability of delivery models like the Picnic pilot, as well as the performance of its allelectric utility vehicles generally. In addition, the petitioners argue an exemption would allow for the collection of information that would assist with the further development of all-electric utility vehicles. The petitioners also argue that the Picnic pilot would provide employment opportunities to an estimated 600

PO 00000

Frm 00091

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

48475

people relating to its delivery service.
Further, the petitioners state that, if the Picnic pilot is successful, the exemption could pave the way for additional jobs relating to the development of an FMVSS-compliant version of the PicnicG6, which the petitioners expect would be manufactured at one of its U.S.
factories.
III. Request for Comment The agency seeks comment from the public on the merits of Polaris/Goupils application for a temporary exemption.
In addition, we seek comment on what restrictions, if any, the agency should place on an exemption should the agency determine an exemption is appropriate e.g., operational restrictions, limits on transfer of ownership, etc.. After considering public comments and other available information, we will publish a notice of final action on the application in the Federal Register.
NHTSA has made no judgment at this time on the merits of the petition.
IV. Public Participation How long do I have to submit comments?
Please see DATES section at the beginning of this document.
How do I prepare and submit comments?
Your comments must be written in English.
To ensure that your comments are correctly filed in the Docket, please include the Docket Number shown at the beginning of this document in your comments.
If you are submitting comments electronically as a PDF Adobe File, NHTSA asks that the documents be submitted using the Optical Character Recognition OCR process, thus allowing NHTSA to search and copy certain portions of your submissions.
Comments may be submitted to the docket electronically by logging onto the Docket Management System website at http www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments.
You may also submit two copies of your comments, including the attachments, to Docket Management at the address given above under ADDRESSES.
Please note that pursuant to the Data Quality Act, in order for substantive data to be relied upon and used by the agency, it must meet the information quality standards set forth in the OMB
and DOT Data Quality Act guidelines.
Accordingly, we encourage you to
E:FRFM30AUN1.SGM

30AUN1