[Federal Register: March 4, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 43)]
[Notices]
[Page 11629-11631]
[DOCID:fr04mr08-60]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OECA-2007-0053; FRL-8537-1]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to OMB for
Review and Approval; Comment Request; NESHAP for Beryllium Rocket Motor
Fuel Firing (Renewal); EPA ICR Number 1125.05, OMB Control Number 2060-
0394

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
et seq.), this document announces that an Information Collection
Request (ICR) has been forwarded to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) for review and approval. This is a request to renew an existing
approved collection. The ICR which is abstracted below describes the
nature of the collection and the estimated burden and cost.

DATES: Additional comments may be submitted on or before April 3, 2008.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing docket ID number EPA-HQ-
OECA-2007-0053, to (1) EPA online using www.regulations.gov (our
preferred method), or by e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by mail to:
EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), Environmental Protection Agency,
Enforcement and Compliance Docket and Information Center, mail code
2201T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460, and (2) OMB
at: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management
and Budget (OMB), Attention: Desk Officer for EPA, 725 17th Street,
NW., Washington, DC 20503.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Learia Williams, Compliance Assessment
and Media Programs Division, Office of Compliance, Mail Code 2223A,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20460; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number:
(202) 564-0050; e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA has submitted the following ICR to OMB
for review and approval according to the procedures prescribed in 5 CFR
1320.12. On March 9, 2007 (72 FR 10735), EPA sought comments on this
ICR pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.8(d). EPA received no comments. Any
additional comments on this ICR should be submitted to EPA and OMB
within 30 days of this notice.
    EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under docket ID
number EPA-HQ-OECA-2007-0053, which is available for public viewing
online at http://www.regulations.gov, or in person viewing at the
Enforcement and Compliance Docket and Information Center in the EPA
Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue,
NW., Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open
from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. The telephone number for the Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>,
and the telephone number for the Enforcement and Compliance Docket is
(202) 566-1752.
    Use EPA's electronic docket and comment system at http://
www.regulations.gov, to submit or view public comments, access the
index listing of the contents of the docket, and to access those
documents in the docket that are available electronically. Once in the
system, select ``docket search,'' then key in the docket ID number
identified above. Please note that EPA's policy is that public
comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made
available for public viewing at http://www.regulations.gov as EPA
receives them and without change, unless the comment contains
copyrighted material, Confidential Business Information (CBI), or other
information whose public disclosure is restricted by statute. For
further information about the electronic docket, go to
www.regulations.gov.
    Title: NESHAP for Beryllium Rocket Motor Fuel Firing (Renewal)
    ICR Numbers: EPA ICR Number 1125.05, OMB Control Number 2060-0394.
    ICR Status: This ICR is scheduled to expire on April 30, 2008.
Under OMB regulations, the Agency may continue to conduct or sponsor
the collection of information while this submission is pending at OMB.
An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to
respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently
valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations
in title 40 of the CFR, after appearing in the Federal Register when
approved, are listed in 40 CFR part 9, and displayed either by
publication in the Federal Register or by other appropriate means, such
as on the related collection instrument or form, if applicable. The
display of OMB control numbers in certain EPA regulations is
consolidated in 40 CFR part 9.
    Abstract: The National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants (NESHAP) for this source category were promulgated on April
6, 1973 and amended on November 7, 1985. These standards establish
limits for beryllium. The rule requires subject test sites to test
ambient air for beryllium during and after firing a rocket motor.
Samples are analyzed within 30 days and results are reported to EPA by
registered letter by the business day following the determination and
calculation. The rule also requires continuous stack sampling of
beryllium combustion products during and after firing a rocket motor,
and analysis and reporting within 30 days. In addition, other reporting
requirements include notification of anticipated firing date; air
quality emissions and ambient air quality and emission test reports.
Recordkeeping requirements include air sampling test results, record of
emission test results and making these records available to the Agency.
    Any owner or operator subject to the provisions of this part shall
maintain a file of these measurements, and retain the file for at least
two years following the date of such measurements, maintenance reports,
and records. All reports are sent to the delegated state or local
authority. In the event that there is no such delegated authority, the
reports are sent directly to the EPA regional office. This information
is being collected to assure compliance with 40 CFR part 61, subpart D,
as authorized in section 112 and 114(a) of the Clean Air Act. The
required information consists of emissions data and other information
that have been determined to be private.
    An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB Control Number. The OMB Control Number for EPA's
regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15, and are
identified on the form and/or instrument, if applicable.
    Burden Statement: The annual public reporting and recordkeeping
burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 8
hours per response. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial
resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or
disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This
includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire,
install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of
collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and
maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information;
adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable
instructions and requirements which have subsequently changed; train
personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search
data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and
transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
    Respondents/Affected Entities: Beryllium rocket motor fuel firing.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 1.
    Frequency of Response: Initially, and on occasion.
    Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden: 8.
    Estimated Total Annual Cost: $538.00 which includes $0 annualized
Capital

Startup costs, $0 annualized Operating and Maintenance (O&M) costs and
$538.00 annualized Labor costs.
    Changes in the Estimates: There are no changes in the labor hours
or costs in this ICR compared to the previous ICR. This is due to two
considerations. First, the regulations have not changed over the past
three years and are not anticipated to change over the next three
years. Secondly, the growth rate for the industry is very low, negative
or non-existent, so there is no significant change in the overall
burden.
    Since there are no changes in the regulatory requirements and there
is no significant industry growth, the labor hours and cost figures in
the previous ICR are used in this ICR and there is no change in burden
to industry.

    Dated: February 19, 2008.
Sara Hisel-McCoy,
Director, Collection Strategies Division.
[FR Doc. E8-4106 Filed 3-3-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 229 (Friday, November 27, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 75969-75971]
[FR Doc No: 2020-25614]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2020-1021; Project Identifier AD-2020-00847-T]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD)
for all The Boeing Company Model 727 series airplanes. This proposed AD
was prompted by a determination that excessive sealant coating on
internal wing Structural Significant Items (SSIs) may not reveal cracks
during inspections required by AD 98-11-03 R1. This proposed AD would
require revising the existing maintenance or inspection program, as
applicable, to incorporate inspections that will give no less than the
required damage tolerance rating (DTR) for certain SSIs of the wing.
This proposed AD would also require repetitive inspections for cracking
of the affected SSIs and repair if necessary. The FAA is proposing this
AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: The FAA must receive comments on this proposed AD by January 11,
2021.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: 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: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this NPRM, contact Boeing
Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services (C&DS),
2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740-5600;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may
view this service information at the FAA, Airworthiness Products
Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines,
WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA,
call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2020-
1021; or in person at Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains
this NPRM, any comments received, and other information. The street
address for Docket Operations is listed above. Comments will be
available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mohit Garg, Aerospace Engineer,
Airframe Section, FAA, Los Angeles ACO Branch, 3960 Paramount
Boulevard, Lakewood, CA 90712-4137; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax: 562-627-
5210; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed
under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2020-1021;
Project Identifier AD-2020-00847-T'' at the beginning of your comments.
The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the proposal,
explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting
data. The FAA will consider all comments received by the closing date
and may amend the proposal because of those comments.
    Except for Confidential Business Information (CBI) as described in
the following paragraph, and other information as described in 14 CFR
11.35, the FAA will post all comments received, without change, to
https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you
provide. The agency will also post a report summarizing each
substantive verbal contact received about this proposed AD.

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 NPRM 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 NPRM, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted
comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing
CBI as ``PROPIN.'' The FAA will treat such marked submissions as
confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public
docket of this NPRM. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Mohit
Garg, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Section, FAA, Los Angeles ACO
Branch, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, CA 90712 4137; phone: 562-
627-5264; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Any commentary
that the FAA receives which is not specifically designated as CBI will
be placed in the public docket for this rulemaking.

Discussion

    The FAA has determined that excessive sealant coating on internal
wing SSIs may prevent the detection of cracks during inspections
required by AD 98-11-03 R1, Amendment 39-10983 (64 FR 989, January 7,
1999) (AD 98-11-03 R1) for The Boeing Company Model 727 airplanes. AD
98-11-03 R1 refers to Boeing Document No. D6-48040-1, Volumes 1 and 2,
``Supplemental Structural Inspection Document'' (SSID), Revision H,
dated June 1994, as the appropriate source of service information for
the required inspections. Boeing SSID document No. D6-48040-1, Revision
H, dated June 1994, assumes that wing structural components such as
fastener caps, splice plates, splice fittings stringers, collars,
chords, webs, and wing skins are accessible for nondestructive testing
(NDT), general visual (GVI) and detailed (DET) internal inspections. An
investigation determined excessive sealant might have been applied
during production on The Boeing Company Model 727 airplanes and might
prevent the detection of cracks during SSI inspections. This condition,
if not addressed, could result in propagation of structural cracks that
could lead to the inability of a wing SSI to sustain limit load and
result in loss of control of the airplane.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    The FAA reviewed Boeing 727 Supplemental Structural Inspection
Document D6-48040-1, Volume I, Temporary Revision 08-1001, dated
February 2020; and Boeing 727 Supplemental Structural Inspection
Document D6-48040-1, Volume II, Temporary Revision 11-1001, dated
February 2020. In combination, this service information describes
repetitive inspections for cracking of internal wing

SSIs. This service information is reasonably available because the
interested parties have access to it through their normal course of
business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

FAA's Determination

    The FAA is proposing this AD because the agency evaluated all the
relevant information and determined the unsafe condition described
previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of the same
type design.

Proposed AD Requirements

    This proposed AD would require revising the existing maintenance or
inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate inspections that will
give no less than the required DTR for certain SSIs of the wing. This
proposed AD would also require repetitive inspections for cracking of
the affected SSIs and repair if necessary.
    This proposed AD does not supersede AD 98-11-03 R1. Rather, the FAA
has determined that a stand-alone AD would be more appropriate to
address the changes.
    Accomplishing the revision required by paragraph (g)(1) of this
proposed AD and the accomplishing the initial inspections required by
paragraph (g)(2) of this proposed AD, which are identified in Boeing
727 Supplemental Structural Inspection Document D6-48040-1, Volume I,
Temporary Revision 08-1001, dated February 2020; and Boeing 727
Supplemental Structural Inspection Document D6-48040-1, Volume II,
Temporary Revision 11-1001, dated February 2020, would terminate the
corresponding SSI inspections specified in Boeing Document No. D6-
48040-1, Volumes 1 and 2, ``Supplemental Structural Inspection
Document'' (SSID), Revision H, dated June 1994, as required by AD 98-
11-03 R1. All other SSI inspections specified in the SSID document,
dated June 1994, that do not specifically correspond to SSID
inspections referenced in the SSID documents, dated February 2020,
remain fully applicable and must be complied with accordingly.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this proposed AD affects 40 airplanes of
U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with
this proposed AD:
    The FAA has determined that revising the existing maintenance or
inspection program takes an average of 90 work-hours per operator,
although the agency recognizes that this number may vary from operator
to operator. In the past, the FAA has estimated that this action takes
1 work-hour per airplane. Since operators incorporate maintenance or
inspection program changes for their affected fleet(s), the FAA has
determined that a per-operator estimate is more accurate than a per-
airplane estimate. Therefore, the FAA estimates the average total cost
per operator to be $7,650 (90 work-hours x $85 per work-hour).

                                                 Estimated costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost on U.S.
        Action                  Labor cost            Parts cost       Cost per product          operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inspections...........  48 work-hours x $85 per                 $0  $4,080 per inspection  $163,200 per
                         hour = $4,080 per                           cycle.                 inspection cycle.
                         inspection cycle.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Table does not include estimated costs for revising the existing maintenance or inspection program.

    The FAA has received no definitive data on which to base the cost
estimates for the on-condition repairs specified in this proposed AD.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,
describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
    The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.
Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight
of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for
practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary
for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that
authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to
exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    The FAA determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not
have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship
between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed
regulation:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (3) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.

The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

0
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

Sec.  39.13   [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness
directive:

The Boeing Company: Docket No. FAA-2020-1021; Project Identifier AD-
2020-00847-T.

(a) Comments Due Date

    The FAA must receive comments by January 11, 2021.

(b) Affected Airworthiness Directives (ADs)

    This AD affects AD 98-11-03 R1, Amendment 39-10983 (64 FR 989,
January 7, 1999) (AD 98-11-03 R1).

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to all The Boeing Company 727, 727C, 727-100,
727-100C, 727-200, and 727-200F series airplanes, certificated in
any category.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 57, Wings.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by a determination that excessive sealant
coating on internal wing Structural Significant Items (SSIs) may not
reveal cracks during inspections required by AD 98-11-03 R1. The FAA
is issuing this AD to address excessive sealant coating on internal
wing SSIs that may prevent the detection of cracks during
inspections. This condition, if not addressed, could result in
propagation of structural cracks that could lead to the inability of
a wing SSI to sustain limit load and result in loss of control of
the airplane.

(f) Compliance

    Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified,
unless already done.

(g) Maintenance or Inspection Program Revision, Repetitive Inspections,
and Repair

    (1) Prior to reaching the applicable time specified in paragraph
(g)(2)(i) or (ii) of this AD, incorporate a revision into the
existing maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, that
provides no less than the required damage tolerance rating (DTR) for
each SSI of the wing listed Boeing 727 Supplemental Structural
Inspection Document D6-48040-1, Volume I, Temporary Revision 08-
1001, dated February 2020; and Boeing 727 Supplemental Structural
Inspection Document D6-48040-1, Volume II, Temporary Revision 11-
1001, dated February 2020.
    (2) At the applicable time specified in paragraph (g)(2)(i) or
(ii) of this AD, perform initial inspections to detect cracks in the
SSIs identified in Boeing 727 Supplemental Structural Inspection
Document D6-48040-1, Volume I, Temporary Revision 08-1001, dated
February 2020; and Boeing 727 Supplemental Structural Inspection
Document D6-48040-1, Volume II, Temporary Revision 11-1001, dated
February 2020.
    (i) For Model 727-100C and 727-200F series airplanes: Inspect
prior to the accumulation of 46,000 total flight cycles, or within
12 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs
later.
    (ii) For all airplanes except for those airplanes identified in
paragraph (g)(2)(i) of this AD: Inspect prior to the accumulation of
55,000 total flight cycles, or within 3,000 flight cycles measured
from the date 12 months after the effective date of this AD,
whichever occurs later.
    (3) At the intervals specified in in Boeing 727 Supplemental
Structural Inspection Document D6-48040-1, Volume I, Temporary
Revision 08-1001, dated February 2020; and Boeing 727 Supplemental
Structural Inspection Document D6-48040-1, Volume II, Temporary
Revision 11-1001, dated February 2020, as applicable, repeat the
inspections required by paragraph (g)(2) of this AD.
    (4) If any cracked structure is found during any inspections
required by paragraph (g) of this AD, repair before further flight
using an FAA-approved method or using a method approved in
accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (j) of this
AD. Within 12 months after repair, incorporate a revision into the
maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to include a
damage-tolerance-based alternative inspection program for the
repaired structure. Thereafter, inspect the affected structure in
accordance with the alternative program. The inspection method and
compliance times (i.e., threshold and repetitive intervals) of the
alternative program must be approved in accordance with the
procedures specified in paragraph (j) of this AD.

(h) No Alternative Actions or Intervals

    After the existing maintenance or inspection program has been
revised as required by paragraph (g)(1) of this AD, no alternative
actions (e.g., inspections), intervals, may be used unless the
actions, intervals, are approved as an alternative method of
compliance (AMOC) in accordance with the procedures specified in
paragraph (j) of this AD.

(i) Terminating Action for Certain Inspections Required by AD 98-11-03
R1

    Accomplishing the revision required by paragraph (g)(1) of this
AD and the initial inspections identified in Boeing 727 Supplemental
Structural Inspection Document D6-48040-1, Volume I, Temporary
Revision 08-1001, dated February 2020; and Boeing 727 Supplemental
Structural Inspection Document D6-48040-1, Volume II, Temporary
Revision 11-1001, dated February 2020, as required by paragraph
(g)(2) of this AD, terminate the corresponding SSI inspections
specified in Boeing Document No. D6-48040-1, Volumes 1 and 2,
``Supplemental Structural Inspection Document'' (SSID), Revision H,
dated June 1994, as required by AD 98-11-03 R1.

(j) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Los Angeles ACO Branch, FAA, has the authority
to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures
found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your
request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards
District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to
the manager of the certification office, send it to the attention of
the person identified in paragraph (k)(1) of this AD. Information
may be emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate
principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding
district office.
    (3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be
used for any repair, modification, or alteration required by this AD
if it is approved by The Boeing Company Organization Designation
Authorization (ODA) that has been authorized by the Manager, Los
Angeles ACO Branch, FAA, to make those findings. To be approved, the
repair method, modification deviation, or alteration deviation must
meet the certification basis of the airplane, and the approval must
specifically refer to this AD.
    (4) AMOCs approved previously for AD 98-11-03 R1 are approved as
AMOCs for the corresponding provisions of this AD for the SSIs
identified in Boeing 727 Supplemental Structural Inspection Document
D6-48040-1, Volume I, Temporary Revision 08-1001, dated February
2020; and Boeing 727 Supplemental Structural Inspection Document D6-
48040-1, Volume II, Temporary Revision 11-1001, dated February 2020.

(k) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Mohit Garg,
Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Section, FAA, Los Angeles ACO Branch,
3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, CA 90712-4137; phone: 562-627-
5264; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services
(C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740-
5600; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may view this service information at the
FAA, Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200
South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability
of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued on November 5, 2020.
Lance T. Gant,
Director, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2020-25614 Filed 11-25-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: December 11, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 239)]
[Notices]
[Page 75429]
[DOCID:fr11de08-58]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RM08-7-001]

North American Electric Reliability Corporation; Notice of Filing

December 4, 2008.
    On September 11, 2008, the North American Electric Reliability
Corporation submitted a filing in compliance with the Commission's
Order No. 713, issued on July 21, 2008.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date.
Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of
that document on the Applicant and all the parties in this proceeding.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://
www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, December 22, 2008.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-29351 Filed 12-10-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 20 (Friday, January 30, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 5110-5111]
[FR Doc No: 2015-01606]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-2013-0232; FRL-9922-21-ORD]

Draft Integrated Science Assessment for Oxides of Nitrogen--
Health Criteria

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Notice of Public Comment Period.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is announcing a 60-
day public comment period for the draft document titled, ``Second
External Review Draft Integrated Science Assessment for Oxides of
Nitrogen--Health Criteria'' (EPA/600/R-13/005). The draft document was
prepared by the National Center for Environmental Assessment (NCEA)
within EPA's Office of Research and Development (ORD) as part of the
review of the primary (health-based) National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS) for nitrogen dioxide (NO2). The Integrated
Science Assessment (ISA), in conjunction with additional technical and
policy assessments, provide the scientific basis for EPA decisions on
the adequacy of the current NAAQS and the appropriateness of possible
alternative standards. EPA is developing a separate ISA and NAAQS
review for the secondary (welfare-based) NAAQS for NO2, in
conjunction with a review of the secondary NAAQS for sulfur dioxide (78
FR 53452).
    EPA is releasing this draft document to seek review by the Clean
Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC) and the public (meeting date
and location to be specified in a separate Federal Register notice).
This draft document is not final as described in EPA's information
quality guidelines, and it does not represent and should not be
construed to represent Agency policy or views. EPA will consider any
public comments submitted in response to this notice when revising the
document.

DATES: The 60-day public comment period begins January 30, 2015, and
ends March 31, 2015. Comments must be received on or before March 31,
2015.

ADDRESSES: The ``Second External Review Draft Integrated Science
Assessment for Oxides of Nitrogen--Health Criteria'' will be available
primarily via the Internet on NCEA's home page under the Recent
Additions and Publications menus at http://www.epa.gov/ncea or the
public docket at http://www.regulations.gov, Docket ID: EPA-HQ-ORD-
2013-0232. A limited number of CD-ROM copies will be available. Contact
Ms. Marieka Boyd by phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; or email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>to request a CD-ROM, and please provide your name,
your mailing address, and the document title, ``Second External Review
Draft Integrated Science Assessment for Oxides of Nitrogen--Health
Criteria'' to facilitate processing of your request.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information on the public comment
period, contact the ORD Docket at EPA's Headquarters Docket Center;
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; facsimile:<PHONE_NUMBER>; or email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    For technical information, contact Dr. Molini Patel, NCEA;
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; facsimile:<PHONE_NUMBER>; or email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Information About the Document

    Section 108(a) of the Clean Air Act directs the Administrator to
identify certain pollutants that, among other things, ``cause or
contribute to air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to
endanger public health or welfare'' and to issue air quality criteria
for them. These air quality criteria are to ``accurately reflect the
latest scientific knowledge useful in indicating the kind and extent of
all identifiable effects on public health or welfare which may be
expected from the presence of [a] pollutant in the ambient air. . . .''
Under section 109 of the Act, the EPA is then to establish NAAQS for
each pollutant for which EPA has issued criteria. Section 109(d) of the
Act subsequently requires periodic review and, if appropriate, revision
of existing air quality criteria to reflect advances in scientific
knowledge on the effects of the pollutant on public health or welfare.
EPA is also required to review and, if appropriate, revise the NAAQS,
based on the revised air quality criteria (for more information on the
NAAQS review process, see http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/review.html).
    The oxides of nitrogen are one of six criteria pollutants for which
EPA has established NAAQS. Periodically, EPA reviews the scientific
basis for these standards by preparing an ISA (formerly called an Air
Quality Criteria Document). The ISA, in conjunction with additional
technical and policy assessments, provides the scientific basis for EPA
decisions on the adequacy of the current NAAQS and the appropriateness
of possible alternative standards. The CASAC, an independent science
advisory committee whose review and advisory functions are mandated by
Section 109(d)(2) of the Clean Air Act, is charged (among other things)
with independent scientific review of EPA's air quality criteria.
    On February 10, 2012 (77 FR 7149), EPA formally initiated its
current review of the air quality criteria for the health effects of
oxides of nitrogen and the primary (health-based) NO2 NAAQS,
requesting the submission of recent scientific information on specified
topics. EPA held a workshop on February 29 to March 1, 2012, to gather
input from scientific experts, both internal and external to EPA, as
well as from the public regarding key science and policy issues that
will frame the review of the health effects of the oxides of nitrogen
and the primary NO2 NAAQS (77 FR 7149, February 10, 2012).
    The discussions at this workshop guided the development of EPA's
``Draft Plan for Development of the Integrated Science Assessment for
Nitrogen Oxides--Health Criteria,'' a draft ``Integrated Review Plan
for the Primary NAAQS for Nitrogen Dioxide'' (EPA-452/R-14-003) (IRP),
and initial draft materials for the development of the ISA. The draft
plan for the development of the ISA was made available for public
comment on May 3, 2013 (78 FR 26026), and was discussed by CASAC via a
publicly accessible teleconference consultation on June 5, 2013 (78 FR
27234, May 9, 2013). On June 11, 2013, EPA held a workshop to discuss,
with invited scientific experts, initial draft materials prepared for
the development of the ISA (78 FR 27374, May 10, 2013). The draft IRP
was made available in February 2014 for public comment and CASAC review
(79 FR 7184, February 6, 2014). The IRP was reviewed by CASAC at a
public meeting on March 12, 2014 (79 FR 8701, February 13, 2014). The
final IRP was released in June 2014 (79 FR 36801, June 30, 2014), and
is available at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/standards/nox/s_nox_2012_pd.html.
    Comments on the draft plan for the ISA and discussion at the June
11, 2013, workshop guided development of the ``First External Review
Draft Integrated Science Assessment for Oxides of Nitrogen--Health
Criteria,'' which was released on November 22, 2013 (78 FR 70040), and
is available at: http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/isa/recordisplay.cfm?deid=259167. The CASAC

review panel for the oxides of nitrogen met at a public meeting on
March 12-13, 2014, to review the draft ISA along with the draft IRP (79
FR 8701, February 13, 2014). Subsequently, on June 10, 2014, the CASAC
panel provided a consensus letter for their review to the Administrator
of EPA (http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/
264cb1227d55e02c85257402007446a4/15E4619D3CD3409A85257CF30069387D/
$File/EPA-CASAC-14-002+unsigned.pdf). The second external review draft
ISA was developed with consideration of comments received from CASAC
and the public on the first external review draft ISA and includes
consideration of scientific studies published through August 2014. The
second external review draft ISA will be discussed by CASAC at a public
meeting. In addition to the public comment period announced in this
notice, the public will have an opportunity to submit written and/or
oral comments related to the second external review draft ISA to CASAC.
A separate Federal Register notice will inform the public of the exact
date and time of that CASAC meeting and of the procedures for public
participation.

II. How To Submit Technical Comments to the Docket at
www.regulations.gov

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-2013-
0232, by one of the following methods:
     www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
     Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA's Docket
Center (ORD Docket), Mail Code: 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW.,
Washington, DC 20460. The phone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Hand Delivery: The ORD Docket is located in EPA's
Headquarters Docket Center, EPA West Building, Room 3334, 1301
Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC. EPA's Docket Center Public
Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public
Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Such deliveries are only accepted during
the docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should
be made for deliveries of boxed information. If you provide comments by
mail or hand delivery, please submit three copies of the comments. For
attachments, provide an index, number pages consecutively with the
comments, and submit an unbound original and three copies.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-
2013-0232. Please ensure that your comments are submitted within the
specified comment period. Comments received after the closing date will
be marked ``late,'' and may only be considered if time permits. It is
EPA's policy to include all comments it receives in the public docket
without change and to make the comments available online at
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless a comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit information through
www.regulations.gov or email that you consider to be CBI or otherwise
protected. The www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access''
system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact
information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you
send an email comment directly to EPA without going through
www.regulations.gov, your email address will be automatically captured
and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket
and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic
comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact
information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you
submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties
and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to
consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special
characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or
viruses. For additional information about EPA's public docket visit
EPA's Docket Center homepage at www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
    Docket: Documents in the docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other materials,
such as copyrighted material, are publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the ORD Docket in EPA's
Headquarters Docket Center.

    Dated: January 20, 2015.
Gina Perovich,
Acting Deputy Director, National Center for Environmental Assessment.
[FR Doc. 2015-01606 Filed 1-29-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 104 (Wednesday, May 31, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 34919-34926]
[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:<PHONE_NUMBER>; 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

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

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

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,

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

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

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.

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