Cantab Motors, Ltd., Grant of Application for Temporary Exemption From Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards No. 208 and 214

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. 95-53; Notice 2]

Cantab Motors, Ltd., Grant of Application for Temporary Exemption

From Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards No. 208 and 214

Cantab Motors, Ltd., of Round Hill, Va., applied for a temporary

exemption of two years from paragraph S4.1.4 of Federal Motor Vehicle

Safety Standard No. 208 Occupant Crash Protection, and for three years

from Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 214 Side Impact

Protection. The basis of the application was that compliance will cause

substantial economic hardship to a manufacturer that has tried to

comply with the standard in good faith.

Notice of receipt of the application was published on July 14,

1995, and an opportunity afforded for comment (60 FR 36328).

The make and type of passenger car for which exemption was

requested is the Morgan open car or convertible. Morgan Motor Company

(``Morgan''), the British manufacturer of the Morgan, has not offered

its vehicle for sale in the United States since the early days of the

Federal motor vehicle safety standards. In the nine years it has been

in business, the applicant has bought 35 incomplete Morgan cars from

the British manufacturer, and imported them as motor vehicle equipment,

completing manufacture by the addition of engine and fuel system

components. They differ from their British counterparts, not only in

equipment items and modifications necessary for compliance with the

Federal motor vehicle safety standards, but also in their fuel system

components and engines, which are propane fueled. As the party

completing manufacture of the vehicle, Cantab certifies its conformance

to all applicable Federal safety and bumper standards. The vehicle

completed by Cantab in the U.S. is deemed sufficiently different from

the one produced in Britain that NHTSA considers Cantab the

manufacturer, not a converter, even though the brand names are the

same.

Morgan itself produced 478 cars in 1994, while in the year

preceding the filing of its petition in June 1995, the applicant

produced 9 cars for sale in the United States. Since the granting of

its original exemption in 1990, Cantab has invested $38,244 in research

and development related to compliance with Federal safety and emissions

standards. The applicant has experienced a net loss in each of its last

three fiscal (calendar) years, with a cumulative net loss for this

period of $92,594.

Application for Exemption From Standard No. 208

Cantab received NHTSA Exemption No. 90-3 from S4.1.2.1 and S4.1.2.2

of Standard No. 208, which expired May 1, 1993 (55 FR 21141). When this

exemption was granted in 1990, the applicant had concluded that the

most feasible way for it to conform to the automatic restraint

requirements of Standard No. 208 was by means of an automatically

deploying belt. In the period following the granting of the exemption,

Morgan and the applicant created a mock-up of the Morgan passenger

compartment with seat belt hardware and motor drive assemblies. In

time, it was determined that the belt track was likely to deform,

making it inoperable. The program was abandoned, and Morgan and Cantab

embarked upon research leading to a dual airbag system.

According to the applicant, Morgan tried without success to obtain

a suitable airbag system from Mazda, Jaguar, Rolls-Royce and Lotus. As

a result, Morgan is now developing its own system for its cars, and

``[a]s many as twelve different sensors, of both the impact and

deceleration (sic) type, have been tested and the system currently

utilizes a steering wheel from a Jaguar and the Land Rover Discovery

steering column.'' Redesign of the passenger compartment is underway,

involving knee bolstering, a supplementary seat belt system, anti-

submarining devices, and the seats themselves. Morgan informed the

applicant on May 2, 1995, that it had thus far completed 10 tests on

the mechanical components involved ``and are now carrying out a

detailed assessment of air bag operating systems and columns before we

will be in a position to undertake the full set of

[[Page 47423]]

appropriate tests to approve the installation in our vehicles.''

Application for Exemption From Standard No. 214

Concurrently, Morgan and the applicant have been working towards

meeting the dynamic test and performance requirements for side impact

protection, for which Standard No. 214 has established a phase-in

schedule. Although Morgan fits its car with a dual roll bar system

specified by Cantab, and Cantab installs door bars and strengthens the

door latch receptacle and striker plate, the system does not yet

conform to the new requirements of Standard No. 214, and the applicant

has asked for an exemption of three years. It does, however, meet the

previous side door strength requirements of the standard. Were the

phase-in requirement of S8 applied to it, calculated on the basis of

its limited production, only very few cars would be required to meet

the standard.

Safety and Public Interest Arguments

Because of the small number of vehicles that the applicant produces

and its belief that they are used for pleasure rather than daily for

business commuting or on long trips, and because of the three-point

restraints and side impact protection currently offered, the applicant

argued that an exemption would be in the public interest and consistent

with safety. It brought to the agency's attention two recent oblique

front impact accidents at estimated speeds of 30 mph and 65 mph

respectively in which the restrained occupants ``emerged unscathed.''

Further, the availability ``of this unique vehicle . . . will help

maintain the existing diversity of motor vehicles available to the U.S.

consumer.'' Finally, ``the distribution of [this] propane-fueled

vehicle has contributed to the national interest by promoting the

development of motor systems by using alternate fuels.''

No comments were received on the application.

In adding only engine and fuel system components to incomplete

vehicles, the applicant is not a manufacturer of motor vehicles in the

conventional sense. It does not produce the front end structural

components, instrument panel, or steering wheel, areas of the motor

vehicle whose design is critical for compliance with the airbag

requirements of Standard No. 208. These are manufactured by Morgan, and

the applicant is necessarily dependent upon Morgan to devise designs

that will enable conformance with Standard No. 208. The applicant has

been monitoring Morgan's progress, and that company is engaging in

testing and design activities necessary for eventual conformance. The

fact that the applicant is requesting only a two-year exemption, rather

than three, indicates its belief that complying operator and passenger

airbags will at last be fitted to its cars by the end of this period.

Similarly, the applicant is dependent upon the structural design of

its vehicle for compliance with Standard No. 214. As with Standard No.

208, Morgan and the applicant are working towards conformance, though

apparently it will not be achieved within two years. In both instances,

however, the applicant is conscious of the need to conform and has been

taking steps to accomplish it. Although the company's total expenditure

of $38,244 in the last five years to meet emission and safety

requirements is low, the small number of cars produced for sale in the

United States in the last year, nine, would not make available

substantial funds to the company, and its cumulative net losses of

$92,594 indicate an operation whose financial existence is precarious.

Applicant's cars are equipped with manual three-point restraint

systems and comply with previous side impact intrusion requirements.

Because applicant produces only one line of vehicles, it cannot take

advantage of the phase-in requirement. Given the existing level of

safety of the vehicles and the comparatively small exposure of the

small number of them that would be produced under an exemption, there

would appear to be an insignificant risk to traffic safety by providing

an exemption. The public interest is served by maintaining the

existence of small businesses and by creating awareness of alternative

power sources.

In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby found that to

require immediate compliance with Standards Nos. 208 and 214 would

cause substantial economic hardship to a manufacturer that has in good

faith attempted to meet the standards, and that an exemption would be

in the public interest and consistent with the objectives of traffic

safety.

Accordingly, the applicant is hereby granted NHTSA Exemption No.

95-2, from paragraph S4.1.4 of 49 CFR 571.208 Motor Vehicle Safety

Standard No. 208 Occupant Crash Protection, expiring September 1, 1997,

and from 49 CFR 571.214 Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 214 Side

Impact Protection, expiring September 1, 1998.

(49 U.S.C. 30113; delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50)

Issued on September 7, 1995.

Ricardo Martinez,

Administrator.

[FR Doc. 95-22605 Filed 9-11-95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 49l0-59-P