Wheego Electric Cars, Inc.; Grant of Petition for Temporary Exemption From the Electronic Stability Control Requirements of FMVSS No. 126, 47915-47918 [2012-19720]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 155 / Friday, August 10, 2012 / Notices
a FMVSS or regulations, considers
available relevant motor vehicle safety
data, and consults with other agencies,
as it deems appropriate. Further, the
statute mandates that in issuing any
FMVSS or regulation, the agency
considers whether the standard or
regulation is ‘‘reasonable, practicable
and appropriate for the particular type
of motor vehicle or item of motor
vehicle equipment for which it is
prescribed,’’ and whether such a
standard will contribute to carrying out
the purpose of the Act.
The Secretary is authorized to invoke
such rules and regulations, as deemed
necessary to carry out these
requirements. Using this authority, on
May 12, 2009, the agency published a
final rule (74 FR 22348) upgrading the
requirements of FMVSS No. 216, ‘‘Roof
crush resistance.’’ The final rule
contained a collection of information
because of the proposed phase-in
reporting requirements. The collection
of information requires manufacturers of
passenger cars and of trucks, buses and
multipurpose passenger vehicles with a
gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR)
2,722 kilograms (6,000 pounds) or less,
to annually submit a report, and
maintain records related to the report,
concerning the number of such vehicles
that meet two-sided quasi-static test
requirements of FMVSS No. 216 during
the three year phase-in of those
requirements. The purpose of the
reporting and recordkeeping
requirements is to assist the agency in
determining whether a manufacturer of
vehicles has complied with the
requirements during the phase-in
period.
Affected Public: Businesses.
Estimated Total Annual Burden:
1,260 hours.
ADDRESSES: Send comments, within 30
days, to the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, Office of
Management and Budget, 725 17th
Street NW., Washington, DC 20503,
Attention NHTSA Desk Officer.
Comments are invited on: Whether
the proposed collection of information
is necessary for the proper performance
of the functions of the Department,
including whether the information will
have practical utility; the accuracy of
the Departments estimate of the burden
of the proposed information collection;
ways to enhance the quality, utility and
clarity of the information to be
collected; and ways to minimize the
burden of the collection of information
on respondents, including the use of
automated collection techniques or
other forms of information technology.
A comment to OMB is most effective if
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:02 Aug 09, 2012
Jkt 226001
OMB receives it within 30 days of
publication.
47915
I. Statutory Basis for Temporary
Exemptions
NHTSA established 49 CFR Part 555,
Temporary Exemption From Motor
Vehicle Safety and Bumper Standards,
to implement the statutory provisions
concerning temporary exemptions. A
vehicle manufacturer wishing to obtain
an exemption from a standard must
demonstrate in its application (A) that
an exemption would be in the public
interest and consistent with the Safety
Act and (B) that the manufacturer
satisfies one of the following four bases
for an exemption: (i) Compliance with
the standard would cause substantial
economic hardship to a manufacturer
that has tried to comply with the
standard in good faith; (ii) the
exemption would make easier the
development or field evaluation of a
new motor vehicle safety feature
providing a safety level at least equal to
the safety level of the standard; (iii) the
exemption would make the
development or field evaluation of a
low-emission motor vehicle easier and
would not unreasonably lower the
safety level of that vehicle; or (iv)
compliance with the standard would
prevent the manufacturer from selling a
motor vehicle with an overall safety
level at least equal to the overall safety
level of nonexempt vehicles.
For an exemption petition to be
granted on the basis that the exemption
would make the development or field
evaluation of a low-emission motor
vehicle easier and would not
unreasonably lower the safety level of
the vehicle, the petition must include
specified information set forth at 49 CFR
555.6(c). The main requirements of that
section include: (1) Substantiation that
the vehicle is a low-emission vehicle;
(2) documentation establishing that a
temporary exemption would not
unreasonably degrade the safety of a
vehicle; (3) substantiation that a
temporary exemption would facilitate
the development or field evaluation of
the vehicle; (4) a statement of whether
the petitioner intends to conform to the
standard at the end of the exemption
period; and (5) a statement that not
more than 2,500 exempted vehicles will
be sold in the United States in any 12month period for which an exemption
may be granted.
The National Traffic and Motor
Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act), codified
as 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, authorizes the
Secretary of Transportation to exempt,
on a temporary basis and under
specified circumstances, motor vehicles
from a motor vehicle safety standard or
bumper standard. This authority is set
forth at 49 U.S.C. 30113. The Secretary
has delegated the authority in this
section to NHTSA.
II. Electronic Stability Control Systems
Requirement
In April 2007, NHTSA published a
final rule requiring that vehicles with a
gross vehicle weight rating of 4,536
kilograms (kg) (10,000 pounds) or less
be equipped with electronic stability
control (ESC) systems. ESC systems use
automatic computer-controlled braking
of individual wheels to assist the driver
in maintaining control in critical driving
Issued on: August 6, 2012.
Christopher J. Bonanti,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 2012–19677 Filed 8–9–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–59–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA–2012–0013]
Wheego Electric Cars, Inc.; Grant of
Petition for Temporary Exemption
From the Electronic Stability Control
Requirements of FMVSS No. 126
National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Notice of grant of a petition for
temporary exemption from Federal
Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS)
No. 126, Electronic Stability Control
Systems.
AGENCY:
This notice grants the petition
of Wheego Electric Cars, Inc. (Wheego)
for the temporary exemption of its LiFe
model from the electronic stability
control requirements of FMVSS No. 126.
The agency has considered Wheego’s
petition for exemption and has
determined that the exemption would
facilitate the development or field
evaluation of a low-emission motor
vehicle and would not unreasonably
reduce the safety level of that vehicle.
DATES: This exemption is effective
immediately and remains in effect until
December 31, 2012.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
David Jasinski, Office of the Chief
Counsel, NCC–112, National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., West Building 4th
Floor, Room W41–326, Washington, DC
20590. Telephone: (202) 366–2992; Fax:
(202) 366–3820.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00116
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\10AUN1.SGM
10AUN1
47916
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 155 / Friday, August 10, 2012 / Notices
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
situations in which the vehicle is
beginning to lose directional stability at
the rear wheels (spin out) or directional
control at the front wheels (plow out).
An anti-lock brake system (ABS) is a
prerequisite for an ESC system because
ESC uses many of the same components
as ABS. Thus, the cost of complying
with FMVSS No. 126 is less for vehicle
models already equipped with ABS.
Preventing single-vehicle loss-ofcontrol crashes is the most effective way
to reduce deaths resulting from rollover
crashes. This is because most loss-ofcontrol crashes culminate in the vehicle
leaving the roadway, which
dramatically increases the probability of
a rollover. NHTSA’s crash data study of
existing vehicles equipped with ESC
demonstrated that these systems reduce
fatal single-vehicle crashes of passenger
cars by 55 percent and fatal singlevehicle crashes of light trucks and vans
(LTVs) by 50 percent.1 NHTSA
estimates that ESC has the potential to
prevent 56 percent of the fatal passenger
car rollovers and 74 percent of the fatal
LTV first-event rollovers that would
otherwise occur in single-vehicle
crashes.2
The ESC requirement became
effective for substantially all vehicles on
September 1, 2011.
III. Overview of Petition
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 30113
and the procedures in 49 CFR part 555,
Wheego Electric Cars, Inc. (Wheego)
submitted a petition dated August 15,
2011 asking the agency for a temporary
exemption from the electronic stability
control requirements of FMVSS No. 126.
The basis for the application is that the
exemption would make the
development or field evaluation of a
low-emission vehicle easier and would
not unreasonably lower the safety level
of that vehicle. Wheego requested an
exemption for the LiFe model for a
period from September 1, 2011 to
August 1, 2012.
Wheego is a Delaware corporation
with its headquarters in Atlanta,
Georgia. Wheego began manufacturing
and selling low-speed electric vehicles
in the U.S. in June 2009. In April 2011,
Wheego began manufacturing and
selling its first all-electric passenger car,
the two-door, two-seat LiFe model.
Wheego also states that it is developing
a four-door passenger vehicle for sale in
late 2012.
In February 2011, Wheego was
granted a temporary exemption from the
1 Sivinski, R., Crash Prevention Effectiveness of
Light-Vehicle Electronic Stability Control: An
Update of the 2007 NHTSA Evaluation; DOT HS
811 486 (June 2011).
2 Id.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:02 Aug 09, 2012
Jkt 226001
advanced air bag requirements of
FMVSS No. 208, Occupant Crash
Protection, that is effective until
February 11, 2013.3 Wheego states that
it plans to meet all other current
FMVSSs for a passenger car.
Wheego asserts that the company had
intended to develop an ESC system for
the LiFe. However, delays in funding
and later developments have made it
impossible for Wheego to develop an
ESC system for the LiFe before
September 2011. Wheego requested an
exemption from the ESC requirements
until August 1, 2012 for up to 1,000
vehicles so that it can continue its
development and evaluation of a lowemission vehicle. Wheego stated that
the company intends to comply with
FMVSS No. 126 at the end of the
exempted period.
Wheego believes that a temporary
exemption would not unreasonably
degrade the safety or impact protection
of the vehicle. Wheego states that the
LiFe has an ABS system that prevents
loss of control by preventing the wheels
from locking up and the tires from
skidding during braking. Wheego also
asserts that its standard tires are wide
with wide, circumferential grooves that
provide rapid water evacuation to aid
wet traction. Wheego also notes that the
LiFe is limited to a top speed of 65 mph,
which may contribute to a reduction of
crashes associated with high speeds.
Wheego also states that the LiFe has a
low center of gravity with 762 pounds
of batteries beneath the floorboard of the
vehicle. Further, Wheego argues that the
relatively limited range of the LiFe
compared to gasoline-powered vehicles
(100 miles before needing a charge)
makes it less likely that a LiFe would be
involved in a high-speed or rollover
crash. Wheego also asserts that the
relatively small number of vehicles that
would be produced under the
exemption suggests that the exemption
would have a negligible effect on
vehicle safety.
Wheego asserts that an exemption
would make the development or field
evaluation of a low-emission vehicle
easier. Wheego states that it would be
able to use consumer feedback and other
testing and evaluation to improve
design and efficiency to improve
charging, battery management, and
safety systems in future vehicle models.
Wheego states that, without the
exemption, the company would not be
able to produce enough cars or revenue
to sustain these developments or to
launch a new vehicle model. Wheego
also believes that its success can add to
3 See 76 FR 7898 (Feb. 11, 2011); Docket No.
NHTSA–2010–0118.
PO 00000
Frm 00117
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
the overall development of lowemission vehicles as a whole by
demonstrating the viability of electric
cars to consumers and encouraging
other manufacturers to build electric
cars.
Wheego also asserts that the granting
of the exemption would be in the public
interest. Wheego notes that NHTSA has
traditionally found that the public
interest is served by affording
consumers a wider variety of motor
vehicles, by encouraging the
development of fuel-efficient and
alternative-energy vehicles, and by
providing additional employment
opportunities. Wheego believes that
granting this petition serves each of
those interests.
In a supplement to its petition filed
on June 11, 2012, Wheego reduced the
number of exempted vehicles it intends
to produce and the time period for the
exemption. Wheego now intends to
manufacture 165 vehicles under this
exemption by the end of 2012.
IV. Notice of Receipt
On January 30, 2012, we published in
the Federal Register (77 FR 4623) a
notice of receipt of Wheego’s petition
for temporary exemption, and provided
an opportunity for public comment. We
received 12 comments, including
comments from the Advocates for
Highway & Auto Safety (Advocates) and
11 private individuals. All of the
commenters opposed granting Wheego’s
petition. Wheego responded to the
commenters through its own submission
and through a supplemental petition.
Wheego also met with the agency
informally to discuss its application
pursuant to 49 CFR 555.7(f). A
memorandum summarizing that
meeting has been placed in the docket.
V. Agency Analysis, Response to
Comment, and Decision
In this section, we provide our
analysis and decision regarding
Wheego’s temporary exemption request
concerning the ESC requirements of
FMVSS No. 126, including our response
to the comments received.
As discussed below, we are granting
Wheego’s petition for the LiFe to be
exempted, for a period ending December
31, 2012, from the requirements of
FMVSS No. 126. The agency’s rationale
for this decision is as follows:
First, we conclude that Wheego has
shown that an exemption from the ESC
requirements would make the
development or field evaluation of a
low-emission motor vehicle easier.
Specifically, we agree with Wheego that
allowing continued production on a
limited basis of additional LiFe models
E:\FR\FM\10AUN1.SGM
10AUN1
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 155 / Friday, August 10, 2012 / Notices
now under an exemption will make it
easier for Wheego to design and produce
future low emission vehicle models
without an exemption.
Further, the production of additional
LiFe models would allow consumers of
all-electric vehicles an additional option
during the exemption period. We agree
with Wheego that continued production
of its vehicle will help to demonstrate
to the U.S. public the capabilities of
electric vehicles. We also agree with
Wheego that continued production of
the LiFe for the limited period will
allow it to develop fully FMVSScompliant electric vehicles. For that
reason we agree that denial of the
petition could jeopardize Wheego’s
ability to produce other electric vehicles
in the future. For these reasons, we
agree with Wheego that granting this
petition will encourage the development
and sale of electric vehicles by Wheego
and also by other manufacturers.
Second, NHTSA concludes that the
grant of this exemption would not
unreasonably lower the safety or impact
protection level of the vehicle. In
particular, we have considered that
Wheego produces a low-center-ofgravity, two-seat vehicle. The low center
of gravity provides some additional
reduction of loss-of-control crashes
relative to other passenger cars. The
LiFe’s limited speed capability is also a
factor in favor of granting the
exemption. Furthermore, because the
LiFe has a limited range (100 miles) and
would be used less during winter
months (due to even more limited range
caused by the effect of cold weather on
the batteries), a LiFe is likely to be
driven fewer miles compared to an
average vehicle. We believe that this
factor diminishes the likelihood that the
failure to include an ESC system on the
LiFe would unreasonably lower the
safety level of the vehicle.
Eight of the individual commenters
opposing the grant of Wheego’s petition
stated that NHTSA should not grant any
exemption from the ESC requirements,
citing the safety benefits of ESC. Three
additional commenters objected to the
grant of any exemption at all. The
Advocates argue that ESC is an
important and proven safety
improvement. In support of their
argument, the Advocates cite agency
and industry research, including the
agency’s most recent study of ESC
system effectiveness.4 While the agency
continues to believe that ESC has a
substantial effect on the number of
vehicle crashes, the relevant inquiry is
not the effectiveness of ESC systems.
Rather, the relevant inquiry is whether
4 See
supra, note 1.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:02 Aug 09, 2012
Jkt 226001
an exemption would unreasonably
lower the safety level of the vehicle in
question. Although the agency has
found substantial benefits resulting from
ESC systems on passenger cars, the
agency finds that the absence of ESC on
the LiFe does not unreasonably lower
the safety level of that specific vehicle.
We believe that the expected use
patterns of the LiFe, including the
relatively low number of miles driven
by the average LiFe owner, support this
finding.
The Advocates contend that Wheego
had ample opportunity to develop and
equip their vehicles with ESC because
the ESC requirement was mandated by
a final rule issued in 2007. The
Advocates further contend that, by
submitting a petition for exemption just
over two weeks before the deadline for
ESC compliance, Wheego ignored
development of a safety system.
However, the timing of Wheego’s filing
does not affect its entitlement to an
exemption. The consequence of Wheego
waiting until August 15, 2011 to file its
petition for an exemption is that
Wheego has been unable to manufacture
the LiFe since September 1, 2011.
The Advocates also claim that ESC
technology is mature and inexpensive,
citing the per-vehicle cost estimate of
$111 for vehicles already equipped with
ABS set forth in the 2007 final rule. In
response, Wheego states that, as a small
manufacturer, it must amortize the cost
of developing ESC over fewer vehicles
than larger manufacturers. Wheego
estimated that the amortized per vehicle
cost of ESC development would be over
$1000 per vehicle. We agree with
Wheego that the amortized cost of
developing ESC systems is higher for
very small manufacturers. Although the
discussion of the cost of ESC
development is not a statutory or
regulatory factor for exemptions under
49 U.S.C. 30113(b)(3)(B)(iii), it is
relevant in determining whether the
failure to have ESC unreasonably lowers
the safety level of the vehicle.
The Advocates also argue that
Wheego’s limited production of
exempted vehicles does not justify an
exemption. The Advocates argue that
rarer vehicles are not safer just because
they are rarer. While the agency cannot
dispute the assertion that rarer vehicles
are not safer because they are rarer, it
does not follow that the agency should
not consider the expected production
volume in support of an exemption
request. If Wheego intended to produce
more vehicles under this exemption, the
agency would be less likely to grant the
petition. Moreover, it is not just the
limited number of vehicles that would
be produced under the exemption, but
PO 00000
Frm 00118
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
47917
the limited number of miles the average
LiFe is driven compared to other cars
that Wheego cites in support of its
petition.
Based on the foregoing, we believe
that any impact on safety from granting
the petition would be negligible and
that Wheego has satisfied the eligibility
criteria for an exemption for the
development or field evaluation of a
low-emission motor vehicle.
We also find that this exemption
would be consistent with the public
interest and the objectives of the Safety
Act. NHTSA has traditionally found that
the public interest is served by affording
consumers a wider variety of motor
vehicles, by encouraging the
development of fuel-efficient and
alternative-energy vehicles, and
providing additional employment
opportunities. We believe that all three
of these public interest considerations
would be served by granting Wheego’s
petition.
We note that the denial of this request
would remove one of the few electric
vehicles that is currently being sold in
the U.S. market and that granting this
petition would afford U.S. consumers
the continued choice of this all-electric
vehicle. As explained above, granting
this petition will make the development
of Wheego’s next model possible, while
conversely denial of the petition could
compromise Wheego’s ability to
produce additional low emission
vehicles. We believe that granting this
petition will have a positive impact on
U.S. employment in the automotive
industry, and that denial of the petition
could directly impact the jobs of current
Wheego employees.
Additionally, we believe that the
requested exemption will have a limited
impact on general motor vehicle safety
because of the small number of vehicles
that can be produced under this
exemption. Finally, it is critical to the
agency’s decision that Wheego is
requesting a short exemption period and
intends to sell only vehicles that comply
with the ESC requirement after the
exemption period.
We note that prospective purchasers
will be notified that the vehicle is
exempted from the ESC requirements of
Standard No. 126. Under § 555.9(b), a
manufacturer of an exempted vehicle
must affix securely to the windshield or
side window of each exempted vehicle
a label containing a statement that the
vehicle conforms to all applicable
FMVSSs in effect on the date of
manufacture ‘‘except for Standard Nos.
[listing the standards by number and
title for which an exemption has been
granted] exempted pursuant to NHTSA
Exemption No. lll.’’ This label
E:\FR\FM\10AUN1.SGM
10AUN1
47918
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 155 / Friday, August 10, 2012 / Notices
notifies prospective purchasers about
the exemption and its subject. Under
§ 555.9(c), this information must also be
included on the vehicle’s certification
label.5
In consideration of the foregoing, we
conclude that granting the requested
exemption from FMVSS No. 126,
Electronic Stability Control Systems,
would facilitate the field evaluation or
development of a low-emission vehicle,
and would not unreasonably lower the
safety or impact protection level of that
vehicle. We further conclude that
granting this exemption would be in the
public interest and consistent with the
objectives of the Safety Act.
In accordance with 49 U.S.C.
30113(b)(3)(B)(iii), Wheego is granted
NHTSA Temporary Exemption No. EX
12–01 from FMVSS No. 126. The
exemption is for a total of no more than
165 LiFe model vehicles and shall be
effective from the date on which notice
of this decision is published in the
Federal Register until December 31,
2012, as indicated in the DATES section
of this document.
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30113; delegations of
authority at 49 CFR 1.50. and 501.8.
Issued on: August 2, 2012.
Ronald L. Medford,
Deputy Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2012–19720 Filed 8–9–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–59–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Surface Transportation Board
[Docket No. AB 314 (Sub-No. 5X)]
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Chicago Central and Pacific Railroad
Company—Abandonment Exemption—
in Cook County, IL
Chicago Central and Pacific Railroad
Company (CCP) has filed a verified
notice of exemption under 49 CFR part
1152 subpart F—Exempt Abandonments
to abandon a 1.59-mile line of railroad
between milepost 11.88 and milepost
13.47, in North Riverside, Cook County,
Ill. The line traverses United States
Postal Service Zip Codes 60546 and
60130.
CCP has certified that: (1) No local
traffic has moved over the line for the
past two years; (2) there is no overhead
traffic on the line to be rerouted over
other lines; (3) no formal complaint
filed by a user of rail service on the line
(or by a state or local government entity
acting on behalf of such user) regarding
5 Wheego’s label is required to list both its
exemption from FMVSS No. 126 and its exemption
from the advanced air bag requirements of FMVSS
No. 208.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:02 Aug 09, 2012
Jkt 226001
cessation of service over the line either
is pending with the Surface
Transportation Board (Board) or with
any U.S. District Court or has been
decided in favor of complainant within
the two-year period; and (4) the
requirements at 49 CFR 1105.7(c)
(environmental report), 49 CFR 1105.11
(transmittal letter), 49 CFR 1105.12
(newspaper publication), and 49 CFR
1152.50(d)(1) (notice to governmental
agencies) have been met.
As a condition to this exemption, any
employee adversely affected by the
abandonment shall be protected under
Oregon Short Line Railroad—
Abandonment Portion Goshen Branch
Between Firth & Ammon, in Bingham &
Bonneville Counties, Idaho, 360 I.C.C.
91 (1979). To address whether this
condition adequately protects affected
employees, a petition for partial
revocation under 49 U.S.C. 10502(d)
must be filed.
Provided no formal expression of
intent to file an offer of financial
assistance (OFA) has been received, this
exemption will be effective on
September 11, 2012, unless stayed
pending reconsideration. Petitions to
stay that do not involve environmental
issues,1 formal expressions of intent to
file an OFA under 49 CFR
1152.27(c)(2),2 and trail use/rail banking
requests under 49 CFR 1152.29 must be
filed by August 20, 2012. Petitions to
reopen or requests for public use
conditions under 49 CFR 1152.28 3 must
be filed by August 30, 2012, with the
Surface Transportation Board, 395 E
Street SW., Washington, DC 20423–
0001.
A copy of any petition filed with the
Board should be sent to CCP’s
representative: Thomas J. Healey, 17641
S. Ashland Avenue, Homewood, IL
60430–1345.
If the verified notice contains false or
misleading information, the exemption
is void ab initio.
CCP has filed a combined
environmental and historic report that
1 The Board will grant a stay if an informed
decision on environmental issues (whether raised
by a party or by the Board’s Office of Environmental
Analysis (OEA) in its independent investigation)
cannot be made before the exemption’s effective
date. See Exemption of Out-of-Serv. Rail Lines, 5
I.C.C.2d 377 (1989). Any request for a stay should
be filed as soon as possible so that the Board may
take appropriate action before the exemption’s
effective date.
2 Each OFA must be accompanied by the filing
fee, which is currently set at $1,500. See 49 CFR
1002.2(f)(25).
3 CCP states that it is not the owner of the
underlying right-of-way (ROW) and it believes that
the ROW would not be of interest to the state or
any other entity as a highway or mass
transportation line or other similar public use
because the ROW is located in a highly developed
urban area with a mature roadway system.
PO 00000
Frm 00119
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
addresses the effects, if any, of the
abandonment on the environment and
historic resources. OEA will issue an
environmental assessment (EA) by
August 17, 2012. Interested persons may
obtain a copy of the EA by writing to
OEA (Room 1100, Surface
Transportation Board, Washington, DC
20423–0001) or by calling OEA at (202)
245–0305. Assistance for the hearing
impaired is available through the
Federal Information Relay Service at 1–
800–877–8339. Comments on
environmental and historic preservation
matters must be filed within 15 days
after the EA becomes available to the
public.
Environmental, historic preservation,
public use, or trail use/rail banking
conditions will be imposed, where
appropriate, in a subsequent decision.
Pursuant to the provisions of 49 CFR
1152.29(e)(2), CCP shall file a notice of
consummation with the Board to signify
that it has exercised the authority
granted and fully abandoned the line. If
consummation has not been effected by
CCP’s filing of a notice of
consummation by August 10, 2013, and
there are no legal or regulatory barriers
to consummation, the authority to
abandon will automatically expire.
Board decisions and notices are
available on our Web site at
‘‘WWW.STB.DOT.GOV.’’
Decided: August 7, 2012.
By the Board, Rachel D. Campbell,
Director, Office of Proceedings.
Derrick A. Gardner,
Clearance Clerk.
[FR Doc. 2012–19642 Filed 8–9–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4915–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Surface Transportation Board
Information Collection Activities
(Released Rates)
AGENCY:
Surface Transportation Board,
DOT.
Notice and Request for
Comments.
ACTION:
As required by the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501–
3519 (PRA), the Surface Transportation
Board (STB or Board) gives notice of its
intent to seek from the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB)
approval of the information collections
(here third-party disclosures) required
under the Board’s decision in Released
Rates of Motor Common Carriers of
Household Goods, Docket No. RR 999
(Amendment No. 5) (served Jan. 21,
2011 (2011 Decision) and Jan.10, 2012
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\10AUN1.SGM
10AUN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 155 (Friday, August 10, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 47915-47918]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-19720]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA-2012-0013]
Wheego Electric Cars, Inc.; Grant of Petition for Temporary
Exemption From the Electronic Stability Control Requirements of FMVSS
No. 126
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Notice of grant of a petition for temporary exemption from
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 126, Electronic
Stability Control Systems.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This notice grants the petition of Wheego Electric Cars, Inc.
(Wheego) for the temporary exemption of its LiFe model from the
electronic stability control requirements of FMVSS No. 126. The agency
has considered Wheego's petition for exemption and has determined that
the exemption would facilitate the development or field evaluation of a
low-emission motor vehicle and would not unreasonably reduce the safety
level of that vehicle.
DATES: This exemption is effective immediately and remains in effect
until December 31, 2012.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Jasinski, Office of the Chief
Counsel, NCC-112, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building 4th Floor, Room W41-326,
Washington, DC 20590. Telephone: (202) 366-2992; Fax: (202) 366-3820.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Statutory Basis for Temporary Exemptions
The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act),
codified as 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, authorizes the Secretary of
Transportation to exempt, on a temporary basis and under specified
circumstances, motor vehicles from a motor vehicle safety standard or
bumper standard. This authority is set forth at 49 U.S.C. 30113. The
Secretary has delegated the authority in this section to NHTSA.
NHTSA established 49 CFR Part 555, Temporary Exemption From Motor
Vehicle Safety and Bumper Standards, to implement the statutory
provisions concerning temporary exemptions. A vehicle manufacturer
wishing to obtain an exemption from a standard must demonstrate in its
application (A) that an exemption would be in the public interest and
consistent with the Safety Act and (B) that the manufacturer satisfies
one of the following four bases for an exemption: (i) Compliance with
the standard would cause substantial economic hardship to a
manufacturer that has tried to comply with the standard in good faith;
(ii) the exemption would make easier the development or field
evaluation of a new motor vehicle safety feature providing a safety
level at least equal to the safety level of the standard; (iii) the
exemption would make the development or field evaluation of a low-
emission motor vehicle easier and would not unreasonably lower the
safety level of that vehicle; or (iv) compliance with the standard
would prevent the manufacturer from selling a motor vehicle with an
overall safety level at least equal to the overall safety level of
nonexempt vehicles.
For an exemption petition to be granted on the basis that the
exemption would make the development or field evaluation of a low-
emission motor vehicle easier and would not unreasonably lower the
safety level of the vehicle, the petition must include specified
information set forth at 49 CFR 555.6(c). The main requirements of that
section include: (1) Substantiation that the vehicle is a low-emission
vehicle; (2) documentation establishing that a temporary exemption
would not unreasonably degrade the safety of a vehicle; (3)
substantiation that a temporary exemption would facilitate the
development or field evaluation of the vehicle; (4) a statement of
whether the petitioner intends to conform to the standard at the end of
the exemption period; and (5) a statement that not more than 2,500
exempted vehicles will be sold in the United States in any 12-month
period for which an exemption may be granted.
II. Electronic Stability Control Systems Requirement
In April 2007, NHTSA published a final rule requiring that vehicles
with a gross vehicle weight rating of 4,536 kilograms (kg) (10,000
pounds) or less be equipped with electronic stability control (ESC)
systems. ESC systems use automatic computer-controlled braking of
individual wheels to assist the driver in maintaining control in
critical driving
[[Page 47916]]
situations in which the vehicle is beginning to lose directional
stability at the rear wheels (spin out) or directional control at the
front wheels (plow out). An anti-lock brake system (ABS) is a
prerequisite for an ESC system because ESC uses many of the same
components as ABS. Thus, the cost of complying with FMVSS No. 126 is
less for vehicle models already equipped with ABS.
Preventing single-vehicle loss-of-control crashes is the most
effective way to reduce deaths resulting from rollover crashes. This is
because most loss-of-control crashes culminate in the vehicle leaving
the roadway, which dramatically increases the probability of a
rollover. NHTSA's crash data study of existing vehicles equipped with
ESC demonstrated that these systems reduce fatal single-vehicle crashes
of passenger cars by 55 percent and fatal single-vehicle crashes of
light trucks and vans (LTVs) by 50 percent.\1\ NHTSA estimates that ESC
has the potential to prevent 56 percent of the fatal passenger car
rollovers and 74 percent of the fatal LTV first-event rollovers that
would otherwise occur in single-vehicle crashes.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Sivinski, R., Crash Prevention Effectiveness of Light-
Vehicle Electronic Stability Control: An Update of the 2007 NHTSA
Evaluation; DOT HS 811 486 (June 2011).
\2\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The ESC requirement became effective for substantially all vehicles
on September 1, 2011.
III. Overview of Petition
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 30113 and the procedures in 49 CFR
part 555, Wheego Electric Cars, Inc. (Wheego) submitted a petition
dated August 15, 2011 asking the agency for a temporary exemption from
the electronic stability control requirements of FMVSS No. 126. The
basis for the application is that the exemption would make the
development or field evaluation of a low-emission vehicle easier and
would not unreasonably lower the safety level of that vehicle. Wheego
requested an exemption for the LiFe model for a period from September
1, 2011 to August 1, 2012.
Wheego is a Delaware corporation with its headquarters in Atlanta,
Georgia. Wheego began manufacturing and selling low-speed electric
vehicles in the U.S. in June 2009. In April 2011, Wheego began
manufacturing and selling its first all-electric passenger car, the
two-door, two-seat LiFe model. Wheego also states that it is developing
a four-door passenger vehicle for sale in late 2012.
In February 2011, Wheego was granted a temporary exemption from the
advanced air bag requirements of FMVSS No. 208, Occupant Crash
Protection, that is effective until February 11, 2013.\3\ Wheego states
that it plans to meet all other current FMVSSs for a passenger car.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See 76 FR 7898 (Feb. 11, 2011); Docket No. NHTSA-2010-0118.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wheego asserts that the company had intended to develop an ESC
system for the LiFe. However, delays in funding and later developments
have made it impossible for Wheego to develop an ESC system for the
LiFe before September 2011. Wheego requested an exemption from the ESC
requirements until August 1, 2012 for up to 1,000 vehicles so that it
can continue its development and evaluation of a low-emission vehicle.
Wheego stated that the company intends to comply with FMVSS No. 126 at
the end of the exempted period.
Wheego believes that a temporary exemption would not unreasonably
degrade the safety or impact protection of the vehicle. Wheego states
that the LiFe has an ABS system that prevents loss of control by
preventing the wheels from locking up and the tires from skidding
during braking. Wheego also asserts that its standard tires are wide
with wide, circumferential grooves that provide rapid water evacuation
to aid wet traction. Wheego also notes that the LiFe is limited to a
top speed of 65 mph, which may contribute to a reduction of crashes
associated with high speeds. Wheego also states that the LiFe has a low
center of gravity with 762 pounds of batteries beneath the floorboard
of the vehicle. Further, Wheego argues that the relatively limited
range of the LiFe compared to gasoline-powered vehicles (100 miles
before needing a charge) makes it less likely that a LiFe would be
involved in a high-speed or rollover crash. Wheego also asserts that
the relatively small number of vehicles that would be produced under
the exemption suggests that the exemption would have a negligible
effect on vehicle safety.
Wheego asserts that an exemption would make the development or
field evaluation of a low-emission vehicle easier. Wheego states that
it would be able to use consumer feedback and other testing and
evaluation to improve design and efficiency to improve charging,
battery management, and safety systems in future vehicle models. Wheego
states that, without the exemption, the company would not be able to
produce enough cars or revenue to sustain these developments or to
launch a new vehicle model. Wheego also believes that its success can
add to the overall development of low-emission vehicles as a whole by
demonstrating the viability of electric cars to consumers and
encouraging other manufacturers to build electric cars.
Wheego also asserts that the granting of the exemption would be in
the public interest. Wheego notes that NHTSA has traditionally found
that the public interest is served by affording consumers a wider
variety of motor vehicles, by encouraging the development of fuel-
efficient and alternative-energy vehicles, and by providing additional
employment opportunities. Wheego believes that granting this petition
serves each of those interests.
In a supplement to its petition filed on June 11, 2012, Wheego
reduced the number of exempted vehicles it intends to produce and the
time period for the exemption. Wheego now intends to manufacture 165
vehicles under this exemption by the end of 2012.
IV. Notice of Receipt
On January 30, 2012, we published in the Federal Register (77 FR
4623) a notice of receipt of Wheego's petition for temporary exemption,
and provided an opportunity for public comment. We received 12
comments, including comments from the Advocates for Highway & Auto
Safety (Advocates) and 11 private individuals. All of the commenters
opposed granting Wheego's petition. Wheego responded to the commenters
through its own submission and through a supplemental petition. Wheego
also met with the agency informally to discuss its application pursuant
to 49 CFR 555.7(f). A memorandum summarizing that meeting has been
placed in the docket.
V. Agency Analysis, Response to Comment, and Decision
In this section, we provide our analysis and decision regarding
Wheego's temporary exemption request concerning the ESC requirements of
FMVSS No. 126, including our response to the comments received.
As discussed below, we are granting Wheego's petition for the LiFe
to be exempted, for a period ending December 31, 2012, from the
requirements of FMVSS No. 126. The agency's rationale for this decision
is as follows:
First, we conclude that Wheego has shown that an exemption from the
ESC requirements would make the development or field evaluation of a
low-emission motor vehicle easier. Specifically, we agree with Wheego
that allowing continued production on a limited basis of additional
LiFe models
[[Page 47917]]
now under an exemption will make it easier for Wheego to design and
produce future low emission vehicle models without an exemption.
Further, the production of additional LiFe models would allow
consumers of all-electric vehicles an additional option during the
exemption period. We agree with Wheego that continued production of its
vehicle will help to demonstrate to the U.S. public the capabilities of
electric vehicles. We also agree with Wheego that continued production
of the LiFe for the limited period will allow it to develop fully
FMVSS-compliant electric vehicles. For that reason we agree that denial
of the petition could jeopardize Wheego's ability to produce other
electric vehicles in the future. For these reasons, we agree with
Wheego that granting this petition will encourage the development and
sale of electric vehicles by Wheego and also by other manufacturers.
Second, NHTSA concludes that the grant of this exemption would not
unreasonably lower the safety or impact protection level of the
vehicle. In particular, we have considered that Wheego produces a low-
center-of-gravity, two-seat vehicle. The low center of gravity provides
some additional reduction of loss-of-control crashes relative to other
passenger cars. The LiFe's limited speed capability is also a factor in
favor of granting the exemption. Furthermore, because the LiFe has a
limited range (100 miles) and would be used less during winter months
(due to even more limited range caused by the effect of cold weather on
the batteries), a LiFe is likely to be driven fewer miles compared to
an average vehicle. We believe that this factor diminishes the
likelihood that the failure to include an ESC system on the LiFe would
unreasonably lower the safety level of the vehicle.
Eight of the individual commenters opposing the grant of Wheego's
petition stated that NHTSA should not grant any exemption from the ESC
requirements, citing the safety benefits of ESC. Three additional
commenters objected to the grant of any exemption at all. The Advocates
argue that ESC is an important and proven safety improvement. In
support of their argument, the Advocates cite agency and industry
research, including the agency's most recent study of ESC system
effectiveness.\4\ While the agency continues to believe that ESC has a
substantial effect on the number of vehicle crashes, the relevant
inquiry is not the effectiveness of ESC systems. Rather, the relevant
inquiry is whether an exemption would unreasonably lower the safety
level of the vehicle in question. Although the agency has found
substantial benefits resulting from ESC systems on passenger cars, the
agency finds that the absence of ESC on the LiFe does not unreasonably
lower the safety level of that specific vehicle. We believe that the
expected use patterns of the LiFe, including the relatively low number
of miles driven by the average LiFe owner, support this finding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ See supra, note 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Advocates contend that Wheego had ample opportunity to develop
and equip their vehicles with ESC because the ESC requirement was
mandated by a final rule issued in 2007. The Advocates further contend
that, by submitting a petition for exemption just over two weeks before
the deadline for ESC compliance, Wheego ignored development of a safety
system. However, the timing of Wheego's filing does not affect its
entitlement to an exemption. The consequence of Wheego waiting until
August 15, 2011 to file its petition for an exemption is that Wheego
has been unable to manufacture the LiFe since September 1, 2011.
The Advocates also claim that ESC technology is mature and
inexpensive, citing the per-vehicle cost estimate of $111 for vehicles
already equipped with ABS set forth in the 2007 final rule. In
response, Wheego states that, as a small manufacturer, it must amortize
the cost of developing ESC over fewer vehicles than larger
manufacturers. Wheego estimated that the amortized per vehicle cost of
ESC development would be over $1000 per vehicle. We agree with Wheego
that the amortized cost of developing ESC systems is higher for very
small manufacturers. Although the discussion of the cost of ESC
development is not a statutory or regulatory factor for exemptions
under 49 U.S.C. 30113(b)(3)(B)(iii), it is relevant in determining
whether the failure to have ESC unreasonably lowers the safety level of
the vehicle.
The Advocates also argue that Wheego's limited production of
exempted vehicles does not justify an exemption. The Advocates argue
that rarer vehicles are not safer just because they are rarer. While
the agency cannot dispute the assertion that rarer vehicles are not
safer because they are rarer, it does not follow that the agency should
not consider the expected production volume in support of an exemption
request. If Wheego intended to produce more vehicles under this
exemption, the agency would be less likely to grant the petition.
Moreover, it is not just the limited number of vehicles that would be
produced under the exemption, but the limited number of miles the
average LiFe is driven compared to other cars that Wheego cites in
support of its petition.
Based on the foregoing, we believe that any impact on safety from
granting the petition would be negligible and that Wheego has satisfied
the eligibility criteria for an exemption for the development or field
evaluation of a low-emission motor vehicle.
We also find that this exemption would be consistent with the
public interest and the objectives of the Safety Act. NHTSA has
traditionally found that the public interest is served by affording
consumers a wider variety of motor vehicles, by encouraging the
development of fuel-efficient and alternative-energy vehicles, and
providing additional employment opportunities. We believe that all
three of these public interest considerations would be served by
granting Wheego's petition.
We note that the denial of this request would remove one of the few
electric vehicles that is currently being sold in the U.S. market and
that granting this petition would afford U.S. consumers the continued
choice of this all-electric vehicle. As explained above, granting this
petition will make the development of Wheego's next model possible,
while conversely denial of the petition could compromise Wheego's
ability to produce additional low emission vehicles. We believe that
granting this petition will have a positive impact on U.S. employment
in the automotive industry, and that denial of the petition could
directly impact the jobs of current Wheego employees.
Additionally, we believe that the requested exemption will have a
limited impact on general motor vehicle safety because of the small
number of vehicles that can be produced under this exemption. Finally,
it is critical to the agency's decision that Wheego is requesting a
short exemption period and intends to sell only vehicles that comply
with the ESC requirement after the exemption period.
We note that prospective purchasers will be notified that the
vehicle is exempted from the ESC requirements of Standard No. 126.
Under Sec. 555.9(b), a manufacturer of an exempted vehicle must affix
securely to the windshield or side window of each exempted vehicle a
label containing a statement that the vehicle conforms to all
applicable FMVSSs in effect on the date of manufacture ``except for
Standard Nos. [listing the standards by number and title for which an
exemption has been granted] exempted pursuant to NHTSA Exemption No. --
----.'' This label
[[Page 47918]]
notifies prospective purchasers about the exemption and its subject.
Under Sec. 555.9(c), this information must also be included on the
vehicle's certification label.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Wheego's label is required to list both its exemption from
FMVSS No. 126 and its exemption from the advanced air bag
requirements of FMVSS No. 208.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In consideration of the foregoing, we conclude that granting the
requested exemption from FMVSS No. 126, Electronic Stability Control
Systems, would facilitate the field evaluation or development of a low-
emission vehicle, and would not unreasonably lower the safety or impact
protection level of that vehicle. We further conclude that granting
this exemption would be in the public interest and consistent with the
objectives of the Safety Act.
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 30113(b)(3)(B)(iii), Wheego is granted
NHTSA Temporary Exemption No. EX 12-01 from FMVSS No. 126. The
exemption is for a total of no more than 165 LiFe model vehicles and
shall be effective from the date on which notice of this decision is
published in the Federal Register until December 31, 2012, as indicated
in the DATES section of this document.
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30113; delegations of authority at 49 CFR
1.50. and 501.8.
Issued on: August 2, 2012.
Ronald L. Medford,
Deputy Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2012-19720 Filed 8-9-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
