[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 49 (Wednesday, March 13, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 15945-15946]
[FR Doc No: 2013-05707]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OECA-2012-0691; FRL-9529-1]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to OMB for
Review and Approval; Comment Request; NESHAP for Mercury Cell Chlor-
Alkali Plants (Renewal)

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 12,
2013.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing docket ID number EPA-HQ-
OECA-2012-0691, to: (1) EPA online, using www.regulations.gov (our
preferred method), or by email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by mail to:
EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), Environmental Protection Agency,
Enforcement and Compliance Docket and Information Center, mail code
28221T, 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, Monitoring,
Assistance, and Media Programs Division, Office of Compliance, Mail
Code 2227A, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue
NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email 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 October 17, 2012 (77 FR 63813), 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 both 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-2012-0691, which is available for either public
viewing online at http://www.regulations.gov, or in person viewing at
the Enforcement and Compliance Docket 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 either 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, Confidentiality of 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 Mercury Cell Chlor-Alkali Plants (Renewal).
    ICR Numbers: EPA ICR Number 2046.07, OMB Control Number 2060-0542.
    ICR Status: This ICR is scheduled to expire on May 31, 2013. Under
OMB regulations, the Agency may continue to either conduct or sponsor
the collection of information while this submission is pending at OMB.
    Abstract: The affected entities are subject to the General
Provisions of the NESHAP at 40 CFR part 63, subpart A, and any changes,
or additions to the Provisions specified at 40 CFR part 63, subpart
IIIII.
    Owners or operators of the affected facilities must submit an
initial notification report, performance tests, and periodic reports
and results. Owners or operators are also required to maintain records
of the occurrence and duration of any startup, shutdown, or malfunction
in the operation of an affected facility, or any period during which
the monitoring system is inoperative. Reports are required semi-
annually at a minimum.
    Burden Statement: The annual public reporting and recordkeeping
burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 921
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: Owners or operators of mercury cell
chlor-alkali plants.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: Two.
    Frequency of Response: Initially, daily, monthly, quarterly, and
semiannually.
    Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden: 3,682.
    Estimated Total Annual Cost: $372,952, which includes $356,552 in
labor costs, no capital/startup costs, and $16,400 in operation and
maintenance (O&M) costs.
    Changes in the Estimates: There is an adjustment decrease in the
total estimated burden as currently identified in the OMB Inventory of
Approved Burdens. The decrease in labor hours and costs is due to fewer
sources being subject to the standards, and is not due to any program
changes. The previous ICR estimated that nine mercury cell chlor-alkali
facilities were subject to the NESHAP. In 2010, EPA conducted an
industry analysis in support of a proposed rule revision, which
indicated that there has been a decrease in the respondent universe,
and that only four facilities were subject to the rule at the time. In
consulting with the Chlorine Institute for this current ICR, it was
found that only two facilities are in operation in 2013 due to recent
plant closures. Therefore, the total number of sources was decreased
from nine to two. The decrease in the number of sources also results in
a decrease in the total O&M costs.
    Respondent and Agency burden calculations presented in the previous
ICR estimated individual technical, managerial, and clerical labor
hours separately for each burden item. To make the calculation
methodology consistent with other ICRs, we have revised the burden
tables to show estimates of technical labor hour per occurrence for
each burden activity. Managerial and clerical labor hours for each
burden item are assumed to account for an additional 5 and 10 percent,
respectively, of estimated technical labor hours.

John Moses,
Director, Collection Strategies Division.
[FR Doc. 2013-05707 Filed 3-12-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: June 22, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 120)]
[Notices]
[Page 35893]
[DOCID:fr22jn06-74]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RM06-11-000]

Financial Accounting, Reporting and Records Retention
Requirements Under the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 2005;
Notice of New Date for Technical Conference

June 16, 2006.
    On April 21, 2006, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
(Commission) announced a staff technical conference in the above-
referenced proceeding to be held at the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426 in the
Commission Meeting Room on June 21, 2006, from 9 a.m. until 4:30 p.m.
EDT. This conference was rescheduled for July 11, 2006. It is now being
rescheduled for July 18, 2006, in the interest of having the largest
possible participation. All interested persons are invited to attend.
There is no registration fee or requirement to register in order to
attend.
    The purpose of the conference remains the same. It is to identify
the issues associated with the proposed Uniform System of Accounts for
Centralized Service Companies, the proposed records retention
requirements for holding companies and service companies, and the
revised Form No. 60. The technical conference will develop information
for use by Commission staff in preparing a final rule in this
proceeding.
    Interested persons wishing to participate as a speaker in the
technical conference are asked to notify Commission staff
electronically at https://www.ferc.gov/whats-new/registration/usoa-06-21-speaker-form.asp
 by June 20, 2006.

    Prospective attendees and participants are urged to watch for
further notices; a detailed agenda will be issued in advance of the
conference.
    FERC conferences and meetings are accessible under section 508 of
the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. For accessibility accommodations please
send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll free (866) 208-
3372 (voice) or<PHONE_NUMBER> (TTY), or send a fax to<PHONE_NUMBER>
with the required accommodations.
    Questions about the conference should be directed to: Julia A.
Lake, Office of the General Counsel--Energy Markets and Reliability,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426.<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E6-9890 Filed 6-21-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 79 (Thursday, April 23, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Page 22784]
[FR Doc No: 2020-08587]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

[Docket No: FAA-2020-0047]

Deadlines for Notice of Intent and Submission of Final Grant
Application for Airport Improvement Program Primary, Cargo, and
Nonprimary Entitlement Funds Available to Date for Fiscal Year 2020

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This action announces the extension to May 4, 2020, and to
Monday, June 15, 2020, respectively, of the deadlines for an airport
sponsor to give notice of intent to use Fiscal Year (FY) 2020 Airport
Improvement Program (AIP) entitlement funds and to submit a final grant
application.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dave Cushing, Manager, Airports
Financial Assistance Division, APP-500, at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On January 28, 2020, the FAA announced April
1, 2020, as the deadline for an airport sponsor to notify the FAA if it
would use its FY 2020 AIP entitlement funds, and May 18, 2020, as the
deadline for an airport sponsor to submit a final FY 2020 grant
application (85 FR 5065). That notice applied only to those airports
that have entitlement funds apportioned to them, except those
nonprimary airports located in designated Block Grant States. Since
that time, the COVID-19 public health emergency has impacted airport
sponsors' operations and ability to meet these deadlines.
    49 U.S.C. 47105(f) provides that the sponsor of an airport for
which entitlement funds are apportioned shall notify the Secretary of
Transportation, by such time and in a form as prescribed by the
Secretary, of the airport sponsor's intent to submit a grant
application for its available entitlement funds. This notification
ensures that the FAA has sufficient time to carry over and convert
remaining entitlement funds.
    Although the April 1 deadline has passed, the FAA will continue to
accept notification of an airport sponsor's intent to submit a grant
application until 12:00 p.m. prevailing local time on Monday, May 4,
2020.
    This notification must be in writing and address all entitlement
funds available to date for FY 2020, including those entitlement funds
not obligated from prior years. These notifications are critical to
ensure efficient planning and administration of the AIP.
    The FAA also is extending the final grant application deadline
until Monday, June 15, 2020. The final grant application funding
requests are to be based on bids, not estimates.
    An airport sponsor must provide its notification and grant
applications to its designated FAA Airports District Office (or
Regional Office in regions without Airports District Offices). Absent
notification of the intent to submit a grant application, or submission
of a grant application by the relevant deadlines noted above, the FAA
will carry over the remainder of available entitlement funds on Monday,
June 29, 2020. These funds will not be available again until at least
the beginning of FY 2021. Dates are subject to possible adjustment
based on future legislation. As of the publication of this notice,
appropriations for the FAA expire on September 30, 2020, and statutory
authorization for the FAA expires on September 30, 2023.
    The FAA has determined these deadlines address the unanticipated
impacts of the COVID-19 public health emergency while still
facilitating the FY 2020 grant-making process.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on April 17, 2020.
Robert J. Craven,
Director, Office of Airport Planning and Programming.
[FR Doc. 2020-08587 Filed 4-22-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: February 2, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 21)]
[Notices]
[Page 5317]
[DOCID:fr02fe10-60]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP10-45-000]

Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company; Notice of Request Under Blanket
Authorization

January 26, 2010.
    Take notice that on January 25, 2010, Tennessee Gas Pipeline
Company (Tennessee), 1001 Louisiana Street, Houston, Texas 77002, filed
in Docket No. CP10-45-000, a prior notice request pursuant to sections
157.205 and 157.216 of the Commission's regulations under the Natural
Gas Act (NGA) for authority to abandon in place an inactive offshore
supply lateral (Line 509A-3600) and associated meter and appurtenances
located in West Cameron Blocks 617 and 630 of the offshore continental
shelf, all as more fully set forth in the application, which is on file
with the Commission and open to public inspection. The filing may also
be viewed on the Web at http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary''
link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the
docket number field to access the document. For assistance, contact
FERC at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll-free,<PHONE_NUMBER> or
TTY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Specifically, Tennessee proposes to abandon in place Line 509A-3600
and appurtenances. Tennessee states that Line 509A-3600 extends for
approximately 4.26 miles from a subsea tie-in with Tennessee's Line
509A-3500 in West Cameron Block 617 to a production platform owned and
operated by Maritech Resources, Inc. (Maritech), located in West
Cameron Block 630. Tennessee avers that the subject facilities have
been out of service since the downstream pipelines were damaged by
Hurricane Ike in September 2008. Additionally, Tennessee asserts that
Maritech has notified Tennessee that it intends to abandon its platform
in 2010. Tennessee states that it has not provided transportation
service to any shippers through Line 509A-3600 for more than twelve
months and no firm contracts are tied to the receipt meter located on
the Maritech platform. Tennessee asserts that the estimated cost to
construct similar facilities today is approximately $17.8 million.
    Any questions regarding the application should be directed to Susan
T. Halbach, Senior Counsel, Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, 1001
Louisiana Street, Houston, Texas 77002, at<PHONE_NUMBER> or (713) 420-
1601 (facsimile) or Debbie Kalisek, Analyst, Certificates & Regulatory
Compliance, at<PHONE_NUMBER> or<PHONE_NUMBER> (facsimile).
    Any person may, within 60 days after the issuance of the instant
notice by the Commission, file pursuant to Rule 214 of the Commission's
Procedural Rules (18 CFR 385.214) a motion to intervene or notice of
intervention. Any person filing to intervene or the Commission's staff
may, pursuant to section 157.205 of the Commission's Regulations under
the NGA (18 CFR 157.205) file a protest to the request. If no protest
is filed within the time allowed therefore, the proposed activity shall
be deemed to be authorized effective the day after the time allowed for
protest. If a protest is filed and not withdrawn within 30 days after
the time allowed for filing a protest, the instant request shall be
treated as an application for authorization pursuant to section 7 of
the NGA.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments,
protests, and interventions via the Internet in lieu of paper. See 18
CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web
site (http://www.ferc.gov) under the ``e-Filing'' link.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-2104 Filed 2-1-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 155 (Friday, August 10, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 47915-47918]
[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:<PHONE_NUMBER>; Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

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

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

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

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