[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 109 (Wednesday, June 6, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 26275-26276]
[FR Doc No: 2018-12124]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP18-487-000]

Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America LLC; Notice of
Application for Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity

    Take notice that on May 18, 2018, Natural Gas Pipeline Company of
America LLC (Natural), 3250 Lacey Road, 7th Floor, Downers Grove,
Illinois 60515-7918 has filed an application pursuant to section 7(c)
of the Natural Gas Act (NGA) and the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission's (Commission) regulations, requesting authority to
construct, install, modify, operate and maintain a new 22,490
horsepower compressor station in Cameron Parish, Louisiana and
appurtenances (CS 348) with interconnections to Natural's existing
Louisiana Line Nos. 1 and 2 and NGPL Lateral which will interconnect
the new compressor station with Sabine Pass Liquefaction, LLC's (SPL)
liquefaction export terminal (SPL Terminal), all as more fully
described in the application which is on file with the Commission and
open to public inspection. This project is referred to as the Sabine
Pass Compression Project. 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 protected] or call toll-free,<PHONE_NUMBER> or TTY,
(202) 502-8659.
    Specifically, the new compressor station will: (1) Allow Natural to
deliver an additional 400,000 dekatherms (Dth) per day of natural gas
on a firm basis to the SPL Terminal at a minimum delivery pressure and
(2) provide a level of increased operational flexibility on Natural's
system based on how Natural operates its existing Compressor Station
No. 342 and new CS 348, both on Natural's Louisiana Line Nos. 1 and 2.
    Any questions regarding this application should be directed to
Bruce

H. Newsome, Vice President, Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America
LLC, 3250 Lacey Road, Suite 700, Downers Grove, Illinois 60515-7918, or
call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by email: [email protected].
    Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's rules, 18 CFR 157.9,
within 90 days of this Notice the Commission staff will either:
complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the
Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding; or issue a
Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule
for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other
milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of
the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) or EA for this
proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's public record for
this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of Schedule for
Environmental Review will serve to notify federal and state agencies of
the timing for the completion of all necessary reviews, and the
subsequent need to complete all federal authorizations within 90 days
of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's FEIS or EA.
    There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of
this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by
becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or
before the comment date stated below file with the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426, a
motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or
385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person
obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by
the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all
documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must
submit 7 copies of filings made in the proceeding with the Commission
and must mail a copy to the applicant and to every other party. Only
parties to the proceeding can ask for court review of Commission orders
in the proceeding.
    However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have
comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with
the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and
two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project.
The Commission will consider these comments in determining the
appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will
not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's
rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project
provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly
involved in the protest.
    Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of
this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments
to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commentors will be
placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive
copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings
associated with the Commission's environmental review process.
Environmental commentors will not be required to serve copies of filed
documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commentors will
not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by
the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents
issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court
review of the Commission's final order.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments,
protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the eFiling link at
http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should
submit an original and 5 copies of the protest or intervention to the
Federal Energy regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington,
DC 20426.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on June 21, 2018.

    Dated: May 31, 2018.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-12124 Filed 6-5-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 124 (Monday, June 29, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 36915]
[FR Doc No: 2015-15928]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2015-0530]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zones; Annual Events Requiring Safety Zones in the Captain
of the Port Lake Michigan Zone--Town of Dune Acres Independence Day
Fireworks

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of enforcement of regulation.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard will enforce the safety zone for the Town of
Dune Acres Independence Day Fireworks on a portion of Lake Michigan, on
July 3, 2015. This action is necessary and intended to ensure safety of
life on the navigable waters of the United States immediately prior to,
during, and immediately after fireworks display. During the enforcement
period listed below, the Coast Guard will enforce restrictions upon,
and control movement of, vessels in the safety zone. No person or
vessel may enter the safety zone while it is being enforced without
permission of the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan.

DATES: The regulations in 33 CFR 165.929 will be enforced for safety
zone (e)(17), Table 33 CFR 165.929, on July 3, 2015 from 8:45 p.m.
until 10:30 p.m.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this
document, call or email LT Lindsay Cook, Waterways Management Division,
Marine Safety Unit Chicago, at<PHONE_NUMBER>, email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Coast Guard will enforce the Safety
Zone; Town of Dune Acres Independence Day Fireworks listed as item
(e)(17) in Table 165.929 of 33 CFR 165.929. Section 165.929 lists many
annual events requiring safety zones in the Captain of the Port Lake
Michigan zone. This safety zone encompasses all waters of Lake Michigan
within the arc of a circle with a 700-foot radius from the fireworks
launch site located in position 41[deg]39.303' N., 087[deg]05.239' W.
This zone will be enforced on July 03, 2015 from 8:45 p.m. until 10:30
p.m.
    All vessels must obtain permission from the Captain of the Port
Lake Michigan, or a designated on-scene representative to enter, move
within, or exit this safety zone. Requests must be made in advance and
approved by the Captain of the Port before transits will be authorized.
Approvals will be granted on a case by case basis. Vessels and persons
granted permission to enter the safety zone shall obey all lawful
orders or directions of the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan, or a
designated on-scene representative.
    This document is issued under authority of 33 CFR 165.929, Safety
Zones; Annual events requiring safety zones in the Captain of the Port
Lake Michigan zone, and 5 U.S.C. 552(a). In addition to this
publication in the Federal Register, the Coast Guard will provide the
maritime community with advance notification of this enforcement period
via Broadcast Notice to Mariners or Local Notice to Mariners. The
Captain of the Port Lake Michigan, or a designated on-scene
representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16 during the event.

    Dated: June 11, 2015.
A.B. Cocanour,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Lake Michigan.
[FR Doc. 2015-15928 Filed 6-26-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 179 (Thursday, September 15, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 56982-56983]
[FR Doc No: 2011-23662]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 124, 144, 145, 146, and 147

[EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0390; FRL-9465-1]

Announcement of Federal Underground Injection Control (UIC) Class
VI Program for Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Geologic Sequestration
(GS) Wells

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Establishment of Class VI Program.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is announcing the establishment of a Federal Underground
Injection Control (UIC) Class VI Program for Carbon Dioxide
(CO2) Geologic Sequestration (GS) Wells under which EPA will
directly implement the Class VI Program nationally as of September 7,
2011. States and potential owners or operators of CO2 GS
wells must submit all permit applications to the appropriate EPA Region
in order for a Class VI permit to be issued pursuant to the Federal
Requirements under the Class VI rule finalized on December 10, 2010.
Direct Federal implementation of the final Class VI requirements is in
effect until such time as a State-submitted primary enforcement
responsibility (primacy) application is approved by EPA.

DATES: The national Class VI Program is effective as of September 7,
2011.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lisa McWhirter, Underground Injection
Control Program, Drinking Water Protection Division, Office of Ground
Water and Drinking Water (MC-4606M), Environmental Protection Agency,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number:
(202) 564-2317; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For general information and to access
information on the final Class VI rule, visit the Underground Injection
Control Geologic Sequestration Web site at http://water.epa.gov/type/groundwater/uic/wells_sequestration.cfm.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    This action applies to all State and Tribal governments and owners
or operators of injection wells that will be used to inject
CO2 into the subsurface for the purposes of GS. Entities
include, but are not limited to, the following:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Examples of entities that this
             Category                         action applies to
------------------------------------------------------------------------
States and Tribal Governments.....  States and Tribal governments.
Private...........................  Owners or Operators of CO2 injection
                                     wells used for Class VI GS.
Private...........................  Owners or Operators of existing CO2
                                     injection wells transitioning from
                                     Class I, II, or Class V injection
                                     activities to Class VI GS.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This table is not intended to be an exhaustive list; rather it
provides a guide for readers regarding entities that this action
applies to. This action could also apply to other types of entities not
listed in the table. To determine

whether this action applies to your facility or authority, you should
carefully examine the applicability criteria found at 40 CFR part 146
in the Code of Federal Regulations. If you have questions regarding the
applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person
listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

B. How can I get copies of this document and other related information?

    1. Docket. EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0390. Publicly available docket materials
are available either electronically through http://www.regulations.gov
or in hard copy at the Water Docket in the EPA Docket Center, (EPA/DC)
EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., 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 Public Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone
number for the Water Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    2. Electronic Access. You may access this Federal Register document
electronically through the EPA Internet under the ``Federal Register''
listings at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/.

II. Background Information

    On December 10, 2010, EPA finalized minimum Federal requirements
under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) for underground injection of
CO2 for the purpose of GS (75 FR 77230) (Class VI Final
Rule). Under the authority of the SDWA, EPA established a new class of
well, Class VI, for underground injection of CO2 for the
purpose of GS. The Agency set minimum technical criteria for the
permitting, geologic site characterization, area of review (AoR) and
corrective action, financial responsibility, well construction,
operation, mechanical integrity testing (MIT), monitoring, well
plugging, post-injection site care (PISC), and site closure of Class VI
wells for the purposes of protecting underground sources of drinking
water (USDWs).
    Under 40 CFR 145.21(h) in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR),
EPA provided States 270 days, from December 10, 2010, to submit a
complete primary enforcement responsibility (primacy) application for
implementation of the Class VI Program that met the requirements of 40
CFR 145.22 or 145.32 (75 FR 77242). While the Agency has worked with
States interested in applying for Class VI Program primacy, as of
September 6, 2011, EPA has not received or approved any complete
primacy applications.

III. Class VI Program Implementation

    In the preamble to the Class VI Final Rule (75 FR 77242), EPA
clarified that, in light of national priorities for promoting climate
change mitigation strategies and Administration priorities for
developing and deploying CCS projects in the next few years as
highlighted in the ``Report of the Interagency Task Force on Carbon
Capture and Storage'' (August 2010), it is important to have
enforceable Class VI regulations in place nationwide as soon as
possible. As a result, in the Class VI Final Rule, EPA provided that
the Federal rule would become effective in every State that had not
submitted a primacy application within the 270-day transition period
provided by SDWA. The Agency committed to publishing, in the Federal
Register, a list of States where the Federal Class VI requirements have
become applicable beginning September 7, 2011 (75 FR 77242). Because
the Agency did not receive any complete primacy applications for Class
VI Program implementation by September 6, 2011, no States have received
Class VI primacy and the Federal requirements have become effective
nationwide. In situations where States have not been granted authority
to administer UIC Program regulations, EPA is responsible for
implementing the Program in accordance with the provisions at 40 CFR
145.21(h) and 147.1(d). EPA describes this process in the preamble to
the Class VI Final Rule at 75 FR 77242. In summary, on September 7,
2011, the Class VI permit requirements became effective throughout the
United States, and EPA now implements and enforces the Federal Class VI
requirements nationally, in all States, Tribes, and Territories even in
States, Tribes, or Territories that have primacy to administer the UIC
Program for other UIC well classes.
    As a result, beginning September 7:
     The ``transitional period'' during which States were able
to use existing UIC authorities (e.g., Class I or Class V) to permit GS
projects has ended (75 FR 77243). All current and future GS projects
must now be evaluated by the appropriate EPA Regional office (the Class
VI permitting authority).
     A State may no longer issue Class I permits for
CO2 injection for GS for purposes of complying with SDWA.
     Until a State receives primacy for the Class VI Program, a
State may not issue Class VI UIC permits (75 FR 77243) under SDWA. All
permit applications for GS projects must be directed to the appropriate
EPA Region in order for a Class VI permit to be issued (75 FR 77243).
EPA encourages owners or operators to contact EPA Regions regarding
existing and future GS projects. EPA Regions will work with States that
are considering applying for Class VI primacy, where possible, to
ensure that Class VI permits are designed in a way that will be
compatible with the final State Program requirements. EPA expects the
majority, if not all, of the wells injecting CO2 for GS to
obtain Class VI permits.The Agency anticipates that few, if any Class V
experimental technology well permits will be issued under SDWA for
future GS projects. (75 FR 77245-46) EPA will determine, based on
evaluation of project-specific information, whether a project needs to
be permitted as a Class V experimental technology well because the
Class VI requirements would be technologically inappropriate or would
not adequately address the environmental risks of the project. In such
cases, EPA will coordinate with the appropriate Class V permitting
authority which may, in some cases, be the State.
     As provided in 40 CFR 146.81(c), owners or operators of
either Class I wells previously permitted for the purpose of GS or
Class V experimental technology wells no longer being used for
experimental purposes that will continue injection of CO2
for the purpose of GS must apply to the appropriate EPA Region for a
Class VI permit by December 10, 2011.
     A State may, at any time in the future, apply for Class VI
Program primacy following establishment of a Federal Class VI UIC
Program. If a State receives Class VI Program primacy approval in the
future, EPA will publish a subsequent Federal Register notice that
codifies the State Class VI Program in 40 CFR part 147; at that point,
the State, rather than EPA, will implement the Class VI Program. For
additional information about applying for Class VI Program primacy
under SDWA Section 1422, see requirements at 40 CFR part 145 and the
final rule and preamble (75 FR 77230-77303; December 10, 2010).

    Dated: September 9, 2011.
Cynthia C. Dougherty,
Director, Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water.
[FR Doc. 2011-23662 Filed 9-14-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 11 (Tuesday, January 19, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 2867-2868]
[FR Doc No: 2010-783]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2009-N-0465]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for Office
of Management and Budget Review; Comment Request; Food Additive
Petitions

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a
proposed collection of information has been submitted to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

DATES: Fax written comments on the collection of information by
February 18, 2010.

ADDRESSES:  To ensure that comments on the information collection are
received, OMB recommends that written comments be faxed to the Office
of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attn: FDA Desk Officer,
FAX:<PHONE_NUMBER>, or e-mailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>All
comments should be identified with the OMB control number 0910-0546.
Also include the FDA docket number found in brackets in the heading of
this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Denver Presley Jr., Office of
Information Management (HFA-710), Food and Drug Administration, 5600
Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, FDA has
submitted the following proposed collection of information to OMB for
review and clearance.

Food Additive Petitions (OMB Control Number 0910-0546)--Extension

    Section 409(a) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the
act) (21 U.S.C. 348(a)) provides that a food additive shall be deemed
to be unsafe unless its use is permitted by a regulation which
prescribes the condition(s) under which it may safely be used, or
unless it is exempted by regulation for investigational use. Section
409(b) of the act specifies the information that must be submitted by a
petition in order to establish the safety of a food additive and to
secure the issuance of a regulation permitting its use.
    To implement the provision of section 409 of the act, procedural
regulations have been issued under part 571 (21 CFR part 571). These
procedural regulations are designed to specify more thoroughly the
information that must be submitted to meet the requirement set down in
broader terms by the law. The regulations add no substantive
requirements to those indicated in the law, but seek to explain the
requirements and provide a standard format for submission of petitions,
that when implemented, will speed up the time for processing. Labeling
requirements for food additives intended for animal consumption are
also set forth in various regulations contained in 21 CFR parts 573,
582, and 584 of the act. The labeling regulations are considered by FDA
to be cross referenced to Sec.  571.1, which is the subject of this
same OMB clearance for food additive petitions.
    In the Federal Register of October 6, 2009 (74 FR 51287), FDA
published a 60-day notice requesting public comment on the proposed
collection of information. No comments were received.
    FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as
follows:

                                                     Table 1.--Estimated Annual Reporting Burden\1\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              No. of        Annual Frequency of     Total Annual        Hours  per
                    21 CFR Section                         Respondents           Response            Responses           Response         Total Hours
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
571.1(c) moderate category                                              1                     1                  1              3,000              3,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
571.1(c) complex category                                               1                     1                  1             10,000             10,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
571.6 amendment of petition                                             2                     2                  4               1300              5,200
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Hours                                                                                18,200
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of information.

    571.1(c) moderate category: For food additive petition without
complex chemistry, manufacturing, efficacy or safety issues, the
estimated time requirement per petition is approximately 3,000 hours.
An average of one petitions of this type is received on an annual
basis, resulting in a burden of 3,000 hours.
    571.1(c) complex category: For a food additive petition with
complex chemistry, manufacturing, efficacy and/or safety issues, the
estimated time requirement per petition is approximately 10,000 hours.
An average of one petition of this type is received on an annual basis,
resulting in a burden of 10,000 hours.
    571.6: For a food additive petition amendment, the estimated time
requirement per petition is approximately 1,300 hours. An average of
four petitions of this type is received on an annual basis, resulting
in a burden of 5,200 hours.
    Thus, the estimated total annual burden for this information
collection is 18,200 hours.

    Dated: January 12, 2010.
David Dorsey,
Acting Deputy Commissioner for Policy, Planning and Budget.
[FR Doc. 2010-783 Filed 1-15-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-S


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 74 (Wednesday, April 17, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 22872]
[FR Doc No: 2013-09018]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. AD13-1-000]

Review of Cost Submittals by Other Federal Agencies for
Administering Part I of the Federal Power Act; Notice Requesting
Questions and Comments on Fiscal Year 2012 Other Federal Agency Cost
Submissions

    In its Order On Rehearing Consolidating Administrative Annual
Charges Bill Appeals And Modifying Annual Charges Billing Procedures,
109 FERC ] 61,040 (2004) (October 8 Order) the Commission set forth an
annual process for Other Federal Agencies (OFAs) to submit their costs
related to Administering Part I of the Federal Power Act. Pursuant to
the established process, the Director of the Financial Management
Division, Office of the Executive Director, on October 10, 2012, issued
a letter requesting the OFAs to submit their costs by January 8, 2013
using the OFA Cost Submission Form.
    Upon receipt of the agency submissions, the Commission posted the
information in eLibrary, and issued, on March 13, 2013, a notice
announcing the date for a technical conference to review the submitted
costs. On March 28, 2013, the Commission held the technical conference.
Technical conference transcripts, submitted cost forms, and detailed
supporting documents are all available for review under Docket No.
AD13-1. These documents are accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov,
using the ``eLibrary'' link and are available for review in the
Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC.
    Interested parties may file specific questions and comments on the
FY 2012 OFA cost submissions with the Commission under Docket No. AD13-
1, no later than April 25, 2013. Once filed, the Commission will
forward the questions and comments to the OFAs for response.
    Anyone with questions pertaining to the technical conference or
this notice should contact W. Doug Foster at<PHONE_NUMBER> (via email
at doug.foster@ferc.gov), or Norman Richardson at<PHONE_NUMBER> (via
email at norman.richardson@ferc.gov).

    Dated: April 11, 2013.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-09018 Filed 4-16-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 178 (Thursday, September 13, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 56703-56708]
[FR Doc No: 2012-22612]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2012-0133]

Public Hearing to Determine Whether ZAP Has Met Notification and
Remedy Requirements

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of public hearing.

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

SUMMARY: NHTSA will hold a public hearing on whether ZAP,\1\ a publicly
owned company based in Santa Rosa, California, has reasonably met its
obligations to notify owners, purchasers, and dealers of noncompliances
with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 122, Motorcycle
brake systems, and to remedy those noncompliances in two recalls
involving Model Year (MY) 2008 ZAP Xebra three-wheeled vehicles, which
ZAP imported from China.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ ZAP also does business as ZAP Jonway. See http://www.zapworld.com/.

DATES: The public hearing will be held beginning at 10 a.m. ET on
October 9, 2012 in the Oklahoma City room of the U.S. Department of
Transportation Conference Center, located at 1200 New Jersey Avenue
SE., Washington, DC 20590. NHTSA recommends that all persons attending
the proceedings arrive at least 45 minutes early in order to facilitate
entry into the Conference Center. NHTSA cannot ensure that late
arrivals will be permitted access to the hearing. Attendees are
strongly discouraged from bringing laptop computers to the hearing, as
they will be subject to additional security measures. If you wish to
attend or speak at the hearing, you must register in advance no later
than October 2, 2012 (and September 28, 2012 for non-U.S. citizens), by
following the instructions in the Procedural Matters section of this
notice. NHTSA will consider late registrants to the extent time and
space allows, but cannot ensure that late registrants will be able to
attend or speak at the hearing. To ensure that NHTSA has an opportunity
to consider comments, NHTSA must receive written comments by October 2,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2012.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments to the docket number identified in
the heading of this document by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility, M-30, U.S. Department of
Transportation, West Building, Ground Floor, Rm. W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Regardless of how you submit your comments, you should mention the
docket number of this document.
    You may call the Docket at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Note that all comments received will be posted without change to
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For registration to attend or speak at
the public hearing: Sabrina Fleming, National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590
(Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>) (Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>). For hearing procedures:
Kerry Kolodziej, Office of the Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590
(Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>) (Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>). Information regarding
the recalls is available on NHTSA's Web site: http://www.safercar.gov.
To find these recalls: (1) In the drop-down menu under ``Safety
Recalls,'' search for a recall by vehicle; (2) select model year 2008;
(3) select ZAP as the make; (4) select Xebra as the model; and (5)
click ``Retrieve Recalls.'' Once information on the recalls is
displayed, clicking on the ``Document Search'' buttons will display
recall-related documents.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(e) and 30120(e),
and 49 CFR 557.6(d) and 557.7, NHTSA has decided to hold a public
hearing on whether ZAP has reasonably met its obligations under the
National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, as amended (Safety Act),
to provide notifications regarding the MY 2008 ZAP Xebra's
noncompliances with FMVSS No. 122, Motorcycle brake systems (49 CFR
571.122), and to remedy those noncompliances. The noncompliances are
the subject of two recall campaigns, Recall Nos. 09V-177/12V-230 and
09V-385/12V-363.

I. Initiation of a Recall

    A manufacturer of a motor vehicle that decides in good faith that
the vehicle does not comply with an applicable FMVSS must notify NHTSA
by submitting a Defect and Noncompliance Information Report, commonly
referred to as a Part 573 Report. 49 U.S.C. 30118(c); 49 CFR 573.6. A
Part 573 Report shall be submitted not more than 5 working days after a
noncompliance with a FMVSS has been determined to exist. 49 CFR
573.6(b). The manufacturer must subsequently file quarterly reports
with NHTSA containing information including the status of the
manufacturer's recall notification campaign and the number of vehicles
that have been remedied. 49 CFR 573.7.
    Pursuant to the Safety Act, a ``manufacturer'' of a motor vehicle
includes both a person manufacturing or assembling motor vehicles, and
a person importing motor vehicles for resale. 49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(5).
Both the importer of a motor vehicle and the vehicle's fabricating
manufacturer are responsible for any noncompliance determined to exist
in the vehicle. 49 CFR 573.5(a). As to imported motor vehicles,
compliance with recall regulations by either the fabricating
manufacturer or the importer of the vehicle shall be considered
compliance by both. 49 CFR 573.3(b).

II. Notification Requirements

    In addition to its notification to NHTSA, if the manufacturer of a
motor vehicle decides in good faith that the vehicle does not comply
with an applicable FMVSS, the manufacturer must notify owners,
purchasers, and dealers of the vehicle of the noncompliance. 49 U.S.C.
30118(c); see 49 CFR part 573; 49 CFR part 577.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ A manufacturer is required to furnish NHTSA with a copy of
each communication involving a recall that the manufacturer issued
to, or made available to, more than one dealer, distributor, lessor,
lessee, other manufacturer, owner, or purchaser, no later than five
working days after the end of the month in which it is issued. 49
CFR 579.5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The manufacturer must send a notification of the noncompliance, by
first class mail, to each person registered under State law as the
owner of the vehicle and whose name and address are reasonably
ascertainable by the manufacturer through State records or other
available sources. 49 U.S.C. 30119(d); 49 CFR 577.7(a)(2)(i).\3\ If the
owner cannot be reasonably ascertained, the manufacturer shall notify
the most recent purchaser known to the manufacturer. 49 U.S.C.
30119(d); 49 CFR 577.7(a)(2)(i). As explained in NHTSA's Safety Recall
Compendium: ``It is critically important that owners be informed
promptly of unreasonable risks to their safety and failures of their
products to meet minimum safety standards, and even in those cases
where the manufacturer may not have perfected its free remedy or may
not have sufficient parts to be able to remedy all the recalled
products for all owners immediately. Accordingly, it is expected that
manufacturers issue their owner notification letters within 60 days of
making a safety defect or noncompliance decision.'' \4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Among other things, the notification to owners must contain
a clear description of the noncompliance, an evaluation of the risk
to motor vehicle safety reasonably related to the noncompliance, the
measures to be taken to obtain a remedy of the noncompliance, and
the earliest date on which the noncompliance will be remedied
without charge. 49 U.S.C. 30119(a); see 49 CFR part 577.
    \4\ NHTSA, Safety Recall Compendium at 7-8, http://www-odi.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/problems/recalls/documents/recompendium.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, a manufacturer must send notifications to dealers and
distributors, as specified by 49 CFR 577.13. These notifications must
be sent within a reasonable time after the manufacturer first decides
that a noncompliance exists. 49 U.S.C. 30119(c); 49 CFR 577.7(a). The
notifications must include an advisory that it is a violation of
Federal law for a dealer to deliver a new motor vehicle covered by the
notification under a sale or lease until the noncompliance is remedied.
49 CFR 577.13; see 49 U.S.C. 30112(a)(1) (prohibiting a person from
selling or offering for sale a vehicle that does not comply with an
applicable FMVSS).
    On its own motion or on petition of any interested person, NHTSA
may conduct a hearing to decide whether a manufacturer has reasonably
met its notification requirements. 49 U.S.C. 30118(e). If NHTSA decides
that the manufacturer has not reasonably met the notification
requirements, it shall order the manufacturer to take specified action
to meet those requirements and may take any other action authorized by
the Safety Act, including assessing civil penalties. See 49 U.S.C.
30118(e), 30165(a)(1). A person that violates the Safety Act, including
the notification requirements, or regulations prescribed thereunder, is
liable to the United States Government for a civil penalty of not more
than $6,000 for each violation. A separate violation occurs for each
motor vehicle and for each failure to perform a required act. The
maximum penalty for a related series of violations is $17,350,000. 49
U.S.C. 30165(a)(1); 49 CFR 578.6.

III. Remedy Requirements

    A manufacturer of a noncomplying motor vehicle is required to
remedy the vehicle without charge. 49 U.S.C. 30120(a). The manufacturer
may remedy the noncompliance by repairing the vehicle, by replacing the
vehicle with an identical or reasonably equivalent vehicle, or by
refunding the purchase price, less a reasonable allowance for
depreciation. 49 U.S.C. 30120(a). If a manufacturer decides to repair a
noncomplying motor vehicle and the repair is not done adequately within
a reasonable time, the manufacturer shall replace the vehicle without
charge with an identical or reasonably equivalent vehicle, or refund
the purchase price, less a reasonable allowance for depreciation. 49
U.S.C. 30120(c).
    On its own motion or on application by any interested person, NHTSA
may conduct a hearing to decide whether a manufacturer has reasonably
met the remedy requirements. 49 U.S.C. 30120(e). If NHTSA decides that
the manufacturer has not reasonably met

the remedy requirements, it shall order the manufacturer to take
specified action to meet those requirements, including by ordering the
manufacturer to refund the purchase price of the noncomplying vehicles,
less a reasonable allowance for depreciation. 49 U.S.C. 30120(a), (c),
(e). NHTSA may also take any other action authorized by the Safety Act,
including assessing civil penalties. See 49 U.S.C. 30120(e),
30165(a)(1). A person that violates the Safety Act, including the
remedy requirements, or regulations prescribed thereunder, is liable to
the United States Government for a civil penalty of not more than
$6,000 for each violation. A separate violation occurs for each motor
vehicle and for each failure to perform a required act. The maximum
penalty for a related series of violations is $17,350,000. 49 U.S.C.
30165(a)(1); 49 CFR 578.6.

IV. MY 2008 ZAP Xebra

    ZAP is the importer of the MY 2008 ZAP Xebra and the registered
agent for the fabricating manufacturer, China Qingqi Group Inc./Qingqi
Group Motorcycle Co. Ltd. (``Qingqi Group'') of China. The MY 2008 ZAP
Xebra is an electric, three-wheeled vehicle with a sedan or truck body
style. As a three-wheeled vehicle, the MY 2008 ZAP Xebra is subject to
the FMVSSs for motorcycles. See 49 CFR 571.3(b).

A. NHTSA's Investigation of the MY 2008 ZAP Xebra

    In late 2008, NHTSA tested a NHTSA-owned MY 2008 ZAP Xebra for
compliance with FMVSS No. 122, Motorcycle brake systems, at
Transportation Research Center Inc. (TRC) in East Liberty, Ohio.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See NHTSA, Safety Compliance Testing for FMVSS 122, Final
Report No. 122-TRC-10-004 (Nov. 8, 2010). The test report is
publicly available by searching on http://www.nhtsa.gov/cars/problems/comply/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NHTSA identified multiple apparent noncompliances with FMVSS No.
122. Two of the apparent noncompliances related to the stopping
distance requirements of FMVSS No. 122. First, the vehicle did not
comply with the first effectiveness requirement of FMVSS No. 122,
S5.2.1, Service brake system, because the service brakes were not
capable of stopping the motorcycle from 30 m.p.h. within 54 feet during
NHTSA's testing. Second, following the burnishing procedure specified
in the Standard, the vehicle did not comply with FMVSS No. 122, S5.3,
Service brake system--second effectiveness, because the service brakes
were not capable of stopping the motorcycle from 30 m.p.h. within 43
feet during NHTSA's testing. Due to these apparent noncompliances with
the stopping distance requirements, NHTSA terminated its testing of the
vehicle after the second effectiveness test.
    At various times, NHTSA also observed three additional apparent
noncompliances with other requirements of FMVSS No. 122. First, the
vehicle did not comply with FMVSS No. 122, S<IP_ADDRESS>, Master cylinder
reservoirs, because it did not have a separate reservoir for each brake
circuit with each reservoir filler opening having its own cover, seal,
and cover retention device. Second, the vehicle did not comply with
FMVSS No. 122, S<IP_ADDRESS>, Reservoir labeling, because the label was not
correctly worded and some of the letters were not at the minimum
required height. Finally, the vehicle did not comply with FMVSS No.
122, S<IP_ADDRESS>, Failure indicator lamp, because the vehicle did not have
a failure indicator lamp (which is required to activate for pressure
failure, low fluid, and momentarily when the ignition switch is turned
to the ``on'' or ``start'' position).
    NHTSA notified ZAP of the apparent noncompliances with the stopping
distance and reservoir labeling requirements on April 9, 2009.\6\ NHTSA
notified ZAP of the apparent noncompliance with the master cylinder
reservoir requirement on August 21, 2009.\7\ NHTSA notified ZAP of the
apparent noncompliance with the failure indicator lamp requirement on
approximately June 9, 2010.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Letter from H. Thompson, NHTSA to G. Starr, ZAP (Apr. 9,
2009).
    \7\ Email from S. Seigel, NHTSA to J. Long, ZAP (Aug. 21, 2009).
    \8\ Phone call log of S. Seigel, NHTSA (June 9, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. ZAP's Notifications to NHTSA of FMVSS No. 122 Noncompliances

1. Initial Recall Campaigns (Recall Nos. 09V-177 and 09V-385) \9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The Part 573 Reports and other documents relevant to the
recalls are available at www.safercar.gov.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ZAP first notified NHTSA that the MY 2008 ZAP Xebra was
noncompliant with the FMVSS No. 122 stopping distance requirements by
submitting to NHTSA a Part 573 Report prepared on May 18, 2009.\10\
NHTSA assigned Recall Number 09V-177 to this recall campaign.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Recall No. 09V-177, Part 573 Report (prepared May 18,
2009). Although ZAP submitted the Part 573 Report to NHTSA, it
stated that Qingqi Group decided on April 27, 2009 that the
noncompliance existed. Compliance with recall regulations by either
the fabricating manufacturer or the importer of a vehicle is
considered compliance by both. 49 CFR 573.3(b). Nothing herein
limits Qingqi Group's responsibilities and liabilities for the
noncompliances of these vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In a second Part 573 Report, prepared on September 30, 2009, ZAP
notified NHTSA of its decision that the MY 2008 ZAP Xebra does not
comply with FMVSS No. 122, S1.2.1, Master cylinder reservoirs.\11\
NHTSA assigned Recall Number 09V-385 to this recall campaign. ZAP
subsequently submitted an untimely petition for inconsequential
noncompliance, see 49 CFR 556.4(c), which NHTSA denied on November 25,
2009.\12\ ZAP then submitted an amended Part 573 Report, prepared on
December 9, 2009, for this noncompliance.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Recall No. 09V-385, Part 573 Report (prepared Sept. 30,
2009). Based on this Part 573 Report, ZAP decided that the
noncompliance existed on September 30, 2009.
    \12\ Letter from C. Harris, NHTSA to J. Long, ZAP (Nov. 25,
2009).
    \13\ Recall No. 09V-385, Amended Part 573 Report (prepared Dec.
9, 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Most recently, ZAP reported that there are 691 vehicles subject to
the recalls.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Recall 09V-177, Quarterly Report (dated July 30, 2012);
Recall 09V-385, Quarterly Report (dated July 30, 2012). ZAP
initially reported there were 738 vehicles subject to the recalls,
but has not explained why the number has changed. See Recall No.
09V-177, Part 573 Report II; Recall No. 09V-385, Part 573 Report
Sec.  II.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Renewed Recall Campaigns (Recall Nos. 12V-230 and 12V-363)
    At NHTSA's request, ZAP initiated renewed recall campaigns for
these FMVSS No. 122 noncompliances. After several months of delay,\15\
ZAP submitted a new Part 573 Report, prepared May 18, 2012, addressing
the noncompliance with the stopping distance requirements.\16\ NHTSA
assigned Recall Number 12V-230 to this renewed recall campaign
(previously designated as Recall No. 09V-177). ZAP later submitted a
new Part 573 Report, prepared on July 18, 2012, for the noncompliance
with the master cylinder reservoir requirement.\17\ NHTSA assigned
Recall Number 12V-363 to this renewed recall campaign (previously
designated as Recall No. 09V-385).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See Letter from S. Schneider, ZAP to H. Thompson and S.
Seigel, NHTSA (Dec. 10, 2011); Letter from S. Schneider, ZAP to H.
Thompson, NHTSA (Apr. 2, 2012).
    \16\ Recall No. 12V-230, Part 573 Report (prepared May 18,
2012).
    \17\ Recall No. 12V-363, Part 573 Report (prepared July 18,
2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Other Apparent Noncompliances Identified by NHTSA
    As discussed above, NHTSA also identified apparent noncompliances
with FMVSS No. 122, S<IP_ADDRESS>, Reservoir labeling, and with FMVSS No.
122, S<IP_ADDRESS>, Failure indicator lamp. To date, ZAP has not submitted a
Part 573 Report to notify NHTSA that it has

decided in good faith that the MY 2008 ZAP Xebra does not comply with
these aspects of FMVSS No. 122.\18\ However, as discussed below, ZAP's
repair remedy does purport to address these apparent noncompliances.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ ZAP likewise has not notified owners, purchasers, and
dealers regarding these apparent noncompliances.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. ZAP's Recall Notifications to Owners, Purchasers, and Dealers

1. Initial Recall Campaigns (Recall Nos. 09V-177 and 09V-385)
    ZAP used an internal customer warranty database as its sole source
of contact information for its recall notifications to owners and/or
purchasers.\19\ ZAP repeatedly represented to NHTSA that it was working
to obtain information on registered owners.\20\ However, as of its July
30, 2012 response to a Special Order from NHTSA seeking additional
information regarding the recalls, ZAP stated that it still had not
obtained contact information for registered owners of MY 2008 ZAP
Xebras, from State records or other available sources.\21\ See 49 CFR
577.7(a)(2)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See ZAP, Response to Special Order, Interrogatory No. 6
(July 30, 2012).
    \20\ See Letter from S. Schneider, ZAP to H. Thompson and S.
Seigel, NHTSA (Dec. 10, 2011); Letter from S. Schneider, ZAP to H.
Thompson, NHTSA (Apr. 2, 2012); Letter from S. Schneider, ZAP to J.
Timian, NHTSA (May 28, 2012).
    \21\ See ZAP, Response to Special Order, Interrogatory No. 8
(July 30, 2012). ZAP represented in its Special Order response that
it had entered into a contract with R.L. Polk to search for
registered owners of the vehicles, and that it would take R.L. Polk
approximately a month to complete the work. ZAP, Response to Special
Order, Interrogatory No. 8 (July 30, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ZAP provided NHTSA with inconsistent information on when it began
notifying purchasers and/or owners of the recalls. In its July 30, 2012
response to the Special Order, ZAP stated that it sent its first owner
notification letter for Recall No. 09V-177 on September 21, 2009, and
for Recall No. 09V-385 on January 29, 2010.\22\ However, in quarterly
reports, also dated July 30, 2012, ZAP indicated that it began
notifying purchasers of both recalls in January of 2010. ZAP's owner
letters indicated that owners should contact a dealer as soon as
possible to arrange for repair.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ ZAP, Response to Special Order, Interrogatory No. 6 (July
30, 2012).
    \23\ ZAP, Response to Special Order, Sch. D-E (July 30, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Despite NHTSA's request in its Special Order to ZAP dated July 13,
2012, ZAP failed to provide NHTSA with a complete list of owners to
whom it sent a notification letter for Recall Nos. 09V-177 and 09V-
385.\24\ Therefore, it is not known whether ZAP sent a notification
letter to each individual or business listed in its customer warranty
database.\25\ In ZAP's most recent quarterly reports to NHTSA for these
recalls, dated July 30, 2012, ZAP did not provide a date that its
notification to purchasers was completed, instead responding that the
notification process was continuing.\26\ In its response to NHTSA's
Special Order, ZAP explained that it plans to send additional
notifications once it confirms through vehicle testing that it has an
effective repair remedy.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ See NHTSA, Special Order to ZAP, Interrogatory No. 6 (July
13, 2012). NHTSA's regulations require each manufacturer of a motor
vehicle to maintain a list of the names and addresses of registered
owners, as determined through State motor vehicle registration
records or other sources or the most recent purchasers where the
registered owners are unknown, for all vehicles involved in a
noncompliance notification campaign. The list shall include the VIN
for each vehicle and the status of remedy with respect to each
vehicle. Each vehicle manufacturer shall also maintain a list of the
names and addresses of all dealers and distributors to which a
noncompliance notification was sent. 49 CFR 573.8(a).
    \25\ ZAP's customer warranty database only appears to include
contact information related to approximately 116 MY 2008 ZAP Xebras
(identified by VIN). Based on its most recent quarterly reports,
dated July 30, 2012, there are 691 vehicles subject to these
recalls.
    \26\ Recall 09V-177, Quarterly Report (dated July 30, 2012);
Recall 09V-385, Quarterly Report (dated July 30, 2012).
    \27\ ZAP, Response to Special Order, Interrogatory Nos. 8-9
(July 30, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In October 2011, NHTSA requested that ZAP renotify owners of Recall
Nos. 09V-177 and 09V-385.\28\ See 49 U.S.C. 30119(e). In its Special
Order, NHTSA asked ZAP to provide a list including name, address, and
date for each owner to whom ZAP sent a renotification letter for these
recalls.\29\ ZAP failed to respond.\30\ Thus, it appears that ZAP has
not sent out any renotification letters, despite repeatedly promising
to do so.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ See, e.g., Letter from R. Willard, NHTSA to S. Schneider,
ZAP (Oct. 6, 2011) (Recall No. 09V-177); Letter from R. Willard,
NHTSA to S. Schneider, ZAP (Oct. 11, 2011) (Recall No. 09V-385).
    \29\ NHTSA, Special Order to ZAP, Interrogatory No. 6 (July 13,
2012).
    \30\ See ZAP, Response to Special Order, Interrogatory No. 6
(July 30, 2012).
    \31\ See Letter from S. Schneider, ZAP to H. Thompson and S.
Seigel, NHTSA (Dec. 10, 2011); Letter from S. Schneider, ZAP to H.
Thompson, NHTSA (Apr. 2, 2012); see also Letter from J. Timian,
NHTSA, to S. Schneider, ZAP (Mar. 9, 2012) (indicating that NHTSA
had not received draft renotification letters or evidence of
renotification).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It also appears ZAP never sent MY 2008 ZAP Xebra dealers the
required notification of Recall Nos. 09V-177 and 09V-385. See 49 CFR
577.13. ZAP has not sent NHTSA a representative copy of any dealer
notification. Although ZAP's customer warranty database appears to
include some dealers, it is not clear whether it includes all MY 2008
ZAP Xebra dealers. Furthermore, as noted above, NHTSA is not aware
whether ZAP sent each individual and business listed in that database a
notification.\32\ Moreover, the notifications ZAP sent were addressed
to owners and did not include information required to be disclosed to
dealers, including the advisory regarding sales or leases of
noncompliant vehicles.\33\ See 49 CFR 577.13. Dealers, including ZAP's
wholly owned subsidiary, Voltage Vehicles, have continued to offer for
sale and sell MY 2008 ZAP Xebras despite the recalls.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ ZAP's customer warranty database indicates that some
vehicles are still for sale, despite the prohibition against
offering for sale a motor vehicle that does not comply with
applicable FMVSSs. See 49 U.S.C. 30112(a)(1); ZAP, Response to
Special Order, Sch. F (July 30, 2012).
    \33\ ZAP, Response to Special Order, Sch. D-E (July 30, 2012).
    \34\ See, e.g., http://www.voltagevehicles.com/; Letter from S.
Schneider, ZAP to J. Timian, NHTSA (May 28, 2012) (indicating that
ZAP has 9 vehicles ``sold--in inventory,'' which are reserved for
certain customers).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Renewed Recall Campaigns (Recall Nos. 12V-230 and 12V-363)
    ZAP has not sent out any notification letters to owners,
purchasers, or dealers of the renewed recall campaigns.\35\ ZAP
represented in its July 30, 2012 response to the Special Order that it
does not plan to send additional notifications until it confirms
through vehicle testing that it has an effective repair remedy.\36\ ZAP
did not indicate any plans to send dealer notifications for the renewed
recall campaigns.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ See ZAP, Response to Special Order, Interrogatory No. 6
(July 30, 2012).
    \36\ See ZAP, Response to Special Order, Interrogatory Nos. 8-9
(July 30, 2012). In its Part 573 Reports initiating the renewed
recalls, ZAP indicated that it will send notices to purchasers of
the MY 2008 ZAP Xebra sedan once it has confirmed through vehicle
testing that it has an effective repair remedy. According to those
Part 573 Reports, 337 of the 691 vehicles subject to the recalls are
sedans. ZAP did not indicate that it plans to send notifications to
owners and purchasers of MY 2008 ZAP Xebra trucks, which are 354 of
the 691 vehicles subject to the recalls.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. ZAP's Repair Remedy

    ZAP elected the remedy of repairing the FMVSS No. 122
noncompliances subject to the recalls. See 49 U.S.C. 30120(a). However,
as of the end of July 2012, ZAP conceded none of the vehicles subject
to the recalls has been fully and successfully repaired.\37\ While

ZAP previously reported that some vehicles had been remedied, ZAP
acknowledged that those vehicles will need to be re-remedied.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ See Recall 09V-177, Quarterly Report (dated July 30, 2012)
(indicating ``[s]ince we have not successfully passed the Testing,
none of the reported vehicles fixed can be reported as successfully
completed'').
    \38\ See ZAP, Response to Special Order, Interrogatory No. 9
(July 30, 2012). NHTSA has also received complaints from MY 2008 ZAP
Xebra owners that their vehicles were not repaired. See www-odi.nhtsa.dot.gov/complaints (NHTSA ODI Nos. 10320166 and 10415384).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After recalling the vehicles, ZAP claimed that, in 2009, it
developed a successful repair remedy that was over engineered for
stopping and not economically feasible.\39\ ZAP elected not to
implement this remedy, and contracted with Wilwood Engineering
(Wilwood) to develop a different repair remedy. Wilwood provided ZAP
with a report in April 2010 recommending certain modifications for the
vehicle to meet the requirements of FMVSS No. 122.\40\ Wilwood's
recommendations addressed the stopping distance and master cylinder
requirements, which are the subject of the recalls. Additionally,
Wilwood recommended that, to meet FMVSS No. 122, the reservoirs or caps
need to have a warning statement (FMVSS No. 122, S<IP_ADDRESS>), and the
indicator on the dash needs to have a legend that reads ``Brake
Failure'' and needs to turn on momentarily when the key is moved to the
``on'' or ``start'' position (FMVSS No. 122, S<IP_ADDRESS>).\41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ Letter from S. Schneider, ZAP to H. Thompson, NHTSA (Apr.
2, 2012).
    \40\ See ZAP, Response to Special Order, Sch. C (July 30, 2012).
    \41\ ZAP, Response to Special Order, Sch. C at 6 (July 30,
2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After receiving Wilwood's recommendations, between May and December
2010, ZAP purported to repair the NHTSA-owned MY 2008 ZAP Xebra.\42\
Prior to retesting its vehicle, NHTSA made repeated inquiries of ZAP to
confirm that ZAP performed its proposed repair remedy on the vehicle.
After ZAP was unresponsive to NHTSA's informal requests,\43\ NHTSA sent
a formal Information Request (IR) to ZAP on November 22, 2011.\44\ ZAP
responded on December 10, 2011.\45\ ZAP stated in its response that it
was unable to confirm what modifications were made to the NHTSA-owned
vehicle and vehicles in the field, and that additional modifications
may be necessary to the vehicles to ensure full compliance with FMVSS
No. 122. ZAP also indicated that it would use an independent third-
party testing facility to confirm that its repair remedy would make the
vehicles compliant with FMVSS No. 122.\46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ See Letter from H. Thompson, NHTSA, to S. Schneider, ZAP
(Nov. 22, 2011).
    \43\ ZAP has also repeatedly failed to file required quarterly
reports regarding the recalls. See, e.g., Letter from R. Willard,
NHTSA to S. Schneider, ZAP (Oct. 6, 2011) (Recall No. 09V-177);
Letter from R. Willard, NHTSA to S. Schneider, ZAP (Oct. 11, 2011)
(Recall No. 09V-385).
    \44\ Letter from H. Thompson, NHTSA, to S. Schneider, ZAP (Nov.
22, 2011).
    \45\ Letter from S. Schneider, ZAP to H. Thompson, NHTSA (Dec.
10, 2011).
    \46\ Letter from S. Schneider, ZAP to H. Thompson, NHTSA (Dec.
10, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NHTSA sent a second IR to ZAP on March 9, 2012 to obtain additional
information regarding the status of the recalls.\47\ ZAP responded on
April 2, 2012.\48\ ZAP stated that it had contracted with KARCO
Engineering (KARCO) in January 2012 to test a repaired MY 2008 ZAP
Xebra, and that the vehicle failed to meet the FMVSS No. 122 stopping
distance requirements based on KARCO's testing. KARCO retested the
vehicle in March 2012, and it again failed to meet the stopping
distance requirements. ZAP indicated that it had since made additional
modifications to the vehicle and would send the vehicle back to KARCO
for further testing. ZAP represented that it expected to be able to
implement a repair remedy by July 15, 2012.\49\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ Letter from J. Timian, NHTSA, to S. Schneider, ZAP (Mar. 9,
2012).
    \48\ Letter from S. Schneider, ZAP to H. Thompson, NHTSA (Apr.
2, 2012). At that time, ZAP represented that if it has not developed
a successful repair remedy by September 30, 2012, it will initiate a
repurchase campaign. However, ZAP subsequently claimed to have
developed a repair remedy that will bring the recalled vehicles into
full compliance with FMVSS No. 122. ZAP, Response to Special Order,
Interrogatory No. 1 (July 30, 2012).
    \49\ Letter from S. Schneider, ZAP to H. Thompson, NHTSA (Apr.
2, 2012). Although ZAP recognized at that time that it had not yet
developed a repair remedy that brings the vehicles into full
compliance with FMVSS No. 122, it continued to report to NHTSA that
it had remedied vehicles. See Recall No. 09V-177, Quarterly Report
(May 7, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In May and June 2012, KARCO again tested a MY 2008 ZAP Xebra sent
to it by ZAP, and that vehicle also failed to meet the stopping
distance requirements of FMVSS No. 122.\50\ KARCO's test report further
indicated that the vehicle's brake failure indicator lamp did not meet
the minimum height requirement of three-thirty seconds of an inch.\51\
See 49 CFR 571.122, S<IP_ADDRESS>(d).\52\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \50\ See KARCO, Response to Special Order, Interrogatory No. 1
(July 30, 2012). According to KARCO, the vehicle initially did not
pass the first effectiveness test. ZAP requested that KARCO make
modifications to the vehicle; through trial and error modifications,
the vehicle subsequently passed the first effectiveness test.
However, the vehicle could not pass the second effectiveness test,
and testing was terminated. KARCO, Response to Special Order,
Interrogatory No. 1 (July 30, 2012).
    \51\ KARCO, Response to Special Order, Ex. Test Report for ZAP
Jonway, 2008 ZAP Xebra at 3, 10 (test date: May 16, 2012-June 27,
2012).
    \52\ As of July 30, 2012, KARCO indicated that no further
testing was planned. See KARCO, Response to Special Order,
Interrogatory No. 3 (July 30, 2012). ZAP, on the other hand,
indicated in its July 30, 2012 response to NHTSA's Special Order
that it planned to send its mechanic to KARCO between August 6 and
20, 2012 to make further modifications to the vehicle, which would
then be retested by KARCO. ZAP, Response to Special Order,
Interrogatory Nos. 4, 5 (July 30, 2012). However, as of August 20,
2012, KARCO indicated that ZAP had picked up the vehicle from
KARCO's facility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After informally learning that the vehicle failed KARCO's most
recent testing, NHTSA sent Special Orders to ZAP and to KARCO on July
13, 2012 to obtain additional information about the recalls and KARCO's
testing. ZAP and KARCO each responded on July 30, 2012. ZAP represented
in its response, made under oath, that it has developed a repair remedy
to bring the MY 2008 Xebra into full compliance with FMVSS No. 122.\53\
ZAP cited the recommendations provided to it by Wilwood in April 2010
as the basis for its contention that this remedy will bring the
vehicles into full compliance.\54\ ZAP did not provide any test results
or other information demonstrating that its repair remedy will make the
vehicles fully compliant with FMVSS No. 122, and instead indicated that
it planned further testing at KARCO to confirm its belief that this
latest repair remedy is effective.\55\ However, according to KARCO's
response to NHTSA's Special Order, no further testing was planned.\56\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \53\ ZAP, Response to Special Order, Interrogatory No. 1 (July
30, 2012). The repair remedy identified by ZAP in response to the
Special Order included the heading ``Xebra 2008--Dealer Power Brake
Recall Fix--Version 6.'' See ZAP, Response to Special Order, Sch. B
at 3 (July 30, 2012). However, a later version (Version 7) of this
document was attached as Exhibit A to ZAP's earlier Part 573 Report
for Recall No. 12V-230.
    \54\ See ZAP, Response to Special Order, Interrogatory No. 2
(July 30, 2012).
    \55\ See ZAP, Response to Special Order, Interrogatory Nos. 4-5
(July 30, 2012).
    \56\ See KARCO, Response to Special Order, Interrogatory No. 3
(July 30, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ZAP's Special Order response also provided contradictory
information regarding the substance of its repair remedy. In one
portion of its response, ZAP indicated that the repair remedy it
contends will make the vehicles fully compliant with FMVSS No. 122 is
the same remedy it performed on the vehicle which failed KARCO's
testing.\57\ However, another portion of ZAP's response indicated that
additional modifications are needed to the vehicle.\58\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \57\ Compare ZAP, Response to Special Order, Interrogatory Nos.
1-2 (July 30, 2012), with ZAP, Response to Special Order, Request
for the Production of Documents Nos. 1-2 (July 30, 2012).
    \58\ See ZAP, Response to Special Order, Interrogatory No. 4
(July 30, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ZAP provided a copy of procedures for its repair remedy in response
to the

Special Order.\59\ The repair remedy purports to address the
noncompliances with the stopping distance and master cylinder reservoir
requirements, which are the subject of the recalls. The remedy also
purports to address the apparent noncompliances NHTSA identified with
FMVSS No. 122, S<IP_ADDRESS>, Reservoir labeling, and FMVSS No. 122,
S<IP_ADDRESS>, Failure indicator lamp, despite the fact that ZAP has never
submitted a Part 573 Report acknowledging the MY 2008 ZAP Xebra is
noncompliant with those provisions. However, ZAP's procedures to
address the reservoir labeling and the failure indicator lamp do not
satisfy the requirements of FMVSS No. 122.\60\ Moreover, ZAP has failed
to provide notifications to NHTSA and to owners, purchasers, and
dealers of these noncompliances as required by 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 49
CFR Parts 573 and 577.\61\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \59\ ZAP, Response to Special Order, Sch. A-B (July 30, 2012).
    \60\ The reservoir labeling is not worded as required by FMVSS
No. 122, S<IP_ADDRESS>. See ZAP, Response to Special Order, Sch. B at 10.
It also appears that the labeling may not be permanently affixed, as
required. See KARCO, Response to Special Order, Ex. Test Report for
ZAP Jonway, 2008 ZAP Xebra at A6 (test date: May 16, 2012-June 27,
2012) (showing peeling label). The failure indicator lamp also does
not have the legend ``Brake Failure,'' as required by FMVSS No. 122,
S1.3.1(d). See KARCO, Response to Special Order, Ex. KARCO 036-KARCO
037 (July 30, 2010) (photographs produced for ``May 2012 Testing'').
According to KARCO, the lamp's lettering also does not comply with
the height requirements of the Standard. KARCO, Response to Special
Order, Ex. Test Report for ZAP Jonway, 2008 ZAP Xebra at 3, 10 (test
date: May 16, 2012-June 27, 2012).
    \61\ The potential penalty for each violation of such
requirements is $6,000. 49 U.S.C. 30165(a)(1); 49 CFR 578.6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Furthermore, ZAP proposes to remedy the vehicles by either sending
each customer an installation kit or having the customer send the
vehicle to ZAP, to have ZAP complete the installation of the
remedy.\62\ Thus, an owner would either need to bring its vehicle to
Santa Rosa, California (where ZAP is located), or install the remedy
based on ZAP's kit.\63\ The procedures for the repair remedy are over
twenty pages long and require, among other things, placing the vehicle
on a car lift and removing all of its wheels, removing and replacing
brake reservoirs, removing and replacing brake pressure sensors,
replacing brake lines, replacing brake pads, installing a proportioning
valve, and rewiring brake sensors and floats.\64\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \62\ See Recall No. 12V-230, Part 573 Report Sec.  VI (prepared
May 18, 2012); Recall No. 12V-363, Part 573 Report Sec.  VI
(prepared July 18, 2012).
    \63\ This conflicts with the notifications sent to owners, which
told owners: ``Please contact your ZAP/Voltage Vehicles dealer as
soon as possible to arrange a service date so the dealer may order
the necessary parts for the repair * * * Your ZAP/Voltage Vehicles
dealer is best equipped to obtain parts and provide service to
ensure that your vehicle is corrected as promptly as possible.''
ZAP, Response to Special Order, Sch. D-E (July 30, 2012). While
there was no mention of a repair kit in the owner letters, ZAP
indicated that it sent 56 kits out to customers. See ZAP, Response
to Special Order, Interrogatory No. 7 (July 30, 2012).
    \64\ ZAP, Response to Special Order, Sch. B (July 30, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Over three years has passed since ZAP initially recalled the MY
2008 ZAP Xebra. Although ZAP continues to elect a repair remedy, it has
failed to successfully repair any vehicles. Moreover, contrary to its
representation, under oath, in response to NHTSA's Special Order, ZAP
has provided no evidence that it has developed a repair remedy that
would bring the recalled vehicles into full compliance with FMVSS No.
122.

V. Decision to Conduct a Public Hearing

    NHTSA has decided that it is necessary to conduct a public hearing
to decide whether ZAP has reasonably met the notification and remedy
requirements under 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120. See 49 U.S.C. 30118(e),
30120(e); 49 CFR 557.6(d), 557.7. NHTSA will conduct the public hearing
in the Oklahoma City room of the U.S. Department of Transportation
Conference Center, located on the first floor of the West Building at
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. Any interested person
may make written and/or oral presentations of information, views, and
arguments on whether ZAP has reasonably met the notification and/or
remedy requirements. There will be no cross-examination of witnesses.
49 CFR 557.7.
    NHTSA will consider the views of participants in deciding whether
ZAP has reasonably met the notification and/or remedy requirements
under 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120, and in developing the terms of an
order (if any) requiring ZAP to take specified action as the remedy for
the noncompliances and/or take other action. 49 U.S.C. 30118(e),
30120(e); 49 CFR 557.8.
    Procedural Matters: Interested persons may participate in these
proceedings through written and/or oral presentations. Persons wishing
to attend must notify Sabrina Fleming, National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590
(Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>) (Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>), before the close of
business on October 2, 2012 (and September 28, 2012 for non-U.S.
citizens). Each person wishing to attend must provide his or her name
and country of citizenship. Non-U.S. citizens must also provide date of
birth, title or position, and passport or diplomatic ID number, along
with expiration date. Each person wishing to make an oral presentation
must also specify the amount of time that the presentation is expected
to last, his or her organizational affiliation, phone number, and email
address. NHTSA will prepare a schedule of presentations. Depending upon
the number of persons who wish to make oral presentations and the
anticipated length of those presentations, NHTSA may add an additional
day or days to the hearing, and/or may limit the length of oral
presentations.
    The hearing will be held at a site accessible to individuals with
disabilities. Individuals who require accommodations, such as sign
language interpreters, should contact Ms. Kerry Kolodziej using the
contact information in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section
above no later than September 28, 2012. A transcript of the proceedings
will be placed in the docket for this notice at a later date.
    Persons who wish to file written comments should submit them so
that they are received by NHTSA no later than October 2, 2012.
Instructions on how to submit written comments to the docket is located
under the ADDRESSES section of this notice.

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30118(e), 30120(e); 49 CFR 557.6(d), 557.7;
delegations of authority at 49 CFR 1.95(a), 501.2(a)(1), and 49 CFR
501.8.

    Issued: September 7, 2012.
Daniel C. Smith,
Senior Associate Administrator for Vehicle Safety.
[FR Doc. 2012-22612 Filed 9-12-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 64 (Monday, April 4, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 19040-19041]
[FR Doc No: 2016-07660]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[Docket No. USCG-2016-0239]

Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Three Mile Slough, Rio Vista, CA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulation.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the
operating schedule that governs the Highway 160 drawbridge across Three
Mile Slough, mile 0.1, at Rio Vista, CA. The deviation is necessary to
allow the bridge owner to complete the necessary sand blasting and
painting rehabilitation. This deviation allows the bridge to be secured
in the closed-to-navigation position during the deviation period.

DATES: This deviation is effective from 12:01 a.m. on April 11, 2016 to
11:59 p.m. on April 17, 2016.

ADDRESSES: The docket for this deviation, [USCG-2016-0239], is
available at http://www.regulations.gov. Type the docket number in the
``SEARCH'' box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open Docket Folder on the
line associated with this deviation.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this
temporary deviation, call or email David H. Sulouff, Chief, Bridge
Section, Eleventh Coast Guard District; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The California Department of Transportation
has requested a temporary change to the operation of the Highway 160
drawbridge, mile 0.1, over Three Mile Slough, at Rio Vista, CA. The
drawbridge navigation span provides 12 feet vertical clearance above
Mean High Water in the closed-to-navigation position. In accordance
with 33 CFR 117.5, the draw opens on signal. Navigation on the waterway
is commercial, search and rescue, law enforcement, and recreational.
    The drawbridge will be secured in the closed-to-navigation position
from 12:01 a.m. on April 11, 2016 to 11:59 p.m. on April 17, 2016, to
allow the bridge owner to complete the necessary sand blasting and
painting rehabilitation after unforeseen events have caused project
delays. A containment scaffolding system has been installed below low
steel of the entire length of the bridge structure, reducing vertical
clearance for navigation by not more than 4 feet, and is lighted at
night with red lights. This temporary deviation has been coordinated
with the waterway users. No objections to the proposed temporary
deviation were raised.
    Vessels able to pass through the bridge in the closed position may
do so at any time. The bridge will not be able to open for emergencies.
The confluence of the San Joaquin and Sacramento rivers can be used as
an alternate route

for vessels unable to pass through the bridge in the closed position.
The Coast Guard will also inform waterway users through our Local and
Broadcast Notices to Mariners of the change in operating schedule for
the bridge so that vessel operators can arrange their transits to
minimize any impact caused by the temporary deviation.
    In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to
its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the effective
period of this temporary deviation. This deviation from the operating
regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.

    Dated: March 23, 2016.
D.H. Sulouff,
District Bridge Chief, Eleventh Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2016-07660 Filed 4-1-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P