[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 29 (Friday, February 11, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 7898-7903]
[FR Doc No: 2011-3130]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2010-0118]

Wheego Electric Cars, Inc.; Grant of Application for Temporary
Exemption From Advanced Air Bag Requirements of FMVSS No. 208

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

ACTION: Notice of grant of petition for temporary exemption from
certain provisions of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No.
208, Occupant Crash Protection.

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

SUMMARY: This notice grants the petition of Wheego Electric Cars, Inc.
(Wheego) for the temporary exemption of its Whip LiFe model from
certain advanced air bag requirements of FMVSS No. 208. The basis for
the exemption is 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: The exemption is effective immediately, conditioned upon
Wheego's submission to NHTSA, at least 30 days prior to the first
delivery of the LiFe to a distributor or dealer for sale in the United
States, the certification test data and other data in support of the
certification of the LiFe's compliance with certain FMVSSs, as
discussed in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section. This exemption
remains in effect until February 11, 2013.

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. Advanced Air Bag Requirements

    In 2000, NHTSA upgraded the requirements for air bags in passenger
cars and light trucks, requiring what are commonly known as ``advanced
air bags.'' \1\ The upgrade was designed to meet the twin goals of
improving protection for occupants of all sizes, belted and unbelted,
in moderate-to-high-speed crashes, and of minimizing the risks posed by
deploying air bags to infants, children, and other occupants,
especially in low-speed crashes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See 65 FR 30680 (May 12, 2000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The advanced air bag requirements were a culmination of a
comprehensive plan that the agency announced in 1996 to address the
adverse effects of some air bag designs. This plan also included
conducting rulemaking to facilitate the depowering of air bags and
conducting an extensive consumer education program to encourage the
placement of children in rear seats.
    The new requirements were phased in beginning with the 2004 model
year. Small volume manufacturers were not subject to the advanced air
bag requirements until September 1, 2006.
    In recent years, NHTSA has addressed a number of petitions for
exemption from the advanced air bag requirements of FMVSS No. 208. The
majority of these requests have come from small manufacturers that have
petitioned on the basis that compliance would cause substantial
economic hardship to a manufacturer that has tried in good faith to
comply with the standard. NHTSA has granted a number of these
petitions, usually in situations where the manufacturer is supplying
standard air bags in lieu of advanced air bags.\2\ In addressing these
petitions, NHTSA has recognized that small manufacturers may face
particular difficulties in acquiring or developing advanced air bag
systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See, e.g., grant of petition to Panoz, 72 FR 28759 (May 22,
2007), or grant of petition to Koenigsegg, 72 FR 17608 (April 9,
2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The agency has carefully tracked occupant fatalities resulting from
air bag deployment. Our data indicate that the agency's efforts in the
area of consumer education and manufacturers' response to the agency's
rulemaking by providing depowered air bags were successful in

reducing air bag fatalities even before advanced air bag requirements
were implemented.
    As always, we are concerned about the potential safety implications
of any temporary exemption granted by this agency. In the present case,
we are addressing a petition for a temporary exemption from the
advanced air bag requirements submitted by a manufacturer of a plug-in
electric car. The stated basis of the petition was that requiring
compliance would cause substantial economic hardship to a manufacturer
that has tried in good faith to comply with the advanced air bag
requirements. However, after consultation with the petitioner, we have
also considered the petition under a different basis--that an exemption
would facilitate the development or field evaluation of a low-emission
motor vehicle and would not unreasonably lower the safety level of the
vehicle.

II. 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 Vehicle 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.
    Only small manufacturers can obtain a hardship exemption. A
manufacturer is eligible to apply for a hardship exemption if its total
motor vehicle production in its most recent year of production did not
exceed 10,000 vehicles, as determined by the NHTSA Administrator (49
U.S.C. 30113). In determining whether a manufacturer of a vehicle meets
that criterion, NHTSA considers whether another entity also might be
deemed a manufacturer of that vehicle and whether the production
volumes of each of the two manufacturers should be combined in
assessing whether the criterion is met. A second entity might be deemed
a manufacturer of a vehicle in a variety of circumstances. For example,
there are two manufacturers if one entity produces an incomplete
vehicle \3\ and another entity then modifies the incomplete vehicle so
as to produce a completed vehicle.\4\ NHTSA has stated that a
manufacturer may be deemed to be a sponsor and thus a manufacturer of a
vehicle assembled by a second manufacturer if the first manufacturer
had a substantial role in the development and manufacturing process of
that vehicle.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 49 CFR 567.3.
    \4\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
    Finally, while 49 U.S.C. 30113(b) states that exemptions from a
Safety Act standard are to be granted on a ``temporary basis,'' \5\ the
statute also expressly authorizes the agency to renew an exemption on
reapplication. The agency wishes to caution manufacturers that the
agency's decision to grant a manufacturer's initial exemption petition
in no way predetermines whether the agency will grant a petition for
renewal of an initial exemption. The agency does not believe it would
be consistent with section 30113 for the agency to grant repeated
renewals, since doing so would impart semi-permanent exempted status to
the manufacturer. This seems particularly true in the case of
exemptions based on developing or evaluating a new vehicle.
Accordingly, exempted manufacturers seeking renewal must bear in mind
that the agency is directed to consider the public interest,
consistency with the Safety Act, generally, as well as other specific
matters provided in the statute.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 49 U.S.C. 30113(b)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Wheego's Petition

    Wheego submitted a petition for exemption from certain requirements
of FMVSS No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, pursuant to 49 CFR Part
555, Temporary Exemption from Motor Vehicle Safety and Bumper
Standards, for its LiFe model for a period of three years.
Specifically, the petition requested an exemption from paragraphs S14
(including S14.5.2) (advanced air bag requirements), S15 (rigid barrier
test requirements using 5th percentile adult female dummies), S16
(rigid barrier test procedure), S17 (offset frontal deformable barrier
requirements using 5th percentile adult female dummies), S18 (test
procedure for offset frontal deformable barrier), S19 (requirements to
provide protection for infants in rear facing and convertible child
restraints and car beds), S21 (requirements using 3-year-old child
dummies), S23 (requirements using 6-year-old child dummies), S25
(requirements using an out-of-position 5th percentile adult female
dummy at the driver position), S26 (procedure for low risk deployment
tests of driver air bag), and S27 (option for dynamic automatic
suppression system that suppresses the air bag when an occupant is out
of position) of FMVSS No. 208.
    In further submissions to the agency, Wheego clarified its plans
with respect to S14, stating that it will certify its vehicles to
comply with the belted 50th percentile male barrier impact test
(S14.5.1(a)). Wheego has also since stated that it plans to certify to
the unbelted 50th percentile barrier impact test in force prior to
September 1, 2006 (S5.1.2(a)) (with the unbelted sled test in S13 being
an acceptable option for that requirement).
    Although Wheego seeks exemption from S16, S18, S26, and S27, those
provisions set forth compliance test

procedures for optional means of compliance. Wheego does not need an
exemption from S16, S18, and S26, because those provisions do not set
forth requirements with which Wheego must certify compliance. Instead,
they set forth the compliance test procedures for the substantive
requirements in S15, S17, and S25 respectively. Wheego also does not
need an exemption from S27, which sets forth requirements for an
optional dynamic automatic suppression system. Accordingly, we have
considered Wheego's petition as seeking an exemption from S14 (apart
from S14.5.1(a)), S15, S17, S19, S21, S23, and S25 of FMVSS No. 208.
    The stated basis for Wheego's application is that requiring
compliance would cause substantial economic hardship to a manufacturer
that has tried in good faith to comply with the standard. According to
the petition, Wheego is a privately held company incorporated in the
State of Delaware, with headquarters in Atlanta, Georgia. Its total
motor vehicle production during the 12 months preceding the filing of
the petition was 308 vehicles. Wheego indicated that all of these
vehicles were all-electric Wheego Whip LSVs (low speed vehicles). In
order for a vehicle to qualify as a low speed vehicle under FMVSS No.
500, Low-Speed Vehicles, its top speed must not exceed 25 miles per
hour.
    Wheego states that the LiFe is a zero-emission, two-door, two-seat
coupe that uses a lithium iron phosphate battery pack to power a 60
horsepower AC induction electric motor. The LiFe has a high strength
steel unibody chassis made by Shijiazhuang ShuangHuan Automobile Co.
(ShuangHuan) in China. A similar chassis (minus modifications
reportedly made by ShuangHuan to the chassis sold to Wheego) is used by
ShuangHuan in manufacturing a passenger car (called the ``Noble'') with
an internal combustion engine for sale in China, Australia, Greece, and
other parts of the world outside the United States. Wheego states that,
by purchasing and using an existing chassis, it was able to avoid the
high cost of developing and manufacturing a brand new vehicle design.
Wheego also states that ShuangHuan has developed dual standard air bags
for the chassis, but not an advanced air bag system.
    Wheego contends that granting an exemption would be in the public
interest. Wheego intends the LiFe to be ``one of the first affordable
electric cars available in the United States.'' Wheego states that
electric vehicles have several benefits, including reducing the
nation's reliance on foreign oil and reducing greenhouse gas and other
emissions. Wheego also contends that, allowing it to enter the market
now would contribute to the development of electric vehicles in general
by helping to evaluate the market and performance of electric vehicles
with real world experience. Wheego also cites employment opportunities
as a benefit.
    Wheego intends to produce only a limited number of LiFes in the
first three years of production, which it contends would limit the
overall impact on motor vehicle safety. In its original petition,
Wheego projected that it would sell 550 LiFes in 2010, 1,200 in 2011,
2,400 in 2012, and 5,000 in 2013. Wheego has since indicated that its
anticipated production would be approximately 100 vehicles per month
throughout the requested exemption period. Thus, the 12-month
production total would be approximately 1,200 vehicles. Wheego states
that the primary purpose of the LiFe will be as a commuter vehicle
because it will have a limited range compared to that of gasoline
powered vehicles. The LiFe will have a projected range of 100 miles and
will require a minimum of 5 hours to regain a 50 percent charge.
Because of the small sales volume and limited range, Wheego states that
the number of hours that the LiFes will be on roads will be lower
compared to gasoline powered vehicles, thereby reducing the likelihood
of a crash.
    Wheego contends that compliance with the advanced air bag
requirements would cause substantial economic hardship and that Wheego
has tried to comply with the standard in good faith. Wheego states that
it cannot acquire an off-the-shelf advanced air bag system for the LiFe
because an advanced air bag system has never been developed for the
chassis used in the LiFe. Wheego states that it does not have the
technical or financial resources to develop such a system independently
and would have to cancel the development of a passenger car and
terminate its operations if it does not obtain the requested exemption.
    In October 2009, Wheego engaged J.K. Technologies in Baltimore,
Maryland, for help with testing and certification requirements of the
FMVSSs. Also in October 2009, Wheego approached TASS Engineering
Services and Bosch for help in developing an advanced air bag system
for the LiFe. Based upon this consultation, Wheego estimates that an
advanced air bag system would cost $3 million and would take 18 months
to test and implement. In its original petition, Wheego stated that it
intended to spend $1 million in each of 2011, 2012, and 2013, obtained
from sales of the LiFe, in an effort to develop a system that will
comply with the advanced air bag requirements. Wheego stated that,
based on its projected revenues, by the end of the third year of an
exemption, Wheego should be able to build cars with advanced air bags
at no additional cost. However, Wheego has since indicated that, if
their exemption petition is granted, they expect a substantial
investment in their business that would allow them to meet the advanced
air bag requirements by September 2012.

IV. Notice of Receipt

    On August 23, 2010, we published in the Federal Register (75 FR
51870) a notice of receipt of Wheego's petition for temporary
exemption, and provided an opportunity for public comment. We received
one comment, which was from Wheego. It addressed only the issue of
sponsorship.

V. Agency Analysis and Decision

    In this section, we provide our analysis and decision regarding
Wheego's temporary exemption request concerning advanced air bag
requirements of FMVSS No. 208.
    As discussed below, we are granting Wheego's petition for the LiFe
to be exempted, for a period of two years after the date of publication
of this notice in the Federal Register, from S14 (apart from
S14.5.1(a)), S15, S17, S19, S21, S23, and S25 of FMVSS No. 208. In
addition to certifying compliance with the belted 50th percentile adult
male dummy barrier impact requirements in S14.5.1(a), Wheego must
certify to the unbelted 50th percentile adult male dummy barrier impact
test requirement that applied prior to September 1, 2006 (S5.1.2(a)).
For purposes of this exemption, the unbelted sled test in S13 is an
acceptable option for that requirement. This exemption is further
conditioned upon Wheego's submitting to the agency, at least 30 days
before the first delivery of the LiFe to a distributor or dealer for
sale in the United States, all certification test data, including any
objective data, simulation data, engineering analyses, and any other
data that forms the basis for Wheego's certification of the LiFe's
compliance with the following FMVSSs: FMVSS No. 135, Light Vehicle
Brake Systems; FMVSS No. 138, Tire Pressure Monitoring Systems; FMVSS
No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection; \6\ FMVSS No. 214, Side Impact
Protection; and FMVSS No. 216, Roof Crush Resistance.

The agency's rationale for this decision is as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Excluding the sections of FMVSS No. 208 from which Wheego
would be exempt.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

a. Change in Basis for Exemption

    As discussed above and in the notice of receipt, Wheego's
application for an exemption from the advanced air bag requirements of
FMVSS No. 208 was based upon an argument that compliance would cause
substantial economic hardship to a manufacturer that has tried in good
faith to comply with the standard. However, upon further review of
Wheego's application and after discussions with Wheego, the agency and
Wheego agreed that its request for an exemption would instead be
considered 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. Wheego stated
that it would not object to NHTSA considering the petition on this
basis, if necessary to grant the petition. In meetings with the agency
and in post petition correspondence, Wheego has submitted additional
information to the agency.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ A copy of all of Wheego's submissions and a summary of the
meeting are available in the docket. See Docket No. NHTSA-2010-0118.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    There are two reasons the agency has considered Wheego's petition
under a different basis than stated in the application. First, as
discussed in the notice of receipt, there is a question of Wheego's
eligibility to apply for an economic hardship exemption. A manufacturer
is eligible to apply for an economic hardship exemption if its total
motor vehicle production in its most recent year of production did not
exceed 10,000 vehicles, as determined by the NHTSA Administrator (49
U.S.C. 30113). In determining whether a manufacturer of a vehicle meets
that criterion, NHTSA considers whether a second entity also might be
deemed a manufacturer of that vehicle. We indicated in the notice of
receipt that another manufacturer, ShuangHuan, produces and supplies
the unibody chassis of the LiFe. The chassis supplied by ShuangHuan is
similar to the chassis of its Noble model. We sought comment on whether
ShuangHuan might also be considered a manufacturer of the LiFe, and
Wheego's comment addresses that issue. We believe that there is reason
to regard ShuangHuan as a manufacturer of the LiFe. However,
considering Wheego's petition on the basis of facilitating the
development of a low-emission vehicle moots the question of Wheego's
eligibility for a hardship exemption.
    Second, although there are different limitations on exemptions
based on the development of a low-emission vehicle, Wheego's petition
and subsequently provided information together meet all of those
requirements except for one--the length of the exemption sought. Wheego
has revised its production targets such that not more than 2,500
exempted vehicles would be sold in the United States in any 12-month
period for which an exemption may be granted. Wheego has provided
information substantiating that it is producing a low-emission vehicle,
documentation establishing that a temporary exemption would not
unreasonably degrade the safety of the vehicle, substantiation that a
temporary exemption would facilitate the development and field
evaluation of the vehicle, and a statement that Wheego intends to
comply with all of the requirements of FMVSS No. 208 at the end of the
exemption period. As for the duration of the exemption, Wheego sought a
three-year hardship exemption. However, exemptions for the development
of a low-emission motor vehicle are limited to a two-year duration.
Accepting Wheego's assertion that it would take 18 months to develop an
advanced air bag system and allowing additional time for initiating
that process and retooling, we believe that a maximum two-year
extension is warranted based upon Wheego's application.
    Based on the foregoing, we have considered Wheego's petition for an
exemption from the advanced air bag requirements of FMVSS No. 208 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, notwithstanding the
fact that Wheego sought its exemption based upon economic hardship. We
address below Wheego's satisfaction of the criteria for such an
exemption.

b. Eligibility

    NHTSA believes that the requested exemption would make the
development or field evaluation of a low-emission motor vehicle easier.
Wheego has stated that the LiFe will be one of the first affordable
electric cars available in the United States. Wheego has also stated
that allowing them into the market by granting the exemption will
expand consumer choices and contribute to the development of electric
cars in general by helping to evaluate the market for electric
vehicles. We agree that an exemption would permit Wheego to offer a
lower priced electric vehicle and allow for the evaluation of the
market for these vehicles.
    NHTSA also concludes that the granting of this exemption would not
unreasonably lower the safety or impact protection level of the
vehicle. Of particular note, the LiFe will have air bags and will be
certified to meet the pre-advanced air bag requirements of FMVSS No.
208. Moreover, with the exception of the advanced air bag requirements,
it will be required to be certified to meet all other requirements
contained in the applicable FMVSSs.
    Furthermore, we have also considered child safety issues related to
the exemption requested by Wheego. With respect to transporting
children and infants, Wheego noted that the LiFe is equipped with an
on-off switch for its passenger air bag. Wheego stated that dealers
will instruct purchasers on the use of the on-off switch and that
information also would be contained in the owner's manual. The
passenger seat is also equipped with a child seat LATCH system.\8\ The
LiFe will also have the permanently affixed ``sun visor air bag warning
label'' and a removable ``warning label on the dashboard'' that NHTSA
developed/requires for vehicles without advanced air bags. Thus,
parents and others will be able to transport children in the passenger
seat of the LiFe without exposing them to the risks of air bags, and
the vehicles will have warning labels concerning the risks of air bags.
This helps minimize any safety risks resulting from the vehicle not
meeting requirements for advanced air bags.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Lower Anchors and Tethers for Children (LATCH) Restraint
System.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We also observe that only a limited number of vehicles would be
produced under the temporary exemption. Manufacturers granted
exemptions on the basis of furthering the development of low-emission
vehicles are limited to selling 2,500 exempted vehicles in any 12-month
period. Given that this is a two-year exemption, no more than 5,000
vehicles could be built that lack the advanced air bag protection of
FMVSS No. 208. Wheego has indicated that it anticipates producing
approximately 100 vehicles per month throughout the duration of the
exemption period for a total of approximately 2,400 vehicles.
    Based upon the above discussion concerning safety, we believe that
any impact on safety from granting the exemption 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.

c. Public Interest Considerations

    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.
    Given the relatively small number of vehicles that will be produced
during the two-year exemption and the above discussion, we believe that
the requested exemption would have a negligible effect on motor vehicle
safety.

d. Conditions

    Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30113(b)(1), the Secretary, acting through
the NHTSA, may grant temporary exemptions ``on terms the Secretary
considers appropriate.'' Through the course of Wheego's application
process, issues have been raised that warrant the attachment of a
condition to this temporary exemption.
    As stated above, the advanced air bag requirements were adopted, in
part, to minimize the risks posed by air bags to infants, children, and
other occupants, especially in low-speed crashes. Wheego's initial
petition made no mention of any features in the vehicle that would
minimize the risks posed by air bags to infants, children, and other
occupants in low-speed crashes. Only after a notice of receipt was
published did Wheego inform the agency of its actions to address these
risks. Similarly, and as we stated in the notice of receipt, Wheego's
petition provided little to explain its relationship with ShuangHuan.
It was only through Wheego's comment on the notice of receipt and its
subsequent petitions that we learned of the modifications to the Noble
chassis made by Wheego for the LiFe.
    To assist the agency in learning more about Wheego's efforts to
make design changes to the Noble to meet all of the FMVSSs, we are
conditioning the grant of exemption on Wheego's submitting to NHTSA's
Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance all certification test data,
including any objective data, simulation data, engineering analyses,
and any other data that forms the basis for Wheego's certification of
the LiFe's compliance with the following FMVSSs: FMVSS No. 135, Light
Vehicle Brake Systems; FMVSS No. 138, Tire Pressure Monitoring Systems;
FMVSS No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection; \9\ FMVSS No. 214, Side
Impact Protection; and FMVSS No. 216, Roof Crush Resistance. We are
requiring that this data be submitted at least 30 days prior to Wheego
delivering a LiFe to a distributor or dealer for sale in the United
States. If this data is not submitted to NHTSA, Wheego cannot offer
vehicles for sale under this exemption. NHTSA's evaluation of this data
will help the Administrator determine if the temporary exemption
continues to be in the public interest. We note that 49 CFR 555.8(d)(1)
allows the Administrator to revoke a temporary exemption if it is no
longer consistent with the public interest and the objectives of the
Safety Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Excluding the sections of FMVSS No. 208 from which Wheego
would be exempt.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although Wheego seeks a three-year exemption, we explained above
that only a two-year exemption is available under the low-emission
motor vehicle exemption. In addition, we explained above our reasons
why a three-year exemption is not warranted. NHTSA is considering
generally whether it is in the public interest to continue to grant
petitions seeking temporary exemptions from the advanced air bag
requirements and, to the extent such petitions are granted, what plans
and countermeasures to protect child and infant occupants, short of
advanced air bags, should be expected. In contrast to the initial years
after the advanced air bag requirements went into effect, low volume
manufacturers have access to advanced air bag technology. In light of
this reconsideration, we reiterate that the exemption we are granting
to Wheego is temporary. Based upon Wheego's commitment to having FMVSS
No. 208 compliant advanced air bags in the LiFe by the end of the
exemption period, we would not view a petition to renew this temporary
extension favorably, absent a substantial change in Wheego's
circumstances.

e. Labels

    We note that, as explained below, prospective purchasers will be
notified that the vehicle is exempted from the specified advanced air
bag requirements of Standard No. 208. 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.
    The text of Sec.  555.9 does not expressly indicate how the
required statement on the two labels should read in situations in which
an exemption covers part but not all of a FMVSS. In this case, we
believe that a statement that the vehicle has been exempted from
Standard No. 208 generally, without an indication that the exemption is
limited to the specified advanced air bag provisions, could be
misleading. A consumer might incorrectly believe that the vehicle has
been exempted from all of Standard No. 208's requirements. Moreover, we
believe that the addition of a reference to such provisions by number
would be of little use to consumers, since they would not know the
subject of those specific provisions.\10\ For these reasons, we believe
the two labels should read in relevant part, ``except for the Advanced
Air Bag Requirements of Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection,
exempted pursuant to * * *.'' We note that the phrase ``Advanced Air
Bag Requirements'' is an abbreviated form of the title of S14 of
Standard No. 208. We believe it is reasonable to interpret Sec.  555.9
as requiring this language.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ We recognize that, in prior grants of exemptions from the
advanced air bag requirements, the agency has required the
manufacturer to list the exempted paragraphs by number on the label.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

f. Decision

    In consideration of the foregoing, we conclude that granting the
requested exemption from the advanced air bag requirements of FMVSS No.
208, Occupant Crash Protection, 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 of an exemption would be in the public interest
and consistent with the objectives of traffic safety.
    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. Sec.  30113(b)(3)(B)(iii), Wheego is
granted NHTSA Temporary Exemption No. EX 11-01, from S14 (apart from
S14.5.1(a)), S15, S17, S19, S21, S23, and S25 of FMVSS No. 208. In
addition to certifying compliance with the belted 50th percentile adult
male dummy barrier impact requirements in S14.5.1(a), Wheego must
certify to the unbelted 50th percentile adult male dummy barrier impact
test requirement that applied prior to September 1, 2006 (S5.1.2(a)).
For purposes of this

exemption, the unbelted sled test in S13 is an acceptable option for
that requirement.
    The exemption is for the LiFe model and shall remain in effect
until two years after the date on which notice of this decision is
published in the Federal Register, as indicated in the DATES section of
this document. However, this grant of exemption is conditioned on
Wheego's providing to NHTSA, at least 30 days before delivering a
vehicle to a distributor or dealer for sale, all certification test
data, including any objective data, simulation data, engineering
analyses, and any other data that forms the basis for Wheego's
certification of the LiFe's compliance with FMVSS Nos. 135, 138, 208,
214, and 216.

(49 U.S.C. 30113; delegations of authority at 49 CFR 1.50. and
501.8)

    Issued on: February 8, 2011.
David L. Strickland,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2011-3130 Filed 2-10-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 63 (Friday, April 1, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 18748]
[FR Doc No: 2016-07564]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

18 CFR Part 35

Filing of Rate Schedules and Tariffs

CFR Correction

    In Title 18 of the Code of Federal Regulations, parts 1 to 399,
revised as of April 1, 2015, in Sec.  35.1, make the following changes:
    1. On page 270, in paragraphs (d)(2) and (d)(3), add the phrase ``,
tariffs or service agreements'' after the phrase ``rate schedules'',
and
    2. On page 270, in paragraph (g), in the first sentence, add the
word ``service'' before the third occurrence of the word ``agreement''.

[FR Doc. 2016-07564 Filed 3-31-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 1505-01-D


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 47 (Monday, March 11, 2019)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 8610-8611]
[FR Doc No: 2019-04162]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R05-OAR-2007-1092; FRL-9990-43-Region 5]

Air Plan Approval; Michigan; Michigan Minor New Source Review

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving the
rescission of Michigan rule 221 from the Michigan state implementation
plan (SIP). Rule 221 exempted sources that had significant net emission
increases of sulfur dioxide, particulate matter, and carbon monoxide
from offset requirements. Michigan rescinded this rule effective
November 14, 1990.

DATES: This final rule is effective on April 10, 2019.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA-R05-OAR-2007-1092. All documents in the docket are listed on
the www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is
not placed on the internet and will be publicly available only in hard
copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either
through www.regulations.gov or at the Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,
Chicago, Illinois 60604. This facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding Federal holidays. We recommend
that you telephone Constantine Blathras, Environmental Engineer, at
(312) 886-0671 before visiting the Region 5 office.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Constantine Blathras, Environmental
Engineer, Air Permits Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J),
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,
Chicago, Illinois 60604,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA. This supplementary information
section is arranged as follows:

I. Background
II. What action is EPA taking?
III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background

    Section 110(a)(2)(C) of the Clean Air Act requires that the SIP
include a program to provide for the ``regulation of the modification
and construction of any stationary source within the areas covered by
the plan as necessary to assure that national ambient air quality
standards are achieved.'' This includes a program for permitting
construction and modification of both major and minor sources that the
State deems necessary to protect air quality. The State of Michigan's
minor source permit to install rules are contained in Part 2 (Air Use
Approval) of the Michigan Administrative Code. Changes to the Part 2
rules were submitted on November 12, 1993; May 16, 1996; April 3, 1998;
September 2, 2003; March 24, 2009; and February 28, 2017. EPA approved
changes to the Part 2 rules most recently in a final approval dated
August 31, 2018 (83 FR 44485).
    Rule 336.1221 (Construction of sources of particulate matter,
sulfur dioxide, or carbon monoxide in or near nonattainment areas;
conditions for approval).
    EPA published a proposed disapproval of the 1993, 1996, and 1996
submittals on November 9, 1999 (64 FR 61046), but never published a
final disapproval. As part of that proposed disapproval, EPA conducted
an evaluation of the State submittal and found that as one of the
items, the State failed to rescind Michigan rule 336.1221. In that
action, EPA stated, ``Michigan rule 336.1221 impermissibly exempts
sources that have significant net emissions increases of sulfur
dioxide, particulate matter, and carbon monoxide from offset
requirements. Michigan Department of Environmental Quality rescinded
Michigan rule 336.1221 effective November 14, 1990. However, the State
never submitted the rule to EPA for rescission. Because Michigan did
not submit the rescission to the USEPA for removal of the rule from the
SIP, the Michigan NSR rules are not approvable at this time.''
    On September 24, 2003, the State of Michigan submitted a SIP
revision to EPA requesting full approval of Michigan's Clean Air Act
New Source Review SIP. As part of that submittal requesting revisions
to Parts 1 (General Provisions) and 2, Michigan specifically requested
to rescind rule 336.1221. As part of its technical support document,
Michigan stated that rule 336.1221 was rescinded from the State rules
in 1990, and requests that EPA remove it from the SIP.
    At the time of the 1999 proposed disapproval, the Part 2 rules also
included the state's major nonattainment PTI permitting program. The
major nonattainment provisions have been removed from Part 2, and are
now covered by the Part 19 (New Source Review for Major Sources
Impacting Nonattainment Areas) rules. The Part 19 rules were fully
approved by EPA into the Michigan SIP on December 16, 2013, (78 FR
76064). The Federal nonattainment air quality permitting regulations
are found in 40 CFR 51.165(a) and (b). The Federal rules found at 40
CFR 51.165(a) and (b) specify the elements necessary for approval of a
State permit program for preconstruction review for nonattainment
purposes under Part D of the Clean Air Act. A major source or major
modification that would be located in an area designated as
nonattainment and subject to the nonattainment area permitting rules
must meet stringent conditions designed to ensure that the new source's
emissions will be controlled to the greatest degree possible; that more
than equivalent offsetting emission reductions will be obtained from
existing sources; and that there will be progress toward achieving the
National Ambient Air Quality Standards. EPA has found that the rules as
submitted by Michigan for inclusion into its SIP are at least as
stringent as the Federal rules. By rescinding rule 221 from the
Michigan SIP, the Michigan SIP is meeting the Federal statutory
requirements for an approvable Part 2 and Part 19 air permitting
program.
    On December 13, 2018 (83 FR 64055), EPA published a Federal
Register action proposing approval of the rescission of rule 221 from
the Michigan SIP. EPA received no comments during the public comment
period which ended on January 14, 2019.

II. What action is EPA taking?

    EPA is approving the rescission of Michigan rule 336.1221 from the
Michigan SIP.

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the

provisions of the Clean Air Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42
U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions,
EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the
criteria of the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this action merely approves
state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose
additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that
reason, this action:
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under
Executive Order 12866;
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has
demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian
country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose
substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by May 10, 2019. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of
judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for
judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness
of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in
proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Particulate
matter, Sulfur oxides.

    Dated: February 25, 2019.
Cheryl L Newton,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.

    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Sec.  52.1170   [Amended]

0
2. In Sec.  52.1170, the table in paragraph (c) is amended by removing
the entry for ``R 336.1221'' under ``Part 2. Air Use Approval''.

[FR Doc. 2019-04162 Filed 3-8-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P