Wheego Electric Cars, Inc.; Grant of Petition for Temporary Exemption From the Electronic Stability Control Requirements of FMVSS No. 126 |
|---|
Topics: Wheego LiFe
|
Ronald L. Medford
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
August 10, 2012
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 155 (Friday, August 10, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 47915-47918]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-19720]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA-2012-0013]
Wheego Electric Cars, Inc.; Grant of Petition for Temporary
Exemption From the Electronic Stability Control Requirements of FMVSS
No. 126
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Notice of grant of a petition for temporary exemption from
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 126, Electronic
Stability Control Systems.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This notice grants the petition of Wheego Electric Cars, Inc.
(Wheego) for the temporary exemption of its LiFe model from the
electronic stability control requirements of FMVSS No. 126. The agency
has considered Wheego's petition for exemption and has determined that
the exemption would facilitate the development or field evaluation of a
low-emission motor vehicle and would not unreasonably reduce the safety
level of that vehicle.
DATES: This exemption is effective immediately and remains in effect
until December 31, 2012.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Jasinski, Office of the Chief
Counsel, NCC-112, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building 4th Floor, Room W41-326,
Washington, DC 20590. Telephone: (202) 366-2992; Fax: (202) 366-3820.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Statutory Basis for Temporary Exemptions
The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act),
codified as 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, authorizes the Secretary of
Transportation to exempt, on a temporary basis and under specified
circumstances, motor vehicles from a motor vehicle safety standard or
bumper standard. This authority is set forth at 49 U.S.C. 30113. The
Secretary has delegated the authority in this section to NHTSA.
NHTSA established 49 CFR Part 555, Temporary Exemption From Motor
Vehicle Safety and Bumper Standards, to implement the statutory
provisions concerning temporary exemptions. A vehicle manufacturer
wishing to obtain an exemption from a standard must demonstrate in its
application (A) that an exemption would be in the public interest and
consistent with the Safety Act and (B) that the manufacturer satisfies
one of the following four bases for an exemption: (i) Compliance with
the standard would cause substantial economic hardship to a
manufacturer that has tried to comply with the standard in good faith;
(ii) the exemption would make easier the development or field
evaluation of a new motor vehicle safety feature providing a safety
level at least equal to the safety level of the standard; (iii) the
exemption would make the development or field evaluation of a low-
emission motor vehicle easier and would not unreasonably lower the
safety level of that vehicle; or (iv) compliance with the standard
would prevent the manufacturer from selling a motor vehicle with an
overall safety level at least equal to the overall safety level of
nonexempt vehicles.
For an exemption petition to be granted on the basis that the
exemption would make the development or field evaluation of a low-
emission motor vehicle easier and would not unreasonably lower the
safety level of the vehicle, the petition must include specified
information set forth at 49 CFR 555.6(c). The main requirements of that
section include: (1) Substantiation that the vehicle is a low-emission
vehicle; (2) documentation establishing that a temporary exemption
would not unreasonably degrade the safety of a vehicle; (3)
substantiation that a temporary exemption would facilitate the
development or field evaluation of the vehicle; (4) a statement of
whether the petitioner intends to conform to the standard at the end of
the exemption period; and (5) a statement that not more than 2,500
exempted vehicles will be sold in the United States in any 12-month
period for which an exemption may be granted.
II. Electronic Stability Control Systems Requirement
In April 2007, NHTSA published a final rule requiring that vehicles
with a gross vehicle weight rating of 4,536 kilograms (kg) (10,000
pounds) or less be equipped with electronic stability control (ESC)
systems. ESC systems use automatic computer-controlled braking of
individual wheels to assist the driver in maintaining control in
critical driving
[[Page 47916]]
situations in which the vehicle is beginning to lose directional
stability at the rear wheels (spin out) or directional control at the
front wheels (plow out). An anti-lock brake system (ABS) is a
prerequisite for an ESC system because ESC uses many of the same
components as ABS. Thus, the cost of complying with FMVSS No. 126 is
less for vehicle models already equipped with ABS.
Preventing single-vehicle loss-of-control crashes is the most
effective way to reduce deaths resulting from rollover crashes. This is
because most loss-of-control crashes culminate in the vehicle leaving
the roadway, which dramatically increases the probability of a
rollover. NHTSA's crash data study of existing vehicles equipped with
ESC demonstrated that these systems reduce fatal single-vehicle crashes
of passenger cars by 55 percent and fatal single-vehicle crashes of
light trucks and vans (LTVs) by 50 percent.\1\ NHTSA estimates that ESC
has the potential to prevent 56 percent of the fatal passenger car
rollovers and 74 percent of the fatal LTV first-event rollovers that
would otherwise occur in single-vehicle crashes.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Sivinski, R., Crash Prevention Effectiveness of Light-
Vehicle Electronic Stability Control: An Update of the 2007 NHTSA
Evaluation; DOT HS 811 486 (June 2011).
\2\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The ESC requirement became effective for substantially all vehicles
on September 1, 2011.
III. Overview of Petition
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 30113 and the procedures in 49 CFR
part 555, Wheego Electric Cars, Inc. (Wheego) submitted a petition
dated August 15, 2011 asking the agency for a temporary exemption from
the electronic stability control requirements of FMVSS No. 126. The
basis for the application is that the exemption would make the
development or field evaluation of a low-emission vehicle easier and
would not unreasonably lower the safety level of that vehicle. Wheego
requested an exemption for the LiFe model for a period from September
1, 2011 to August 1, 2012.
Wheego is a Delaware corporation with its headquarters in Atlanta,
Georgia. Wheego began manufacturing and selling low-speed electric
vehicles in the U.S. in June 2009. In April 2011, Wheego began
manufacturing and selling its first all-electric passenger car, the
two-door, two-seat LiFe model. Wheego also states that it is developing
a four-door passenger vehicle for sale in late 2012.
In February 2011, Wheego was granted a temporary exemption from the
advanced air bag requirements of FMVSS No. 208, Occupant Crash
Protection, that is effective until February 11, 2013.\3\ Wheego states
that it plans to meet all other current FMVSSs for a passenger car.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See 76 FR 7898 (Feb. 11, 2011); Docket No. NHTSA-2010-0118.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wheego asserts that the company had intended to develop an ESC
system for the LiFe. However, delays in funding and later developments
have made it impossible for Wheego to develop an ESC system for the
LiFe before September 2011. Wheego requested an exemption from the ESC
requirements until August 1, 2012 for up to 1,000 vehicles so that it
can continue its development and evaluation of a low-emission vehicle.
Wheego stated that the company intends to comply with FMVSS No. 126 at
the end of the exempted period.
Wheego believes that a temporary exemption would not unreasonably
degrade the safety or impact protection of the vehicle. Wheego states
that the LiFe has an ABS system that prevents loss of control by
preventing the wheels from locking up and the tires from skidding
during braking. Wheego also asserts that its standard tires are wide
with wide, circumferential grooves that provide rapid water evacuation
to aid wet traction. Wheego also notes that the LiFe is limited to a
top speed of 65 mph, which may contribute to a reduction of crashes
associated with high speeds. Wheego also states that the LiFe has a low
center of gravity with 762 pounds of batteries beneath the floorboard
of the vehicle. Further, Wheego argues that the relatively limited
range of the LiFe compared to gasoline-powered vehicles (100 miles
before needing a charge) makes it less likely that a LiFe would be
involved in a high-speed or rollover crash. Wheego also asserts that
the relatively small number of vehicles that would be produced under
the exemption suggests that the exemption would have a negligible
effect on vehicle safety.
Wheego asserts that an exemption would make the development or
field evaluation of a low-emission vehicle easier. Wheego states that
it would be able to use consumer feedback and other testing and
evaluation to improve design and efficiency to improve charging,
battery management, and safety systems in future vehicle models. Wheego
states that, without the exemption, the company would not be able to
produce enough cars or revenue to sustain these developments or to
launch a new vehicle model. Wheego also believes that its success can
add to the overall development of low-emission vehicles as a whole by
demonstrating the viability of electric cars to consumers and
encouraging other manufacturers to build electric cars.
Wheego also asserts that the granting of the exemption would be in
the public interest. Wheego notes that NHTSA has traditionally found
that the public interest is served by affording consumers a wider
variety of motor vehicles, by encouraging the development of fuel-
efficient and alternative-energy vehicles, and by providing additional
employment opportunities. Wheego believes that granting this petition
serves each of those interests.
In a supplement to its petition filed on June 11, 2012, Wheego
reduced the number of exempted vehicles it intends to produce and the
time period for the exemption. Wheego now intends to manufacture 165
vehicles under this exemption by the end of 2012.
IV. Notice of Receipt
On January 30, 2012, we published in the Federal Register (77 FR
4623) a notice of receipt of Wheego's petition for temporary exemption,
and provided an opportunity for public comment. We received 12
comments, including comments from the Advocates for Highway & Auto
Safety (Advocates) and 11 private individuals. All of the commenters
opposed granting Wheego's petition. Wheego responded to the commenters
through its own submission and through a supplemental petition. Wheego
also met with the agency informally to discuss its application pursuant
to 49 CFR 555.7(f). A memorandum summarizing that meeting has been
placed in the docket.
V. Agency Analysis, Response to Comment, and Decision
In this section, we provide our analysis and decision regarding
Wheego's temporary exemption request concerning the ESC requirements of
FMVSS No. 126, including our response to the comments received.
As discussed below, we are granting Wheego's petition for the LiFe
to be exempted, for a period ending December 31, 2012, from the
requirements of FMVSS No. 126. The agency's rationale for this decision
is as follows:
First, we conclude that Wheego has shown that an exemption from the
ESC requirements would make the development or field evaluation of a
low-emission motor vehicle easier. Specifically, we agree with Wheego
that allowing continued production on a limited basis of additional
LiFe models
[[Page 47917]]
now under an exemption will make it easier for Wheego to design and
produce future low emission vehicle models without an exemption.
Further, the production of additional LiFe models would allow
consumers of all-electric vehicles an additional option during the
exemption period. We agree with Wheego that continued production of its
vehicle will help to demonstrate to the U.S. public the capabilities of
electric vehicles. We also agree with Wheego that continued production
of the LiFe for the limited period will allow it to develop fully
FMVSS-compliant electric vehicles. For that reason we agree that denial
of the petition could jeopardize Wheego's ability to produce other
electric vehicles in the future. For these reasons, we agree with
Wheego that granting this petition will encourage the development and
sale of electric vehicles by Wheego and also by other manufacturers.
Second, NHTSA concludes that the grant of this exemption would not
unreasonably lower the safety or impact protection level of the
vehicle. In particular, we have considered that Wheego produces a low-
center-of-gravity, two-seat vehicle. The low center of gravity provides
some additional reduction of loss-of-control crashes relative to other
passenger cars. The LiFe's limited speed capability is also a factor in
favor of granting the exemption. Furthermore, because the LiFe has a
limited range (100 miles) and would be used less during winter months
(due to even more limited range caused by the effect of cold weather on
the batteries), a LiFe is likely to be driven fewer miles compared to
an average vehicle. We believe that this factor diminishes the
likelihood that the failure to include an ESC system on the LiFe would
unreasonably lower the safety level of the vehicle.
Eight of the individual commenters opposing the grant of Wheego's
petition stated that NHTSA should not grant any exemption from the ESC
requirements, citing the safety benefits of ESC. Three additional
commenters objected to the grant of any exemption at all. The Advocates
argue that ESC is an important and proven safety improvement. In
support of their argument, the Advocates cite agency and industry
research, including the agency's most recent study of ESC system
effectiveness.\4\ While the agency continues to believe that ESC has a
substantial effect on the number of vehicle crashes, the relevant
inquiry is not the effectiveness of ESC systems. Rather, the relevant
inquiry is whether an exemption would unreasonably lower the safety
level of the vehicle in question. Although the agency has found
substantial benefits resulting from ESC systems on passenger cars, the
agency finds that the absence of ESC on the LiFe does not unreasonably
lower the safety level of that specific vehicle. We believe that the
expected use patterns of the LiFe, including the relatively low number
of miles driven by the average LiFe owner, support this finding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ See supra, note 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Advocates contend that Wheego had ample opportunity to develop
and equip their vehicles with ESC because the ESC requirement was
mandated by a final rule issued in 2007. The Advocates further contend
that, by submitting a petition for exemption just over two weeks before
the deadline for ESC compliance, Wheego ignored development of a safety
system. However, the timing of Wheego's filing does not affect its
entitlement to an exemption. The consequence of Wheego waiting until
August 15, 2011 to file its petition for an exemption is that Wheego
has been unable to manufacture the LiFe since September 1, 2011.
The Advocates also claim that ESC technology is mature and
inexpensive, citing the per-vehicle cost estimate of $111 for vehicles
already equipped with ABS set forth in the 2007 final rule. In
response, Wheego states that, as a small manufacturer, it must amortize
the cost of developing ESC over fewer vehicles than larger
manufacturers. Wheego estimated that the amortized per vehicle cost of
ESC development would be over $1000 per vehicle. We agree with Wheego
that the amortized cost of developing ESC systems is higher for very
small manufacturers. Although the discussion of the cost of ESC
development is not a statutory or regulatory factor for exemptions
under 49 U.S.C. 30113(b)(3)(B)(iii), it is relevant in determining
whether the failure to have ESC unreasonably lowers the safety level of
the vehicle.
The Advocates also argue that Wheego's limited production of
exempted vehicles does not justify an exemption. The Advocates argue
that rarer vehicles are not safer just because they are rarer. While
the agency cannot dispute the assertion that rarer vehicles are not
safer because they are rarer, it does not follow that the agency should
not consider the expected production volume in support of an exemption
request. If Wheego intended to produce more vehicles under this
exemption, the agency would be less likely to grant the petition.
Moreover, it is not just the limited number of vehicles that would be
produced under the exemption, but the limited number of miles the
average LiFe is driven compared to other cars that Wheego cites in
support of its petition.
Based on the foregoing, we believe that any impact on safety from
granting the petition would be negligible and that Wheego has satisfied
the eligibility criteria for an exemption for the development or field
evaluation of a low-emission motor vehicle.
We also find that this exemption would be consistent with the
public interest and the objectives of the Safety Act. NHTSA has
traditionally found that the public interest is served by affording
consumers a wider variety of motor vehicles, by encouraging the
development of fuel-efficient and alternative-energy vehicles, and
providing additional employment opportunities. We believe that all
three of these public interest considerations would be served by
granting Wheego's petition.
We note that the denial of this request would remove one of the few
electric vehicles that is currently being sold in the U.S. market and
that granting this petition would afford U.S. consumers the continued
choice of this all-electric vehicle. As explained above, granting this
petition will make the development of Wheego's next model possible,
while conversely denial of the petition could compromise Wheego's
ability to produce additional low emission vehicles. We believe that
granting this petition will have a positive impact on U.S. employment
in the automotive industry, and that denial of the petition could
directly impact the jobs of current Wheego employees.
Additionally, we believe that the requested exemption will have a
limited impact on general motor vehicle safety because of the small
number of vehicles that can be produced under this exemption. Finally,
it is critical to the agency's decision that Wheego is requesting a
short exemption period and intends to sell only vehicles that comply
with the ESC requirement after the exemption period.
We note that prospective purchasers will be notified that the
vehicle is exempted from the ESC requirements of Standard No. 126.
Under Sec. 555.9(b), a manufacturer of an exempted vehicle must affix
securely to the windshield or side window of each exempted vehicle a
label containing a statement that the vehicle conforms to all
applicable FMVSSs in effect on the date of manufacture ``except for
Standard Nos. [listing the standards by number and title for which an
exemption has been granted] exempted pursuant to NHTSA Exemption No. --
----.'' This label
[[Page 47918]]
notifies prospective purchasers about the exemption and its subject.
Under Sec. 555.9(c), this information must also be included on the
vehicle's certification label.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Wheego's label is required to list both its exemption from
FMVSS No. 126 and its exemption from the advanced air bag
requirements of FMVSS No. 208.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In consideration of the foregoing, we conclude that granting the
requested exemption from FMVSS No. 126, Electronic Stability Control
Systems, would facilitate the field evaluation or development of a low-
emission vehicle, and would not unreasonably lower the safety or impact
protection level of that vehicle. We further conclude that granting
this exemption would be in the public interest and consistent with the
objectives of the Safety Act.
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 30113(b)(3)(B)(iii), Wheego is granted
NHTSA Temporary Exemption No. EX 12-01 from FMVSS No. 126. The
exemption is for a total of no more than 165 LiFe model vehicles and
shall be effective from the date on which notice of this decision is
published in the Federal Register until December 31, 2012, as indicated
in the DATES section of this document.
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30113; delegations of authority at 49 CFR
1.50. and 501.8.
Issued on: August 2, 2012.
Ronald L. Medford,
Deputy Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2012-19720 Filed 8-9-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P