54660 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 184 / Monday, September 22, 2008 / Notices 

1To view the application, go to http:// 

www.regulations.gov and enter the docket number 

set forth in the heading of this document. 2See 65 FR 30680 (May 12, 2000). 

demand in the near term, excessive 

demand in peak hours could cause 

delays. A Level 2 designation allows 

some schedule review to mitigate 

delays. The FAA intends to focus its 

review primarily on arrival operations 

similar to the process under the current 

rule. Carriers should submit schedule 

information in sufficient detail 

including, at minimum, the operating 

carrier, flight number, scheduled time of 

operation, frequency, and effective 

dates. IATA standard schedule 

information format and data elements 

also may be used because many carriers 

use automated systems to develop and 

publish schedule information. 

DATES: Schedules must be submitted no 

later than October 9, 2008. 

ADDRESSES: Schedules may be 

submitted by mail to the Slot 

Administration Office, AGC–240, Office 

of the Chief Counsel, 800 Independence 

Ave., SW., Washington, DC 20591; 

facsimile: 202–267–7277; ARINC: 

DCAYAXD; or by e-mail to: 7–AWA– 

slotadmin@faa.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Robert Hawks, Regulations Division, 

Office of the Chief Counsel, Federal 

Aviation Administration, 800 

Independence Avenue, SW., 

Washington, DC 20591; telephone 

number: 202–267–7143; fax number: 

202–267–7971; e-mail: 

rob.hawks@faa.gov. 

Issued in Washington, DC on September 

16, 2008. 

James W. Whitlow, 

Deputy Chief Counsel. 

[FR Doc. E8–22073 Filed 9–19–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

[Docket No. NHTSA–2008–0152] 

Think Technology AS; Receipt of 

Application for a Temporary 

Exemption From the Advanced Air Bag 

Requirements of FMVSS No. 208 

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration (NHTSA), 

Department of Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Notice of receipt of petition for 

temporary exemption from certain 

provisions of Federal Motor Vehicle 

Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 208, 

Occupant Crash Protection. 

SUMMARY: In accordance with the 

procedures in 49 CFR Part 555, Think 

Technology AS has petitioned the 

agency for a temporary exemption from 

certain advanced air bag requirements of 

FMVSS No. 208. 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 or impact protection 

level of the vehicle.1

This notice of receipt of an 

application for temporary exemption is 

published in accordance with the 

applicable statutory provisions. NHTSA 

has not made any judgment on the 

merits of the application. 

DATES: You should submit your 

comments not later than October 22, 

2008. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ari 

Scott, 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. 

Comments: We invite you to submit 

comments on the application described 

above. You may submit comments 

identified by docket number at the 

heading of this notice by any of the 

following methods: 

• Web Site: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments 

on the electronic docket site by clicking 

on ‘‘Help and Information’’ or ‘‘Help/ 

Info.’’ 

• Fax: 1–202–493–2251. 

• Mail: U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Docket Operations, M– 

30, Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue, SE, Washington, DC 20590. 

• Hand Delivery: 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue, SE., West Building Ground 

Floor, Room W12–140, Washington, DC, 

between 9 am and 5 pm, Monday 

through Friday, except Federal 

Holidays. 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

online instructions for submitting 

comments. 

Instructions: All submissions must 

include the agency name and docket 

number. Note that all comments 

received will be posted without change 

to http://www.regulations.gov, including 

any personal information provided. 

Docket: For access to the docket to 

read background documents or 

comments received, go to http:// 

www.regulations.gov at any time or to 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West 

Building Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 

Washington, DC 20590, between 9 am 

and 5 pm, Monday through Friday, 

except Federal Holidays. Telephone: 

(202) 366–9826. 

Privacy Act: Anyone is able to search 

the electronic form of all comments 

received into any of our dockets by the 

name of the individual submitting the 

comment (or signing the comment, if 

submitted on behalf of an association, 

business, labor union, etc.). You may 

review DOT’s complete Privacy Act 

Statement in the Federal Register 

published on April 11, 2000 (Volume 

65, Number 70; Pages 19477–78), or you 

may visit http://www.dot.gov/ 

privacy.html. 

Confidential Business Information: If 

you wish to submit any information 

under a claim of confidentiality, you 

should submit three copies of your 

complete submission, including the 

information you claim to be confidential 

business information, to the Chief 

Counsel, NHTSA, at the address given 

under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT. In addition, you should 

submit two copies, from which you 

have deleted the claimed confidential 

business information, to Docket 

Management at the address given above. 

When you send a comment containing 

information claimed to be confidential 

business information, you should 

include a cover letter setting forth the 

information specified in our 

confidential business information 

regulation (49 CFR Part 512). 

We will consider all comments 

received before the close of business on 

the comment closing date indicated 

above. To the extent possible, we shall 

also consider comments filed after the 

closing date. 

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.’’ 2 The upgrade was designed to 

meet the 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 air bags to infants, children, 

and other occupants, especially in lowspeed crashes. 

The advanced air bag requirements 

were a culmination of a comprehensive 

plan that the agency announced in 1996 

to address the adverse effects of air bags. 

This plan also included 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. 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 184 / Monday, September 22, 2008 / Notices 54661 

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’ 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 implication of any 

temporary exemptions granted by this 

agency. In the present case, we are 

seeking comments on a petition for a 

temporary exemption from the 

advanced air bag requirements 

submitted by Think Technology AS, a 

Norwegian manufacturer of battery 

electric vehicles, which utilize chemical 

energy stored in rechargeable battery 

packs and electric motors instead of 

internal combustion engines. The 

vehicle at issue is entitled the Think 

City EV, a zero-emissions vehicle. 

II. Background of Manufacturer 

The Think City EV originally began as 

a project started in 1998 by PIVCO AS 

in Norway. According to the petitioner, 

in 2000, the PIVCO project was acquired 

by Ford Motor Company, a major U.S. 

automobile manufacturer, as part of an 

effort to comply with the State of 

California’s Zero Emissions Vehicle 

mandate. Ford created a project called 

Think, which produced 350 Think City 

EV cars based on the PIVCO project in 

2000, which were leased as part of a 

demonstration and testing project. 

However, in light of the California Air 

Resources Board’s decision in 2003 to 

essentially end the requirement for 

‘‘pure’’ electric cars, Ford sold the 

Think project to KamKorp, a company 

based in Switzerland. In 2006, a new 

ownership occurred creating Think 

Global AS. 

Think Technology AS is a whollyowned subsidiary of Think Global AS, 

a holding company that possesses the 

intellectual property rights to the Think 

City EV. The current owners of Think 

Global AS include the founders of the 

PIVCO project, the precursor to the 

Think City EV, as well as various other 

entities in Norway and other countries. 

Neither Think Global AS nor Think 

Technology AS (hereinafter, ‘‘Think’’) 

has sold any vehicles in the U.S. to date. 

III. Statutory Basis for Requested Part 

555 Exemption 

In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 30113 

and the procedures in 49 CFR Part 555, 

Think has petitioned the agency for a 

temporary exemption from certain 

advanced air bag requirements of 

FMVSS No. 208. 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 or impact protection 

level of the vehicle. A copy of the 

petition is available for review and has 

been placed in the docket for this 

notice. Specifically, Think has 

requested an exemption for a period of 

two years upon the grant of the petition. 

This requested exemption includes the 

advanced air bag requirements in 

S14.5.2 of FMVSS No. 208, the rigid 

barrier test requirement using the 5th 

percentile adult female test dummy 

(belted and unbelted, S15), the offset 

deformable barrier test requirement 

using the 5th percentile adult female 

test dummy (S17), the requirements to 

provide protection for infants and 

children (S19, S21, and S23) and the 

requirement using an out-of-position 5th 

percentile adult female test dummy at 

the driver position (S25). The petitioner 

stated that the vehicle will be equipped 

with standard air bags and will comply 

with the rigid barrier belted test 

requirement using the 50th percentile 

adult male test dummy set forth in 

S14.5.1(a) of FMVSS No. 208. 

IV. Summary of Information Provided 

by Petitioner and Supporting 

Arguments 

A petitioner must provide specified 

information in submitting a petition for 

exemption. These requirements are 

specified in 49 CFR 555.5, and include 

a number of items. Foremost among 

them are that the petitioner must set 

forth the basis of the application under 

§ 555.6, and the reasons why the 

exemption would be in the public 

interest and consistent with the 

objectives of 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301. 

This section summarizes the 

information provided by the petitioner 

and its supporting arguments. In this 

case, the basis of the application is to 

facilitate the development and 

evaluation of a low emission vehicle, 

the requirements of which are given in 

§ 555.6(c). The main requirements of 

this 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 the 

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. 

a. Petitioner’s Statement That the Think 

City EV Is a Low-Emission Vehicle 

Think asserts that the Think City EV 

is a low-emission vehicle. It states that 

49 U.S.C. 30113(a) defines a lowemission vehicle as one that conforms to 

the applicable standards for new 

vehicles contained in section 202 of the 

Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7521), and 

whose emissions are significantly below 

on of those standards. Section 202 of the 

Clear Air Act currently controls 

hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide, oxides 

of nitrogen, and particulate matter. 

Think asserts that the Think City EV 

emits none of the listed pollutants. It 

also asserts that the vehicle has no 

additional systems installed that could 

produce the named pollutants, e.g., a 

fuel-fired heating system. 

b. Petitioner’s Statement That a 

Temporary Exemption Would Not 

Unreasonably Degrade Safety 

This portion of the regulation requires 

that the petitioner provide four items of 

information. The first is a detailed 

description of how the low-emission 

vehicle would differ from one that 

complies with the standard. The second, 

required only of manufacturers 

currently producing a vehicle 

conforming to the standard, is the 

results of tests conducted to substantiate 

certification with the standard. The 

third requirement is for the petitioner to 

provide the results of any tests that 

demonstrate the vehicle’s failure to meet 

the standard, expressed in as 

comparative performance levels. 

Finally, the fourth requirement is for the 

petitioner to provide reasons why the 

failure to meet the standard does not 

unreasonably degrade the safety or 

impact protection of the vehicle. 

i. Petitioner’s Description of How the 

Think City Would Differ From a Vehicle 

That Complies With FMVSS No. 208 

Think is applying for an exemption 

from the advanced air bag requirements 

of Standard No. 208. However, the 

Think City EV is not without air bags. 

Think states that the Think City EV will 

comply with the pre-advanced air bag 

requirements of FMVSS No. 208. As 

stated in the petition, the only 

differences between a compliant vehicle 

and the Think City EV are the items 

discussed above in the requested 

exemption. Namely, these are limited to 

the provisions in requirements in 

S14.5.2 of FMVSS No. 208, the rigid 

barrier test requirement using the 5th 

percentile adult female test dummy 

(belted and unbelted, S15), the offset 

deformable barrier test requirement 

using the 5th percentile adult female 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
54662 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 184 / Monday, September 22, 2008 / Notices 

test dummy (S17), the requirements to 

provide protection for infants and 

children (S19, S21, and S23) and the 

requirement using an out-of-position 5th 

percentile adult female test dummy at 

the driver position (S25). 

ii. Testing Results Substantiating 

Certification With the Standard 

As Think has not designed vehicles 

that conform to FMVSS No. 208, it is 

not required nor able to show testing 

results substantiating certification with 

the standard. 

iii. Any Testing Results Demonstrating 

the Vehicle’s Failure To Meet the 

Standard 

Think has not provided the results of 

testing demonstrating that the Think 

City EV has specifically failed the 

advanced air bag requirement. We note 

that generally a manufacturer would 

only be able to meet those requirements 

by installing an air bag system 

specifically designed to meet those 

requirements. 

iv. Petitioner’s Reasons as to Why the 

Vehicle Does Not Unreasonably Degrade 

Safety or Impact Protection 

Think argues that safety and impact 

protection are not unreasonably 

degraded by the requested exemption. 

The petitioner claimed that the vehicle 

was designed, engineered and tested by 

Ford to meet all 2003 NHTSA 

requirements. It states further that the 

Think City EV will: 

• Meet the new belted test 

requirements of S14.5.1(a), which 

imposes more stringent limits for head 

injury criteria, chest, and neck 

deflection than the old version to which 

the vehicle was originally designed; 

• Meet the new, more stringent 

criteria for injury prevention under S13, 

with regard to the unbelted sled test; 

• Have FMVSS No. 209 and 210 

compliant belts and anchorages, 

together with pretensioners and load 

limiters; 

• Have a passenger air bag on-off 

switch permitted by FMVSS No. 208; 

and 

• Meet all other requirements of the 

FMVSSs. 

Therefore, the petitioner argues that the 

Think City EV will not unreasonably 

degrade safety or impact protection. 

c. Petitioner’s Statement That a 

Temporary Exemption Would Facilitate 

the Development or Evaluation of the 

Think City EV 

Think states that the temporary 

exemption it seeks would facilitate the 

evaluation and development of the 

Think City EV. The petitioner claims 

that it currently does not have the 

ability to design or acquire an air bag 

system that meets the advanced air bag 

requirements of Standard No. 208. 

While the Think City EV air bag’s 

system is a dual stage system, it is 

currently designed with a fixed phase 

delay as Think does not yet have an 

electrical control unit or hardware, such 

as seat position sensing, that can meet 

all of the advanced air bag requirements. 

Think also asserts that off-the-shelf 

systems that meet the requirements are 

not currently available, and that the 

sourcing of a custom designed system is 

not straightforward or financially viable 

at this time. 

The requested exemption will 

facilitate the development of the Think 

City EV by allowing Think to enter the 

U.S. market, a key target market for the 

vehicle at issue. Think states that this 

will enable the company to evaluate the 

vehicle, and based on this evaluation, 

continue development, including 

successive models. Specifically, Think 

claims that the two year exemption will 

permit: 

• Evaluation and further development 

of alternative battery concepts; 

• Evaluation and further development 

of vehicle systems based on real-world 

usage under U.S.-specific driving and 

storage conditions; 

• Product evaluation through U.S. 

warranty analysis and customer 

feedback; 

• Further evaluation of the company’s 

plan to establish a U.S. manufacturing 

operation; and 

• Development of a compliant 

advanced air bag system. 

d. Petitioner’s Statement of Intent To 

Comply or Cease Production Upon 

Expiration of the Temporary Exemption 

On the third page of its petition, 

Think states, ‘‘[a]t the end of the 

exemption period, Think intends to 

conform with all advanced air bag 

requirements.’’ 

e. Petitioner’s Statement as to the 

Number of Vehicles To Be Produced in 

Any 12–Month Period Covered by the 

Temporary Exemption 

Think has provided figures for the 

projected U.S. vehicle sales of the Think 

City EV during the period of the 

requested exemption. For the first year, 

Think projects that it will sell 500 Think 

City EVs. For the second year, the 

company projects that it will sell 2500 

Think City EVs. Think stated that if the 

petition is granted, it undertakes not to 

sell in the U.S. in excess of 2500 Think 

City exempted vehicles during any 12- 

month period during the duration of the 

exemption. 

f. Petitioner’s Statement Regarding 

Public Interest Considerations for 

Granting a Temporary Exemption 

Under § 555.5(b)(7), a petitioner must 

set forth reasons why the granting of the 

petition would be in the public interest 

and consistent with the objectives of 49 

U.S.C. Chapter 301. We are providing a 

summary of the petitioner’s arguments 

and note that more detailed arguments 

can be found by examining the petition. 

Think argued that the risk to safety is 

de minimis. Among other things, it 

stated, as indicated above, that the 

Think City will be equipped with a 

standard air bag system, and will also 

meet all other FMVSSs. 

Think also argued that the Think City 

is a major step forward in transportation 

that will help the environment, and that 

granting the exemption will protect U.S. 

consumer choice and will benefit the 

environment. 

Think provided the following reasons 

battery electric vehicles (BEVs) are 

important: 

• BEVs can reduce dependence on oil 

since electric power can be generated in 

environmentally friendly ways, 

including from wind, solar rays, waves, 

or geothermal power, and not just from 

fossil fuel. 

• BEVs can be far more energy 

efficient compared to Internal 

Combustion Engine (ICE) powered cars. 

Think’s analysis indicates that urban 

driving of a Think City compared with 

other fuel efficient cars reduces CO2 

emissions per driver kilometer by about 

96% in Norway (where electricity is 

generated from hydroelectric sources) 

and 30% in the UK, where electricity is 

generated primarily from fossil fuels. 

• BEVs are themselves zero-emissions 

vehicles and are not a source of air 

pollution. 

• BEVs recharging costs are more 

predictable than gasoline prices, and not 

as subject to volatile international 

incidents. 

V. Issuance of Notice of Final Action 

We are providing a 30-day comment 

period. After considering public 

comments and other available 

information, we will publish a notice of 

final action on the application in the 

Federal Register. 

Issued on: September 16, 2008. 

Stephen R. Kratzke, 

Associate Administrator for Rulemaking. 

[FR Doc. E8–22082 Filed 9–19–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES