[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 59 (Monday, March 28, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page ]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-7159]
[Federal Register: March 28, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
[Docket No. 93-84; Notice 2]
Solectria Corporation; Grant of Petition for Temporary Exemption
From Four Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards
Solectria Corporation of Arlington, Massachusetts, petitioned to be
exempted from four Federal motor vehicle safety standards for trucks
that it converts to electric power. The basis of the petition was that
compliance with the standards would cause substantial economic
hardship.
Notice of receipt of the petition was published on December 23,
1993, and an opportunity afforded for comment (58 FR 68189). This
notice grants that petition.
Previously, petitioner received NHTSA Exemption No. 92-2 covering
Geo Metro passenger cars that it converts to electric power, and
markets under the name ``Solectria Force.'' As of the date of the
latest petition, 45 Solectria Forces had been sold. Petitioner now
intends to convert new Chevrolet S-10 pickup trucks to electric power.
The vehicles to be converted have been certified by their original
manufacturer to conform to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety
standards. However, petitioner determined that the vehicles may not
conform with all or part of four Federal motor vehicle safety standards
after their modification. The standards for which exemptions were
requested are discussed below.
1. Standard No. 204, Steering Control Rearward Displacement
The conversion affects the ability to meet paragraph S4.2.
According to the petitioner, ``[b]ecause the weight in the hood is
changed, a 30 mile per hour crash test under the conditions of S5 would
be needed to determine the steering wheel's rearward displacement.''
2. Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection
The conversion affects the ability to meet paragraphs S4.2.2 and
S4.6.1. According to the petitioner, ``[b]ecause the Solectria pickup
has manual Type 2 seat belts, S4.2.2 requires that the pickup meet the
requirements of S4.1.2.3. S4.6.1 requires that Solectria's pickup meet
the frontal crash protection requirements of S5.1.''
3. Standard No. 212, Windshield Mounting
4. Standard No. 219, Windshield Zone Intrusion
According to the petitioner, ``[t]he modifications will affect the
requirements'' of each of these two standards.
Exemption was requested from these four standards for a period of
three years. the conversion of the vehicle to electric power results in
a net weight increase of 500 pounds which is 17 percent over the weight
at which the vehicle was originally certified. It involves the
substitution of electrical propulsion components for the original ones
relating to internal combustion propulsion, and modifications to the
heating system and drive shaft. Petitioner stated that ``thirty-mile
per hour barrier crash testing is needed to determine the actual energy
absorbing characteristics of the new front compartment components.''
Petitioner argued that to require immediate compliance would create
substantial economic hardship. As of September 30, 1990, the end of its
first fiscal year, the company had a net income of $8,186. However, at
the end of its second and third fiscal years, it had net losses,
respectively of $87,602 and $106,243. Thus, as of September 30, 1992,
it had cumulative net losses of $185,659. It estimates that the total
cost of testing for compliance with the four standards would be
$155,520. If modifications appear indicated, further testing would be
required. An exemption would permit vehicle sales and the generation of
cash permitting testing and full certification of compliance while the
exemptions are in effect. It anticipates orders for 25 trucks in its
first year of production, 50 units in the second year, and 150 vehicles
in the third. A denial of the petition would delay Solectria's
production ``for several years and would likely prevent production
altogether.''
According to the petitioner, granting the exemption would be in the
public interest and consistent with the National Traffic and Motor
Vehicle Safety Act (the Act) because it ``will be able to make a
substantive contribution to the nation's clean transportation needs. ''
No comments were received on the petition.
Petitioner's lifetime financial history through September 30, 1992,
indicated a cumulative net loss of almost $186,000. It is doubtful that
the results for the year ending September 30, 1993, which have not been
supplied, would materially improve the picture. According to The New
York Times (January 28, 1994, page D4), Solectria's total vehicle
production since its founding is about 60, and it has orders for about
52 vehicles more. It has estimated compliance testing costs for the
four standards to be approximately $155,000. Further costs would be
incurred if modifications are indicated. In the agency's view, the
petitioner has demonstrated that immediate compliance would cause it
substantial economic hardship.
Because the host vehicle is certified to be in compliance with all
applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, the statutory
language requiring a finding that the petitioner has made a good faith
effort to comply with the standards from which exemption is sought must
be considered in a different light. Petitioner has evaluated the effect
of its conversion operations upon a certified vehicle, and has
determined that its converted vehicle may not conform with four Federal
motor vehicle safety standards. It has further estimated the cost of
testing to verify the compliance status of its vehicles, a sum that
approaches in amount its cumulative net losses to date. During the time
the exemption is in effect it states that it will carry through its
compliance testing program to achieve full conformance. Under these
circumstances, NHTSA believes that the petitioner is making a good
faith effort to comply with the standards. Finally, though the volume
of production would be small, the exempted vehicles would emit zero
emissions. Thus, an exemption would be in the public interest, and
consistent with the objectives of the Vehicle Safety Act to promote
alternatives to the internal combustion engine and to relieve on a
temporary basis restrictions upon small manufacturers consistent with
safety.
On the basis of the foregoing, it is hereby found that immediate
compliance would cause the petitioner substantial economic hardship,
that the petitioner has in good faith attempted to conform with the
standards from which exemption is requested, and that an exemption
would be consistent with the public interest and the objectives of the
Act. Accordingly, Solectria Corporation is hereby granted NHTSA
Temporary Exemption No. 92-2, expiring February 1, 1997, from the
following standards, or portions thereof, applicable to its Chevrolet
S-10 pickup truck conversion: 49 CFR 571.204 Motor Vehicle Safety
Standard No. 204 Steering Column Rearward Displacement; paragraphs
S4.2.2 and S4.6.1 of 49 CFR 571.208 Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No.
208 Occupant Restraint Systems; 49 CFR 571.212 Motor Vehicle Safety
Standard No. 212 Windshield Mounting; and 49 CFR 571.219 Motor Vehicle
Safety Standard No. 219 Windshield Zone Intrusion.
(15 U.S.C. 1410; delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50)
Issued on: March 22, 1994.
Christopher A. Hart,
Deputy Administrator.
[FR Doc. 94-7159 Filed 3-25-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-M
