[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 148 (Wednesday, August 3, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-18800]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: August 3, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
[Docket No. 91-61; Notice 4]
U.S. Electricar, Inc.; Grant of Petition for Renewal of Temporary
Exemption From Five Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards
U.S. Electricar Corporation of Sebastopol, California, petitioned
for renewal of NHTSA Temporary Exemption No. 92-3 from five Federal
Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (see 57 FR 30997). At the time the
exemption was granted, the petitioner was known as Solar Electric
Engineering, Inc. As of the date of its petition, 70 vehicles had been
sold under the Exemption.
Exemption No. 93-2 expired on June 1, 1994. The petition for
renewal of the exemption was received on March 31, 1994. In accordance
with agency regulations, when a petition for renewal has been filed not
later than 60 days before the termination date of an exemption, the
exemption does not terminate until the Administrator grants or denies
the petition for renewal (49 CFR 555.8(e)).
Notice of receipt of the petition was published on May 15, 1994 (59
FR 27111) and an opportunity afforded for comment. This notice grants
the petition.
The basis of U.S. Electricar's original petition and its petition
for renewal was that a temporary exemption would facilitate the
development and field evaluation of a low emission motor vehicle.
Renewal was sought for the same portions of the same five standards as
were covered by the original exemption. These are paragraphs S4.2 and
S4.3 of Standard No. 103 Windshield Defrosting and Defogging Systems,
``the service brake requirements of S5.1 and the parking brake
performance requirements of S5.2'' of Standard No. 105 Hydraulic Brake
Systems, paragraph S3.3 of Standard No. 201 Occupant Protection in
Interior Impact, Standard No. 204 Steering Control Rearward
Displacement, and paragraphs S4.1.4.1 and S4.2.2 of Standard No. 208
Occupant Crash Protection.
Under the original exemption, petitioner converted Ford Escorts,
Chevrolet S-10 pickup trucks ``and other FMVSS-compliant vehicles'' to
electric power. It has now substituted conversions of Geo Prizm sedans
for Ford Escorts. Although the vehicles to be converted are certified
by their original manufacturers to conform to all applicable Federal
motor vehicle safety standards, the modifications that Electricar
performs add weight to the converted vehicle and may affect its
compliance with the standards. Until it has satisfied itself that the
conversions conform, petitioner requested appropriate exemptions. The
modifications that petitioner performs include removal of the internal
combustion engine and fuel system modification or replacement of the
transmission and installation of an electric propulsion system and
battery pack. Springs, shock absorbers, tires and other components are
removed and replaced with new, heavier-duty equipment as required to
accommodate the weight of the battery pack added to the vehicle. An
electric heater defroster is installed and an electric vacuum pump for
the vacuum-assisted brake system is added to the vehicle.
The electric vacuum pump is intended to improve brake performance
and has been developed during the term of the current exemption.
Petitioner has also implemented a ``Safety Development Program'' using
vehicle crashworthiness computer simulation and physical testing.
Preliminary results from a frontal barrier crash test of the S-10
conversion indicate compliance with Standard No. 208 under these
conditions ``without ejection of batteries or spillage of battery
electrolyte.'' The company has also been field testing an electrical
safety system which ``ensures that the primary battery pack remains
electrically isolated from the vehicle chassis, and de-energizes the
system'' if the condition is violated.
Electricar asserts that an exemption would not unreasonably degrade
motor vehicle safety as electric vehicles are intended for urban use
and are therefore generally operated at lower speeds. Under a renewed
exemption, the company will continue its safety development and field
evaluations with a view to ensuring that its vehicles fully comply
before the end of the renewed exemption period.
Finally, the petitioner argued that renewal of the exemption would
be in the public interest and consistent with the objectives of the
National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. Its vehicles reduce air
pollution at street level and lessen the dependence of the United
States on importation of petroleum.
No comments were received on the petition.
In granting the previous petition, because of a comment from Ford
Motor Company, NHTSA reviewed in great detail the five standards from
which exemption had been requested, and found, after this review, that
an exemption would not unreasonably degrade the safety of the vehicle
(see 57 FR 30997-30998). NHTSA's rationale is herein incorporated by
reference as a finding in the granting of the request for extension of
that exemption. The petitioner provided further views and explanation
of its requests on June 14, 1994, which have been docketed under Notice
3. It anticipates that it will achieve full certification for the Prizm
by December 1994 (leading NHTSA to conclude that the maximum two-year
exemption that is allowed is not needed). This is consistent with the
objectives of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act.
Continued exemption of a low-emission motor vehicle facilitates its
development and field evaluation and it remains in the public interest
to do so.
In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA Temporary Exemption No.
92-3 is hereby extended in its entirety from June 1, 1994, to June 1,
1995.
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30113; delegations of authority at 49 CFR
1.50 and 501.8.
Issued on: July 27, 1994.
Christopher A. Hart,
Deputy Administrator.
[FR Doc. 94-18800 Filed 8-2-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
