U.S. Electricar, Inc.; Grant of Petition for Renewal of Temporary Exemption From Five Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards

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