[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 136 (Monday, July 18, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-17370]


[[Page Unknown]]

[Federal Register: July 18, 1994]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
[Docket No. 94-36; Notice 1]

 

Solectria Corporation; Receipt of Petition for Temporary 
Exemption From Four Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards

    Solectria Corporation of Arlington, Massachusetts, has petitioned 
to be exempted from four Federal motor vehicle safety standards for 
passenger cars that it converts to electric power. The basis of the 
petition is that compliance with the standards would cause substantial 
economic hardship.
    Notice of receipt of the petition is published in accordance with 
agency regulations on the subject and does not represent any judgment 
by the agency on the merits of the petition (49 CFR 555.7(a)).
    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.'' Its petition seeks renewal 
of the exemption from four Federal motor vehicle safety standards which 
expired on May 1, 1994. As the petition was not received until after 
the expiration date of the previous exemption, the matter must be 
considered de novo. NHTSA notes that the petitioner is also 
manufacturing electric truck conversions under NHTSA Exemption No. 94-
2.
    Petitioner has sold 45 Solectria Forces under its previous 
exemption. This exemption extended to seven Federal motor vehicle 
safety standards. Petitioner was able to ensure conformance of the 
Force with three of these. The Geo Metros 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 are requested are discussed below.

1. Standard No. 204, Steering Control Rearward Displacement

    The conversion affects the ability to meet paragraph S4.2, although 
the petitioner is confident that it will be able to certify compliance 
for perpendicular frontal impact under the conditions of S5 of Standard 
No. 208.

2. Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection

    The conversion affects the ability to meet paragraph S4.1.4. 
Solectria has completed certification testing for a perpendicular 
frontal barrier test, but has yet to complete testing for an angled 
barrier test, side-impact test or roll-over test. [NHTSA note: 
Paragraph S4.1.4 does not require manufacturers to certify compliance 
with the side-impact or rollover tests if the vehicle is equipped with 
seat belts at every seating position.]

3. Standard No. 214, Side Door Strength

    The modifications will affect compliance with the requirements of 
S3.1.3 and S3.2.3 requiring a minimum peak crush resistance based on 
the vehicle curb weight. Solectria is confident that the Force will 
meet this standard though it has not recertified the vehicle. In 
addition, the Geo Metro may not have been certified by its original 
manufacturer to meet the dynamic side impact test due to the phase-in 
provision of this portion of the standard.

4. Standard No. 216, Roof Crush Resistance

    According to the petitioner, the modifications will affect the 
requirements in S4(a) which specifies a maximum crush force based on 
the vehicle curb weight. However, the petitioner is confident that the 
vehicle is capable of meeting Standard No. 216.
    Exemption was requested from these four standards for a period of 
eight months.
    Petitioner argued that to require immediate compliance would create 
substantial economic hardship. As of September 30, 1993, the company 
had cumulative net losses of $107,300. It estimates that the total cost 
of testing for compliance with the four standards would be $122,825. 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 50 additional 
Forces while the exemption is in effect. A denial of the petition would 
remove the Force from production for a year, with total revenue losses 
of $1,300,000. It could result in discontinuing 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 
substantial contribution to the country's transportation needs both in 
themselves and as precursor to future electric vehicles.'' The 
petitioner believes that ``it is critical that low-emission electric 
vehicles be brought to market as quickly as possible to advance the 
field and relieve the environmental and economic problems associated 
with pollution and dependence on fossil fuel.''
    Interested persons are invited to submit comments on the petition 
described above. Comments should refer to the Docket number and be 
submitted to: Docket Section, National Highway Traffic Safety 
Administration, room 5109, 400 Seventh Street, SW, Washington, DC 
20590. It is requested but not required that 10 copies be submitted.
    All comments received before the close of business on the comment 
closing date indicated below will be considered, and will be available 
for examination in the docket at the above address both before and 
after that date. To the extent possible, comments filed after the 
closing date will also be considered. Notice of final action on the 
petition will be published in the Federal Register pursuant to the 
authority indicated below.
    Comment closing date: August 17, 1994.

(49 U.S.C. 30113; delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50)

    Issued on July 12, 1994.
Stanley R. Scheiner,
Acting Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 94-17370 Filed 7-15-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P