Federal Register
Thursday, November 7, 1974
Washington, D.C.
Volume 39, Number 216
Pages 39425-39541

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-1974-11-07/pdf/FR-1974-11-07.pdf

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No . EX74—4; Notice 2 ]

AM GENERAL CORP.

Petition for Temporary Exemption From Motor Vehicle Safety Standard

This notice grants the petition of AM General Corporation for a temporary exemption of 300 electric delivery vans from the defrosting system requirements of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 103, for a period of 1 year, on the grounds that exemption would facilitate the development and field evaluation of a low-emission motor vehicle.

On August 26,1974, notice of AM General’s petition was published in the Federal Register (39 FR 30853). The company has contracted with the U.S. Postal Service to produce 350 electric delivery vans. According to contract specifications only 50 will be equipped with both a windshield defroster and defogger, while the remaining vehicles will have only a defogger. These latter 300 vehicles are intended for use in the Los Angeles region which petitioner argues “is not a winter-climate area,” in which a defroster is needed.

The NHTSA in publishing the notice commented:

The petition presents an issue of first impression upon which public comment is invited. Heretofore petitions for exemption have been submitted by manufacturers unable to immediately comply. Under the contract in question, both conforming and nonconforming vehicles are to be produced. Thus there is no question that petitioner has the ability to manufacture a conforming vehicle. The issue is whether an exemption in this situation would facilitate the development or field evaluation of a low-emission motor vehicle as intended by Congress, and whether such an exemption is in the public interest and consistent with the objectives of the Traffic Safety Act.

In response to NHTSA’s comments, AM General explained that in wishing to determine the feasibility of a low-emission vehicle, the Los Angeles region was chosen “because this is a high automotive exhaust pollutant area having high population density where usage of such a vehicle would contribute greatly to the public welfare and health.” It notes that, were the vehicle equipped with a gasoline burning heating/defrosting system, this “would contribute to the overall air pollution and would detract from the adaptability evaluation.” Such systems would also add weight to a vehicle already penalized by use of an on-board charger resulting in a vehicle weight 1,100 pounds greater than a correspondingly sized gasoline-powered vehicle. Finally, the company believes that installation of heating/defrosting systems would be an unnecessary expense in a time of inflation.

The petition was supported by Sebring-Vanguard, Inc., a manufacturer of electric-powered vehicles, which reiterated AM General’s concern on undue weight penalties. Sebring asked that particular attention be given AM General’s request “because it is the first time a major auto manufacturer” has taken a positive step toward future production of electric vehicles. The Vehicle Equipment Safety Commission (VESC) also supported the petition although it was concerned that ultimate disposition of the vehicles might result in their transfer and use outside the Los Angeles area. To this point, AM General has replied that “Since these vehicles are a General Services Administration experimental procurement, close control and monitoring of these units throughout their useful service life is insured and will not be utilized outside of the Los Angeles area.” No other comments were received.

Even though AM General has the ability to produce a vehicle that conforms with Standard No. 103, NHTSA has concluded that an exemption would facilitate the development and field evaluation of low-emission motor vehicles by providing comparative data between two sets of vehicles identical except for heating/defrosting systems. If the weight penalty of the 50 conforming vehicles proves costly by comparison with the 300 exempted ones, the company should be encouraged to developed a system that is more cost-effective. The AM General defrosting system for future non-exempted production might also eventually prove adaptable to other electric vehicles such as the Zagato Elcar and Sebring-Vanguard which have both received exemptions from Standard No. 103 because of their present inability to incorporate defrosting systems. While the NHTSA shares VESC’s concern about operation outside the Los Angeles area, it is willing to accept AM General’s reassurances of GSA monitoring and control. Finally, it is impressed with Sebring-Vanguard’s comment pointing out that AM General is the first American manufacturer of size to produce an electric vehicle, and should be encouraged in its project. For the above reasons the NHTSA has concluded that an exemption of approximately 1 year is consistent with the public interest and the objectives of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act.

In consideration of the foregoing, AM General Corp. is granted NHTSA Exemption No. 74-4 for 300 electric delivery vans, exempting it from the requirement of paragraph S4.1 of 49 CFR § 571.103, Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 103, that a defrosting system be provided. The exemption is effective as of the date of issuance and expires on November 1, 1975.

(Sec. 3, Pub. L. 92-548, 86 Stat. 1159 (15 USC 1410); delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.51).

Issued on November 1, 1974.

James B. Gregory,
Administrator.

[FR Doc.74-26056 Filed ll-6-74;8:45 am]