Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Electric-Powered Vehicles; Electrolyte Spillage and Electrical Shock Protection |
|---|
|
David J. Friedman
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
January 16, 2015
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 11 (Friday, January 16, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 2320-2326]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-00423]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
49 CFR Part 571
[Docket No. NHTSA-2011-0107]
RIN 2127-AL56
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Electric-Powered
Vehicles; Electrolyte Spillage and Electrical Shock Protection
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Final rule; response to petitions for reconsideration and
technical corrections.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document denies a petition for reconsideration of Federal
Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 305, ``Electric-powered
vehicles; electrolyte spillage, and electrical shock protection'' from
Nissan Motor Company (Nissan) requesting the use of a megohmmeter as an
alternative measurement method for the electrical isolation test
procedure. Further, this
[[Page 2321]]
document adopts various technical corrections and clarifications to the
regulatory text of FMVSS No. 305 that do not change the substance of
the rule.
DATES: The effective date of this final rule is January 16, 2015.
Petitions for reconsideration of this final rule must be received not
later than March 2, 2015.
ADDRESSES: Petitions for reconsideration should refer to the docket
number of this document and be submitted to the Administrator, National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC 20590.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For non-legal issues, contact Shashi
Kuppa, Office of Crashworthiness Standards (telephone: 202-366-3827)
(fax: 202-366-2990), NVS-113. For legal issues, contact Jesse Chang,
Office of the Chief Counsel (telephone 202-366-9874) (fax: 202-366-
3820), NCC-112. The mailing address for these officials is: National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Background
II. Nissan's Petition for Reconsideration to the July 29, 2011 Final
Rule
III. Agency Response to Nissan's Petition for Reconsideration
IV. Technical Corrections to the July 29, 2011 Final Rule
a. Omitted Voltage Definitions
b. Clarification to Volts of Alternating Current (VAC)
Definition
c. Other Typographical Corrections to the Regulatory Text
V. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
VI. Regulatory Text
I. Background
On June 14, 2010,\1\ NHTSA issued a final rule amending the
electrical shock protection requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle
Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 305, ``Electric-powered vehicles;
electrolyte spillage and electrical shock protection.'' \2\ In that
document, the agency changed the requirements in FMVSS No. 305 to add
flexibility for manufacturers of electric vehicles (and other vehicles
with high voltage components such as fuel cell vehicles) while still
maintaining protection for vehicle occupants and first responders from
electrical shock. The main changes to the standard included creating
two alternative compliance options (i.e., the electrical isolation \3\
and low-voltage \4\ options) and altering the requirements to recognize
the difference between alternating current (AC) and direct current (DC)
high voltage sources. In addition, the 2010 final rule included new
definitions and made various updates to existing definitions to align
the standard more closely with voluntary industry practice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 75 FR 33515.
\2\ 49 CFR 571.305.
\3\ In essence, the electrical safety requirements for this
compliance option were that (after testing in accordance with the
standard's test procedures), electrical isolation for high voltage
sources must be at 500 ohms/volt or greater unless the high voltage
source is a DC source with electrical isolation monitoring. A DC
source with electrical isolation monitoring must have electrical
isolation that is greater than 100 ohms/volt. See id. at 33527.
\4\ In the alternative, high voltage sources could meet the
electrical safety requirements if their voltage was 30 volts for an
AC source or lower (60 volts for a DC source).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subsequent to the 2010 final rule, the agency received various
petitions for reconsideration from vehicle manufacturers and their
trade associations. Many of the petitioners sought increased clarity of
the definitions, test specifications, and performance requirements of
the rule. The agency published a final rule responding to those
petitions on July 29, 2011.\5\ The main changes to the 2010 final rule
were clarifications to the following:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ 76 FR 45436.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) The scope, applicability, and the definitions in the standard,
(2) the retention requirements for electric energy storage/
conversion systems,
(3) the electrical isolation requirements,
(4) test specifications and requirements for electrical isolation
monitoring, and
(5) the state-of-charge of electric energy storage devices prior to
crash tests.
In addition to the above clarifications to the requirements and
test procedures of the standard, that response to petitions for
reconsideration also denied requests that the agency reconsider certain
requests from the petitioners. Those requests included implementing a
protective barrier compliance option for electrical safety, adjusting
the test procedure to allow for alternative gas for crash testing
hydrogen fuel cell vehicles, and adopting a low-energy compliance
option for electrical safety. In response to those requests, the agency
reiterated its positions on those matters from the 2010 final rule. We
cited the lack of data to support the petitioners' requests to
implement these changes to the standard. We also noted that no
significant new research had produced any data that would have enabled
the agency to arrive at a different conclusion from the 2010 final
rule. In addition, we again expressed concerns in the 2010 final rule
that some of these recommendations (such as using inert gas and
megohmmeters for testing) might be outside the scope of the rulemaking.
II. Nissan's Petition for Reconsideration to the July 29, 2011 Final
Rule
Subsequent to the 2011 final rule responding to petitions for
reconsideration, the agency received a further petition for
reconsideration. The petition (from Nissan) requested that we amend
section S7.6 of FMVSS No. 305 to allow the use of a megohmmeter as an
alternative measurement method for the electrical isolation test
procedure.\6\ Nissan suggested using a megohmmeter to measure the
isolation resistance directly, rather than measuring voltage and
calculating resistance (as presently specified in FMVSS No. 305). They
contend that this results in a more stable and accurate post-crash test
measurement procedure. Nissan noted that the test procedures for United
Nations Economic Commission for Europe (ECE) Regulation No. 94 allow
such a measurement method.\7\ In addition to enhanced measurement
stability and accuracy, Nissan stated that a direct resistance
measurement supports the use of an inert gas and inactive fuel cells in
crash tests of fuel cell vehicles. Nissan expressed concern that the
electrical isolation test procedure specified in FMVSS No. 305 S7.6
does not permit the use of inert gas and inactive fuel cells in crash
tests because the procedure only specifies a voltage measurement
method. Nissan asked the agency to expedite ongoing research to develop
a test procedure for evaluating electrical safety of fuel cell vehicles
with inert gas and inactive fuel cells.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ A megohmmeter is a specialized ohmmeter that is primarily
used to determine electrical isolation resistance. This device
operates by applying a voltage or current to the item being tested.
Because externally applied voltages or currents can disrupt its
measurement (and/or cause damage to the instrument) the megohmmer is
used to test items that are under an inactive and fully de-energized
state.
\7\ ECE R.94, ``Uniform Provisions Concerning the Approval of:
Vehicles with Regard to the Protection of the Occupants in the Event
of a Frontal Collision,'' Annex 11, ``Test Procedures for the
Protection of the Occupants of Vehicles Operating on Electrical
Power from High Voltage and Electrolyte Spillage,''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. Agency Response to Nissan's Petition for Reconsideration
As stated above, the agency has addressed the issue of including
test
[[Page 2322]]
procedures in FMVSS No. 305 for evaluating electrical isolation
resistance that use a megohmmeter and an inert gas (first in the June
14, 2010 final rule and second in the July 29, 2011 final rule
responding to petitions for reconsideration). In this final rule, our
position on the matter has not substantively changed. We continue to be
concerned that incorporating an alternative test procedure that
incorporates a megohmmeter and inert gas would exceed the scope of this
rulemaking.
The 2010 final rule did not provide alternative test procedures
with these characteristics because the agency's research was ongoing,
there was insufficient information to make any regulatory decisions on
establishing these alternative test procedures, and the agency was
concerned that this issue would be outside the scope of the rulemaking.
In dealing with the same issue in the 2011 final rule, the agency
stated that its position on the issue had not substantively changed
since the 2010 final rule and that no new information was available to
lead it to conclude otherwise. As with the 2010 final rule, we noted in
the 2011 final rule that the agency was continuing its research to
determine the feasibility for establishing alternative test procedures
that would incorporate the use of a megohmmeter and inert gas.
Since publication of the 2011 final rule (and the petition for
reconsideration of the 2011 final rule from Nissan), the agency has
completed additional research on the feasibility of using a megohmmeter
for measuring electrical isolation.\8\ The research presents certain
technical questions that need to be resolved (i.e., the research showed
that megohmmeters could accurately measure electrical isolation
resistance of DC high voltage sources in an inactive state but did not
consistently do so for AC high voltage sources). We believe that the
most appropriate forum to pursue these issues would be a subsequent
rulemaking action that includes a new proposal. To incorporate a new
set of procedures to test electrical isolation using the method
suggested by Nissan in this document would likely raise concerns about
the scope of the rulemaking and the effectiveness of the public's
opportunity to comment on the merits of incorporating such procedures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Hydrogen Fuel Cell Vehicle Fuel System Integrity Research--
Electrical Isolation Test Procedure Development and Verification,
DOT HS 811 553, March 2012, http://www.nhtsa.gov/Research/Crashworthiness/Alternative%20Energy%20Vehicle%20Systems%20Safety%20Research.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As discussed in the July 29, 2011 final rule, some international
regulations and international standards permit the use of megohmmeters
in crash tests of hydrogen powered vehicles. We believe that closer
harmonization with international regulations (to the extent that they
meet the need for safety and the other requirements of the Motor
Vehicle Safety Act \9\) is an important consideration. However, as
already noted in this document, this issue would be more appropriate
for consideration in a subsequent rulemaking action. In that context,
the agency would seek to propose a resolution for these technical
issues that we have discovered through our research and obtain further
input from the public on that approach. This process would help ensure
that any such test procedure would be able to evaluate the vehicle's
electrical safety using an inert gas and a megohmmeter in a clear,
objective, and repeatable fashion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (``Motor
Vehicle Safety Act'') directs this agency to establish Federal Motor
Vehicle Safety Standards. It further states that these standards
``shall be practicable, meet the need for motor vehicle safety, and
be stated in objective terms.'' See 49 U.S.C. 30111(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thus, the agency cannot grant (within this rulemaking) the
petitioner's request to reconsider our decision not to incorporate a
test procedure in FMVSS No. 305 for evaluating electrical isolation
resistance using a megohmmeter and inert gas. However, as we noted in
the July 29, 2011 final rule, manufacturers are not prohibited from
using alternative test procedures and devices other than those in the
FMVSSs as a basis for their compliance certification.
IV. Technical Corrections to the July 29, 2011 Final Rule
In addition to addressing the petition for reconsideration from
Nissan, this document makes a few technical amendments to the
regulatory text of FMVSS No. 305 to correct omissions, add clarity, and
correct typographical errors. Due to the clerical nature of these
corrections to the 2011 final rule, we find that there is good cause to
determine that notice and comment on these corrections is unnecessary
under the Administrative Procedure Act.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ The Administrative Procedure Act states that general notice
of proposed rulemaking is not required when an agency ``for good
cause finds . . . that notice and public procedure thereon are
impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.''
See 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
a. Omitted Voltage Definitions
The three definitions for voltage of alternating current (VAC),
voltage of direct current (VDC), and working voltage were included in
paragraph S4 of the June 14, 2010 final rule but were inadvertently
omitted in the July 29, 2011 final rule. This final rule restores these
definitions in paragraph S4 of FMVSS No. 305 without any changes to the
language from the 2010 final rule (except for a clarification to the
definition of VAC, as will be discussed in the section that follows).
We find that notice and comment is unnecessary for restoring these
three definitions in paragraph S4 of FMVSS No. 305. It was clear that
the omission of these definitions was a clerical mistake as the amended
regulatory text from the 2011 final rule continued to use the terms
VAC, VDC, and working voltage in the requirements and test procedures
in the standard. Further, we did not mention removing the definitions
from paragraph S4 in the preamble to the 2011 final rule and we believe
that restoring these three definitions does not change the substantive
requirements of FMVSS No. 305.
b. Clarification to Volts of Alternating Current (VAC) Definition
In addition to restoring the VAC definition into paragraph S4, we
believe it is appropriate to further clarify the definition of VAC to
be aligned with industry practices and other standardized definitions.
Subsequent to the 2011 final rule, the agency received questions from
the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers (``the Alliance'') \11\
seeking confirmation that NHTSA intended to use the standard industry
practice of using the root mean square value of voltage for VAC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers is an association
of 12 vehicle manufacturers including BMW group, Chrysler Group LLC,
Ford Motor Company, General Motors Company, Jaguar Land Rover,
Mazda, Mercedes-Benz USA, Mitsubishi Motors, Porsche, Toyota,
Volkswagen Group of America and Volvo Cars North America.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While we have expressed (throughout the rulemaking process) voltage
of alternating current using the root meet square value, we agree with
the Alliance that this definition could be clarified. In the 2010 final
rule, the definition of VAC stated that ``VAC means volts of
alternating current (AC).'' Due to the nature of alternating current,
VAC varies in time and it could potentially be measured using a
different method. However, our rulemaking process has always used the
root mean square value for expressing VAC because the safety thresholds
established by the 2010 final rule were based on limits of electrical
current (that the body can withstand) from IEC Technical Specification
60479-1. This technical specification expresses electrical current for
AC
[[Page 2323]]
sources as the root mean square value of current.\12\ As our safety
thresholds for AC sources are based on electrical current limits
expressed as the root mean square value of current, the voltage for AC
sources must also be expressed using the root mean square value.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ See IEC TS 60479-1, Fourth Edition, 2005-2007. Figure 20
shows the amount of current in AC (root mean square) over time and
the associated probabilities of fibrillation. Section 5 explains
these values and notes that alternating current values are expressed
as root mean square values.
\13\ Voltage is current multiplied by resistance (V = I x R). In
order to establish the required electrical isolation in ohms per
volt (e.g., 500 ohms/volt for AC sources in paragraph S5.3(a)) using
the V = I x R equation, the voltage (for an AC source) must be
expressed as the root mean square value of voltage given that the
value of current that we are using is expressed as the root mean
square value.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We further expressed VAC as the root mean square value of voltage
of AC sources because this is the standard definition used in common
industry standards. The root mean square value is the square root of
the time average value of the square of the voltage within a period of
oscillation. Using this method of expressing AC voltage is common
practice for a wide variety of industries. The Society of Automotive
Engineers (SAE) Recommended Practice J1772,\14\ refers to the voltage
of AC mains as the root mean square value. The voltage of power
typically supplied to homes (commonly referred to as ``120 Volts'') is
the root mean square value of the AC supply. Voltage of electric power
transmission lines are also reported as the root mean square value of
voltage. Instrumentation devices, such as multimeters and voltmeters,
also measure the root mean square value of voltage of alternating
current sources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ SAE J1772--Recommended practice for electric vehicle and
plug-in hybrid electric vehicle conductive charge coupler.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Therefore, we find that notice and comment is unnecessary for this
clarification to the definition of VAC. The agency is simply stating
that VAC is expressed as the root mean square value of voltage in the
VAC definition in FMVSS No. 305 to make clear a term that has always
been expressed in this manner throughout the rulemaking process. We
believe that this clarification does not substantively change the
requirements of FMVSS No. 305. Further, the clarification does not
change the industry understanding of VAC as used in the standard (as
evidenced by the questions we received from industry on this matter).
c. Other Typographical Corrections to the Regulatory Text
In addition, the agency discovered various typographical errors
resulting from the 2011 final rule that we are now correcting in this
final rule. We find that notice and comment is unnecessary for these
changes to FMVSS No. 305. These changes do not alter the substance of
the rule. Instead, they correct various inconsistencies including
incorrect paragraph references, incomplete sentences, and updating a
reference to a current definition (as opposed to an old definition that
has been removed from FMVSS No. 305).
In paragraph S5.4, this final rule corrects a reference dealing
with electrical isolation monitoring requirements. Paragraph S5.4
establishes the requirements that an electrical isolation monitoring
system must meet. Electrical isolation monitoring is required under
paragraph S5.3(a)(3) when the electrical isolation of a DC high voltage
source is greater or equal to 100 ohms/volt (as opposed to 500 ohms/
volt without an electrical isolation monitoring system). S5.4
references S5.3 to indicate the situations under which electrical
isolation monitoring is required. However, the current S5.4 incorrectly
refers to S5.3(a)(2), a section applicable to DC high voltage sources
without electrical isolation monitoring. Thus, the agency is correcting
this reference to S5.3(a)(3) which is applicable to DC high voltage
sources with electrical isolation monitoring. We believe that this
change corrects a clear typographical error.
In addition, this final rule rewords S7.6.4 and S7.6.5 to clarify
the language in these paragraphs. The 2011 final rule mistakenly edited
paragraphs S7.6.4 and S7.6.5 to include incomplete sentences and the
term ``voltage(s)'' when each paragraph only referenced one voltage
measurement. In FMVSS No. 305, S7.6.4 states that the voltage(s) is/are
measured as shown in Figure 2. It also has an incomplete sentence about
the voltages(s) (V1) between the negative side of the high voltage
source and the electrical chassis. Paragraph S7.6.5 states that the
voltage(s) is/are measured as shown in Figure 3. It also has an
incomplete sentence about the voltage(s) (V2) between the positive side
of the high voltage source and the electrical chassis.
Since only a single voltage measurement is made in each of these
sections, the references to ``voltage(s)'' are incorrect and confusing.
Further, we have edited the paragraphs to remove the sentence fragments
from each paragraph. Therefore, the agency is rewording S7.6.4 and
S7.6.5 in this final rule. Paragraph S7.6.4 will state that the voltage
V1 between the negative side of the high voltage source and the
electrical chassis is measured as shown in Figure 2. Further, paragraph
S7.6.5 will state that the voltage V2 between the positive side of the
high voltage source and the electrical chassis is measured as shown in
Figure 3.
As stated above, these changes correct grammatical errors for these
two paragraphs without changing the substance of the requirements or
the measurement procedures. These sentences merely restate the
measurement procedure shown in Figure 2 and Figure 3 more clearly than
the language adopted by the 2011 final rule.
Further, this final rule changes the phrase, ``electrical isolation
measurement,'' to ``voltage measurement,'' in two instances of section
S7.7 Voltage measurement. As evident from the other portions of the
regulatory text, the measurements obtained in S7.7 are not ``electrical
isolation measurements'' but are ``voltage measurements.'' The title of
S7.7 is ``voltage measurement,'' suggesting that the measured value in
S7.7 is the voltage. Paragraph S7.6 uses the voltage measurements to
then calculate the electrical isolation resistance of a high voltage
source. Further, ``electrical isolation'' is defined in the current
standard as the resistance between any high voltage source and any of
the vehicle's electrical chassis divided by the working voltage of the
high voltage source. This measurement cannot be obtained through the
procedure described in S7.7. Therefore, it is clear that the reference
to ``electrical isolation measurements'' is a typographical error.
Thus, this final rule changes the references to ``electrical isolation
measurements'' to ``voltage measurements'' in order to clarify that the
voltages are measured and the electrical isolation is computed from the
voltage measurements. This is not a substantive change to the standard.
Finally, this final rule makes two minor clarifications to
paragraph S8. First we are italicizing the title ``Test procedure for
on-board electrical isolation monitoring system'' to clarify that it is
a title. Second, we are revising the term ``high voltage system to the
propulsion motor(s)'' in S8 subparagraph (2) to ``electric energy
storage/conversion system to the propulsion system.'' This is also a
typographical error because the terms ``high voltage system'' and
``propulsion motor'' are definitions that were replaced by ``electric
energy storage/conversion system'' and ``propulsion system'' in the
2011 final rule. Thus, the terms ``high voltage system'' and
``propulsion motor'' are not defined in FMVSS No. 305 and it should be
clear
[[Page 2324]]
that the agency intended to use the updated definitions for paragraph
S8 in the 2011 final rule. Thus, we are updating these terms in
paragraph S8 and we do not believe that this is a substantive change to
the standard.
V. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
Executive Order 12866, Executive Order 13563, and DOT Regulatory
Policies and Procedures
NHTSA has considered the impact of this rulemaking action under
Executive Order 12866, Executive Order 13563, and the Department of
Transportation's regulatory policies and procedures. This rulemaking
document was not reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget under
E.O. 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and Review.'' It is not considered to
be significant under E.O. 12866 or the Department's Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979). NHTSA has determined
that the effects of this final rule are minor and that a regulatory
evaluation is not needed to support the subject rulemaking. This final
rule only makes slight changes to the regulatory text of the July 29,
2011 final rule to add clarification and does not impose significant
costs beyond those already required by the July 29, 2011 final rule.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.,
as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
(SBREFA) of 1996), whenever an agency is required to publish a notice
of proposed rulemaking or final rule, it must prepare and make
available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis that
describes the effect of the rule on small entities (i.e., small
businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions).
No regulatory flexibility analysis is required if the head of an agency
certifies the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. SBREFA amended the Regulatory
Flexibility Act to require Federal agencies to provide a statement of
the factual basis for certifying that a rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
NHTSA has considered the effects of this final rule under the
Regulatory Flexibility Act. I certify that this final rule does not
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. Any small manufacturers that might be affected by this final
rule are already subject to the requirements of FMVSS No. 305.
Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)
NHTSA has examined this final rule pursuant to Executive Order
13132 (64 FR 43255; Aug. 10, 1999) and concluded that no additional
consultation with States, local governments, or their representatives
is mandated beyond the rulemaking process. The agency has concluded
that the final rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to
warrant consultation with State and local officials or the preparation
of a federalism summary impact statement. The final rule does not have
``substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between
the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government.'' This
final rule does not impose substantial additional requirements.
Instead, it clarifies the existing requirements from the July 29, 2011
final rule.
NHTSA rules can have preemptive effect in two ways. First, the
National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act contains an expressed
preemption provision that states when a motor vehicle safety standard
is in effect under this chapter, a State or a political subdivision of
a State may prescribe or continue in effect a standard applicable to
the same aspect of performance of a motor vehicle or motor vehicle
equipment only if the standard is identical to the standard prescribed
under this chapter. 49 U.S.C. 30103(b)(1). It is this statutory command
that preempts any non-identical State legislative and administrative
law \15\ addressing the same aspect of performance, not this
rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ The issue of potential preemption of state tort law is
addressed in the immediately following paragraph discussing implied
preemption.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The express preemption provision described above is subject to a
savings clause under which ``[c]ompliance with a motor vehicle safety
standard prescribed under this chapter does not exempt a person from
liability at common law.'' 49 U.S.C. 30103(e). Pursuant to this
provision, State common law tort causes of action against motor vehicle
manufacturers that might otherwise be preempted by the express
preemption provision are generally preserved. However, the Supreme
Court has recognized the possibility, in some instances, of implied
preemption of State common law tort causes of action by virtue of
NHTSA's rules--even if not expressly preempted.
This second way that NHTSA rules can preempt is dependent upon the
existence of an actual conflict between an FMVSS and the higher
standard that would effectively be imposed on motor vehicle
manufacturers if someone obtained a State common law tort judgment
against the manufacturer--notwithstanding the manufacturer's compliance
with the NHTSA standard. Because most NHTSA standards established by an
FMVSS are minimum standards, a State common law tort cause of action
that seeks to impose a higher standard on motor vehicle manufacturers
will generally not be preempted. However, if and when such a conflict
does exist--for example, when the standard at issue is both a minimum
and a maximum standard--the State common law tort cause of action is
impliedly preempted. See Geier v. American Honda Motor Co., 529 U.S.
861 (2000).
Pursuant to Executive Order 13132, NHTSA has considered whether
this rule could or should preempt State common law causes of action.
The agency's ability to announce its conclusion regarding the
preemptive effect of one of its rules reduces the likelihood that
preemption will be an issue in any subsequent tort litigation.
To this end, the agency has examined the nature (e.g., the language
and structure of the regulatory text) and objectives of this rule and
finds that this rule merely clarifies the requirements and definitions
contained in the July 29, 2011 final rule. Thus, NHTSA does not intend
that this rule preempt state tort law that would effectively impose a
higher standard on motor vehicle manufacturers than that established by
this rule. Additionally, in the July 29, 2011 final rule, the agency
did not assert preemption. Establishment of a higher standard by means
of State tort law would not conflict with the final rule announced
here. Without any conflict, there could not be any implied preemption
of a State common law tort cause of action.
National Environmental Policy Act
NHTSA has analyzed this rulemaking action for the purposes of the
National Environmental Policy Act. The agency has determined that
implementation of this action will not have any significant impact on
the quality of the human environment.
Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform)
When promulgating a regulation, agencies are required under
Executive Order 12988 to make every reasonable effort to ensure that
the regulation, as appropriate: (1) Specifies in clear language the
preemptive effect; (2) specifies in clear language the effect on
[[Page 2325]]
existing Federal law or regulation, including all provisions repealed,
circumscribed, displaced, impaired, or modified; (3) provides a clear
legal standard for affected conduct rather than a general standard,
while promoting simplification and burden reduction; (4) specifies in
clear language the retroactive effect; (5) specifies whether
administrative proceedings are to be required before parties may file
suit in court; (6) explicitly or implicitly defines key terms; and (7)
addresses other important issues affecting clarity and general
draftsmanship of regulations.
Pursuant to this Order, NHTSA notes as follows. The preemptive
effect of this final rule is discussed above. NHTSA notes further that
there is no requirement that individuals submit a petition for
reconsideration or pursue other administrative proceeding before they
may file suit in court.
Privacy Act
Please note that anyone is able to search the electronic form of
all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the
individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted
on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may
review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register
published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78), or online at http://www.dot.gov/privacy.html.
Paperwork Reduction Act
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), a person is not
required to respond to a collection of information by a Federal agency
unless the collection displays a valid OMB control number. There are no
information collection requirements associated with this final rule.
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
Under the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995
(NTTAA) (Pub. L. 104-113), ``all Federal agencies and departments shall
use technical standards that are developed or adopted by voluntary
consensus standards bodies, using such technical standards as a means
to carry out policy objectives or activities determined by the agencies
and departments.'' Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling
procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by
voluntary consensus standards bodies, such as the Society of Automotive
Engineers (SAE). The NTTAA directs us to provide Congress, through OMB,
explanations when we decide not to use available and applicable
voluntary consensus standards. FMVSS No. 305 has historically drawn
largely from SAE J1766. Prior to this update, FMVSS No. 305 was based
on the April 2005 version of SAE J1766. However, this final rule has
made certain amendments to the standard to reflect the development of
new voluntary consensus standards that have superseded SAE J1766. Thus,
this final rule makes revisions to the June 14, 2010 final rule that
updated FMVSS No. 305.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 requires agencies to
prepare a written assessment of the costs, benefits and other effects
of proposed or final rules that include a Federal mandate likely to
result in the expenditure by State, local or Tribal governments, in the
aggregate, or by the private sector, of more than $100 million annually
(adjusted for inflation with base year of 1995). This final rule, which
clarifies the July 29, 2011 final rule, will not result in expenditures
by State, local or Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the
private sector in excess of $100 million annually.
Regulation Identifier Number (RIN)
The Department of Transportation assigns a regulation identifier
number (RIN) to each regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of
Federal Regulations. The Regulatory Information Service Center
publishes the Unified Agenda in April and October of each year. You may
use the RIN contained in the heading at the beginning of this document
to find this action in the Unified Agenda.
List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 571
Imports, Motor vehicles, Motor vehicle safety.
In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA amends 49 CFR part 571 as
follows:
PART 571--FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS
0
1. The authority citation for part 571 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117, and 30166;
delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.95.
0
2. Amend Sec. 571.305 by:
0
a. Adding, in alphabetical order, the definitions of ``VAC,'' ``VDC,''
and ``Working Voltage'' to S4;
0
b. Revising S5.4, S7.6.4, S7.6.5, S7.7, the heading of S8, and S8(2).
The additions and revisions read as follows:
Sec. 571.305 Standard No. 305; Electric-powered vehicles: electrolyte
spillage and electrical shock protection.
* * * * *
S4. Definitions.
* * * * *
VAC means volts of alternating current (AC) expressed using the
root mean square value.
VDC means volts of direct current (DC).
Working Voltage means the highest root mean square voltage of the
voltage source, which may occur across its terminals or between its
terminals and any conductive parts in open circuit conditions or under
normal operating conditions.
* * * * *
S5.4 Electrical isolation monitoring. Each DC high voltage source
with electrical isolation monitoring during vehicle operation pursuant
to S5.3(a)(3) shall be monitored by an electrical isolation monitoring
system that displays a warning for loss of isolation when tested
according to S8. The system must monitor its own readiness and the
warning display must be visible to the driver seated in the driver's
designated seating position.
* * * * *
S7.6.4 The voltage V1 between the negative side of the high voltage
source and the electrical chassis is measured as shown in Figure 2.
S7.6.5 The voltage V2 between the positive side of the high voltage
source and the electrical chassis is measured as shown in Figure 3.
* * * * *
S7.7 Voltage measurement. For the purpose of determining the
voltage level of the high voltage source specified in S5.3(b), voltage
is measured as shown in Figure 1. Voltage Vb is measured across the two
terminals of the voltage source. Voltages V1 and V2 are measured
between the source and the electrical chassis. For a high voltage
source that has an automatic disconnect that is physically contained
within itself, the voltage measurement after the test is made from the
side of the automatic disconnect connected to the electric power train
or to the rest of the electric power train if the high voltage source
is a component contained in the power train. For a high voltage source
that has an automatic disconnect that is not physically contained
within itself, the voltage measurement after the test is made from both
the high voltage source side of the automatic disconnect and from the
side of the automatic
[[Page 2326]]
disconnect connected to the electric power train or to the rest of the
electric power train if the high voltage source is a component
contained in the power train.
S8. Test procedure for on-board electrical isolation monitoring
system. * * *
(2) The switch or device that provides power from the electric
energy storage/conversion system to the propulsion system is in the
activated position or the ready-to-drive position.
* * * * *
Issued in Washington, DC on 2 January 2015, under authority
delegated in 49 CFR part 1.95.
David J. Friedman,
Deputy Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2015-00423 Filed 1-15-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P