[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 46 (Wednesday, March 9, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-5187]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: March 9, 1994]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
49 CFR Part 571
[Docket No. 91-49; Notice 4]
RIN 2127-AE29
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, Electric Vehicles
Controls and Displays; Windshield Defrosting and Defogging Systems
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document adopts minor amendments to the Federal Motor
Vehicle Safety Standard on windshield defrosting and defogging systems
that make the systems more appropriate for electric powered motor
vehicles. This document also announces the agency's decision not to
adopt similar minor amendments that were proposed for controls and
displays for electric powered vehicles. The reason for this decision is
that standardization does not appear necessary at the present time for
motor vehicle safety.
DATES: The effective date of the final rule is September 6, 1994.
Petitions for reconsideration of the final rule must be received not
later than April 8, 1994.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Gary R. Woodford, Special Projects Staff, Office of Rulemaking NHTSA
(202-366-4931).
SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION: On January 15, 1993, NHTSA issued a notice of
proposed rulemaking (NPRM) proposing minor amendments of Federal motor
vehicle safety standards on controls and displays and windshield
defrosting and defogging systems (58 FR 4644). The proposal was issued
to make these standards more appropriate for electric powered vehicles
(EVs), and to put any necessary standards in place as soon as possible
to support the safe introduction and operation of EVs. To delay
rulemaking until significant production of EVs actually begins could
not only fail to prevent avoidable safety problems, but also disrupt
and impede the development and commercialization of EVs. The reader is
referred to the NPRM for an extensive discussion of the background
leading to the proposal.
Towards this goal, NHTSA identified two Federal motor vehicle
safety standards whose modification appeared to be desirable to
facilitate introduction of EVs.
1. Standard No. 101, Controls and Displays
The regulatory issue was whether a gauge and symbol should be
required to indicate battery energy level to inform drivers about the
vehicle's remaining range capability before recharging is necessary.
General Motors had stated that the European agencies have agreed to use
the ISO battery symbol to indicate electrical power reserve and
requested NHTSA's concurrence to use it.
As NHTSA noted in the NPRM, it believes that EV manufacturers will
provide a ``range indicator'' or ``state-of-charge'' indicator similar
to the fuel gauge on a conventionally powered vehicle, without a
regulatory requirement that they do so. In the agency's tentative view,
the method of measuring state-of-charge should be left to the
manufacturer, as the accuracy of current systems varies widely at this
stage of the art. However, NHTSA proposed that the state-of-charge
indicator (whether a gauge or otherwise) contain an illuminated
telltale with the word ``RECHARGE'', and the ISO battery symbol
(identical to the one presently specified to indicate ``electrical
charge'' and used in nonelectric vehicles), which would illuminate when
the electrical energy remaining in the battery system contains less
than 25 percent of full charge. NHTSA invited specific comments as to
whether a value other than 25 percent would be more appropriate. NHTSA
asked for comments on whether use of the ISO symbol to indicate a
state-of-charge warning would be confusing given its present use to
indicate ``electrical charge'' in conventionally powered vehicles. It
also asked whether an alternative symbol, such as the outline of a
household electrical plug, might be desirable.
Comments on the proposal were received from Chrysler Corporation,
Volkswagen of America, Inc. (VW), General Motors Corporation (GM),
Toyota Motor Corporate Services of North America, Inc. (Toyota), Ford
Motor Company, Mitsubishi Motors Corp., and American Honda Motor Co.
(Honda).
The comments indicated that manufacturers intend to offer a state-
of-charge indicator with a means for the operator to determine when
battery recharging is necessary. However, four of the five
manufacturers who commented on the issue disagreed with use of the
battery symbol for a low state-of-charge warning since it has already
acquired a meaning for operators of conventional vehicles. Only GM
supported use of the symbol. Two of the three commenters on the issue
opposed use of the word ``recharge'', though it was supported by GM.
Chrysler commented that use of the word might cause an operator to feel
that an immediate recharge was necessary. VW believes that use of the
word is inappropriate because the need for a recharge can be determined
from the state-of-charge indicator.
These comments indicate that manufacturers will offer a state-of-
charge indicator and that a Federal regulation requiring them to do so
is unnecessary. Given the diversity of opinion as to appropriate
wording and/or symbols, the agency is choosing at the present time not
to impose a regulatory requirement for identification of a low the
state-of-charge, recognizing that any wording or symbol chosen by an EV
manufacturer will be explained in the operator's manual.
Finally, although NHTSA did not propose regulatory language that a
low state-of-charge warning activate when the state-of-charge reached
25 percent of capacity, it asked for comments on the appropriateness of
this value, and on alternative values. All seven commenters recommended
that the activation level of a low state-of-charge warning be
determined by the vehicle manufacturer, with six rejecting the 25
percent level, and the seventh merely conceding that it ``may be
adequate.'' These comments will be taken into consideration should
NHTSA decide to explore this subject further in the further.
For the reasons discussed above, NHTSA has decided not to adopt the
amendments to Standard No. 101 that were proposed in Notice 3.
2. FMVSS No. 103, Windshield Defrosting and Defogging Systems
One provision of Standard No. 103 requires the defrosting and
defogging system of a vehicle to be capable of melting a specific
amount of windshield ice within a specified time period after allowing
time for engine warm-up. NHTSA believed that the reference to engine
warm-up is inappropriate for EVs in general and might need revision. In
accordance with recommendations from industry, NHTSA proposed that the
warm-up procedure should be the one that the manufacturer recommends
for cold weather starting. Specifically, it proposed that the
manufacturer's cold weather warmup procedure be followed by vehicles
equipped with a heating system (other than a heat exchanger type system
that uses the engine's liquid coolant as a means to supply the heat to
the heat exchanger). These changes would be made to the demonstration
procedures in S4.3(a) and S4.3(b).
Comments were received from GM, Chrysler, Ford, VW, and Toyota. GM,
VW and Ford supported the proposed amendments as adequate and
appropriate.
Chrysler supported the proposal as well. It brought to NHTSA's
attention the fact that the EV equipped with an electrical resistance
heater, and tested at rest in a cold room facility, would have an
abundance of electrical power available and could easily meet most
defrost performance requirements. However, it noted that when the same
vehicle is operating under normal road load conditions, the defrost/
heat system may not have the same battery energy available since the
propulsion system may utilize a large amount of power. Chrysler
cautioned that these factors must be considered before establishing
precise defrost/defogging system requirements for EVs. In its opinion,
judging EV defroster performance ``will require unique testing
procedures that must be relatively elaborate and formalized to ensure
that vehicle performance meets the regulatory intent of the standard.''
It observed that these procedures could be formulated by knowledgeable
industry personnel working through an organization such as the SAE.
NHTSA concurs with Chrysler's comments and encourages the industry,
either through SAE or other industry organizations, to explore this
issue. At present, Standard No. 103 allows the defrosting and defogging
system to be tested with the vehicle in neutral gear. EVs equipped with
electric resistance heaters, which draw power from the vehicle
propulsion batteries, may incur a degradation in performance under road
load conditions or under less than full state-of-charge conditions.
Currently, the agency has no information to determine the extent to
which any such degradation may exist, or the extent to which it may
impede vehicle safety. Moreover, the agency has no information on the
number of EVs that will employ electric resistance heaters or use
auxiliary combustible fuel heaters. To a large extent, EV technology is
still in the developmental state. Therefore, NHTSA will monitor this
issue for possible future rulemaking, and encourages the industry to
explore it as well.
Toyota also supported the proposed amendments, but suggested that
three pre-test conditions be adopted. Under these conditions, testing
would be initiated with the battery at full charge, and the battery
would be charging until defrost/defog testing is started. However, the
battery should not be included in the -18 degrees C soak time as
currently specified by the test procedure of SAE Standard J902
incorporated by reference in Standard No. 103. NHTSA appreciates
Toyota's comments but believes that manufacturers are likely to begin
defrost/defog testing with the battery at its maximum state of charge,
and the battery will be charging until testing begins. Thus, no further
regulatory language appears called for. The agency disagrees with
Toyota's contention that the battery should not be included in the soak
time because a temperature of -18 degrees C replicates the real world
conditions under which some EVs are likely to be operated. Thus, NHTSA
will not consider Toyota's suggestion as a candidate for future
rulemaking.
Taking into consideration the foregoing remarks, NHTSA is amending
S4.3 (a) and (b) of Standard No. 103 exactly as proposed, with a single
exception. The present reference speed in S4.3(b)(2)(ii) is 25 m.p.h.
The NPRM incorrectly stated it as 15 m.p.h. There was no intention to
propose a reference speed of 15 m.p.h., and the final rule correctly
states it as 25 m.p.h.
Effective Date
The amendments are effective September 6, 1994.
Rulemaking Analyses
Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures
NHTSA has considered the impacts of this rulemaking action under
E.O. 12866 ``Regulatory Planning and Review'', and the Department of
Transportation regulatory policies and procedures. This action has been
determined to be not ``significant'' under either, and has not been
reviewed by OMB under E.O. 12866. The agency has determined that the
economic effects of the amendment are so minimal that a full regulatory
evaluation is not required. The purpose of the rule is to clarify
several existing requirements applicable to all motor vehicles so that
they may, in recognition of the different characteristics of EVs, be
more appropriate for EVs. The rule makes no change in the cost of
compliance for EVs.
Executive Order 12612 (Federalism)
This action has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and
criteria contained in Executive Order 12612 ``Federalism'' and it has
been determined that the notice does not have sufficient federalism
implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
National Environmental Policy Act
The agency has determined that the notice will not have a
significant effect upon the environment for the purposes of the
National Environmental Policy Act. There is no environmental impact
associated with the rulemaking action since it clarifies the
applicability of an existing Federal motor vehicle safety standard to
EVs. To the extent that the rulemaking action will facilitate the
production of EVs, it may result in a net positive benefit to the
environment.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
The agency has also considered the effects of this rulemaking
action in relation to the Regulatory Flexibility Act. I certify that
this rulemaking action will not have a significant economic effect upon
a substantial number of small entities. Although some EV manufacturers
may be small businesses within the meaning of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act, these manufacturers are already required to comply
with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards that the rulemaking
action is intended to clarify. Further, small organizations and
governmental jurisdictions will not be significantly affected as the
price of new EVs should not be impacted. The notice clarifies some
existing requirements that EVs must meet. Accordingly, no Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis has been prepared.
Civil Justice Reform
This rule will not have any retroactive effect. Under section
103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C.
1392(d)), whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard is in
effect, a state may not adopt or maintain a safety standard applicable
to the same aspect of performance which is not identical to the Federal
standard. Section 105 of the Act (15 U.S.C. 1394) sets forth a
procedure for judicial review of final rules establishing, amending or
revoking Federal motor vehicle safety standards. That section does not
require submission of a petition for reconsideration or other
administrative proceedings before parties may file suit in court.
List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 571
Imports, Motor vehicle safety, Motor vehicles.
PART 571--FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS
In consideration of the foregoing, 49 CFR part 571 is amended as
follows:
1. The authority citation for part 571 continues to read:
Authority: 15 U.S.C. 1392, 1401, 1407; delegation of authority
at 49 CFR part 1.50.
Sec. 571.103 [Amended]
2. Paragraphs S4.3 (a) and (b) of Sec. 571.103 are revised to read:
S4.3 Demonstration procedure * * *
(a) During the first 5 minutes of the test:
(1) For a passenger car equipped with a heating system other than a
heat exchanger type that uses the engine's coolant as a means to supply
the heat to the heat exchanger, the warm-up procedure is that specified
by the vehicle's manufacturer for cold weather starting, except that
connection to a power or heat source external to the vehicle is not
permitted.
(2) For all other passenger cars, the warm-up procedure may be that
recommended by the vehicle's manufacturer for cold weather starting.
(b) During the last 35 minutes of the test period (or the entire
test period if the 5-minute warm-up procedure specified in paragraph
(a) of this section is not used),
(1) For a passenger car equipped with a heating system other than a
heat exchanger type that uses the engine's coolant as a means to supply
the heat to the heat exchanger, the procedure shall be that specified
by the vehicle's manufacturer for cold weather starting, except that
connection to a power or heat source external to the vehicle is not
permitted.
(2) For all other passenger cars, either--
(i) The engine speed shall not exceed 1,500 r.p.m. in neutral gear;
or
(ii) The engine speed and load shall not exceed the speed and load
at 25 m.p.h. in the manufacturer's recommended gear with road load.
* * * * *
Issued on March 2, 1994.
Christopher A. Hart,
Deputy Administrator.
[FR Doc. 94-5187 Filed 3-8-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-M
