[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 197 (Tuesday, October 13, 1998)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 54652-54660]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-26796]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 571

[Docket No. NHTSA-98-4515]
RIN 2127-AF43


Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: This document proposes a new Federal motor vehicle safety 
standard that would establish requirements and test procedures which 
address safety issues exclusive to electric vehicles: Electrolyte 
spillage, post-crash retention of batteries in their mounts, and shock 
hazard. The standard would be based upon SAE J1766 FEB96 ``Recommended 
Practice for Electric and Hybrid Electric Vehicle Battery Systems Crash 
Integrity Testing,'' and be known as Standard No. 305, ``Electric-
powered vehicles: electrolyte spillage and

[[Page 54653]]

electrical shock protection.'' Test procedures would include the 
frontal barrier crash test of Standard No. 208, the side moving barrier 
crash test of Standard No. 214, and the rollover and rear moving 
barrier crash tests of Standard No. 301. However, as proposed, the 
standard would not apply to low-speed electric vehicles regulated by 
Standard No. 500, and the agency is asking for comment on this issue.

DATES: Comments are due November 27, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Comments should refer to the docket number and be submitted 
to Docket Management, PL-401, 400 Seventh St., SW, Washington, DC 
20590. Docket hours are from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Charles Hott, Office of Safety 
Performance Standards, NHTSA (202-366-0427).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The 1990s may be remembered as the beginning of a new generation of 
electric vehicles. In mid-decade, General Motors Corporation (GM) 
introduced the EV1, an electric-powered passenger car, offered for 
lease in selected western markets in the United States. Other 
manufacturers, such as Honda and Nissan, have also introduced new 
electric vehicles (EVs). The primary impetus for the introduction of 
EVs into the marketplace appears to be the Clean Air Act Amendments of 
1990 which included provisions for zero emission vehicles (ZEV). EVs 
are the only known vehicles that will meet the emission requirements 
for ZEVs. In California, these provisions were to become effective 
beginning in model year 1998, and would have required automobile 
manufacturers to sell, collectively, 40,000 EVs in the model year. 
However, those provisions were delayed by the California Air Resources 
Board until model year 2003. At that time, car companies will be 
required to meet 10 percent of their sales with ZEVs. In addition, the 
Energy Policy Act of 1992 requires Federal and State fleets to acquire 
increasing percentages of alternative fueled vehicles.
    On December 27, 1991, NHTSA published an advance notice of proposed 
rulemaking (ANPRM) on EV safety (56 FR 67038). The purpose of that 
notice was to help the agency determine what existing Federal motor 
vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) may need modification to better 
accommodate the unique technology of EVs and what new FMVSS may need to 
be written to assure their safe introduction. The ANPRM requested 
comments on a broad range of potential EV safety issues including 
battery electrolyte spillage and electric shock hazard. The ANPRM 
elicited widespread public interest and 46 comments were received.
    After reviewing the comments and information received in response 
to the ANPRM, NHTSA concluded in a November 18, 1992 notice (57 FR 
54354) that it was premature to initiate rulemaking for FMVSS specific 
for EVs. In that notice the agency stated that further research was 
needed in the areas of battery electrolyte spillage and electric shock 
hazard.
    Shortly thereafter, in 1993, NHTSA conducted research and testing 
on two converted EVs. These vehicles were tested as specified in FMVSS 
No. 208, ``Occupant Crash Protection.'' Both vehicles were equipped 
with flooded (i.e., filled with liquid electrolyte) lead-acid batteries 
located in the engine and luggage compartments in the front and rear of 
the vehicle. One vehicle was equipped with twelve 12-volt batteries 
(five in the front and seven in the rear). The other vehicle was 
equipped with ten 12-volt batteries (four in the front and six in the 
rear). Both vehicles were subjected to 48 km/h frontal crashes into a 
fixed barrier. In both cases the front batteries sustained significant 
damage, spilling large quantities of electrolyte. On one vehicle, 17.7 
liters of electrolyte spilled from the front batteries as a result of 
the crash and in the other vehicle, 10.4 liters. In addition, 
electrical arcs were observed under the hood of one vehicle during the 
crash.
    The following year, NHTSA published a notice of request for 
comments (59 FR 49901, September 30, 1994 ) to help it to assess the 
need to regulate battery electrolyte spillage and electric shock hazard 
of EVs during a crash or rollover. Thirty-two comments were received 
from automobile manufacturers, EV converters, and industry 
associations. The majority of the commenters supported some type of 
Federal regulation for electrolyte spillage and electric shock 
prevention, provided that the requirements of the regulation were 
performance based and not design restrictive to the extent that they 
might inhibit technology development. Two manufacturers, Ford Motor 
Company (Ford) and Nissan, and two industry associations (Electric 
Vehicle Industry Association and Electric Vehicles of America) did not 
believe that Federal regulation was necessary because electric vehicle 
design was constantly changing due to technological breakthroughs. 
However, Ford did state that it would follow the recommendation of 
industry associations such as the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) 
when SAE J1766 ``Recommended Practice For Electric and Hybrid Electric 
Vehicle Battery Systems Crash Integrity Testing'' was finally 
developed.
    In 1995, NHTSA again conducted research and testing, this time on 
four EVs. Three vehicles were converted to run on electricity and one 
was built as an EV. The three converted vehicles were equipped with 
starved (i.e., electrolyte that is absorbed in an inert material to 
prevent leakage in case of rupture) lead-acid batteries and the vehicle 
built as an EV was equipped with flooded lead-acid batteries. Three 
vehicles were subjected to 48 km/h frontal crashes similar to the test 
described in FMVSS No. 208, ``Occupant Crash Protection'' and one was 
subjected to a 54 km/h side crash similar to the test specified in 
FMVSS No. 214,'' Side Impact Protection.'' Each vehicle was subjected 
to pre- and post-crash rollover tests to measure electrolyte spillage. 
The crash and rollover tests revealed that the vehicles with the 
starved lead-acid batteries had very little leakage (as expected 
because of their design), while the vehicle with the flooded lead-acid 
batteries leaked approximately 50 liters of electrolyte. Electrical 
isolation tests were also performed on these vehicles before and after 
each of the crash tests. Two of the converted EVs maintained their 
electrical isolation after the crash tests. One of the converted EVs 
was subjected to a side impact test. That EV chafed a wire which came 
in contact with the vehicle structure during the crash and did not 
maintain electrical isolation. The vehicle built as an EV was subjected 
to a frontal crash test. That vehicle lost electrical isolation when 
two of the battery connectors came in contact with the battery tunnel 
during the crash.

SAE J1766 ``Recommended Practice for Electric and Hybrid Electric 
Vehicle Battery Systems Crash Integrity Testing''

    During NHTSA's earlier rulemaking activities, there was not yet an 
industry standard in place that addressed potential safety problems in 
EVs. Following circulation of drafts in the years previous, in February 
1996, SAE published its Recommended Practice SAE J1766 ``Recommended 
Practice for Electric and Hybrid Electric Vehicle Battery Systems Crash 
Integrity Testing.'' As it notes, electric and hybrid electric vehicles 
contain many types of battery systems. J1766 deems adequate

[[Page 54654]]

barriers between occupants and battery systems necessary to provide 
protection from potentially harmful factors and materials within the 
battery system, which can cause injury to vehicle occupants during 
different crash scenarios.
    The potentially harmful factors and materials include:

    electrical isolation integrity, electrolyte spillage and liquid 
interactions, and retention of the battery system. Maintaining 
electrical isolation of the system is important to prevent hazardous 
shock of vehicle occupants. Electrolyte spillage and battery fluid 
interactions should be minimized to prevent chemical reactions and 
electrical conductance. The latter could lead to an electrical shock 
hazard.

    The purpose of SAE J1766 is to define minimum performance standards 
and establish test methods which evaluate battery system spillage, 
retention, electrical system isolation, and liquid interaction in 
electric and hybrid electric vehicles during crash scenarios. The 
Recommended Practice covers all electric and hybrid electric vehicles 
with a GVWR of 4536 kg (10,000 lbs) or less.
    SAE J1766 establishes certain performance criteria when an EV is 
subjected to the frontal impact procedures of FMVSS No. 208 (including 
the 30-degree offsets), the side impact procedures of FMVSS 214, and 
the rear impact procedure of FMVSS No. 301. No spillage of electrolyte 
into the occupant compartment is permitted. Outside the passenger 
compartment, electrolyte spillage is limited to 5 liters for a 30-
minute period after vehicle motion ceases and throughout the post crash 
rollover test. Battery modules must stay restrained in the vehicle, 
without any component intruding into the occupant compartment. 
Electrical isolation between the chassis and high voltage system is at 
least 500 ohms per nominal volt.

Proposed Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 305

    NHTSA is proposing that similar provisions be adopted in a new 
FMVSS No. 305 to afford the public protection from electrolyte spillage 
and electric shock hazards in crashes. The provisions are based upon 
those of SAE J1766 and should help ensure the safe introduction of new 
EVs into the marketplace.
    FMVSS No. 305 would apply to all passenger cars, and to 
multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses with a GVWR of 4536 
kg or less, and to school buses with a GVWR over 4536 kg, that use more 
than 72 volts of electricity as propulsion power. This GVWR is the 
equivalent of 10,000 pounds. Seventy-two volts is the equivalent of six 
12-volt batteries. The standard would apply to EVs with a maximum speed 
of more than 40 kilometers per hour, that is, greater than 25 miles per 
hour. The agency notes that it has recently issued a standard expressly 
for low-speed vehicles (LSVs), FMVSS No. 500 (63 FR 33194; June 17, 
1998). LSVs are any 4-wheeled vehicles, other than trucks, with a 
maximum speed of not less than 32 kilometers per hour nor more than 40 
kilometers per hour. EVs subject to the rule could include Neighborhood 
Electric Vehicles (NEVs) and those battery-powered golf cars within the 
speed range. FMVSS No. 500 does not require LSVs to meet FMVSS Nos. 
208, 214, and 301, which contain some 48 and 54 kilometers per hour 
impact barrier tests proposed for FMVSS No. 305.
    Under proposed FMVSS No. 305, EVs covered by the standard, other 
than heavy school buses, would be required to meet leakage and battery 
retention requirements that are essentially those of SAE J1766 after 
front (FMVSS No. 208), side (FMVSS No.214), and rear impact barrier 
crash tests (FMVSS No. 301). A static rollover test (FMVSS No. 301) 
would also be conducted both before and after each of these crash 
tests. Heavy school buses (those with a GVWR over 4536 kg) would be 
required to meet the same performance requirements after a moving 
contour barrier frontal crash test, without the pre- and post-test 
rollovers. The performance requirements proposed are that there shall 
be no electrolyte spillage in the passenger compartment, with spillage 
outside the compartment limited to 5 liters total in a 30-minute period 
following the cessation of motion after a crash test. Intrusion of the 
battery system components into the occupant compartment would also be 
prohibited. Batteries must be restrained in the vehicle in their 
original installations. The electric isolation value must be at least 
500 ohms per nominal volt, as determined by the SAE procedure for the 
measurement of the insulation resistance of the propulsion battery of 
an EV. The standard known resistance Ro (in ohms) should be 
approximately 500 times the nominal operating voltage of the vehicle 
(in volts). The Ro is not required to be precisely this value since the 
equations are valid for any Ro; however, a Ro value in this range 
should provide good resolution for the voltage measurements.

Specific Issues for Which NHTSA Seeks Comment

    1. Costs to conform. Commenters are asked to inform NHTSA the 
extent to which, if any, the proposed rule would impose costs on 
manufacturers of EVs to meet electrolyte spillage, battery retention, 
and electrical isolation test requirements.
    2. Adequacy of spillage specification. The proposed limit of 5.0 
liters, contained in SAE J1766, is based upon the amount of electrolyte 
that is contained in present large automotive batteries. Commenters are 
asked for views on whether a different amount may be more appropriate 
to protect the public in EV crashes.
    3. Adequacy of electrical isolation specification. The agency is 
interested in commenters' views on the NHTSA/SAE electrical isolation 
specification of 500 ohms/volt. The SAE adopted this requirement 
because the sensation threshold for most humans is around 2 
milliamperes and the head-to-foot resistance is about 500 ohms. This is 
the value at which most humans will feel a slight sensation from 
electrical current. NHTSA understands that the European community is 
looking at a similar requirement.
    4. Coverage of proposed FMVSS No. 305. The proposed standard would 
not apply to vehicles that use less than 72 volts of electricity as 
propulsion power. NHTSA is aware that two LSVs will be produced with 
six 12-volt batteries totaling 72 volts, the Bombardier NV and the GEM 
vehicle (the Trans2 NEV design upgraded from 48 volts), and, it has 
tentatively decided to exclude LSVs from the final rule. However, there 
may be vehicles or vehicle designs whose maximum speed exceeds 40 
kilometers per hour but which are powered, in whole or in part (perhaps 
a hybrid electric configuration), by less than 72 volts of electricity. 
NHTSA is interested in learning if there are any such vehicles or 
vehicle designs and whether it would be appropriate to apply FMVSS No. 
305 to them. NHTSA notes that its LSV definition excludes trucks and 
asks whether those that are powered by less than 72 volts of 
electricity should be covered.
    5. Whether proposed FMVSS No. 305 should apply to electric LSVs. 
Proposed Standard No. 305 would not apply to LSVs, i.e., passenger-
carrying EVs with a maximum speed between 32 and 40 kilometers per 
hour. It is anticipated that a substantial portion of LSVs may be 
electric vehicles. NHTSA seeks the views of commenters on whether 
proposed FMVSS No. 305 should apply to LSVs, and, if so, whether the

[[Page 54655]]

proposed requirements are reasonable, practicable, and appropriate for 
LSVs. The tests proposed are intended to limit electrolyte spillage, 
battery intrusion, and shock hazard. Commenters should address each of 
these requirements as they might be modified to apply to electric LSVs.
    6. Rollover test. The SAE currently recommends that the vehicle 
undergo a rollover test before the barrier impact test. NHTSA is 
concerned that damage may occur to the test vehicle during rollover 
that could affect the results of the barrier impact test. Accordingly, 
comments are requested as to whether there should be a rollover test 
before the barrier impact test and as to the importance of conducting a 
rollover test before the barrier impact test.

Proposed Effective Date

    NHTSA believes that an effective date of one year after the 
issuance of the final rule should be sufficient for manufacturers 
covered by FMVSS No. 305 to comply with the proposed new safety 
standard. The major EV manufacturers all are using, or plan to use, 
battery types that are not susceptible to leaking large amounts of 
electrolytes and, to NHTSA's knowledge, all incorporate a device that 
would shut-off the propulsion battery current or prevent loss of 
electrical isolation in the event of a crash or short circuit.

Request for Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit comments on the proposal. 
It is requested but not required that 10 copies be submitted.
    All comments must not exceed 15 pages in length (49 CFR 553.21). 
Necessary attachments may be appended to these submissions without 
regard to the 15-page limit. This limitation is intended to encourage 
commenters to detail their primary arguments in a concise fashion.
    If a commenter wishes to submit certain information under a claim 
of confidentiality, three copies of the complete submission, including 
purportedly confidential business information, should be submitted to 
the Chief Counsel, NHTSA, at the street address given above, and seven 
copies from which the purportedly confidential information has been 
deleted should be submitted to the Docket Section. A request for 
confidentiality should be accompanied by a cover letter setting for the 
information specified in the agency's confidential business information 
regulation, 49 CFR part 512.
    All comments received before the close of business on the comment 
closing date indicated above for the proposal 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. Comments received too 
late for consideration in regard to the final rule will be considered 
as suggestions for further rulemaking action. Comments on the proposal 
will be available to inspection in the docket. NHTSA will continue to 
file relevant information as it becomes available in the docket after 
the closing date and it is recommended that interested persons continue 
to examine the docket for new material.
    Those persons desiring to be notified upon receipt of their 
comments in the rules docket should enclose a self-addressed stamped 
postcard in the envelope with their comments. Upon receiving the 
comments, the docket supervisor will return the postcard by mail.

Rulemaking Analyses

Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures

    The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed this 
rulemaking action under Executive Order 12866. It has been determined 
that the rulemaking action is not significant under Department of 
Transportation regulatory policies and procedures. Informal discussions 
with some EV manufacturers indicate that the industry is aware of SAE 
J1766 and that manufacturers are planning or producing EVs with 
batteries designed for minimal leakage, and to shut off the current or 
prevent loss of electrical isolation in the event of a crash. The added 
costs of the proposed tests should be minimal, and the agency has asked 
for comments on this issue to verify its assumption. The tests of FMVSS 
No. 305 can be conducted as part of the FMVSS No. 208 and No. 214 
certification tests, as well as the FMVSS No. 301 rollover tests if the 
vehicle is a hybrid fueled in part by gasoline, or contains a heater 
fueled by gasoline. The impacts of the proposed rule are believed to be 
so minimal as not to warrant preparation of a full regulatory 
evaluation.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The agency has also considered the impacts of this rulemaking 
action in relation to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et 
seq. I certify that this rulemaking action will not have a significant 
economic impact upon a substantial number of small entities.
    The following is NHTSA's statement providing the factual basis for 
the certification (5 U.S.C. 605(b)). The technology to prevent leakage 
of electrolytes, battery retention, and electrical isolation in the 
event of the crash of a battery-powered motor vehicle is simple and has 
been well known for years. The specifications of the industry standard, 
J1766, have been settled since February 1996. The agency believes that 
a substantial portion of the nascent EV industry is already designing 
its production to comport with SAE J1766. Verification of compliance 
with proposed FMVSS No. 305 can be determined at the same time an EV is 
tested for compliance with FMVSS Nos. 208 and 214 and the cost of 
testing to these standards should be minimally impacted. However, there 
would be an additional cost imposed by conducting a static rollover 
test in conjunction with each of these standards, as they are not 
otherwise required. Moreover, if an EV is not otherwise required to 
comply with FMVSS No. 301, there would be the added cost of a rear 
moving barrier impact test if the EV manufacturer chooses to certify 
its vehicle on the basis of an actual test rather than on engineering 
studies, computer simulations, mathematical calculations, or other 
means. Since the overall economic impact is not believed to be 
significant, the agency has not determined formally whether the 
entities affected by the rules are ``small businesses'' within the 
meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. In NHTSA's experience, 
manufacturers of motor vehicles are generally not ``small businesses.'' 
Accordingly, no regulatory flexibility analysis has been prepared.

Executive Order 12612 (Federalism)

    This action has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and 
criteria contained in Executive Order 12612 on ``Federalism.'' It has 
been determined that the rulemaking action does not have sufficient 
federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism 
Assessment.

National Environmental Policy Act

    NHTSA has analyzed this rulemaking action for purposes of the 
National Environmental Policy Act. The rulemaking action would not have 
a significant effect upon the environment as it does not affect the 
present method of manufacturing motor vehicle lighting equipment.

Civil Justice Reform

    This rule will not have any retroactive effect. Under 49 U.S.C. 
30103(b)(1),

[[Page 54656]]

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 30161 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.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4) requires 
agencies to prepare a written assessment of the cost, 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. Because this proposed rule would not have a $100 
million effect, no Unfunded Mandates assessment has been prepared.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 571

    Imports, Motor vehicle safety, Motor vehicles, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements

PART 571--FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS

    In consideration of the foregoing, 49 CFR part 571 would be amended 
as follows:
    1. The authority citation for part 571 would continue to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30166; delegation of 
authority at 49 CFR 1.50.

    2. A new Sec. 571.305 would be added to subpart B to read as set 
forth below:


Sec.  571.305  Standard No. 305; Electric-powered vehicle: electrolyte 
spillage and electrical shock protection.

    S1.  Scope. This standard specifies requirements for limitation of 
electrolyte spillage, retention of propulsion batteries after a crash, 
and electrical isolation of the chassis from ionic conductance to the 
high-voltage system, to be met by vehicles that use electricity as 
propulsion power.
    S2.  Purpose. The purpose of this standard is to reduce deaths and 
injuries during a crash which occur because of electrolyte spillage 
from propulsion batteries, intrusion of propulsion battery system 
components into the occupant compartment, and electrical shock.
    S3.  Application. This standard applies to passenger cars, and to 
multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks and buses (other than school 
buses) with a GVWR 4536 kg or less, that use more than 72 volts of 
electricity as propulsion power and whose speed attainable in 1.6 km is 
more than 40 km/h, on a paved level surface. This standard also applies 
to all school buses that use electricity as propulsion power.
    S4.  Definition.
    Battery system component means any part of a battery module, 
interconnect, venting system, battery restraint device, and battery box 
or container which holds the individual battery modules.
    S5.  General requirements. Except for a school bus with a GVWR that 
is greater than 4536 kg , each vehicle to which this standard applies, 
when tested according to S6 under the conditions of S7, shall meet the 
requirements of S5.1, S5.2, and S5.3. Each school bus with a GVWR that 
is greater than 4536 kg , when tested according to S6.6 under the 
conditions of S7, shall meet the requirements of S5.1, S5.2, and S5.3.
    S5.1  Electrolyte spillage from propulsion batteries. There shall 
be no spillage of electrolyte from propulsion batteries into the 
passenger compartment. Not more than 5.0 liters of electrolyte from 
propulsion batteries shall leak outside the passenger compartment. 
Spillage and leakage are measured from the time the vehicle ceases 
motion after a crash until 30 minutes thereafter, and throughout any 
static rollover, either before or after a crash test.
    S5.2  Battery retention. Battery modules shall remain restrained in 
the location in which they are installed in the vehicle. No part of any 
battery system component shall enter the passenger compartment, as 
determined by a visual inspection.
    S5.3  Electrical isolation. Electrical isolation between the 
battery system and the vehicle electricity-conducting structure shall 
be maintained at a minimum of 500 ohm/volt.
    S6.  Test requirements. Except for a school bus with a GVWR greater 
than 4536 kg, each vehicle to which this standard applies shall be 
capable of meeting the requirements of any applicable static rollover/
barrier crash/static rollover test sequence, without alteration of the 
vehicle during the test sequence. A particular vehicle need not meet 
further test requirements after having been subjected to a single 
static rollover/barrier crash/static rollover test sequence.
    S6.1  Pre-crash test static rollover. The vehicle shall meet the 
requirements of S5.1, S5.2, and S5.3, after being rotated on its 
longitudinal axis to each successive increment of 90 degrees before 
each crash test specified in S6.2, S6.3, and S6.4.
    S6.2  Frontal barrier crash. After a static rollover, when the 
vehicle traveling longitudinally forward at any speed, up to and 
including 48 km/h impacts a fixed collision barrier that is 
perpendicular to the line of travel of the vehicle, or at any angle up 
to 30 degrees in either direction from the perpendicular to the line of 
travel of the vehicle, with the 50th percentile male test dummies as 
specified in part 572 of this chapter at each front outboard designated 
position and at any other position whose protection system is required 
to be tested by a dummy under the provisions of Standard No. 208, under 
the applicable conditions of S7, the vehicle shall meet the 
requirements of S5.1, S5.2, and S5.3.
    S6.3  Rear moving barrier crash. After a static rollover, when the 
vehicle is impacted from the rear by a barrier moving at 48 km/h with 
50th percentile male test dummies as specified in part 572 of this 
chapter at each front outboard designated seating position, under the 
applicable conditions of S7, the vehicle shall meet the requirements of 
S5.1, S5.2, and S5.3.
    S6.4  Side impact moving deformable barrier crash. After a static 
rollover, when the vehicle is impacted from the side by a deformable 
barrier moving at 54 km/h, the vehicle shall meet the requirements of 
S5.1, S5.2, and S5.3.
    S6.5  Post-crash test static rollover. The vehicle shall meet the 
requirements of S5.1, S5.2, and S5.3, after being rotated on its 
longitudinal axis to each successive increment of 90 degrees after each 
crash test specified in S6.2, S6.3, and S6.4.
    S6.6  Moving contoured barrier crash for school buses with a GVWR 
greater than 4536 kg. When a moving contoured barrier assembly is 
traveling longitudinally forward at any speed up to and including 48 
km/h and impacts a school bus with a GVWR greater than 4536 kg at any 
point and any angle, the school bus shall meet the requirements of 
S5.1, S5.2, and S5.3.
    S7.  Test conditions. When the vehicle is tested according to S6, 
the requirements of S5 shall be met under the following conditions. 
Where a range is specified, the vehicle must be capable of meeting the 
requirements at all points within the range.
    S7.1  Battery state of charge. The battery system is charged using 
the vehicle manufacturer's recommended charging system. All tests are 
performed with the propulsion batteries charged to not less than 95 
percent capacity.
    S7.2  Vehicle conditions. The switch or device that provides power 
from the propulsion batteries to the propulsion motor(s) is in the 
activated position or the ready to drive position.
    S7.2.1  The parking brake is disengaged and the transmission, if 
any, is in the neutral position. In a test conducted under S6.6, the 
parking brake is set.

[[Page 54657]]

    S7.2.2  Tires are inflated to the manufacturer's specifications.
    S7.2.3  The vehicle, including test devices and instrumentation, is 
loaded as follows:
    (a) A passenger car is loaded to its unloaded vehicle weight plus 
its rated cargo and luggage capacity weight, secured in the luggage 
area, plus the necessary test dummies as specified in S6, restrained 
only by means that are installed in the vehicle for protection at its 
seating position.
    (b) A multipurpose passenger vehicle, truck, or bus with a GVWR of 
4536 kg or less is loaded to its unloaded vehicle weight plus the 
necessary test dummies, as specified in S6., plus 136 kg or its rated 
cargo and luggage capacity weight, whichever is less. Each dummy shall 
be restrained only by means that are installed in the vehicle for 
protection at its seating position.
    (c) A school bus with a GVWR greater than 4536 kg is loaded to its 
unloaded vehicle weight plus 54.4 kg at each designated seating 
position.
    S7.3  Static rollover test conditions. In addition to the 
conditions of S7.1 and S7.2, the conditions of S7.4 of Sec. 571.301 
apply to the conduct of static rollover tests specified in S6.1 and 
S6.5.
    S7.4  Rear moving barrier crash test conditions. In addition to the 
conditions of S7.1 and S7.2, the conditions of S7.3 of Sec. 571.301 
apply to the conduct of the rear moving barrier crash test specified in 
S6.3. The rear moving barrier is described in S8.2 of Sec. 571.208 and 
diagramed in Figure 1 of Sec. 571.301.
    S7.5  Side impact moving deformable barrier crash test conditions. 
In addition to the conditions of S7.1 and S7.2, the conditions of 
S6.10, S6.11, and S6.12 of Sec. 571.214 apply to the conduct of the 
side impact moving deformable barrier crash specified in S6.4.
    S7.6  Moving contoured barrier crash. In addition to the conditions 
of S7.1 and S7.2, the conditions of S7.5 of Sec. 571.301 apply to the 
conduct of the moving contoured barrier crash test specified in S6.6.
    S7.7  Electrical isolation test procedure. In addition to the 
conditions of S7.1 and S7.2, the following conditions apply to the 
measurement of electrical isolation specified in S5.3.
    S7.7.1  The propulsion battery system is connected to the vehicle's 
propulsion system, and the vehicle ignition is in the ``on'' (traction 
(propulsion) system energized) position.
    S7.7.2  The voltmeter used in this test measures direct current 
values and has an internal resistance of at least 10 M.
    S7.7.3  The voltage is measured as shown in figure 1 and the 
propulsion battery voltage (Vb) is recorded. Before any vehicle crash 
test, Vb must be equal to or greater than the nominal operating voltage 
as specified by the vehicle manufacturer. It is anticipated that Vb 
after the crash will be approximately the same as Vb before the crash. 
After the crash, a Vb greater than zero is required in order to conduct 
the remainder of this procedure. If Vb after the crash is zero, this 
indicates that a short across the propulsion battery has occurred, 
which precludes the remainder of this test procedure. A short across 
the propulsion battery may be conspicuous by virtue of arcing, fire, 
and/or component meltdown.
    S7.7.4  The voltage is measured as shown in figure 2 and the 
voltage (V1) between negative side of the propulsion battery and the 
vehicle chassis is recorded.

BILLING CODE 4910-59-P 

[[Page 54658]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP13OC98.002

 
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP13OC98.003


[[Page 54659]]


    S7.7.5  The voltage is measured as shown in figure 3 and the 
voltage (V2) between the positive side of the propulsion battery and 
the vehicle chassis is recorded. It is anticipated that the sum of the 
absolute values of V1 and of V2 will approximate the absolute value of 
Vb. 
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP13OC98.004

    S7.7.6  If V1 is greater than or equal to V2, insert a standard 
known resistance (Ro) between the negative side of the propulsion 
battery and the vehicle chassis. With the Ro installed, measure the 
voltage (V1'') as shown in figure 4 between the negative side of the 
propulsion battery and the vehicle chassis. Calculate the electrical 
isolation (Ri) according to the formula shown. This electrical 
isolation value (in ohms) divided by the nominal operating voltage of 
the propulsion battery (in volts) must be equal to or greater than 500. 

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP13OC98.005


[[Page 54660]]


    S7.7.7  If V2 is greater than V1, insert a standard known 
resistance (Ro) between the positive side of the propulsion battery and 
the vehicle chassis. With the Ro installed, measure the voltage and 
record the voltage (V2') between the positive side of the propulsion 
battery and the vehicle chassis as shown in figure 5. Calculate the 
electrical isolation (Ri) according to the formula shown. This 
electrical isolation value (in ohms) divided by the nominal operating 
voltage of the propulsion battery (in volts) must be equal to or 
greater than 500. 
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP13OC98.006

    Issued on: October 1, 1998.
L. Robert Shelton,
Associate Administrator for Safety Performance Standards.
[FR Doc. 9826796 Filed 10-9-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-C