[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 232 (Monday, December 3, 2001)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 60157-60161]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-29901]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 571

[Docket No. NHTSA-98-4515; Notice 4]
RIN 2127-AI57


Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards

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

ACTION: Response to petitions for reconsideration; final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This document responds to petitions for reconsideration of the 
Federal motor vehicle safety standard that addresses occupant crash 
safety issues exclusive to electric vehicles: electrolyte spillage and 
electrical shock protection. We are making clarifying amendments 
regarding the application of the standard, and regarding the test 
conditions for battery state of charge and electrical isolation. We are 
denying a petition to specify an alternative performance requirement 
for electrical isolation.

DATES: The final rule is effective December 1, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For non-legal issues, contact Charles 
Hott, Office of Safety Performance Standards, NHTSA (202-366-0427). For 
legal issues, contact Taylor Vinson, Office of Chief Counsel, NHTSA 
(202-366-5263).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On September 27, 2000, the agency published 
a final rule establishing Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 305 
``Electric-powered vehicles: Electrolyte spillage and electrical shock 
protection'' (65 FR 57980), effective October 1, 2001. On February 8, 
2001, the effective date was delayed to December 1, 2001 (66 FR 9533).
    Standard No. 305 applies to all electric vehicles (EVs) (except 
those covered by FMVSS No. 500 ``Low-Speed Vehicles'') that have a 
propulsion power source greater than 48 volts and a gross vehicle 
weight rating (GVWR) of 4536 kg (10,000 lbs) or less. The final rule 
was based on the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) J1766 
``Recommended Practice for Electric and Hybrid Electric Vehicle Battery 
Systems Crash Integrity Testing.'' The final rule contains provisions 
similar to those in the SAE recommended practice, with only those 
changes that were necessary to accommodate the regulatory text.
    Standard No. 305 establishes performance criteria that must be met 
when an EV is subjected to the frontal impact test procedures of 
Standard No. 208 (including the 30-degree oblique impact test), the 
side impact test procedures of Standard No. 214, and the rear impact 
test procedure of Standard No. 301. No spillage of electrolyte into the 
occupant compartment is permitted. Electrolyte spillage outside the 
passenger compartment is limited to 5 liters for the 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 must be at least 500 ohms 
per nominal volt as determined by the SAE test procedure.

Petitions for Reconsideration

    We received two petitions for reconsideration of Standard No. 305, 
one from General Motors Corporation (GM) and another from 
DaimlerChrysler Corporation (DC).

1. Petition Pertaining to S3, Application

    GM believes that a change in the regulatory text of S3 Application 
is

[[Page 60158]]

needed to clarify the application of the standard. GM argued that the 
discussion in the preamble of the September 27, 2000 final rule 
indicates that the reference to ``48V'' in S3 is intended to mean ``48V 
nominal'' voltage rating. It noted that the preamble repeatedly refers 
to ``nominal voltage'' in explaining the agency's selection of 48V as 
the application breakpoint. GM explained that the practical necessity 
of this change stems in part from the emergence of 42 volt nominal 
voltage as the likely industry standard for automotive battery systems. 
Just as today's automotive batteries have a nominal voltage rating of 
12V and an operating voltage that can be close to 14V, the emerging 42V 
nominal systems may have peak operating voltages that slightly exceed 
the 48V breakpoint specified in Standard No. 305. GM argued that the 
standard should be amended to clarify that Standard No. 305 is not 
intended to apply to these 42V battery systems, including 42V battery 
systems used to supplement propulsion power.
    GM is correct that the 48 volts referred to in S3 is intended to be 
nominal voltage. As we stated in the preamble to the final rule, this 
breakpoint voltage was determined from SAE J1673, ``High Voltage 
Automotive Wiring Assembly Design;'' SAE J1797, ``Packaging of Electric 
Vehicle Battery Modules;'' and SAE Information Report 52232, ``Vehicle 
System Voltage--Initial Recommendations.'' All refer to nominal 
voltages. We agree with GM that the application section of Standard No. 
305 should be modified to clearly state that the voltage specified is 
nominal voltage. Accordingly, we are granting GM's petition and 
amending S3 to add the word ``nominal'' after the words ``48 volts.''

2. Petition Pertaining to S7.1, Battery State of Charge

    Paragraph S7.1 of Standard No. 305 specifies the state of charge of 
the batteries at the time of compliance testing. S7.1 specifies that 
the state-of-charge of the propulsion battery pack is at the maximum 
level recommended by the manufacturer, or at a level not less than 95 
percent of the maximum capacity of the battery pack if the manufacturer 
does not provide a written recommendation. GM commented that, for 
certain vehicles, neither of these options is appropriate. GM asserted 
that hybrid EVs are being designed so that the propulsion battery pack 
is recharged exclusively by another onboard energy source, instead of 
by off-vehicle sources as surmised by the options in S7.1. Thus, there 
are no provisions to connect these hybrid EVs to an electrical charging 
port. GM stated that since vehicle owners will not have any means to 
charge directly the propulsion battery pack, there is no reason for the 
manufacturer to recommend a charging procedure or state-of-charge level 
in the operator's manual. GM further stated that the propulsion battery 
pack in these hybrid EVs is likely to be designed to operate within a 
state-of-charge range that is below 95 percent of the maximum capacity 
of the battery pack in order to maximize battery life.
    We agree with GM's comment. Hybrid EVs already produced by Toyota 
and Honda do not contain any provision for charging the battery pack 
externally, and currently operate at a capacity of less than 95 
percent. Accordingly, we are granting GM's petition, and amending S7.1 
to specify that, in the case of a vehicle whose batteries are 
rechargeable only by an energy source on the vehicle, the battery state 
of charge for testing is ``any state of charge within the normal 
operating voltage, as defined by the vehicle manufacturer.''

3. Petition Pertaining to S7.6.1, Electrical Isolation Test Procedure

    Paragraph S7.6.1 of Standard No. 305 specifies the procedures for 
the electrical isolation test. S7.6.1 specifies that, if a vehicle 
``utilizes an automatic disconnect between the propulsion battery 
system and the traction system, the electrical isolation measurement 
after the impact is made from the battery side of the automatic 
disconnect to the vehicle chassis.'' DC currently designs an automatic 
disconnect that is located entirely inside the battery container, and 
therefore, inaccessible to any measurement of electrical isolation 
without removal of the battery. DC stated that the intent of this 
design is to better confine the voltage to the inside of the battery 
compartment in an impact. DC argued that, in order to avoid being 
design restrictive, the measurement for electrical isolation should be 
made using a method that parallels SAE J1766.
    GM provided supplemental information to support DC's petition, 
arguing that the present provision for measuring the voltage from the 
battery side of any contactors is overly design restrictive. GM 
reminded us that, in its response to the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 
(NPRM) on Standard No. 305, it recommended that the agency clarify the 
measurement location in the regulatory text, and that Standard No. 305 
contains the language GM suggested. GM now agrees with DC that Standard 
No. 305 should allow for the isolation measurement to be made from the 
traction side of the automatic disconnect in designs in which the 
disconnect is located inside the battery pack. GM stated that, like DC, 
it also has designs with an automatic disconnect that is located 
entirely inside the battery container, and that the intent of its 
design is also to better confine the voltage to the inside of the 
battery compartment after an impact.
    GM related that it and other vehicle manufacturers have been 
marketing inherently safe battery-powered EVs since 1996. With respect 
to electrical safety, GM has designed its EV1 and S10 EVs in accordance 
with SAE J1766. The design strategy used has been to isolate the 
propulsion battery high voltage from the accessible areas of the 
vehicle if the system is compromised (e.g., loss of electric isolation, 
loss of interlock pilot line, loss of ground reference, etc.). 
According to GM, this approach of containing high voltage to the 
vehicle battery pack has been demonstrated in validation testing, and 
has been successful in the field.
    GM argued that, by requiring the electrical isolation measurements 
to be made on the battery side of the contactors following the impact 
tests, it is probable that electrically-safe EVs would not comply with 
Standard No. 305 as presently written. In GM's view, it is possible 
that a side impact test could result in contact between the vehicle 
structure and one of the battery terminals. The automatic disconnect 
would immediately detect this condition and open the high voltage 
contactors (which are located inside the battery pack), removing all 
high voltage from the accessible areas of the vehicle. Although the 
high voltage is now referenced to the vehicle chassis ground, there is 
no accessibility to high voltage, and therefore no electric shock 
hazard.
    Nevertheless, the present language of Standard No. 305 would 
prohibit this design. GM stated that its EVs' high voltage bus is 
designed to be electrically isolated from the vehicle chassis ground, 
primarily to add a level of fault tolerance to the electrical safety 
system (a ``bus,'' in electrical terms, is a location in an electrical 
system used to distribute electrical voltage/power). By itself, a loss 
of electrical isolation between a point on the high voltage bus and 
vehicle chassis ground is not an electrical safety hazard. If the loss 
of electrical isolation occurs, the high-voltage bus is purposely 
referenced to vehicle chassis ground. GM further stated that, with a 
chassis-referenced high-voltage bus, it would take at least one failure 
(access to the other side of the high voltage) to become an electric

[[Page 60159]]

safety hazard. With an isolated high voltage bus, which is the EV 
original equipment manufacturers' design standard in the U.S., at least 
two failures (access to two separate areas of the high voltage bus) are 
needed to create a possible electric safety hazard.
    GM further argued that, in the event that electrical isolation is 
lost during a vehicle crash, containing the high voltage to the 
inaccessible battery pack has been demonstrated to be an effective 
method for ensuring EV safety.
    GM believes that to ensure that there is no loss of electrical 
isolation during a vehicle impact, sufficient crush space must be 
provided. In frontal collisions, with batteries that are located away 
from the accessible underhood area of the vehicle, there is typically 
sufficient crush space to reduce chassis structural impingement into 
the battery module area. However, in side or rear collisions, depending 
on the location of the battery modules, there may be less crush space 
available. GM argued that, in smaller, lower mass vehicles, the problem 
of maintaining adequate crush space for preventing loss of electrical 
isolation, while meeting the manufacturer's driving range goals, 
becomes increasingly difficult. In its opinion, the present language of 
Standard No. 305 would require a reduction in the amount of energy 
storage on the vehicle, thus reducing its available range. GM related 
that most of the automotive manufacturers are considering the smaller, 
``city cars'' as part of their EV product portfolio. If the electrical 
isolation measurements are made on the battery side of the contactors, 
there would be a reduction in range performance to achieve compliance 
with Standard No. 305. This reduction in range would essentially render 
``city cars'' not viable.
    To address these concerns, GM recommended that S5.3 and S7.6.1 be 
revised to read as follows:

    S5.3  Electrical Isolation. Electrical isolation between the 
battery system and the vehicle electricity-conducting structure 
after each test must be not less than 500 ohms/volt. Alternatively, 
if the vehicle utilizes an automatic disconnect between the 
propulsion battery system and the traction system that is physically 
contained within the battery pack system, the measured voltage after 
each test must be less than or equal to 30 volts.

    and

    S7.6.1  Prior to any barrier test, 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. If the vehicle utilizes an automatic disconnect between 
the propulsion battery system and the traction system that is 
physically contained within the battery pack system, the electrical 
isolation measurement after the impact is made from the traction 
side of the automatic disconnect to the vehicle chassis. If the 
vehicle utilizes an automatic disconnect that is not physically 
contained within the battery pack system, the electrical isolation 
measurement after the impact is made from the battery side of the 
automatic disconnect to the vehicle chassis.

    GM argued that the proposed modification of S7.6.1 to specify 
electrical isolation measurement from the traction side of the battery 
will meet the need of motor vehicle safety by safeguarding against 
electric shock hazards in EVs and would still be consistent with SAE 
J1766. In addition, it would be consistent with the test protocol that 
the agency validated in May 1998 in the 35 mph frontal crash test of an 
EV1.
    DC's design with the automatic disconnect located inside the 
battery pack is similar to the design tested on GM's EV1. We agree with 
DC's and GM's assertions that this requirement, based on GM's comments 
to the NPRM, may now be overly design restrictive. In fact, NHTSA's own 
testing of EVs to date has measured electrical isolation from the 
traction side of the contactors. We believe that SAE J1766 is somewhat 
vague as to where the measurement should be taken. We agree with GM 
that a loss of electrical isolation between a point on the high voltage 
bus and the vehicle chassis ground is not an electrical safety hazard. 
Further, we do not believe that there would be any detriment to safety 
from taking the measurements on the traction side of the contactors, 
provided that the contactors are located inside the battery pack of the 
vehicle. We note that the same is not true if the contactors are 
located outside the battery pack. In that instance, there is an 
increased risk of someone coming in contact with high voltage caused by 
chaffed wires leading to the contactors if the isolation switch is 
located outside the battery pack. In that configuration, the 
measurement should be taken from the battery side of the contactors.
    We are granting DC's and GM's petitions, and are amending S7.6.1 to 
add at the end of the existing text:

    If the vehicle utilizes an automatic disconnect that is not 
physically contained within the battery pack system, the electrical 
isolation measurement after the impact is made from the battery side 
of the automatic disconnect to the vehicle chassis.

    As noted earlier, GM also recommended changing S5.3, the electrical 
isolation requirement, to state that, for EVs which have an automatic 
disconnect located entirely in the battery pack, a voltage measurement 
of more than 30 volts would be required to perform the electrical 
isolation test. GM did not provide any rationale for why it sought this 
change. The GM recommendation would specify a minimum voltage above 
which the electrical isolation test procedure would be performed. We do 
not believe that specifying a minimum voltage to perform the electrical 
isolation test will add any safety benefit that is not already provided 
for in the standard. The standard now requires electrical isolation of 
500 ohms/volt. This establishes an exposure of 0.002 ampere, which is 
at the threshold of sensation and well below a level of physiological 
concern. The GM recommendation would not change this exposure. In fact, 
if there is any voltage, the standard requires that the isolation test 
be performed. The GM recommendation would unnecessarily restrict the 
voltage over which the electrical isolation test could be conducted. 
Further, the GM recommendation would add requirements to the standard 
that need to be the subject of public notice and comment before they 
can be adopted. For the reasons discussed above, we see no 
justification at this time for requiring a change in S5.3 to specify a 
minimum voltage to perform the isolation test. Accordingly, we are 
denying this aspect of GM's petition for reconsideration of Standard 
No. 305.
    Standard No. 305 is effective December 1, 2001. We have concluded 
that the minor amendments to Standard No. 305 effected by this notice 
should also be effective December 1, 2001, rather than 180 days after 
issuance of this notice. It is in the public interest to make the 
amendments effective on that date because they will facilitate 
compliance by manufacturers of EVs.

Rulemaking Analyses

Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures

    This document was not reviewed under Executive Order 12866. It has 
been determined that the rulemaking action is not significant under 
Department of Transportation regulatory policies and procedures. In 
promulgating the final rule in September 2000, we discussed at some 
length the impact of that final rule, and concluded that the impacts of 
that rule were so minimal as not to warrant preparation of a full 
regulatory evaluation. Today's final rule merely clarifies that earlier 
final rule.

[[Page 60160]]

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    We have 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 does not have a significant 
economic impact upon a substantial number of small entities.
    The following is our statement providing the factual basis for the 
certification (5 U.S.C. 605(b)). This final rule merely clarifies the 
original final rule. When we analyzed the original final rule for the 
purposes of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, we concluded that the 
overall economic impact was not considered to be significant, and, 
accordingly, no regulatory flexibility analysis was prepared.

Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

    Executive Order 13132 on ``Federalism'' requires us to develop an 
accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and timely input by State 
and local officials in the development of `regulatory policies that 
have federalism implications.' '' The E.O. defines this phrase to 
include regulations ``that 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, which regulates the manufacture of certain motor 
vehicles, will not have substantial direct effect 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, as specified in E.O. 13132. As noted above, it merely 
clarifies an earlier final rule.

National Environmental Policy Act

    We have analyzed this rulemaking action for purposes of the 
National Environmental Policy Act. The rulemaking action will not have 
a significant effect upon the environment as it does not affect the 
present method of manufacturing electric vehicles.

Civil Justice Reform

    This rule will not have any retroactive effect. Under 49 U.S.C. 
30103(b)(1), 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 rule will not have a $100 million 
effect, we have not prepared an Unfunded Mandates assessment.

National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act (the Act) requires agencies to evaluate and use existing voluntary 
consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless doing so would 
be inconsistent with applicable law (e.g., the statutory provisions 
regarding our vehicle safety authority) or otherwise impractical. In 
meeting that requirement, we are required to consult with voluntary, 
private sector, consensus standards bodies. Examples of organizations 
generally regarded as voluntary consensus standards bodies include the 
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM), the Society of 
Automotive Engineers (SAE), and the American National Standards 
Institute (ANSI). If we do not use available and potentially applicable 
voluntary consensus standards, we are required by the Act to provide 
Congress, through OMB, an explanation for not using such standards.
    As we have explained in the preamble, this final rule is based upon 
SAE J1766 FEB96 ``Recommended Practice for Electric and Hybrid Electric 
Vehicle Battery Systems Crash Integrity Testing,'' and is substantially 
similar to it in its specifications for prohibition of electrolyte 
spillage in front, side, and rear impacts, and battery retention during 
such impacts, and electrical isolation.

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 is amended as 
follows:
    1. The authority citation for part 571 continues to read as 
follows:

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

    2. In Sec. 571.305, paragraphs S3, S7.1, and S7.6.1 are revised to 
read as follows:


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

* * * * *
    S3  Application. This standard applies to passenger cars, and to 
multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks and buses with a GVWR of 4536 
kg or less, that use more than 48 nominal volts of electricity as 
propulsion power and whose speed attainable in 1.6 km on a paved level 
surface is more than 40 km/h.
* * * * *
    S7.1  Battery state of charge. The battery system is at the level 
specified in the following paragraph (a), (b), or (c), as appropriate:
    (a) At the maximum state of charge recommended by the manufacturer, 
as stated in the vehicle operator's manual or on a label that is 
permanently affixed to the vehicle;
    (b) If the manufacturer has made no recommendation, at a state of 
charge of not less than 95 percent of the maximum capacity of the 
battery system; or
    (c) If the batteries are rechargeable only by an energy source on 
the vehicle, at any state of charge within the normal operating 
voltage, as defined by the vehicle manufacturer.
* * * * *
    S7.6.1  Prior to any barrier impact test, 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. If the vehicle utilizes an automatic disconnect between the 
propulsion battery system and the traction system that is physically 
contained within the battery pack system, the electrical isolation 
measurement after the impact is made from the traction side of the 
automatic disconnect to the vehicle chassis. If the vehicle utilizes an 
automatic disconnect that is not physically contained within the 
battery pack system, the electrical isolation measurement after the 
impact is made from the battery side of the automatic disconnect to the 
vehicle chassis.
* * * * *


[[Page 60161]]


    Issued on: November 27, 2001.
Jeffrey W. Runge,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 01-29901 Filed 11-30-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P