Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Electric-Powered Vehicles: Electrolyte Spillage and Electrical Shock Protection
| Citation | 84 FR 6758 |
| Record Number | 2019-03181 |
| Published date | 28 February 2019 |
| Court | National Highway Traffic Safety Administration |
Federal Register, Volume 84 Issue 40 (Thursday, February 28, 2019)
[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 40 (Thursday, February 28, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 6758-6764]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-03181]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
49 CFR Part 571
[Docket No. NHTSA-2019-0009]
RIN 2127-AM10
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: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document proposes to amend Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
Standard (FMVSS) No. 305, ``Electric-powered vehicles: Electrolyte
spillage and electrical shock protection,'' to clarify the direct
contact protection requirements that apply to high voltage connectors,
and to explicitly permit the use of high voltage connectors that cannot
be separated without the use of tools. The proposed changes to these
requirements would harmonize FMVSS No. 305 with Global Technical
Regulations (GTRs) No. 13 and No. 20, which explicitly permit such
connectors. In addition, it would make three minor technical
corrections to the standard.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before March 15, 2019.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by the docket number in
the heading of this document or by any of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments on
the electronic docket site by clicking on ``Help'' or ``FAQ.''
Mail: Docket Management Facility. M-30, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building, Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590.
Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, West Building, Ground Floor, Room W12-140,
Washington, DC 20590 between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. Eastern Time, Monday
through Friday, except Federal Holidays.
Fax: 202-493-2251.
Regardless of how you submit comments, you must include the docket
number identified in the heading of this notice.
You may call the Docket Management Facility at 202-366-9826.
Instructions: For detailed instructions on submitting comments and
additional information on the rulemaking process, see the Public
Participation heading of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this
document. Note that all comments received will be posted without change
to www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided.
Privacy Act: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits
comments from the public to better inform its decision-making process.
DOT posts these comments, without edit, including any personal
information the commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov, as
described in the system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can
be reviewed at www.transportation.gov/privacy. In order to facilitate
comment tracking and response, we encourage commenters to provide their
name, or the name of their organization; however, submission of names
is completely optional. Whether or not commenters identify themselves,
all timely comments will be fully considered.
Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments received, go to www.regulations.gov, or the street address
listed above. Follow the online instructions for accessing the dockets.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical issues, you may contact
Ms. Shashi Kuppa, Office of Crashworthiness Standards; telephone: 202-
366-3827; facsimile: 202-493-2990. For legal issues, you may contact
Mr. Daniel Koblenz, Office of Chief Counsel; telephone: 202-366-2992;
facsimile: 202-366-3820. The mailing address of these officials is:
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue
SE, Washington, DC 20590.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Introduction
II. Background
III. Proposal
IV. Technical Corrections
V. Effective Date and Comment Period
VI. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
VII. Public Participation
I. Introduction
This document proposes to amend FMVSS No. 305, paragraph S5.4.1.5,
to
[[Page 6759]]
clarify that the three compliance options listed in S5.4.1.5(a), (b)
and (c) only pertain to connectors that can be separated without the
use of a tool. This proposal would make clear that S5.4.1.5(a), (b) and
(c) do not apply to high voltage connectors that require the use of a
tool to separate from their mating component and that meet S5.4.1.4's
IPXXD or IPXXB requirements \1\ when the connector is connected to its
mating component. NHTSA believes that connectors that require the use
of a tool to separate from their mating component provide a level of
direct contact protection that is equivalent to that provided by
connectors already allowed under the standard. NHTSA believes that this
proposed amendment will provide additional design flexibility to
manufacturers of electric and fuel cell vehicles, thus facilitating the
manufacture of such vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Protection degree IPXXD is protection from contact with high
voltage live parts. It is tested by probing electrical protection
barriers with the test wire probe, IPXXD, shown in Figure 7a of
FMVSS No. 305. Protection degree IPXXB is protection from contact
with high voltage live parts. It is tested by probing electrical
protection barriers with the jointed test finger probe, IPXXB, shown
in Figure 7b of FMVSS No. 305.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The changes proposed in this document would amend regulatory
requirements that were established in the agency's September 27, 2017
final rule (82 FR 44945), which added several new requirements to
improve electric vehicle safety. The final rule also sought to
harmonize FMVSS No. 305 with the electrical safety requirements of GTR
No. 13, ``Hydrogen and fuel cell vehicles,'' and a then-pending GTR No.
20, ``Electric vehicle safety.'' \2\ (NHTSA voted in favor of
establishing GTR No. 20 in March 2018.) This NPRM proposes to better
harmonize FMVSS No. 305 with GTRs No. 13 and No. 20, which allow for
the use of connectors that require the use of a tool to separate. NHTSA
seeks to issue a final rule based on today's NPRM as soon as possible,
in light of the September 27, 2017 final rule's compliance date of
September 27, 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ GTRs are model standards that are developed through
collaboration between contracting parties to the 1998 Agreement
concerning the Establishing of Global Technical Regulations for
Wheeled Vehicles, Equipment and Parts which can be fitted and/or be
used on Wheeled Vehicles (the ``1998 Agreement''). As a contracting
party to the 1998 Agreement, the United States, through NHTSA,
worked closely with experts from other contracting parties to
develop GTR No. 13 and GTR No. 20.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Background
FMVSS No. 305 establishes requirements to reduce deaths and
injuries during and after a crash that occur because of electrolyte
spillage from electric energy storage devices, intrusion of electric
energy storage/conversion devices into the occupant compartment, and
electric shock. On September 27, 2017, NHTSA published a final rule
amending FMVSS No. 305 by, among other things, adopting several
electrical safety requirements found in GTR No. 13 (and later, GTR No.
20). 82 FR 44945. The GTR provisions adopted in the final rule included
general requirements for protecting humans against direct contact with
high-voltage live parts (FMVSS No. 305, S5.4.1.4), as well as specific
direct contact protection requirements for high-voltage connectors
(FMVSS No. 305, S5.4.1.5).\3\ (The reason for specialized direct
contact protection requirements for high voltage connectors is that,
unlike other high voltage equipment, connectors are designed to
separate from a mating component, which could potentially expose high
voltage conductive parts to human contact.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ FMVSS No. 305 defines a ``connector'' as ``a device
providing a mechanical connection and disconnection of high voltage
electrical conductors to a suitable mating component, including its
housing.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
S5.4.1.4 requires that all high voltage sources, including high-
voltage connectors, meet protection degree IPXXD or IPXXB (as
appropriate) during normal vehicle operation. In addition, S5.4.1.5
requires that high voltage connectors must meet at least one of the
following three compliance options to provide protection when
separated: (a) The connector meets protection degree IPXXD/IPXXB when
separated from its mating component, if the connector can be separated
without the use of tools; (b) the voltage of the live parts becomes
less than or equal to 60 volts of direct current (VDC) or 30 volts of
alternating current expressed using the root mean square value (VAC)
within one second after the connector is separated from its mating
component; or (c) the connector is provided with a locking mechanism
\4\ and there are other components that must be removed in order to
separate the connector from its mating component and these other
components cannot be removed without the use of tools.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ A locking mechanism requires at least two distinct actions
to separate the connector from its mating component and is intended
to prevent inadvertent disconnection of the connector from its
mating component.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NHTSA had intended for these provisions to harmonize the direct
contact requirements for high voltage connectors in FMVSS No. 305 with
those in GTRs No. 13 and No. 20 (which explicitly permit the use of
connectors that require the use of a tool to separate).5 6
However, following its issuance of the final rule, the agency received
petitions for reconsideration from the Alliance of Automobile
Manufacturers and Global Automakers, which argued in part that the
regulatory text adopted in the final rule did not appear to permit use
of connectors that require the use of a tool to separate. For this
reason, the petitions requested that NHTSA amend S5.4.1.5 to provide a
compliance option for high voltage connectors that meet IPXXD/IPXXB
protection degree when connected, and that require the use of a tool to
separate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ See September 27, 2017 final rule (82 FR at 44953) (Stating
that the direct contact requirements for connectors ``are harmonized
with GTR No. 13, ECE R100, and the draft EVS-GTR for electric
vehicles.'').
\6\ See GTR No. 13, 5.3.1.2.2, Protection against direct
contact. https://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/trans/main/wp29/wp29wgs/wp29gen/wp29registry/ECE-TRANS-180a13e.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NHTSA agrees with the petitioners that, although the agency had
intended to permit connectors that require the use of a tool to
separate, that intent is not clear in the current regulatory text. In
addition, NHTSA believes that the current wording of S5.4.1.5 does not
make clear whether the provision would permit a connector that requires
the use of a tool to separate when the connector does not have the
``other components'' mentioned in S5.4.1.5(c). The absence of a
compliance option that allows high voltage connectors that require the
use of a tool to separate burdens vehicle manufacturers because it is a
common method of providing direct contact protection for connectors.
NHTSA proposes to amend S5.4.1.5 to make clear that connectors that
require the use of a tool to separate are permitted.
The agency notes that, although these issues are within the scope
of the September 27, 2017 final rule and could have been addressed in a
response to the petitions for reconsideration, the agency would like to
seek public comment on its proposed changes to the regulatory text.
NHTSA believes public comments would be beneficial in ensuring that the
changes proposed achieve their intended purpose of harmonizing FMVSS
No. 305 with GTRs No. 13 and No. 20.
III. Proposal
NHTSA proposes to amend S5.4.1.5 to clarify that connectors are
only required to meet one of the three listed compliance options if the
connector can be separated without the use of a tool. NHTSA believes
this change will harmonize that provision in FMVSS No. 305 with GTRs
No. 13 and No. 20, as the
[[Page 6760]]
agency had intended in its September 27, 2017 final rule. Moreover,
NHTSA believes that this change will provide additional design
flexibility to manufacturers of electric vehicles and fuel cell
vehicles without compromising safety.
This change will harmonize FMVSS No. 305 with GTRs No. 13 and No.
20 because it will clarify that high voltage connectors that require
the use of a tool to separate meet requirements for direct contact
protection. As noted above, NHTSA had intended to provide the same
level of direct contact protection as GTRs No. 13 and No. 20, which
explicitly permit such connectors. Because FMVSS No. 305 currently does
not appear to permit high voltage connectors that require the use of a
tool to separate, adopting the proposed changes would bring FMVSS No.
305 in line with GTRs No. 13 and No. 20.
The proposed change will not affect electric vehicle safety because
a connector that requires the use of a tool to separate will not
inadvertently separate due to vehicle jostling or human error. Thus, it
eliminates the possibility that a person is inadvertently exposed to a
risk of electric shock. NHTSA notes that connectors requiring the use
of a tool to separate provide essentially the same level of electrical
shock protection as connectors that are currently permitted under
provision (c) of S5.4.1.5. That provision currently permits connectors
that cannot be accessed without removing surrounding components that
themselves require the use of a tool to remove. Connectors under
S5.4.1.5(c) provide the same level of protection as connectors that
require the use of a tool to separate because both cannot be separated
without a person intentionally using a tool to accomplish connector
separation, which effectively eliminates the risk of accidental shock.
Thus, NHTSA believes that requiring a connector that cannot be
separated without the use of a tool to also meet one of the three
existing compliance options in S5.4.1.5 is unwarranted.
IV. Technical Corrections
NHTSA is also proposing to make several technical corrections to
the language of FMVSS No. 305, which are described below.
Definition of ``High Voltage Live Part''
NHTSA is proposing to add a definition for the term ``high voltage
live part'' to the definitions section of FMVSS No. 305. The term would
be defined as ``a live part of a high voltage source.'' NHTSA had
intended to add this definition as part of the September 27, 2017 final
rule, as indicated by the agency's statement that it will ``adopt terms
such as `high voltage live parts' . . . in place of proposed terms that
were less clear.'' 82 FR at 44948. In addition, the agency stated in
Table 1 of the final rule that adding the term ``high voltage live
parts'' to S4 will clarify the requirements of the final rule, such as
the applicability of IPXXD protection requirements. The agency will add
this missing definition as a technical correction.
Cross-Reference
NHTSA is proposing to amend the cross-reference to the electrical
isolation monitoring system requirement in S8 so that it is consistent
with the reorganization of the FMVSS No. 305 that was done as part of
the September 27, 2017 final rule. The final rule redesignated the
electrical isolation monitoring system requirement from ``S5.4'' to
``S5.4.4,'' but did not make a conforming change to S8, which still
refers to ``S5.4.'' The agency will change the S8 cross-reference to
``S5.4.4'' as a technical correction.
Corrected Term
NHTSA is proposing to correct the use of incorrect terminology in
the description of the requirements for a resistance tester in S9.2(a).
Currently, that provision states that ``resistance is measured using a
resistance tester that can measure current levels of at least 0.2
Amperes.'' (Emphasis added.) The term ``measure'' should be ``supply.''
\7\ Accordingly, the agency will replace ``measure'' with ``supply'' in
S9.2(a) as a technical correction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ A resistance tester does not ``measure'' current in a
circuit; it supplies current to a circuit which allows the tester to
measure that circuit's level of electrical resistance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
V. Effective Date and Comment Period
NHTSA proposes that the final rule that follows this NPRM will have
an immediate effective date upon publication of the final rule in the
Federal Register.
The Safety Act states that an amendment to a safety standard may
not take effect earlier than 180 days after the standard is prescribed,
or later than one year after the standard is prescribed unless, for
good cause shown, a different effective date would be in the public
interest. 49 U.S.C. 30111(d). NHTSA has tentatively concluded that good
cause exists for this rule to become effective immediately, because the
rule would not impose new substantive requirements that would burden
vehicle manufacturers, and in fact would relieve an existing
restriction. Similarly, the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) states
that a rule cannot be made effective less than 30 days after
publication, unless the rule falls under one of three enumerated
exceptions. One of these exceptions is for a rule that ``grants or
recognizes an exemption or relieves a restriction.'' 5 U.S.C.
553(d)(1). This rule would fall under this exception because it would
relieve the existing restriction that prohibits the use of high voltage
connectors that cannot be separated without the use of tools. NHTSA
seeks comment on its tentative conclusion that good cause exists to
justify an immediate effective date for a final rule based on this
proposal.
DOT Order 2100.5 requires that NHTSA provide a public comment
period of at least 45 days for non-significant regulations, but may
provide a shorter comment period if the proposed regulation is
accompanied by a brief statement of reasons. NHTSA is providing a
shortened 15-day comment period principally for two reasons. First, the
September 27, 2017 final rule's effective date was September 27, 2018.
The proposed amendments provide flexibility to manufacturers in meeting
the final rule's requirements, so NHTSA would like to issue a final
rule based on this NPRM as soon as possible. Second, the proposed
changes are merely corrective and clarifying in nature, and a review of
them by the public can be done quickly.
VI. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
Executive Order 12866, Executive Order 13563, and DOT Regulatory
Policies and Procedures
We have considered the potential impact of this proposed rule under
Executive Order (E.O.) 12866, E.O. 13563, and the Department of
Transportation's regulatory policies and procedures and have determined
that today's proposed rule is nonsignificant. This rulemaking document
was not reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under
E.O. 12866. It is not considered to be significant under E.O. 12866 or
the Department of Transportation's Regulatory Policies and Procedures.
The amendments proposed by this NPRM mostly clarify or correct text
adopted by a September 27, 2017 final rule and will have no significant
effect on the national economy. This NPRM would clarify the direct
contact protection requirements that apply to high voltage connectors,
and to explicitly permit the use of high voltage connectors that cannot
be separated without the use of tools.
[[Page 6761]]
As noted above, NHTSA is providing a 15-day comment period for two
principal reasons. First, the September 27, 2017 final rule's effective
date is September 27, 2018. The proposed amendments provide flexibility
to manufacturers in meeting the final rule's requirements, so NHTSA
would like to issue a final rule based on this NPRM as soon as
possible. Second, the proposed changes are merely corrective and
clarifying in nature, and a review of them by the public can be done
quickly.
Executive Order 13771
This proposed rule is E.O. 13771 titled ``Reducing Regulation and
Controlling Regulatory Costs,'' directs that, unless prohibited by law,
whenever an executive department or agency publicly proposes for notice
and comment or otherwise promulgates a new regulation, it shall
identify at least two existing regulations to be repealed. In addition,
any new incremental costs associated with new regulations shall, to the
extent permitted by law, be offset by the elimination of existing
costs. Only those rules deemed significant under section 3(f) of E.O.
12866, ``Regulatory Planning and Review,'' are subject to these
requirements. This proposed rule is not expected to be an E.O. 13771
regulatory action because this proposed rule is not significant under
E.O. 12866.
Executive Order 13609: Promoting International Regulatory Cooperation
The policy statement in section 1 of E.O. 13609 provides that
unnecessary differences in regulatory approaches between U.S. agencies
and their foreign counterparts can negatively affect the international
competitiveness of U.S. businesses. Accordingly, U.S. agencies should,
where possible, engage with these foreign counterparts to identify
regulatory approaches that are at least as protective as those that are
or would be adopted in the absence of such cooperation.
This rulemaking harmonizes FMVSS No. 305 with provisions that are
in GTRs No. 13 and No. 20. Specifically, the primary clarification
proposed by this document--that the use of connectors that cannot be
separated without the use of tools is permissible under FMVSS No. 305--
will bring FMVSS No. 305 into alignment with GTRs No. 13 and No. 20
requirements relating to high voltage connectors, and so will further
the goals of E.O. 13609.
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).
The Small Business Administration's regulations at 13 CFR part 121
define a small business, in part, as a business entity ``which operates
primarily within the United States.'' (13 CFR 121.105(a)(1)). No
regulatory flexibility analysis is required if the head of an agency
certifies the proposal 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 proposal will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
I hereby certify that this proposed rule would not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The amendments proposed by this NPRM mostly clarify or correct text
adopted by a September 27, 2017 final rule. This proposed rule would
make clear that connectors that cannot be separated without the use of
a tool are permitted under FMVSS No. 305 without having to have present
``other components'' needing a tool to separate.
This action would not impose any additional restrictions that would
affect small entities, and in fact, would give greater design
flexibility to manufacturers of electric vehicles and HFCVs.
Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)
NHTSA has examined today's proposed rule pursuant to E.O. 13132 (64
FR 43255, August 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 rulemaking would not have sufficient federalism implications to
warrant consultation with State and local officials or the preparation
of a federalism summary impact statement. Today's proposed rule would
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.''
NHTSA rules can have preemptive effect in two ways. First, the
National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act contains an express
preemption provision stating that, if NHTSA has established a standard
for an aspect motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment performance a
State may only prescribe or continue in effect a standard for that same
aspect of performance if the State standard is identical to the Federal
standard. 49 U.S.C. 30103(b)(1). It is this statutory command by
Congress that preempts any non-identical State legislative and
administrative law addressing the same aspect of performance.
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 E.O. 13132, NHTSA has considered whether this proposed
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 today's
proposed rule and
[[Page 6762]]
finds that this proposed rule, like many NHTSA rules, prescribes only a
minimum safety standard. Accordingly, NHTSA does not intend that this
proposed rule preempt state tort law that would effectively impose a
higher standard on motor vehicle manufacturers than that established by
today's proposal. Establishment of a higher standard by means of State
tort law would not conflict with the minimum standard proposed in this
document. Without any conflict, there could not be any implied
preemption of a State common law tort cause of action.
Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform)
When promulgating a regulation, E.O. 12988 specifically requires
that the agency must 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
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 proposed rule is discussed above in connection with E.O.
13132. 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.
Executive Order 13045 (Protection of Children From Environmental Health
and Safety Risks)
E.O. 13045, ``Protection of Children from Environmental Health and
Safety Risks,'' (62 FR 19885; April 23, 1997) applies to any proposed
or final rule that: (1) Is determined to be ``economically
significant,'' as defined in E.O. 12866, and (2) concerns an
environmental health or safety risk that NHTSA has reason to believe
may have a disproportionate effect on children. If a rule meets both
criteria, the agency must evaluate the environmental health or safety
effects of the rule on children, and explain why the rule is preferable
to other potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives
considered by the agency.
This proposed rule is not subject to E.O. 13045 because it is not
economically significant.
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.
Pursuant to the above requirements, the agency conducted a review
of voluntary consensus standards to determine if any were applicable to
this proposed rule. NHTSA searched for but did not find voluntary
consensus standards directly applicable to the amendments proposed in
this NPRM.
However, consistent with the NTTAA, this proposal is aligned with
regulations developed globally on electric vehicle safety, namely GTR
No. 13 and GTR No. 20.\8\ The GTRs permit the use of high voltage
connectors that cannot be separated without the use of tools. We
believe that the proposed amendment to FMVSS No. 305 would promote
harmonization of our countries' regulatory approaches on electric
vehicles and HFCVs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ The NTTAA seeks to support efforts by the Federal government
to ensure that agencies work with their regulatory counterparts in
other countries to address common safety issues. Circular No. A-119,
``Federal Participation in the Development and Use of Voluntary
Consensus Standards and in Conformity Assessment Activities,''
January 27, 2016, p. 15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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). We note that
as this proposed rule only makes minor adjustments and clarifications
to FMVSS No. 305. Thus, it would not result in expenditures by any of
the aforementioned entities of over $100 million annually.
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 would not have any significant impact on
the quality of the human environment.
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. This
proposed rule imposes no new reporting requirements on manufacturers.
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.
VII. Public Participation
How do I prepare and submit comments?
To ensure that your comments are correctly filed in the
Docket, please include the Docket Number found in the heading of this
document in your comments.
Your comments must not be more than 15 pages long.\9\
NHTSA established this limit to encourage you to write your primary
comments in a concise fashion. However, you may attach necessary
additional documents to your comments, and there is no limit on the
length of the attachments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ 49 CFR 553.21.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you are submitting comments electronically as a PDF
(Adobe) file, NHTSA asks that the documents be submitted using the
Optical Character Recognition (OCR) process, thus allowing NHTSA to
search and copy certain portions of your submissions.
Please note that pursuant to the Data Quality Act, in
order for substantive data to be relied on and used by NHTSA, it must
meet the
[[Page 6763]]
information quality standards set forth in the OMB and DOT Data Quality
Act guidelines. Accordingly, NHTSA encourages you to consult the
guidelines in preparing your comments. DOT's guidelines may be accessed
at https://www.transportation.gov/regulations/dot-information-dissemination-quality-guidelines.
Tips for Preparing Your Comments
When submitting comments, please remember to:
Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other
identifying information (subject heading, Federal Register date and
page number).
Explain why you agree or disagree, suggest alternatives,
and substitute language for your requested changes.
Describe any assumptions you make and provide any
technical information and/or data that you used.
If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how
you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and
suggest alternatives.
Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the
use of profanity or personal threats.
To ensure that your comments are considered by the agency,
make sure to submit them by the comment period deadline identified in
the DATES section above.
For additional guidance on submitting effective comments, visit:
https://www.regulations.gov/docs/Tips_For_Submitting_Effective_Comments.pdf.
How can I be sure that my comments were received?
If you wish Docket Management to notify you upon its receipt of
your comments, enclose a self-addressed, stamped postcard in the
envelope containing your comments. Upon receiving your comments, Docket
Management will return the postcard by mail.
How do I submit confidential business information?
If you wish to submit any information under a claim of
confidentiality, you should submit three copies of your complete
submission, including the information you claim to be confidential
business information, to the Chief Counsel, NHTSA, at the address given
above under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. In addition, you should
submit a copy, from which you have deleted the claimed confidential
business information, to the docket at the address given above under
ADDRESSES. When you send a comment containing information claimed to be
confidential business information, you should include a cover letter
setting forth the information specified in our confidential business
information regulation. (49 CFR part 512)
Will the agency consider late comments?
We will consider all comments received before the close of business
on the comment closing date indicated above under DATES. To the extent
possible, we will also consider comments that the docket receives after
that date. If the docket receives a comment too late for us to consider
in developing a final rule (assuming that one is issued), we will
consider that comment as an informal suggestion for future rulemaking
action.
How can I read the comments submitted by other people?
You may read the comments received by the docket at the address
given above under ADDRESSES. The hours of the docket are indicated
above in the same location. You may also see the comments on the
internet. To read the comments on the internet, go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for accessing the
dockets.
Please note that even after the comment closing date, we will
continue to file relevant information in the docket as it becomes
available. Further, some people may submit late comments. Accordingly,
we recommend that you periodically check the Docket for new material.
You can arrange with the docket to be notified when others file
comments in the docket. See www.regulations.gov for more information.
List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 571
Imports, Motor vehicles, Motor vehicle safety.
In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA proposes to amend 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 and 501.8.
0
2. Amend Sec. 571.305 by:
0
a. Adding, in alphabetical order, a definition for ``High voltage live
part'' to paragraph S4;
0
b. Revising paragraph S5.4.1.5;
0
c. Revising the introductory text of paragraph S8; and
0
d. Revising paragraph S9.2(a).
The addition and revisions read as follows:
Sec. 571.305 Standard No. 305; Electric-powered vehicles; electrolyte
spillage and electrical shock protection.
* * * * *
S4. Definitions.
* * * * *
High voltage live part means a live part of a high voltage source.
* * * * *
S5.4.1.5 Connectors. All connectors shall provide direct contact
protection by:
(a) Meeting the requirements specified in S5.4.1.4 when the
connector is connected to its corresponding mating component; and,
(b) If a connector can be separated from its mating component
without the use of a tool, meeting at least one of the following
conditions (1), (2), or (3):
(1) The connector meets the requirements of S5.4.1.4 when separated
from its mating component;
(2) The voltage of the live parts becomes less than or equal to 60
VDC or 30 VAC within one second after the connector is separated from
its mating component; or,
(3) The connector requires at least two distinct actions to
separate from its mating component and there are other components that
must be removed in order to separate the connector from its mating
component and these other components cannot be removed without the use
of tools.
* * * * *
S8. Test procedure for on-board electrical isolation monitoring
system. Prior to any impact test, the requirements of S5.4.4 for the
on-board electrical isolation monitoring system shall be tested using
the following procedure.
* * * * *
S9.2 * * *
[[Page 6764]]
(a) Test method using a resistance tester. The resistance tester is
connected to the measuring points (the electrical chassis and any
exposed conductive part of electrical protection barriers or any two
simultaneously reachable exposed conductive parts of electrical
protection barriers that are less than 2.5 meters from each other), and
the resistance is measured using a resistance tester that can supply
current levels of at least 0.2 Amperes with a resolution of 0.01 ohms
or less. The resistance between two exposed conductive parts of
electrical protection barriers that are less than 2.5 meters from each
other may be calculated using the separately measured resistances of
the relevant parts of the electric path.
* * * * *
Issued in Washington, DC, under authority delegated in 49 CFR
1.95 and 501.8.
Raymond R. Posten,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 2019-03181 Filed 2-27-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
