Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, Electric Vehicles Controls and Displays; Windshield Defrosting and Defogging Systems

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 571

[Docket No. 91-49; Notice 4]

RIN 2127-AE29

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, Electric Vehicles

Controls and Displays; Windshield Defrosting and Defogging Systems

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This document adopts minor amendments to the Federal Motor

Vehicle Safety Standard on windshield defrosting and defogging systems

that make the systems more appropriate for electric powered motor

vehicles. This document also announces the agency's decision not to

adopt similar minor amendments that were proposed for controls and

displays for electric powered vehicles. The reason for this decision is

that standardization does not appear necessary at the present time for

motor vehicle safety.

DATES: The effective date of the final rule is September 6, 1994.

Petitions for reconsideration of the final rule must be received not

later than April 8, 1994.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Gary R. Woodford, Special Projects Staff, Office of Rulemaking NHTSA

(202-366-4931).

SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION: On January 15, 1993, NHTSA issued a notice of

proposed rulemaking (NPRM) proposing minor amendments of Federal motor

vehicle safety standards on controls and displays and windshield

defrosting and defogging systems (58 FR 4644). The proposal was issued

to make these standards more appropriate for electric powered vehicles

(EVs), and to put any necessary standards in place as soon as possible

to support the safe introduction and operation of EVs. To delay

rulemaking until significant production of EVs actually begins could

not only fail to prevent avoidable safety problems, but also disrupt

and impede the development and commercialization of EVs. The reader is

referred to the NPRM for an extensive discussion of the background

leading to the proposal.

Towards this goal, NHTSA identified two Federal motor vehicle

safety standards whose modification appeared to be desirable to

facilitate introduction of EVs.

1. Standard No. 101, Controls and Displays

The regulatory issue was whether a gauge and symbol should be

required to indicate battery energy level to inform drivers about the

vehicle's remaining range capability before recharging is necessary.

General Motors had stated that the European agencies have agreed to use

the ISO battery symbol to indicate electrical power reserve and

requested NHTSA's concurrence to use it.

As NHTSA noted in the NPRM, it believes that EV manufacturers will

provide a ``range indicator'' or ``state-of-charge'' indicator similar

to the fuel gauge on a conventionally powered vehicle, without a

regulatory requirement that they do so. In the agency's tentative view,

the method of measuring state-of-charge should be left to the

manufacturer, as the accuracy of current systems varies widely at this

stage of the art. However, NHTSA proposed that the state-of-charge

indicator (whether a gauge or otherwise) contain an illuminated

telltale with the word ``RECHARGE'', and the ISO battery symbol

(identical to the one presently specified to indicate ``electrical

charge'' and used in nonelectric vehicles), which would illuminate when

the electrical energy remaining in the battery system contains less

than 25 percent of full charge. NHTSA invited specific comments as to

whether a value other than 25 percent would be more appropriate. NHTSA

asked for comments on whether use of the ISO symbol to indicate a

state-of-charge warning would be confusing given its present use to

indicate ``electrical charge'' in conventionally powered vehicles. It

also asked whether an alternative symbol, such as the outline of a

household electrical plug, might be desirable.

Comments on the proposal were received from Chrysler Corporation,

Volkswagen of America, Inc. (VW), General Motors Corporation (GM),

Toyota Motor Corporate Services of North America, Inc. (Toyota), Ford

Motor Company, Mitsubishi Motors Corp., and American Honda Motor Co.

(Honda).

The comments indicated that manufacturers intend to offer a state-

of-charge indicator with a means for the operator to determine when

battery recharging is necessary. However, four of the five

manufacturers who commented on the issue disagreed with use of the

battery symbol for a low state-of-charge warning since it has already

acquired a meaning for operators of conventional vehicles. Only GM

supported use of the symbol. Two of the three commenters on the issue

opposed use of the word ``recharge'', though it was supported by GM.

Chrysler commented that use of the word might cause an operator to feel

that an immediate recharge was necessary. VW believes that use of the

word is inappropriate because the need for a recharge can be determined

from the state-of-charge indicator.

These comments indicate that manufacturers will offer a state-of-

charge indicator and that a Federal regulation requiring them to do so

is unnecessary. Given the diversity of opinion as to appropriate

wording and/or symbols, the agency is choosing at the present time not

to impose a regulatory requirement for identification of a low the

state-of-charge, recognizing that any wording or symbol chosen by an EV

manufacturer will be explained in the operator's manual.

Finally, although NHTSA did not propose regulatory language that a

low state-of-charge warning activate when the state-of-charge reached

25 percent of capacity, it asked for comments on the appropriateness of

this value, and on alternative values. All seven commenters recommended

that the activation level of a low state-of-charge warning be

determined by the vehicle manufacturer, with six rejecting the 25

percent level, and the seventh merely conceding that it ``may be

adequate.'' These comments will be taken into consideration should

NHTSA decide to explore this subject further in the further.

For the reasons discussed above, NHTSA has decided not to adopt the

amendments to Standard No. 101 that were proposed in Notice 3.

2. FMVSS No. 103, Windshield Defrosting and Defogging Systems

One provision of Standard No. 103 requires the defrosting and

defogging system of a vehicle to be capable of melting a specific

amount of windshield ice within a specified time period after allowing

time for engine warm-up. NHTSA believed that the reference to engine

warm-up is inappropriate for EVs in general and might need revision. In

accordance with recommendations from industry, NHTSA proposed that the

warm-up procedure should be the one that the manufacturer recommends

for cold weather starting. Specifically, it proposed that the

manufacturer's cold weather warmup procedure be followed by vehicles

equipped with a heating system (other than a heat exchanger type system

that uses the engine's liquid coolant as a means to supply the heat to

the heat exchanger). These changes would be made to the demonstration

procedures in S4.3(a) and S4.3(b).

Comments were received from GM, Chrysler, Ford, VW, and Toyota. GM,

VW and Ford supported the proposed amendments as adequate and

appropriate.

Chrysler supported the proposal as well. It brought to NHTSA's

attention the fact that the EV equipped with an electrical resistance

heater, and tested at rest in a cold room facility, would have an

abundance of electrical power available and could easily meet most

defrost performance requirements. However, it noted that when the same

vehicle is operating under normal road load conditions, the defrost/

heat system may not have the same battery energy available since the

propulsion system may utilize a large amount of power. Chrysler

cautioned that these factors must be considered before establishing

precise defrost/defogging system requirements for EVs. In its opinion,

judging EV defroster performance ``will require unique testing

procedures that must be relatively elaborate and formalized to ensure

that vehicle performance meets the regulatory intent of the standard.''

It observed that these procedures could be formulated by knowledgeable

industry personnel working through an organization such as the SAE.

NHTSA concurs with Chrysler's comments and encourages the industry,

either through SAE or other industry organizations, to explore this

issue. At present, Standard No. 103 allows the defrosting and defogging

system to be tested with the vehicle in neutral gear. EVs equipped with

electric resistance heaters, which draw power from the vehicle

propulsion batteries, may incur a degradation in performance under road

load conditions or under less than full state-of-charge conditions.

Currently, the agency has no information to determine the extent to

which any such degradation may exist, or the extent to which it may

impede vehicle safety. Moreover, the agency has no information on the

number of EVs that will employ electric resistance heaters or use

auxiliary combustible fuel heaters. To a large extent, EV technology is

still in the developmental state. Therefore, NHTSA will monitor this

issue for possible future rulemaking, and encourages the industry to

explore it as well.

Toyota also supported the proposed amendments, but suggested that

three pre-test conditions be adopted. Under these conditions, testing

would be initiated with the battery at full charge, and the battery

would be charging until defrost/defog testing is started. However, the

battery should not be included in the -18 degrees C soak time as

currently specified by the test procedure of SAE Standard J902

incorporated by reference in Standard No. 103. NHTSA appreciates

Toyota's comments but believes that manufacturers are likely to begin

defrost/defog testing with the battery at its maximum state of charge,

and the battery will be charging until testing begins. Thus, no further

regulatory language appears called for. The agency disagrees with

Toyota's contention that the battery should not be included in the soak

time because a temperature of -18 degrees C replicates the real world

conditions under which some EVs are likely to be operated. Thus, NHTSA

will not consider Toyota's suggestion as a candidate for future

rulemaking.

Taking into consideration the foregoing remarks, NHTSA is amending

S4.3 (a) and (b) of Standard No. 103 exactly as proposed, with a single

exception. The present reference speed in S4.3(b)(2)(ii) is 25 m.p.h.

The NPRM incorrectly stated it as 15 m.p.h. There was no intention to

propose a reference speed of 15 m.p.h., and the final rule correctly

states it as 25 m.p.h.

Effective Date

The amendments are effective September 6, 1994.

Rulemaking Analyses

Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures

NHTSA has considered the impacts of this rulemaking action under

E.O. 12866 ``Regulatory Planning and Review'', and the Department of

Transportation regulatory policies and procedures. This action has been

determined to be not ``significant'' under either, and has not been

reviewed by OMB under E.O. 12866. The agency has determined that the

economic effects of the amendment are so minimal that a full regulatory

evaluation is not required. The purpose of the rule is to clarify

several existing requirements applicable to all motor vehicles so that

they may, in recognition of the different characteristics of EVs, be

more appropriate for EVs. The rule makes no change in the cost of

compliance for EVs.

Executive Order 12612 (Federalism)

This action has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and

criteria contained in Executive Order 12612 ``Federalism'' and it has

been determined that the notice does not have sufficient federalism

implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.

National Environmental Policy Act

The agency has determined that the notice will not have a

significant effect upon the environment for the purposes of the

National Environmental Policy Act. There is no environmental impact

associated with the rulemaking action since it clarifies the

applicability of an existing Federal motor vehicle safety standard to

EVs. To the extent that the rulemaking action will facilitate the

production of EVs, it may result in a net positive benefit to the

environment.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

The agency has also considered the effects of this rulemaking

action in relation to the Regulatory Flexibility Act. I certify that

this rulemaking action will not have a significant economic effect upon

a substantial number of small entities. Although some EV manufacturers

may be small businesses within the meaning of the Regulatory

Flexibility Act, these manufacturers are already required to comply

with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards that the rulemaking

action is intended to clarify. Further, small organizations and

governmental jurisdictions will not be significantly affected as the

price of new EVs should not be impacted. The notice clarifies some

existing requirements that EVs must meet. Accordingly, no Regulatory

Flexibility Analysis has been prepared.

Civil Justice Reform

This rule will not have any retroactive effect. Under section

103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C.

1392(d)), whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard is in

effect, a state may not adopt or maintain a safety standard applicable

to the same aspect of performance which is not identical to the Federal

standard. Section 105 of the Act (15 U.S.C. 1394) sets forth a

procedure for judicial review of final rules establishing, amending or

revoking Federal motor vehicle safety standards. That section does not

require submission of a petition for reconsideration or other

administrative proceedings before parties may file suit in court.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 571

Imports, Motor vehicle safety, Motor vehicles.

PART 571--FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS

In consideration of the foregoing, 49 CFR part 571 is amended as

follows:

1. The authority citation for part 571 continues to read:

Authority: 15 U.S.C. 1392, 1401, 1407; delegation of authority

at 49 CFR part 1.50.

Sec. 571.103 [Amended]

2. Paragraphs S4.3 (a) and (b) of Sec. 571.103 are revised to read:

S4.3 Demonstration procedure * * *

(a) During the first 5 minutes of the test:

(1) For a passenger car equipped with a heating system other than a

heat exchanger type that uses the engine's coolant as a means to supply

the heat to the heat exchanger, the warm-up procedure is that specified

by the vehicle's manufacturer for cold weather starting, except that

connection to a power or heat source external to the vehicle is not

permitted.

(2) For all other passenger cars, the warm-up procedure may be that

recommended by the vehicle's manufacturer for cold weather starting.

(b) During the last 35 minutes of the test period (or the entire

test period if the 5-minute warm-up procedure specified in paragraph

(a) of this section is not used),

(1) For a passenger car equipped with a heating system other than a

heat exchanger type that uses the engine's coolant as a means to supply

the heat to the heat exchanger, the procedure shall be that specified

by the vehicle's manufacturer for cold weather starting, except that

connection to a power or heat source external to the vehicle is not

permitted.

(2) For all other passenger cars, either--

(i) The engine speed shall not exceed 1,500 r.p.m. in neutral gear;

or

(ii) The engine speed and load shall not exceed the speed and load

at 25 m.p.h. in the manufacturer's recommended gear with road load.

* * * * *

Issued on March 2, 1994.

Christopher A. Hart,

Deputy Administrator.

[FR Doc. 94-5187 Filed 3-8-94; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-59-M