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