
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 11 (Friday, January 16, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 2320-2326]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-00423]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 571

[Docket No. NHTSA-2011-0107]
RIN 2127-AL56


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: Final rule; response to petitions for reconsideration and 
technical corrections.

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

SUMMARY: This document denies a petition for reconsideration of Federal 
Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 305, ``Electric-powered 
vehicles; electrolyte spillage, and electrical shock protection'' from 
Nissan Motor Company (Nissan) requesting the use of a megohmmeter as an 
alternative measurement method for the electrical isolation test 
procedure. Further, this

[[Page 2321]]

document adopts various technical corrections and clarifications to the 
regulatory text of FMVSS No. 305 that do not change the substance of 
the rule.

DATES: The effective date of this final rule is January 16, 2015. 
Petitions for reconsideration of this final rule must be received not 
later than March 2, 2015.

ADDRESSES: Petitions for reconsideration should refer to the docket 
number of this document and be submitted to the Administrator, National 
Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., 
Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For non-legal issues, contact Shashi 
Kuppa, Office of Crashworthiness Standards (telephone: 202-366-3827) 
(fax: 202-366-2990), NVS-113. For legal issues, contact Jesse Chang, 
Office of the Chief Counsel (telephone 202-366-9874) (fax: 202-366-
3820), NCC-112. The mailing address for these officials is: National 
Highway Traffic Safety Administration, U.S. Department of 
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents

I. Background
II. Nissan's Petition for Reconsideration to the July 29, 2011 Final 
Rule
III. Agency Response to Nissan's Petition for Reconsideration
IV. Technical Corrections to the July 29, 2011 Final Rule
    a. Omitted Voltage Definitions
    b. Clarification to Volts of Alternating Current (VAC) 
Definition
    c. Other Typographical Corrections to the Regulatory Text
V. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
VI. Regulatory Text

I. Background

    On June 14, 2010,\1\ NHTSA issued a final rule amending the 
electrical shock protection requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle 
Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 305, ``Electric-powered vehicles; 
electrolyte spillage and electrical shock protection.'' \2\ In that 
document, the agency changed the requirements in FMVSS No. 305 to add 
flexibility for manufacturers of electric vehicles (and other vehicles 
with high voltage components such as fuel cell vehicles) while still 
maintaining protection for vehicle occupants and first responders from 
electrical shock. The main changes to the standard included creating 
two alternative compliance options (i.e., the electrical isolation \3\ 
and low-voltage \4\ options) and altering the requirements to recognize 
the difference between alternating current (AC) and direct current (DC) 
high voltage sources. In addition, the 2010 final rule included new 
definitions and made various updates to existing definitions to align 
the standard more closely with voluntary industry practice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 75 FR 33515.
    \2\ 49 CFR 571.305.
    \3\ In essence, the electrical safety requirements for this 
compliance option were that (after testing in accordance with the 
standard's test procedures), electrical isolation for high voltage 
sources must be at 500 ohms/volt or greater unless the high voltage 
source is a DC source with electrical isolation monitoring. A DC 
source with electrical isolation monitoring must have electrical 
isolation that is greater than 100 ohms/volt. See id. at 33527.
    \4\ In the alternative, high voltage sources could meet the 
electrical safety requirements if their voltage was 30 volts for an 
AC source or lower (60 volts for a DC source).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Subsequent to the 2010 final rule, the agency received various 
petitions for reconsideration from vehicle manufacturers and their 
trade associations. Many of the petitioners sought increased clarity of 
the definitions, test specifications, and performance requirements of 
the rule. The agency published a final rule responding to those 
petitions on July 29, 2011.\5\ The main changes to the 2010 final rule 
were clarifications to the following:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 76 FR 45436.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (1) The scope, applicability, and the definitions in the standard,
    (2) the retention requirements for electric energy storage/
conversion systems,
    (3) the electrical isolation requirements,
    (4) test specifications and requirements for electrical isolation 
monitoring, and
    (5) the state-of-charge of electric energy storage devices prior to 
crash tests.
    In addition to the above clarifications to the requirements and 
test procedures of the standard, that response to petitions for 
reconsideration also denied requests that the agency reconsider certain 
requests from the petitioners. Those requests included implementing a 
protective barrier compliance option for electrical safety, adjusting 
the test procedure to allow for alternative gas for crash testing 
hydrogen fuel cell vehicles, and adopting a low-energy compliance 
option for electrical safety. In response to those requests, the agency 
reiterated its positions on those matters from the 2010 final rule. We 
cited the lack of data to support the petitioners' requests to 
implement these changes to the standard. We also noted that no 
significant new research had produced any data that would have enabled 
the agency to arrive at a different conclusion from the 2010 final 
rule. In addition, we again expressed concerns in the 2010 final rule 
that some of these recommendations (such as using inert gas and 
megohmmeters for testing) might be outside the scope of the rulemaking.

II. Nissan's Petition for Reconsideration to the July 29, 2011 Final 
Rule

    Subsequent to the 2011 final rule responding to petitions for 
reconsideration, the agency received a further petition for 
reconsideration. The petition (from Nissan) requested that we amend 
section S7.6 of FMVSS No. 305 to allow the use of a megohmmeter as an 
alternative measurement method for the electrical isolation test 
procedure.\6\ Nissan suggested using a megohmmeter to measure the 
isolation resistance directly, rather than measuring voltage and 
calculating resistance (as presently specified in FMVSS No. 305). They 
contend that this results in a more stable and accurate post-crash test 
measurement procedure. Nissan noted that the test procedures for United 
Nations Economic Commission for Europe (ECE) Regulation No. 94 allow 
such a measurement method.\7\ In addition to enhanced measurement 
stability and accuracy, Nissan stated that a direct resistance 
measurement supports the use of an inert gas and inactive fuel cells in 
crash tests of fuel cell vehicles. Nissan expressed concern that the 
electrical isolation test procedure specified in FMVSS No. 305 S7.6 
does not permit the use of inert gas and inactive fuel cells in crash 
tests because the procedure only specifies a voltage measurement 
method. Nissan asked the agency to expedite ongoing research to develop 
a test procedure for evaluating electrical safety of fuel cell vehicles 
with inert gas and inactive fuel cells.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ A megohmmeter is a specialized ohmmeter that is primarily 
used to determine electrical isolation resistance. This device 
operates by applying a voltage or current to the item being tested. 
Because externally applied voltages or currents can disrupt its 
measurement (and/or cause damage to the instrument) the megohmmer is 
used to test items that are under an inactive and fully de-energized 
state.
    \7\ ECE R.94, ``Uniform Provisions Concerning the Approval of: 
Vehicles with Regard to the Protection of the Occupants in the Event 
of a Frontal Collision,'' Annex 11, ``Test Procedures for the 
Protection of the Occupants of Vehicles Operating on Electrical 
Power from High Voltage and Electrolyte Spillage,''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Agency Response to Nissan's Petition for Reconsideration

    As stated above, the agency has addressed the issue of including 
test

[[Page 2322]]

procedures in FMVSS No. 305 for evaluating electrical isolation 
resistance that use a megohmmeter and an inert gas (first in the June 
14, 2010 final rule and second in the July 29, 2011 final rule 
responding to petitions for reconsideration). In this final rule, our 
position on the matter has not substantively changed. We continue to be 
concerned that incorporating an alternative test procedure that 
incorporates a megohmmeter and inert gas would exceed the scope of this 
rulemaking.
    The 2010 final rule did not provide alternative test procedures 
with these characteristics because the agency's research was ongoing, 
there was insufficient information to make any regulatory decisions on 
establishing these alternative test procedures, and the agency was 
concerned that this issue would be outside the scope of the rulemaking. 
In dealing with the same issue in the 2011 final rule, the agency 
stated that its position on the issue had not substantively changed 
since the 2010 final rule and that no new information was available to 
lead it to conclude otherwise. As with the 2010 final rule, we noted in 
the 2011 final rule that the agency was continuing its research to 
determine the feasibility for establishing alternative test procedures 
that would incorporate the use of a megohmmeter and inert gas.
    Since publication of the 2011 final rule (and the petition for 
reconsideration of the 2011 final rule from Nissan), the agency has 
completed additional research on the feasibility of using a megohmmeter 
for measuring electrical isolation.\8\ The research presents certain 
technical questions that need to be resolved (i.e., the research showed 
that megohmmeters could accurately measure electrical isolation 
resistance of DC high voltage sources in an inactive state but did not 
consistently do so for AC high voltage sources). We believe that the 
most appropriate forum to pursue these issues would be a subsequent 
rulemaking action that includes a new proposal. To incorporate a new 
set of procedures to test electrical isolation using the method 
suggested by Nissan in this document would likely raise concerns about 
the scope of the rulemaking and the effectiveness of the public's 
opportunity to comment on the merits of incorporating such procedures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Hydrogen Fuel Cell Vehicle Fuel System Integrity Research--
Electrical Isolation Test Procedure Development and Verification, 
DOT HS 811 553, March 2012, http://www.nhtsa.gov/Research/Crashworthiness/Alternative%20Energy%20Vehicle%20Systems%20Safety%20Research.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed in the July 29, 2011 final rule, some international 
regulations and international standards permit the use of megohmmeters 
in crash tests of hydrogen powered vehicles. We believe that closer 
harmonization with international regulations (to the extent that they 
meet the need for safety and the other requirements of the Motor 
Vehicle Safety Act \9\) is an important consideration. However, as 
already noted in this document, this issue would be more appropriate 
for consideration in a subsequent rulemaking action. In that context, 
the agency would seek to propose a resolution for these technical 
issues that we have discovered through our research and obtain further 
input from the public on that approach. This process would help ensure 
that any such test procedure would be able to evaluate the vehicle's 
electrical safety using an inert gas and a megohmmeter in a clear, 
objective, and repeatable fashion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (``Motor 
Vehicle Safety Act'') directs this agency to establish Federal Motor 
Vehicle Safety Standards. It further states that these standards 
``shall be practicable, meet the need for motor vehicle safety, and 
be stated in objective terms.'' See 49 U.S.C. 30111(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Thus, the agency cannot grant (within this rulemaking) the 
petitioner's request to reconsider our decision not to incorporate a 
test procedure in FMVSS No. 305 for evaluating electrical isolation 
resistance using a megohmmeter and inert gas. However, as we noted in 
the July 29, 2011 final rule, manufacturers are not prohibited from 
using alternative test procedures and devices other than those in the 
FMVSSs as a basis for their compliance certification.

IV. Technical Corrections to the July 29, 2011 Final Rule

    In addition to addressing the petition for reconsideration from 
Nissan, this document makes a few technical amendments to the 
regulatory text of FMVSS No. 305 to correct omissions, add clarity, and 
correct typographical errors. Due to the clerical nature of these 
corrections to the 2011 final rule, we find that there is good cause to 
determine that notice and comment on these corrections is unnecessary 
under the Administrative Procedure Act.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ The Administrative Procedure Act states that general notice 
of proposed rulemaking is not required when an agency ``for good 
cause finds . . . that notice and public procedure thereon are 
impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.'' 
See 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

a. Omitted Voltage Definitions

    The three definitions for voltage of alternating current (VAC), 
voltage of direct current (VDC), and working voltage were included in 
paragraph S4 of the June 14, 2010 final rule but were inadvertently 
omitted in the July 29, 2011 final rule. This final rule restores these 
definitions in paragraph S4 of FMVSS No. 305 without any changes to the 
language from the 2010 final rule (except for a clarification to the 
definition of VAC, as will be discussed in the section that follows). 
We find that notice and comment is unnecessary for restoring these 
three definitions in paragraph S4 of FMVSS No. 305. It was clear that 
the omission of these definitions was a clerical mistake as the amended 
regulatory text from the 2011 final rule continued to use the terms 
VAC, VDC, and working voltage in the requirements and test procedures 
in the standard. Further, we did not mention removing the definitions 
from paragraph S4 in the preamble to the 2011 final rule and we believe 
that restoring these three definitions does not change the substantive 
requirements of FMVSS No. 305.

b. Clarification to Volts of Alternating Current (VAC) Definition

    In addition to restoring the VAC definition into paragraph S4, we 
believe it is appropriate to further clarify the definition of VAC to 
be aligned with industry practices and other standardized definitions. 
Subsequent to the 2011 final rule, the agency received questions from 
the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers (``the Alliance'') \11\ 
seeking confirmation that NHTSA intended to use the standard industry 
practice of using the root mean square value of voltage for VAC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers is an association 
of 12 vehicle manufacturers including BMW group, Chrysler Group LLC, 
Ford Motor Company, General Motors Company, Jaguar Land Rover, 
Mazda, Mercedes-Benz USA, Mitsubishi Motors, Porsche, Toyota, 
Volkswagen Group of America and Volvo Cars North America.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While we have expressed (throughout the rulemaking process) voltage 
of alternating current using the root meet square value, we agree with 
the Alliance that this definition could be clarified. In the 2010 final 
rule, the definition of VAC stated that ``VAC means volts of 
alternating current (AC).'' Due to the nature of alternating current, 
VAC varies in time and it could potentially be measured using a 
different method. However, our rulemaking process has always used the 
root mean square value for expressing VAC because the safety thresholds 
established by the 2010 final rule were based on limits of electrical 
current (that the body can withstand) from IEC Technical Specification 
60479-1. This technical specification expresses electrical current for 
AC

[[Page 2323]]

sources as the root mean square value of current.\12\ As our safety 
thresholds for AC sources are based on electrical current limits 
expressed as the root mean square value of current, the voltage for AC 
sources must also be expressed using the root mean square value.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See IEC TS 60479-1, Fourth Edition, 2005-2007. Figure 20 
shows the amount of current in AC (root mean square) over time and 
the associated probabilities of fibrillation. Section 5 explains 
these values and notes that alternating current values are expressed 
as root mean square values.
    \13\ Voltage is current multiplied by resistance (V = I x R). In 
order to establish the required electrical isolation in ohms per 
volt (e.g., 500 ohms/volt for AC sources in paragraph S5.3(a)) using 
the V = I x R equation, the voltage (for an AC source) must be 
expressed as the root mean square value of voltage given that the 
value of current that we are using is expressed as the root mean 
square value.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We further expressed VAC as the root mean square value of voltage 
of AC sources because this is the standard definition used in common 
industry standards. The root mean square value is the square root of 
the time average value of the square of the voltage within a period of 
oscillation. Using this method of expressing AC voltage is common 
practice for a wide variety of industries. The Society of Automotive 
Engineers (SAE) Recommended Practice J1772,\14\ refers to the voltage 
of AC mains as the root mean square value. The voltage of power 
typically supplied to homes (commonly referred to as ``120 Volts'') is 
the root mean square value of the AC supply. Voltage of electric power 
transmission lines are also reported as the root mean square value of 
voltage. Instrumentation devices, such as multimeters and voltmeters, 
also measure the root mean square value of voltage of alternating 
current sources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ SAE J1772--Recommended practice for electric vehicle and 
plug-in hybrid electric vehicle conductive charge coupler.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Therefore, we find that notice and comment is unnecessary for this 
clarification to the definition of VAC. The agency is simply stating 
that VAC is expressed as the root mean square value of voltage in the 
VAC definition in FMVSS No. 305 to make clear a term that has always 
been expressed in this manner throughout the rulemaking process. We 
believe that this clarification does not substantively change the 
requirements of FMVSS No. 305. Further, the clarification does not 
change the industry understanding of VAC as used in the standard (as 
evidenced by the questions we received from industry on this matter).

c. Other Typographical Corrections to the Regulatory Text

    In addition, the agency discovered various typographical errors 
resulting from the 2011 final rule that we are now correcting in this 
final rule. We find that notice and comment is unnecessary for these 
changes to FMVSS No. 305. These changes do not alter the substance of 
the rule. Instead, they correct various inconsistencies including 
incorrect paragraph references, incomplete sentences, and updating a 
reference to a current definition (as opposed to an old definition that 
has been removed from FMVSS No. 305).
    In paragraph S5.4, this final rule corrects a reference dealing 
with electrical isolation monitoring requirements. Paragraph S5.4 
establishes the requirements that an electrical isolation monitoring 
system must meet. Electrical isolation monitoring is required under 
paragraph S5.3(a)(3) when the electrical isolation of a DC high voltage 
source is greater or equal to 100 ohms/volt (as opposed to 500 ohms/
volt without an electrical isolation monitoring system). S5.4 
references S5.3 to indicate the situations under which electrical 
isolation monitoring is required. However, the current S5.4 incorrectly 
refers to S5.3(a)(2), a section applicable to DC high voltage sources 
without electrical isolation monitoring. Thus, the agency is correcting 
this reference to S5.3(a)(3) which is applicable to DC high voltage 
sources with electrical isolation monitoring. We believe that this 
change corrects a clear typographical error.
    In addition, this final rule rewords S7.6.4 and S7.6.5 to clarify 
the language in these paragraphs. The 2011 final rule mistakenly edited 
paragraphs S7.6.4 and S7.6.5 to include incomplete sentences and the 
term ``voltage(s)'' when each paragraph only referenced one voltage 
measurement. In FMVSS No. 305, S7.6.4 states that the voltage(s) is/are 
measured as shown in Figure 2. It also has an incomplete sentence about 
the voltages(s) (V1) between the negative side of the high voltage 
source and the electrical chassis. Paragraph S7.6.5 states that the 
voltage(s) is/are measured as shown in Figure 3. It also has an 
incomplete sentence about the voltage(s) (V2) between the positive side 
of the high voltage source and the electrical chassis.
    Since only a single voltage measurement is made in each of these 
sections, the references to ``voltage(s)'' are incorrect and confusing. 
Further, we have edited the paragraphs to remove the sentence fragments 
from each paragraph. Therefore, the agency is rewording S7.6.4 and 
S7.6.5 in this final rule. Paragraph S7.6.4 will state that the voltage 
V1 between the negative side of the high voltage source and the 
electrical chassis is measured as shown in Figure 2. Further, paragraph 
S7.6.5 will state that the voltage V2 between the positive side of the 
high voltage source and the electrical chassis is measured as shown in 
Figure 3.
    As stated above, these changes correct grammatical errors for these 
two paragraphs without changing the substance of the requirements or 
the measurement procedures. These sentences merely restate the 
measurement procedure shown in Figure 2 and Figure 3 more clearly than 
the language adopted by the 2011 final rule.
    Further, this final rule changes the phrase, ``electrical isolation 
measurement,'' to ``voltage measurement,'' in two instances of section 
S7.7 Voltage measurement. As evident from the other portions of the 
regulatory text, the measurements obtained in S7.7 are not ``electrical 
isolation measurements'' but are ``voltage measurements.'' The title of 
S7.7 is ``voltage measurement,'' suggesting that the measured value in 
S7.7 is the voltage. Paragraph S7.6 uses the voltage measurements to 
then calculate the electrical isolation resistance of a high voltage 
source. Further, ``electrical isolation'' is defined in the current 
standard as the resistance between any high voltage source and any of 
the vehicle's electrical chassis divided by the working voltage of the 
high voltage source. This measurement cannot be obtained through the 
procedure described in S7.7. Therefore, it is clear that the reference 
to ``electrical isolation measurements'' is a typographical error. 
Thus, this final rule changes the references to ``electrical isolation 
measurements'' to ``voltage measurements'' in order to clarify that the 
voltages are measured and the electrical isolation is computed from the 
voltage measurements. This is not a substantive change to the standard.
    Finally, this final rule makes two minor clarifications to 
paragraph S8. First we are italicizing the title ``Test procedure for 
on-board electrical isolation monitoring system'' to clarify that it is 
a title. Second, we are revising the term ``high voltage system to the 
propulsion motor(s)'' in S8 subparagraph (2) to ``electric energy 
storage/conversion system to the propulsion system.'' This is also a 
typographical error because the terms ``high voltage system'' and 
``propulsion motor'' are definitions that were replaced by ``electric 
energy storage/conversion system'' and ``propulsion system'' in the 
2011 final rule. Thus, the terms ``high voltage system'' and 
``propulsion motor'' are not defined in FMVSS No. 305 and it should be 
clear

[[Page 2324]]

that the agency intended to use the updated definitions for paragraph 
S8 in the 2011 final rule. Thus, we are updating these terms in 
paragraph S8 and we do not believe that this is a substantive change to 
the standard.

V. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

Executive Order 12866, Executive Order 13563, and DOT Regulatory 
Policies and Procedures

    NHTSA has considered the impact of this rulemaking action under 
Executive Order 12866, Executive Order 13563, and the Department of 
Transportation's regulatory policies and procedures. This rulemaking 
document was not reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget under 
E.O. 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and Review.'' It is not considered to 
be significant under E.O. 12866 or the Department's Regulatory Policies 
and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979). NHTSA has determined 
that the effects of this final rule are minor and that a regulatory 
evaluation is not needed to support the subject rulemaking. This final 
rule only makes slight changes to the regulatory text of the July 29, 
2011 final rule to add clarification and does not impose significant 
costs beyond those already required by the July 29, 2011 final rule.

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). 
No regulatory flexibility analysis is required if the head of an agency 
certifies the rule 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 rule will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
    NHTSA has considered the effects of this final rule under the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act. I certify that this final rule does not 
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities. Any small manufacturers that might be affected by this final 
rule are already subject to the requirements of FMVSS No. 305.

Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

    NHTSA has examined this final rule pursuant to Executive Order 
13132 (64 FR 43255; Aug. 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 final rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to 
warrant consultation with State and local officials or the preparation 
of a federalism summary impact statement. The final rule does 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.'' This 
final rule does not impose substantial additional requirements. 
Instead, it clarifies the existing requirements from the July 29, 2011 
final rule.
    NHTSA rules can have preemptive effect in two ways. First, the 
National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act contains an expressed 
preemption provision that states when a motor vehicle safety standard 
is in effect under this chapter, a State or a political subdivision of 
a State may prescribe or continue in effect a standard applicable to 
the same aspect of performance of a motor vehicle or motor vehicle 
equipment only if the standard is identical to the standard prescribed 
under this chapter. 49 U.S.C. 30103(b)(1). It is this statutory command 
that preempts any non-identical State legislative and administrative 
law \15\ addressing the same aspect of performance, not this 
rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ The issue of potential preemption of state tort law is 
addressed in the immediately following paragraph discussing implied 
preemption.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 Executive Order 13132, NHTSA has considered whether 
this 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 this rule and 
finds that this rule merely clarifies the requirements and definitions 
contained in the July 29, 2011 final rule. Thus, NHTSA does not intend 
that this rule preempt state tort law that would effectively impose a 
higher standard on motor vehicle manufacturers than that established by 
this rule. Additionally, in the July 29, 2011 final rule, the agency 
did not assert preemption. Establishment of a higher standard by means 
of State tort law would not conflict with the final rule announced 
here. Without any conflict, there could not be any implied preemption 
of a State common law tort cause of action.

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 will not have any significant impact on 
the quality of the human environment.

Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform)

    When promulgating a regulation, agencies are required under 
Executive Order 12988 to 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

[[Page 2325]]

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 final rule is discussed above. 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.

Privacy Act

    Please note that anyone is able to search the electronic form of 
all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the 
individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted 
on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may 
review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register 
published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78), or online at http://www.dot.gov/privacy.html.

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. There are no 
information collection requirements associated with this final rule.

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. FMVSS No. 305 has historically drawn 
largely from SAE J1766. Prior to this update, FMVSS No. 305 was based 
on the April 2005 version of SAE J1766. However, this final rule has 
made certain amendments to the standard to reflect the development of 
new voluntary consensus standards that have superseded SAE J1766. Thus, 
this final rule makes revisions to the June 14, 2010 final rule that 
updated FMVSS No. 305.

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). This final rule, which 
clarifies the July 29, 2011 final rule, will not result in expenditures 
by State, local or Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the 
private sector in excess of $100 million annually.

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.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 571

    Imports, Motor vehicles, Motor vehicle safety.

    In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA amends 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.

0
2. Amend Sec.  571.305 by:
0
a. Adding, in alphabetical order, the definitions of ``VAC,'' ``VDC,'' 
and ``Working Voltage'' to S4;
0
b. Revising S5.4, S7.6.4, S7.6.5, S7.7, the heading of S8, and S8(2).
    The additions and revisions read as follows:


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

* * * * *
    S4. Definitions.
* * * * *
    VAC means volts of alternating current (AC) expressed using the 
root mean square value.
    VDC means volts of direct current (DC).
    Working Voltage means the highest root mean square voltage of the 
voltage source, which may occur across its terminals or between its 
terminals and any conductive parts in open circuit conditions or under 
normal operating conditions.
* * * * *
    S5.4 Electrical isolation monitoring. Each DC high voltage source 
with electrical isolation monitoring during vehicle operation pursuant 
to S5.3(a)(3) shall be monitored by an electrical isolation monitoring 
system that displays a warning for loss of isolation when tested 
according to S8. The system must monitor its own readiness and the 
warning display must be visible to the driver seated in the driver's 
designated seating position.
* * * * *
    S7.6.4 The voltage V1 between the negative side of the high voltage 
source and the electrical chassis is measured as shown in Figure 2.
    S7.6.5 The voltage V2 between the positive side of the high voltage 
source and the electrical chassis is measured as shown in Figure 3.
* * * * *
    S7.7 Voltage measurement. For the purpose of determining the 
voltage level of the high voltage source specified in S5.3(b), voltage 
is measured as shown in Figure 1. Voltage Vb is measured across the two 
terminals of the voltage source. Voltages V1 and V2 are measured 
between the source and the electrical chassis. For a high voltage 
source that has an automatic disconnect that is physically contained 
within itself, the voltage measurement after the test is made from the 
side of the automatic disconnect connected to the electric power train 
or to the rest of the electric power train if the high voltage source 
is a component contained in the power train. For a high voltage source 
that has an automatic disconnect that is not physically contained 
within itself, the voltage measurement after the test is made from both 
the high voltage source side of the automatic disconnect and from the 
side of the automatic

[[Page 2326]]

disconnect connected to the electric power train or to the rest of the 
electric power train if the high voltage source is a component 
contained in the power train.
    S8. Test procedure for on-board electrical isolation monitoring 
system. * * *
    (2) The switch or device that provides power from the electric 
energy storage/conversion system to the propulsion system is in the 
activated position or the ready-to-drive position.
* * * * *


    Issued in Washington, DC on January 2, 2015, under authority 
delegated in 49 CFR part 1.95.
David J. Friedman,
Deputy Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2015-00423 Filed 1-15-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


