Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 172 / Friday, September 5, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 46907

Comptroller General of the General

Accounting Office prior to publication

of this rule in today’s Federal Register.

This is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as defined by

5 U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Parts 180 and

186

Environmental protection,

Administrative practice and procedure,

Agricultural commodities, Animal

feeds, Pesticides and pests, Reporting

and recordkeeping requirements.

Dated: August 25, 1997.

James Jones,

Acting Director, Registration Division, Office

of Pesticide Programs.

Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is

amended as follows:

PART 180—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 180

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 21 U.S.C. 346a and 371.

2. Section 180.142 is amended as

follows:

i. By adding a heading to paragraph

(a), by redesignating paragraphs (a)(1)

and (a)(2) as paragraphs (a)(1)(i) and

(a)(1)(ii), respectively, by designating

the introductory text of paragraph (a) as

paragraph (a)(1), and by adding new

paragraph (a)(12).

ii. By redesignating the introductory

text of paragraph (b) as the introductory

text of paragraph (a)(2), and paragraphs

(b)(1), (b)(1)(i), (b)(1)(ii), and (b)(2) as

paragraphs (a)(2)(i), (a)(2)(i)(A),

(a)(2)(i)(B), and (a)(2)(ii), respectively.

iii. By redesignating paragraphs (c)

through (k) as paragraphs (a)(3) through

(a)(11), respectively.

iv. By adding a new paragraph (b).

v. By adding and reserving paragraphs

(c) and (d) with headings.

§ 180.142 2,4-D; tolerances for residues.

(a) General. * * *

(12) The following tolerances are

established for residues of 2,4-D (2,4-

dichloro-phenoxyacetic acid) in the

following processed feeds. Such

residues may be present therein only as

a result of application to the growing

crop of the herbicides identified in this

section:

(i) 5 parts per million in sugarcane

bagasse and sugarcane molasses.

(ii) 2 parts per million in the milled

fractions derived from barley, oats, rye,

and wheat to be ingested as animal feed

or converted into animal feed.

(b) Section 18 emergency exemptions.

A time-limited tolerance is established

for 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-

D) in or on wild rice in connection with

use of the pesticide under a section 18

emergency exemption granted by EPA.

The tolerance will expire on the dates

specified in the following table.

Commodity Parts per million Expiration/Revocation Date

Wild rice ............................................................................................... 0.1 ppm August 31, 1998

(c) Tolerances with regional

registrations. [Reserved]

(d) Indirect or inadvertent residues.

[Reserved]

2. In part 186:

a. The authority citation for part 186

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 21 U.S.C. 342, 348, and 701.

§ 186.1450 [Removed]

b. Section 186.1450 is removed.

[FR Doc. 97–23684 Filed 9–4–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–F

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration

49 CFR Part 571

[Docket No. 85–6; Notice 12]

RIN 2127–AG05

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety

Standards; Hydraulic Brake Systems;

Passenger Car Brake Systems

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic

Safety Administration (NHTSA),

Department of Transportation.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This document amends

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards

Nos. 105 Hydraulic Brake Systems and

135 Passenger Car Brake Systems to

accommodate the brake systems on

electric vehicles. The amendments

address unique characteristics of brake

systems on electric vehicles, such as

regenerative braking, and are intended

to assure safe performance for those

brake systems. The amendments of

Standard No. 105 apply to electric

trucks, buses, and multipurpose

passenger vehicles. They also apply to

electric passenger cars that have not

availed themselves of the option of

conforming to Standard No. 135, which

is mandatory for all passenger cars

manufactured on and after September 1,

2000. The amendments to Standard No.

135 complement those made to

Standard No. 105.

DATES: The amendments to both

standards are effective October 20, 1997.

Compliance with Standard No. 105 is

mandatory as of September 1, 1998.

Compliance with Standard No. 135 is

mandatory as of September 1, 2000, the

effective date of Standard No. 135.

Petitions for reconsideration of the final

rule must be submitted not later than

October 20, 1997.

ADDRESS: Petitions for reconsideration

should be addressed to Docket 85–6;

Notice 12, and submitted to Docket

Room, NHTSA, Room 5108, 400

Seventh St. SW, Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Samuel Daniel, Vehicle Dynamics

Division, Office of Vehicle Safety

Standards, NHTSA (Phone: 202–366–

4921).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

1. Background

2. Issues relating to Definitions

3. Partial failure (Standard No. 105)

4. Issues relating to RBS:

A. RBS as part of the service brake system

B. RBS braking effects

C. ABS control over RBS

5. Issues relating to warning indicators:

A. Red ‘‘BRAKE’’ lamp as signal of RBS

failure

B. Common ABS/RBS malfunction warning

indicator

6. Issues related to compliance testing:

A. Procedure for determining battery state

of charge

B. Procedure for charging batteries during

burnish

C. Procedure for recharging batteries

D. Testing in gear as opposed to testing in

neutral

E. Testing at low state of charge

7. Issues relating to test conditions:

A. Initial brake temperature (IBT)

B. Static parking brake test

C. Stops with engine off (Standard No. 135)

8. International harmonization

Effective dates

Regulatory analyses:
46908 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 172 / Friday, September 5, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory

Planning and Review) and DOT

Regulatory Policies and Procedures

Regulatory Flexibility Act

Executive Order 12612 (Federalism)

National Environmental Policy Act

Executive Order 12778 (Civil Justice

Reform)

1. Background

On January 15, 1993, NHTSA

published a Supplemental Notice of

Proposed Rulemaking (SNPRM)

concerning brake system performance of

electric vehicles (EVs) (Docket No. 85–

6; Notice 7, 58 FR 4649). Notice 7

proposed amendments to Standard No.

105, Hydraulic Brake Systems and

revised portions of a proposed Standard

No. 135, Passenger Car Brake Systems.

Standard No. 135 was issued as a final

rule (Notice 8, 60 FR 6411) on February

2, 1995, with an effective date of March

6, 1995. Passenger cars, including EVs,

may comply with either Standard No.

105 or Standard No. 135, until

September 1, 2000, after which

Standard No. 135 will become the sole

Federal motor vehicle safety standard

for passenger car brakes. Standard No.

105, as amended in this notice, will

continue to apply to electricallypowered multipurpose vehicles, trucks,

and buses after September 1, 2000,

although NHTSA has proposed (Notice

11) that Standard No. 135 be amended

to apply, effective September 1, 2002, to

multipurpose passenger vehicles,

trucks, and buses with a GVWR of

10,000 pounds or less (61 FR 19602).

On September 26, 1995, the agency

published a Further Supplemental

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

(FSNPRM), Notice 10 (60 FR 49544).

Notice 10 refined Notice 7’s proposed

amendments to Standard Nos. 105,

Hydraulic Brake Systems, and No. 135,

Passenger Car Brake Systems. For a

detailed history of the development of

Federal braking standards for EVs, the

reader may consult Notice 7 and Notice

10.

Seven commenters, all motor vehicle

manufacturers, responded to Notice 10.

They were Toyota Motor Corporation,

General Motors Corporation (GM),

Chrysler Corporation, Ford Motor

Company, Nissan North America, Hydro

Quebec (HQ), and Honda. All supported

the agency’s rulemaking for EV brake

systems. Notice 10 solicited specific

comment on two general questions: (1)

Whether 2 miles is sufficient distance

for an EV to attain its maximum speed

for compliance test purposes, and (2)

whether any EV manufacturer plans to

equip its vehicles with a braking system

that includes a regenerative braking

system (RBS) that does not include an

anti-lock braking system (ABS). All

seven commenters indicated that 2

miles was sufficient for an EV to obtain

maximum speed under most conditions.

None of the commenters indicated that

they planned to produce EV brake

systems that included RBS but excluded

ABS.

The following were the specific issues

raised by comments to Notice 10.

2. Issues Relating to Definitions

Notice 10 proposed revising the

existing definitions of ‘‘Backup system’’

and ‘‘Split service brake system’’, and

adding definitions for ‘‘Electric vehicle

or EV’’, and ‘‘Regenerative braking

system or RBS.’’ These would apply to

both Standards Nos. 105 and 135. With

the minor addition noted below for RBS,

the four definitions have been adopted

as proposed.

In addition, Notice 10 proposed a

definition of ‘‘Maximum speed or

Vmax’’ for Standard No. 135. Standard

No. 135 now contains a definition of the

term, thus, this Notice only adds

language to the definition that is

appropriate for EVs. With reference to

RBS, HQ suggested that the term

‘‘dynamic braking’’ be adopted for

purposes of Standards Nos. 105 and

135. Dynamic braking includes vehicle

retardation that results from dissipation

of electrical energy when the battery(s)

is at a high state of charge as well as the

retardation that occurs during battery

recharging when the battery(s) state of

charge is low. HQ suggested that the

RBS definition proposed in Notice 10 be

modified to include reference to the

dissipation of the energy generated by

the propulsion motors. The proposed

definition stated that the energy

produced by the propulsion motors in

the regenerative mode is returned to the

battery(s). Dissipation of the electrical

energy developed through the RBS

could develop braking forces that are

not dependent on the state-of-charge of

the batteries, according to HQ.

NHTSA agrees with HQ’s

observations that dissipation of the

energy produced by RBS while the

propulsion motor(s) are in the

regenerative mode was not addressed in

the proposed RBS definition. Since RBS

control systems with the capability of

dissipating energy generated by the RBS

are under development, the agency

believes that the definition of RBS

should include a reference to this

capability. Thus, NHTSA is amending

the definition proposed in Notice 10 for

regenerative braking system (RBS) in

Standards Nos. 105 and 135 to state that

it ‘‘* * * means a system for recovering

or dissipating kinetic energy. * * *’’

However, the agency does not believe a

definition for ‘‘dynamic braking’’ should

be added to the braking standards. HQ

did not indicate how it would be placed

at a disadvantage without the new

definition. The definition for dynamic

braking recommended by HQ involves a

combination of the energy dissipated

and stored by the RBS control system.

The agency feels that inclusion of the

energy dissipation feature in the

definition for RBS is sufficient to

address HQ’s comment.

Nissan commented on the lack of

definition of electrically-actuated

service brakes’’, and asked that the

agency adopt one to specify electricallyactuated service brake system

components. Toyota recommended that

the agency define the term as ‘‘a braking

system which converts the electric

energy of the battery directly to the

braking force.’’ In its view, it is

necessary to distinguish systems whose

main braking power is electrical from

those systems in which electric energy

is used to operate power assist units

such as vacuum and hydraulic pumps.

Electrically-operated power assist units

should not be considered electricallyactuated service brakes. Honda also

asked for a clarification of the term.

Notice 10 uses the term ‘‘electricallyactuated service brakes’’ several times in

the prospective regulatory text for

Standards Nos. 105 and 135, and, as the

commenters noted, without proposing a

definition for it. One example of use of

the term is in proposed paragraphs

S5.1.3.5 and S7.11.3 of Standards Nos.

105 and 135 respectively, called Electric

brakes, which specify partial failure

performance requirements for vehicles

with any single failure in the

electrically-actuated service brakes.

NHTSA believes that Notice 10

contained an adequate explanation of

electrically-actuated service brakes,

brake power assist units, and electric or

electronic transmission or service brake

control. Electrically-driven brake power

assist units, such as hydraulic pumps or

vacuum motors that serve to reduce the

driver-applied brake control force, are

not electrically-actuated service brake

components. Neither are systems in

which the brake control signal is

transmitted electrically or electronically

from the brake control to the foundation

brake (commonly known as electronic

braking systems). The definition of

‘‘electrically-actuated service brakes’’

will read: ‘‘Electrically-actuated service

brakes means service brakes that utilize

electrical energy to actuate the

foundation brakes.’’

HQ requested that the definition of

‘‘antilock brake system’’ (ABS) in

Standards No. 105 and 135 be modified

to indicate that ABS is a capability of

the service brake system. ABS is defined
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 172 / Friday, September 5, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 46909

in the standards as part of the service

brake system rather than a capability of

the service brake system. HQ also

suggested that the definition of ‘‘ABS’’

be changed by substituting the term

‘‘braking’’ for ‘‘brake actuating’’ because

the latter implies the actuation of a

foundation brake. According to HQ, the

term ‘‘braking’’ would apply to any type

of braking force modulation including

braking forces generated by vehicle

components other than the foundation

brakes.

The agency does not concur with

these suggested modifications to the

definition for ‘‘ABS’’. It believes that the

braking forces developed by an electric

motor(s) in an EV are covered

adequately in the definition of

‘‘regenerative braking system.’’ Also,

most conventional braking systems need

to have specific hardware added to

accomplish the ABS function. The

agency has concluded that the current

definition of RBS adequately addresses

the braking system design features

described by HQ.

3. Partial Failure (Standard No. 105)

Notice 10 proposed adding partial

failure provisions to Standard No. 105

in a new paragraph S5.1.2.3., that a

vehicle ‘‘shall be capable of stopping

from 60 mph within the corresponding

distance specified in Column IV of

Table II when there is a single failure in

an electric brake circuit, and with all

other systems intact.’’ This was

supported and has been adopted.

In addition, new wording was

proposed under the partial failure

requirements to address failures of an

RBS that is part of the service brake

system, since the RBS is not a separate

‘‘circuit’’ of the service brake system.

This, too, was supported and has been

adopted.

4. Issues Relating to RBS

A. RBS as Part of the Service Brake

System

Notice 10 proposed that RBS would

be ‘‘considered to be part of the service

brake system if it is automatically

activated by an application of the

service brake control, if there is no

means provided for the driver to

disconnect or otherwise deactivate it,

and if the vehicle has no ‘neutral’

transmission position.’’

GM indicated that the existence of a

neutral transmission position should

not exclude RBS from being considered

part of the service brake system,

according to GM, because a neutral

transmission position need not have any

effect on the operation of an RBS. The

ability of the driver to disengage the

RBS should be the only factor that

precludes an RBS from being considered

part of the service brake system.

Toyota commented that to its

knowledge, almost all EVs with RBS

have a neutral transmission position,

and that the ‘‘no neutral transmission

position’’ criterion should be deleted

from conditions required for an RBS to

be considered part of the service brake

system.

Honda believed that the conditions

under which RBS is considered part of

the service brake system should be

modified to indicate that the vehicle

transmission may have no electrical or

mechanical neutral position. Honda is

concerned that RBS may be designed

such that any torque from it is canceled

when the shift lever is placed in neutral,

even though there is no mechanical

disconnection between the drive train

and the motor.

NHTSA agrees with GM and Toyota

that the lack of a neutral transmission

position need not be a condition for

inclusion of RBS in the service brake

system, and is deleting it from the final

rule. A neutral transmission position

need not have an effect on RBS because

the neutral position does not require

that the drive line be mechanically

disconnected from the propulsion

motor(s), as indicated by Honda.

Honda requested that a distinction be

made between a neutral position that

includes mechanical disconnection

between the propulsion battery(s) and

the drive line and one that does not.

NHTSA does not believe that a

definition for ‘‘neutral’’, as requested by

Honda, is needed. However, Notice 10

proposed that including RBS in the

service brake system requires that the

selected position of the vehicle’s

transmission have no effect on the RBS

function.

NHTSA believes that RBS should

operate in the same manner and under

the same conditions as the service brake

system if it is to be included as part of

the service brake system. For example,

the service brake system is controlled by

the service brake control only. If RBS is

to be included in the service brake

system, it should also be controlled by

the service brake control only.

Similarly, the service brake system is

operational in all transmission positions

(gears) and RBS should also be

operational in all transmission gears,

including neutral, if it is to be

considered part of the service brake

system.

In view of the comments to Notice 10,

NHTSA is modifying the conditions

under which RBS is considered part of

the service brake system. Accordingly,

the final rule amending Standards No.

105 (S6.2.4(a)) and No. 135 (S5.1.3(a))

states that ‘‘the RBS is considered part

of the service brake system if it is

automatically activated by an

application of the service brake control,

if there is no means provided for the

driver to disconnect or otherwise

deactivate it, and it is activated in all

transmission positions, including

neutral.’’

B. RBS Braking Effects

Nissan believes the retardation

capacity of some electric propulsion

motor(s) is insufficient to be

characterized as braking. Nissan

requests that only RBS that demonstrate

braking effects greater than the

transmission braking effects required in

Standard No. 102, Transmission shift

lever sequence, starter interlock, and

transmission braking effect, be

considered in Standards Nos. 105 and

135.

NHTSA does not believe RBS systems

should be required to have at least a two

speed transmission, as would be

required if the transmission braking

effects provisions of Standard No. 102

were added to the braking standards. It

is practical for an EV to perform with a

single gear ratio transmission. The

agency believes that the Nissan request

would limit EV design unnecessarily.

Therefore, it is taking no action on this

request.

C. ABS Control Over RBS

Proposed Paragraphs S5.5 of Standard

No. 105 and S5.1.3 of Standard No. 135

state that ‘‘* * * for an EV that is

equipped with both ABS and RBS that

is part of the service brake system, the

ABS must control the RBS’’.

Chrysler cautioned that EV

technology is still new and

manufacturers need more design

flexibility in this area, and argued that

it is inappropriate for the agency to

require that RBS be controlled by ABS

and that the agency should specify

performance requirements.

The purpose of the proposed

requirement is to assure that RBS is not

operating while ABS is reducing the

braking forces in the foundation brake

system. The added braking torque of the

RBS under this condition would be

counter-productive and may cause

vehicle instability. NHTSA believes that

the requirement is necessary for RBS

that is part of the service brake system

since these systems cannot be controlled

by the driver. The requirement is

adopted as proposed.
46910 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 172 / Friday, September 5, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

5. Issues Relating to Failure Indicators

A. Red ‘‘BRAKE’’ Warning Lamp as

Signal of RBS Failure

Notice 10 proposed new paragraphs

in Standards No. 105 (S5.3.1) and No.

135 (S5.5.5) which would require that a

red ‘‘brake’’ indicator lamp be

illuminated under various conditions

including the three following: ‘‘(e) For a

vehicle with electrically-actuated

service brakes, failure of the source of

power to the brakes, or diminution of

the state of charge of the batteries to a

level less than that specified by the

manufacturer for the purpose of warning

a driver of degraded brake performance,

(f) For a vehicle with electric

transmission of the service brake control

signal, failure of the brake control

circuit, and (g) For an EV with RBS that

is part of the service brake system,

failure of the RBS.’’

GM commented that failure of the

RBS in all known EV brake systems will

not cause a significant reduction in

overall braking performance. Therefore,

failure of the RBS should not result in

the illumination of a red telltale lamp

since red telltales are used to indicate

emergency situations in which the

vehicle needs immediate service. An

amber driver warning display such as

the ABS telltale should be allowed in

the standards as an option to indicate an

RBS failure whether or not RBS is part

of the service brake system.

According to Ford, failure of RBS will

diminish an enhancement of the braking

system but will not result in

substantially reduced braking

performance. The RBS on-board telltale

need not be red, indicating the need for

immediate service, but an amber lamp,

such as the ABS warning indicator,

should be an option.

According to GM and Ford, the

foundation brake system on their EV

models is capable of meeting all braking

performance requirements without

contribution from the RBS. As a result,

GM and Ford believe that a failure of the

RBS system should not require the

illumination of a red ‘‘Brake’’ indicator.

Honda believes that manufacturers

should be allowed to use an amber

indicator lamp instead of a red lamp

when a failure occurs in the brake

control circuit of a vehicle with electric

transmission of the service brake control

signal provided that the total braking

force is not impaired by the failure. It,

too, agrees that, in the event of RBS

failure or failure of the electrical

circuitry that controls the hydraulic

brake force, all braking would be done

by the hydraulic system with no loss of

performance.

Honda further states that Standards

Nos. 105 and 135 do not require

illumination of a red brake warning

lamp when a brake power unit, power

assist unit, or an ABS failure occurs.

In Notice 10, the agency retained the

proposed requirement for illumination

of an on-board, red ‘‘Brake’’ lamp to

indicate failure of these systems. Notice

10 proposed that the requirement for a

red brake lamp for RBS failures be

limited to cases in which RBS is part of

the service brake system. This was a

modification of Notice 7, which

required that failure of RBS systems that

are part of the service brake system and

those that are not, be indicated by a red

on-board brake lamp.

The arguments made by commenters

to Notice 10 stating that braking

performance is not substantially

diminished by a failure of the RBS are

convincing. If RBS is part of the service

brake system, it is active at all times and

is controlled by application of the

service brake only. The contribution of

RBS to overall vehicle braking may be

substantial at times and this

contribution is dependent on many

factors including the state of charge of

the propulsion battery(s). NHTSA agrees

with the commenters that a failure of

RBS will not affect the ability of the

foundation brakes to provide adequate

brake performance under most

conditions. The agency also agrees with

commenters that the loss of the RBS

braking contribution will not result in a

safety hazard in an emergency stop

situation. The agency accepts the

request by GM, Ford and Honda to

allow an optional amber (yellow) lamp

to warn drivers of a failed RBS system.

NHTSA believes that illumination of the

red ‘‘brake’’ warning signal would

signify the need for immediate remedial

action by the driver, which is not

warranted. The ‘‘service soon’’ message

that is conveyed by an amber on-board

telltale is sufficient warning in the case

of a failed RBS system that is part of the

service brake system.

NHTSA has not granted Honda’s

request that an amber lamp be allowed

which would indicate a failure in the

electric brake control circuitry of a brake

system in which the brake control signal

is transmitted electrically from the

service brake control to the foundation

brakes (paragraph S5.3.1(f) of Standard

No. 105, and paragraph S5.5.1(f) of

Standard No. 135). The final rule allows

the option of illuminating an amber onboard lamp in the event of an RBS

failure for cases in which the RBS is

part of the service brake system.

However, an amber indicator lamp will

not be allowed as an option to replace

a red indicator to signal failure of the

control circuit for vehicles with electric

transmission of the brake control signal.

See the amended text in the discussion

under the heading that follows.

B. Common ABS/RBS Malfunction

Indicator

Ford requests that the option be

provided to group the RBS and ABS

malfunction modes with a common

warning indicator because the two

systems share many of the same

software and hardware components.

NHTSA agrees that a common ABS/

RBS malfunction warning indicator

should be allowed for cases in which

the RBS is part of the service brake

system. In these cases, ABS and RBS are

required to communicate (see proposed

paragraph S5.5 of Standard No. 105) and

are likely to share many components, as

indicated by Ford. Accordingly,

paragraph S5.3.1(g) of Standard No. 105,

and paragraph S5.5.1(g) of Standard No.

135 are adopted to require an indicator

to indicate failure of the RBS and

optional illumination under other

circumstances: ‘‘(g) For an EV with RBS

that is part of the service brake system,

failure of the RBS. An amber lamp may

be used displaying the symbol ‘RBS’.

RBS failure in a system that is part of

the service brake system may also be

indicated by an amber lamp that also

indicates ABS failure and displays the

symbol ‘ABS/RBS’’’.

6. Issues Related to Compliance Testing

A. Procedure for Determining Battery

State of Charge

NHTSA proposed that the state of

charge of the propulsion batteries be

determined in accordance with SAE

J227a Electric Vehicle Test Procedure,

February 1976 (S6.2.1 of FMVSS No.

105, S6.3.11.1 of Standard No. 135),

specifically that the applicable sections

of J227a are 3.2.1 through 3.2.4, 3.3.1

through 3.3.2.2, 3.4.1 and 3.4.2, 4.2.1,

5.2, 5.2.1, and 5.3. There were no

comments on this issue and the

proposal has been adopted.

B. Procedure for Recharging Batteries

During Burnish

The burnish procedures (S7.4 of

Standard No. 105 and S7.1 of Standard

No. 135) result in a maximum distance

between each of the burnish stops of

1.24 miles. The continuous acceleration

and deceleration of a burnish procedure

could result in fairly extensive battery

depletion after approximately 40 stops.

Therefore, NHTSA proposed that the

propulsion batteries be recharged after

each increment of 40 burnish stops until

each burnish procedure is complete

(S6.2.2 of Standard No. 105 and
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 172 / Friday, September 5, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 46911

S6.3.11.2 of Standard No. 135). Charging

at a more frequent interval would be

permitted if the vehicle were incapable

of achieving the initial burnish test

speed during a 40-stop sequence. In

addition, the manufacturer would be

permitted the option of recharging by

external means or by substituting other

propulsion batteries at 95 per cent or

greater charge. This proposal was

supported by the commenters, and is

adopted in the final rule. Notice 10 also

proposed that, if an EV has a manual

control for setting the level of

regenerative braking, at the beginning of

each burnish procedure the control

would be set to provide maximum

regenerative braking throughout each

burnish. There were no comments on

this proposal, and it is adopted.

In GM’s view, the brake burnishing

procedures proposed for S6.2.2 of

Standard No. 105 are not clear with

respect to the propulsion battery state of

charge at the beginning of the tests. GM

recommended that the final rule be

consistent with the burnish procedures

adopted for Standard No. 135. GM is

correct, and paragraph S6.2.2 as adopted

specifies that the state of charge of the

propulsion battery(s) at the beginning of

each burnish procedure is not less than

95 percent of full charge. This

modification is also consistent with the

burnishing requirements and

procedures adopted in Standard No.

135.

C. Procedure for Charging Batteries

Notice 10 proposed that each burnish

procedure and each braking test

procedure be initiated with the EV’s

propulsion batteries at a state of charge

of not less than 95 percent. Paragraphs

S6.2.2 and S6.2.3 of Standard No. 105

and paragraph S6.3.11 of Standard No.

135 read in part as follows: ‘‘At the

beginning of each performance test in

the test sequence (S7.3, S7.5, S7.7

through S7.11, and S7.14 through S7.19

of this standard), unless otherwise

specified, an EV’s propulsion battery(s)

are at a state or charge of not less than

95 percent (the batteries may be charged

by external means or replaced by

batteries that are at a state of charge of

not less than 95 percent)’’.

GM commented that the phrase ‘‘or

fully charged per the manufacturer’s

recommended procedure’’ should be

added to the specifications for charging

EV batteries. In its view, adding the

phrase will avoid potential conflicts and

ambiguities for cases in which the EV

charging system is not designed to

charge the battery(s) to 95 percent of

capacity. According to GM, extreme

high and low states of charge should be

avoided to maximize battery life

expectancy. GM believes the

manufacturer’s recommended procedure

for charging batteries may be especially

important for hybrid vehicles with onboard chargers since these battery(s)

may be designed to operate in a narrow

state of charge range.

Chrysler stated that all its EVs are

equipped with an on-board battery

management system that controls

battery charging, discharging, and

overall performance. The EV brake

testing requirements in the final rule

should specify that the manufacturer’s

recommended energy charging and

measuring procedures be utilized, if

available.

NHTSA agrees that the manufacturer’s

procedures should be used for charging

the propulsion batteries for performance

tests as well as burnishing if such

procedures are available.

The agency is changing the

amendments proposed in Notice 10

requiring that battery(s) be at a state of

charge of not less than 95 percent at the

beginning of each test procedure. The

state of charge requirement is being

expanded to allow the battery(s) to be

charged in accordance with procedures

recommended by the vehicle

manufacturer. If a battery charging

procedure or a state of charge

measurement procedure is permanently

attached to the vehicle or published in

the vehicle operator’s manual, the

procedure will be utilized during brake

testing. If the manufacturer does not

provide a procedure for charging the

propulsion battery(s), the procedure

proposed in Notice 10 will be utilized.

Therefore, NHTSA is adopting

paragraphs S6.2.2 and S6.2.3 of

Standard No. 105 and paragraph S6.3.11

of Standard No. 135 to read in pertinent

part as follows: ‘‘* * * an EV’s

propulsion battery(s) are at the

maximum state of charge recommended

by the manufacturer, as stated in the

vehicle operator’s manual or on a label

that is permanently attached to the

vehicle, or, if the manufacturer has

made no recommendation, at a state of

charge of not less than 95 percent. If

battery(s) are replaced rather than recharged, the replacement battery(s) are

charged and measured for state of

charge in accordance with these

procedures.’’

Chrysler is concerned that proposed

paragraph S6.2.3 of Standard No. 105

does not allow for charging during the

test sequences listed and that EVs may

not be able to complete the tests without

recharging.

Notice 10 did not propose procedures

for re-charging during the test sequences

because NHTSA did not believe that

such re-charging would be necessary.

However, the agency now realizes that

the propulsion battery(s) may be

depleted such that the vehicle

automatically shuts-down, reaches a

point at which it will not accelerate, or

the low state of charge lamp is

illuminated (Standard No. 105,

proposed paragraph S5.3.1). If any of

these conditions occur, during a test

sequence, the final rule permits the

vehicle to be accelerated to brake test

speed by auxiliary means since some

tests are required to be conducted

within a time limit that would preclude

re-charging or replacing the battery(s)

with one that is fully charged.

Accordingly, paragraph S6.2.3 of

Standard No. 105 and paragraph

S6.3.11.3 of Standard No. 135, as

adopted, clarify this. Each states that

‘‘* * * No further charging of the

propulsion batteries occurs during any

of the performance tests in the test

sequence of this standard. If the

propulsion batteries are depleted during

a test sequence such that the vehicle

reaches automatic shut-down, will not

accelerate, or the low state of charge

brake warning lamp is illuminated, the

vehicle is to be accelerated to brake test

speed by auxiliary means until the test

sequence is completed.’’

By adopting this test condition,

NHTSA intends that the batteries be

essentially at full charge at the

beginning of each test sequence.

D. Testing in Gear as Opposed to

Testing in Neutral

This issue involves testing EVs in

which RBS is not part of the service

brake system. For such vehicles, Notice

10 proposed to amend Standards Nos.

105 (S6.2.4(b)) and No. 135,(S6.3.13) to

state that ‘‘the RBS is operational and

set to produce the maximum

regenerative braking effect during the

burnish tests, and is disabled during the

test procedures.’’

GM commented that the requirement

that a RBS that is not part of the service

brake system be disabled for all tests

other than burnishing tests is in conflict

with other test procedures. Some of the

test procedures in both Standards Nos.

105 and 135 require that the vehicle be

tested with the transmission in gear. If

an EV has a RBS that is not part of the

service brake system and the RBS is

designed to operate when the

transmission is in gear, the RBS would

have to be disconnected for the in-gear

test procedures. GM recommends that

the standards state that the RBS need

not be disabled for in-gear braking if the

RBS can be disabled only through

‘‘tampering’’ when the transmission is

in gear. GM notes that the number of

tests affected is relatively small and the
46912 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 172 / Friday, September 5, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

high state of charge required at the

beginning of these tests will result in a

low level of regenerative braking.

Chrysler remarked that when internal

combustion engine (ICE) vehicles are

tested in gear, they take advantage of the

braking effects of the engine and

transmission. Chrysler believes that EVs

should be allowed to use their RBS for

in-gear testing since it is analogous to

the engine and transmission braking

effects in ICE vehicles.

In Nissan’s opinion, RBS should be

allowed to be operational during the ingear brake testing procedures, whether

or not the RBS is part of the service

brake system.

Toyota believes that the heating snub

test, proposed paragraph S7.13 of

Standard No. 135, should be conducted

in the ‘‘in-gear’’ mode, to be consistent

with the burnishing tests and to

conform with ICE vehicle testing.

Finally, Honda commented that, since

the proposed test conditions in both

standards require that the drive line be

engaged during the braking procedures,

the ‘‘in gear’’ testing specification

should be changed to allow the option

of testing in neutral for vehicles with

RBS that is activated when the

transmission is in gear.

NHTSA agrees with GM that a

requirement to conduct certain tests in

gear with the RBS disconnected would

conflict with the design of many EVs.

For these designs, the RBS is activated

when the vehicle is in gear and

deactivated in the neutral transmission

position. For EVs in which the RBS is

not part of the service brake system,

meeting the proposed test conditions

would, as previously written, require

‘‘tampering’’ with the RBS to disengage

it while the vehicle is in gear. If the RBS

is disengaged when the transmission is

in the neutral position, these tests can

be conducted in neutral, as suggested by

Honda. The agency disagrees with the

GM statement that most of the test

procedures are conducted in neutral.

While this is true for Standard No. 135,

there are a significant number of in-gear

test procedures in Standard No. 105.

NHTSA agrees with Chrysler that the

RBS functions in much the same

manner in EVs as does the engine and

transmission braking effect in ICE

vehicles. If the RBS is active, it provides

vehicle deceleration forces in a manner

similar to the engine and transmission

for an ICE vehicle. However, if the RBS

is not part of the service brake system,

its use is optional in most cases. There

is no assurance when the RBS is not

part of the service brake system that it

will be engaged or activated by the

driver at any given time. This is the

primary reason Notice 10 proposed that

the test procedures be conducted with

the RBS non-functional if the RBS is not

part of the service brake system.

NHTSA also disagrees with Toyota’s

recommendation that the heating snub

test in proposed paragraph S7.13 of

Standard No. 135 be conducted with the

RBS engaged. The same reasoning

applies in the case of heating snubs, that

is, if the RBS is not part of the service

brake system, its use will be optional in

most cases, and there is no assurance

when the RBS is not part of the service

brake system that it will be engaged or

activated by the driver at any given

time.

NHTSA has decided that the

requirements proposed in Notice 10 for

vehicles in which the RBS is not part of

the service brake system need to be

modified to address in-gear testing.

Thus, the final rule requires that

manufacturers render RBS inoperative,

including placing the transmission in

the neutral position if the RBS is

deactivated in neutral, during testing

under conditions that would otherwise

require the vehicle to be in gear.

Accordingly, paragraph S6.2.4(b) of

Standard No. 105 and paragraph S6.3.13

of Standard No. 135 are adopted to read

as follows: ‘‘For an EV equipped with an

RBS that is not part of the service brake

system, the RBS is operational and set

to produce the maximum regenerative

braking effect during the burnish tests,

and is disabled during the test

procedures. If the vehicle is equipped

with a neutral position that

automatically disables the RBS, the test

procedures which are designated to be

conducted in gear may be conducted in

neutral.’’

E. Testing at Low State of Charge

(i) Low state of charge measurement.

With respect to state of charge of the

propulsion batteries, paragraph S6.2.6

proposed in Notice 10 in part that: ‘‘A

vehicle equipped with electricallyactuated service brakes also performs

the tests specified in S7.3, S7.5, S7.7

through S7.11, and S7.13 through S7.19

of this standard with the batteries

providing power to those electricallyactuated brakes, at the beginning of each

test, in a depleted state of charge for

condition (a), (b), or (c) of this paragraph

as appropriate.’’ Proposed paragraph

S6.3.12 of Standard No. 135 was similar.

Paragraphs S6.2.6(a) and S6.2.6(b) of

Standard No. 105 would require that

propulsion battery(s) used to power

electrically-actuated service brakes be at

a state of charge that is not more than

two percent and not less than one

percent above the state of charge that

would shut down the propulsion system

or activate the brake failure warning

lamp. Paragraph S6.2.6(c) of Standard

No. 105 would require that auxiliary

battery(s) that are used to power

electrically-actuated service brakes be at

a state of charge that is not more than

two percent and not less than one

percent above the state of charge that

would activate the brake failure warning

lamp.

Toyota, GM, and Nissan commented

on the conditions and procedures

proposed in Notice 10 for paragraphs

S6.2.6 (a) and (b) of Standard No. 105

in which the propulsion battery(s) are

used to power electrically-actuated

service brakes. These commenters

recommended that the test conditions

be modified to reduce the burden of the

state of charge measurement technique.

The commenters argued that, with

current technology, it would be

extremely difficult for many test

facilities to measure the state of charge

with one or two percent accuracy. These

commenters recommended that the

agency adopt a five percent initial

battery(s) state of charge for testing

under S6.2.6 of Standard No. 105 and

S6.3.12 of Standard No. 135.

Based on these comments, NHTSA

believes that the one to two percent

state of charge range proposed as the

initial test condition for the propulsion

and auxiliary battery(s) used in low

state of charge tests would be difficult

to measure. A five percent state of

charge would not appreciably change

the stringency of the requirements, but

would substantially reduce the state of

charge measurement burden.

For these reasons, Standard No. 135

(S6.3.12(c)), as adopted, will state that

‘‘* * * the auxiliary battery(s) is at not

more than five percent above the actual

state of charge at which the brake failure

warning signal, required by S5.5.1(e) of

this standard, is illuminated.’’ The

propulsion battery(s) referenced in

S6.3.12 (a) and (b) of Standard No. 135

will also be charged to not more than

five percent above the state of charge

that would cause shut down or

illumination of the brake failure

warning lamp. The auxiliary battery(s)

in paragraph S6.2.6(c) of Standard No.

105, and the propulsion battery(s) in

paragraphs S6.2.6 (a), and (b), will be

charged to not more than five percent

above the state of charge that would

illuminate the brake system indicator

lamp as required in S5.3.1(e), or the

state of charge that would result in

automatic shut-down of the propulsion

system.

(ii) Low State of charge testing. The

agency proposed in Notice 10 that EVs

with electrically actuated service brakes

be required to complete a series of brake

performance tests with the battery(s) at
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 172 / Friday, September 5, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 46913

a low state of charge. With respect to the

state of charge of propulsion batteries,

paragraph S6.2.6 of Standard No. 105

proposed in part that: ‘‘A vehicle

equipped with electrically-actuated

service brakes also performs the tests

specified in S7.3, S7.5, S7.7, through

S7.11, and S7.13 through S7.19 of this

standard with the battery(s) providing

power to those electrically-actuated

brakes, at the beginning of each test, in

a depleted state of charge for condition

(a), (b), or (c) of this paragraph as

appropriate.’’ To the same effect was

proposed paragraph S6.3.12 of Standard

No. 135.

The agency argued that a vehicle that

can be operated should be able to

perform a full series of brake tests. The

agency further stated that the purpose of

the test series is to assure that a vehicle

will operate properly if any one of the

test conditions occur during operation.

GM, in its comments to Notice 10,

continued to express the concern it

expressed in response to Notice 7. That

is, the requirement for a full series of

tests under depleted battery(s)

conditions is unreasonable and

unnecessary. All commenters

responding to Notice 7 indicated that it

was unreasonable and unnecessary to

subject an EV to a complete brake test

series with depleted battery(s). They

indicated that a vehicle with a low state

of charge in the propulsion battery(s)

could be expected to perform a low

number of accelerations prior to

becoming immobile. The commenters

argued that it was unreasonable to

require braking capacity that far exceeds

propulsion capacity.

After further consideration, the

agency agrees that a full series of tests

is not necessary because it is very

unlikely that a vehicle with a low state

of charge would require the braking

capacity needed to perform an entire

brake test series under either Standard

No. 105 or Standard No. 135. NHTSA

also believes that current propulsion

battery(s) would need substantial

redesign to comply with the proposed

requirements.

GM requested that the agency

reconsider the procedure for a dedicated

low charge braking test that the

company had recommended in its

comments to Notice 7.

The agency feels that an abbreviated

braking test procedure similar to the one

recommended by GM in its comments to

Notice 7 is appropriate, and that it is

sufficient for an EV with electricallyactuated service brakes to demonstrate

braking power while it can still be

accelerated.

GM also indicated that the recharging

procedures for these tests needed

clarification. The proposed test

procedure for low battery(s) state of

charge testing specified in Notice 10

does not allow for recharging, but states

that a vehicle may be accelerated to test

speed by auxiliary means. The test

procedures adopted in the final rule do

not allow for recharging of the battery(s)

that provide power for electricallyactuated service brakes. An auxiliary

means is to be provided as necessary to

accelerate the vehicle to test speed, as

proposed in Notice 10.

The agency is specifying that an

abbreviated low state of charge braking

performance test series be conducted on

EVs utilizing electrically-actuated

service brakes. In addition, S6.2.6 of

Standard No. 105 and S6.3.12 of

Standard No. 135 are adopted to read:

‘‘A vehicle equipped with electricallyactuated service brakes also performs

the following test series. Conduct 10

stopping tests from a speed of 100 kph

or the maximum vehicle speed,

whichever is less. At least two of the 10

stopping distances must be less than or

equal to 70 meters. The vehicle is to be

loaded to GVWR for these tests and the

transmission shall be in the neutral

position when the service brake control

is actuated and throughout the

remainder of the test. The battery(s)

providing power to those electricallyactuated service brakes, at the beginning

of each test, shall be in a depleted state

of charge for conditions (a), (b), or (c) of

this paragraph as appropriate. An

auxiliary means may be used to

accelerate an EV to test speed.’’

Nissan believed that it is not

technically feasible to detect state of

charge of an auxiliary battery and

recommends that the agency delete the

low state of charge performance tests for

vehicles with auxiliary batteries that

provide power for vacuum boosters and

hydraulic pumps (electrically-actuated

brakes).

Nissan believes that actual fluid

pressure or vacuum should be

monitored instead of the state of charge

of an auxiliary battery in vehicles which

have electrically-actuated service

brakes. Notice 10 did not propose that

auxiliary battery(s) that are used to

power hydraulic pumps or vacuum

motors be monitored for state of charge.

The proposed requirement applies to

auxiliary battery(s) that power

electrically-actuated service brakes,

brakes in which the brake control signal

is electrically transmitted from the brake

control unit to the foundation brakes,

and RBS that is part of the service brake

system. Auxiliary battery(s) that power

hydraulic pumps and vacuum motors

are not included under the proposed

requirement for state of charge

monitoring. No action is taken in

response to this comment.

7. Issues Related to Test Conditions

A. Initial Brake Temperature (IBT)

HQ believes that its braking system

will not achieve the IBT required in

section S7 Road test procedures and

performance requirements of Standard

No. 135 for the foundation or friction

brakes when the heating tests are

conducted because a large percentage of

the braking forces are supplied by

dynamic (dissipative) braking. HQ

suggests that the IBT condition be made

optional for EVs as well as the test

sequence S7.13–S7.16 because the HQ

dynamic braking system will develop

low temperatures in the friction brake

system components.

NHTSA agrees that the dynamic

braking forces (RBS-type) of the HQ

braking system could result in low brake

temperatures for the foundation friction

brakes. Neither Standard No. 105 nor

Standard No. 135 specify procedures for

establishing the IBT for those test

procedures that require an initial brake

temperature. The agency believes that

the IBT condition can be met if several

stops are performed with the RBS

disabled or disengaged, and that

disabling or disengaging the RBS system

would not be impracticable. The agency

also believes that the hot performance

and recovery performance tests in

paragraphs S7.13 through S7.16 of

Standard No. 135 are an extremely

important phase of the overall brake

testing and that all vehicles with friction

brakes should perform these tests. Thus,

it has made no modifications in

adopting the IBT condition as proposed.

B. Static Parking Brake Test

Proposed S7.7.1.3 in Standard No.

105 and S7.12.2(o) in Standard No. 135

would add language to clarify the means

for activating electric parking brakes, to

state ‘‘[f]or vehicles with electrically

activated parking brakes, apply the

parking brakes by activating the parking

brake control.’’ NHTSA has adopted the

proposed change.

C. Stops With Engine Off (Standard No.

135)

HQ believes that the vehicle engine

off condition for brake testing (S7.7.2(a))

represents engine stalling for internal

combustion engine vehicles and has no

direct equivalent for EVs. However, the

specification that the test is conducted

with ‘‘no electromotive force’’ applied

to the motor(s) proposed in paragraph

S7.7.3(h) of Standard No. 135 is

intended to serve the same purpose for
46914 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 172 / Friday, September 5, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

EVs as testing ICE vehicles with the

engine off.

Nevertheless, HQ believes that the

term needs further explanation since it

is not clear whether regenerative

braking using the electric motor(s) is

allowed under S7.7.3(h). The proposed

conditions of S7.7.3(h) for EVs during

tests that are analogous to ICE vehicle

tests with the engine off specify that the

electric propulsion motor(s) not be

supplied with any electromotive force,

or be switched-off. The RBS is not

allowed to operate under these test

conditions. No amendment of the

proposal is required, and S7.7.3(h) is

adopted as proposed.

8. International Harmonization

The European Community has not

finalized braking standards for EVs to

date, and the conditions and procedures

for EV testing specified in this final rule

may be adopted by the Europeans.

NHTSA has been recently provided a

current copy of draft Regulation 13–H

(R13–H), the European version of the

harmonized brake standard for light

passenger vehicles. The draft was

reviewed with respect to EV braking

conditions and requirements to

determine if they are compatible with

the EV brake test conditions and

requirements in this final rule. In

general, EV brake system design and

performance requirements in Standard

No. 135 and R13–H are similar. For

example, both rules account for RBS

and both rules distinguish RBS that is

part of the service brake system from

RBS that is not. At this time, NHTSA

does not anticipate that harmonization

of the brake standards will be more

difficult for EVs than for conventional

vehicles.

In general, R13–H has specified more

EV test procedures and conditions than

the agency has specified in Standard

No. 135 as amended by this final rule

since the Europeans have more EV

experience at this time. The R–13H draft

does not, however, address EV

recharging during testing or electricallyactuated service brakes for passenger

cars. As NHTSA’s experience increases,

it may propose adding specific EV test

procedures and conditions to the

adhesion utilization requirements and

other areas of performance.

Whatever future actions NHTSA takes

in this area, it will discuss requirements

for EV brake systems with braking

experts from other nations. It should be

possible for all regulatory authorities to

reach a consistent harmonized approach

when dealing with an emerging

technology like EV brake systems.

The reader will find that provisions of

this final rule not discussed by this

notice are substantially the same as

those proposed by Notice 10.

Effective Dates (Lead Time)

Notice 10 proposed that EV

amendments to Standards Nos. 105 and

135 become effective 30 days after

publication of the final rule.

Chrysler and Ford stated that one year

after publication of the final rule would

be preferable; if the standard is further

amended, more lead time may be

required for compliance to make

necessary design modifications.

However, an early effective date was

supported by GM which wishes to

certify its EV–1 passenger car to electric

vehicle braking requirements at the

earliest possible date.

NHTSA believes that the final rule is

written in such a manner as to

accommodate most present EV brake

system designs without extensive

modifications. But it is sensitive to the

comments by Ford and Chrysler that

each may need up to one year for

leadtime, should they deem it necessary

to modify their current EV braking

system designs to meet the standards

promulgated by this document.

To accommodate all commenters on

this issue, NHTSA is adopting an early

effective date for the electric brake

amendments with mandatory

compliance after one year. The

amendments to Standard No. 105,

which do not change the present

requirements relating to hydraulic brake

systems, will become effective 45 days

after their publication. However,

manufacturers of passenger cars,

multipurpose passenger vehicles,

trucks, and buses, with electric brake

systems, need not comply until

September 1, 1998. Manufacturers of

passenger cars with hydraulic brake

systems already have the option of

meeting Standard No. 105 until

September 1, 2000, and this same option

is being afforded passenger cars with

electric brake systems, under

companion amendments to both

Standards Nos. 105 and 135. To

accomplish this, Section S3 Application

of Standard No. 105 is being amended

to read as follows:

‘‘S3 Application

(a) This standard applies to the

following vehicles with hydraulic or

electric brake systems: multipurpose

passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses,

and to passenger cars manufactured

before September 1, 2000.

(b) This standard, at the option of a

manufacturer of a passenger car,

multipurpose passenger vehicle, truck,

or bus, with an electric brake system,

does not apply before September 1,

1998.

(c) At the option of the manufacturer,

passenger cars with hydraulic or electric

brake systems manufactured before

September 1, 2000, may comply with

the requirements of Federal Motor

Vehicle Safety Standard No. 135,

Passenger Car Brake Systems, instead of

the requirements of this standard.’’

Compliance with Standard No. 135 is

not mandatory until September 1, 2000,

although manufacturers of passenger

cars with hydraulic brake systems have

the present option of complying with it

as an alternative to Standard No. 105.

The amendments made by this

document do not affect the hydraulic

brake requirements, but add

requirements applicable to electric

vehicle brakes and are incorporated into

it effective 45 days after publication.

The application section of Standard No.

135 is being amended to read:

‘‘S3 Application. This standard applies to

passenger cars manufactured on or after

September 1, 2000. In addition, passenger

cars manufactured before September 1, 2000

may, at the option of the manufacturer, meet

the requirements of this standard instead of

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No.

105 Hydraulic and Electric Brake Systems.’’

In summary, passenger cars,

multipurpose passenger vehicles,

trucks, and buses, with electric brake

systems need not comply with Standard

No. 105 until September 1, 1998, and

may comply before then. But all these

vehicles must comply with Standard

No. 105 on and after September 1, 1998.

Alternatively, passenger cars with

electric brake systems may comply with

Standard No. 135 at any time before

September 1, 2000, but otherwise must

meet Standard No. 105 as of September

1, 1998, and Standard No. 135 as of

September 1, 2000.

Because of the wish of some

manufacturers to offer and certify

complying vehicles with electric brake

systems at an early date, and because

the amendments do not affect existing

requirements for vehicles with

hydraulic brake systems, it is hereby

found that an effective date earlier than

180 days after issuance of the

amendments is in the public interest.

Accordingly, the amendments are

effective October 20, 1997.

Regulatory Analysis

Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory

Planning and Review) and DOT

Regulatory Policies and Procedures

This rulemaking has not been

reviewed under Executive Order 12866.

NHTSA has considered the economic

implications of this regulation and

determined that it is not significant

within the meaning of the DOT
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 172 / Friday, September 5, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 46915

Regulatory Policies and Procedure. It

does not initiate a substantial regulatory

program or involve a change in policy.

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. Motor vehicle

manufacturers are generally not small

businesses within the meaning of the

Regulatory Flexibility Act. Accordingly,

no Regulatory Flexibility Analysis has

been prepared.

Executive Order 12612 (Federalism)

This action has been analyzed in

accordance with the principles and

criteria contained in Executive Order

12612 on ‘‘Federalism.’’ It has been

determined that the rulemaking action

does not have sufficient federalism

implications to warrant the preparation

of a Federalism Assessment.

National Environmental Policy Act

NHTSA has analyzed this rulemaking

action for purposes of the National

Environmental Policy Act. The

rulemaking action will not have a

significant effect upon the environment.

There is no environmental impact

associated with adaptation of test

procedures to make them more

appropriate for vehicles already

required to comply with the Federal

motor vehicle safety standards. The

rulemaking action would not have a

direct effect. However, to the extent that

this rulemaking might facilitate the

introduction of EVs which are powered

by an electric motor drawing current

from rechargeable storage batteries, fuel

cells, or other portable sources of

electric current, and which may include

a nonelectrical source of power

designed to charge batteries and

components thereof, the rulemaking

would have a beneficial effect upon the

environment and reduce fuel

consumption because EVs emit no

hydrocarbon emissions and do not

depend directly upon fossil fuels to

propel them.

Executive Order 12778 (Civil Justice

Reform)

This rule will not have any retroactive

effect. Under 49 U.S.C. 30103, whenever

a Federal motor vehicle safety standard

is in effect, a state may not adopt or

maintain a safety standard applicable to

the same aspect of performance which

is not identical to the Federal standard.

Section 30161 of Title 49 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 as follows:

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115,

30117, 30166; delegation of authority at 49

CFR 1.50.

§ 571.105 [Amended]

2. Section 571.105 is amended by:

a. Revising its heading;

b. Revising S1, S3, the definitions of

‘‘backup system’’ and ‘‘split service

brake system’’ in S4 and adding to S4,

in alphabetical order, definitions of

‘‘Electric vehicle or EV’’, ‘‘Electricallyactuated service brakes’’, and

‘‘Regenerative braking system or RBS’’;

c. Amending S5.1.1.4 to add a

sentence at the end thereof below the

undesignated table;

d. Adding S5.1.2.3, S5.1.2.4, and

S5.1.3.5;

e . Revising the introductory text of

S5.3.1 and adding S5.3.1 (e), (f), and (g);

f. Revising the introductory text of

S5.3.5(c)(1) and S5.4.3;

g. Withdrawing the revision of S5.5

and additions of S5.5.1 and S5.5.2

published at 60 FR 13256, Mar. 10,

1995, and the revision of S5.5.1

published at 60 FR 63979, Dec. 13, 1995

that were to become effective March 1,

1999, and revising S5.5 as currently in

effect and adding S5.5.1 and S5.5.2;

h. Adding S6.2 through S6.2.6;

i. Revising the introductory text of

S7.7.1.3 and adding S7.7.1.3(c);

j. Adding S7.9.5 and S7.9.6; and

k. Adding S7.10.3

The revised and added heading and

paragraphs read as follows:

§ 571.105 Standard No. 105; Hydraulic and

electric brake systems.

S1. Scope. This standard specifies

requirements for hydraulic and electric

service brake systems, and associated

parking brake systems.

* * * * *

S3. Application.

(a) This standard applies to the

following vehicles with hydraulic or

electric brake systems: multipurpose

passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses,

and to passenger cars manufactured

before September 1, 2000.

(b) This standard, at the option of a

manufacturer of a passenger car,

multipurpose passenger vehicle, truck,

or bus, with an electric brake system,

does not apply before September 1,

1998.

(c) At the option of the manufacturer,

passenger cars with hydraulic or electric

brake systems manufactured before

September 1, 2000, may comply with

the requirements of Federal Motor

Vehicle Safety Standard No. 135,

Passenger Car Brake Systems, instead of

the requirements of this standard.

S4. Definitions.

* * * * *

Backup system means a portion of a

service brake system, such as a pump,

that automatically supplies energy, in

the event of a primary brake power

source failure.

* * * * *

Electric vehicle or EV means a motor

vehicle that is powered by an electric

motor drawing current from

rechargeable storage batteries, fuel cells,

or other portable sources of electrical

current, and which may include a nonelectrical source of power designed to

charge batteries and components

thereof.

Electrically-actuated service brakes

means service brakes that utilize

electrical energy to actuate the

foundation brakes.

* * * * *

Regenerative braking system or RBS

means an electrical energy system that

is installed in an EV for recovering or

dissipating kinetic energy, and which

uses the propulsion motor(s) as a

retarder for partial braking of the EV

while returning electrical energy to the

propulsion batteries or dissipating

electrical energy.

* * * * *

Split service brake system means a

brake system consisting of two or more

subsystems actuated by a single control,

designed so that a single failure in any

subsystem (such as a leakage-type

failure of a pressure component of a

hydraulic subsystem except structural

failure of a housing that is common to

two or more subsystems, or an electrical

failure in an electric subsystem) does

not impair the operation of any other

subsystem.

* * * * *

S5.1.1.4 * * * For an EV, the speed

attainable in 2 miles is determined with

the propulsion batteries at a state of

charge of not less than 95 percent at the

beginning of the run.

S5.1.2 Partial failure.

* * * * *
46916 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 172 / Friday, September 5, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

S5.1.2.3 For a vehicle manufactured

with a service brake system in which

the brake signal is transmitted

electrically between the brake pedal and

some or all of the foundation brakes,

regardless of the means of actuation of

the foundation brakes, the vehicle shall

be capable of stopping from 60 mph

within the corresponding distance

specified in Column IV of Table II with

any single failure in any circuit that

electrically transmits the brake signal,

and with all other systems intact.

S5.1.2.4 For an EV manufactured with

a service brake system that incorporates

RBS, the vehicle shall be capable of

stopping from 60 mph within the

corresponding distance specified in

Column IV of Table II with any single

failure in the RBS, and with all other

systems intact.

* * * * *

S5.1.3.5 Electric brakes. Each vehicle

with electrically-actuated service brakes

(brake power unit) shall comply with

the requirements of S5.1.3.1 with any

single electrical failure in the

electrically-actuated service brakes and

all other systems intact.

* * * * *

S5.3 Brake system indicator lamp.

* * *

S5.3.1 An indicator lamp shall be

activated when the ignition (start)

switch is in the ‘‘on’’ (‘‘run’’) position

and whenever any of the conditions (a)

or (b), (c), (d), (e), (f), and (g) occur:

* * * * *

(e) For a vehicle with electricallyactuated service brakes, failure of the

source of electric power to the brakes,

or diminution of state of charge of the

batteries to less than a level specified by

the manufacturer for the purpose of

warning a driver of degraded brake

performance.

(f) For a vehicle with electric

transmission of the service brake control

signal, failure of a brake control circuit.

(g) For an EV with RBS that is part of

the service brake system, failure of the

RBS. An amber lamp may be used

displaying the symbol ‘‘RBS.’’ RBS

failure in a system that is part of the

service brake system may also be

indicated by an amber lamp that also

indicates ABS failure and displays the

symbol ‘‘ABS/RBS’’.

* * * * *

S5.3.5 * * *

(c)(1) If separate indicators are used

for one or more of the conditions

described in S5.3.1(a) through S5.3.1(g)

of this standard, the indicator display

shall include the word ‘‘Brake’’ and

appropriate additional labeling, except

as provided in (c)(1) (A) through (D) of

this paragraph.

* * * * *

S5.4.3 Reservoir labeling—Each

vehicle equipped with hydraulic brakes

shall have a brake fluid warning

statement that reads as follows, in

letters at least one-eighth of an inch

high: ‘‘WARNING, Clean filler cap

before removing. Use only lll fluid

from a sealed container.’’ (Inserting the

recommended type of brake fluid as

specified in 49 CFR 571.116, e.g., ‘‘DOT

3’’). The lettering shall be—* * *

S5.5 Antilock and variable

proportioning brake systems.

S5.5.1 On and after March 1, 1999,

each vehicle with a GVWR greater than

10,000 pounds, except for any vehicle

that has a speed attainable in 2 miles of

not more than 33 mph, shall be

equipped with an antilock brake system

that directly controls the wheels of at

least one front axle and the wheels of at

least one rear axle of the vehicle. On

and after March 1, 1999, on each vehicle

with a GVWR greater than 10,000

pounds but not greater than 12,000

pounds, the antilock brake system may

also directly control the wheels of the

drive axle by means of a single sensor

in the drive line. Wheels on other axles

of the vehicle may be indirectly

controlled by the antilock brake system.

S5.5.2 In the event of any failure

(structural or functional) in an antilock

or variable proportioning brake system,

the vehicle shall be capable of meeting

the stopping distance requirements

specified in S5.1.2 for service brake

system partial failure. For an EV that is

equipped with both ABS and RBS that

is part of the service brake system, the

ABS must control the RBS.

* * * * *

S6.2 Electric vehicles and electric

brakes.

S6.2.1 The state of charge of the

propulsion batteries is determined in

accordance with SAE Recommended

Practice J227a, Electric Vehicle Test

Procedure, February 1976. The

applicable sections of J227a are 3.2.1

through 3.2.4, 3.3.1 through 3.3.2.2,

3.4.1 and 3.4.2, 4.2.1, 5.2, 5.2.1, and 5.3.

S6.2.2 At the beginning of the first

effectiveness test specified in S7.3, and

at the beginning of each burnishing

procedure, each EV’s propulsion battery

is at the maximum state of charge

recommended by the manufacturer, as

stated in the vehicle operator’s manual

or on a label that is permanently

attached to the vehicle, or, if the

manufacturer has made no

recommendation, at a state of charge of

not less than 95 percent. If a battery is

replaced rather than recharged, the

replacement battery is to be charged and

measured for state of charge in

accordance with these procedures.

During each burnish procedure, each

propulsion battery is restored to the

recommended state of charge or a state

of charge of not less than 95 percent

after each increment of 40 burnish stops

until each burnish procedure is

complete. The batteries may be charged

at a more frequent interval if, during a

particular 40-stop increment, the EV is

incapable of achieving the initial

burnish test speed. During each burnish

procedure, the propulsion batteries may

be charged by an external means or

replaced by batteries that are charged to

the state of charge recommended by the

manufacturer or a state of charge of not

less than 95 percent. For EVs having a

manual control for setting the level of

regenerative braking, the manual

control, at the beginning of each burnish

procedure, is set to provide maximum

regenerative braking throughout the

burnish.

S6.2.3 At the beginning of each

performance test in the test sequence

(S7,3, S7.5, S7.7 through S7.11, and

S7.13 through S7.19 of this standard),

unless otherwise specified, each

propulsion battery of an EV is at the

maximum state of charge recommended

by the manufacturer, as stated in the

vehicle operator’s manual or on a label

that is permanently attached to the

vehicle, or, if the manufacturer has

made no recommendation, at a state of

charge of not less than 95 percent. If

batteries are replaced rather than

recharged, each replacement battery

shall be charged and measured for state

of charge in accordance with these

procedures. No further charging of any

propulsion battery occurs during any of

the performance tests in the test

sequence of this standard. If the

propulsion batteries are depleted during

a test sequence such that the vehicle

reaches automatic shut-down, will not

accelerate, or the low state of charge

warning lamp is illuminated, the

vehicle is to be accelerated to brake test

speed by auxiliary means.

S6.2.4 (a) For an EV equipped with

RBS, the RBS is considered to be part

of the service brake system if it is

automatically controlled by an

application of the service brake control,

if there is no means provided for the

driver to disconnect or otherwise

deactivate it, and if it is activated in all

transmission positions, including

neutral. The RBS is operational during

all burnishes and all tests, except for the

test of a failed RBS.

(b) For an EV equipped with an RBS

that is not part of the service brake

system, the RBS is operational and set
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 172 / Friday, September 5, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 46917

to produce the maximum regenerative

braking effect during the burnishes, and

is disabled during the test procedures. If

the vehicle is equipped with a neutral

gear that automatically disables the

RBS, the test procedures which are

designated to be conducted in gear may

be conducted in neutral.

S6.2.5 For tests conducted ‘‘in

neutral,’’ the operator of an EV with no

‘‘neutral’’ position (or other means such

as a clutch for disconnecting the drive

train from the propulsion motor(s)) does

not apply any electromotive force to the

propulsion motor(s). Any electromotive

force that is applied to the propulsion

motor(s) automatically remains in effect

unless otherwise specified by the test

procedure.

S6.2.6 A vehicle equipped with

electrically-actuated service brakes also

performs the following test series.

Conduct 10 stopping tests from a speed

of 100 kph or the maximum vehicle

speed, whichever is less. At least two of

the 10 stopping distances must be less

than or equal to 70 meters. The vehicle

is loaded to GVWR for these tests and

the transmission is in the neutral

position when the service brake control

is actuated and throughout the

remainder of the test. The battery or

batteries providing power to those

electrically-actuated brakes, at the

beginning of each test, shall be in a

depleted state of charge for conditions

(a), (b), or (c) of this paragraph as

appropriate. An auxiliary means may be

used to accelerate an EV to test speed.

(a) For an EV equipped with

electrically-actuated service brakes

deriving power from the propulsion

batteries, and with automatic shut-down

capability of the propulsion motor(s),

the propulsion batteries are at not more

than five percent above the EV actual

automatic shut-down critical value. The

critical value is determined by

measuring the state-of-charge of each

propulsion battery at the instant that

automatic shut-down occurs and

averaging the states-of-charge recorded.

(b) For an EV equipped with

electrically-actuated service brakes

deriving power from the propulsion

batteries, and with no automatic shutdown capability of the propulsion

motor(s), the propulsion batteries are at

an average of not more than five percent

above the actual state of charge at which

the brake failure warning signal,

required by S5.3.1(e) of this standard, is

illuminated.

(c) For a vehicle which has an

auxiliary battery (or batteries) that

provides electrical energy to operate the

electrically-actuated service brakes, the

auxiliary battery(batteries) is (are) at (at

an average of) not more than five

percent above the actual state of charge

at which the brake failure warning

signal, required by S5.3.1(e) of this

standard, is illuminated.

* * * * *

S7.7.1 Test procedure for

requirements of S5.2.1.

* * * * *

S7.7.1.3 With the vehicle held

stationary by means of the service brake

control, apply the parking brake by a

single application of the force specified

in (a), (b), or (c) of this paragraph,

except that a series of applications to

achieve the specified force may be made

in the case of a parking brake system

design that does not allow the

application of the specified force in a

single application:

* * * * *

(c) For a vehicle using an electricallyactivated parking brake, apply the

parking brake by activating the parking

brake control.

* * * * *

S7.9 Service brake system test—

partial failure.

* * * * *

S7.9.5 For a vehicle in which the

brake signal is transmitted electrically

between the brake pedal and some or all

of the foundation brakes, regardless of

the means of actuation of the foundation

brakes, the tests in S7.9.1 through S7.9.3

of this standard are conducted by

inducing any single failure in any

circuit that electrically transmits the

brake signal, and all other systems

intact. Determine whether the brake

system indicator lamp is activated when

the failure is induced.

S7.9.6 For an EV with RBS that is

part of the service brake system, the

tests specified in S7.9.1 through S7.9.3

are conducted with the RBS

disconnected and all other systems

intact. Determine whether the brake

system indicator lamp is activated when

the RBS is disconnected.

* * * * *

S7.10 Service brake systeminoperative brake power unit or brake

power assist unit test. (For vehicles

equipped with brake power unit or

brake power assist unit.)

* * * * *

S7.10.3 Electric brakes.

(a) For vehicles with electricallyactuated service brakes, the tests in

S7.10.1 or S7.10.2 are conducted with

any single electrical failure in the

electric brake system instead of the

brake power or brake power assist

systems, and all other systems intact.

(b) For EVs with RBS that is part of

the service brake system, the tests in

S7.10.1 or S7.10.2 are conducted with

the RBS discontinued and all other

systems intact.

3. Section 571.135 is amended by:

a. Revising S3;

b. Revising the definitions of

‘‘maximum speed’’, and ‘‘split service

brake system’’ in S4, and adding in S4,

in alphabetical order, definitions for

‘‘Electric vehicle’’, ‘‘Electricallyactuated service brakes’’, and

‘‘Regenerative braking system’’;

c. Adding S5.1.3;

d. Revising the introductory text of

S5.4.3 and S5.5.1 and adding S5.5.1

(e),(f), and (g);

e. Revising the introductory text of

S5.5.5(d);

f. Adding S6.3.11.1, S6.3.11.2,

S6.3.11.3, S6.3.12, and S6.3.13;

g. Adding S7.2.4(f), S7.4.5.1, and

S7.7.3(h)

h. Revising S7.10, S7.10.3(f), and

S7.10.4;

i. Adding S7.11.3 (m) and (n); and

j. Revising S7.12.2(i).

The revised and added paragraphs

read as follows:

§ 571.135 Standard No. 135; Passenger

Car Brake Systems.

* * * * *

S3 Application. This standard applies

to passenger cars manufactured on or

after September 1, 2000. In addition,

passenger cars manufactured before

September 1, 2000 may, at the option of

the manufacturer, meet the

requirements of this standard instead of

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard

No. 105 Hydraulic and Electric Brake

Systems.

S4. Definitions.

* * * * *

Electric vehicle or EV means a motor

vehicle that is powered by an electric

motor drawing current from

rechargeable storage batteries, fuel cells,

or other portable sources of electrical

current, and which may include a nonelectrical source of power designed to

charge batteries and components

thereof.

Electrically-actuated service brakes

means service brakes that utilize

electrical energy to actuate the

foundation brakes.

* * * * *

Maximum speed of a vehicle or VMax

means the highest speed attainable by

accelerating at a maximum rate from a

standing start for a distance of 3.2 km

(2 miles) on a level surface, with the

vehicle at its lightly loaded vehicle

weight, and, if an EV, with the

propulsion batteries at a state of charge

of not less than 95 percent at the

beginning of the run.

* * * * *
46918 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 172 / Friday, September 5, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

Regenerative braking system or RBS

means an electrical energy system that

is installed in an EV for recovering or

dissipating kinetic energy, and which

uses the propulsion motor(s) as a

retarder for partial braking of the EV

while returning electrical energy to the

propulsion battery(s) or dissipating

electrical energy.

Split service brake system means a

brake system consisting of two or more

subsystems actuated by a single control,

designed so that a single failure in any

subsystem (such as a leakage-type

failure of a pressure component of a

hydraulic subsystem except structural

failure of a housing that is common to

two or more subsystems, or an electrical

failure in an electric subsystem) does

not impair the operation of any other

subsystem.

* * * * *

S5.1.3 Regenerative braking system.

(a) For an EV equipped with RBS, the

RBS is considered to be part of the

service brake system if it is

automatically activated by an

application of the service brake control,

if there is no means provided for the

driver to disconnect or otherwise

deactivate it, and if it is activated in all

transmission positions, including

neutral.

(b) For an EV that is equipped with

both ABS and RBS that is part of the

service brake system, the ABS must

control the RBS.

* * * * *

S5.4.3. Reservoir labeling. Each

vehicle equipped with hydraulic brakes

shall have a brake fluid warning

statement that reads as follows, in

letters at least 3.2 mm (1⁄8 inch) high:

‘‘WARNING: Clean filler cap before

removing. Use only lll fluid from a

sealed container.’’ (Inserting the

recommended type of brake fluid as

specified in 49 CFR 571.116, e.g.,‘‘DOT

3.’’) The lettering shall be:

* * * * *

S5.5.1. Activation. An indicator shall

be activated when the ignition (start)

switch is in the ‘‘on’’ (‘‘run’’) position

and whenever any of conditions (a)

through (g) occur:

* * * * *

(e) For a vehicle with electricallyactuated service brakes, failure of the

source of electric power to those brakes,

or diminution of state of charge of the

batteries to less than a level specified by

the manufacturer for the purpose of

warning a driver of degraded brake

performance.

(f) For a vehicle with electric

transmission of the service brake control

signal, failure of a brake control circuit.

(g) For an EV with a regenerative

braking system that is part of the service

brake system, failure of the RBS. An

amber lamp may be used displaying the

symbol ‘‘RBS.’’ RBS failure in a system

that is part of the service brake system

may also be indicated by an amber lamp

that also indicates ABS failure and

displays the symbol ‘‘ABS/RBS’’.

* * * * *

S5.5.5. Labeling.

* * * * *

(d) If separate indicators are used for

one or more of the conditions described

in S5.5.1(a) through S5.5.1(g), the

indicators shall display the following

wording:

* * * * *

S6.3.11 State of charge of batteries for

EVs.

S6.3.11.1 The state of charge of the

propulsion batteries is determined in

accordance with SAE Recommended

Practice J227a, Electric Vehicle Test

Procedure, February 1976. The

applicable sections of J227a are 3.2.1

through 3.2.4, 3.3.1 through 3.3.2.2,

3.4.1 and 3.4.2, 4.2.1, 5.2, 5.2.1 and 5.3.

S6.3.11.2 At the beginning of the

burnish procedure (S7.1 of this

standard) in the test sequence, each

propulsion battery is at the maximum

state of charge recommended by the

manufacturer, as stated in the vehicle

operator’s manual or on a label that is

permanently attached to the vehicle, of,

if the manufacturer has made no

recommendation, not less than 95

percent. During the 200-stop burnish

procedure, the propulsion batteries are

restored to the maximum state of charge

determined as above, after each

increment of 40 burnish stops until the

burnish procedure is complete. The

batteries may be charged at a more

frequent interval during a particular 40-

stop increment only if the EV is

incapable of achieving the initial

burnish test speed during that

increment. During the burnish

procedure, the propulsion batteries may

be charged by external means or

replaced by batteries that are at a state

of charge of not less than 95 percent. For

an EV having a manual control for

setting the level of regenerative braking,

the manual control, at the beginning of

the burnish procedure, is set to provide

maximum regenerative braking

throughout the burnish.

S6.3.11.3 At the beginning of each

performance test in the test sequence

(S7.2 through S7.17 of this standard),

unless otherwise specified, an EV’s

propulsion batteries are at the state of

charge recommended by the

manufacturer, as stated in the vehicle

operator’s manual or on a label that is

permanently attached to the vehicle, or,

if the manufacturer has made no

recommendation, at a state of charge of

not less than 95 percent. No further

charging of any propulsion battery

occurs during any of the performance

tests in the test sequence of this

standard. If the propulsion batteries are

depleted during a test sequence such

that the vehicle reaches automatic shutdown, will not accelerate, or the low

state of charge brake warning lamp is

illuminated, the vehicle is to be

accelerated to brake test speed by

auxiliary means. If a battery is replaced

rather than recharged, the replacement

battery shall be charged and measured

for state of charge in accordance with

these procedures.

S6.3.12 State of charge of batteries

for electrically-actuated service brakes.

A vehicle equipped with electricallyactuated service brakes also performs

the following test series. Conduct 10

stopping tests from a speed of 100 kph

or the maximum vehicle speed,

whichever is less. At least two of the 10

stopping distances must be less than or

equal to 70 meters. The vehicle is

loaded to GVWR and the transmission is

in the neutral position when the service

brake control is actuated and throughout

the remainder of the test. Each battery

providing power to the electricallyactuated service brakes, shall be in a

depleted state of charge for conditions

(a), (b), or (c) of this paragraph as

appropriate. An auxiliary means may be

used to accelerate an EV to test speed.

(a) For an EV equipped with

electrically-actuated service brakes

deriving power from the propulsion

batteries and with automatic shut-down

capability of the propulsion motor(s),

the propulsion batteries are at not more

than five percent above the EV actual

automatic shut-down critical value. The

critical value is determined by

measuring the state-of-charge of each

propulsion battery at the instant that

automatic shut-down occurs.

(b) For an EV equipped with

electrically-actuated service brakes

deriving power from the propulsion

batteries and with no automatic shutdown capability of the propulsion

motor(s), the propulsion batteries are at

an average of not more than five percent

above the actual state of charge at which

the brake failure warning signal,

required by S5.5.1(e) of this standard, is

illuminated.

(c) For a vehicle which has one or

more auxiliary batteries that provides

electrical energy to operate the

electrically-actuated service brakes,

each auxiliary battery is at not more

than five percent above the actual state

of charge at which the brake failure
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 172 / Friday, September 5, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 46919

1They were first published at 49 CFR part 181.

2This section provided that the ICC ‘‘may

prescribe a uniform accounting system for classes

of carriers providing . . . transportation subject to

the jurisdiction of the Commission under

subchapters II, III, and IV . . . of this title.’’

warning signal, required by S5.5.1(e) of

this standard, is illuminated.

S6.3.13 Electric vehicles.

S6.3.13.1 (a) For an EV equipped

with an RBS that is part of the service

brake system, the RBS is operational

during the burnish and all tests, except

for the test of a failed RBS.

(b) For an EV equipped with an RBS

that is not part of the service brake

system, the RBS is operational and set

to produce the maximum regenerative

braking effect during the burnish, and is

disabled during the test procedures. If

the vehicle is equipped with a neutral

gear that automatically disables the

RBS, the test procedures which are

designated to be conducted in gear may

be conducted in neutral.

S6.3.13.2 For tests conducted ‘‘in

neutral’’, the operator of an EV with no

‘‘neutral’’ position (or other means such

as a clutch for disconnecting the drive

train from the propulsion motor(s)) does

not apply any electromotive force to the

propulsion motor(s). Any electromotive

force that is applied to the propulsion

motor(s) automatically remains in effect

unless otherwise specified by the test

procedure.

* * * * *

S7.2.4 Performance requirements.

* * * * *

(f) An EV with RBS that is part of the

service brake system shall meet the

performance requirements over the

entire normal operating range of the

RBS.

* * * * *

S7.4.5 Performance requirements.

* * *

S7.4.5.1 An EV with RBS that is part

of the service brake system shall meet

the performance requirement over the

entire normal operating range of the

RBS.

* * * * *

S7.7.3. Test conditions and

procedures.

* * * * *

(h) For an EV, this test is conducted

with no electromotive force applied to

the vehicle propulsion motor(s), but

with brake power or power assist still

operating, unless cutting off the

propulsion motor(s) also disables those

systems.

* * * * *

S7.10 Partial failure.

* * * * *

S7.10.3. Test conditions and

procedures.

* * * * *

(f) Alter the service brake system to

produce any single failure. For a

hydraulic circuit, this may be any single

rupture or leakage type failure, other

than a structural failure of a housing

that is common to two or more

subsystems. For a vehicle in which the

brake signal is transmitted electrically

between the brake pedal and some or all

of the foundation brakes, regardless of

the means of actuation of the foundation

brakes, this may be any single failure in

any circuit that electrically transmits the

brake signal. For an EV with RBS that

is part of the service brake system, this

may be any single failure in the RBS.

* * * * *

S7.10.4 Performance requirements.

For vehicles manufactured with a split

service brake system, in the event of any

failure in a single subsystem, as

specified in S7.10.3(f) of this standard,

and after activation of the brake system

indicator as specified in S5.5.1, the

remaining portions of the service brake

system shall continue to operate and

shall stop the vehicle as specified in

S7.10.4(a) or S7.10.4(b). For vehicles not

manufactured with a split service brake

system, in the event of any failure in

any component of the service brake

system, as specified in S7.10.3(f), and

after activation of the brake system

indicator as specified in S5.5.1 of this

standard, the vehicle shall, by operation

of the service brake control, stop 10

times consecutively as specified in

S7.10.4(a) or S7.10.4(b).

S7.11.3. Test conditions and

procedures.

* * * * *

(m) For vehicles with electricallyactuated service brakes (brake power

unit), this test is conducted with any

single electrical failure in the

electrically-actuated service brakes

instead of a failure of any other brake

power or brake power assist unit, and

all other systems intact.

(n) For an EV with RBS that is part of

the service brake system, this test is

conducted with the RBS disconnected

and all other systems intact.

* * * * *

S7.12.2. Test conditions and

procedures.

* * * * *

(i) For a vehicle equipped with

mechanically-applied parking brakes,

make a single application of the parking

brake control with a force not exceeding

the limits specified in S7.12.2(b). For a

vehicle using an electrically-activated

parking brake, apply the parking brake

by activating the parking brake control.

* * * * *

Issued on: August 26, 1997.

Ricardo Martinez, M.D.

Administrator.

[FR Doc. 97–23318 Filed 9–4–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Surface Transportation Board

49 CFR Part 1206

[STB Ex Parte No. 569]

Removal of Obsolete Motor Passenger

Carrier Accounting Regulations

AGENCY: Surface Transportation Board,

DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The Surface Transportation

Board (Board) is removing from the

Code of Federal Regulations obsolete

rules concerning the Uniform System of

Accounts for motor carriers of

passengers.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This rule is effective

September 5, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Beryl Gordon, (202) 565–1600. [TDD for

the hearing impaired: (202) 565–1695.]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Effective

January 1, 1996, the ICC Termination

Act of 1995, Pub. L. No. 104–88, 109

Stat. 803 (ICCTA), abolished the

Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC

or Commission) and established the

Board within the Department of

Transportation. Section 204(a) of the

ICCTA provides that ‘‘[t]he Board shall

promptly rescind all regulations

established by the [ICC] that are based

on provisions of law repealed and not

substantively reenacted by this Act.’’

The regulations in part 1206,

establishing a Uniform System of

Accounts (USOA) for motor carriers of

passengers, were originally issued in

1937. In response to the Motor Carrier

Act of 1935, the ICC adopted the

regulations pursuant to former section

204 of the Interstate Commerce Act. 2

FR 2689 (December 8, 1937).1 Section

204 was recodified in 1978 at 49 U.S.C.

11142.2 Motor passenger carriers used

the USOA to develop data for annual

and quarterly reports in accordance

with 49 CFR part 1249.

In Elimination of Acctg. & Reporting

Reqts. for Motor Carriers of Passengers,

3 I.C.C.2d 796 (1987), the ICC adopted

new accounting and reporting rules for

motor passenger carriers. The ICC

reduced the quarterly and annual

reports prescribed in 49 CFR 1249 to a

one-page format. The ICC also decided

that the USOA would no longer be

prescribed as the basis of motor carrier