Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 27 / Wednesday, February 9, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 6327

litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and

reduce burden.

Protection of Children

We have analyzed this rule under E.O.

13045, Protection of Children from

Environmental Health Risks and Safety

Risks. This rule is not an economically

significant rule and does not concern an

environmental risk to health or risk to

safety that may disproportionately affect

children.

Environment

The Coast Guard considered the

environmental impact of this rule and

concluded that under figure 2–1,

paragraph (32)(e) of Commandant

Instruction M16475.1C, this rule is

categorically excluded from further

environmental documentation because

promulgation of changes to drawbridge

regulations have been found to not have

a significant effect on the environment.

A ‘‘Categorical Exclusion

Determination’’ is available in the

docket for inspection or copying where

indicated under ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117

Bridges.

Regulations

For the reasons set out in the

preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33

CFR part 117 as follows:

PART 117—DRAWBRIDGE

OPERATION REGULATIONS

1. The authority citation for part 117

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 499; 49 CFR 1.46; 33

CFR 1.05–1(g); section 117.255 also issued

under the authority of Pub. L. 102–587, 106

Stat. 5039.

§ 117.617 [REMOVED]

2. Section 117.617 is removed.

Dated: January 25, 2000.

R.M. Larrabee,

Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander,

First Coast Guard District.

[FR Doc. 00–2896 Filed 2–8–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–15–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

Approval and Promulgation of

Implementation Plans

CFR Correction

In Title 40 of the Code of Federal

Regulations, part 52 (§§ 52.01 to

52.1018), revised as of July 1, 1999, page

533, § 52.820 is corrected by adding the

effective date note following the source

note as follows:

§ 52.820 Identification of plan.

* * * * *

Effective Date Note: At 64 FR 25827, May

13, 1999, § 52.820, paragraph (c) was

amended by revising the entries for ‘‘567–

20.2’’ in Chapter 20, ‘‘567–22.1, 567–22.203,

and 567–22.300’’ in Chapter 22, ‘‘567–23.1’’

in Chapter 23, ‘‘567–25.1’’ in Chapter 25, and

‘‘567–28.1’’ in Chapter 28, effective July 12,

1999. For the convenience of the user, the

superseded text is set forth as follows:

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 00–55502 Filed 2–8–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 1505–01–D

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration

49 CFR Part 571

Docket No. NHTSA 2000–6740

RIN 2127–AH64

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety

Standards; Hydraulic and Electric

Brake Systems; Passenger Car Brake

Systems

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic

Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT.

ACTION: Response to petitions for

reconsideration; final rule.

SUMMARY: This document responds to

two petitions for reconsideration of

amendments we made in September

1997 to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety

Standards Nos. 105 and 135 specifying

requirements for brake systems on

electric vehicles (EV). In response to the

petition by Hydro-Quebec of Canada, we

are allowing the use, under certain

conditions, of a regenerative braking

system (RBS) for EV testing in

accordance with S7.7 of Standard No.

135. This action is taken to facilitate

new technology in the braking system of

an EV. We are not amending Standard

Nos. 105 and 135 in response to the

petition for reconsideration by Toyota

Motor Sales USA Inc. Amending the

Standards as requested by Toyota may

degrade the safety of EVs by reducing

the stringency of the thermal tests.

DATES: The final rule is effective March

27, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Samuel Daniel, Vehicle Dynamics

Division, Office of Vehicle Safety

Standards, NHTSA (phone: 202–366–

4921).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Background

II. Petitions for Reconsideration

A. HQ’s Petition for Reconsideration

1. The Petition

2. Design of HQ’s EV Brake System

3. Amendments Recommended by HQ

4. Conclusions

B. Toyota’s Petition for Reconsideration

1. The Petition

2. Comparison of Thermal Tests in FMVSS

No. 135 and ECE R13–H

3. Amendments Recommended by Toyota

4. Conclusions

III. Additional Amendments—RBS

Malfunction Indicator Lamp

I. Background

On September 5, 1997, we amended

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards

(FMVSS) Nos. 105, Hydraulic Brake

Systems, and 135, Passenger Car Brake

Systems to accommodate EV brake

systems. See 62 FR 46907 for full

background information on this rule.

Electrically-powered vehicles have

unique performance characteristics that

do not permit them to be tested for

braking performance in the same way

that other light-duty vehicles are tested.

For example, because of the limited

range of EVs and the extensive travel

distance specified in several Federal

brake test series, we established

procedures for re-charging or replacing

the propulsion batteries during testing.

Most EVs have a feature called a

‘‘regenerative braking system’’ (RBS)

designed to extend the range of the

vehicle by as much as 10 to 20 percent

through conversion of vehicle kinetic

energy into electrical energy when the

vehicle is being decelerated. When

operating, the RBS provides a vehicle

deceleration, or braking force. The

September 1997 amendments also

established procedures for testing EV

braking systems and EVs equipped with

RBS.

We received two petitions for

reconsideration of the final rule, from

Hydro-Quebec of Canada (HQ), and

from Toyota Motor Sales Corporation

USA Inc. (Toyota).

II. Petitions for Reconsideration

A. HQ’s Petition for Reconsideration

1. The petition. HQ commented that

S7.7.3(h) of FMVSS No. 135, which

specifies that an EV with an RBS be

tested with the RBS inoperative during

the S7.7 Stops with Engine Off tests, is

inconsistent with other parts of FMVSS

No. 135. Specifically, the stopping

distance performance requirements of

S7.5, Cold Effectiveness and S7.7, Stops

with Engine Off, are identical; each test

requires that the vehicle be stopped

from 100 km/h (62 mph) within a

distance of 70 m (230 ft.). However, the

6328 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 27 / Wednesday, February 9, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

RBS must be inoperative for S7.7 testing

but operative for S7.5 testing. According

to HQ, its EV brake system cannot meet

the requirements of S7.7 without use of

the RBS.

HQ recommends amendments to

S7.7.3(h) that it believes are consistent

with the intent of S7.7, and allow RBS

use during the test. Amending FMVSS

No. 135 as petitioned for by HQ would

allow that company to meet the brake

performance requirements in FMVSS

No. 135 without altering its present EV

brake system design. We anticipate that

most EV manufacturers will certify their

vehicles to FMVSS No. 135 rather than

to FMVSS No. 105, because the latter

will not apply to passenger cars built on

and after September 1, 2000. What’s

more, FMVSS No. 105 will not apply to

any vehicles with a GVWR less than

3,500 kg. (7,716 lb.) produced on and

after September 1, 2002. HQ’s petition

refers specifically to FMVSS No. 135.

We shall also, below, examine its

relevance to compliance with brake

performance requirements of FMVSS

No. 105.

2. Design of HQ’s EV brake system.

According to its petition, HQ is

developing a four-wheel drive powertrain technology which features four inwheel electric motors. The technology is

aimed at producing sport utility

vehicles and passenger cars with

improved energy consumption, safety,

and emissions. The RBS and the

hydraulic brake system have

approximately the same braking force

capability. According to HQ, the braking

force developed by the RBS is not

dependent on the state of charge of the

propulsion system batteries, unlike most

production RBS. In the HQ system,

when the electrical energy produced by

the RBS is greater than the recharging

rate of the batteries, the excess electrical

energy is dissipated. As described in the

petition, the HQ EV RBS will function

if the propulsion batteries are disabled

or if the motors are not supplied with

electrical energy. According to HQ, the

hydraulic braking system has a lower

priority than the RBS in a series

compound braking system and does not

have the braking capacity to meet the

S7.7 requirements of FMVSS No. 135,

independent of the RBS.

3. Amendments recommended by HQ.

HQ cannot comply with S7.7.3(h) of

FMVSS No. 135, which specifies that

EVs must be tested for compliance with

S7.7, Stops with Engine Off, without

RBS. HQ offered two versions of

amendments for S7.7 that would allow

RBS to be operative during this test. HQ

believes that allowing the use of RBS

during the test specified in S7.7.3(h)

would not violate the intent of the test.

According to HQ, switching off the

power supply to the electric motors of

its EV does not disable the RBS.

HQ had previously commented on

this issue in responding to the Notice of

Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), 60 FR

49544. HQ requested in its comments on

the NPRM that a definition or

interpretation be provided for the term

‘‘no electromotive force’’ in S7.7.3(h).

HQ also indicated in its comments that

the HQ EV design had no failure mode

that would be directly analogous to an

engine stalling in an internal

combustion engine (ICE) vehicle.

Engine stalling of a vehicle with an

internal combustion engine (ICE) results

in loss of power to vacuum or

hydraulically operated brake power

units, brake power assist units, and

components of some antilock brake

systems (ABS). The purpose of the S7.7

test in FMVSS No. 135 is to ensure that

these components have sufficient

reserve capacity to bring the vehicle to

a complete stop, with acceptable

effectiveness, in the event of engine

stalling. We want to offer similar

assurances for the braking performance

of EVs.

In Section 7.C of the preamble for the

September 5, 1997 final rule, we agreed

with the comments on the NPRM from

other EV manufacturers stating that the

RBS is designed to convert some of the

kinetic energy dissipated during braking

into electrical energy to charge the

propulsion batteries, thus extending the

vehicle’s travel range. At that time, the

information available to us indicated

that the RBS system would not be a

major contributor to the braking

capacity of EVs. We decided, in the

September 1997 final rule, to require

EVs to meet the stopping performance

requirements of S7.7 without RBS.

According to HQ’s petition, the frontwheel hydraulic brakes would need to

be re-designed with increased braking

capacity for its EV to meet the

requirements of S7.7 without use of the

RBS. According to HQ, this would limit

HQ EV braking technology to small

vehicles and would not be feasible for

some intended applications such as

installation on compact sport utility

vehicles.

To deny HQ’s petition would require

it to conform with the apparent design

practices of the rest of the industry and

to redesign its brake system to meet the

final rule. However, we do not believe

it is in the public interest to restrict

alternative technology this early in the

development of RBS.

To resolve this issue, we have decided

to allow use of RBS during the S7.7.3(h)

test, if the RBS remains functional after

the supply of electric power to the

propulsion motor(s) has been switched

off (EV equivalent to engine stalling in

an ICE vehicle). If switching off the

electric power supply to the propulsion

motor(s) disables the RBS, then

S7.7.3(h) must be conducted without

use of the RBS.

We have decided to remove the term

‘‘electromotive force’’ from S7.7.3(h)

since the term may cause confusion, and

to replace it with the term ‘‘electrical

power.’’ Accordingly, we are amending

S7.7.3(h) of FMVSS No. 135 to read: For

an EV, this test is conducted with no

electrical power supplied to the

vehicle’s propulsion motor(s), but with

the RBS and brake power or power

assist still operating, unless cutting off

the supply of electrical power to the

propulsion motor(s) also disables those

systems.

We believe that this approach to a

resolution of the RBS use issues raised

by HQ will allow adequate flexibility in

EV braking system technology.

According to HQ, the technology is

available to produce in-wheel motor

regenerative braking with deceleration

rates only slightly lower than the

average deceleration rate required by

FMVSS No. 135 (0.56 g) for a fully

operational, cold brake system.

HQ also commented that there is an

inconsistency in the final rule between

S7.7, Stops with Engine Off, S7.10,

Hydraulic circuit failure, and S7.11,

Brake power unit or brake power assist

unit inoperative (System depleted). HQ

correctly noted that the maximum

stopping distance specified in S7.10 and

S7.11, which is 168 m, is more than

twice the stopping distance specified in

S7.7, whereas under the final rule, all

the EV tests, S7.7, S7.10, and S7.11 were

to be conducted without use of the RBS.

The procedure in S7.7 is a test of the

fully functional brake system rather

than a partially failed brake system, as

is the case with S7.10 and S7.11. The

inconsistency between the requirements

of these tests has been eliminated with

our decision to allow RBS use for testing

under S7.7.3(h) as long as switching off

the supply of electrical power to the

propulsion motor(s) does not disable the

RBS. The intent of the S7.7 test is to

ensure that brake system will stop the

vehicle with normal effectiveness when

the vehicle’s engine is not operating. For

ICE vehicles, the test is conducted by

switching off the engine ignition prior to

brake application. We are amending the

standard to require the analogous test

procedure for EVs.

We have also decided to retain the

requirement that an EV manufacturer

must certify that the vehicle meets S7.10

of FMVSS No. 135, test procedures

conducted to evaluate brake system

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 27 / Wednesday, February 9, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 6329

performance under partial brake failure

conditions. The test conditions and

procedures in S7.10.3(f) require that an

EV be tested for stopping performance

with the RBS disabled and all other

braking systems intact. Since the S7.10

test procedures apply to vehicles with a

partially disabled brake system, a longer

stopping distance is specified.

In addition to the amendments noted

above, we have decided that the

specification in S7.11(n) that EVs be

tested without RBS should be removed

because the RBS test requirements for

EVs in S7.10 and S7.11 are identical.

4. Conclusions. We believe that HQ

has identified some key issues with

regard to the test conditions and

requirements for EVs in the final rule

amending FMVSS No. 135. The HQ

petition has made us more aware that

the EV braking amendments adopted in

1997 need further revisions to

accommodate alternative EV braking

systems. According to HQ, its EV

braking system prioritizes RBS over the

hydraulic brake system. The two

systems are essentially connected in a

series arrangement in which the

hydraulic braking system is activated

when braking force requirements

approach the maximum capacity of the

RBS. The HQ EV braking system design

is based on in-wheel motor technology,

which may be used in the future by

other EV manufacturers.

We believe that these amendments

will maintain the safety benefits of

FMVSS No. 135 while improving the

ability of the standards to accommodate

unique EV brake system design features.

Vehicles in which RBS is functional

when the propulsion motor(s) are not

being supplied with electrical power

will be able to use the RBS for testing

designed to simulate loss of power to

the propulsion motor(s).

No further amendments to FMVSS

No. 105 appear necessary. The standard

does not contain a test for the fully

functional brake system with the engine

off in contrast to S7.7 of FMVSS No.

135. As a result, FMVSS No. 105 does

not include a test for the fully functional

brake system of an EV without use of

the RBS.

B. Toyota’s Petition for Reconsideration

1. The petition. Toyota stated it is

‘‘disappointed’’ that the September 1997

final rule amendments did not achieve

more harmonization with the European

light duty vehicle braking regulation,

ECE R13–H. Its petition did not make

specific recommendations for

amendments to FMVSS No. 135, but

asked us to harmonize the thermal test

procedures with those of ECE R13–H.

2. Comparison of the thermal tests in

FMVSS No. 135 and ECE R13–H.

a. Overall test specifications. FMVSS

No. 135 and ECE R13–H are essentially

the same with respect to the thermal test

procedures, conditions, and

requirements (Heating snubs, Hot

performance, Cooling stops, and

Recovery performance) for ICE vehicles,

but not for Evs. ECE R13–H allows use

of the RBS, whether or not the RBS is

part of the service brake system, for the

entire thermal test. FMVSS No. 135

allows an RBS that is not part of the

service brake system to be used only in

the burnish procedures, and not during

any other phases of brake system

performance testing, including the

thermal tests.

b. Comparison of four phases in the

thermal tests. The first phase of the

thermal test in ECE R13–H and S7.13 of

FMVSS No. 135, Heating procedure and

Heating Snubs, respectively, have

identical test procedures and conditions

for ICE vehicles. ECE R13–H (Annex 3

Paragraph 1.5.1, Heating procedure)

provides a specific procedure for testing

EVs, which is designed to accommodate

vehicles with insufficient power and

energy to complete the brake heating

procedure (in FMVSS No. 135, S7.13,

Heating Snubs) on a single charge. The

ECE procedure requires that the EV be

accelerated to the test speed (120 km/h

or 80 percent of maximum vehicle

velocity) for the first of 15 decelerations

(snubs) that reduce the vehicle speed to

one-half the initial speed. For each

subsequent deceleration in the

procedure, the speed for initiation of

braking is the speed reached after 45

seconds of maximum acceleration,

which may be lower than the speed

specified for the first test. By contrast,

FMVSS No. 135 does not provide

specific EV procedures or conditions for

the thermal tests.

In the second phase of the thermal

test series, ECE R–13H allows for the

initial speed for the Hot performance

tests to be the vehicle speed for the last

test run of the Heating Procedure. The

Hot performance test consists of two

braking tests with a 100 km/h test speed

immediately following the Heating

Procedure. The Hot Performance test

conditions and performance

requirements in ECE R13–H and No. 135

(S7.14) are nearly identical for ICE

vehicles and EVs. Each vehicle must

meet a performance criterion that is

based on a comparison of Hot

performance (No. 135, S7.14) test results

with the vehicle’s Cold effectiveness test

results (No. 135, S7.5).

The third phase of the thermal test is

referred to as the Recovery procedure in

ECE R13–H (Annex 3; 1.5.3) and Brake

cooling stops in FMVSS No. 135 (S7.15).

These procedures, which are identical

in the two regulations for all vehicles,

specify four stops from 50 km/h (31.1

mph) beginning immediately after the

Hot performance tests. These stops are

conducted at a constant deceleration

rate and are designed to simulate

normal braking.

The final phase of the thermal test

procedure is called Recovery

performance in both ECE R13–H and

FMVSS No. 135 (S7.16). This phase of

the thermal tests is designed to test the

performance of the brakes after heating

followed by normal brake use. The

performance requirements for this phase

of the thermal test are based on the cold

effectiveness test results for the vehicle.

Two recovery tests are required

beginning immediately after completion

of the fourth cooling stop (in FMVSS

No. 135, S7.16.3(f) and (i)). In this

phase, neither ECE R13–H nor FMVSS

No. 135 include specific procedures for

testing EVs.

3. Amendments recommended by

Toyota. Toyota stated that

harmonization between ECE R13–H and

FMVSS No. 135 had not been achieved

with the September 1997 amendments

to FMVSS No. 135 and also indicated

that the fade test (thermal test) should

be further harmonized. Specifically,

ECE R13–H allows use of RBS by EVs,

whether or not the RBS is part of the

service brake system, during all phases

of the thermal test. Toyota’s petition

requests that we allow RBS use during

the thermal tests for vehicles in which

RBS is not part of the service brake

system.

The ECE R13–H Heating procedure for

EVs allows a reduction of the test speed

during the acceleration and braking

cycles if a vehicle cannot maintain the

specified test speed for the entire

procedure. The regulation does not

specify, however, a minimum test speed

below which the EV Heating procedure

tests should not be conducted. Test

speeds below 40 km/h (25 mph) are

typically too low to allow proper

evaluation of a vehicle’s brake system.

Further, ECE R13–H does not provide

procedures or requirements for charging

or replacing the propulsion batteries for

an EV that is unable to accelerate to test

speed during the test procedure. Also,

ECE R13–H does not provide EV test

procedures for the Recovery procedure

portion of the thermal tests. These tests

are to be conducted immediately after

the Hot performance stops. Therefore,

an EV that completed the Hot

performance tests at a reduced speed

due to depleted batteries may not be

able to accelerate to the Recovery

procedure test speed of 50 km/h.

6330 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 27 / Wednesday, February 9, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

For those reasons, the thermal test

procedures for EVs in ECE R13–H are

not sufficiently clear or objective to be

adopted in FMVSS No. 135.

Toyota indicated that EVs in which

RBS is not part of the service brake

system may not be able to complete the

thermal tests on a single battery charge.

Toyota further implied that ECE R13H’s

allowance of RBS use may increase the

range of all EVs, including EVs in which

RBS is not part of the service brake

system, and enhance their ability

complete the thermal tests.

We do not believe the power and

energy requirements of the heating

cycle, or the entire thermal test, are

beyond the capability of the propulsion

systems of marketable EVs. We estimate

that the entire thermal tests (S7.13

Heating Snubs, S7.14 Hot performance,

S7.15 Brake cooling stops, and S7.16

Recovery performance) specified in

FMVSS No. 135 and ECE R13–H can be

completed with a total vehicle travel

distance of 30 kilometers (19 miles) or

less. However, the heating procedure/

snubs phase of the thermal test series is

essentially a series of 15 maximum

accelerations with short intervals

between to allow for braking. The

heating procedure/snubs phase is a

severe test of the power capacity of the

batteries although the energy

requirements are modest. However, if a

vehicle cannot complete the test

protocol on a single charge, the system

can be recharged pursuant to S6.11.3.

An RBS that is not part of the service

brake system may be deactivated by the

vehicle driver at any given time, thus

eliminating the braking force provided

by the RBS. NHTSA usually specifies

tests in our brake performance standards

that represent the most stringent

conditions that would be faced by

drivers on the road. Following this

practice, the final rule of September 7,

1997 did not allow use of RBS that is

not part of the service brake system

(driver-controlled), during brake

performance testing in FMVSS Nos. 135

and 105. It is also possible that the

stringency of the Hot performance test

and the Recovery performance test

would be reduced if these EVs with

driver-controlled RBS were allowed to

use RBS. The service brakes would

reach a lower temperature during the

S7.13 Heating snubs with RBS

operational than they would with the

RBS disabled. The magnitude of this

temperature reduction has not been

quantified, but any service brake

temperature reduction for the Hot

performance and Recovery performance

tests would tend to reduce the

stringency of the tests. The

improvement in brake performance

resulting from RBS use is a safety

benefit for EVs in which RBS is part of

the service brake system, but would not

necessarily be realized with RBS

controlled by the driver. Toyota did not

provide test data or other information

with which to evaluate the effect of RBS

use on the safety benefits of the thermal

tests. For these reasons, we do not

believe FMVSS No. 135 should be

amended to allow use of RBS that is not

part of the service brake system during

any phase of the thermal tests.

We did not specify unique conditions,

procedures, or requirements in 1997 for

conducting the thermal test on EVs.

However, we did provide procedures to

be used if a vehicle could not complete

a given test on a single propulsion

system charge (FMVSS No. 135,

S6.11.3.) Since FMVSS No. 135 has

provisions for testing EVs with depleted

propulsion battery(s), we do not believe

it is necessary to allow RBS use if RBS

is not part of the service brake system,

during any portion of the thermal test.

4. Conclusions. We believe the ECE

R13–H Heating procedure and the

Recovery procedure tests for EVs are not

sufficiently demanding or objective

when compared with the corresponding

FMVSS No. 135 portions of the thermal

test. Some of the test speeds reached

during the R13–H Heating procedure

may be too low for meaningful brake

performance evaluation. The entire

thermal test is required to be conducted

without interruption and ECE R13–H

does not provide procedures for

conducting the Hot performance or the

Recovery procedure tests if the vehicle

is not capable of accelerating to test

speed. We do not want to facilitate the

introduction of EVs in the United States

that are not tested in accordance with a

sufficiently demanding and objective

thermal test for brakes.

S6.3.11 State of charge of batteries of

FMVSS No. 135 allows EVs to achieve

the brake test speeds required in the

thermal test series (S7.13–S7.16) under

any battery state-of-charge condition. No

such provisions are included in ECE

R13–H. Allowing RBS to be operative

during the Heating procedure may not

be sufficient for some vehicles to

complete the thermal test series on a

single charge. As we have previously

stated, FMVSS No. 135 includes

procedures for EVs to assure that brake

test speeds can be reached if a vehicle’s

batteries are depleted and need to be

recharged or replaced to accelerate the

vehicle to test speeds under its own

power.

After our review of the Toyota

petition for reconsideration, ECE R13–

H, and FMVSS No. 135, we have

concluded that the ECE R13–H EV

thermal test conditions and procedures

should not be included in FMVSS Nos.

135 and 105. We have also concluded

that the use of an RBS that is not part

of the service brake system during the

thermal test would have a negative

impact on the safety benefits of these

tests, since the stringency of the tests

would not be representative of

encountered driving conditions.

For these reasons, we are denying

Toyota’s petition for reconsideration.

We will continue to allow RBS use, for

vehicles in which an RBS is part of the

service brake system, in all testing

except when the use of RBS is explicitly

prohibited.

III. Additional Amendments—RBS

Malfunction Indicator Lamp

The September 1997 final rule

required that a RBS malfunction

indicator lamp be mounted in front of

and in clear view of the driver, FMVSS

No. 105, S5.3 Brake system indicator

lamp. S5.3 is organized with a

description of the activation protocol in

S5.3.1 and a description of the lamp

word, symbol, and color of the lamp in

S5.3.5. Inadvertently, we placed the

activation protocol, the word or symbol

to be used for RBS, and the color of the

symbol in S5.3.1. For consistency and to

eliminate confusion, we are taking this

opportunity to place the various aspects

of the malfunction lamp description in

the proper section of FMVSS No. 105.

We are making a similar amendment to

FMVSS No. 135 for the same reason.

Also, for the reason stated previously,

the references to the color ‘‘amber’’ in

the description of the RBS malfunction

indicator lamp are removed and the

color ‘‘yellow’’ is substituted. This

change will make the color of the RBS

malfunction warning indicator

consistent with other malfunction

indicator lamps.

Effective Dates

Because FMVSS No. 105 and FMVSS

No. 135 are in effect, because EVs are

being manufactured to comply with

these standards, because the

amendments serve to clarify existing

requirements, and because the

amendments do not affect existing

requirements for vehicles with

hydraulic brake systems, it is hereby

found, for good cause shown, that an

effective date earlier than 180 days after

issuance of the amendments is in the

public interest. Accordingly, the

amendments are effective March 27,

2000.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 27 / Wednesday, February 9, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 6331

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

Regulatory Policies and Procedure. The

rule does not affect 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. Accordingly, no

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis has been

prepared.

The following is NHTSA’s statement

providing the factual basis for the

certification (5 U.S.C. Sec. 605(b)). The

amendment primarily affects

manufacturers of motor vehicles.

Manufacturers of motor vehicles are

generally not small businesses within

the meaning of the Regulatory

Flexibility Act.

The Small Business Administration’s

regulations define a small business in

part as a business entity ‘‘which

operates primarily within the United

States.’’ (13 CFR 121.105(a)) SBA’s size

standards are organized according to

Standard Industrial Classification Codes

(SIC), SIC Code 3711 ‘‘Motor Vehicles

and Passenger Car Bodies’’ has a small

business size standard of 1,000

employees or fewer.

For manufacturers of passenger cars

and light trucks, NHTSA estimates there

are at most five small manufacturers of

passenger cars in the U.S. Since each

manufacturer serves a niche market,

often specializing in replicas of

‘‘classic’’ cars, production for each

manufacturer is fewer than 100 cars per

year. Thus, there are at most 500

passenger cars manufactured per year by

U.S. small businesses.

In contrast, in 1999, there are

approximately nine large manufacturers

producing passenger cars, and light

trucks in the U.S. Total U.S.

manufacturing production per year is

approximately 15 to 15 and a half

million passenger cars and light trucks

per year. NHTSA does not believe small

businesses manufacture even 0.1

percent of total U.S. passenger car and

light truck production per year.

Further, small organizations and

governmental jurisdictions are not be

significantly affected as the price of

motor vehicles ought not to change as

the result of this final rule.

Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

Executive Order 13132 on

‘‘Federalism’’ requires us to develop an

accountable process to ensure

‘‘meaningful and timely input by State

and local officials in the development of

‘‘regulatory policies that have

federalism implications.’’ The E.O.

defines this phrase to include

regulations ‘‘that have substantial direct

effects on the States, on the relationship

between the national government and

the States, or on the distribution of

power and responsibilities among the

various levels of government.’’ This

final rule, which regulates the

manufacture of certain motor vehicles,

will not have substantial direct effect on

the States, on the relationship between

the national government and the States,

or on the distribution of power and

responsibilities among the various

levels of government, as specified in

E.O. 13132.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4) requires

agencies to prepare a written assessment

of the cost, benefits, and other effects of

proposed or final rules that include a

Federal mandate likely to result in the

expenditure by State, local, or tribal

governments, in the aggregate, or by the

private sector, of more than $100

million annually. Because this final rule

does not have a $100 million effect, no

Unfunded Mandates assessment has

been prepared.

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.

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.

Civil Justice Reform (Executive Order

12778)

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.

In consideration of the foregoing, 49

CFR part 571 is amended as follows:

PART 571—FEDERAL MOTOR

VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS

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 S5.3.1(g);

b. Adding S5.3.5(c)(1)(E);

c. Revising S5.3.5(c)(2).

The revised and added paragraphs

read as follows:

§ 571.105 Standard No. 105; Hydraulic and

electric brake systems.

* * * * *

S5.3 Brake system indicator lamp

***

S5.3.1 * * *

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

the service brake system, failure of the

RBS.

* * * * *

S5.3.5 * * *

(c)(1) * * *

(E) If a separate indicator is used for

the regenerative brake system, the

symbol ‘‘RBS’’ may be used. RBS failure

may also be indicated by a lamp

displaying the symbol ‘‘ABS/RBS.’’

* * * * *

(c)(2) Except for a separate indicator

lamp for an anti-lock system, a

regenerative system, or an indicator for

6332 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 27 / Wednesday, February 9, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

both anti-lock and regenerative system,

the letters and background of each

separate indicator lamp shall be of

contrasting colors, one of which is red.

The letters and background of a separate

lamp for an anti-lock system, a

regenerative system, or a lamp

displaying both an anti-lock and a

regenerative system shall be of

contrasting colors, one of which is

yellow.

§ 571.135 [Amended]

3. Section 571.135 is amended by:

a. Revising S5.5.1(g);

b. Revising S5.5.5(d)(6);

c. Adding S5.5.5(d)(7);

d. Amending S7.7.1 to add a second

sentence;

e. Revising S7.7.3(h); and

f. Removing S7.11.3(n).

The revisions, additions, and

amendments read as follows:

§ 571.135 Standard No. 135; Passenger car

brake systems.

* * * * *

S5.5.1. Activation. * * *

(g) For an EV with a regenerative

braking system that is part of the service

brake system, failure of the RBS.

* * * * *

S5.5.5. Labeling. * * *

(d) * * *

(6) If a separate indicator is provided

for the condition specified in S5.5.1(g),

the letters and background shall be of

contrasting colors, one of which is

yellow. The indicator shall be labeled

with the symbol ‘‘RBS.’’ RBS failure in

a system that is part of the service brake

system may also be indicated by a

yellow lamp that also indicates ‘‘ABS’’

failure and displays the symbol ‘‘ABS/

RBS.’’

(7) If a separate indicator is provided

for any other function, the display shall

include the word ‘‘Brake’’ and the

appropriate additional labeling.

* * * * *

S7.7 * * *

S7.7.1 General information. * * *

This test is also for EVs.

* * * * *

S7.7.3. * * *

(h) For an EV, this test is conducted

with no electrical power supplied to the

vehicle’s propulsion motor(s), but with

the RBS and brake power or power

assist still operating, unless cutting off

the supply of electrical power to the

propulsion motor(s) also disables those

systems.

Issued on: January 19, 2000.

Frank Seales, Jr.,

Acting Administrator.

[FR Doc. 00–2923 Filed 2–8–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

RIN 1018–AE55

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife

and Plants; Determination of

Endangered Status for the Plant

Thlaspi californicum (Kneeland Prairie

Penny-Cress) From Coastal Northern

California

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service,

Interior.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service (Service), determine

endangered status pursuant to the

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as

amended (Act), for Thlaspi californicum

(Kneeland Prairie penny-cress). Thlaspi

californicum is known only from

Kneeland Prairie in Humboldt County,

California, where it grows in coastal

prairie on serpentine outcrops. We

consider the occurrences of T.

californicum reported from Mendocino

County to be T. montanum, a widely

distributed species. Habitat loss,

potential road realignment, and

proposed airport expansion activities

imperil the continued existence of T.

californicum. The restricted range of

this species, limited to a single

population, increases the risk of

extinction from naturally occurring

events such as fire. This action

implements the protection of the Act for

this plant species.

DATES: This rule is effective on March

10, 2000.

ADDRESSES: The complete file for this

rule is available for public inspection,

by appointment, during normal business

hours at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service, Sacramento Fish and Wildlife

Office, 2800 Cottage Way, Suite W2605,

Sacramento, California 95825.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Kirsten Tarp or Jan Knight, Sacramento

Fish and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES

section) (telephone number 916/414–

6645; facsimile 916/414–6710).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The single known population of

Thlaspi californicum (Kneeland Prairie

penny-cress) is found on serpentine

soils at a coastal prairie in Humboldt

County, California. Serpentine soils are

derived from ultramafic rocks (rocks

with unusually large amounts of

magnesium and iron) such as

serpentinite, dunite, and peridotite,

which are found in discontinuous

outcrops in the Sierra Nevada and Coast

Ranges of California from Santa Barbara

County to Humboldt County. The chief

constituent of the parent rock is a

variant of iron-magnesium silicate. Most

serpentine soils are formed in place over

the parent rock and are, therefore,

shallow, rocky, and highly erodible.

Serpentine soils, because of the parent

material, tend to have high

concentrations of magnesium,

chromium, and nickel and low

concentrations of calcium, nitrogen,

potassium, and phosphorus (Kruckeberg

1984). Serpentine soils alter the pattern

of vegetation and plant species

composition nearly everywhere they

occur. While serpentine soils are

inhospitable for the growth of most

plants, some plants are wholly or largely

restricted to serpentine substrates

(Kruckeberg 1984).

Sereno Watson (1882) described

Thlaspi californicum based on a

collection made by Volney Rattan from

Kneeland Prairie at 760 meters (m)

(2,500 feet (ft)) elevation in Humboldt

County, California. Payson (1926)

maintained it as a full species in his

monograph of the genus, whereas it was

referred to as T. alpestre var.

californicum in Jepson’s (1925) manual

and T. glaucum ssp. californicum by

Munz (1959). Holmgren (1971) assigned

the name Thlaspi montanum var.

californicum and gave its range as

Kneeland Prairie (including a 1952

specimen from a serpentine rockpile

toward Ashfield Butte). She noted that

the plant had last been collected in

1962. Rollins (1993a, 1993b) has

elevated it to a full species—Thlaspi

californicum.

Thlaspi californicum is a perennial

herb in the mustard family

(Brassicaceae) that grows from 9.5 to

12.5 centimeters (cm) (3 to 6 inches (in))

tall, with a basal cluster of leaves that

develops at the base of the plant prior

to the flowering stage. The margins of

the basal leaves range from entire to

toothed. The white flowers have

strongly ascending pedicels (flower

stalks). The fruit is a sharply pointed

silicle (a short fruit typically no more

than 2 to 3 times longer than wide).

Thlaspi californicum flowers from May

to June. Characteristics that separate T.

californicum from T. montanum include

the orientation of the pedicel, shape and

notching of the fruit, and length/width

ratio of the fruit. Thlaspi montanum has

pedicels perpendicular to the stem, not

strongly ascending, and the silicles are

either truncate or shallowly notched,

but not as acute at the apex as they are

in T. californicum (Meyers 1991).