2320 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 11 / Friday, January 16, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

C. Response to Comments 

The Agency received a comment 

expressing concerns about allowing 

residues of pesticides on eggplant and 

peppers. The Agency understands the 

commenter’s concerns and recognizes 

that some individuals believe that no 

residue of pesticides should be allowed 

because of potential effects. However, 

under the existing legal framework 

provided by FFDCA section 408, EPA is 

authorized to establish pesticide 

tolerances where persons seeking such 

tolerances have demonstrated that the 

pesticide meets the safety standard 

imposed by the statute. Based on its 

assessment of the available data, the 

Agency has concluded there is a 

reasonable certainty that no harm will 

result from aggregate exposure to 

residues of fosetyl-Al. 

D. Revisions to Petitioned-For 

Tolerances 

EPA is not establishing a separate 

tolerance for residues of fosetyl-Al in or 

on pepper, non-bell (chili), dry fruit. 

The residues found on the dried 

commodity will be covered by the 

tolerance for residues of fosetyl-Al in or 

on pepper/eggplant, subgroup 8–10B; 

therefore, no separate tolerance is 

needed. 

V. Conclusion 

Therefore, tolerances are established 

for residues of fosetyl-Al, aluminum tris 

(O-ethylphosphonate), in or on pepper/ 

eggplant, subgroup 8–10B at 0.01 ppm. 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

This action establishes tolerances 

under FFDCA section 408(d) in 

response to a petition submitted to the 

Agency. The Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) has exempted these types 

of actions from review under Executive 

Order 12866, entitled ‘‘Regulatory 

Planning and Review’’ (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993). Because this action 

has been exempted from review under 

Executive Order 12866, this action is 

not subject to Executive Order 13211, 

entitled ‘‘Actions Concerning 

Regulations That Significantly Affect 

Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use’’ (66 

FR 28355, May 22, 2001) or Executive 

Order 13045, entitled ‘‘Protection of 

Children from Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, 

April 23, 1997). This action does not 

contain any information collections 

subject to OMB approval under the 

Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), nor does it require 

any special considerations under 

Executive Order 12898, entitled 

‘‘Federal Actions to Address 

Environmental Justice in Minority 

Populations and Low-Income 

Populations’’ (59 FR 7629, February 16, 

1994). 

Since tolerances and exemptions that 

are established on the basis of a petition 

under FFDCA section 408(d), such as 

the tolerance in this final rule, do not 

require the issuance of a proposed rule, 

the requirements of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et 

seq.), do not apply. 

This action directly regulates growers, 

food processors, food handlers, and food 

retailers, not States or tribes, nor does 

this action alter the relationships or 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities established by Congress 

in the preemption provisions of FFDCA 

section 408(n)(4). As such, the Agency 

has determined that this action will not 

have a substantial direct effect on States 

or tribal governments, on the 

relationship between the national 

government and the States or tribal 

governments, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities among the 

various levels of government or between 

the Federal Government and Indian 

tribes. Thus, the Agency has determined 

that Executive Order 13132, entitled 

‘‘Federalism’’ (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999) and Executive Order 13175, 

entitled ‘‘Consultation and Coordination 

with Indian Tribal Governments’’ (65 FR 

67249, November 9, 2000) do not apply 

to this final rule. In addition, this final 

rule does not impose any enforceable 

duty or contain any unfunded mandate 

as described under Title II of the 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

(UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.). 

This action does not involve any 

technical standards that would require 

Agency consideration of voluntary 

consensus standards pursuant to section 

12(d) of the National Technology 

Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 

(NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note). 

VII. Congressional Review Act 

Pursuant to the Congressional Review 

Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), EPA will 

submit a report containing this rule and 

other required information to the U.S. 

Senate, the U.S. House of 

Representatives, and the Comptroller 

General of the United States prior to 

publication of the rule in the Federal 

Register. This action is not a ‘‘major 

rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180 

Environmental protection, 

Administrative practice and procedure, 

Agricultural commodities, Pesticides 

and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

Dated: December 23, 2014. 

Susan Lewis, 

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. 321(q), 346a and 371. 

■ 2. In § 180.415, add alphabetically 

‘‘Pepper/eggplant, subgroup 8–10’’ to 

the table in paragraph (a) to read as 

follows: 

§ 180.415 Aluminum tris (Oethylphosphonate); tolerances for residues. 

(a) * * * 

Commodity Parts per 

million 

* * * * * 

Pepper/eggplant, subgroup 

8–10B1 .............................. 0.01 

* * * * * 

1There are no U.S. registrations as of December 23, 2014. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2015–00491 Filed 1–15–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

49 CFR Part 571 

[Docket No. NHTSA–2011–0107] 

RIN 2127–AL56 

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety 

Standards; Electric-Powered Vehicles; 

Electrolyte Spillage and Electrical 

Shock Protection 

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration (NHTSA), 

Department of Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Final rule; response to petitions 

for reconsideration and technical 

corrections. 

SUMMARY: This document denies a 

petition for reconsideration of Federal 

Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 

No. 305, ‘‘Electric-powered vehicles; 

electrolyte spillage, and electrical shock 

protection’’ from Nissan Motor 

Company (Nissan) requesting the use of 

a megohmmeter as an alternative 

measurement method for the electrical 

isolation test procedure. Further, this 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with FRONTMATTER
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 11 / Friday, January 16, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 2321 

1 75 FR 33515. 

2 49 CFR 571.305. 

3 In essence, the electrical safety requirements for 

this compliance option were that (after testing in 

accordance with the standard’s test procedures), 

electrical isolation for high voltage sources must be 

at 500 ohms/volt or greater unless the high voltage 

source is a DC source with electrical isolation 

monitoring. A DC source with electrical isolation 

monitoring must have electrical isolation that is 

greater than 100 ohms/volt. See id. at 33527. 

4 In the alternative, high voltage sources could 

meet the electrical safety requirements if their 

voltage was 30 volts for an AC source or lower (60 

volts for a DC source). 

5 76 FR 45436. 

6A megohmmeter is a specialized ohmmeter that 

is primarily used to determine electrical isolation 

resistance. This device operates by applying a 

voltage or current to the item being tested. Because 

externally applied voltages or currents can disrupt 

its measurement (and/or cause damage to the 

instrument) the megohmmer is used to test items 

that are under an inactive and fully de-energized 

state. 

7ECE R.94, ‘‘Uniform Provisions Concerning the 

Approval of: Vehicles with Regard to the Protection 

of the Occupants in the Event of a Frontal 

Collision,’’ Annex 11, ‘‘Test Procedures for the 

Protection of the Occupants of Vehicles Operating 

on Electrical Power from High Voltage and 

Electrolyte Spillage,’’ 

document adopts various technical 

corrections and clarifications to the 

regulatory text of FMVSS No. 305 that 

do not change the substance of the rule. 

DATES: The effective date of this final 

rule is January 16, 2015. Petitions for 

reconsideration of this final rule must 

be received not later than March 2, 

2015. 

ADDRESSES: Petitions for reconsideration 

should refer to the docket number of 

this document and be submitted to the 

Administrator, National Highway 

Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New 

Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 

20590. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

non-legal issues, contact Shashi Kuppa, 

Office of Crashworthiness Standards 

(telephone: 202–366–3827) (fax: 202– 

366–2990), NVS–113. For legal issues, 

contact Jesse Chang, Office of the Chief 

Counsel (telephone 202–366–9874) (fax: 

202–366–3820), NCC–112. The mailing 

address for these officials is: National 

Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 

U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 

New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, 

DC 20590. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Background 

II. Nissan’s Petition for Reconsideration to 

the July 29, 2011 Final Rule 

III. Agency Response to Nissan’s Petition for 

Reconsideration 

IV. Technical Corrections to the July 29, 2011 

Final Rule 

a. Omitted Voltage Definitions 

b. Clarification to Volts of Alternating 

Current (VAC) Definition 

c. Other Typographical Corrections to the 

Regulatory Text 

V. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices 

VI. Regulatory Text 

I. Background 

On June 14, 2010,1 NHTSA issued a 

final rule amending the electrical shock 

protection requirements of Federal 

Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 

No. 305, ‘‘Electric-powered vehicles; 

electrolyte spillage and electrical shock 

protection.’’ 2 In that document, the 

agency changed the requirements in 

FMVSS No. 305 to add flexibility for 

manufacturers of electric vehicles (and 

other vehicles with high voltage 

components such as fuel cell vehicles) 

while still maintaining protection for 

vehicle occupants and first responders 

from electrical shock. The main changes 

to the standard included creating two 

alternative compliance options (i.e., the 

electrical isolation 3 and low-voltage 4

options) and altering the requirements 

to recognize the difference between 

alternating current (AC) and direct 

current (DC) high voltage sources. In 

addition, the 2010 final rule included 

new definitions and made various 

updates to existing definitions to align 

the standard more closely with 

voluntary industry practice. 

Subsequent to the 2010 final rule, the 

agency received various petitions for 

reconsideration from vehicle 

manufacturers and their trade 

associations. Many of the petitioners 

sought increased clarity of the 

definitions, test specifications, and 

performance requirements of the rule. 

The agency published a final rule 

responding to those petitions on July 29, 

2011.5 The main changes to the 2010 

final rule were clarifications to the 

following: 

(1) The scope, applicability, and the 

definitions in the standard, 

(2) the retention requirements for 

electric energy storage/conversion 

systems, 

(3) the electrical isolation 

requirements, 

(4) test specifications and 

requirements for electrical isolation 

monitoring, and 

(5) the state-of-charge of electric 

energy storage devices prior to crash 

tests. 

In addition to the above clarifications 

to the requirements and test procedures 

of the standard, that response to 

petitions for reconsideration also denied 

requests that the agency reconsider 

certain requests from the petitioners. 

Those requests included implementing 

a protective barrier compliance option 

for electrical safety, adjusting the test 

procedure to allow for alternative gas for 

crash testing hydrogen fuel cell 

vehicles, and adopting a low-energy 

compliance option for electrical safety. 

In response to those requests, the agency 

reiterated its positions on those matters 

from the 2010 final rule. We cited the 

lack of data to support the petitioners’ 

requests to implement these changes to 

the standard. We also noted that no 

significant new research had produced 

any data that would have enabled the 

agency to arrive at a different 

conclusion from the 2010 final rule. In 

addition, we again expressed concerns 

in the 2010 final rule that some of these 

recommendations (such as using inert 

gas and megohmmeters for testing) 

might be outside the scope of the 

rulemaking. 

II. Nissan’s Petition for Reconsideration 

to the July 29, 2011 Final Rule 

Subsequent to the 2011 final rule 

responding to petitions for 

reconsideration, the agency received a 

further petition for reconsideration. The 

petition (from Nissan) requested that we 

amend section S7.6 of FMVSS No. 305 

to allow the use of a megohmmeter as 

an alternative measurement method for 

the electrical isolation test procedure.6

Nissan suggested using a megohmmeter 

to measure the isolation resistance 

directly, rather than measuring voltage 

and calculating resistance (as presently 

specified in FMVSS No. 305). They 

contend that this results in a more stable 

and accurate post-crash test 

measurement procedure. Nissan noted 

that the test procedures for United 

Nations Economic Commission for 

Europe (ECE) Regulation No. 94 allow 

such a measurement method.7 In 

addition to enhanced measurement 

stability and accuracy, Nissan stated 

that a direct resistance measurement 

supports the use of an inert gas and 

inactive fuel cells in crash tests of fuel 

cell vehicles. Nissan expressed concern 

that the electrical isolation test 

procedure specified in FMVSS No. 305 

S7.6 does not permit the use of inert gas 

and inactive fuel cells in crash tests 

because the procedure only specifies a 

voltage measurement method. Nissan 

asked the agency to expedite ongoing 

research to develop a test procedure for 

evaluating electrical safety of fuel cell 

vehicles with inert gas and inactive fuel 

cells. 

III. Agency Response to Nissan’s 

Petition for Reconsideration 

As stated above, the agency has 

addressed the issue of including test 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with FRONTMATTER
2322 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 11 / Friday, January 16, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

8Hydrogen Fuel Cell Vehicle Fuel System 

Integrity Research—Electrical Isolation Test 

Procedure Development and Verification, DOT HS 

811 553, March 2012, http://www.nhtsa.gov/

Research/Crashworthiness/Alternative%20Energy

%20Vehicle%20Systems%20Safety%20Research. 

9The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety 

Act (‘‘Motor Vehicle Safety Act’’) directs this 

agency to establish Federal Motor Vehicle Safety 

Standards. It further states that these standards 

‘‘shall be practicable, meet the need for motor 

vehicle safety, and be stated in objective terms.’’ 

See 49 U.S.C. 30111(a). 

10The Administrative Procedure Act states that 

general notice of proposed rulemaking is not 

required when an agency ‘‘for good cause finds . . . 

that notice and public procedure thereon are 

impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the 

public interest.’’ See 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B). 

11The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers is 

an association of 12 vehicle manufacturers 

including BMW group, Chrysler Group LLC, Ford 

Motor Company, General Motors Company, Jaguar 

Land Rover, Mazda, Mercedes-Benz USA, 

Mitsubishi Motors, Porsche, Toyota, Volkswagen 

Group of America and Volvo Cars North America. 

procedures in FMVSS No. 305 for 

evaluating electrical isolation resistance 

that use a megohmmeter and an inert 

gas (first in the June 14, 2010 final rule 

and second in the July 29, 2011 final 

rule responding to petitions for 

reconsideration). In this final rule, our 

position on the matter has not 

substantively changed. We continue to 

be concerned that incorporating an 

alternative test procedure that 

incorporates a megohmmeter and inert 

gas would exceed the scope of this 

rulemaking. 

The 2010 final rule did not provide 

alternative test procedures with these 

characteristics because the agency’s 

research was ongoing, there was 

insufficient information to make any 

regulatory decisions on establishing 

these alternative test procedures, and 

the agency was concerned that this issue 

would be outside the scope of the 

rulemaking. In dealing with the same 

issue in the 2011 final rule, the agency 

stated that its position on the issue had 

not substantively changed since the 

2010 final rule and that no new 

information was available to lead it to 

conclude otherwise. As with the 2010 

final rule, we noted in the 2011 final 

rule that the agency was continuing its 

research to determine the feasibility for 

establishing alternative test procedures 

that would incorporate the use of a 

megohmmeter and inert gas. 

Since publication of the 2011 final 

rule (and the petition for 

reconsideration of the 2011 final rule 

from Nissan), the agency has completed 

additional research on the feasibility of 

using a megohmmeter for measuring 

electrical isolation.8 The research 

presents certain technical questions that 

need to be resolved (i.e., the research 

showed that megohmmeters could 

accurately measure electrical isolation 

resistance of DC high voltage sources in 

an inactive state but did not consistently 

do so for AC high voltage sources). We 

believe that the most appropriate forum 

to pursue these issues would be a 

subsequent rulemaking action that 

includes a new proposal. To incorporate 

a new set of procedures to test electrical 

isolation using the method suggested by 

Nissan in this document would likely 

raise concerns about the scope of the 

rulemaking and the effectiveness of the 

public’s opportunity to comment on the 

merits of incorporating such procedures. 

As discussed in the July 29, 2011 final 

rule, some international regulations and 

international standards permit the use 

of megohmmeters in crash tests of 

hydrogen powered vehicles. We believe 

that closer harmonization with 

international regulations (to the extent 

that they meet the need for safety and 

the other requirements of the Motor 

Vehicle Safety Act 9) is an important 

consideration. However, as already 

noted in this document, this issue 

would be more appropriate for 

consideration in a subsequent 

rulemaking action. In that context, the 

agency would seek to propose a 

resolution for these technical issues that 

we have discovered through our 

research and obtain further input from 

the public on that approach. This 

process would help ensure that any 

such test procedure would be able to 

evaluate the vehicle’s electrical safety 

using an inert gas and a megohmmeter 

in a clear, objective, and repeatable 

fashion. 

Thus, the agency cannot grant (within 

this rulemaking) the petitioner’s request 

to reconsider our decision not to 

incorporate a test procedure in FMVSS 

No. 305 for evaluating electrical 

isolation resistance using a 

megohmmeter and inert gas. However, 

as we noted in the July 29, 2011 final 

rule, manufacturers are not prohibited 

from using alternative test procedures 

and devices other than those in the 

FMVSSs as a basis for their compliance 

certification. 

IV. Technical Corrections to the July 29, 

2011 Final Rule 

In addition to addressing the petition 

for reconsideration from Nissan, this 

document makes a few technical 

amendments to the regulatory text of 

FMVSS No. 305 to correct omissions, 

add clarity, and correct typographical 

errors. Due to the clerical nature of these 

corrections to the 2011 final rule, we 

find that there is good cause to 

determine that notice and comment on 

these corrections is unnecessary under 

the Administrative Procedure Act.10

a. Omitted Voltage Definitions 

The three definitions for voltage of 

alternating current (VAC), voltage of 

direct current (VDC), and working 

voltage were included in paragraph S4 

of the June 14, 2010 final rule but were 

inadvertently omitted in the July 29, 

2011 final rule. This final rule restores 

these definitions in paragraph S4 of 

FMVSS No. 305 without any changes to 

the language from the 2010 final rule 

(except for a clarification to the 

definition of VAC, as will be discussed 

in the section that follows). We find that 

notice and comment is unnecessary for 

restoring these three definitions in 

paragraph S4 of FMVSS No. 305. It was 

clear that the omission of these 

definitions was a clerical mistake as the 

amended regulatory text from the 2011 

final rule continued to use the terms 

VAC, VDC, and working voltage in the 

requirements and test procedures in the 

standard. Further, we did not mention 

removing the definitions from paragraph 

S4 in the preamble to the 2011 final rule 

and we believe that restoring these three 

definitions does not change the 

substantive requirements of FMVSS No. 

305. 

b. Clarification to Volts of Alternating 

Current (VAC) Definition 

In addition to restoring the VAC 

definition into paragraph S4, we believe 

it is appropriate to further clarify the 

definition of VAC to be aligned with 

industry practices and other 

standardized definitions. Subsequent to 

the 2011 final rule, the agency received 

questions from the Alliance of 

Automobile Manufacturers (‘‘the 

Alliance’’) 11 seeking confirmation that 

NHTSA intended to use the standard 

industry practice of using the root mean 

square value of voltage for VAC. 

While we have expressed (throughout 

the rulemaking process) voltage of 

alternating current using the root meet 

square value, we agree with the Alliance 

that this definition could be clarified. In 

the 2010 final rule, the definition of 

VAC stated that ‘‘VAC means volts of 

alternating current (AC).’’ Due to the 

nature of alternating current, VAC varies 

in time and it could potentially be 

measured using a different method. 

However, our rulemaking process has 

always used the root mean square value 

for expressing VAC because the safety 

thresholds established by the 2010 final 

rule were based on limits of electrical 

current (that the body can withstand) 

from IEC Technical Specification 

60479–1. This technical specification 

expresses electrical current for AC 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with FRONTMATTER
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 11 / Friday, January 16, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 2323 

12See IEC TS 60479–1, Fourth Edition, 2005– 

2007. Figure 20 shows the amount of current in AC 

(root mean square) over time and the associated 

probabilities of fibrillation. Section 5 explains these 

values and notes that alternating current values are 

expressed as root mean square values. 

13 Voltage is current multiplied by resistance (V 

= I × R). In order to establish the required electrical 

isolation in ohms per volt (e.g., 500 ohms/volt for 

AC sources in paragraph S5.3(a)) using the V = I × 

R equation, the voltage (for an AC source) must be 

expressed as the root mean square value of voltage 

given that the value of current that we are using is 

expressed as the root mean square value. 

14SAE J1772—Recommended practice for electric 

vehicle and plug-in hybrid electric vehicle 

conductive charge coupler. 

sources as the root mean square value of 

current.12 As our safety thresholds for 

AC sources are based on electrical 

current limits expressed as the root 

mean square value of current, the 

voltage for AC sources must also be 

expressed using the root mean square 

value.13

We further expressed VAC as the root 

mean square value of voltage of AC 

sources because this is the standard 

definition used in common industry 

standards. The root mean square value 

is the square root of the time average 

value of the square of the voltage within 

a period of oscillation. Using this 

method of expressing AC voltage is 

common practice for a wide variety of 

industries. The Society of Automotive 

Engineers (SAE) Recommended Practice 

J1772,14 refers to the voltage of AC 

mains as the root mean square value. 

The voltage of power typically supplied 

to homes (commonly referred to as ‘‘120 

Volts’’) is the root mean square value of 

the AC supply. Voltage of electric power 

transmission lines are also reported as 

the root mean square value of voltage. 

Instrumentation devices, such as 

multimeters and voltmeters, also 

measure the root mean square value of 

voltage of alternating current sources. 

Therefore, we find that notice and 

comment is unnecessary for this 

clarification to the definition of VAC. 

The agency is simply stating that VAC 

is expressed as the root mean square 

value of voltage in the VAC definition 

in FMVSS No. 305 to make clear a term 

that has always been expressed in this 

manner throughout the rulemaking 

process. We believe that this 

clarification does not substantively 

change the requirements of FMVSS No. 

305. Further, the clarification does not 

change the industry understanding of 

VAC as used in the standard (as 

evidenced by the questions we received 

from industry on this matter). 

c. Other Typographical Corrections to 

the Regulatory Text 

In addition, the agency discovered 

various typographical errors resulting 

from the 2011 final rule that we are now 

correcting in this final rule. We find that 

notice and comment is unnecessary for 

these changes to FMVSS No. 305. These 

changes do not alter the substance of the 

rule. Instead, they correct various 

inconsistencies including incorrect 

paragraph references, incomplete 

sentences, and updating a reference to a 

current definition (as opposed to an old 

definition that has been removed from 

FMVSS No. 305). 

In paragraph S5.4, this final rule 

corrects a reference dealing with 

electrical isolation monitoring 

requirements. Paragraph S5.4 

establishes the requirements that an 

electrical isolation monitoring system 

must meet. Electrical isolation 

monitoring is required under paragraph 

S5.3(a)(3) when the electrical isolation 

of a DC high voltage source is greater or 

equal to 100 ohms/volt (as opposed to 

500 ohms/volt without an electrical 

isolation monitoring system). S5.4 

references S5.3 to indicate the situations 

under which electrical isolation 

monitoring is required. However, the 

current S5.4 incorrectly refers to 

S5.3(a)(2), a section applicable to DC 

high voltage sources without electrical 

isolation monitoring. Thus, the agency 

is correcting this reference to S5.3(a)(3) 

which is applicable to DC high voltage 

sources with electrical isolation 

monitoring. We believe that this change 

corrects a clear typographical error. 

In addition, this final rule rewords 

S7.6.4 and S7.6.5 to clarify the language 

in these paragraphs. The 2011 final rule 

mistakenly edited paragraphs S7.6.4 and 

S7.6.5 to include incomplete sentences 

and the term ‘‘voltage(s)’’ when each 

paragraph only referenced one voltage 

measurement. In FMVSS No. 305, S7.6.4 

states that the voltage(s) is/are measured 

as shown in Figure 2. It also has an 

incomplete sentence about the 

voltages(s) (V1) between the negative 

side of the high voltage source and the 

electrical chassis. Paragraph S7.6.5 

states that the voltage(s) is/are measured 

as shown in Figure 3. It also has an 

incomplete sentence about the voltage(s) 

(V2) between the positive side of the 

high voltage source and the electrical 

chassis. 

Since only a single voltage 

measurement is made in each of these 

sections, the references to ‘‘voltage(s)’’ 

are incorrect and confusing. Further, we 

have edited the paragraphs to remove 

the sentence fragments from each 

paragraph. Therefore, the agency is 

rewording S7.6.4 and S7.6.5 in this final 

rule. Paragraph S7.6.4 will state that the 

voltage V1 between the negative side of 

the high voltage source and the 

electrical chassis is measured as shown 

in Figure 2. Further, paragraph S7.6.5 

will state that the voltage V2 between 

the positive side of the high voltage 

source and the electrical chassis is 

measured as shown in Figure 3. 

As stated above, these changes correct 

grammatical errors for these two 

paragraphs without changing the 

substance of the requirements or the 

measurement procedures. These 

sentences merely restate the 

measurement procedure shown in 

Figure 2 and Figure 3 more clearly than 

the language adopted by the 2011 final 

rule. 

Further, this final rule changes the 

phrase, ‘‘electrical isolation 

measurement,’’ to ‘‘voltage 

measurement,’’ in two instances of 

section S7.7 Voltage measurement. As 

evident from the other portions of the 

regulatory text, the measurements 

obtained in S7.7 are not ‘‘electrical 

isolation measurements’’ but are 

‘‘voltage measurements.’’ The title of 

S7.7 is ‘‘voltage measurement,’’ 

suggesting that the measured value in 

S7.7 is the voltage. Paragraph S7.6 uses 

the voltage measurements to then 

calculate the electrical isolation 

resistance of a high voltage source. 

Further, ‘‘electrical isolation’’ is defined 

in the current standard as the resistance 

between any high voltage source and 

any of the vehicle’s electrical chassis 

divided by the working voltage of the 

high voltage source. This measurement 

cannot be obtained through the 

procedure described in S7.7. Therefore, 

it is clear that the reference to 

‘‘electrical isolation measurements’’ is a 

typographical error. Thus, this final rule 

changes the references to ‘‘electrical 

isolation measurements’’ to ‘‘voltage 

measurements’’ in order to clarify that 

the voltages are measured and the 

electrical isolation is computed from the 

voltage measurements. This is not a 

substantive change to the standard. 

Finally, this final rule makes two 

minor clarifications to paragraph S8. 

First we are italicizing the title ‘‘Test 

procedure for on-board electrical 

isolation monitoring system’’ to clarify 

that it is a title. Second, we are revising 

the term ‘‘high voltage system to the 

propulsion motor(s)’’ in S8 

subparagraph (2) to ‘‘electric energy 

storage/conversion system to the 

propulsion system.’’ This is also a 

typographical error because the terms 

‘‘high voltage system’’ and ‘‘propulsion 

motor’’ are definitions that were 

replaced by ‘‘electric energy storage/

conversion system’’ and ‘‘propulsion 

system’’ in the 2011 final rule. Thus, the 

terms ‘‘high voltage system’’ and 

‘‘propulsion motor’’ are not defined in 

FMVSS No. 305 and it should be clear 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with FRONTMATTER
2324 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 11 / Friday, January 16, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

15The issue of potential preemption of state tort 

law is addressed in the immediately following 

paragraph discussing implied preemption. 

that the agency intended to use the 

updated definitions for paragraph S8 in 

the 2011 final rule. Thus, we are 

updating these terms in paragraph S8 

and we do not believe that this is a 

substantive change to the standard. 

V. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices 

Executive Order 12866, Executive Order 

13563, and DOT Regulatory Policies and 

Procedures 

NHTSA has considered the impact of 

this rulemaking action under Executive 

Order 12866, Executive Order 13563, 

and the Department of Transportation’s 

regulatory policies and procedures. This 

rulemaking document was not reviewed 

by the Office of Management and 

Budget under E.O. 12866, ‘‘Regulatory 

Planning and Review.’’ It is not 

considered to be significant under E.O. 

12866 or the Department’s Regulatory 

Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; 

February 26, 1979). NHTSA has 

determined that the effects of this final 

rule are minor and that a regulatory 

evaluation is not needed to support the 

subject rulemaking. This final rule only 

makes slight changes to the regulatory 

text of the July 29, 2011 final rule to add 

clarification and does not impose 

significant costs beyond those already 

required by the July 29, 2011 final rule. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., as amended by 

the Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 

1996), whenever an agency is required 

to publish a notice of proposed 

rulemaking or final rule, it must prepare 

and make available for public comment 

a regulatory flexibility analysis that 

describes the effect of the rule on small 

entities (i.e., small businesses, small 

organizations, and small governmental 

jurisdictions). No regulatory flexibility 

analysis is required if the head of an 

agency certifies the rule will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

SBREFA amended the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act to require Federal 

agencies to provide a statement of the 

factual basis for certifying that a rule 

will not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. 

NHTSA has considered the effects of 

this final rule under the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act. I certify that this final 

rule does not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. Any small 

manufacturers that might be affected by 

this final rule are already subject to the 

requirements of FMVSS No. 305. 

Executive Order 13132 (Federalism) 

NHTSA has examined this final rule 

pursuant to Executive Order 13132 (64 

FR 43255; Aug. 10, 1999) and concluded 

that no additional consultation with 

States, local governments, or their 

representatives is mandated beyond the 

rulemaking process. The agency has 

concluded that the final rule does not 

have sufficient federalism implications 

to warrant consultation with State and 

local officials or the preparation of a 

federalism summary impact statement. 

The final rule does not have 

‘‘substantial direct effects on the States, 

on the relationship between the national 

government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government.’’ This final rule 

does not impose substantial additional 

requirements. Instead, it clarifies the 

existing requirements from the July 29, 

2011 final rule. 

NHTSA rules can have preemptive 

effect in two ways. First, the National 

Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act 

contains an expressed preemption 

provision that states when a motor 

vehicle safety standard is in effect under 

this chapter, a State or a political 

subdivision of a State may prescribe or 

continue in effect a standard applicable 

to the same aspect of performance of a 

motor vehicle or motor vehicle 

equipment only if the standard is 

identical to the standard prescribed 

under this chapter. 49 U.S.C. 

30103(b)(1). It is this statutory command 

that preempts any non-identical State 

legislative and administrative law 15

addressing the same aspect of 

performance, not this rulemaking. 

The express preemption provision 

described above is subject to a savings 

clause under which ‘‘[c]ompliance with 

a motor vehicle safety standard 

prescribed under this chapter does not 

exempt a person from liability at 

common law.’’ 49 U.S.C. 30103(e). 

Pursuant to this provision, State 

common law tort causes of action 

against motor vehicle manufacturers 

that might otherwise be preempted by 

the express preemption provision are 

generally preserved. However, the 

Supreme Court has recognized the 

possibility, in some instances, of 

implied preemption of State common 

law tort causes of action by virtue of 

NHTSA’s rules—even if not expressly 

preempted. 

This second way that NHTSA rules 

can preempt is dependent upon the 

existence of an actual conflict between 

an FMVSS and the higher standard that 

would effectively be imposed on motor 

vehicle manufacturers if someone 

obtained a State common law tort 

judgment against the manufacturer— 

notwithstanding the manufacturer’s 

compliance with the NHTSA standard. 

Because most NHTSA standards 

established by an FMVSS are minimum 

standards, a State common law tort 

cause of action that seeks to impose a 

higher standard on motor vehicle 

manufacturers will generally not be 

preempted. However, if and when such 

a conflict does exist—for example, when 

the standard at issue is both a minimum 

and a maximum standard—the State 

common law tort cause of action is 

impliedly preempted. See Geier v. 

American Honda Motor Co., 529 U.S. 

861 (2000). 

Pursuant to Executive Order 13132, 

NHTSA has considered whether this 

rule could or should preempt State 

common law causes of action. The 

agency’s ability to announce its 

conclusion regarding the preemptive 

effect of one of its rules reduces the 

likelihood that preemption will be an 

issue in any subsequent tort litigation. 

To this end, the agency has examined 

the nature (e.g., the language and 

structure of the regulatory text) and 

objectives of this rule and finds that this 

rule merely clarifies the requirements 

and definitions contained in the July 29, 

2011 final rule. Thus, NHTSA does not 

intend that this rule preempt state tort 

law that would effectively impose a 

higher standard on motor vehicle 

manufacturers than that established by 

this rule. Additionally, in the July 29, 

2011 final rule, the agency did not assert 

preemption. Establishment of a higher 

standard by means of State tort law 

would not conflict with the final rule 

announced here. Without any conflict, 

there could not be any implied 

preemption of a State common law tort 

cause of action. 

National Environmental Policy Act 

NHTSA has analyzed this rulemaking 

action for the purposes of the National 

Environmental Policy Act. The agency 

has determined that implementation of 

this action will not have any significant 

impact on the quality of the human 

environment. 

Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice 

Reform) 

When promulgating a regulation, 

agencies are required under Executive 

Order 12988 to make every reasonable 

effort to ensure that the regulation, as 

appropriate: (1) Specifies in clear 

language the preemptive effect; (2) 

specifies in clear language the effect on 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with FRONTMATTER
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 11 / Friday, January 16, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 2325 

existing Federal law or regulation, 

including all provisions repealed, 

circumscribed, displaced, impaired, or 

modified; (3) provides a clear legal 

standard for affected conduct rather 

than a general standard, while 

promoting simplification and burden 

reduction; (4) specifies in clear language 

the retroactive effect; (5) specifies 

whether administrative proceedings are 

to be required before parties may file 

suit in court; (6) explicitly or implicitly 

defines key terms; and (7) addresses 

other important issues affecting clarity 

and general draftsmanship of 

regulations. 

Pursuant to this Order, NHTSA notes 

as follows. The preemptive effect of this 

final rule is discussed above. NHTSA 

notes further that there is no 

requirement that individuals submit a 

petition for reconsideration or pursue 

other administrative proceeding before 

they may file suit in court. 

Privacy Act 

Please note that anyone is able to 

search the electronic form of all 

comments received into any of our 

dockets by the name of the individual 

submitting the comment (or signing the 

comment, if submitted on behalf of an 

association, business, labor union, etc.). 

You may review DOT’s complete 

Privacy Act Statement in the Federal 

Register published on April 11, 2000 

(65 FR 19477–78), or online at http://

www.dot.gov/privacy.html. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act 

of 1995 (PRA), a person is not required 

to respond to a collection of information 

by a Federal agency unless the 

collection displays a valid OMB control 

number. There are no information 

collection requirements associated with 

this final rule. 

National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

Under the National Technology 

Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 

(NTTAA) (Pub. L. 104–113), ‘‘all Federal 

agencies and departments shall use 

technical standards that are developed 

or adopted by voluntary consensus 

standards bodies, using such technical 

standards as a means to carry out policy 

objectives or activities determined by 

the agencies and departments.’’ 

Voluntary consensus standards are 

technical standards (e.g., materials 

specifications, test methods, sampling 

procedures, and business practices) that 

are developed or adopted by voluntary 

consensus standards bodies, such as the 

Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE). 

The NTTAA directs us to provide 

Congress, through OMB, explanations 

when we decide not to use available and 

applicable voluntary consensus 

standards. FMVSS No. 305 has 

historically drawn largely from SAE 

J1766. Prior to this update, FMVSS No. 

305 was based on the April 2005 version 

of SAE J1766. However, this final rule 

has made certain amendments to the 

standard to reflect the development of 

new voluntary consensus standards that 

have superseded SAE J1766. Thus, this 

final rule makes revisions to the June 

14, 2010 final rule that updated FMVSS 

No. 305. 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 requires agencies to prepare a 

written assessment of the costs, benefits 

and other effects of proposed or final 

rules that include a Federal mandate 

likely to result in the expenditure by 

State, local or Tribal governments, in 

the aggregate, or by the private sector, of 

more than $100 million annually 

(adjusted for inflation with base year of 

1995). This final rule, which clarifies 

the July 29, 2011 final rule, will not 

result in expenditures by State, local or 

Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or 

by the private sector in excess of $100 

million annually. 

Regulation Identifier Number (RIN) 

The Department of Transportation 

assigns a regulation identifier number 

(RIN) to each regulatory action listed in 

the Unified Agenda of Federal 

Regulations. The Regulatory Information 

Service Center publishes the Unified 

Agenda in April and October of each 

year. You may use the RIN contained in 

the heading at the beginning of this 

document to find this action in the 

Unified Agenda. 

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 571 

Imports, Motor vehicles, Motor 

vehicle safety. 

In consideration of the foregoing, 

NHTSA amends 49 CFR part 571 as 

follows: 

PART 571—FEDERAL MOTOR 

VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 571 

continues to read as follows: 

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

30117, and 30166; delegation of authority at 

49 CFR 1.95. 

■ 2. Amend § 571.305 by: 

■ a. Adding, in alphabetical order, the 

definitions of ‘‘VAC,’’ ‘‘VDC,’’ and 

‘‘Working Voltage’’ to S4; 

■ b. Revising S5.4, S7.6.4, S7.6.5, S7.7, 

the heading of S8, and S8(2). 

The additions and revisions read as 

follows: 

§ 571.305 Standard No. 305; Electricpowered vehicles: electrolyte spillage and 

electrical shock protection. 

* * * * * 

S4. Definitions. 

* * * * * 

VAC means volts of alternating 

current (AC) expressed using the root 

mean square value. 

VDC means volts of direct current 

(DC). 

Working Voltage means the highest 

root mean square voltage of the voltage 

source, which may occur across its 

terminals or between its terminals and 

any conductive parts in open circuit 

conditions or under normal operating 

conditions. 

* * * * * 

S5.4 Electrical isolation monitoring. 

Each DC high voltage source with 

electrical isolation monitoring during 

vehicle operation pursuant to S5.3(a)(3) 

shall be monitored by an electrical 

isolation monitoring system that 

displays a warning for loss of isolation 

when tested according to S8. The 

system must monitor its own readiness 

and the warning display must be visible 

to the driver seated in the driver’s 

designated seating position. 

* * * * * 

S7.6.4 The voltage V1 between the 

negative side of the high voltage source 

and the electrical chassis is measured as 

shown in Figure 2. 

S7.6.5 The voltage V2 between the 

positive side of the high voltage source 

and the electrical chassis is measured as 

shown in Figure 3. 

* * * * * 

S7.7 Voltage measurement. For the 

purpose of determining the voltage level 

of the high voltage source specified in 

S5.3(b), voltage is measured as shown in 

Figure 1. Voltage Vb is measured across 

the two terminals of the voltage source. 

Voltages V1 and V2 are measured 

between the source and the electrical 

chassis. For a high voltage source that 

has an automatic disconnect that is 

physically contained within itself, the 

voltage measurement after the test is 

made from the side of the automatic 

disconnect connected to the electric 

power train or to the rest of the electric 

power train if the high voltage source is 

a component contained in the power 

train. For a high voltage source that has 

an automatic disconnect that is not 

physically contained within itself, the 

voltage measurement after the test is 

made from both the high voltage source 

side of the automatic disconnect and 

from the side of the automatic 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with FRONTMATTER
2326 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 11 / Friday, January 16, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

disconnect connected to the electric 

power train or to the rest of the electric 

power train if the high voltage source is 

a component contained in the power 

train. 

S8. Test procedure for on-board 

electrical isolation monitoring system. 

* * * 

(2) The switch or device that provides 

power from the electric energy storage/ 

conversion system to the propulsion 

system is in the activated position or the 

ready-to-drive position. 

* * * * * 

Issued in Washington, DC on January 2, 

2015, under authority delegated in 49 CFR 

part 1.95. 

David J. Friedman, 

Deputy Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2015–00423 Filed 1–15–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 679 

[Docket No. 130925836–4174–02] 

RIN 0648–XD713 

Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic 

Zone Off Alaska; Pacific Cod by 

Catcher/Processors Using Trawl Gear 

in the Central Regulatory Area of the 

Gulf of Alaska 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Temporary rule; closure. 

SUMMARY: NMFS is prohibiting directed 

fishing for Pacific cod by catcher/

processors using trawl gear in the 

Central Regulatory Area of the Gulf of 

Alaska (GOA). This action is necessary 

to prevent exceeding the A season 

allowance of the 2015 Pacific cod total 

allowable catch apportioned to catcher/ 

processors using trawl gear in the 

Central Regulatory Area of the GOA. 

DATES: Effective 1200 hours, Alaska 

local time (A.l.t.), January 20, 2015, 

through 1200 hours, A.l.t., June 10, 

2015. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Obren Davis, 907–586–7228. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NMFS 

manages the groundfish fishery in the 

GOA exclusive economic zone 

according to the Fishery Management 

Plan for Groundfish of the Gulf of 

Alaska (FMP) prepared by the North 

Pacific Fishery Management Council 

under authority of the MagnusonStevens Fishery Conservation and 

Management Act. Regulations governing 

fishing by U.S. vessels in accordance 

with the FMP appear at subpart H of 50 

CFR part 600 and 50 CFR part 679. 

Regulations governing sideboard 

protections for GOA groundfish 

fisheries appear at subpart B of 50 CFR 

part 680. 

The A season allowance of the 2015 

Pacific cod total allowable catch (TAC) 

apportioned to catcher/processors using 

trawl gear in the Central Regulatory 

Area of the GOA is 903 metric tons (mt), 

as established by the final 2014 and 

2015 harvest specifications for 

groundfish of the GOA (79 FR 12890, 

March 6, 2014) and inseason adjustment 

to the final 2015 harvest specifications 

for Pacific cod (80 FR 192, January 5, 

2015). 

In accordance with § 679.20(d)(1)(i), 

the Administrator, Alaska Region, 

NMFS (Regional Administrator) has 

determined that the A season allowance 

of the 2015 Pacific cod TAC 

apportioned to catcher/processors using 

trawl gear in the Central Regulatory 

Area of the GOA will soon be reached. 

Therefore, pursuant to 

§ 679.20(d)(1)(ii)(B), the Regional 

Administrator is establishing a directed 

fishing allowance of 0 mt and is setting 

aside the remaining 903 mt as bycatch 

to support other anticipated groundfish 

fisheries. In accordance with 

§ 679.20(d)(1)(iii), the Regional 

Administrator finds that this directed 

fishing allowance has been reached. 

Consequently, NMFS is prohibiting 

directed fishing for Pacific cod by 

catcher/processors using trawl gear in 

the Central Regulatory Area of the GOA. 

After the effective date of this closure 

the maximum retainable amounts at 

§ 679.20(e) and (f) apply at any time 

during a trip. 

Classification 

This action responds to the best 

available information recently obtained 

from the fishery. The Assistant 

Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA 

(AA), finds good cause to waive the 

requirement to provide prior notice and 

opportunity for public comment 

pursuant to the authority set forth at 5 

U.S.C. 553(b)(B) as such requirement is 

impracticable and contrary to the public 

interest. This requirement is 

impracticable and contrary to the public 

interest as it would prevent NMFS from 

responding to the most recent fisheries 

data in a timely fashion and would 

delay the directed fishing closure of 

Pacific cod by catcher/processors using 

trawl gear in the Central Regulatory 

Area of the GOA. NMFS was unable to 

publish a notice providing time for 

public comment because the most 

recent, relevant data only became 

available as of January 12, 2015. 

The AA also finds good cause to 

waive the 30-day delay in the effective 

date of this action under 5 U.S.C. 

553(d)(3). This finding is based upon 

the reasons provided above for waiver of 

prior notice and opportunity for public 

comment. 

This action is required by § 679.20 

and is exempt from review under 

Executive Order 12866. 

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. 

Dated: January 13, 2015. 

Emily H. Menashes, 

Acting Director, Office of Sustainable 

Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2015–00630 Filed 1–15–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with FRONTMATTER