Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 141, Minimum Sound Requirements for Hybrid and Electric Vehicles, 48866-48872 [2019-19874]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
48866
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 180 / Tuesday, September 17, 2019 / Proposed Rules
resulting invoice must comply with the
proper invoicing requirements specified in
the underlying Government contract or order.
(B) This charge, if disputed by the ordering
activity, will be resolved in accordance with
paragraph (d) (Disputes) of this clause; no
payment obligation shall arise on the part of
the ordering activity until the conclusion of
the dispute process.
(C) Any audit requested by the contractor
will be performed at the contractor’s expense,
without reimbursement by the Government.
(x) Taxes or surcharges. Any taxes or
surcharges which the commercial supplier or
licensor seeks to pass along to the
Government as end user will be governed by
the terms of the underlying Government
contract or order and, in any event, must be
submitted to the Contracting Officer for a
determination of applicability prior to
invoicing unless specifically agreed to
otherwise in the Government contract.
(xi) Non-assignment. This agreement may
not be assigned, nor may any rights or
obligations thereunder be delegated, without
the Government’s prior approval, except as
expressly permitted under paragraph (b) of
this clause.
(xii) Confidential information. If this
agreement includes a confidentiality clause,
such clause is hereby amended to state that
neither the agreement nor the contract price
list, as applicable, shall be deemed
‘‘confidential information.’’ Issues regarding
release of ‘‘unit pricing’’ will be resolved
consistent with the Freedom of Information
Act. Notwithstanding anything in this
agreement to the contrary, the Government
may retain any confidential information as
required by law, regulation or its internal
document retention procedures for legal,
regulatory or compliance purposes; provided,
however, that all such retained confidential
information will continue to be subject to the
confidentiality obligations of this agreement.
(2) If any language, provision, or clause of
this agreement conflicts or is inconsistent
with paragraph (w)(1) of this clause, the
language, provisions, or clause of paragraph
(w)(1) of this clause shall prevail to the
extent of such inconsistency.
(End of clause)
1552.332–39 Unenforceability of
unauthorized obligations (FAR deviation).
As prescribed in 1513.507(b) and
1532.1070, use clause 1552.332–39
(FAR DEVIATION) instead of the
nondeviated version for purchase
orders, modifications and contracts that
include commercial supplier
agreements.
jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
Unenforceability of Unauthorized
Obligations (Far Deviation) (Date)
(a) Except as stated in paragraph (b) of this
clause, when any supply or service acquired
under this contract is subject to any
commercial supplier agreement (as defined
in 1502.100) that includes any language,
provision, or clause requiring the
Government to pay any future fees, penalties,
interest, legal costs or to indemnify the
Contractor or any person or entity for
damages, costs, fees, or any other loss or
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:32 Sep 16, 2019
Jkt 247001
liability that would create an Anti-Deficiency
Act violation (31 U.S.C. 1341), the following
shall govern:
(1) Any such language, provision, or clause
is unenforceable against the Government.
(2) Neither the Government nor any
Government authorized end user shall be
deemed to have agreed to such language,
provision, or clause by virtue of it appearing
in the commercial supplier agreement. If the
commercial supplier agreement is invoked
through an ‘‘I agree’’ click box or other
comparable mechanism (e.g., ‘‘click-wrap’’ or
‘‘browse-wrap’’ agreements), execution does
not bind the Government or any Government
authorized end user to such clause.
(3) Any such language, provision, or clause
is deemed to be stricken from the commercial
supplier agreement.
(b) Paragraph (a) of this clause does not
apply to indemnification or any other
payment by the Government that is expressly
authorized by statute and specifically
authorized under applicable agency
regulations and procedures.
(End of clause)
[FR Doc. 2019–19575 Filed 9–16–19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration
49 CFR Parts 571 and 585
[Docket No. NHTSA–2019–0085]
RIN 2127–AL93
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard
No. 141, Minimum Sound
Requirements for Hybrid and Electric
Vehicles
National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
AGENCY:
This notice proposes to
amend Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
Standard (FMVSS) No. 141, Minimum
Sound Requirements for Hybrid and
Electric Vehicles, to allow
manufacturers of hybrid and electric
vehicles (HEVs) to install a number of
driver-selectable pedestrian alert sounds
in each HEV they manufacture. This
proposal responds to a petition for
reconsideration of the FMVSS No. 141
final rule published December 14, 2016.
NHTSA is proposing to remove the limit
to the number of compliant sounds that
a manufacturer may choose to install in
a vehicle. Drivers would be able to
select the sound they prefer from the set
of sounds installed in the vehicle.
NHTSA is also seeking comment on
whether interested parties believe that
the agency should establish a limit to
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00073
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
the number of compliant sounds from
which a driver may select that a
manufacturer may choose to install in a
vehicle.
This document also makes technical
changes.
DATES: Comments on this proposal must
be received no later than November 1,
2019.
ADDRESSES: All comments and other
information relating to this notice
should refer to the docket number in the
heading of this document and be
submitted to: Administrator, National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration,
U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building,
Washington, DC 20590.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: You
may contact Mr. Thomas Healy, NHTSA
Office of the Chief Counsel, at 202–366–
2992 (FAX: 202–366–3820) or Mr.
Michael Pyne, NHTSA Office of Crash
Avoidance Standards, at 202–366–4171
(FAX: 202–493–2990).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NHTSA is
proposing to amend FMVSS No. 141,
Minimum Sound Requirements for
Hybrid and Electric Vehicles (the ‘‘Quiet
Vehicles’’ final rule) to remove the
current limitation of one sound per
vehicle model. Under the proposal,
there would not be a limit to the number
of compliant sounds a manufacturer
could install in a vehicle. NHTSA is
also requesting comment on whether
there should be a limit to the number of
compliant sounds that a manufacturer
can install in a vehicle and what that
limit should be.
Under FMVSS No. 141 currently, the
HEV pedestrian alert sounds are
allowed to vary with vehicle operating
condition (stationary, reverse, 10 km/h,
20 km/h, and 30 km/h), but only one
sound per operating condition is
allowed for all vehicles of the same
model, model year, body type and trim
level. This proposal responds to a
petition for reconsideration of the
FMVSS No. 141 final rule published on
December 14, 2016.1 In a joint petition 2
submitted to NHTSA in January 2017,
the Alliance of Automobile
Manufacturers (Alliance) and Global
Automakers (Global), the two main
automotive industry groups in the U.S.
representing most light vehicle
manufacturers, requested several
amendments.3 One of the requested
1 Final Rule, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
Standards; Minimum Sound Requirements for
Hybrid and Electric Vehicles [81 FR 90416],
effective September 5, 2017; docket No. NHTSA–
2016–0125.
2 Docket item no. NHTSA–2018–0018–0004.
3 NHTSA issued a final rule on February 26, 2018,
to address the other requested actions in the
E:\FR\FM\17SEP1.SGM
17SEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 180 / Tuesday, September 17, 2019 / Proposed Rules
jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
amendments, addressed in this
proposed rule, was that NHTSA modify
section S5.5 of FMVSS No. 141 so that
each HEV can be equipped with a suite
of several pedestrian alert sounds for the
driver to choose from rather than one
sound. According to Alliance/Global,
providing this choice is important for
consumer acceptance of future HEVs
that will have pedestrian alert sounds in
compliance with FMVSS No. 141.
NHTSA promulgated FMVSS No. 141
pursuant to the Pedestrian Safety
Enhancement Act (PSEA) of 2010.4 The
PSEA included language that placed
constraints on the multitude of different
HEV pedestrian alert sounds that are
possible. The PSEA stated NHTSA
should allow manufacturers to provide
each vehicle with one or more sounds
at the time of manufacture. The PSEA
further stated that NHTSA must require
that vehicles of the same make and
model produce the same sound or set of
sounds, which would result in all
similar vehicles having a similar sound
in a given operating condition (forward,
reverse, etc.). The PSEA did not,
however, establish a specific limitation
on the number of sounds emitted by
vehicles subject to the final rule.
NHTSA implemented this PSEA
limitation in the FMVSS No. 141 final
rule 5 under section S5.5 titled
‘‘Sameness.’’ This section states that
vehicles of the same make, model,
model year, and trim level must have
the same pedestrian alert sound. The
agency interpreted the PSEA
‘‘sameness’’ language to allow vehicles
to have different sounds for different
operating modes, such as forward,
reverse and stationary. The
requirements as published in FMVSS
No. 141 do not permit a vehicle to have
multiple sounds from which the driver
can choose. The agency discussed this
in the preamble of the final rule.6
The automotive industry groups’
petition showed they had a different
view of the language of the PSEA
regarding multiple sounds per vehicle.
Because the original Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (NPRM) for FMVSS No. 141
did not contemplate allowing driverselectable sounds, the agency is opening
this issue for public comment before
proceeding with an amendment of
FMVSS No. 141.
Alliance/Global petition for reconsideration. In that
petition response, the agency announced that it was
planning to publish a notice proposing to allow
driver-selectable sounds.
4 Public Law 111–373, 124 Stat. 4086 (January 4,
2011).
5 The PSEA also included a restriction on
disabling or altering of factory-equipped alert
sounds. NHTSA implemented that PSEA restriction
separately in paragraph S8 of FMVSS No. 141.
6 See Final Rule, 81 FR 90416, at p. 90472.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:32 Sep 16, 2019
Jkt 247001
This notice also makes a technical
change to section S6.7 of FMVSS No.
141 relating to ambient noise correction
procedures. NHTSA has received
several requests to clarify the procedural
step in S6.7.3 for evaluation of ambient
one-third octave bands in compliance
tests. NHTSA is issuing a reworded
paragraph S6.7.3 to specify more clearly
the point at which the one-third octave
bands should be computed during
measurements of ambient noise.
Lastly, in this notice NHTSA is
correcting two dates in the FMVSS No.
141 phase-in reporting requirements in
49 CFR 585, Subpart N.
This proposed rule is deregulatory in
nature and is expected to generate
benefits and cost savings in excess of
costs. The proposed rule provides
manufacturers with more flexibility and
options in developing and installing
sounds for their hybrid and electric
vehicles. NHTSA believes it is
reasonable to assume that manufacturers
would not utilize the flexibilities
provided by the proposal to develop and
install additional selectable sound
options unless the benefits exceed the
costs to them. Likewise, NHTSA
believes it is reasonable to assume that
consumers would not pay more for
vehicles with additional sound options
unless the benefits to them exceed any
additional cost of the vehicle.
Background
The PSEA was enacted in January
2011 and mandated that NHTSA must
establish a new motor vehicle safety
standard applying to HEVs. The PSEA
stated the new standard must ‘‘establish
performance requirements for an alert
sound that allows blind and other
pedestrians to reasonably detect a
nearby electric or hybrid vehicle
operating below the cross-over speed
. . . .’’ In section 3(2) of the PSEA,
there is a provision addressing
‘‘sameness’’ of the required vehicle alert
sounds. Section 3(2) states that HEVs
must have ‘‘within reasonable
manufacturing tolerances, the same
sound or set of sounds for all vehicles
of the same make and model . . . .’’
Pursuant to the PSEA, NHTSA issued
an NPRM 7 in January 2013 and a final
rule in December 2016, to create a new
FMVSS setting minimum sound level
requirements for the operation of HEVs
at speeds up to 30 km/h. The
requirements in the final rule respond to
the PSEA mandate by providing a level
of vehicle sound that the blind and
sighted pedestrians, as well as
bicyclists, can use to detect the presence
of these so-called ‘‘quiet vehicles,’’
7 78
PO 00000
FR 2798.
Frm 00074
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
48867
thereby reducing the risk of low-speed
pedestrian and bicyclist crashes
involving HEVs. The FMVSS applies to
electric and hybrid-electric passenger
cars, multi-purpose vehicles, light
trucks, and buses with a GVWR of
10,000 pounds or less that can be
operated in electric mode without an
internal combustion engine (ICE). To
comply with the standard, light vehicle
manufacturers in most cases will equip
vehicles with pedestrian alert systems
that meet the minimum sound levels
specified in the standard. These systems
typically consist of one or more audio
speakers, amplifiers, a control module,
and software capable of generating the
required sound. It is possible for a
vehicle to meet some or all the
minimum sound levels without added
hardware if there is sufficient noise
from other sources within the vehicle.
For example, the sound emitted by a
battery cooling system or a vehicle’s
tires at 30 km/h might satisfy the
minimum specifications without added
noise from an alert system.
After the final rule was published,
NHTSA received timely petitions for
reconsideration from three sources: The
Auto Alliance in conjunction with
Global Automakers (Alliance/Global),
Nissan North America, Inc. (Nissan),
and American Honda Motor Company,
Inc. (Honda). Each of these petitioners
requested changes to various aspects of
the final rule. The requested changes
included the phase-in schedule and
compliance lead-time as well as other
requirements of the new safety standard
such as how much alert sound variation
is allowed between vehicles of the same
make and model. The petitions also
asked for clarification of some technical
aspects of the acoustic performance
requirements and test procedures.
Alliance/Global included in its
petition a request for NHTSA to amend
S5.5 of the new safety standard to
explicitly allow automakers to equip
their HEVs with multiple different
sounds, rather than just one sound, for
each operating condition as specified in
the FMVSS No. 141 final rule. NHTSA
is responding to that petition request by
proposing to amend FMVSS No. 141 to
accommodate driver-selectable sounds.
NHTSA is issuing this NPRM to solicit
public comment on the proposed
change.
Specifically, NHTSA proposes
amending Paragraph S5.5.1 to remove
any limit on the number of sounds per
vehicle make/model. NHTSA is also
requesting comment from any interested
parties on whether there should be a
limit to the number of driver selectable
sounds and what that limit should be.
E:\FR\FM\17SEP1.SGM
17SEP1
48868
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 180 / Tuesday, September 17, 2019 / Proposed Rules
Discussion
Sameness Requirement
The ‘‘Sameness’’ provision appears in
section 3(2) of the PSEA and states that
the federal regulation created pursuant
to the PSEA ‘‘shall allow manufacturers
to provide each vehicle with one or
more sounds that comply with the
motor vehicle safety standard at the
time of manufacture.’’ Section 3(2)
further states that the regulation ‘‘shall
require manufacturers to provide,
within reasonable manufacturing
tolerances, the same sound or set of
sounds for all vehicles of the same make
and model.’’
NHTSA interpreted this section of the
PSEA to mean that a manufacturer may
choose to equip a vehicle with different
sounds for different operating modes,
including stationary, reverse, and
forward at 10 km/h, 20 km/h, and 30
km/h.8 However, in the December 2016
final rule, NHTSA did not interpret this
language to mean vehicles can be
equipped with more than one alert
sound for a given operating condition
and speed.
Consequently, NHTSA did not
include any provision in either the
NPRM or final rule allowing for more
than a single alert sound per operating
mode. Instead, FMVSS No. 141 requires
that any two vehicles of the same make
and model to which the standard
applies must have the same alert sound
when operating under the same test
conditions and the same speed.9
jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
Alliance/Global Petition
In their January 2017 petition,
Alliance/Global stated that NHTSA
adopted an inflexible approach to
ensuring sameness and did not account
for specific statutory language in the
PSEA that permits multiple alert sounds
per vehicle. Specifically, Alliance/
Global believe the words ‘‘one or more
sounds’’ in Section 3(2) of the PSEA
provide this flexibility and that
NHTSA’s final rule was inconsistent
with this. Alliance/Global stated that
providing a selection of sounds is
essential for customer acceptance of
HEVs: ‘‘Satisfying our customers is a
primary concern for OEMs [Original
Equipment Manufacturers]. Since ‘one
size does not fit all’ neither will one
alert sound for a given make, model,
trim level and model year satisfy all
those consumers purchasing all these
same vehicles.’’ The petition also
discussed comments submitted to the
agency in February 2014 jointly by the
Alliance, Global, the American Council
of the Blind (ACB), and the National
Federation of the Blind (NFB), in which
the commenters, including the two
advocate organizations, recognized the
need to provide consumers with a
reasonable number of driver-selectable
sound choices for customer acceptance
reasons.
Alliance/Global submitted a followup letter 10 dated March 1, 2017, to
supplement their petition. One aspect of
the letter addressed the fact that the
variety of alert sounds that
manufacturers can create that comply
with the safety standard is virtually
unlimited due to the acoustic flexibility
provided by the requirements in FMVSS
No. 141. To address this concern,
Alliance/Global stated that, in the event
NHTSA amended FMVSS No. 141 to
allow selectable sounds, they
recommend a limit of five sounds per
vehicle. They provided the following
explanation: ‘‘Because every additional
driver-selectable choice of sound
requires a separate certification test as
well as a compliance test, the number of
driver-selectable choices provided by
manufacturers would naturally be
limited for practical reasons. However,
to address potential concerns that
manufacturers might provide too many
optional sounds, we recommend that
the number of permitted driverselectable sounds be limited to no more
than five driver-selectable alert sounds
for any make, model, trim level, model
year vehicle.’’
The Alliance and Global’s January
2017 petition also discussed possible
implications of paragraph S8 of FMVSS
No. 141 regarding a selectable-sounds
provision. Paragraph S8 implements
part of Section 3(2) of the PSEA by
prohibiting alteration of a factoryinstalled sound except in case of a
vehicle repair or recall.11 The Alliance/
Global petition states, ‘‘The ability to
permit customers to select different
compliant sounds from a set of driverselectable compliant sounds does not
violate the PSEA restrictions against
disabling, altering, replacing, or
modifying the sound or set of sounds.
10 Docket
No. NHTSA–2016–0125–0016.
Alliance/Global petition requested a small
change to paragraph S8 of FMVSS No. 141 so that
vehicle repairs to a module that controls both the
pedestrian alert system and other vehicle systems
would not violate the prohibition on alterations to
the alert system. NHTSA granted their request on
this point in the agency’s February 2018 petition
response by adopting minor edits to paragraph S8
as suggested by Alliance/Global.
11 The
8 See
NHTSA NPRM [78 FR 2798], p. 2804.
S5.5.1 of FMVSS No. 141, as published
in December 2016, allowed the alert sound to vary
by model year as well as make and model (see 81
FR 90472). This was further amended on February
26, 2018, to allow alert sounds to vary by trim level
and body style within a make/model/model year
(see 83 FR 8189).
9 Section
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:32 Sep 16, 2019
Jkt 247001
PO 00000
Frm 00075
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Specifically, as long as the customer is
selecting a sound that is among the ‘set
of sounds’ provided by the
manufacturer when the car is new, then
the driver is not modifying the ‘set’ by
selecting sounds provided within the
‘set.’ ’’
NHTSA Proposal and Request for
Comments
After considering the Alliance/Global
petition, and recognizing that the
language of the PSEA regarding
sameness of sounds among vehicles of
the same make and model is subject to
more than one interpretation, and also
that consumer preferences for vehicle
alert sounds will depend on subjective
factors, NHTSA has decided to propose
amending FMVSS No. 141 to allow an
unlimited number of pedestrian alert
sounds per vehicle for any operating
condition. (As previously stated, the
different operating conditions are when
the vehicle is stationary, in reverse, or
moving forward at speeds up to 30 km/
h.)
This proposal would also improve
international harmonization by aligning
FMVSS No. 141 more closely with
international regulations, particularly
United Nations ECE Regulation No. 138
for Audible Vehicle Alerting Systems,
which states ‘‘a vehicle manufacturer
may define alternative sounds which
can be selected by the driver.’’ The ECE
regulation does not specify a particular
limit on the number of alternative
sounds that may be provided.
The agency believes that allowing for
an additional number of sounds will
have no effect on safety, since all
sounds would still need to comply with
the standard. NHTSA notes that the
Alliance/Global petition recommended
up to five sounds per operating
condition. The agency requests
comment on this suggestion and any
other appropriate limit.
In summary, NHTSA is seeking
comment from all interested parties on
amending the ‘‘Sameness’’ requirement,
section S5.5.1 of FMVSS No. 141, which
currently allows only one sound, to
allow multiple sounds per operating
condition for each model, model year,
trim, and body style of HEV.
Specifically, NHTSA requests comment
and supporting information on any
safety implications, compliance issues,
consumer-acceptance factors, cost
issues, or other possible alternatives that
would accompany allowing an
unlimited number of compliant driverselectable sounds in FMVSS No. 141.
In particular, NHTSA seeks comment
on the potential safety issues related to
HEV recognition by pedestrians if a
multitude of new compliant driver-
E:\FR\FM\17SEP1.SGM
17SEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 180 / Tuesday, September 17, 2019 / Proposed Rules
jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
selectable sounds are available, and the
extent to which having an unlimited
number of sounds would lead to the
potential for a pedestrian’s inability to
identify the sounds as a motor vehicle.
As to the remaining aspects of the
Alliance/Global petition, NHTSA is not
proposing any change to paragraph S8
of FMVSS No. 141 and believes
amending S5.5.1 as proposed in this
notice will fully address the Alliance/
Global petition on driver-selectable
sounds. The requirements in S8 still
would apply to the set of selectable
sounds provided by the OEM, i.e.,
aftermarket modification of the set of
sounds would not be permitted except
in allowable circumstances specified in
section S8, such as vehicle repairs and
recalls.
Technical Clarification and Correction
NHTSA recently became aware that
the procedure in FMVSS No. 141 for
evaluating ambient noise during
compliance tests is unclear. The
Alliance and Global raised this issue in
an April 2018 letter along with several
other FMVSS No. 141 technical
concerns.12 The ambient noise
correction procedure at issue is in
section S6.7.3.
This paragraph indicates that the onethird octave band levels of the ambient
noise recording that are used for
correction of vehicle measurements are
the individual minimum levels in each
one-third octave at any point in time
over the 60-seconds of recorded ambient
noise. This incorrectly implies that the
levels of different one-third octave
bands may be evaluated at different
times. This was not NHTSA’s intention.
The correct method intended by the
agency is to evaluate ambient levels of
all 13 one-third octave bands at the
same point in time. The point in time
at which ambient one-third octave
bands are supposed to be evaluated is
the unique point during the 60 seconds
when the overall sound pressure level of
the ambient is at a minimum, as
identified in S6.7.2, the preceding step
in the ambient correction procedure.
To resolve this, NHTSA is proposing
to amend paragraph S6.7.3 to more
clearly state the intended method of
evaluating one-third octave bands for
ambient correction. A proposed
rewording of section S6.7.3 that would
implement this change is included at
the end of this document. The agency
invites all interested parties to comment
on this change.
Additionally, NHTSA has become
aware of a minor correction that is
needed in the phase-in reporting
12 See
Docket item no. NHTSA–2018–0018–0004.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:32 Sep 16, 2019
Jkt 247001
requirements of FMVSS No. 141. The
FMVSS No. 141 final rule published in
December 2016 required vehicle
manufacturers to report on their
production of compliant HEVs during a
one-year phase-in period. (This kind of
reporting requirement is standard
practice for NHTSA rules that include a
phase-in period.) The reporting
requirements and associated due dates
for phase in of compliance with FMVSS
No. 141 are contained in 49 CFR 585,
Subpart N. NHTSA has determined that
the December 2016 rule amending Part
585, Subpart N, states in two places,
‘‘the production year ending August 31,
2018’’ instead of ‘‘the production year
ending August 31, 2019.’’ When NHTSA
granted a petition to extend the FMVSS
No. 141 phase-in and compliance
deadlines by one year,13 the reporting
dates in Part 585, Subpart N, were all
adjusted by adding one year. However,
because those two dates were stated
incorrectly in the original final rule, the
adjusted dates also were off by one year.
In this notice, NHTSA is making the
necessary changes to 49 CFR 585,
Subpart N, to specify that phase-in
reporting applies to the production year
ending August 31, 2020. The corrected
regulatory text, is included at the end of
this document.
Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
A. 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
Order 2100.6, ‘‘Policies and Procedures
for Rulemakings.’’ This rulemaking is
not considered significant and was not
reviewed by the Office of Management
and Budget under E.O. 12866,
‘‘Regulatory Planning and Review.’’
Given the minimal impact of the rule, in
accordance with the Department’s
regulatory policies and procedures, we
have not prepared a full regulatory
evaluation.14 The agency has further
determined that the impact of this
proposed rule is so minimal that the
preparation of a full regulatory
evaluation is not required.
This proposed rule responding to a
petition for reconsideration does not
add any cost, as it would afford
manufacturers additional flexibility in
designing their vehicles to meet
customer acceptance goals. It would not
add new requirements or increase
13 83
FR 8182, published Feb. 26, 2018.
of Transportation, Adoption of
Regulatory Policies and Procedures, 44 FR 11034
(Feb. 26, 1979).
14 Department
PO 00000
Frm 00076
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
48869
design or production burden for vehicle
manufacturers.
This proposal, if adopted, would
remove a final-rule restriction on
vehicle design that auto manufacturers
in the U.S. have sought to remove. This
amendment also would give
manufacturers of hybrid and electric
vehicles greater flexibility in marketing
those vehicles to consumers and make
vehicles potentially more appealing to
consumers by providing customer
choice in selecting vehicle sounds.
The benefits and cost savings of this
proposed rule are expected to exceed
any increase in costs to manufacturers if
they choose to create additional sounds.
The proposal would allow
manufacturers to equip vehicles with
additional sounds but would not require
it. If this proposal is finalized, a
manufacturer would still be able to
comply with FMVSS No. 141 by
equipping a vehicle with a single sound.
The proposed rule provides
manufacturers with more flexibility and
options in developing and installing
sounds for their hybrid and electric
vehicles. NHTSA believes it is
reasonable to assume that manufacturers
would not utilize the flexibilities
provided by the proposal to develop and
install additional selectable sounds
unless the benefits to them exceed the
costs to them. Likewise, NHTSA
believes it is reasonable to assume that
consumers would not purchase vehicles
with additional sounds unless the
benefits to them exceed any additional
cost of the vehicle. At the same time, the
proposal would not have any effect on
safety, as all sounds would still need to
comply with the standard.
B. 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 rulemaking for
any proposed 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). The
Small Business Administration’s
regulations at 13 CFR part 121 define a
small business, in part, as a business
entity ‘‘which operates primarily within
the United States.’’ (13 CFR 121.105(a)).
No regulatory flexibility analysis is
required if the head of an agency
certifies the rule would not have a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
SBREFA amended the Regulatory
E:\FR\FM\17SEP1.SGM
17SEP1
48870
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 180 / Tuesday, September 17, 2019 / Proposed Rules
jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
Flexibility Act to require Federal
agencies to provide a statement of the
factual basis for certifying that a rule
would not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
NHTSA has considered the effects of
this proposed rule under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act. This proposed rule
would directly impact manufacturers of
hybrid and electric vehicles. Most
manufacturers affected by this proposed
rule are not small businesses. To the
extent any manufacturers of hybrid or
electric vehicles are small businesses,
we do not believe this proposed rule
would have a significant economic
impact on any small businesses as this
proposed rule would not impose any
costs on manufacturers but would
instead increase flexibility for vehicle
manufacturers.
C. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)
NHTSA has examined today’s
proposed rule pursuant to Executive
Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 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 rulemaking would not have
sufficient federalism implications to
warrant consultation with State and
local officials or the preparation of a
federalism summary impact statement.
The proposed rule would 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.’’
NHTSA rules can preempt in two
ways. First, the National Traffic and
Motor Vehicle Safety Act contains an
express preemption provision: 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
by Congress that preempts any nonidentical State legislative and
administrative law addressing the same
aspect of performance.
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).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:32 Sep 16, 2019
Jkt 247001
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 such 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 there being 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
and 12988, NHTSA has considered
whether this rulemaking action 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 today’s proposed rule and
finds that this rule, like many NHTSA
rules, prescribes only a minimum safety
standard. As such, 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
today’s rule. Establishment of a higher
standard by means of State tort law
would not conflict with the minimum
standard announced here. Without any
conflict, there could not be any implied
preemption of a State common law tort
cause of action.
D. Executive Order 13771 (Regulatory
Reform)
NHTSA has reviewed this proposed
rule for compliance with E.O. 13771
(‘‘Reducing Regulation and Controlling
PO 00000
Frm 00077
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Regulatory Costs’’), which requires
Federal agencies to offset the number
and cost of new regulations through the
repeal, revocation, or revision of
existing regulations. As provided in
OMB Memorandum M–17–21
(‘‘Implementing E.O. 13771’’), a
‘‘regulatory action’’ subject to E.O.
13771 is a significant regulatory action
as defined in section 3(f) of E.O. 12866
that has been finalized and that imposes
total costs greater than zero. For the
reasons identified in the previous
sections, this proposed rule is not a
significant regulatory action under E.O.
12866.
Furthermore, this proposal is a
‘‘deregulatory action’’ under E.O. 13771
because, as discussed above, it would
reduce regulatory burden on industry by
allowing design flexibility by giving
manufacturers the option to use
selectable sounds. Also, it would
improve international harmonization by
aligning more closely with international
regulations, particularly United Nations
ECE Regulation No. 138 for Audible
Vehicle Alerting Systems.
E. Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice
Reform)
With respect to the review of the
promulgation of a new regulation,
section 3(b) of Executive Order 12988,
‘‘Civil Justice Reform’’ (61 FR 4729; Feb.
7, 1996), requires that Executive
agencies make every reasonable effort to
ensure that the regulation: (1) Clearly
specifies the preemptive effect; (2)
clearly specifies the effect on existing
Federal law or regulation; (3) provides
a clear legal standard for affected
conduct, while promoting simplification
and burden reduction; (4) clearly
specifies the retroactive effect, if any; (5)
specifies whether administrative
proceedings are to be required before
parties file suit in court; (6) adequately
defines key terms; and (7) addresses
other important issues affecting clarity
and general draftsmanship under any
guidelines issued by the Attorney
General. This document is consistent
with that requirement.
Pursuant to this Order, NHTSA notes
that the issue of preemption is
discussed separately in this notice.
NHTSA notes further that there is no
requirement that individuals submit a
petition for reconsideration or pursue
other administrative proceedings before
they may file suit in court.
F. Protection of Children From
Environmental Health and Safety Risks
Executive Order 13045, ‘‘Protection of
Children from Environmental Health
and Safety Risks’’ (62 FR 19855, April
23, 1997), applies to any rule that: (1)
E:\FR\FM\17SEP1.SGM
17SEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 180 / Tuesday, September 17, 2019 / Proposed Rules
Is determined to be ‘‘economically
significant’’ as defined under Executive
Order 12866, and (2) concerns an
environmental, health, or safety risk that
the agency has reason to believe may
have a disproportionate effect on
children. If the regulatory action meets
both criteria, the agency must evaluate
the environmental health or safety
effects of the planned rule on children,
and explain why the planned regulation
is preferable to other potentially
effective and reasonably feasible
alternatives considered by the agency.
This notice is part of a rulemaking
that is not expected to have a
disproportionate health or safety impact
on children. Consequently, no further
analysis is required under Executive
Order 13045.
jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
G. 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 is not any new
information collection requirement
associated with this proposed rule.
H. National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act
Section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act (NTTAA) requires NHTSA to
evaluate and use existing voluntary
consensus standards in its regulatory
activities unless doing so would be
inconsistent with applicable law (e.g.,
the statutory provisions regarding
NHTSA’s vehicle safety authority) or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary
consensus standards are technical
standards developed or adopted by
voluntary consensus standards bodies.
Technical standards are defined by the
NTTAA as ‘‘performance-based or
design-specific technical specification
and related management systems
practices.’’ They pertain to ‘‘products
and processes, such as size, strength, or
technical performance of a product,
process or material.’’ Examples of
organizations generally regarded as
voluntary consensus standards bodies
include ASTM International, the SAE
International, and the American
National Standards Institute. If NHTSA
does not use available and potentially
applicable voluntary consensus
standards, we are required by the Act to
provide Congress, through OMB, an
explanation of the reasons for not using
such standards.
There are no voluntary consensus
standards developed by voluntary
consensus standards bodies pertaining
to this proposed rule.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:32 Sep 16, 2019
Jkt 247001
I. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Section 202 of the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA)
requires federal 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). Before promulgating a NHTSA
rule for which a written statement is
needed, section 205 of the UMRA
generally requires the agency to identify
and consider a reasonable number of
regulatory alternatives and adopt the
least costly, most cost-effective, or least
burdensome alternative that achieves
the objectives of the rule. The
provisions of section 205 do not apply
when they are inconsistent with
applicable law. Moreover, section 205
allows the agency to adopt an
alternative other than the least costly,
most cost-effective, or least burdensome
alternative if the agency publishes with
the final rule an explanation of why that
alternative was not adopted.
This proposed rule would not result
in any expenditure by State, local, or
tribal governments or the private sector
of more than $100 million, adjusted for
inflation.
J. National Environmental Policy Act
NHTSA analyzed the original FMVSS
No. 141 final rule for the purposes of the
National Environmental Policy Act. The
agency determined that implementation
of that rule would not have any
significant impact on the quality of the
human environment.15
The rulemaking action in this notice
would amend the FMVSS No. 141 final
rule in a way that would not change the
impact for the purposes of the National
Environmental Policy Act. Therefore,
the agency has determined that
implementation of this action would not
have any significant impact on the
quality of the human environment.
K. 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
15 Docket item no. NHTSA–2016–0125–0009,
https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=NHTSA2016-0125-0009.
PO 00000
Frm 00078
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
48871
document to find this action in the
Unified Agenda.
L. Privacy Act
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).
List of Subjects
49 CFR Part 571
Minimum sound requirements for
hybrid and electric vehicles; Phase-in
reporting requirements.
49 CFR Part 585
Imports, Motor vehicle safety,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Tires.
For the reasons set forth in the
preamble, the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration proposes to
amend 49 CFR parts 571 and 585 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 § 571.141 by revising
paragraph S5.5.1 and S6.7.3 to read as
follows:
■
§ 571.141 Standard No. 141; Minimum
Sound Requirements for Hybrid and
Electric Vehicles
*
*
*
*
*
S5.5 Sameness Requirement
S5.5.1 Any two vehicles of the same
make, model, model year, body type,
and trim level (as those terms are
defined in 49 CFR 565.12 or in section
S4 of this safety standard) to which this
standard applies shall be designed to
have the same pedestrian alert sound or
set of sounds, when operating under the
same test conditions and at the same
speed within the range of test
conditions and speeds for which an
alert sound is required in Section S5 of
this safety standard.
*
*
*
*
*
S6.7.3 For each microphone,
compute an ambient level for each of
the 13 one-third octave bands using the
time that is associated with the
E:\FR\FM\17SEP1.SGM
17SEP1
48872
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 180 / Tuesday, September 17, 2019 / Proposed Rules
minimum A-weighted overall ambient
identified in S6.7.2.
*
*
*
*
*
PART 585—PHASE-IN REPORTING
REQUIREMENTS
3. The authority citation for part 585
continues to read/is revised to read as
follows:
■
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115,
30117, and 30166; delegation of authority at
49 CFR 1.95.
■
4. Revise § 585.132 to read as follows:
§ 585.132
Response to Inquiries.
At any time during the production
year ending August 31, 2020, each
manufacturer shall, upon request from
the Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance,
provide information identifying the
vehicles (by make, model and vehicle
identification number) that have been
certified as complying with the
requirements of Standard No. 141,
Minimum Sound Requirements for
Hybrid and Electric Vehicles (49 CFR
571.141). The manufacturer’s
designation of a vehicle as a certified
vehicle is irrevocable.
■ 5. Amend § 585.133 by revising
paragraph (a) to read as follows:
§ 585.133
Reporting requirements.
(a) Phase-in reporting requirements.
Within 60 days after the end of the
production year ending August 31,
2020, each manufacturer shall submit a
report to the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration concerning its
compliance with the requirements of
Standard No. 141 Minimum Sound
Requirements for Hybrid and Electric
Vehicles (49 CFR 571.141) for its
vehicles produced in that year. Each
report shall provide the information
specified in paragraph (b) of this section
and in § 585.2 of this part.
*
*
*
*
*
Issued on September 10, 2019 in
Washington, DC, under authority delegated
in 49 CFR 1.95 and 501.5.
James Clayton Owens,
Acting Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2019–19874 Filed 9–16–19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–59–P
jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BOARD
49 CFR Parts 1002, 1111, 1114, and
1115
[Docket Nos. EP 755; EP 665 (Sub-No. 2)]
Final Offer Rate Review; Expanding
Access to Rate Relief
AGENCY:
Surface Transportation Board.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:32 Sep 16, 2019
Jkt 247001
Notice of proposed rulemaking;
request for comments.
ACTION:
The Surface Transportation
Board (STB or Board) proposes a new
procedure for challenging the
reasonableness of railroad rates in
smaller cases. In this procedure, the
Board would decide a case by selecting
either the complainant’s or the
defendant’s final offer, subject to an
expedited procedural schedule that
adheres to firm deadlines.
DATES: Comments on the proposed rule
are due by November 12, 2019. Reply
comments are due by January 10, 2020.
ADDRESSES: Comments and replies in
either or both dockets may be filed with
the Board either via e-filing or in writing
addressed to: Surface Transportation
Board, Attn: Docket No. EP 755 and/or
Docket No. EP 665 (Sub-No. 2), 395 E
Street SW, Washington, DC 20423–0001.
Comments and replies will be posted to
the Board’s website at www.stb.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Amy Ziehm at (202) 245–0391.
Assistance for the hearing impaired is
available through the Federal Relay
Service at (800) 877–8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In January
2018,1 the Board established its Rate
Reform Task Force (RRTF), with the
objectives of developing
recommendations to reform and
streamline the Board’s rate review
processes for large cases, and
determining how to best provide a rate
review process for smaller cases. After
holding informal meetings throughout
2018, the RRTF issued a report on April
25, 2019 (RRTF Report).2 Among other
recommendations, the RRTF included a
proposal for a final offer procedure,
which it described as ‘‘an administrative
approach that would take advantage of
procedural limitations, rather than
substantive limitations, to constrain the
cost and complexity of a rate
reasonableness case.’’ RRTF Report 12.
Versions of a final offer process for rate
review have also been recommended by
the U.S. Department of Agriculture
(USDA) and a committee of the
Transportation Research Board (TRB).
The Board now proposes to build on the
RRTF recommendation and establish a
new rate case procedure for smaller
cases, the Final Offer Rate Review
(FORR) procedure.
SUMMARY:
1 These proceedings are not consolidated. A
single decision is being issued for administrative
convenience.
2 The RRTF Report was posted on the Board’s
website on April 29, 2019, and can be accessed at
https://www.stb.gov/stb/rail/Rate_Reform_Task_
Force_Report.pdf.
PO 00000
Frm 00079
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Background
In the ICC Termination Act of 1995
(ICCTA), Congress directed the Board to
‘‘establish a simplified and expedited
method for determining the
reasonableness of challenged rail rates
in those cases in which a full standalone cost [(SAC)] presentation is too
costly, given the value of the case.’’
Public Law 104–88, 109 Stat. 803, 810.
In the Surface Transportation Board
Reauthorization Act of 2015 (STB
Reauthorization Act), Public Law 114–
110, 129 Stat. 2228, Congress revised
the text of this requirement so that it
currently reads: ‘‘[t]he Board shall
maintain 1 or more simplified and
expedited methods for determining the
reasonableness of challenged rates in
those cases in which a full [SAC]
presentation is too costly, given the
value of the case.’’ 49 U.S.C. 10701(d)(3)
(emphasis added). In addition, section
11 of the STB Reauthorization Act
modified 49 U.S.C. 10704(d) to require
that the Board ‘‘maintain procedures to
ensure the expeditious handling of
challenges to the reasonableness of
railroad rates.’’ 3 More generally, the rail
transportation policy states that, in
regulating the railroad industry, it is the
policy of the United States Government
‘‘to provide for the expeditious handling
and resolution of all proceedings
required or permitted to be brought
under this part.’’ 49 U.S.C. 10101(15).
In 1996, the Board adopted a
simplified methodology, known as
Three-Benchmark, which determines
the reasonableness of a challenged rate
using three benchmark figures. Rate
Guidelines—Non-Coal Proceedings, 1
S.T.B. 1004 (1996), pet. to reopen
denied, 2 S.T.B. 619 (1997), appeal
dismissed sub nom. Ass’n of Am. R.Rs.
v. STB, 146 F.3d 942 (D.C. Cir. 1998). A
decade passed without any complainant
bringing a case under that methodology.
In 2007, the Board modified the ThreeBenchmark methodology and also
created another simplified methodology,
known as Simplified-SAC, which
determines whether a captive shipper is
being forced to cross-subsidize other
parts of the railroad’s network. See
Simplified Standards for Rail Rate
Cases, EP 646 (Sub-No. 1) (STB served
Sept. 5, 2007), aff’d sub nom. CSX
Transp., Inc. v. STB, 568 F.3d 236 (D.C.
Cir.), vacated in part on reh’g, 584 F.3d
1076 (D.C. Cir. 2009). In 2013, the Board
increased the relief available under the
3 Prior to the enactment of the STB
Reauthorization Act, section 10704(d) began with a
sentence stating that, ‘‘[w]ithin 9 months after
January 1, 1996, the Board shall establish
procedures to ensure expeditious handling of
challenges to the reasonableness of railroad rates.’’
See, e.g., 49 U.S.C. 10704(d) (2014).
E:\FR\FM\17SEP1.SGM
17SEP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 180 (Tuesday, September 17, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 48866-48872]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-19874]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
49 CFR Parts 571 and 585
[Docket No. NHTSA-2019-0085]
RIN 2127-AL93
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 141, Minimum Sound
Requirements for Hybrid and Electric Vehicles
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This notice proposes to amend Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
Standard (FMVSS) No. 141, Minimum Sound Requirements for Hybrid and
Electric Vehicles, to allow manufacturers of hybrid and electric
vehicles (HEVs) to install a number of driver-selectable pedestrian
alert sounds in each HEV they manufacture. This proposal responds to a
petition for reconsideration of the FMVSS No. 141 final rule published
December 14, 2016. NHTSA is proposing to remove the limit to the number
of compliant sounds that a manufacturer may choose to install in a
vehicle. Drivers would be able to select the sound they prefer from the
set of sounds installed in the vehicle. NHTSA is also seeking comment
on whether interested parties believe that the agency should establish
a limit to the number of compliant sounds from which a driver may
select that a manufacturer may choose to install in a vehicle.
This document also makes technical changes.
DATES: Comments on this proposal must be received no later than
November 1, 2019.
ADDRESSES: All comments and other information relating to this notice
should refer to the docket number in the heading of this document and
be submitted to: Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE, West Building, Washington, DC 20590.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: You may contact Mr. Thomas Healy,
NHTSA Office of the Chief Counsel, at 202-366-2992 (FAX: 202-366-3820)
or Mr. Michael Pyne, NHTSA Office of Crash Avoidance Standards, at 202-
366-4171 (FAX: 202-493-2990).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NHTSA is proposing to amend FMVSS No. 141,
Minimum Sound Requirements for Hybrid and Electric Vehicles (the
``Quiet Vehicles'' final rule) to remove the current limitation of one
sound per vehicle model. Under the proposal, there would not be a limit
to the number of compliant sounds a manufacturer could install in a
vehicle. NHTSA is also requesting comment on whether there should be a
limit to the number of compliant sounds that a manufacturer can install
in a vehicle and what that limit should be.
Under FMVSS No. 141 currently, the HEV pedestrian alert sounds are
allowed to vary with vehicle operating condition (stationary, reverse,
10 km/h, 20 km/h, and 30 km/h), but only one sound per operating
condition is allowed for all vehicles of the same model, model year,
body type and trim level. This proposal responds to a petition for
reconsideration of the FMVSS No. 141 final rule published on December
14, 2016.\1\ In a joint petition \2\ submitted to NHTSA in January
2017, the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers (Alliance) and Global
Automakers (Global), the two main automotive industry groups in the
U.S. representing most light vehicle manufacturers, requested several
amendments.\3\ One of the requested
[[Page 48867]]
amendments, addressed in this proposed rule, was that NHTSA modify
section S5.5 of FMVSS No. 141 so that each HEV can be equipped with a
suite of several pedestrian alert sounds for the driver to choose from
rather than one sound. According to Alliance/Global, providing this
choice is important for consumer acceptance of future HEVs that will
have pedestrian alert sounds in compliance with FMVSS No. 141.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Final Rule, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Minimum
Sound Requirements for Hybrid and Electric Vehicles [81 FR 90416],
effective September 5, 2017; docket No. NHTSA-2016-0125.
\2\ Docket item no. NHTSA-2018-0018-0004.
\3\ NHTSA issued a final rule on February 26, 2018, to address
the other requested actions in the Alliance/Global petition for
reconsideration. In that petition response, the agency announced
that it was planning to publish a notice proposing to allow driver-
selectable sounds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NHTSA promulgated FMVSS No. 141 pursuant to the Pedestrian Safety
Enhancement Act (PSEA) of 2010.\4\ The PSEA included language that
placed constraints on the multitude of different HEV pedestrian alert
sounds that are possible. The PSEA stated NHTSA should allow
manufacturers to provide each vehicle with one or more sounds at the
time of manufacture. The PSEA further stated that NHTSA must require
that vehicles of the same make and model produce the same sound or set
of sounds, which would result in all similar vehicles having a similar
sound in a given operating condition (forward, reverse, etc.). The PSEA
did not, however, establish a specific limitation on the number of
sounds emitted by vehicles subject to the final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Public Law 111-373, 124 Stat. 4086 (January 4, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NHTSA implemented this PSEA limitation in the FMVSS No. 141 final
rule \5\ under section S5.5 titled ``Sameness.'' This section states
that vehicles of the same make, model, model year, and trim level must
have the same pedestrian alert sound. The agency interpreted the PSEA
``sameness'' language to allow vehicles to have different sounds for
different operating modes, such as forward, reverse and stationary. The
requirements as published in FMVSS No. 141 do not permit a vehicle to
have multiple sounds from which the driver can choose. The agency
discussed this in the preamble of the final rule.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ The PSEA also included a restriction on disabling or
altering of factory-equipped alert sounds. NHTSA implemented that
PSEA restriction separately in paragraph S8 of FMVSS No. 141.
\6\ See Final Rule, 81 FR 90416, at p. 90472.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The automotive industry groups' petition showed they had a
different view of the language of the PSEA regarding multiple sounds
per vehicle. Because the original Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM)
for FMVSS No. 141 did not contemplate allowing driver-selectable
sounds, the agency is opening this issue for public comment before
proceeding with an amendment of FMVSS No. 141.
This notice also makes a technical change to section S6.7 of FMVSS
No. 141 relating to ambient noise correction procedures. NHTSA has
received several requests to clarify the procedural step in S6.7.3 for
evaluation of ambient one-third octave bands in compliance tests. NHTSA
is issuing a reworded paragraph S6.7.3 to specify more clearly the
point at which the one-third octave bands should be computed during
measurements of ambient noise.
Lastly, in this notice NHTSA is correcting two dates in the FMVSS
No. 141 phase-in reporting requirements in 49 CFR 585, Subpart N.
This proposed rule is deregulatory in nature and is expected to
generate benefits and cost savings in excess of costs. The proposed
rule provides manufacturers with more flexibility and options in
developing and installing sounds for their hybrid and electric
vehicles. NHTSA believes it is reasonable to assume that manufacturers
would not utilize the flexibilities provided by the proposal to develop
and install additional selectable sound options unless the benefits
exceed the costs to them. Likewise, NHTSA believes it is reasonable to
assume that consumers would not pay more for vehicles with additional
sound options unless the benefits to them exceed any additional cost of
the vehicle.
Background
The PSEA was enacted in January 2011 and mandated that NHTSA must
establish a new motor vehicle safety standard applying to HEVs. The
PSEA stated the new standard must ``establish performance requirements
for an alert sound that allows blind and other pedestrians to
reasonably detect a nearby electric or hybrid vehicle operating below
the cross-over speed . . . .'' In section 3(2) of the PSEA, there is a
provision addressing ``sameness'' of the required vehicle alert sounds.
Section 3(2) states that HEVs must have ``within reasonable
manufacturing tolerances, the same sound or set of sounds for all
vehicles of the same make and model . . . .''
Pursuant to the PSEA, NHTSA issued an NPRM \7\ in January 2013 and
a final rule in December 2016, to create a new FMVSS setting minimum
sound level requirements for the operation of HEVs at speeds up to 30
km/h. The requirements in the final rule respond to the PSEA mandate by
providing a level of vehicle sound that the blind and sighted
pedestrians, as well as bicyclists, can use to detect the presence of
these so-called ``quiet vehicles,'' thereby reducing the risk of low-
speed pedestrian and bicyclist crashes involving HEVs. The FMVSS
applies to electric and hybrid-electric passenger cars, multi-purpose
vehicles, light trucks, and buses with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less
that can be operated in electric mode without an internal combustion
engine (ICE). To comply with the standard, light vehicle manufacturers
in most cases will equip vehicles with pedestrian alert systems that
meet the minimum sound levels specified in the standard. These systems
typically consist of one or more audio speakers, amplifiers, a control
module, and software capable of generating the required sound. It is
possible for a vehicle to meet some or all the minimum sound levels
without added hardware if there is sufficient noise from other sources
within the vehicle. For example, the sound emitted by a battery cooling
system or a vehicle's tires at 30 km/h might satisfy the minimum
specifications without added noise from an alert system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ 78 FR 2798.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
After the final rule was published, NHTSA received timely petitions
for reconsideration from three sources: The Auto Alliance in
conjunction with Global Automakers (Alliance/Global), Nissan North
America, Inc. (Nissan), and American Honda Motor Company, Inc. (Honda).
Each of these petitioners requested changes to various aspects of the
final rule. The requested changes included the phase-in schedule and
compliance lead-time as well as other requirements of the new safety
standard such as how much alert sound variation is allowed between
vehicles of the same make and model. The petitions also asked for
clarification of some technical aspects of the acoustic performance
requirements and test procedures.
Alliance/Global included in its petition a request for NHTSA to
amend S5.5 of the new safety standard to explicitly allow automakers to
equip their HEVs with multiple different sounds, rather than just one
sound, for each operating condition as specified in the FMVSS No. 141
final rule. NHTSA is responding to that petition request by proposing
to amend FMVSS No. 141 to accommodate driver-selectable sounds. NHTSA
is issuing this NPRM to solicit public comment on the proposed change.
Specifically, NHTSA proposes amending Paragraph S5.5.1 to remove
any limit on the number of sounds per vehicle make/model. NHTSA is also
requesting comment from any interested parties on whether there should
be a limit to the number of driver selectable sounds and what that
limit should be.
[[Page 48868]]
Discussion
Sameness Requirement
The ``Sameness'' provision appears in section 3(2) of the PSEA and
states that the federal regulation created pursuant to the PSEA ``shall
allow manufacturers to provide each vehicle with one or more sounds
that comply with the motor vehicle safety standard at the time of
manufacture.'' Section 3(2) further states that the regulation ``shall
require manufacturers to provide, within reasonable manufacturing
tolerances, the same sound or set of sounds for all vehicles of the
same make and model.''
NHTSA interpreted this section of the PSEA to mean that a
manufacturer may choose to equip a vehicle with different sounds for
different operating modes, including stationary, reverse, and forward
at 10 km/h, 20 km/h, and 30 km/h.\8\ However, in the December 2016
final rule, NHTSA did not interpret this language to mean vehicles can
be equipped with more than one alert sound for a given operating
condition and speed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ See NHTSA NPRM [78 FR 2798], p. 2804.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consequently, NHTSA did not include any provision in either the
NPRM or final rule allowing for more than a single alert sound per
operating mode. Instead, FMVSS No. 141 requires that any two vehicles
of the same make and model to which the standard applies must have the
same alert sound when operating under the same test conditions and the
same speed.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Section S5.5.1 of FMVSS No. 141, as published in December
2016, allowed the alert sound to vary by model year as well as make
and model (see 81 FR 90472). This was further amended on February
26, 2018, to allow alert sounds to vary by trim level and body style
within a make/model/model year (see 83 FR 8189).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alliance/Global Petition
In their January 2017 petition, Alliance/Global stated that NHTSA
adopted an inflexible approach to ensuring sameness and did not account
for specific statutory language in the PSEA that permits multiple alert
sounds per vehicle. Specifically, Alliance/Global believe the words
``one or more sounds'' in Section 3(2) of the PSEA provide this
flexibility and that NHTSA's final rule was inconsistent with this.
Alliance/Global stated that providing a selection of sounds is
essential for customer acceptance of HEVs: ``Satisfying our customers
is a primary concern for OEMs [Original Equipment Manufacturers]. Since
`one size does not fit all' neither will one alert sound for a given
make, model, trim level and model year satisfy all those consumers
purchasing all these same vehicles.'' The petition also discussed
comments submitted to the agency in February 2014 jointly by the
Alliance, Global, the American Council of the Blind (ACB), and the
National Federation of the Blind (NFB), in which the commenters,
including the two advocate organizations, recognized the need to
provide consumers with a reasonable number of driver-selectable sound
choices for customer acceptance reasons.
Alliance/Global submitted a follow-up letter \10\ dated March 1,
2017, to supplement their petition. One aspect of the letter addressed
the fact that the variety of alert sounds that manufacturers can create
that comply with the safety standard is virtually unlimited due to the
acoustic flexibility provided by the requirements in FMVSS No. 141. To
address this concern, Alliance/Global stated that, in the event NHTSA
amended FMVSS No. 141 to allow selectable sounds, they recommend a
limit of five sounds per vehicle. They provided the following
explanation: ``Because every additional driver-selectable choice of
sound requires a separate certification test as well as a compliance
test, the number of driver-selectable choices provided by manufacturers
would naturally be limited for practical reasons. However, to address
potential concerns that manufacturers might provide too many optional
sounds, we recommend that the number of permitted driver-selectable
sounds be limited to no more than five driver-selectable alert sounds
for any make, model, trim level, model year vehicle.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Docket No. NHTSA-2016-0125-0016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Alliance and Global's January 2017 petition also discussed
possible implications of paragraph S8 of FMVSS No. 141 regarding a
selectable-sounds provision. Paragraph S8 implements part of Section
3(2) of the PSEA by prohibiting alteration of a factory-installed sound
except in case of a vehicle repair or recall.\11\ The Alliance/Global
petition states, ``The ability to permit customers to select different
compliant sounds from a set of driver-selectable compliant sounds does
not violate the PSEA restrictions against disabling, altering,
replacing, or modifying the sound or set of sounds. Specifically, as
long as the customer is selecting a sound that is among the `set of
sounds' provided by the manufacturer when the car is new, then the
driver is not modifying the `set' by selecting sounds provided within
the `set.' ''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ The Alliance/Global petition requested a small change to
paragraph S8 of FMVSS No. 141 so that vehicle repairs to a module
that controls both the pedestrian alert system and other vehicle
systems would not violate the prohibition on alterations to the
alert system. NHTSA granted their request on this point in the
agency's February 2018 petition response by adopting minor edits to
paragraph S8 as suggested by Alliance/Global.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NHTSA Proposal and Request for Comments
After considering the Alliance/Global petition, and recognizing
that the language of the PSEA regarding sameness of sounds among
vehicles of the same make and model is subject to more than one
interpretation, and also that consumer preferences for vehicle alert
sounds will depend on subjective factors, NHTSA has decided to propose
amending FMVSS No. 141 to allow an unlimited number of pedestrian alert
sounds per vehicle for any operating condition. (As previously stated,
the different operating conditions are when the vehicle is stationary,
in reverse, or moving forward at speeds up to 30 km/h.)
This proposal would also improve international harmonization by
aligning FMVSS No. 141 more closely with international regulations,
particularly United Nations ECE Regulation No. 138 for Audible Vehicle
Alerting Systems, which states ``a vehicle manufacturer may define
alternative sounds which can be selected by the driver.'' The ECE
regulation does not specify a particular limit on the number of
alternative sounds that may be provided.
The agency believes that allowing for an additional number of
sounds will have no effect on safety, since all sounds would still need
to comply with the standard. NHTSA notes that the Alliance/Global
petition recommended up to five sounds per operating condition. The
agency requests comment on this suggestion and any other appropriate
limit.
In summary, NHTSA is seeking comment from all interested parties on
amending the ``Sameness'' requirement, section S5.5.1 of FMVSS No. 141,
which currently allows only one sound, to allow multiple sounds per
operating condition for each model, model year, trim, and body style of
HEV. Specifically, NHTSA requests comment and supporting information on
any safety implications, compliance issues, consumer-acceptance
factors, cost issues, or other possible alternatives that would
accompany allowing an unlimited number of compliant driver-selectable
sounds in FMVSS No. 141.
In particular, NHTSA seeks comment on the potential safety issues
related to HEV recognition by pedestrians if a multitude of new
compliant driver-
[[Page 48869]]
selectable sounds are available, and the extent to which having an
unlimited number of sounds would lead to the potential for a
pedestrian's inability to identify the sounds as a motor vehicle.
As to the remaining aspects of the Alliance/Global petition, NHTSA
is not proposing any change to paragraph S8 of FMVSS No. 141 and
believes amending S5.5.1 as proposed in this notice will fully address
the Alliance/Global petition on driver-selectable sounds. The
requirements in S8 still would apply to the set of selectable sounds
provided by the OEM, i.e., aftermarket modification of the set of
sounds would not be permitted except in allowable circumstances
specified in section S8, such as vehicle repairs and recalls.
Technical Clarification and Correction
NHTSA recently became aware that the procedure in FMVSS No. 141 for
evaluating ambient noise during compliance tests is unclear. The
Alliance and Global raised this issue in an April 2018 letter along
with several other FMVSS No. 141 technical concerns.\12\ The ambient
noise correction procedure at issue is in section S6.7.3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ See Docket item no. NHTSA-2018-0018-0004.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This paragraph indicates that the one-third octave band levels of
the ambient noise recording that are used for correction of vehicle
measurements are the individual minimum levels in each one-third octave
at any point in time over the 60-seconds of recorded ambient noise.
This incorrectly implies that the levels of different one-third octave
bands may be evaluated at different times. This was not NHTSA's
intention. The correct method intended by the agency is to evaluate
ambient levels of all 13 one-third octave bands at the same point in
time. The point in time at which ambient one-third octave bands are
supposed to be evaluated is the unique point during the 60 seconds when
the overall sound pressure level of the ambient is at a minimum, as
identified in S6.7.2, the preceding step in the ambient correction
procedure.
To resolve this, NHTSA is proposing to amend paragraph S6.7.3 to
more clearly state the intended method of evaluating one-third octave
bands for ambient correction. A proposed rewording of section S6.7.3
that would implement this change is included at the end of this
document. The agency invites all interested parties to comment on this
change.
Additionally, NHTSA has become aware of a minor correction that is
needed in the phase-in reporting requirements of FMVSS No. 141. The
FMVSS No. 141 final rule published in December 2016 required vehicle
manufacturers to report on their production of compliant HEVs during a
one-year phase-in period. (This kind of reporting requirement is
standard practice for NHTSA rules that include a phase-in period.) The
reporting requirements and associated due dates for phase in of
compliance with FMVSS No. 141 are contained in 49 CFR 585, Subpart N.
NHTSA has determined that the December 2016 rule amending Part 585,
Subpart N, states in two places, ``the production year ending August
31, 2018'' instead of ``the production year ending August 31, 2019.''
When NHTSA granted a petition to extend the FMVSS No. 141 phase-in and
compliance deadlines by one year,\13\ the reporting dates in Part 585,
Subpart N, were all adjusted by adding one year. However, because those
two dates were stated incorrectly in the original final rule, the
adjusted dates also were off by one year. In this notice, NHTSA is
making the necessary changes to 49 CFR 585, Subpart N, to specify that
phase-in reporting applies to the production year ending August 31,
2020. The corrected regulatory text, is included at the end of this
document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ 83 FR 8182, published Feb. 26, 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
A. 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 Order 2100.6, ``Policies and Procedures for
Rulemakings.'' This rulemaking is not considered significant and was
not reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget under E.O. 12866,
``Regulatory Planning and Review.'' Given the minimal impact of the
rule, in accordance with the Department's regulatory policies and
procedures, we have not prepared a full regulatory evaluation.\14\ The
agency has further determined that the impact of this proposed rule is
so minimal that the preparation of a full regulatory evaluation is not
required.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ Department of Transportation, Adoption of Regulatory
Policies and Procedures, 44 FR 11034 (Feb. 26, 1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This proposed rule responding to a petition for reconsideration
does not add any cost, as it would afford manufacturers additional
flexibility in designing their vehicles to meet customer acceptance
goals. It would not add new requirements or increase design or
production burden for vehicle manufacturers.
This proposal, if adopted, would remove a final-rule restriction on
vehicle design that auto manufacturers in the U.S. have sought to
remove. This amendment also would give manufacturers of hybrid and
electric vehicles greater flexibility in marketing those vehicles to
consumers and make vehicles potentially more appealing to consumers by
providing customer choice in selecting vehicle sounds.
The benefits and cost savings of this proposed rule are expected to
exceed any increase in costs to manufacturers if they choose to create
additional sounds. The proposal would allow manufacturers to equip
vehicles with additional sounds but would not require it. If this
proposal is finalized, a manufacturer would still be able to comply
with FMVSS No. 141 by equipping a vehicle with a single sound.
The proposed rule provides manufacturers with more flexibility and
options in developing and installing sounds for their hybrid and
electric vehicles. NHTSA believes it is reasonable to assume that
manufacturers would not utilize the flexibilities provided by the
proposal to develop and install additional selectable sounds unless the
benefits to them exceed the costs to them. Likewise, NHTSA believes it
is reasonable to assume that consumers would not purchase vehicles with
additional sounds unless the benefits to them exceed any additional
cost of the vehicle. At the same time, the proposal would not have any
effect on safety, as all sounds would still need to comply with the
standard.
B. 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 rulemaking for any proposed 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).
The Small Business Administration's regulations at 13 CFR part 121
define a small business, in part, as a business entity ``which operates
primarily within the United States.'' (13 CFR 121.105(a)). No
regulatory flexibility analysis is required if the head of an agency
certifies the rule would not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. SBREFA amended the Regulatory
[[Page 48870]]
Flexibility Act to require Federal agencies to provide a statement of
the factual basis for certifying that a rule would not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
NHTSA has considered the effects of this proposed rule under the
Regulatory Flexibility Act. This proposed rule would directly impact
manufacturers of hybrid and electric vehicles. Most manufacturers
affected by this proposed rule are not small businesses. To the extent
any manufacturers of hybrid or electric vehicles are small businesses,
we do not believe this proposed rule would have a significant economic
impact on any small businesses as this proposed rule would not impose
any costs on manufacturers but would instead increase flexibility for
vehicle manufacturers.
C. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)
NHTSA has examined today's proposed rule pursuant to Executive
Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 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 rulemaking would not have sufficient federalism
implications to warrant consultation with State and local officials or
the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement. The proposed
rule would 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.''
NHTSA rules can preempt in two ways. First, the National Traffic
and Motor Vehicle Safety Act contains an express preemption provision:
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 by Congress that preempts any
non-identical State legislative and administrative law addressing the
same aspect of performance.
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 such 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 there being 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 and 12988, NHTSA has considered
whether this rulemaking action 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 today's
proposed rule and finds that this rule, like many NHTSA rules,
prescribes only a minimum safety standard. As such, 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 today's rule. Establishment of a higher standard by
means of State tort law would not conflict with the minimum standard
announced here. Without any conflict, there could not be any implied
preemption of a State common law tort cause of action.
D. Executive Order 13771 (Regulatory Reform)
NHTSA has reviewed this proposed rule for compliance with E.O.
13771 (``Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs''), which
requires Federal agencies to offset the number and cost of new
regulations through the repeal, revocation, or revision of existing
regulations. As provided in OMB Memorandum M-17-21 (``Implementing E.O.
13771''), a ``regulatory action'' subject to E.O. 13771 is a
significant regulatory action as defined in section 3(f) of E.O. 12866
that has been finalized and that imposes total costs greater than zero.
For the reasons identified in the previous sections, this proposed rule
is not a significant regulatory action under E.O. 12866.
Furthermore, this proposal is a ``deregulatory action'' under E.O.
13771 because, as discussed above, it would reduce regulatory burden on
industry by allowing design flexibility by giving manufacturers the
option to use selectable sounds. Also, it would improve international
harmonization by aligning more closely with international regulations,
particularly United Nations ECE Regulation No. 138 for Audible Vehicle
Alerting Systems.
E. Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform)
With respect to the review of the promulgation of a new regulation,
section 3(b) of Executive Order 12988, ``Civil Justice Reform'' (61 FR
4729; Feb. 7, 1996), requires that Executive agencies make every
reasonable effort to ensure that the regulation: (1) Clearly specifies
the preemptive effect; (2) clearly specifies the effect on existing
Federal law or regulation; (3) provides a clear legal standard for
affected conduct, while promoting simplification and burden reduction;
(4) clearly specifies the retroactive effect, if any; (5) specifies
whether administrative proceedings are to be required before parties
file suit in court; (6) adequately defines key terms; and (7) addresses
other important issues affecting clarity and general draftsmanship
under any guidelines issued by the Attorney General. This document is
consistent with that requirement.
Pursuant to this Order, NHTSA notes that the issue of preemption is
discussed separately in this notice. NHTSA notes further that there is
no requirement that individuals submit a petition for reconsideration
or pursue other administrative proceedings before they may file suit in
court.
F. Protection of Children From Environmental Health and Safety Risks
Executive Order 13045, ``Protection of Children from Environmental
Health and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19855, April 23, 1997), applies to any
rule that: (1)
[[Page 48871]]
Is determined to be ``economically significant'' as defined under
Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental, health, or
safety risk that the agency has reason to believe may have a
disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets
both criteria, the agency must evaluate the environmental health or
safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the
planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and
reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the agency.
This notice is part of a rulemaking that is not expected to have a
disproportionate health or safety impact on children. Consequently, no
further analysis is required under Executive Order 13045.
G. 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 is not
any new information collection requirement associated with this
proposed rule.
H. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act (NTTAA) requires NHTSA to evaluate and use existing voluntary
consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless doing so would
be inconsistent with applicable law (e.g., the statutory provisions
regarding NHTSA's vehicle safety authority) or otherwise impractical.
Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards developed or
adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. Technical standards
are defined by the NTTAA as ``performance-based or design-specific
technical specification and related management systems practices.''
They pertain to ``products and processes, such as size, strength, or
technical performance of a product, process or material.'' Examples of
organizations generally regarded as voluntary consensus standards
bodies include ASTM International, the SAE International, and the
American National Standards Institute. If NHTSA does not use available
and potentially applicable voluntary consensus standards, we are
required by the Act to provide Congress, through OMB, an explanation of
the reasons for not using such standards.
There are no voluntary consensus standards developed by voluntary
consensus standards bodies pertaining to this proposed rule.
I. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA)
requires federal 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). Before promulgating a NHTSA rule for which a written statement
is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires the agency to
identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives
and adopt the least costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome
alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of
section 205 do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable
law. Moreover, section 205 allows the agency to adopt an alternative
other than the least costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome
alternative if the agency publishes with the final rule an explanation
of why that alternative was not adopted.
This proposed rule would not result in any expenditure by State,
local, or tribal governments or the private sector of more than $100
million, adjusted for inflation.
J. National Environmental Policy Act
NHTSA analyzed the original FMVSS No. 141 final rule for the
purposes of the National Environmental Policy Act. The agency
determined that implementation of that rule would not have any
significant impact on the quality of the human environment.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ Docket item no. NHTSA-2016-0125-0009, https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=NHTSA-2016-0125-0009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The rulemaking action in this notice would amend the FMVSS No. 141
final rule in a way that would not change the impact for the purposes
of the National Environmental Policy Act. Therefore, the agency has
determined that implementation of this action would not have any
significant impact on the quality of the human environment.
K. 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.
L. Privacy Act
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).
List of Subjects
49 CFR Part 571
Minimum sound requirements for hybrid and electric vehicles; Phase-
in reporting requirements.
49 CFR Part 585
Imports, Motor vehicle safety, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Tires.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration proposes to amend 49 CFR parts 571 and
585 as follows:
PART 571--FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS
0
1. The authority citation for Part 571 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117, and 30166;
delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.95.
0
2. Amend Sec. 571.141 by revising paragraph S5.5.1 and S6.7.3 to read
as follows:
Sec. 571.141 Standard No. 141; Minimum Sound Requirements for Hybrid
and Electric Vehicles
* * * * *
S5.5 Sameness Requirement
S5.5.1 Any two vehicles of the same make, model, model year, body
type, and trim level (as those terms are defined in 49 CFR 565.12 or in
section S4 of this safety standard) to which this standard applies
shall be designed to have the same pedestrian alert sound or set of
sounds, when operating under the same test conditions and at the same
speed within the range of test conditions and speeds for which an alert
sound is required in Section S5 of this safety standard.
* * * * *
S6.7.3 For each microphone, compute an ambient level for each of
the 13 one-third octave bands using the time that is associated with
the
[[Page 48872]]
minimum A-weighted overall ambient identified in S6.7.2.
* * * * *
PART 585--PHASE-IN REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
0
3. The authority citation for part 585 continues to read/is revised to
read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117, and 30166;
delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.95.
0
4. Revise Sec. 585.132 to read as follows:
Sec. 585.132 Response to Inquiries.
At any time during the production year ending August 31, 2020, each
manufacturer shall, upon request from the Office of Vehicle Safety
Compliance, provide information identifying the vehicles (by make,
model and vehicle identification number) that have been certified as
complying with the requirements of Standard No. 141, Minimum Sound
Requirements for Hybrid and Electric Vehicles (49 CFR 571.141). The
manufacturer's designation of a vehicle as a certified vehicle is
irrevocable.
0
5. Amend Sec. 585.133 by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:
Sec. 585.133 Reporting requirements.
(a) Phase-in reporting requirements. Within 60 days after the end
of the production year ending August 31, 2020, each manufacturer shall
submit a report to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
concerning its compliance with the requirements of Standard No. 141
Minimum Sound Requirements for Hybrid and Electric Vehicles (49 CFR
571.141) for its vehicles produced in that year. Each report shall
provide the information specified in paragraph (b) of this section and
in Sec. 585.2 of this part.
* * * * *
Issued on September 10, 2019 in Washington, DC, under authority
delegated in 49 CFR 1.95 and 501.5.
James Clayton Owens,
Acting Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2019-19874 Filed 9-16-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
