[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 133 (Wednesday, July 13, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 41618-41625]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-14733]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 571

[Docket No. NHTSA-2022-0061]
RIN 2127-AL93


Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Minimum Sound 
Requirements for Hybrid and Electric Vehicles

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), U.S. 
Department of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This final rule amends the test procedure in section S6.7.3 of 
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 141, Minimum Sound 
Requirements for Hybrid and Electric Vehicles, as proposed in the 
September 17, 2019, notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), to specify 
the single point in time that should be used when determining one-third 
octave band levels of ambient noise measurements used in compliance 
tests. The agency has chosen not to adopt the remaining portions of the 
NPRM, including a proposal which would have allowed manufactures of 
hybrid and electric vehicles (HEVs) to install a number of driver-
selectable pedestrian alert sounds in each HEV they manufacture. The 
driver-selectable alert sounds proposal is not being adopted because of 
a lack of supporting data. In addition, this final rule acknowledges 
that a proposed technical change included in the September 17, 2019, 
NPRM to correct two dates in NHTSA's phase-in reporting requirements 
for FMVSS No. 141 is no longer needed. That change was addressed 
previously by the agency's September 1, 2020, interim final rule that 
extended the FMVSS No. 141 compliance deadline and phase-in dates by 
six months. The interim final rule included adjustments to NHTSA's 
reporting dates, superseding the need for the proposed corrections.

DATES: This final rule is effective on August 12, 2022.

ADDRESSES: All correspondence, comments and other information relating 
to this document should refer to the docket number shown in the heading 
and should 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: Mr. Michael Pyne, NHTSA Office of 
Crash Avoidance Standards, by email to [email protected] or at 202-366-
4171, or Mr. Paul Connet, NHTSA Office of the Chief Counsel, by email 
to [email protected] or at 202-366-5547.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On September 17, 2019, NHTSA issued an NPRM 
to amend FMVSS No. 141, Minimum Sound Requirements for Hybrid and 
Electric Vehicles (the ``quiet vehicles'' rule) to remove the numerical 
limit on compliant sounds that a manufacturer may choose to install in 
a vehicle.\1\ Under the proposal, a manufacturer would be allowed to 
install any number of compliant sounds on each HEV make/model/body 
style/trim they produce for sale in the United States. NHTSA requested 
comment on that proposal and on whether the safety standard should 
allow more than one compliant sound and if so, what the allowable 
number should be.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 84 FR 48866.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The NPRM included two other proposed changes, one to amend the 
FMVSS No. 141 test procedure for measuring ambient sound levels during 
compliance tests, and the other to correct phase-in reporting dates.

Background

    To protect pedestrians and other road users, FMVSS No. 141 requires 
HEVs to emit a pedestrian alert sound while operating in certain 
conditions.\2\ The alert sound on a given vehicle is allowed to change 
with vehicle operating speed or direction--the standard defines five 
different operating conditions: stationary in neutral or forward gear 
and with constant forward speed less than 10 km/h; reverse; and moving 
at constant forward speed from 10 km/h up to but not including 20 km/

[[Page 41619]]

h, from 20 km/h up to 30 km/h, and at or just above 30 km/h. Beyond 
that speed, alert sounds are no longer required by FMVSS No. 141 as 
other sounds such as tires and airflow produce enough sound to make the 
vehicle detectable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 5.5 of the standard, titled ``Sameness requirement'', 
requires any two vehicles of the same make, model, model year, body 
type, and trim level to have the same pedestrian alert sound per 
operating condition.\3\ The sameness requirement prevents manufacturers 
from equipping multiple sounds for the same operating condition. 
Additional details of NHTSA's implementation of the sameness 
requirement are discussed in the preamble of the FMVSS No. 141 final 
rule.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 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).
    \4\ See 81 FR 90416, 90472.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The sameness requirement in FMVSS No. 141 originates from section 
3(a)(2) of the Pedestrian Safety Enhancement Act (PSEA) of 2010 which 
states that the Federal regulation ``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.'' \5\ Section 
3(a)(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 and shall prohibit manufacturers from providing any mechanism for 
anyone other than the manufacturer or the dealer to disable, alter, 
replace, or modify the sound or set of sounds.'' \6\ The PSEA did not 
provide any further specifics about the number of sounds that hybrid 
and electric vehicles may have or how sounds may vary among vehicles of 
the same make and model.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Public Law 111-373, 124 Stat. 4086 (January 4, 2011).
    \6\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the original proposal for FMVSS No. 141, NHTSA interpreted this 
section of the PSEA to mean that a manufacturer may choose to equip 
different sounds for the different operating modes described above.\7\ 
In a joint comment to the proposal, several commenters stated that the 
PSEA permitted the regulation to allow for multiple sounds to be 
equipped for each operating conditions from which drivers could choose 
from, and requested the agency to adopt driver-selectable sounds.\8\ As 
discussed in the final rule establishing FMVSS No. 141, NHTSA 
reaffirmed its understanding that the PSEA language restricted the 
agency from promulgating a rule that would permit vehicles to be 
equipped with more than one alert sound for a given operating 
condition, hence foreclosing the possibility of driver-selectable 
sounds.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See 78 FR 2798, 2804.
    \8\ See 81 FR 90416, 90475.
    \9\ In the 2016 final rule, NHTSA stated: ``Given our 
understanding of the PSEA, we are not including provisions requested 
by these commenters that would allow for driver-selectable 
pedestrian alert sounds. . . . We believe that this approach is 
necessary to satisfy the requirements contained in the PSEA language 
and that allowing a means for owners to select or modify alert 
sounds . . . would be in conflict with the language of the PSEA. 
Furthermore, by not allowing driver-selectable sounds, the final 
rule adheres more closely to the PSEA requirement that vehicles of a 
given make and model must have the same alert sound.'' 81 FR 90416, 
90475.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Alliance/Global Petition on Driver-Selectable Sounds

    The issue of permitting driver-selectable sounds was raised as one 
aspect of a multi-part petition for reconsideration that was jointly 
submitted to NHTSA in 2017 by the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers 
(Alliance) and Global Automakers (Global).\10\ Their petition requested 
several amendments, one of which was that NHTSA modify the sameness 
requirement in section S5.5 of FMVSS No. 141 to allow each HEV to be 
equipped with multiple compliant pedestrian alert sounds from which a 
vehicle owner/operator could select according to their preference.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Docket No. NHTSA-2016-0125-0012. At the time of their 
petition, Alliance and Global were separate entities. Subsequently, 
they joined to form a single entity called the Alliance for 
Automotive Innovation with member companies.
    \11\ NHTSA issued a final rule on February 26, 2018, to address 
the other requested actions in the Alliance/Global petition for 
reconsideration (83 FR 8182). In that petition response, the agency 
announced that it was planning to publish a notice of proposed 
rulemaking to allow driver-selectable sounds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As the agency weighed the petition for reconsideration, the agency 
concluded that amending the standard to permit driver-selectable sounds 
would represent a significant--and likely unforeseeable--change in the 
agency's position. The agency determined that it was in the public's 
best interest to publish a new proposal on the issue to facilitate 
comment. The agency published an NPRM in September 2019 soliciting 
public comment on a proposal to allow unlimited sounds on HEVs, 
provided the manufacturer certified that each sound complies with the 
requirements of FMVSS No. 141, as well as related questions including 
whether the safety standard should be amended to allow only a limited 
number of sounds.
    In their petition, Alliance/Global stated that NHTSA's 
implementation of FMVSS No. 141 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. Alliance/
Global stated that the words ``one or more sounds'' in Section 3(a)(2) 
of the PSEA provide this flexibility. Alliance/Global said that 
providing a selection of sounds is essential for customer acceptance of 
HEVs, stating:

    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.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Docket No. NHTSA-2011-0148-0322.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In a March 2017 follow-up letter, Alliance/Global supplemented 
their petition with additional information and included a 
recommendation that not more than five sounds should be allowed per 
vehicle. The letter included the following explanation: \13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Docket No. NHTSA-2016-0125-0016.

    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.

    Alliance/Global did not provide data in the form of consumer 
surveys, research, or economic impact analysis to support the request 
to allow multiple sounds in their petition. Similarly, besides the 
qualitative explanation mentioned above, the specific recommendation of 
not-more-than-five sounds per HEV was not accompanied by supporting 
research or analysis.

[[Page 41620]]

Proposed Rule on Driver-Selectable Sounds

    In response to the Alliance/Global petition, NHTSA proposed 
amending FMVSS No. 141 to allow an unlimited number of pedestrian alert 
sounds per vehicle for any operating condition. In the proposal, NHTSA 
acknowledged that the PSEA language regarding the sameness of sounds 
was subject to more than one interpretation, and that alternative 
readings of the statute could accommodate an amendment to allow 
vehicles to be equipped with multiple FMVSS No. 141-compliant sounds 
for the same operating conditions. The proposal reasoned that consumer 
preferences depend on subjective factors, such as how a vehicle sounds. 
The NPRM also suggested that the proposal to allow multiple alert 
sounds in theory should not impair safety as all additional sounds 
would still have to comply with FMVSS No. 141.
    NHTSA requested comment and supporting information on any safety 
implications, compliance issues, consumer-acceptance factors, cost 
issues, or other possible alternatives that were relevant to allowing 
an unlimited number of compliant driver-selectable sounds in FMVSS No. 
141. In particular, the NPRM asked for comments on the potential safety 
issues related to HEV recognition by pedestrians if a multitude of new 
compliant driver-selectable sounds are available, and the extent to 
which having an unlimited number of sounds would lead to the potential 
for a pedestrian to be unable to identify the sounds as coming from a 
motor vehicle.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ The NPRM also noted that an international regulation, 
United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (ECE) Regulation No. 
138 on Audible Vehicle Alerting Systems, allows vehicle 
manufacturers to define alternative sounds which can be selected by 
the driver and does not specify a particular limit on the number of 
alternative sounds that may be provided.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Summary of Comments on the NPRM

    NHTSA received comments from a variety of sources, including some 
in favor of the proposal, some opposing it, and other comments offering 
additional information, not all of it directly related to the 
proposal.\15\ Fifty-two commenters responded to the NPRM: four were 
from advocacy groups representing people who are blind, have low vision 
or other disabilities, including the National Federation of the Blind 
(NFB), the American Council of the Blind (ACB), the Consortium for 
Citizens with Disabilities (CCD), and The Seeing Eye; two were from 
organizations representing the automotive industry, including a joint 
comment from the Alliance and Global Automakers and a comment from SAE 
International; one submittal was from an educational institution, the 
Perkins School for the Blind; and 45 were from individual members of 
the public.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Docket No. NHTSA-2019-0085.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The NFB commented that a ``reasonable number'' of sounds that meet 
the requirements should be allowed so that HEVs with alert sounds are 
more palatable to consumers but did not recommend any specific limit on 
the number of allowable sounds. The NFB stated that it fully supports 
the Alliance/Global petition, including the assertion that the number 
of sounds per HEV will be effectively limited by the cost to certify.
    Other advocacy groups including the ACB, The Seeing Eye, and the 
CCD expressed safety concerns about allowing an unlimited number of 
sounds. The ACB comment diverged from the position it had supported 
previously in the joint comment letter of February 2014, discussed 
above. In response to the NPRM, the ACB urged NHTSA to limit the number 
of sounds from which car owners can select and stated that uniformity 
is imperative for safety. The ACB stated, ``a distinguishable and 
uniform sound is necessary to assist the blind community in quickly 
identifying hybrid or electric cars.'' ACB said that sounds need to be 
recognizable as a vehicle, ideally that of a car engine, and said that 
car owners should not be involved in selecting sounds. The CCD 
reiterated these same comments.
    The Seeing Eye commented, ``For recognition purposes, it is 
important that all vehicles emit the same standardized sound regardless 
of manufacturer.'' Furthermore, it said that restricting the number of 
sounds is not enough, and that clear specifications for the types of 
sounds are needed.
    The Perkins School for the Blind submitted a spreadsheet containing 
554 individual comments from students, staff members, and others 
associated with the school.\16\ Of these, more than half (282) 
consisted of nearly identical responses that included the following 
statement or a very similar one:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ As a general note, some of NHTSA's earliest research on 
quiet vehicle human factors during the 2011 timeframe utilized 
volunteers from the Perkins School for the Blind located in 
Cambridge, MA, to evaluate detectability of different vehicle 
sounds.

    I believe silent cars should be required to emit a set of clear, 
consistent and recognizable sounds. These sounds should be 
researched and set by a national governing body. I feel strongly 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
that owners should not be allowed to select from a menu of sounds.

    A few commenters in this group elaborated on that core statement, 
providing statements of fact, opinions, or personal experiences with 
quiet vehicles in traffic. The large collection of comments from the 
Perkins School also included the following:
     In addition to the 282 pro forma comments, 57 comments 
conveyed a similar message in the commenters' own words; many of these 
elaborated on the general need for `silent' vehicles to emit a sound or 
sounds for pedestrian safety.
     Another 117 comments called for a consistent, recognizable 
sound or sounds in vehicles so blind persons can detect that a vehicle 
is nearby. Of these, 109 called for a single, uniform sound.
     Eighty comments were generally supportive of finding a 
solution to quiet car dangers but did not address the question of 
allowing multiple sounds.
     Fourteen addressed miscellaneous issues outside the scope 
of the proposal, and four comments focused on opposing the idea of a 
menu of sound options (though these seem to have mistakenly assumed 
that drivers could create their own sounds).
    There were 45 comments submitted to the docket by individual 
members of the public, some of which did not directly address the 
proposal in the NPRM to allow unlimited driver-selectable alert sounds. 
Among those that did address the proposal, almost all did not support 
it. These comments did not provide additional data or research, though 
some offered anecdotal evidence. Many comments from individuals focused 
on other issues that were out of scope, including one or more of the 
following:
     expressing a general like or dislike for the concept of 
adding noise to HEVs;
     pointing out the beneficial reduction in traffic noise 
that electric vehicles make possible;
     suggesting that quiet gas-engine vehicles should be 
subject to the same requirements as HEVs.
    Based on statements in some of these comments, it seems likely 
there was some misunderstanding of either the proposal or NHTSA's 
existing minimum sound requirements. For example, it was apparent that 
one or more of the commenters believed that vehicle owners would be 
allowed to create their own sounds or use random recorded sounds, or 
that the existing NHTSA regulation specifies a single, universal alert 
sound for all HEVs. Others did not acknowledge that every additional 
driver-selectable alert sound allowed under the proposal would have to 
meet the minimum safety requirements.
    The Alliance/Global comment fully supported the proposal for an 
unlimited number of driver selectable sounds and

[[Page 41621]]

reiterated their position that ``offering drivers a selection of 
pedestrian alert sounds . . . facilitates an increase in consumer 
choice and promotes consumer satisfaction and acceptance.'' The comment 
stated that compliance costs will be prohibitive enough to limit the 
number of sounds that automakers install in a vehicle and will thus 
prevent them from offering more than a reasonable number.\17\ The 
Alliance/Global comment did not recommend any specific limit on the 
allowable number of sounds or mention their previous recommendation of 
not more than five allowable sounds. They maintained their position 
that a ``reasonable number of choices should be permitted as long as 
each selectable choice meets the minimum sound requirements.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ The agency notes that, under the self-certification statute 
in the Motor Vehicle Safety Act, manufacturers have some discretion 
in how they certify, and there is no explicit requirement for a 
manufacturer to test each sound. However, in certifying compliance, 
the manufacturer must exercise reasonable care, and NHTSA would find 
a vehicle noncompliant if an alert sound failed to meet the standard 
when tested by NHTSA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Prior to issuing the NPRM, NHTSA considered alternatives to the 
proposal to allow an unlimited number of alert sounds. One alternative 
entailed proposing to allow a limited number of driver-selectable alert 
sounds. The NPRM did not include that specific proposal, but it sought 
comment on allowing a limited number and, in that case, how many alert 
sounds should be allowed. NHTSA did not receive any comments in 
response to the alternative of allowing a limited number of sounds.
    The SAE International provided a comment that did not pertain to 
the proposed rulemaking on selectable sounds but focused exclusively on 
the test procedure issue raised in the NPRM concerning ambient noise 
measurement, as discussed later in this document.

Comment Analysis

    The great majority of the comments on the NPRM, including those 
submitted by organizations and people who are blind or who have low 
vision, did not favor the proposal to allow HEVs to have an unlimited 
number of different pedestrian alert sounds. To the contrary, most of 
those comments were in favor of more uniformity, rather than less, in 
the number and types of alert sounds allowed on HEVs. In fact, while 
out-of-scope of the NPRM, at least one organization expressed a 
preference for permitting only a single, uniform sound for all HEVs 
regardless of vehicle make or model. These commenters stated that 
having greater uniformity makes it easier for sight-impaired 
pedestrians to recognize vehicles, and thus safer for them to navigate 
in traffic. Several comments from individuals included descriptions of 
unsafe encounters with quiet vehicles.
    The joint comment from the Alliance/Global supported the proposal 
to amend FMVSS No. 141 to allow HEVs to have an unlimited number of 
pedestrian alert sounds. Similarly, the comment from the NFB favored 
providing drivers with a ``reasonable number'' of sounds per vehicle 
from which drivers could choose a preferred sound.
    However, these comments were not accompanied by any data or 
analysis to show that unlimited sounds would have no impact on 
pedestrian safety. The Alliance/Global and the NFB did not provide 
information such as data from research or analyses, like consumer 
surveys for example, or other information to support an amendment to 
allow either multiple alert sounds or an unlimited number of sounds. 
They also did not provide any economic or market analysis to support 
their contention that allowing multiple alert sounds is likely to 
increase acceptance of HEVs in the U.S. new-vehicle market. 
Furthermore, the agency has no specific information of its own that 
addresses these questions of safety and consumer acceptance.
    In addition, the Alliance and the NFB submitted a late comment in 
the form of a letter to the agency on March 17, 2022. The organizations 
stated that material, including tutorials, guides, and videos, is 
currently available online to assist individuals that would like to 
disable the pedestrian alert sound, a mandated vehicle safety system, 
required under FMVSS No. 141. The organizations asserted that 
individuals that dislike the alert sound provided by a vehicle 
manufacturer may seek to disable the sound but that, if provided the 
option to choose from alternative sounds, such individuals would be 
more likely to select one than to disable the system. The organizations 
suggested that NHTSA should therefore allow up to five driver-
selectable sounds as a means to ensure that the benefits associated 
with the requirements contained FMVSS No. 141 are not eliminated.
    The agency notes that these commenters did not provide any data or 
analysis as part of the late comment to support their claims. FMVSS No. 
141 sets requirements that apply to manufacturers, modifiers, repair 
shops, and others, but does not set requirements for end-users. 
Furthermore, the use and treatment of vehicles by individual end-users 
generally is not subject to NHTSA's vehicle safety regulations. 
However, States may choose to require individuals to maintain vehicles 
after first sale in such a way that they comply with Federal motor 
vehicle safety standards. In addition, states regulate insurance 
companies, which may impose deterrents on individuals to dissuade them 
from disabling important vehicle safety systems such as the one 
required by FMVSS No. 141. The organizations did not provide any data 
or analysis about the potential actions of individuals to intentionally 
make inoperative a required vehicle safety system, nor did they provide 
any data or analysis to quantify how their requested action to allow 
multiple driver-selectable sounds would cause individuals determined to 
silence their vehicle alert sound required by FMVSS No. 141 to instead 
just select a different sound from among those that could be installed 
on their vehicle. The agency finds it speculative to suggest that 
allowing multiple driver-selectable sounds might dissuade vehicle 
owners from disabling a safety system required by FMVSS No. 141, 
especially given that a vocal minority of commenters over the course of 
several rulemakings have argued that HEVs should not be required to 
have any alert sound because they prefer quiet vehicles, not that there 
is a lack of preferrable alternative sounds.
    Although the commenters that opposed the proposal also did not 
provide substantial information in the form of research or analyses to 
support their position, NHTSA believes it prudent to err on the side of 
caution and safety in the absence of data or other evidence.
    While the current standard does not require a uniform sound across 
manufacturers or even carlines, by restricting the variation of sounds 
among make/model/trim groups there is an incentive to manufacturers to 
apply sounds that appeal to a broader range of tastes. Removing this 
restriction would allow manufacturers to make more obscure sounds that 
only appeal to a small minority of HEV owners.
    After reviewing the comments, NHTSA also is concerned about the 
potential compliance and safety impacts of the proposal. There are 
unanswered questions relating to the cost/benefit impact of unlimited 
driver-selectable sounds including:
     How can the costs and benefits be accurately determined?
     Is it reasonable to expect costs of certification to be 
the primary factor in limiting the number of driver-selectable sounds?

[[Page 41622]]

     What is the safety impact? Will HEV recognition be 
compromised as the number of allowable sounds increases, and can that 
be quantified?
     Will selectable sounds increase consumer acceptance?
     Will there be unintended consequences, e.g., incentives 
for manufacturers to develop a larger number of customized sounds that 
appeal to narrow driver populations?
    Considering the comments and all other factors, NHTSA has concluded 
that there is insufficient data or other compelling information to 
support amending FMVSS No. 141 to allow more than one pedestrian alert 
sound per HEV, and there is significant opposition from many commenters 
to the proposal to allow unlimited driver-selectable sounds.
    As a result, the agency has concluded that the existing 
requirement--that HEVs of the same make, model, model year, body style, 
and trim level, must have the same alert sound--should remain in 
effect, and the provisions in S5.5 of FMVSS No. 141 should not be 
amended at this time.
    Accordingly, NHTSA is not adopting the proposal from the September 
17, 2019, NPRM relating to driver-selectable alert sounds.

Amendment To Clarify Ambient Noise Measurement Procedure

    The NPRM proposed modifying the text of section 6.7.3 in FMVSS No. 
141 to remove ambiguity in the procedure for evaluating ambient 
(background) noise during compliance tests. This issue was raised by 
the Alliance and Global in an April 2018 letter.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See Docket No. NHTSA-2018-0018-0004.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Evaluation of ambient sounds during vehicle compliance tests as 
required in section S6.7 of FMVSS No. 141 is necessary to ensure 
ambient noise remains acceptably low and to apply ambient corrections 
to vehicle measurements. Ambient sound is any background noise that is 
present at the test site during a vehicle compliance evaluation that is 
not emitted by the test vehicle itself. Table 8 and Table 9 of FMVSS 
No. 141 specify ambient noise limits for overall sound level and one-
third octave band level, respectively, relative to the sound level of 
the test vehicle.
    In prescribing how ambient one-third octave band levels are to be 
evaluated for correction of vehicle measurements, section S6.7.3 
indicates that the ambient levels used are the minimum levels at any 
point in time over the required 60 seconds of recorded ambient noise. 
The wording used in S6.7.3 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 for an individual microphone. For each microphone, the 
point in time used is the unique point during the 60 seconds (or more) 
of recorded ambient noise when the overall sound pressure level of the 
ambient is at a minimum for that same microphone, as identified in the 
preceding step, S6.7.2, in the test procedure. Consequently, the point 
used for computing the 13 one-third octave bands may vary across 
microphones but, for a single microphone, all 13 one-third octave bands 
are computed at the same point in time.
    To resolve this, NHTSA proposed amending S6.7.3 to state the 
intended method of evaluating ambient one-third octave bands more 
clearly for the purpose of applying corrections to measurements of 
vehicle sound.
    There was one comment submitted on this topic in response to the 
NPRM, from SAE International (SAE). SAE did not comment on the details 
of the proposed amendment of S6.7.3, but rather expressed a broader 
concern with NHTSA's approach to ambient noise measurement more 
generally. This is something SAE has written to the agency about on a 
previous occasion.\19\ SAE's present comment maintained that FMVSS No. 
141 compliance test procedures should not use the minimum ambient sound 
level. SAE stated the correct method is to ascertain and apply the 
maximum ambient sound level. However, NHTSA considered that approach in 
the past and was not persuaded to change the ambient correction 
methodology in FMVSS No. 141.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See SAE comment, Docket No. NHTSA-2016-0125-0021, at p. 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because the SAE comment did not specifically address the proposal 
to reword S6.7.3 and instead focused on a broader test procedure 
concern that NHTSA has previously considered but chose not to adopt, 
the agency is proceeding with a final rule to adopt the amended test 
procedure as proposed.
    An amended S6.7.3 is included below. This amendment is scheduled to 
take effect 30 days after the date of publication in the Federal 
Register.

Proposed Correction of Phase-In Reporting Dates

    The NPRM included a proposal to correct two dates in the part 585 
phase-in reporting requirements associated with FMVSS No. 141. However, 
those changes are no longer necessary.
    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 from September 1, 2018, to August 31, 
2019.\20\ NHTSA later acknowledged that part 585, subpart N, 
incorrectly refers to this one-year period in two places as ``the 
production year ending August 31, 2018'' instead of ``the production 
year ending August 31, 2019.'' When NHTSA granted a petition for 
reconsideration in February 2018 to extend the FMVSS No. 141 phase-in 
and compliance deadlines by one year, the reporting dates in part 585, 
subpart N, were all adjusted by adding one year.\21\ However, because 
those two dates were off by one year, the adjusted dates also were off 
by one year. In the NPRM, NHTSA proposed correcting this discrepancy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ The reporting requirements and associated due dates for 
phase-in of compliance with FMVSS No. 141 are contained in 49 CFR 
part 585, subpart N.
    \21\ 85 FR 8182.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On September 1, 2020, NHTSA published an interim final rule (IFR) 
to extend the FMVSS No. 141 phase-in and compliance deadlines by an 
additional six months to provide relief to automakers experiencing 
vehicle manufacturing disruptions resulting from the Covid-19 national 
health emergency.\22\ The IFR included six-month adjustments to the due 
dates for FMVSS No. 141 phase-in reporting contained in part 585, 
subpart N.\23\ Those newly adjusted reporting dates supersede the 
corrections NHTSA proposed in September 2019 and obviate the need for 
any further changes. In addition, the agency did not receive any 
comments on the proposed date change. Therefore, in this document, 
NHTSA is making no changes to the phase-in reporting dates.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ 85 FR 54273.
    \23\ As per normal procedure, the interim final rule allowed for 
public comment. In response to the IFR, there were no comments 
submitted on the topic of phase-in reporting dates for FMVSS No. 
141.
    \24\ As stipulated in the IFR, the phase-in period for FMVSS No. 
141, covering 50 percent of a manufacturer's HEV production, ran 
from March 1, 2020, through February 28, 2021. Full compliance with 
FMVSS No. 141, covering 100 percent of each manufacturer's HEV 
production, began on March 1, 2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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,

[[Page 41623]]

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.\25\ The agency has further determined that the impact of 
this rule is so minimal that the preparation of a full regulatory 
evaluation is not required.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ Department of Transportation, Adoption of Regulatory 
Policies and Procedures, 44 FR 11034 (Feb. 26, 1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This final rule does not add any cost, as it does not change the 
scope or applicability of FMVSS No. 141 and does not add new 
requirements or increase design or production burden for vehicle 
manufacturers.
    This final rule does not have any effect on safety, as the 
modification of a step in the test procedures related to ambient noise 
correction does not change the safety requirements in the standard that 
apply to all pedestrian alert sounds.

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 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 final rule under the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act. This final rule would directly impact 
manufacturers of hybrid and electric vehicles. Most manufacturers 
affected by this final rule are not small businesses. To the extent any 
manufacturers of hybrid or electric vehicles are small businesses, we 
do not believe this final rule would have a significant economic impact 
on any small businesses as this final rule would not impose any 
additional costs on manufacturers.

C. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

    NHTSA has examined this final 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 final 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 chapter 301, 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 chapter 301. 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 this final rule 
and finds that this rule 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 this 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 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

[[Page 41624]]

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 E.O. 12988, NHTSA notes that the issue of preemption is 
discussed separately in this final rule. 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.

E. 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) 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 final rule is not expected to have a disproportionate health 
or safety impact on children. Consequently, no further analysis is 
required under Executive Order 13045.

F. 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 Office of Management and Budget 
(OMB) control number. There is not any new information collection 
requirement associated with this final rule.

G. 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.
    NHTSA considered and utilized voluntary consensus standards in the 
development of the FMVSS No. 141 standard. NHTSA utilized SAE J2889 as 
a basis for the test procedures in FMVSS No. 141, as discussed in the 
preamble to the original final rule establishing the safety standard in 
2016.\26\ NHTSA's test procedures include a specific deviation from the 
J2889 procedures for reasons discussed in the original final rule 
preamble. That deviation was raised in a comment and is addressed in 
this final rule document in the discussion of comments pertaining to 
the amended test procedure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ 81 FR 90416.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    There are no other voluntary consensus standards developed by 
voluntary consensus standards bodies pertaining to this final rule.

H. 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 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 final rule will not result in any expenditure by State, local, 
or tribal governments or the private sector of more than $100 million, 
adjusted for inflation.

I. 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.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ Docket no. NHTSA-2016-0125, https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=NHTSA-2016-0125-0009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The final rule amends FMVSS No. 141 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 
will not have any significant impact on the quality of the human 
environment.

J. 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.

K. 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 in 49 CFR Part 571

    Imports, Motor vehicle safety, Motor vehicles, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements, Rubber and rubber products.

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the National Highway 
Traffic Safety Administration amends 49 CFR part 571 as follows:

PART 571--FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS

0
1. The authority citation for part 571 continues to read as follows:


[[Page 41625]]


    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 S6.7.3 to read as follows:


Sec.  571.141   Standard No. 141; Minimum Sound Requirements for Hybrid 
and Electric Vehicles.

* * * * *
    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 minimum A-weighted overall ambient identified in S6.7.2 of this 
section.
* * * * *

    Issued in Washington, DC, under authority delegated in 49 CFR 
1.95 and 501.8.
Steven S. Cliff,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2022-14733 Filed 7-12-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


