41618 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 133 / Wednesday, July 13, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

1 84 FR 48866. 

2Final 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. 

FR 4729, February 7, 1996), in issuing 

this rule, the EPA has taken the 

necessary steps to eliminate drafting 

errors and ambiguity, minimize 

potential litigation, and provide a clear 

legal standard for affected conduct. The 

EPA has complied with Executive Order 

12630 (53 FR 8859, March 15, 1988), by 

examining the takings implications of 

this action in accordance with the 

‘‘Attorney General’s Supplemental 

Guidelines for the Evaluation of Risk 

and Avoidance of Unanticipated 

Takings’’ issued under the executive 

order. This action does not impose an 

information collection burden under the 

provisions of the Paperwork Reduction 

Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). 

‘‘Burden’’ is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). 

Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, 

February 16, 1994) establishes Federal 

executive policy on environmental 

justice. Its main provision directs 

Federal agencies, to the greatest extent 

practicable and permitted by law, to 

make environmental justice part of their 

mission by identifying and addressing, 

as appropriate, disproportionately high 

and adverse human health or 

environmental effects of their programs, 

policies, and activities on minority 

populations and low-income 

populations in the United States. 

Because this action authorizes preexisting State rules which are at least 

equivalent to, and no less stringent than 

existing Federal requirements, and 

imposes no additional requirements 

beyond those imposed by State law, and 

there are no anticipated significant 

adverse human health or environmental 

effects, this rule is not subject to 

Executive Order 12898. 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. The EPA will 

submit a report containing this 

document and other required 

information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. 

House of Representatives, and the 

Comptroller General of the United 

States prior to publication in the 

Federal Register. A major rule cannot 

take effect until 60 days after it is 

published in the Federal Register. This 

action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as defined 

by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). This final action will 

be effective September 12, 2022. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 271 

Environmental protection, 

Administrative practice and procedure, 

Confidential business information, 

Hazardous waste, Hazardous waste 

transportation, Intergovernmental 

relations, Penalties, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

Authority: This action is issued under the 

authority of sections 2002(a), 3006, and 

7004(b) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act as 

amended, 42 U.S.C. 6912(a), 6926, and 

6974(b). 

Dated: June 28, 2022. 

Daniel Blackman, 

Regional Administrator, Region 4. 

[FR Doc. 2022–14512 Filed 7–12–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

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 

mike.pyne@dot.gov or at 202–366–4171, 

or Mr. Paul Connet, NHTSA Office of 

the Chief Counsel, by email to 

paul.connet@dot.gov 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. 

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/ 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 133 / Wednesday, July 13, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 41619 

3Section 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). 

4See 81 FR 90416, 90472. 

5Public Law 111–373, 124 Stat. 4086 (January 4, 

2011). 

6 Id. 

7See 78 FR 2798, 2804. 

8See 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 driverselectable 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. 

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. 

11NHTSA 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. 

12 Docket No. NHTSA–2011–0148–0322. 

13 Docket No. NHTSA–2016–0125–0016. 

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. 

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

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. 

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

Alliance/Global Petition on DriverSelectable Sounds 

The issue of permitting driverselectable 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

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

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

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 driverselectable 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. 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1
41620 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 133 / Wednesday, July 13, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

14The 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. 

15 Docket No. NHTSA–2019–0085. 

16As 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. 

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 driverselectable 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

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. 

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: 

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 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 133 / Wednesday, July 13, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 41621 

17The agency notes that, under the selfcertification 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. 

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.’’ 

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? 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1
41622 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 133 / Wednesday, July 13, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

18See Docket No. NHTSA–2018–0018–0004. 

19See SAE comment, Docket No. NHTSA–2016– 

0125–0021, at p. 1. 

20The 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. 

22 85 FR 54273. 

23As 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. 

24As 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. 

• 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 driverselectable 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

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 onethird 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. 

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 phasein 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. 

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 sixmonth 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

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, 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 133 / Wednesday, July 13, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 41623 

25 Department of Transportation, Adoption of 

Regulatory Policies and Procedures, 44 FR 11034 

(Feb. 26, 1979). 

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. 

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 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). 

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 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1
41624 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 133 / Wednesday, July 13, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

26 81 FR 90416. 

27 Docket no. NHTSA–2016–0125, https://

www.regulations.gov/document?D=NHTSA-2016- 

0125-0009. 

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. 

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

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 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 571 

continues to read as follows: 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 133 / Wednesday, July 13, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 41625 

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 S6.7.3 to read as follows: 

§ 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 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 300 

[Docket No. 220527–0125; RTID 0648– 

XC133] 

International Fisheries; Western and 

Central Pacific Fisheries for Highly 

Migratory Species; Extension of 

Emergency Decisions of the Western 

and Central Pacific Fisheries 

Commission 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Temporary specification. 

SUMMARY: NMFS is extending the 

effective date of a temporary 

specification that implements a shortnotice decision of the Commission on 

the Conservation and Management of 

Highly Migratory Fish Stocks in the 

Western and Central Pacific Ocean 

(Commission or WCPFC). NMFS issued 

temporary specifications on June 11, 

2021, to implement short-notice WCPFC 

decisions regarding purse seine observer 

coverage, purse seine transshipments at 

sea, and transshipment observer 

coverage. NMFS is extending the 

effective date of the temporary 

specification on purse seine observer 

coverage until December 31, 2022. 

NMFS is also revoking the temporary 

specification on transshipment observer 

coverage. NMFS is undertaking this 

action under the authority of the 

Western and Central Pacific Fisheries 

Convention Implementation Act 

(WCPFC Implementation Act) to satisfy 

the obligations of the United States as a 

Contracting Party to the Convention on 

the Conservation and Management of 

Highly Migratory Fish Stocks in the 

Western and Central Pacific Ocean 

(Convention). 

DATES: The temporary specification on 

purse seine observer coverage is in 

effect from July 13, 2022 until December 

31, 2022. The temporary specification 

on transshipment observer coverage is 

revoked from July 13, 2022. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rini 

Ghosh, NMFS Pacific Islands Regional 

Office, 808–725–5033. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under 

authority of the WCPFC Implementation 

Act (16 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.), NMFS 

published an interim final rule that 

established a framework to implement 

short-notice WCPFC decisions (50 CFR 

300.228). NMFS simultaneously issued 

temporary specifications to implement 

three short-notice WCPFC decisions 

until September 14, 2021. Additional 

background information on the 

Commission, the Convention, the 

interim final rule, and temporary 

specifications, is available in the 

Federal Register document that 

includes the interim final rule and 

temporary specifications (86 FR 31178; 

June 11, 2021). Pursuant to a WCPFC 

decision, NMFS extended the effective 

date of the temporary specifications for 

purse seine observer coverage and 

transshipment observer coverage until 

June 10, 2022, and revoked the 

temporary specification on purse seine 

transshipment at sea (87 FR 21812; 

April 13, 2022). Under the interim final 

rule at 86 FR 31178, temporary 

specifications can only remain in effect 

for less than one year. NMFS published 

a final rule on June 7, 2022, to make 

final this interim rule, effective on July 

7, 2022 (87 FR 34580). 

In response to the ongoing COVID–19 

pandemic, NMFS published another 

interim final rule to extend the time 

period that temporary specifications 

issued to implement short-notice 

WCPFC decisions related to the COVID– 

19 pandemic may remain in effect(87 FR 

34584; June 7, 2022). Such temporary 

specifications may be continued, as 

appropriate, until December 31, 2023. 

NMFS simultaneously extended the 

temporary specifications on purse seine 

observer coverage and at-sea 

transshipment observer coverage until 

July 15, 2022 (87 FR 34584; June 7, 

2022). 

Based on a recent WCPFC decision, 

NMFS is now extending the temporary 

specification on purse seine observer 

coverage until December 31, 2022, and 

revoking the temporary specification on 

transshipment observer coverage. 

WCPFC Emergency Decisions 

On April 8, 2020, in response to the 

international concerns over the health of 

observers and vessel crews due to 

COVID–19, the Commission made an 

intersessional decision to suspend the 

requirements for observer coverage on 

purse seine vessels on fishing trips in 

the Convention Area through May 31, 

2020. The Commission subsequently 

extended that decision several times, 

and the current extension is effective 

until December 31, 2022. 

On April 20, 2020, in response to the 

international concerns over the health of 

vessel crews and port officials due to 

COVID–19, the Commission made an 

intersessional decision to modify the 

prohibition on at-sea transshipment for 

purse seine vessels as follows—purse 

seine vessels can conduct at-sea 

transshipment in an area under the 

jurisdiction of a port State, if 

transshipment in port cannot be 

conducted, in accordance with the 

domestic laws and regulations of the 

port State. The Commission decided not 

to extend that decision past March 15, 

2022. 

On May 13, 2020, in response to the 

international concerns over the health of 

observers and vessel crews due to 

COVID–19, the Commission made an 

intersessional decision to suspend the 

requirements for observer coverage for 

at-sea transshipments. The Commission 

decided not to extend that decision past 

June 15, 2022. 

Extension of Temporary Specification 

NMFS is using the framework as set 

forth at 50 CFR 300.228 to extend the 

effective date of the temporary 

specification implementing one of the 

three recent WCPFC intersessional 

decisions (WCPFC decision dated April 

8, 2020), described above, that is in 

effect until December 23, 2022. The 

regulations to implement short-notice 

WCPFC decisions at 50 CFR 300.228 

provide that short-notice decisions 

related to the COVID–19 pandemic may 

be continued, as appropriate, until 

December 31, 2023. 

Accordingly, the requirements of the 

following regulations are waived. Such 

waiver shall remain in effect until 

December 31, 2022, unless NMFS earlier 

rescinds this waiver by publication in 

the Federal Register: 

• 50 CFR 300.223(e)(1). During the 

term of this waiver, U.S. purse seine 

vessels are not required to carry WCPFC 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1