Preliminary Regulatory Impact Analysis Minimum Sound Requirements for Hybrid and Electric Vehicles FMVSS 141 Office of Regulatory Analysis and Evaluation National Center for Statistics and Analysis January 2013 Table of Contents Executive Summary ......................................................................................................................... i System Effectiveness ...................................................................................................... ii Costs ............................................................................................................................... ii Benefits .......................................................................................................................... iii Net Impact [Pedestrians and Pedalcyclists Combined] ................................................. iv Cost Effectiveness ......................................................................................................... iv I. Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 1 II. Research and Proposal ............................................................................................................. 4 NHTSA’s Proposal ....................................................................................................... 17 III. Alternatives ........................................................................................................................... 24 Requiring Vehicle Sound to be Playback of an ICE Recording ................................... 24 Requiring that the Alert Sound Adapt to the Ambient ................................................. 24 Acoustic Profile Designed Around Sounds Produced by ICE Vehicles ...................... 24 Acoustic Profiles Suggested by Manufacturers ............................................................ 26 International Guidelines for Vehicle Alert Sounds ...................................................... 27 Possible Jury Testing for Recognizability of a Synthetic Sound ................................. 28 IV. COSTS ................................................................................................................................... 30 A. Number of vehicles affected ............................................................................................... 30 Low speed vehicles ...................................................................................................... 30 Light vehicles ............................................................................................................... 31 Medium and Heavy Trucks .......................................................................................... 34 Buses ............................................................................................................................ 34 Motorcycles and Motor-driven Cycles ......................................................................... 34 B. Technology Costs ($2010 economics) ............................................................................... 36 Low-Speed and Light Vehicles .................................................................................... 36 Medium and Heavy Trucks and Buses ......................................................................... 36 Motorcycles and Motor-Driven Cycles ........................................................................ 37 Cost Summary by Vehicle Types ................................................................................. 37 C. Weight and Fuel Economy Impacts ................................................................................... 38 D. Testing Costs ...................................................................................................................... 38 E. Total Costs .......................................................................................................................... 39 F. Non-quantified Costs .......................................................................................................... 40 V. BENEFITS ............................................................................................................................ 42 A. Benefits Methodology ........................................................................................................ 42 Injuries .......................................................................................................................... 42 Fatalities ....................................................................................................................... 65 Unquantifiable Benefits ................................................................................................ 66 VI. COST/BENEFIT ANALYSIS .............................................................................................. 67 A. Methodology ...................................................................................................................... 67 B. Other Vehicle Types ........................................................................................................... 72 C. Sensitivity Analysis ............................................................................................................ 73 Breakeven Point ........................................................................................................... 73 Hybrid and Electric Sales Rates ................................................................................... 74 Value of a Statistical Life (VSL) .................................................................................. 76 VII. Regulatory Flexibility Act and Unfunded Mandates Reform Act Analysis ......................... 77 A. Regulatory Flexibility Act .................................................................................................. 77 B. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act ....................................................................................... 80 Appendix A ................................................................................................................................... 82 Executive Summary NHTSA analyses have found that hybrid vehicles strike pedestrians and bicyclists more often at low speed than vehicles with internal combustion engines (ICEs). Testing has shown that electric and hybrid electric vehicles emit less sound and are quieter at low speeds than vehicles with internal combustion engines. The Pedestrian Safety Enhancement Act (PSEA) requires NHTSA to conduct a rulemaking to require an alert sound for pedestrians to be emitted by all types of motor vehicles that are electric vehicles (EVs) or hybrid vehicles (HVs). The covered types of vehicles include light vehicles (passenger cars, vans, sport utility vehicles and pickup trucks), and also low-speed vehicles, motorcycles, medium and heavy trucks and buses. While all these vehicle types are discussed, the analysis focuses on light vehicles, where the most data resides, and the cost effectiveness section only analyzes low-speed and light vehicles. The baseline for this analysis is a projected fleet of electric and hybrid electric vehicles in 2016, the projected first year of the phase-in effective date, assuming that all applicable MY 2016 vehicles had to meet the proposal1. The agency predicts that there will be an increasing percentage of electric and hybrid electric vehicles sold over time and that both the costs and benefits will increase proportionally to the increasing percentage of applicable vehicles. However, as explained below, we assume that even without the legislation, all EV manufacturers would have put sound in their vehicles. Therefore, there will be little cost or benefit for EVs. 2016 Target Population (Applicable vehicles2 and injuries) 671,270 hybrid and electric vehicles annually will be subject to the proposal (low-speed and light vehicles) 4 percent of MY2016 sales. 31,500 hybrid and electric medium and heavy trucks, buses and motorcycles annually will be subject to the proposal. This is 2 percent of MY2016 sales. Pedestrians+Pedalcyclists and Low Speed and Light Vehicles 2790 additional pedestrian and pedalcyclist injuries are expected over the lifetime of the MY 2016 low-speed and light vehicle fleets if 4% of the light vehicle fleet is hybrid/electric vehicles instead of ICEs (due to differences in sound). An additional 10 pedestrian and pedalcyclist injuries are expected over the lifetime of the MY 2016 fleet of electric low speed vehicles. Pedestrians+Pedalcyclists and Other Vehicles 7,294 total pedestrian and pedalcyclist injuries are expected over the lifetime of all MY 2016 medium and heavy trucks, buses, and motorcycles. 1 We selected MY 2016 as the baseline, but the analysis does not consider the phase-in in its calculations. It estimates the costs and benefits assuming all applicable vehicles in the MY 2016 fleet would meet the proposal. 2 Those vehicles that must provide an alert sound, which by our definition includes hybrids that can run exclusively on electric power, and excluding fully electric light vehicles that we assume would have voluntarily provided an alert sound. ii The number of additional pedestrian and pedalcyclist injuries caused by quietness of hybrid/electric medium trucks, heavy trucks, buses, and motorcycles in the MY 2016 fleet is unknown. However, for context, an estimated 16 percent of medium trucks, 1 percent of heavy trucks, 8 percent of buses, and 0.4