DOCSLIB.ORG

Minimum Sound Requirements for Hybrid and Electric Vehicles FMVSS 141

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Minimum Sound Requirements for Hybrid and Electric Vehicles FMVSS 141 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
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Transit Energy Use Reduction Plan
    Lake Country Transit Energy Use Reduction Plan Energy Use Reduction, Capital Expenditure, Funding and Management/Training Plan December 2015 Prepared by ICF International 620 Folsom St, Suite 200 San Francisco, CA 94107 415.677.7100 Lake Country Transit Energy Use Reduction Plan Table of Contents Table of Contents Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................. 1 1 Energy Use Reduction Plan ............................................................................................................ 4 1.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 4 1.2 Facility ......................................................................................................................................... 6 1.2.1 Review of Existing Facility and Operations .................................................................................6 1.2.2 Facility, Operations and Maintenance Strategies .......................................................................7 1.3 Vehicle Fleet and Alternative Fuels .......................................................................................... 16 1.3.1 Review of Fleet Operations ...................................................................................................... 16 1.3.2 Alternative Fuel Options .........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Electric Vehicle Pre-Infrastructure Planning a Discussion of Social, Economic, and Technological Readiness of Prince Edward Island
    University of Prince Edward Island Electric Vehicle Pre-Infrastructure Planning A Discussion of Social, Economic, and Technological Readiness of Prince Edward Island Georgina Vardy 10/22/2012 A localized study, focused on Prince Edward Island, Canada, compiled to assist with determining social, economic and technological readiness for electric vehicles and the related infrastructure. The study used both a Christensen based disruptive technology framework approach and traditional marketing techniques to determine social and economic readiness. Residents showed an interest and aptitude for the social changes required however the financial affordability of the electric vehicles for residents was limited without nationally available, but locally deficient, incentives. A technology scan determined that electric vehicle battery chemical content and design are determining factors in effectively satisfying social needs and acceptance. The next stage includes localized marketing development for this unique location, vehicles sales and infrastructure. PERMISSION TO USE SIGNATURE PROJECT REPORT Title of Signature Project: Electric Vehicle Pre-Infrastructure Planning: A Discussion of Social, Economic, and Technological Readiness of Prince Edward Island Name of Author: Georgina Vardy Department: School of Business Degree: Master of Business Administration Year: 2012 Name of Supervisor(s): Tim Carroll In presenting this signature project report in partial fulfilment of the requirements for a Master of Business Administration degree from the University of Prince Edward Island, the author has agreed that the Robertson Library, University of Prince Edward Island, may make this signature project freely available for inspection and gives permission to add an electronic version of the signature project to the Digital Repository at the University of Prince Edward Island.
    [Show full text]
  • Comment 1 for ZEV 2008 (Zev2008) - 45 Day
    Comment 1 for ZEV 2008 (zev2008) - 45 Day. First Name: Jim Last Name: Stack Email Address: [email protected] Affiliation: Subject: ZEV vehicles Comment: The only true ZEV vehicles are pure electric that chanrge on renewables Today 96% of the hydrogen is made from fossil fuels. This can be improved on but will take a long time. Today we already have very good Electric Vehicles liek the RAV4 with NiMH batteries that have lasted over 100,000 miles. Too bad Toyota stopped making it. We also have the Tesla and Ebox. Please do what is right. Jim Attachment: Original File Name: Date and Time Comment Was Submitted: 2008-02-16 11:19:59 No Duplicates. Comment 2 for ZEV 2008 (zev2008) - 45 Day. First Name: Star Last Name: Irvine Email Address: [email protected] Affiliation: NEV Owner Subject: MSV in ZEV regulations Comment: I as a NEV owner (use my OKA NEV ZEV about 3,000 miles annually) would like to see MSV (Medium Speed Vehicles) included in ZEV mandate so they can be available in California. I own two other vehicles FORD FOCUS and FORD Crown Vic. I my OKA NEV could go 35 MPH I would drive it at least twice as much as I currently do, and I would feel much safer doing so. 25 MPH top speed for NEV seriously limits its use and practicality for every day commuting. Attachment: Original File Name: Date and Time Comment Was Submitted: 2008-02-19 23:07:01 No Duplicates. Comment 3 for ZEV 2008 (zev2008) - 45 Day. First Name: Miro Last Name: Kefurt Email Address: [email protected] Affiliation: OKA AUTO USA Subject: MSV definition and inclusion in ZEV 2008 Comment: We believe that it is important that the ZEV regulations should be more specific in definition of "CITY" ZEV as to its capabilities and equipment.
    [Show full text]
  • Non-Registered Motorised Vehicles
    Submission No 6 NON-REGISTERED MOTORISED VEHICLES Name: Mr Mark Walker Date Received: 10/03/2013 Mr Greg Aplin MP Chair Joint Standing Committee on Road Safety NSW Parliament 10/03/2013 Re: Inquiry into Non‐registered motorised vehicles Dear Sir Upon becoming aware of the Committee’s Inquiry via an advertisement calling for submissions in the SMH (9‐ 10 Mar 2013), I resolved to make the Committee aware of my concerns in this regard. As I understand it from current road and vehicle regulations: ‐ Mobility scooters are not allowed to travel on public roads, are limited to 10km/h and 110kg unladen mass, but otherwise are not regulated ‐ Electrically‐assisted pedal‐powered bicycles (ADR category AB) are limited to 200W motors, but are otherwise unregulated ‐ ICE‐assisted* pedal‐powered bicycles are limited to 50cc capacity, must comply with certain noise limits, but are otherwise unregulated ‐ Segways are currently banned ‐ Mopeds (being motorised pedal‐assist cycles) must be registered as for ‘motorcycles’ whether electric or ICE‐powered ‐ Quad bikes, pitbikes and other similar small‐capacity motorised vehicles (like buggys) are restricted to ‘offroad recreational vehicle’ licensing for use in designated areas (such as Stockton Beach) but are otherwise unable to be registered or driven on roads and in public areas due to non‐compliance with ADRs. * ICE – Internal Combustion Engine As the Committee’s focus in its terms of reference is ‘usage’ and ‘impact on road safety’ perhaps the latter needs to be clarified, especially in regard to those vehicles specifically designed and only ‘allowed’ to be used ‘off‐road’.
    [Show full text]
  • Idaho Power Plan, Nov 1 2019
    LISA D. NORDSTROM Lead Counsel [email protected] November 1, 2019 Public Utility Commission of Oregon Filing Center 201 High Street SE, Suite 100 P.O. Box 1088 Salem, Oregon 97301 RE: UM ___ – Idaho Power Company’s Application for Transportation Electrification Plan Attention Filing Center: Pursuant to OAR 860-087-0020, Idaho Power Company (“Idaho Power” or “Company”) submits the enclosed Transportation Electrification Plan (“TE Plan”) for acceptance by the Public Utility Commission of Oregon (“Commission”). Idaho Power’s TE Plan contains the Company’s long-term strategy to accelerate TE in its Oregon service area. Given the current state of the TE market in Idaho Power’s Oregon service area, the Company’s TE Plan is largely focused on improving the visibility and awareness of electric vehicles (“EV”). Through education and awareness, Idaho Power aims to accelerate TE by contributing to increased adoption of EVs, and access to electricity as a form of transportation fuel. Idaho Power respectfully requests that the Commission issue an order finding that the Company’s TE Plan meets the requirements of OAR 860-087-0020. The Company also requests that the Commission waive (per OAR 860-087-0001) OAR 860-087-0020(2)(d), which requires Idaho Power to present its TE Plan at a public meeting, if the Commission finds that presentation of the Company’s modest TE Plan, reflecting the limited EV penetration in its Oregon service area, would not materially benefit the Commission. It is respectfully requested that all formal data requests to the Company regarding this filing be addressed to the following: By email (preferred): [email protected] By regular mail: Lisa Nordstrom Lead Counsel Idaho Power Company 1221 W.
    [Show full text]
  • Page 1 of 32 VEHICLE RECALLS by MANUFACTURER, 2000 Report Prepared 1/16/2008
    Page 1 of 32 VEHICLE RECALLS BY MANUFACTURER, 2000 Report Prepared 1/16/2008 MANUFACTURER RECALLS VEHICLES ACCUBUIL T, INC 1 8 AM GENERAL CORPORATION 1 980 AMERICAN EAGLE MOTORCYCLE CO 1 14 AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO 8 212,212 AMERICAN SUNDIRO MOTORCYCLE 1 2,183 AMERICAN SUZUKI MOTOR CORP. 4 25,023 AMERICAN TRANSPORTATION CORP. 5 1,441 APRILIA USA INC. 2 409 ASTON MARTIN 2 666 ATHEY PRODUCTS CORP. 3 304 B. FOSTER & COMPANY, INC. 1 422 BAYERISCHE MOTOREN WERKE 11 28,738 BLUE BIRD BODY COMPANY 12 62,692 BUELL MOTORCYCLE CO 4 12,230 CABOT COACH BUILDERS, INC. 1 818 CARPENTER INDUSTRIES, INC. 2 6,838 CLASSIC LIMOUSINE 1 492 CLASSIC MANUFACTURING, INC. 1 8 COACHMEN INDUSTRIES, INC. 8 5,271 COACHMEN RV COMPANY 1 576 COLLINS BUS CORPORATION 1 286 COUNTRY COACH INC 6 519 CRANE CARRIER COMPANY 1 138 DABRYAN COACH BUILDERS 1 723 DAIMLERCHRYSLER CORPORATION 30 6,700,752 DAMON CORPORATION 3 824 DAVINCI COACHWORKS, INC 1 144 D'ELEGANT CONVERSIONS, INC. 1 34 DORSEY TRAILERS, INC. 1 210 DUTCHMEN MANUFACTURING, INC 1 105 ELDORADO NATIONAL 1 173 ELECTRIC TRANSIT, INC. 1 54 ELGIN SWEEPER COMPANY 1 40 E-ONE, INC. 1 3 EUROPA INTERNATIONAL, INC. 2 242 EXECUTIVE COACH BUILDERS 1 702 FEATHERLITE LUXURY COACHES 1 83 FEATHERLITE, INC. 2 3,235 FEDERAL COACH, LLC 1 230 FERRARI NORTH AMERICA 8 1,601 FLEETWOOD ENT., INC. 5 12, 119 FORD MOTOR COMPANY 60 7,485,466 FOREST RIVER, INC. 1 115 FORETRAVEL, INC. 3 478 FOURWINNS 2 2,276 FREIGHTLINER CORPORATION 27 233,032 FREIGHTLINER LLC 1 803 GENERAL MOTORS CORP.
    [Show full text]
  • And Medium-Duty Eligible Vehicle List
    Public Benefit Grants Program New Alternative Fuel Vehicle Purchase Component Light- and Medium-Duty Eligible Vehicle List Program staff will review and update this list periodically to reflect the release of eligible new light- and medium-duty vehicles. Applicants may contact program staff at (559) 230-5800 or [email protected] to inquire about specific vehicles not listed or other vehicle types such as transport/utility carts, scooters, bicycles, etc. Year Vehicle Make Vehicle Model Technology Emission Standard Category 2014 Honda Accord Plug-In Hybrid PHEV AT PZEV Sedan VOLT with Low Emissions Package (Low 2013 Chevrolet Emissions Package will have an E, F, G or H in the PHEV AT PZEV Sedan 5th position of the VIN) 2013 Toyota PRIUS PLUG-IN HYBRID PHEV AT PZEV Sedan 2013 Ford CMAX Energi PHEV AT PZEV Sedan 2013 Ford Focus Electric BEV ZEV Sedan 2013 Ford Fusion Energi PHEV AT PZEV Sedan 2013 Honda FIT EV BEV ZEV Coupe 2013 Smart Electric Fortwo (Coupe and Cabrio) BEV ZEV Coupe 2013 Coda CODA BEV ZEV Sedan 2013 Nissan Leaf BEV ZEV Sedan 2013 Club Car CARRYALL 2 LSV BEV NEV NEV 2013 Club Car CARRYALL 6 LSV BEV NEV NEV 2013 Club Car VILLAGER 2 BEV NEV NEV 2013 Club Car VILLAGER 2+2 BEV NEV NEV 2013 Columbia Paccar SM2 (Battery Type: Pb-A or Li+) BEV NEV NEV 2013 Columbia Paccar SM4 (Battery Type: Pb-A or Li+) BEV NEV NEV 2013 Columbia Paccar SUV-SN (Battery Type: Pb-A or Li+) BEV NEV NEV 2013 Columbia Paccar SUV-LN (Battery Type: Pb-A or Li+) BEV NEV NEV Page 1 of 9 rev.
    [Show full text]
  • Electric Vehicle Infrastructure for the Monterey Bay Area the Associa on of Monterey Bay Area Governments August 2013
    E V Electric Vehicle Infrastructure for the Monterey Bay Area The Associa on of Monterey Bay Area Governments August 2013 The prepara on of this document was funded by a grant awarded by the Monterey Bay Unifi ed Air Pollu on Control District (MUAPCD), as part of the AB2766 program. Project Staff Alan Romero, Monterey Bay Unifi ed Air Pollu on Control District (MBUAPCD) AMBAG Dawn Mathes, Monterey County Resource Management Agency (RMA) Paul Hierling, Planner Carl P. Holm, Monterey County RMA Cody Meyer, Planner Craig Spencer, Monterey County RMA Anais Schenk, Planner Mario Salazar, Monterey County RMA Jason Adelaars, GIS Michael Ricker, City of Salinas Ecology Ac on Veronica Lezama, San Benito Council of Piet Canin, Vice President, Transporta on Governments Group Tegan Speiser, Santa Cruz County RTC Emily Glanville, Program Specialist Michael Zeller, TAMC Monterey Bay Unifi ed Air James Wasserman, Zero Motorcycles, Plug- Pollu on Control District In America Alan Romero, Air Quality Planner III Megan Tolbert, CSU Monterey Bay EV Communi es Alliance Piet Canin, Ecology Ac on Richard Corcoran, PEV Owner Richard Schorske, CEO Teresa Buika, UC Santa Cruz Previous staff contributors Richard Schorske, EV Communi es Alliance John Doughty Randy Deshazo, Principal Planner Linda Meckel, Planner, Project Manager MBEVA Plug-In Electric Vehicle Coordina ng Council Sharon Sarris, Green Fuse Energy Kris Markey, Offi ce of Monterey County Supervisor Parker Andy Hartmann, Interna onal Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Cheryl Schmi , City of Santa Cruz For more informa on regarding this study, contact Anais Schenk at [email protected] 2 E V Electric Vehicle Infrastructure for the Monterey Bay Area Execu ve Summary..............................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Accounting for Electric Vehicles in Air Quality Conformity --- Final Report
    TTI: 0-6763 Accounting for Electric Vehicles in Air Quality Conformity‒Final Report Technical Report 0-6763-1 Cooperative Research Program TEXAS A&M TRANSPORTATION INSTITUTE COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS in cooperation with the Federal Highway Administration and the Texas Department of Transportation http://tti.tamu.edu/documents/0-6763-1.pdf Technical Report Documentation Page 1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient's Catalog No. FHWA/TX-15/0-6763-1 4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date ACCOUNTING FOR ELECTRIC VEHICLES IN AIR QUALITY December 2014 CONFORMITY—FINAL REPORT 6. Performing Organization Code 7. Author(s) 8. Performing Organization Report No. Reza Farzaneh, Yuche Chen, Jeremy Johnson, Josias Zietsman, Report 0-6763-1 Chaoyi Gu, Tara Ramani, L.D. White, Megan Kenney, and Yue Zhang 9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS) Texas A&M Transportation Institute College Station, Texas 77843-3135 11. Contract or Grant No. Project 0-6763 12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address 13. Type of Report and Period Covered Texas Department of Transportation Technical Report: Research and Technology Implementation Office September 2012–August 2014 th 125 E. 11 Street 14. Sponsoring Agency Code Austin, Texas 78701-2483 15. Supplementary Notes Project performed in cooperation with the Texas Department of Transportation. Project Title: Accounting for Electric Vehicles in Air Quality Conformity URL: http://tti.tamu.edu/documents/0-6763-1.pdf 16. Abstract Electric vehicles (EVs) obtain at least a part of the energy required for their propulsion from electricity. The market for EVs, including hybrid, plug-in hybrid, and battery electric vehicles continues to grow, as many new and affordable models have become available in recent years.
    [Show full text]
  • 2.3 Car Sharing and End of Life Vehicles
    Ref. Ares(2018)4965112 - 27/09/2018 Research and Innovation action H2020-MG-2016-2017 Review of the Impacts on the Automotive Industry Deliverable D3.3 Version n° 1 Authors: Peter Wells (CU), Haokun Liu (CU), Stefano Beccaria (GM) www.stars-h2020.eu This project has received funding from the Horizon 2020 programme under the grant agreement n°769513 The growth of car sharing in a business as usual scenario DISCLAIMER The content of this deliverable reflect only the author’s view. The European Commission and INEA are not responsible for any use that may be made of the information it contains. GA n°769513 Page 2 of 61 The growth of car sharing in a business as usual scenario Document Information Grant Agreement 769513 Project Title Shared mobility opporTunities And challenges foR European citieS Project Acronym STARS Project Start Date 01 October 2017 Related work package WP 3 – Business model innovation to enable car sharing Related task(s) Task 3.3 – Review of the impacts on the automotive industry Lead Organisation CU Submission date 30 September 2018 Dissemination Level Public History Date Submitted by Reviewed by Version (Notes) 31 August Cristian Peter Wells (CU) First preliminary version (full deliverable) 2018 Santibanez (LGI) 8 September Peter Wells (CU) Ben Waller (ICDP) Second full deliverable version 2018 Andrea Chicco 25 September Peter Wells (CU) (POLITO), Marco Formatting adjustments and last revision 2018 Diana (POLITO) 27 September Marco Diana Submission of the final Deliverable 3.3 2018 (POLITO) GA n°769513 Page 3 of 61 The growth of car sharing in a business as usual scenario Table of contents SUMMARY .............................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Why Lawmakers Should Strengthen the Current DMCA Exemption for Security and Safety Research Into Car Software Holden Benon
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by UC Hastings Scholarship Repository (University of California, Hastings College of the Law) Hastings Business Law Journal Volume 15 Article 5 Number 1 Winter 2019 Winter 2019 A Peek Under the Hood: Why Lawmakers Should Strengthen the Current DMCA Exemption for Security and Safety Research into Car Software Holden Benon Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.uchastings.edu/ hastings_business_law_journal Part of the Business Organizations Law Commons Recommended Citation Holden Benon, A Peek Under the Hood: Why Lawmakers Should Strengthen the Current DMCA Exemption for Security and Safety Research into Car Software, 15 Hastings Bus. L.J. 155 (2019). Available at: https://repository.uchastings.edu/hastings_business_law_journal/vol15/iss1/5 This Note is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at UC Hastings Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Hastings Business Law Journal by an authorized editor of UC Hastings Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. BENON CARS DMCA FINAL.DOCX (DO NOT DELETE) 12/13/2018 12:05 PM A Peek Under the Hood: Why Lawmakers Should Strengthen the Current DMCA Exemption for Security and Safety Research into Car Software Holden Benon * In the last five years, society has witnessed advancements in automobile technology that Henry Ford himself could not have dreamed. Vehicle software now allows cars to drive themselves; indeed,
    [Show full text]
  • FHWA Noise Compatible Land Use Curriculum
    FHWA Noise Compatible Land Use Curriculum Lesson 1: Discussion of Roadway Noise and FHWA Guidelines Lesson 2: Essential Elements of Noise Compatible Land Use Planning Lesson 3: Noise Compatible Reduction Techniques – Physical Responses Lesson 4: Noise Compatible Reduction Techniques – Policy and Administrative Strategies ♦ PREPARED FOR THE FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION BY THE CENTER FOR TRANSPORTATION TRAINING AND RESEARCH TEXAS SOUTHERN UNIVERSITY ♦ November 2006 Contents Curriculum Design, Overview, and Sources for Additional Information Lesson 1: Discussion of Roadway Noise and FHWA Guidelines Lesson 2: Essential Elements of Noise Compatible Land Use Planning Lesson 3: Noise Compatible Reduction Techniques – Physical Responses Lesson 4: Noise Compatible Reduction Techniques – Policies and Administrative Strategies 2 Curriculum Design The 4-part curriculum is structured to be taught in sessions of 90 minutes each. It is expected that the instructor will utilize this information as a foundation and will supplement the core information with specific local examples and additional detail. If one of the companion workshop videos is chosen to supplement the material in any lesson, adjust the length of discussion for the remaining material. It is envisioned that the curriculum could be part of a two-week module for a college level course or a one day seminar. Overview Appropriately accommodating highway noise is a critical component of project planning and implementation for engineers across the nation. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) prescribes a three-part approach for addressing roadway noise including: 1) source controls and quiet vehicles, 2) reduction measures within highway construction, and 3) developing land adjacent to highways in a way that is compatible with highway noise.
    [Show full text]