Regulations Amending the Motor Vehicle Safety Regulations (Minimum Sound Requirements for Hybrid and Electric Vehicles): SOR/2022-254

Canada Gazette, Part II, Volume 156, Number 26

Registration
SOR/2022-254 December 2, 2022

MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY ACT

P.C. 2022-1263 December 2, 2022

Her Excellency the Governor General in Council, on the recommendation of the Minister of Transport, makes the annexed Regulations Amending the Motor Vehicle Safety Regulations (Minimum Sound Requirements for Hybrid and Electric Vehicles) under subsection 11(1)footnote a of the Motor Vehicle Safety Act footnote b.

Regulations Amending the Motor Vehicle Safety Regulations (Minimum Sound Requirements for Hybrid and Electric Vehicles)

Amendments

1 Schedule III to the Motor Vehicle Safety Regulations footnote 1 is amended by adding the following after item 136:

Column I

Item (CMVSS)

Column II

Description

Column III

Classes of Vehicles
Bus Motorcycle Restricted-use Vehicle Multi-purpose Passenger Vehicle Passenger Car Snowmobile Trailer Trailer Converter Dolly Truck Low-speed Vehicle Three-wheeled Vehicle
Enclosed Motorcycle Open Motorcycle Limited-speed Motorcycle Motor Tricycle
141 Minimum Sound Requirements for Hybrid and Electric Vehicles X           X X       X X  

2 Part II of Schedule IV to the Regulations is amended by adding the following after section 136:

Minimum Sound Requirements for Hybrid and Electric Vehicles (CMVSS 141)

141 (1) Every hybrid or electric passenger car, multi-purpose passenger vehicle, truck, bus and low-speed vehicle with a GVWR of 4 536 kg or less shall conform to

(2) For the purposes of paragraphs 1(a) and (b), paragraph 2 of Regulation No 138 and provision S4 of Standard No. 141, as amended from time to time, apply to the interpretation of those documents, respectively.

Coming into Force

3 These Regulations come into force on the day on which they are published in the Canada Gazette, Part II.

REGULATORY IMPACT ANALYSIS STATEMENT

(This statement is not part of the Regulations.)

Issues

Hybrid and electric vehicles (HEVs) are significantly quieter than their internal combustion engine (ICE) counterparts when driven at low speeds, heightening the risk of collision to the blind and partially sighted who rely on audible signals when navigating in the vicinity of traffic (e.g. in parking lots and while crossing streets). HEVs on the road in Canada today have a system to artificially generate minimum sound levels when operating at low speeds; however, there is no regulation requiring such systems. If a company chooses to manufacture or import for sale vehicles without these systems, these vehicles may pose an increased collision risk to pedestrians and pedal cyclists, including the visually impaired.

Background

The Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the MVSA) was enacted to regulate the manufacture and importation of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment to reduce the risk of death, injury and damage to property and the environment. The MVSA establishes safety regulations and standards that apply to the importation of motor vehicles and equipment, and the shipment of newly manufactured motor vehicles and equipment across provincial/territorial boundaries.

Compliance certification to applicable standards and regulations is the responsibility of the manufacturer of the vehicle or equipment via a “self-certification” regime. Vehicle manufacturers affix a compliance label to their vehicles to indicate that the vehicles comply with the applicable standards. New vehicles manufactured in Canada and shipped inter-provincially must include a National Safety Mark (NSM) drawing on or beside the compliance label. Imported vehicles may use a prescribed statement on the compliance label instead of an NSM.

For the purpose of this regulatory initiative, a hybrid and electric light vehicle (hereafter light HEVs) is understood to be a passenger car, multipurpose passenger vehicle, truck, bus or low-speed vehicle with a Gross Vehicle Weight Rating (GVWR) of 4 536 kg or less that can operate in any forward or reverse gear without the vehicle’s ICE operating (that is, vehicles that can operate using only an electric motor, for example battery-electric, plug-in hybrid electric, hydrogen fuel cell).

Whether or not a vehicle can be easily detected by the sound it makes is a product of vehicle type, vehicle speed, and ambient sound level. The fact that some vehicles are quieter may reduce pedestrians’ ability to assess the state of nearby traffic and therefore impact pedestrian safety. This is also the case when other auditory cues, such as the noise from the vehicle’s tires and wind resistance, are less noticeable. The lack of detectability of quieter cars could be remediated if they were fitted with synthetic sound generators that emulate the sound of typical ICE vehicles and if future specifications for the vehicle sounds could be specified in terms of objectively measured parameters.

Over the five years between 2013 and 2017, there were an estimated 19 fatalities and 991 injuries stemming from collisions involving light HEVs and pedestrians in Canada. Further, there were an additional 3 fatalities and 523 injuries stemming from collisions involving light HEVs and pedal cyclists.footnote 2

In 2016, both the United Nations (UN) and the United States (U.S.) National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) adopted regulations specifying the minimum sound requirements for light HEVs. UN Regulation No. 138, Uniform provisions concerning the approval of Quiet Road Transport Vehicles with regard to their reduced audibility, (hereafter UN Regulation No. 138) was adopted by the UN at the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) World Forum for Harmonization of Vehicle Regulations (WP.29) in 2016 and came into force on October 5, 2016. On December 14, 2016, the U.S. NHTSA published a final rule introducing the new Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) entitled Standard No. 141; Minimum Sound Requirements for Hybrid and Electric Vehicles (FMVSS 141). Both the FMVSS 141 and UN Regulation No. 138 require that light HEVs produce sound levels meeting their respective standards.

When calculating the benefits of their rule-making, the NHTSA found that HEVs were approximately 20% more likely to collide with a pedestrian and approximately 50% more likely to collide with pedal cyclists than their ICE counterparts.footnote 3

The European Parliament, which references UN Regulation No. 138, requires that an Acoustic Vehicle Alerting System (AVAS) be installed in all new light HEVs by July 1, 2019. In the United States, new light HEVs must comply with FMVSS 141 as of September 1, 2018. In the United States, compliance is not required until March 1, 2021, for small volume manufacturers.

Following the development of regulations in the United States and the UN, Transport Canada (TC) analyzed the potential to implement a Quiet Road Transportation Vehicle (QRTV) regulation. The intent of the regulation was to require light HEVs to integrate a system that produced a sound at low operating speeds to help detection of these vehicles by those who are visually impaired. A public notice was published on January 4, 2018, with a comment closing date of February 19, 2018. Work on this initiative was put on hold as TC was awaiting the development of a global technical regulation (GTR) at the UNECE that would have harmonized the U.S. and UN regulations. As the process for establishing a GTR for HEVs was not successful, TC is moving forward by introducing requirements for minimum sound requirements for light HEVs.

Objective

The objective of these amendments is to introduce a new Canada Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (CMVSS) for light HEVs to meet minimum sound requirements at low speeds. This new safety standard is introduced to maintain a minimum level of safety for pedestrians and pedal cyclists, including the blind and visually impaired. The minimum sound generated by light HEVs will be comparable to the sound generated by conventionally powered vehicles.

It is important to note that light HEVs currently on the road in Canada voluntarily conform to either the U.S. or UN requirements. The goal is to incorporate the two sets of requirements into a Canadian standard, allowing manufacturers to choose which requirements to adopt (i.e. either the U.S. or UN requirements), thereby codifying an already existing practice. Not only will this ensure alignment of the Canadian standard with both the U.S. and UN requirements, but it will also demonstrate TC’s commitment to addressing issues that disproportionately affect persons with disabilities.

Description

The Motor Vehicle Safety Regulations (MVSR) are amended to introduce Canada Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (CMVSS) 141 — Minimum Sound Requirements for Hybrid and Electric Vehicles (CMVSS 141). The safety standard includes requirements to testable acoustic parameters when the vehicle is about to move or is moving at low speeds. These requirements will increase the likelihood that blind, visually impaired, and other pedestrians and pedal cyclists are able to detect and recognize nearby light HEVs. These specifications should allow the pedestrian to recognize that there is a vehicle present, where that vehicle is, and in what state it is operating, more precisely, if the vehicle is accelerating or decelerating, going forward or reversing.

These amendments modify Schedule III of the MVSR by adding CMVSS 141. In addition, the amendments modify Schedule IV by incorporating by reference, as amended from time to time, sections of the U.S. FMVSS 141, Minimum Sound Requirements for Hybrid and Electric Vehicles and UN Regulation No. 138, Uniform provisions concerning the approval of Quiet Road Transport Vehicles with regard to their reduced audibility. These sections relate to the technical sound-emitting specifications (for example acoustics characteristics, constant speed test, reversing test, stationary sounds, driver selectable sounds), and the conditions and test procedures for measuring whether the vehicles meet the technical specifications, and the definitions.

This means, light HEVs will need to conform with one of the following two incorporated standards:

Those two options achieve the same goal which is for light HEVs to make a noise during low-speed operation, while limiting the cost and complications for manufacturers producing vehicles for different markets. In regard to the specific differences between the sets of technical requirements, a summary is presented in the “Rationale” section.

As light HEVs in Canada that are also sold in the U.S. and/or European Union (EU) markets already voluntarily comply with either the U.S. or UN standard, all targeted vehicles should already meet the requirements of this standard. Currently, there are no Canadian-specific light HEVs that do not meet U.S. or UN minimum sound requirements.

The MVSR include the Canada Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (CMVSS) 1106 — Noise emissions, which outlines requirements for maximum vehicle noise emissions. The requirements of CMVSS 141 do not conflict with the existing maximum sound emissions, and their implementation in current or future vehicles is not hindered or prevented by this standard.

Regulatory development

Consultation

TC informs the automotive industry, public safety organizations, and the general public when changes are planned to the MVSR. This is done, in part, through the quarterly distribution of TC’s Motor Vehicle Safety Regulatory Plan. The Regulatory Plan gives stakeholders the opportunity to comment on the proposed changes. TC also consults regularly, in face-to-face meetings or teleconferences, with the automotive industry, public safety organizations, the provinces, and the territories. For example, TC meets face-to-face with the two automotive manufacturing associations (Canadian Vehicle Manufacturers’ Association and Global Automakers of Canada) three times a year to discuss current regulations and future regulatory planning. The amendment was included in the Regulatory Plan and was discussed at multiple meetings with stakeholders leading up to the formal consultation in a public notice (see the “Public notice” section below). Stakeholders expressed their support for the regulations.

TC also meets regularly with the federal authorities of other countries, as aligned regulations are central to trade and to a competitive Canadian automotive industry. For example, TC and the U.S. Department of Transportation hold semi-annual meetings to discuss issues of mutual importance and planned regulatory changes.

Initial comments from the Regroupement des aveugles et amblyopes du Québec

The Regroupement des aveugles et amblyopes du Québec (RAAQ), which represents the blind and partially sighted in the province of Quebec, has recommended for years that TC introduce regulations requiring light HEVs to make additional sound when travelling below 30 km/h. The RAAQ has written several letters to TC over the past 10 years regarding the safe travel of the blind and partially sighted and the risks posed to this group by the lack of sound produced by hybrid and electric vehicles travelling below 30 km/h. The RAAQ also expressed some concerns with reduced effectiveness regarding UN Regulation No. 138 series 00, which allows a pause functionfootnote 4 on the Acoustic Vehicle Alert System (see the “Transport Canada response to comments” section below). In support of the proposal, the RAAQ requested that TC introduce a regulation mandating additional sound for these vehicles.

Public notice

A public notice was published on the Let’s Talk Transportation website on January 4, 2018, with a comment closing date of February 19, 2018. Stakeholders were invited to provide comments in a public discussion forum or to send more detailed submissions via email. Only a few comments were received on the public discussion forum. Most commenters agreed that the MVSR should be amended to require a minimum sound level safety standard for hybrid and electric vehicles to provide an increased measure of safety for pedestrians and pedal cyclists.

The Global Automakers of Canada (GAC) informed TC that of the two options being considered — FMVSS 141 and UN Regulation No. 138 — neither has been positioned as superior to the other, and from their point of view, the only difference is in their operational criteria and both would appear to meet the intent of the regulatory proposal. The GAC stated that it would be appreciated if manufacturers could have the choice to adhere to either options. They also stated that having both options would make it less onerous to manufacture vehicles for the joint markets (Canada/United States or Canada/international) and would potentially also provide a flexibility benefit for Canada-unique vehicles that may be adapted from type approval regulated markets governed by UN Regulation No. 138.

The Canadian Vehicle Manufacturers’ Association (CVMA) informed TC that, in their view, an obligation to comply with both options (the FMVSS 141 and UN Regulation No. 138) would create unnecessary added complexity to compliance documentation; place a greater burden on compliance certification and auditing resources for testing unique combinations of vehicles; and, consequently, would become an extensive enforcement exercise. Allowing manufacturers to comply with either options would reduce the burden on stakeholders and allow them to build their vehicles for the appropriate market (i.e. U.S. market versus international market). The CVMA also expressed some concerns with reduced effectiveness regarding UN Regulation No. 138 series 00, which allows a pause function on the AVAS enabling the generated noise to be stopped temporarily. The CVMA also commented that used vehicles could be prevented from being imported into the United States if they comply with the UN requirements, as they would not be FMVSS 141 certified. This would not be consistent with the intent of the Canada – United States – Mexico Agreement, which is to minimize trade barriers. Used vehicles that are compliant with the UN Regulation No. 138 could still be imported into the United States if they are certified to the FMVSS 141, which may require some modifications. They finally commented that vehicle owners permanently relocating to the United States with a vehicle certified to the UN option would be adversely impacted since at the time of purchase they would not have been made aware of the NHTSA import requirement to meet U.S. FMVSS 141 and may therefore be prevented from importing their vehicle into the United States. The amendments will not impact the movement of imported vehicles by individuals any more than under the current regulatory regime, since in either case, the individual will have to certify their vehicle to the FMVSS 141.

Transport Canada response to comments prior to prepublication in the Canada Gazette, Part I

In regard to the stakeholder comments expressed by both the CVMA and the RAAQ regarding the pause function present in an earlier version of UN Regulation No. 138, TC agrees that any pause function disabling the AVAS should be prohibited. Newer amendments of the UN Regulation No. 138, which will be referenced in the new Canadian standard, no longer permit the pause function. This series of amendments mandates the necessity for the AVAS to remain active without a pause function, which was not the case at the time these comments were made.

In regard to CVMA’s comment on the flexible approach, the choice of compliance was proposed based on both regulations meeting the intention for HEVs to produce sound during low-speed operation, while limiting the cost and complications for manufacturers producing vehicles for different markets. In practice, differences in technical testing requirements are expected to have a negligible impact on vehicle detection. It is noted that the proposed standard does not combine both international standards but provides the option for companies to comply with one or the other. Companies may therefore select the regulatory option based on their intent to sell the vehicle in the Canadian and U.S. market or the Canadian and international market. With regard to vehicle owners being prevented from importing their Canadian vehicle into the United States, the current lack of regulations allows vehicles that meet the U.S. requirements to be imported into the United States while those vehicles that meet the UN requirements may be prevented from being imported into the United States. Therefore, requiring that either the U.S. or UN requirements be met would not substantially change barriers to importation. Current vehicles meeting the UN Regulation No. 138 may already have barriers to U.S. importation.

Prepublication in the Canada Gazette, Part I

This regulatory proposal was published in the Canada Gazette, Part I, on April 24, 2021, followed by a 75-day comment period. A total of five stakeholder comments were received during this period. Following the comment period, TC took some time to further engage with stakeholders to address the comments and to provide further clarification on the testing procedures in CMVSS 141.

The main themes of the comments received during prepublication are presented below.

Background testing and standardized noise

One stakeholder raised concerns that the regulatory testing would only be specified in the confines of a sterile laboratory environment, but pedestrians and other vulnerable road users do not travel in such an environment.

No changes were made to the regulatory text as a result of this comment. From a regulatory perspective, TC must mandate repeatable tests so that manufacturers can self-certify their vehicles to the standard. This would ensure that no matter which laboratory the manufacturer conducts their test in, the result will be reproducible. For this to be possible, there is a need for an environment where the vehicle is the only sound source to accurately measure the sound it emits.

The stakeholder also raised concerns about whether vehicles that meet the standards would provide an adequate sound warning for pedestrians who rely on audible cues from vehicles for their own safe navigation.

No changes were made to the regulatory text as a result of this comment. The standard requirements set out in the FMVSS 141 and UN Regulation No. 138 were based on detectability of these vehicles compared to conventional ICE vehicles in an urban environment. In other words, the standards were based on research with human test subjects with visual disabilities. NHTSA conducted research on this subject from 2010 through 2014 to develop FMVSS 141. The scenarios necessary for the safety of visually impaired pedestrians were identified, including vehicles approaching at slow speeds, vehicles reversing, etc. The resulting U.S. regulation requires minimum sound levels in an audible frequency range that is appropriate for humans to be able to detect a vehicle in an urban environment. The UN followed a similar research path to determine the requirements set out in the UN Regulation No. 138.

Definition clarifications

Some stakeholders commented that it was unclear if the definitions within the U.S. FMVSS 141 and UN Regulation No. 138 were included in the incorporation by reference. TC agreed it was not clear and therefore modified the regulatory text to clarify that the definition in the referenced standard that the manufacturer chooses to comply with would apply.

Request for U.S. standard only

Some stakeholders suggested that CMVSS 141 — Minimum Sound Requirements for Hybrid and Electric Vehicles should only incorporate the U.S. standard. These stakeholders noted that the U.S. FMVSS 141 includes a stricter speed testing protocol and requires that a vehicle emit sound while stationary, whereas the UN Regulation No. 138 does not require that a vehicle emit sound while stationary.

No changes were made to the regulatory text as a result of these comments. In regard to the speed difference in the testing protocols, the objective in both cases is the detection of vehicles at low speeds. The minimum sound emitted is measured differently in both cases; however, the actual perception of sound emitted is very similar.

As noted in the Canada Gazette, Part I, publication, not offering companies the option to demonstrate compliance with the UN Regulation No. 138 would place barriers on those companies who follow the UN requirement, and potentially increase the burden on industry to meet consumer demands.

Finally, with regard to the sound emitted when a vehicle is stationary, many ICE vehicles currently have a stop-start feature. This feature shuts off the engine, and associated sound emissions, when the vehicle is stationary. Many ICE-only vehicles are therefore also silent when stationary.

Coming into force dates

Some stakeholders requested that the amendments be brought into force one or two years after its publication in the Canada Gazette, Part II.

No changes were made to the regulatory text in response to this request. The CMVSS 141 is added to align with existing U.S. and UN requirements, and therefore all impacted vehicles should already comply with one or the other. In other words, since companies in Canada already meet one standard or the other, the regulatory amendments are not expected to have any incremental impacts on industry and, therefore, industry would not need a transition period in order to come into compliance with the amendments.

Due to the fact that certain sections of FMVSS 141 and UN Regulation No. 138 are incorporated by reference as ambulatory references in the CMVSS 141, when modifications are done to either the U.S. or UN incorporated sections, they will come into force at the same time as the enforcement date chosen by the United States or UN. One of the main goals of incorporating by reference both international standards is that Canada remains aligned with its international counterparts.

Retrofitting and vehicle model application

Some organizations wanted the new Canadian standard applied to older generations of HEVs.

No changes were made to the regulatory text in response to this comment. The MVSA applies to new vehicles and not to vehicles already on the road. While the regulation of safety standards for new and imported motor vehicles is a federal responsibility, it is the provincial and territorial governments that have jurisdiction over the use of public roads and driver licensing, as well as rules regarding the maintenance, modification and use of vehicles, including the installation of aftermarket parts. Therefore, the decision to apply these requirements to older generations of light HEVs falls under provincial/territorial jurisdiction.

Some organizations also commented that the CMVSS 141 should be applied to all HEVs, not only to vehicles under 4 536 kg GVWR.

No changes were made to the regulatory text in response to this comment. TC will monitor the heavy HEV industry to determine if regulations are necessary. Sound generated by heavy HEVs is substantially different than light HEVs. TC currently does not have enough information to determine what impacts regulations similar to CMVSS 141 would have on heavy HEVs. Currently, heavy HEVs are not subjected to any mandatory minimum sound requirements in either the U.S. or the UN options. However, heavy HEV companies may abide by these light HEV standards if they choose to. For example, electric school bus manufacturers will follow the technical requirements of CMVSS 141 through CSA D250. The CSA D250 School Bus Standard is a manufacturing standard from the CSA standard Group intended to apply to original equipment supplied by the bus manufacturer.

Modern treaty obligations and Indigenous engagement and consultation

In accordance with the Cabinet Directive on the Federal Approach to Modern Treaty Implementation, an analysis has been undertaken to determine whether the amendments may give rise to modern treaty obligations. Based on the analysis done, the amendments do not have modern treaty implications and is not expected to have differential impacts on Indigenous peoples.

Instrument choice

TC explored some options regarding its initial objective to ensure a minimum level of safety for pedestrians and pedal cyclists. In this section, TC explores three options: maintaining the status quo (baseline scenario), incorporating by reference the U.S. requirements only, and incorporating by reference the U.S. and UN requirements (proposed approach).

Baseline scenario

In the baseline scenario, all newly manufactured vehicles in the scope of CMVSS 141, whether manufactured in Canada or imported into Canada for the purpose of sale, are estimated to be in full compliance with either the U.S. or the UN requirements. While TC does not anticipate new non-compliant vehicles to be sold or imported to be sold in the future, the regulatory environment in the baseline scenario would allow for such a possibility.

Incorporation by reference of only the U.S. requirements

This option was considered as the main alternative to the proposed approach. It would have referenced only the U.S. requirements within the Canadian safety standard. It was supported by some stakeholders, as FMVSS 141 mandates that the vehicle emit a sound even if stationary but with the drive engaged, such as at a stop sign or red light, which is not a requirement in the UN Regulation No. 138. TC draws a comparison to the “Stop-Start” system present on some ICE vehicles. This feature shuts off the engine, and associated sound emissions, when the vehicle is stationary. An ICE-only vehicle could therefore also be silent when stationary.

Incorporation of only the U.S. requirements was not selected as there is a possibility that such incorporation could prevent some non-U.S. HEV companies from importing their vehicles into the Canadian market. These companies have vehicles that already comply with the UN Regulation No. 138, but not with the U.S. FMVSS 141.

Proposed approach

Given the growing number of light HEVs on the road, it is possible that future companies of these types of vehicles may establish themselves in Canada. TC has proposed to incorporate both the U.S. and UN requirements, as this flexible approach will meet the intention for light HEVs to produce sound during low-speed operation, while limiting the cost and complications for manufacturers producing vehicles for different markets. The differences in technical testing requirements are not expected to significantly change the ability of pedestrians and pedal cyclists to detect vehicles meeting either standard.

Requiring that one of these two options be met for all newly manufactured and/or imported vehicles would ensure that the requirements for the Canadian market are clear, as well as ensure that a minimum level of safety is maintained.

Regulatory analysis

Benefits and costs

The amendments will make clear a minimum level of safety in Canada-bound vehicles. As full compliance with one of the two standards that will be implemented is expected from existing vehicle models, there are no incremental safety benefits estimated. The incremental costs associated with CMVSS 141 are for compliance testing done by TC and are estimated to be $289,483 in present value over the 10-year analytical time frame. The benefits and costs are outlined in further detail below.

Benefits

These amendments align the Canadian safety standard with those of the United States and of the UN. Although there are no incremental safety benefits estimated due to the full compliance of the industry, these amendments will ensure that a minimum level of safety in newly manufactured or imported vehicles is maintained to limit collisions in the future.

Costs

The Government of Canada will incur some incremental costs associated with the incorporation of FMVSS 141 and UN Regulation No. 138, as it will result in the introduction of new compliance testing. It is anticipated that TC would perform three to five new compliance tests per year on vehicles the Department would have already acquired from the manufacturer for other testing. Vehicles would either be tested on an International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 10844 track, at an estimated cost of $5,000 per test, or in a hemi-anechoic chamber at an estimated cost of $7,700 per test. The U.S. FMVSS 141 mandates that the tests be conducted on the test track only, while UN Regulation No. 138 offers manufacturers both options. TC would conduct compliance tests using the self-certification test option chosen by the manufacturer. To ensure that costs are not understated, this analysis assumes that five vehicles are tested each year and all vehicles undergo testing in the hemi-anechoic chamber; therefore, the results should be understood as a maximum cost. The total cost to Government over the 10-year analytical time frame, from 2022 to 2031, is estimated to be $289,483 in present value 2021 dollars.

As TC estimates the baseline compliance at 100%, it is not expected that the industry would assume any incremental costs associated with the implementation of these amendments in Canada. The manufacturers under the self-certification regime and the type approval regime are compliant with one of the two standards. Manufacturers intending to sell vehicles in the United States are required to self-certify their vehicles to FMVSS 141. Similarly, type approval market manufacturers must homologate their vehicles to UN Regulation No. 138. In both cases, manufacturers would have done the minimum testing they need to meet Canadian requirements.

These amendments do not impact existing vehicles. Further, TC will not test vehicle models that have been retrofitted; only newly manufactured or imported models will be tested. There are therefore no incremental costs associated with retrofitting for companies or individuals.

Small business lens

Analysis under the small business lens concluded that there are no associated impacts on small businesses.

One-for-one rule

The one-for-one rule does not apply as there is no incremental change in administrative burden on business and no regulatory titles are repealed or introduced.

Regulatory cooperation and alignment

In February 2011, the Canada – United States Regulatory Cooperation Council (RCC) was established. Under the RCC, Canadian and U.S. regulators have committed to reducing existing regulatory differences and to work jointly on new standards so that misalignment is proactively avoided. In addition, the Comprehensive Economic Trade Agreement (CETA) negotiations were finalized in September 2014. Parties resolved to increase cooperation in the field of motor vehicle regulations between Canada and Europe, including cooperating in the “development and establishment of technical regulations or related standards” (CETA, Annex 4-A). Furthermore, under WP.29, Canada agreed to support all efforts at alignment of regulatory requirements, provided that doing so establishes an equivalent level of safety. The amendment will give manufacturers and importers of vehicles specified in the scope of CMVSS 141 the option to align with UN or U.S. requirements, which is in line with the commitments under the RCC and CETA.

Strategic environmental assessment

In accordance with the Cabinet Directive on the Environmental Assessment of Policy, Plan and Program Proposals, a preliminary scan concluded that a strategic environmental assessment is not required.

Gender-based analysis plus

Regarding the specific safety risks for visually impaired persons, HEVs are significantly quieter than their ICE counterparts when being driven at low speeds and pose a threat to the visually impaired who rely on audible signals when navigating in the vicinity of traffic (e.g. in parking lots, while crossing streets).

This regulatory initiative is designed to address a risk that disproportionately affects persons with a visual impairment. Otherwise, the initiative is not expected to differentially impact any groups of people on the basis of identity factors such as sex, gender, age, language, education, culture, ethnicity, income, ability, sexual orientation or gender identity.

Rationale

Comparison between FMVSS 141 and UN Regulation No. 138

While the U.S. and UN requirements include test procedures to be performed with the full vehicle on an ISO 10844 compliant outdoor track, the UN Regulation No. 138 also provides the option of performing tests indoors in a hemi-anechoic chamber. It also allows tests to be performed on the full vehicle or only on the AVAS component (for select test cases), and with the vehicle in motion or in simulated motion by means of signals applied to the vehicle to simulate actual in-use operation. Procedures for the processing and analysis of the collected data are also contained in each standard. The processed data must demonstrate that the sound produced in each test case matches its specific 2-band or 4-band acoustic requirements, as set out in the standard being used to ensure that the vehicle remains detectable in all specified operating conditions. The requirements of each standard would meet the objectives of the amendments and increase the detectability of the vehicles at low speeds. A summary of the required test cases and acoustic band options for each standard is contained in Table 1 below:

Table 1. High-level comparison of main differences between U.S. and UN minimum sound requirements
AVAS requirements FMVSS 141 UN Regulation No. 138
Sound at stationary Mandatory Optional
Acceleration simulation Volume increase Frequency shift
Sound acoustic characteristic 2 band or 4 band 2 band
Testing speed 0 km/h to 32 km/h 0 km/h to 20 km/h
Testing location Outdoor Indoor or outdoor

Implementation, compliance and enforcement, and service standards

The amendments, which establish the requirements of the CMVSS 141 for minimum sound requirements for light HEVs, come into force on the day they are published in the Canada Gazette, Part II.

Companies are responsible for ensuring compliance with the requirements of the MVSA and its regulations. TC will monitor notices of defect and non-compliance to ensure that they contain, at a minimum, the information required by the regulations, and that companies take action in accordance with timelines specified by the regulations. In addition, TC will gather information related to the presence of safety issues through public complaints and other reports, and through vehicle or component inspection, testing and other proven investigative techniques. Under the authority of the MVSA, designated inspectors may also enter a place believed on reasonable grounds to contain records related to the vehicle or equipment, with a view to ascertaining any defect or non-compliance with a vehicle or equipment, and examine documentation believed to contain information relevant to the enforcement of the MVSA. If a vehicle or equipment does not comply with the MVSA, the company or individual is liable to prosecution and, if found guilty, may be fined as prescribed in the MVSA.

Contact

Marc-André Larocque-Legros
Regulatory Development Engineer
Standards and Regulations
Multi-Modal and Road Safety Programs
Transport Canada
330 Sparks Street
Ottawa, Ontario
K1A 0N5
Email: RegulationsClerk-ASFB-Commisauxreglements@tc.gc.ca