[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 139 (Thursday, July 21, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 43595-43602]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-15557]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2022-0067]


General Motors--Receipt of Petition for Temporary Exemption From 
Various Requirements of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards for 
an Automated Driving System-Equipped Vehicle

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

ACTION: Notice of receipt of petition for temporary exemption; request 
for public comment.

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

SUMMARY: General Motors (GM) has petitioned NHTSA for a temporary 
exemption from certain requirements in six Federal motor vehicle safety 
standards (FMVSS) for its ADS-equipped vehicle, the ``Cruise Origin.'' 
Specifically, GM seeks exemption from portions of FMVSS No. 102; 
Transmission shift position sequence, starter interlock, and 
transmission braking effect, FMVSS No. 104; Windshield wiping and 
washing systems, FMVSS No. 108; Lamps, reflective devices, and 
associated equipment, FMVSS No. 111; Rear visibility, FMVSS No. 201; 
Occupant protection in interior impact, and FMVSS No. 208; Occupant 
crash protection. NHTSA is publishing this document in accordance with 
statutory and administrative provisions and seeks comment on the merits 
of GM's exemption petition and on potential terms and conditions that 
should be applied to a temporary exemption if granted. After receiving 
and considering public comments, NHTSA will assess

[[Page 43596]]

the merits of the petition and will publish a notice in the Federal 
notice setting forth NHTSA's reasoning for either granting or denying 
the petition.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before August 22, 2022.

ADDRESSES: NHTSA invites you to submit comments on the petition 
described herein and the questions posed below. You may submit comments 
identified by docket number in the heading of this notice by any of the 
following methods:
     Fax: 202-493-2251.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket 
Operations, M-30, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, 
DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building 
Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., 
Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays.
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting 
comments.
     Instructions: All submissions must include the agency name 
and docket number. Note that all comments received will be posted 
without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal 
information provided. Please see the Privacy Act discussion below. 
NHTSA will consider all comments received before the close of business 
on the comment closing date indicated above. To the extent possible, 
NHTSA will also consider comments filed after the closing date.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or 
comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov at any time or to 
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, 
except Federal Holidays. Telephone: 202-366-9826.
    Privacy Act: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits 
comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT 
posts these comments, without edit, to www.regulations.gov, as 
described in the system of records notice, DOT/ALL-14 FDMS, accessible 
through www.dot.gov/privacy. In order to facilitate comment tracking 
and response, we encourage commenters to provide their name, or the 
name of their organization; however, submission of names is completely 
optional. Whether or not commenters identify themselves, all timely 
comments will be fully considered. If you wish to provide comments 
containing proprietary or confidential information, please contact the 
agency for alternate submission instructions.
    Confidential Business Information: If you wish to submit any 
information under a claim of confidentiality, you must submit your 
request directly to NHTSA's Office of the Chief Counsel. Requests for 
confidentiality are governed by part 512. NHTSA is currently treating 
electronic submission as an acceptable method for submitting 
confidential business information to the agency under part 512. If you 
would like to submit a request for confidential treatment, you may 
email your submission to Dan Rabinovitz in the Office of the Chief 
Counsel at [email protected] or you may contact Dan for a 
secure file transfer link. At this time, you should not send a 
duplicate hardcopy of your electronic CBI submissions to DOT 
headquarters. If you claim that any of the information or documents 
provided to the agency constitute confidential business information 
within the meaning of 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4), or are protected from 
disclosure pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1905, you must submit supporting 
information together with the materials that are the subject of the 
confidentiality request, in accordance with part 512, to the Office of 
the Chief Counsel. Your request must include a cover letter setting 
forth the information specified in our confidential business 
information regulation (49 CFR 512.8) and a certificate, pursuant to 
Sec.  512.4(b) and part 512, appendix A. In addition, you should submit 
a copy, from which you have deleted the claimed confidential business 
information, to the Docket at the address given above.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Callie Roach or Sara R. Bennett, 
Office of the Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety 
Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590. 
Telephone: 202-366-2992; Fax: 202-366-3820.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Introduction
II. Authority and Procedures for Temporary Exemption
III. GM's Petition
    A. Overview of the Origin Vehicles
    B. Safety Showing
    C. GM's Public Interest Argument
IV. Agency's Review of GM's Petition
V. Public Interest Considerations
VI. Statement on Terms
VII. Public Participation

I. Introduction

    NHTSA is responsible for promulgating and enforcing Federal motor 
vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) designed to improve motor vehicle 
safety. Generally, a manufacturer may not manufacture for sale, sell, 
offer for sale, or introduce or deliver for introduction into 
interstate commerce a vehicle that does not comply with all applicable 
FMVSS.\1\ There are limited exceptions to this general prohibition.\2\ 
One path permits manufacturers to petition NHTSA for an exemption for 
noncompliant vehicles under a specified set of statutory bases.\3\ The 
details of these bases, and on which basis General Motors (GM) 
petitions under, is provided in the sections of this notice that 
follow.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 49 U.S.C. 30112(a)(1).
    \2\ 49 U.S.C. 30112(b); 49 U.S.C. 30113; 49 U.S.C. 30114.
    \3\ 49 U.S.C. 30113.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On February 17, 2022, GM \4\ submitted a petition for exemption for 
its Origin vehicle, which GM states is a multipurpose passenger vehicle 
equipped with a ``Level 4 Automated Driving System'' (ADS).\5\ This 
document notifies the public that NHTSA has received from GM a petition 
for a temporary exemption from portions of six FMVSS.\6\ GM requests a 
two-year exemption, during which it seeks to be allowed to manufacture 
not more than 2,500 exempted vehicles for each 12-month period covered 
by the exemption. The exemption, if granted, will allow GM to 
manufacture and deploy into interstate commerce vehicles that lack 
certain safety features required by the FMVSS. GM states that it 
assures its majority-owned subsidiary

[[Page 43597]]

Cruise will maintain ``continuous ownership and control of the Origin'' 
vehicles produced under this exemption, meaning that GM commits that 
the vehicles produced under this exemption will not be sold and will 
stay under GM's ownership and possession, either by itself or through 
its majority-owned and controlled subsidiary, Cruise, throughout the 
entire lifecycle of the vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The petition submitted by GM states ``General Motors LLC 
(`GM'), a Delaware limited liability company, with support from its 
majority-owned self-driving subsidiary, Cruise LLC (`Cruise'), 
respectfully submits this petition to the National Highway Traffic 
Safety Administration (`NHTSA') for temporary exemption (`Petition') 
from certain Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (`FMVSS' or 
`Standards').'' Page 5 of the petition. In other places, the 
petitions states: ``GM and Cruise respectfully request temporary 
exemptions consistent with the Vehicle Safety Act, NHTSA guidance, 
and applicable law for certain requirements of nine FMVSS, all of 
which were developed for human-driven operations. [. . .] GM and 
Cruise seek these exemptions pursuant to both the `equivalent 
overall safety' and `evaluation of a low emission vehicle' 
provisions established by Congress in 49 U.S.C. 30113(b)(3).'' Id.
    \5\ Page 2 of the Petition.
    \6\ Note that the petition discussed in this notice is separate 
and distinct from the petition GM submitted in 2018 for its ``Zero 
Emission Autonomous Vehicle'' (ZEAV). NHTSA sought comment on this 
petition in a Federal Register notice published on March 19, 2019 
(84 FR 10182). In 2020, GM withdrew the petition. GM's submission of 
this new petition, requested jointly with Cruise, began a new part 
555 proceeding. Accordingly, while comments received on the 2019 
notice may inform NHTSA's decision-making regarding processing part 
555 petitions generally, NHTSA will not consider comments from the 
previous notice as comments received on this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Authority and Procedures for Temporary Exemption

    The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act), 
codified at 49 U.S.C. chapter 301, authorizes the Secretary of 
Transportation to exempt motor vehicles, on a temporary basis and under 
specified circumstances, and on terms the Secretary considers 
appropriate, from a FMVSS or bumper standard. This authority is set 
forth at 49 U.S.C. 30113. The Secretary has delegated the authority for 
implementing this section to NHTSA.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 49 CFR 1.95.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Safety Act authorizes the Secretary to grant, in whole or in 
part, a temporary exemption to a vehicle manufacturer if the Secretary 
makes one of four specified findings.\8\ The Secretary must also look 
comprehensively at the request for exemption and find that the 
exemption is consistent with the public interest and with the 
objectives of the Safety Act.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 49 U.S.C. 30113(b)(3).
    \9\ 49 U.S.C. 30113(b)(3)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Secretary may act under Sec.  30113 on finding that:

    (i) Compliance with the standard[s] [from which exemption is 
sought] would cause substantial economic hardship to a manufacturer 
that has tried to comply with the standard[s] in good faith;
    (ii) the exemption would make easier the development or field 
evaluation of a new motor vehicle safety feature providing a safety 
level at least equal to the safety level of the standard;
    (iii) the exemption would make the development or field 
evaluation of a low-emission motor vehicle easier and would not 
unreasonably lower the safety level of that vehicle; or
    (iv) compliance with the standard would prevent the manufacturer 
from selling a motor vehicle with an overall safety level at least 
equal to the overall safety level of nonexempt vehicles.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 49 U.S.C. 30113(b)(3)(B).

    GM seeks exemption under two alternative bases, stating that its 
Origin vehicle meets both bases. The first basis is that an exemption 
would make the development or field evaluation of a low-emission 
vehicle easier without unreasonably lowering the safety of that 
vehicle.\11\ The second basis is that compliance with the six FMVSS 
would prevent GM from selling a motor vehicle with an overall safety 
level at least equal to the overall safety level of nonexempt (i.e., 
compliant) vehicles.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 49 U.S.C. 30113(b)(3)(B)(iii).
    \12\ 49 U.S.C. 30113(b)(3)(B)(iv).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NHTSA established 49 CFR part 555, Temporary Exemption from Motor 
Vehicle Safety and Bumper Standards, to implement the statutory 
provisions concerning temporary exemptions. The requirements in 49 CFR 
555.5 state that the petitioner must set forth the basis of the 
petition by providing the information required under 49 CFR 555.6, and 
the reasons why the exemption would be in the public interest and 
consistent with the objectives of the Safety Act.
    A petition justified on the low-emission vehicle exemption basis 
must include the information specified in 49 CFR 555.6(c). Similarly, a 
petition submitted on the basis that the applicant is otherwise unable 
to sell (or in this instance, manufacture) a vehicle whose overall 
level of safety or impact protection is at least equal to that of a 
nonexempt vehicle must include the information specified in 49 CFR 
555.6(d).

III. GM's Petition

    The following discussion provides: An overview of the Origin based 
on information submitted in GM's petition; a brief summary of GM's 
safety showing and arguments for exemption from portions of certain 
FMVSS; and a summary of the petitioner's arguments that granting its 
petition for exemption would be in the public interest. Because GM has 
sought confidential treatment of some aspects of its petition, a 
redacted version of GM's petition is included in the docket referenced 
at the beginning of this notice. NHTSA notes that any of the 
descriptions provided in this section are GM's characterizations 
included in its petition and do not necessarily reflect the views of 
NHTSA.

A. Overview of the Origin Vehicles

    GM describes the Origin as a zero-emission American-made vehicle, 
operated by an ADS, that is built for fleet-controlled rideshare and 
delivery services. GM states that it and Cruise will manage the fleet 
of vehicles and that the vehicle is classified as a multipurpose 
vehicle (MPV) with a curb weight of 3,084 kg and a gross vehicle weight 
rating (GVWR) of 3,640 kg. While its size is similar to that of a 
modern sport utility vehicle (SUV), its design deviates from more 
traditional vehicle designs in a number of ways. First, the Origin has 
carriage seating, meaning a front row of seats that faces backwards and 
a back row of seats that faces forwards. It also has split sliding 
doors on either side of the vehicle to permit passenger exit and entry. 
The Origin is operated almost entirely by an ADS,\13\ and thus, is not 
equipped with manually operated driving controls or features (e.g., 
steering wheel, pedals, manual turn signals, mirrors) that a human 
might need if they were driving. In its petition, GM provides many 
photos of the Origin.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ The petition mentions ``Cruise Remote Assistance.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    GM also includes details of various novel, operational information 
about its vehicles, such as the start/stop ride button, the call button 
that contacts rider support, the mobile application GM intends to use, 
the battery that powers the vehicle, various occupant protection 
systems, and information about the Origin's sensing systems. Finally, 
GM provides some basic information about the ADS and various safety 
topics surrounding the ADS and its operation. For specific FMVSS, GM's 
petition goes into greater detail about how the ADS and the 
accompanying sensor suite fulfill those FMVSS requirements with which 
it does not comply and is seeking exemption.

B. Safety Showing

    GM has petitioned NHTSA for a temporary exemption from certain 
requirements in six FMVSS for its ADS-equipped vehicle, the Origin. 
Specifically, GM seeks exemption from portions of:
     FMVSS No. 102; Transmission shift position sequence, 
starter interlock, and transmission braking effect.
     FMVSS No. 104; Windshield wiping and washing systems.
     FMVSS No. 108; Lamps, reflective devices, and associated 
equipment.
     FMVSS No. 111; Rear visibility.
     FMVSS No. 201; Occupant protection in interior impact, and
     FMVSS No. 208; Occupant crash protection.
    In its petition for exemption, GM states that certain requirements 
are either not necessary for safety as applied to the Origin's design 
and performance, or their purpose and intent continue to be met through 
innovative, alternative means that each provide an equivalent level of 
safety, and together provide an overall safety level at least equal to 
the overall safety of nonexempt vehicles and would not unreasonably 
lower the safety of the vehicle. GM states its

[[Page 43598]]

``safety-equivalency approach to the FMVSS that are the subject of this 
Petition has focused on the performance requirements of the applicable 
standard, considering the language of the applicable standard as a 
whole, with a particular focus on NHTSA's stated purpose and intent for 
that standard.'' A short description of the rationale GM provides for 
why its Origin vehicle should receive an exemption follows. The 
appendixes attached to GM's petition include additional support for its 
arguments related to each FMVSS.
    GM petitions for exemption from portions of four of NHTSA's crash 
avoidance FMVSS. FMVSS No. 102 requires the identification of gear 
selection shift positions to be visibly identified, including the 
positions in relation to each other. GM argues that the Origin, unlike 
a human, does not need transmission shift positions to be presented 
visibly in relation to each other because the Origin is programmed to 
always select the correct shift position and the ADS knows which 
position it is selecting. For GM's petition for exemption from portions 
of FMVSS No. 104, GM argues that the purpose and intent of the safety 
standard is obviated by the Origin's sensor system design. GM argues 
the Origin's sensor system does not rely on the windshield for forward 
visibility thanks to its suite of sensors surrounding the Origin 
vehicles and thus, is not equipped with a windshield wiping or washing 
system. Portions of FMVSS No. 108 contain requirements related to 
manual controls for use by humans in switching various signals and 
lights. GM argues an ADS would not need manual devices to operate 
signals and lights, and the Origin's ADS is capable of activation and 
control of all lighting and signals through other means. FMVSS No. 111 
contains requirements for outside and/or inside mirrors and linger time 
of a rearview image, among other requirements. GM argues that its 
sensor suite on the Origin provides the ADS the same, if not better, 
visibility than FMVSS No. 111 would provide human drivers. 
Additionally, GM points out that the purpose and intent of FMVSS No. 
111 is based on human perception and visibility so there is no 
operational safety need for these requirements when applied to a 
vehicle driven by an ADS.
    GM petitions for exemption from portions of two of NHTSA's occupant 
protection FMVSS. The first is FMVSS No. 201, which requires that a sun 
visor be provided for each front outboard seating position. GM argues 
that sun visors are not necessary because the Origin is not operated by 
a human driver, and the ADS does not use the windshield for visibility. 
Next, FMVSS No. 208 requires that a seat belt assembly provided at the 
left front outboard seating position shall be equipped with a warning 
device that activates based on the status of the ignition switch. GM 
states that it meets the requirement that there be a warning system, it 
provides warnings to occupants when the seat belt is not fastened, but 
that such a warning is based upon occupants pressing start/stop buttons 
in the vehicle (i.e., not the ignition position). Thus, GM argues it 
meets the purpose and intent of the requirement.
    Finally, GM's petition included requests for exemption from FMVSS 
Nos. 203, 204, and 207, but NHTSA believes exemption from portions of 
those standards is no longer necessary due to the publication of the 
Occupant Protection for Vehicles with Automated Driving Systems final 
rule, published in the Federal Register on March 30, 2022.\14\ GM's 
petition states that it may amend its petition to address the Occupant 
Protection for Vehicles with Automated Driving Systems final rule, 
including to remove those safety standards from the petition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 87 FR 18560.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. GM's Public Interest Argument

    GM argues that granting its petition for exemption for the Origin 
furthers the Safety Act's objectives and advances other public 
interests, including:

    1. Enabling the sharing of substantive ADS information with 
NHTSA;
    2. Promoting safety of the transportation system by advancing 
autonomous technology;
    3. Taking an important step towards unlocking potentially 
significant environmental benefits;
    4. Helping advance environmental justice;
    5. Helping advance greater transportation accessibility for all 
users;
    6. Supporting US jobs and investment;
    7. Supporting the US with shaping AV norms and standards; and,
    8. Helping foster public acceptance of autonomous and electric 
technologies.

    NHTSA requests comment on the strength and persuasiveness of these 
arguments and the support for each provided by GM.

IV. Agency's Review of GM's Petition

    NHTSA has not yet made any judgment on the merits of GM's petition 
nor on the adequacy of the information submitted. NHTSA will assess the 
merits of the petition and consider public comments on the petition, as 
well as any additional information that the agency receives from GM. 
NHTSA is placing a non-confidential copy of the petition in the docket 
in accordance with statutory and administrative provisions.

V. Public Interest Considerations

    Section 30113 authorizes NHTSA to grant exemptions that are 
consistent with the public interest and the Safety Act and authorizes 
NHTSA to apply appropriate terms to any such grant. Whether granting 
the exemption is consistent with the public interest and the objectives 
of the Safety Act are required findings that are no less critical than 
a discussion of the particular statutory basis on which the exemption 
is sought (e.g., whether the subject vehicle provides an equivalent 
level of safety to a nonexempt vehicle). Although NHTSA's mission is 
primarily a safety mission, NHTSA's authority under section 30113 
requires the agency to extend its consideration to issues beyond 
traffic safety.\15\ NHTSA is seeking comment on the agency's 
consideration of specific matters of public interest in both deciding 
whether granting the exemption is consistent with the public interest 
and in developing terms and conditions with which the petitioner must 
comply if its petition is granted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ NHTSA stated, in the February 11, 2020 Federal Register 
notice granting an exemption for the first ADS-equipped vehicle to 
Nuro, that the broad authority to determine whether the public 
interest and general goals of the Vehicle Safety Act will be served 
by granting the exemption allows the Secretary to consider many 
diverse effects of the exemption, including: The overall safety of 
the transportation system beyond the analysis required in the safety 
determination; how an exemption will further technological 
innovation; economic impacts, such as consumer benefits; and 
environmental effects. (85 FR 7826, 7828).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As the expert agency in automotive safety and the interpretation of 
its existing standards, NHTSA has significant discretion in making the 
safety findings required under these provisions. Further, the broad 
authority to determine whether the public interest and general goals of 
the Safety Act will be served by granting the exemption allows the 
agency to consider many diverse effects of the exemption, including: 
the overall safety of the transportation system beyond the analysis 
required in the safety determination; how an exemption will further 
technological innovation; economic impacts, such as consumer benefits; 
and environmental effects.
    ADS vehicles have the potential to benefit our transportation 
system significantly beyond the analysis required in the safety 
determination. As NHTSA considers the potentially transformative impact 
of ADS

[[Page 43599]]

technology, it is also considering its role in encouraging the use of 
ADS vehicles in ways that maximize their benefit to society. 
Specifically, NHTSA is exploring its role and responsibility in 
considering environmental impacts, accessibility and equity when an 
exemption is sought for an ADS-equipped vehicle. Climate, accessibility 
and equity, in addition to road safety, are important public interest 
goals of the Department and NHTSA. NHTSA will also continue to consider 
how exemptions affect the development of advanced vehicle technologies.
    With regard to environmental impacts, NHTSA seeks to learn about 
the interplay between fuel efficiency and ADS technologies. NHTSA seeks 
public comment on whether it should adopt reporting requirements when 
granting part 555 petitions for vehicles with ADS that would allow the 
agency to better understand the energy use of the vehicles throughout 
their service life and, possibly, to better assess, and quantify, the 
environmental impacts of ADS-equipped vehicles. NHTSA is also seeking 
comment regarding the weight it should give to the environmental 
impacts of internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles when deciding 
whether to grant an exemption to an ICE vehicle moving forward. 
Finally, NHTSA is seeking comment about whether to seek from entities 
that receive a grant of a petition information about how, exactly, 
their vehicles would promote environmental justice.
    NHTSA seeks comment on the extent to which accessibility and equity 
might be considered in either determining whether an exemption is in 
the public interest or applying appropriate conditions to an exemption 
as it is granted. Proponents of ADS technology often claim that ADS-
equipped vehicles would help advance greater transportation 
accessibility for persons with disabilities. GM states in its petition 
that one of the reasons that granting its petition for the Origin 
vehicle is in the public interest is because doing so would help 
advance greater transportation accessibility for all users. GM states 
broadly that the Origin will ``help expand mobility options for 
seniors, people who are blind or have low vision, and other communities 
that have traditionally had lower access to reliable transportation.'' 
GM states in the petition that it has conducted studies to inform user 
experience and vehicle design in ways that would make the Origin more 
accessible for all passengers, and that this research has resulted in 
GM developing a wheelchair accessible version of the Origin. GM also 
implies that it has taken into account the needs of people who are 
blind or have low vision. NHTSA appreciates this potential and 
appreciates that manufacturers are considering the benefits to 
underserved populations.
    NHTSA is interested in learning more about specific actions that 
manufacturers and operators of ADS-equipped exempted vehicles are 
taking to ensure that accessibility and equity goals will be met. For 
example, we are considering seeking information from entities that 
receive a grant of a petition about how they ensure that their ride-
hailing services comply with any applicable Americans with Disabilities 
Act (ADA) requirements. NHTSA is also considering seeking information 
about how many vehicles manufactured under a part 555 exemption would 
be wheelchair accessible. Additionally, NHTSA is interested in what, 
specifically, the manufacturer would do to ensure access to people with 
vision disabilities, or to ensure that persons with wheelchairs, 
walkers, or other mobility devices, can safely transition from the 
vehicle to the sidewalk and vice versa. NHTSA seeks comment on these 
questions about accessibility.
    NHTSA is also considering seeking information about how the 
exempted vehicles would be used to improve accessibility and equity in 
serving underserved communities. The agency seeks comments on whether 
an entity that receives a grant of a petition should be required to 
provide plans about how it intends to ensure that access to its 
services is equitable in terms of neighborhood, income levels, race and 
ethnicity, age (etc.), and/or should be required to provide reports of 
how it achieved those objectives through use of the exempted vehicles. 
Should the agency require manufacturers granted an exemption to report 
to NHTSA about how the exempted vehicles will be used to improve 
accessibility and equity in serving underserved communities? Data 
reported on these elements would help DOT and NHTSA assess if 
assumptions about the beneficial societal impacts of ADS-equipped 
vehicles are bearing out, and if not, why not.
    NHTSA is also considering seeking information about the economic 
impacts of granting a petition. Many advocates of ADS technology argue 
that deploying ADS-equipped vehicles will increase U.S. jobs and 
innovation. For example, should the agency seek information about 
potential job creation and displacement of workers? Should NHTSA seek 
other information about how the grant would impact investment in the 
U.S. economy, such as through the generation of tax revenue or 
development of intellectual property?
    Further, NHTSA seeks comments on whether the agency should consider 
additional matters of public interest in developing terms and 
conditions with which a part 555 petitioner must comply if its petition 
were granted. To the extent that you believe other areas should be 
considered, please tell us how we can best promote the public interest 
through the exercise of our discretion in granting exemptions and 
establishing terms and conditions to such exemptions.

VI. Statement on Terms

    Section 30113 authorizes the Secretary, NHTSA by delegation, to 
condition the grant of a temporary exemption ``on terms [NHTSA] 
considers appropriate.'' \16\ The agency's authority to set terms is 
broad. It is not limited solely to terms and conditions relevant to its 
specific determination. Instead, this provision allows the agency to 
set terms that would allow NHTSA to collect information about the 
exempted vehicles that would service the public interest, such as 
information concerning the performance of the ADS.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 49 U.S.C. 30113(b)(1) (delegation of authority at 49 CFR 
1.95).
    \17\ 85 FR 7826, 7840 (February 11, 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Once a manufacturer receives a temporary exemption from the 
prohibitions of 49 U.S.C. 30112(a)(1), NHTSA can affect the use of 
those vehicles produced pursuant to the exemption through the terms in 
partially or fully granting the exemption or as it exercises its 
enforcement authority (e.g., its safety defect authority). The agency's 
authority to set terms is broad. Since the terms would be the primary 
means of monitoring and affecting the operation of the exempted 
vehicles, the agency would carefully consider whether to establish 
terms and what types of terms to establish if it were to grant a 
petition. The manufacturer would need to agree to abide by the terms 
set for that exemption in order to begin and continue producing 
vehicles pursuant to that exemption.
    Due to the novel nature of ADS technology and NHTSA's interest in 
better understanding the safety and utility of ADS-equipped vehicles, 
if the petition were granted in whole or in part, the agency 
anticipates applying conditions to the grant.
    NHTSA exercised its ability to apply a variety of terms when it 
granted Nuro's petition for the first ADS-equipped vehicle exempted 
under part

[[Page 43600]]

555.\18\ The terms NHTSA chose were designed to enhance the public 
interest and included post-crash reporting, periodic reporting, terms 
concerning cybersecurity, and certain general requirements. NHTSA seeks 
comment on whether the agency should apply the same type of conditions, 
and others, to GM if NHTSA decides to grant its petition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NHTSA will carefully consider whether to establish terms and what 
types of terms to establish if it grants GM's petition. If GM's 
petition were granted, GM would need to agree to abide by the terms set 
for that exemption in order to begin and continue producing vehicles 
pursuant to that exemption. Nothing in either the statute or 
implementing regulations limits the application of these terms to the 
period during which the exempted vehicles are produced. NHTSA could set 
terms that continue to apply to the vehicles throughout their normal 
service life if it deems that such application is necessary to be 
consistent with the Safety Act.
    Thus, if NHTSA were to grant an exemption, in whole or in part, it 
could establish, for example, reporting terms to ensure a continuing 
flow of information to the agency throughout the normal service life of 
the exempted vehicles, not just during the two-year period of 
exemption. When NHTSA granted Nuro's exemption, NHTSA stated that the 
terms would apply throughout the useful life of the vehicles. Beyond 
the two-year exemption period, GM could be subject to civil penalties 
for failure to comply with the terms established as a condition for 
granting the part 555 exemption.
    Given the uniqueness of GM's vehicles, its petition, and public 
interest concerns, extended reporting may be appropriate. Since only a 
portion of the total mileage that the vehicles, if exempted, could be 
expected to travel during their normal service life would have been 
driven by the end of the exemption period, the data would need to be 
reported over a longer period of time to enable the agency to make 
sufficiently reliable judgments. Such judgments might include those 
made in a retrospective review of the agency's determination about the 
anticipated safety effects of the exemption.
    NHTSA could also establish terms to specify what the consequences 
would be if the flow of information were to cease or become inadequate 
during or after the exemption period. Other potential terms could 
include limitations on vehicle operations (based upon speed, weather, 
identified Operational Design Domains, road types, ownership, and 
management, etc.). Conceivably, some conditions could be graduated, 
i.e., restrictions could be progressively relaxed after a period of 
demonstrated driving performance. Further, as with data-sharing, it may 
be necessary to specify that these terms would apply to the exempted 
vehicles beyond the two-year exemption period.
    NHTSA notes that its regulations at 49 CFR part 555 provide that 
the agency can revoke a part 555 exemption if a manufacturer fails to 
satisfy the terms of the exemption. NHTSA could also seek injunctive 
relief.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 49 U.S.C. 30163(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NHTSA seeks comment on whether the agency should apply the same 
types of conditions that it applied to Nuro's exemption for ADS-
equipped low-speed occupantless vehicles. NHTSA seeks comment not only 
on whether these conditions are appropriate to apply to GM's exemption, 
if granted, but also whether there are additional terms that NHTSA 
should apply. GM's exemption request differs significantly from Nuro's 
in that the request is for a passenger vehicle, and it is not limited 
to 25 mph, as was the case of the Nuro vehicle. As such, there are 
likely to be additional terms that would be appropriate to apply to 
GM's exemption, if granted.
    Please comment on whether NHTSA should apply the following terms 
and conditions to a potential grant of GM's exemption request:

    1. Reporting within 24 hours of an exempt vehicle being involved 
in any crash, to include: \20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ GM and Cruise are currently required to submit reports to 
NHTSA for crashes involving ADS pursuant to NHTSA Standing General 
Order (2021-01). More information about the General Order is 
available on NHTSA's website at https://www.nhtsa.gov/laws-regulations/standing-general-order-crash-reporting-levels-driving-automation-2-5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    a. The data elements specified in 49 CFR part 563, Event Data 
Recorders.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See Table I--Reported Data Elements and Table II--Reported 
Data Element Format. 85 FR 78426, 7841 (February 11, 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    b. If the ADS was in control of the vehicle during the event, a 
detailed timeline of the 30 seconds leading up to the crash, 
including a detailed read-out and interpretation of all sensors in 
operation during that time period, the ADS's object detection and 
classification output, and the vehicle actions taken (i.e., commands 
for braking, throttle, steering, etc.).
    c. If a human operator took over control of the vehicle prior to 
the event, a detailed timeline of the 30 seconds leading up to the 
human operator taking over control, including a detailed read-out 
and interpretation of all ADS sensors in operation during that time 
period, the ADS's object detection and classification output, and 
the vehicle actions taken (i.e., commands for braking, throttle, 
steering, etc.).
    d. If a human operator was in control of the vehicle at any 
point during or up to 30 seconds before the event, a detailed 
timeline of any actions the human operator took that affected the 
crash event, as well as any technical problems that could have 
contributed to the crash (signal latency, poor field of view, etc.).
    e. Any additional information about the event that NHTSA deems 
pertinent for determining either crash or injury causation, 
including additional information related to the ADS or remote 
operator system.
    2. Beginning 90 days after the date of the exemption grant, and 
at an interval of every 90 days thereafter, a report detailing the 
operation of each exempted vehicle in operation during that time 
period. This report may provide this information either in aggregate 
or on a per-vehicle basis, but it must include the following:
    a. A calculation of the total miles the vehicle has traveled 
using the ADS during the report period, and heat maps of the 
geofenced area in which the vehicle operates to illustrate travel 
density.
    b. Detailed descriptions of any material changes made to the 
subject vehicle's Operational Design Domain (ODD) or ADS software 
during the reporting period.
    c. Detailed descriptions of any incidents in which any exempted 
vehicle violated any local or State traffic law, whether operating 
using the ADS or under human control.
    d. Detailed descriptions of any incidents in which the exempt 
vehicles experienced a sustained acceleration of at least 0.7g on 
any axis for at least 150 ms, or of any incidents in which the 
vehicle had an unexpected interaction with humans or other objects 
(other than crashes that require immediate reporting).
    e. Detailed descriptions of all instances in which a public 
safety official, including law enforcement, attempted to interact 
with an exempted vehicle, such as to pull it over, or contacted GM 
regarding an attempted interaction with an exempted vehicle.
    f. Detailed descriptions of any ``minimal risk condition 
fallback'' events that occurred, even if no crash has occurred. If 
the event has occurred because the vehicle self-diagnosed a 
malfunction of a vehicle system, the report must include a detailed 
description of the cause and nature of the malfunction, and what 
remedial steps were taken. If the event was caused by the vehicle 
encountering a complex or unexpected driving situation, the report 
must include a detailed timeline of the ADS's decision-making 
process that led to the event, including any difficulties the ADS 
had in detecting and classifying objects.
    g. In addition, GM must make necessary staff available to meet 
with NHTSA staff quarterly to discuss the status of its deployment 
program.
    3. GM must have a documented cybersecurity incident response 
plan that includes its risk mitigation strategies and the incident 
notification requirements listed below.

[[Page 43601]]

    a. GM must cease operations of all exempt vehicles immediately 
upon becoming aware of any cybersecurity incident involving the 
exempt vehicles and any systems connected to the exempt vehicles 
that has the potential to impact the safety of the exempt vehicles.
    b. No later than 24 hours after being made aware of a 
cybersecurity incident, GM must inform NHTSA's Office of Defects 
Investigations (ODI) of the incident. GM must also respond to any 
additional requests for information from NHTSA on the cybersecurity 
incident.
    c. Prior to resuming its operation of any exempt vehicles 
following the discovery of a cybersecurity incident, GM must inform 
NHTSA of the steps it has taken to patch the vulnerability and 
mitigate the risks associated with the incident, and receive NHTSA 
approval to resume operation.
    4. GM must be capable of issuing a ``stop order'' that causes 
all deployed exempted vehicles to, as quickly as possible, cease 
operations in a safe manner, in the event that NHTSA or GM 
determines that the exempted vehicles present an unreasonable or 
unforeseen risk to safety.
    5. GM must coordinate any planned deployment of the exempted 
vehicles or change to the ADS/ODD with State and local authorities 
with jurisdiction over the operation of the vehicle as required by 
the laws or regulations of that jurisdiction.
    6. The exempted vehicles must comply with all State and local 
laws and requirements at all times while in operation. Each vehicle 
must be duly permitted, if applicable, and authorized to operate 
within all properties and upon all roadways traversed.
    7. GM must maintain ownership and operational control over the 
exempted vehicle that are built pursuant to this exemption for the 
life of those vehicles.
    8. GM must create and maintain a hotline or other method of 
communication for the public and GM employees to directly 
communicate feedback or potential safety concerns about the exempted 
vehicles to the company.
    9. If there are other categories of data that should be 
considered, please identify them and the purposes for which they 
would be useful to the agency in carrying out its responsibilities 
under the Safety Act.
    10. If the agency were to require the reporting of data, for 
what period should the agency require it to be reported--the two-
year exemption period or the vehicles' entire normal service life?
    11. Given estimates that vehicles with ADS would generate 
terabytes of data per vehicle per day, how should the need for data 
be appropriately balanced with the burden on manufacturers of 
providing and maintaining it and the ability of the agency to absorb 
and use it effectively?
    12. As explained in the section above, NHTSA has broad authority 
to determine whether the public interest and general goals of the 
Safety Act will be served by granting an exemption. NHTSA seeks to 
understand the many diverse effects of the exemption, including: the 
overall safety of the transportation system beyond the analysis 
required in the safety determination; how an exemption will further 
technological innovation; whether the exemption will address 
transportation accessibility and equity; economic impacts, such as 
consumer benefits; and environmental effects.
    13. With regard to environmental impacts, how should NHTSA use 
the part 555 exemptions to learn about the interplay between fuel 
efficiency and ADS technologies? Should the agency adopt reporting 
requirements that would allow the agency to better understand the 
energy use of the vehicles throughout their service life and 
possibly better assess, and quantify, the environmental impacts of 
ADS-equipped vehicles? Should NHTSA require an entity whose petition 
has been granted to provide data about, for example, how often and 
how far its vehicles are driving around unoccupied v. occupied? Is 
there other information related to the environmental consequences 
and effects of the vehicles covered by the petition that NHTSA 
should require from entities granted an exemption?
    14. How should NHTSA consider accessibility in applying 
appropriate conditions to an exemption if it were granted? As noted 
above, many proponents of ADS technology often claim that ADS-
equipped vehicles could help advance greater transportation 
accessibility for persons with disabilities. Should NHTSA impose 
conditions on grants of part 555 exemptions to learn more about 
specific actions that manufacturers and operators of ADS-equipped 
exempted vehicles are planning, or have taken, to further the 
attainment of accessibility and equity goals? Should NHTSA seek 
information from manufacturers granted an exemption as to how they 
ensure that their ride-hailing services comply with any applicable 
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements, how many 
vehicles would be wheelchair accessible, how they reach people with 
disabilities to offer access to ride sharing services, or whether 
the exempt vehicles provide other accommodations for individuals 
with disabilities, such as communication and/or human-machine 
interface (HMI) features designed for individuals with sensory 
disabilities (such as sight or hearing) or cognitive disabilities? 
Should NHTSA require grantees to report on efforts, such as research 
or community outreach, that the manufacturer is planning, or has 
taken, to increase the likelihood that accessibility goals will be 
met? Comments are requested on whether there is other information 
related to accessibility that NHTSA should require from an entity 
when granting its petition.
    15. How should NHTSA consider equity in applying appropriate 
conditions to an exemption if it were granted? For example, should 
NHTSA require entities receiving a grant of their petition to report 
how the exempted vehicles will be used to improve accessibility and 
equity in serving underserved communities? Should such an entity be 
required to provide plans about how it intends to ensure that access 
to its services is equitable in terms of neighborhood, income 
levels, race and ethnicity, age (etc.), and/or provide reports of 
how it achieved those objectives through use of the exempted 
vehicles? Should entities receiving a petition grant be required to 
report on barriers they encountered to deploying ADS-equipped 
vehicles in underserved communities and how those barriers could be 
overcome? Should such an entity be required to provide demographic 
data about its services, or report on efforts, such as research or 
community outreach, that the manufacturer is planning or has taken 
to ensure better that equity goals will be met? Comments are 
requested on whether there is other information related to equity 
that NHTSA should require when granting a petition.
    16. How should NHTSA consider economic impacts when applying 
appropriate conditions to an exemption if it were granted?

Public Participation

A. Request for Comment and Comment Period

    The agency seeks comment from the public on the merits of GM's 
petition for a temporary exemption. NHTSA is also seeking comment on 
the potential types of terms the agency should set if the agency 
decides to grant the petition.
    NHTSA is providing a 30-day comment period. After considering 
public comments and other available information, NHTSA will publish a 
notice of final action on the petition in the Federal Register.

B. Instructions for Submitting Comments

How long do I have to submit comments?
    Please see DATES section at the beginning of this document.
How do I prepare and submit comments?
     Your comments must be written in English.
     To ensure that your comments are correctly filed in the 
Docket, please include the Docket Number shown at the beginning of this 
document in your comments.
     If you are submitting comments electronically as a PDF 
(Adobe) File, NHTSA asks that the documents be submitted using the 
Optical Character Recognition (OCR) process, thus allowing NHTSA to 
search and copy certain portions of your submissions. Comments may be 
submitted to the docket electronically by logging onto the Docket 
Management System website at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 
online instructions for submitting comments.
     You may also submit two copies of your comments, including 
the attachments, to Docket Management at the address given above under 
ADDRESSES.

[[Page 43602]]

    Please note that pursuant to the Data Quality Act, in order for 
substantive data to be relied upon and used by the agency, it must meet 
the information quality standards set forth in the OMB and DOT Data 
Quality Act guidelines. Accordingly, we encourage you to consult the 
guidelines in preparing your comments. OMB's guidelines may be accessed 
at http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/fedreg/reproducible.html. DOT's 
guidelines may be accessed at http://www.bts.gov/programs/statistical_policy_and_research/data_quality_guidelines.
How do I submit confidential business information?
    If you wish to submit any information under a claim of 
confidentiality, you must submit your request directly to NHTSA's 
Office of the Chief Counsel. Requests for confidentiality are governed 
by part 512. NHTSA is currently treating electronic submission as an 
acceptable method for submitting confidential business information to 
the agency under part 512. If you would like to submit a request for 
confidential treatment, you may email your submission to Dan Rabinovitz 
in the Office of the Chief Counsel at [email protected] or you 
may contact Dan for a secure file transfer link. At this time, you 
should not send a duplicate hardcopy of your electronic CBI submissions 
to DOT headquarters. If you claim that any of the information or 
documents provided to the agency constitute confidential business 
information within the meaning of 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4), or are protected 
from disclosure pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1905, you must submit supporting 
information together with the materials that are the subject of the 
confidentiality request, in accordance with part 512, to the Office of 
the Chief Counsel. Your request must include a cover letter setting 
forth the information specified in our confidential business 
information regulation (49 CFR 512.8) and a certificate, pursuant to 
Sec.  512.4(b) and part 512, appendix A. In addition, you should submit 
a copy, from which you have deleted the claimed confidential business 
information, to the Docket at the address given above.
Will the Agency consider late comments?
    We will consider all comments that Docket Management receives 
before the close of business on the comment closing date indicated 
above under DATES. To the extent possible, we will also consider 
comments that Docket Management receives after that date.
How can I read the comments submitted by other people?
    You may see the comments on the internet. To read the comments on 
the internet, go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 
instructions for accessing the dockets.
    Please note that, even after the comment closing date, we will 
continue to file relevant information in the Docket as it becomes 
available. Further, some people may submit late comments. Accordingly, 
we recommend that you periodically check the Docket for new material.

(Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30113 and 49 U.S.C. 30166; delegations of 
authority at 49 CFR 1.95.)

    Issued in Washington, DC, under authority delegated in 49 CFR 
1.95.
Steven S. Cliff,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2022-15557 Filed 7-20-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P