[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 9 (Wednesday, January 15, 2025)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 4130-4190]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-30854]
[[Page 4129]]
Vol. 90
Wednesday,
No. 9
January 15, 2025
Part III
Department of Transportation
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
49 CFR Parts 595 and 597
ADS-Equipped Vehicle Safety, Transparency, and Evaluation Program;
Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 9 / Wednesday, January 15, 2025 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 4130]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
49 CFR Parts 595 and 597
[Docket No. NHTSA-2024-0100]
RIN 2127-AM60
ADS-Equipped Vehicle Safety, Transparency, and Evaluation Program
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document proposes a voluntary framework for the
evaluation and oversight of motor vehicles equipped with automated
driving systems (ADS). The ADS-equipped Vehicle Safety, Transparency,
and Evaluation Program (AV STEP) would establish a national program for
ADS-equipped vehicles that operate or may operate on public roads in
the United States under NHTSA's oversight with the goal of improving
public transparency related to the safety of certain ADS-equipped
vehicles, while allowing for responsible development of this
technology. This proposal includes procedures for application,
participation, public reporting, and program administration. It
identifies content requirements for applications, including independent
assessments of ADS safety processes, such as the safety cases used and
conformance to industry standards. These application requirements will
inform NHTSA's decisions on terms and conditions for participation. The
proposal also contains reporting requirements for participants,
including periodic and event-triggered reporting.
DATES: Comments are requested on or before March 17, 2025. In
compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, NHTSA is also seeking
comment on a new information collection. For additional information,
see subsection D (Paperwork Reduction Act) under Section IX (Regulatory
Notices and Analyses). All comments relating to the information
collection requirements should be submitted to NHTSA and to the Office
of Management and Budget (OMB) at the address listed in the ADDRESSES
section on or before March 17, 2025.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments to the docket number identified in
the heading of this document by any of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to www.regulations.gov and
follow the instructions for submitting comments.
Mail: Docket Management Facility, M-30, U.S. Department of
Transportation, West Building, Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.
Hand Delivery or Courier: U.S. Department of
Transportation, West Building, Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.
Eastern time, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
Fax: (202) 493-2251.
Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name
and docket number or Regulatory Information Number (RIN) for this
rulemaking. All comments received will be posted without change to
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided. For
detailed instructions on sending comments and additional information on
the rulemaking process, see the ``Public Participation'' heading of the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document. Comments on the
proposed information collection requirements should be submitted to OMB
at www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. To find this particular
information collection, select ``Currently under Review--Open for
Public Comment'' or use the search function. It is requested that
comments sent to OMB also be sent to the NHTSA rulemaking docket
identified in the heading of this document.
Docket: For access to the dockets or to read background documents
or comments received, please visit www.regulations.gov, and/or Docket
Management Facility, M-30, U.S. Department of Transportation, West
Building, Ground Floor, Rm. W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE,
Washington, DC 20590. The Docket Management Facility is open between 9
a.m. and 4 p.m. Eastern time, Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For non-legal issues: Katherine L.
Chasins, Rulemaking Office of Automation Safety by email:
[email protected], or phone: (202) 366-7396. For legal issues:
Hunter B. Oliver, Office of the Chief Counsel by email:
[email protected], phone: (202) 366-8875. The mailing address for
these officials is: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration,
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Executive Summary
II. Program Context
A. How the Current ADS Technology Landscape Shaped This NPRM
B. How NHTSA's Authorities Shaped This NPRM
1. NHTSA's Mission and ADS Activity
2. NHTSA Exemptions
III. Program Structure (Regulatory Text Subpart A)
A. Program Eligibility
B. Program Steps
C. Terms and Conditions
IV. Application and Review (Regulatory Text Subparts B and D)
A. Application Form
1. Operational Baseline
2. Location Sheet
3. Confirmation of Reporting During Participation
B. Protocols for ADS Operations
1. Law Abidance
2. System Fallback Response
3. User and Surrounding Road User Interactions
C. Data Governance Plan
D. Independent Assessment
1. Focus of Independent Assessment
2. Summary Report Requirements
3. Assessment Context Requirements
4. Reliability and Credibility Disclosures
E. Application Review
V. Participation (Regulatory Text Subparts E and F)
A. Reporting Requirements
1. Periodic Reporting
2. Event-Triggered Reporting
3. Update Reporting
B. Agency Protocols
1. Amendment Process
2. Concern Resolution Process
VI. Public Reporting Requirements (Regulatory Text Subpart G)
VII. Requirements for AV STEP Exemptions (Regulatory Text Subpart C)
A. Exemption Eligibility Requirements
B. Exemption Application Requirements
C. Exemption Participation Requirements
D. Exemption Public Reporting
VIII. Public Comments
IX. Regulatory Notices and Analyses
A. Executive Orders 12866, 13563, 14094 and DOT Regulatory
Policies and Procedures
1. Need for Regulation
2. Uncertainties and Assumptions
3. Costs
4. Benefits
5. Regulatory Approaches Considered
B. National Environmental Policy Act
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
D. Paperwork Reduction Act
E. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)
F. Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform)
G. Executive Order 13609: Promoting International Regulatory
Cooperation
H. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
I. Privacy Act
J. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
K. Regulation Identifier Number
L. Plain Language
M. Rule Summary
[[Page 4131]]
I. Executive Summary
Automated driving systems (ADS) \1\ are evolving rapidly, posing
challenges to vehicle manufacturers and the agency alike regarding the
safety of the traveling public. It is important that ADS technology be
deployed in a manner that protects the public from unreasonable safety
risk while at the same time allowing for responsible development of
this technology, which has the potential to advance safety. Under
NHTSA's existing regulatory framework, which implements the National
Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act),\2\ motor vehicle
manufacturers may already deploy ADS-equipped vehicles on public roads,
as long as they comply with existing Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
Standards (FMVSS) and state and local laws.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Automated driving systems are systems developed (or being
developed) to fully perform the driving task without any expectation
of an attentive human driver. ADS-equipped vehicles are sometimes
referred to as self-driving cars or autonomous vehicles. In
contrast, driver support features (sometimes referred to as Advanced
Driver Assistance Systems or ADAS), such as highway or parking
assist features, must be continuously supervised by a human driver.
\2\ 49 U.S.C. Ch. 301.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Many ADS operations take this approach, and the FMVSS do not
currently set performance standards specifically for ADS. Vehicles that
are compliant with all applicable FMVSS can generally be equipped with
ADS technology without NHTSA approval. Alternatively, if an ADS-
equipped vehicle does not comply with all applicable FMVSS, exemptions
may be requested from NHTSA. Past exemption requests involving ADS have
typically involved purpose-built vehicles (those designed specifically
for ADS operations).\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See 85 FR 7826, 7842 (February 11, 2020) (granting an
exemption ``to the requirements that an LSV be equipped with
exterior and/or interior mirrors; have a windshield that complies
with FMVSS No. 205, `Glazing materials'; and a backup camera system
that meets the requirement in FMVSS No. 111, `Rear visibility,'
limiting the length of time that a rearview image can remain
displayed by the system after a vehicle's transmission has been
shifted out of reverse gear.'') NHTSA also publishes notices of
receipt of exemption requests under 49 CFR part 555, which provide
examples of other standards for which exemptions have been requested
for ADS-equipped vehicles. See 89 FR 88856 (November 8, 2024); 87 FR
43602, 43607 (July 21, 2022); 87 FR 43595 (July 21, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To account for this current ADS landscape, this document proposes a
national program, entitled the ADS-equipped Vehicle Safety,
Transparency, and Evaluation Program (AV STEP), designed to complement
and further NHTSA's ADS oversight, rulemaking, research, and
transparency efforts as well as to support new proposed processes for
exemptions involving ADS-equipped vehicles. This voluntary program
would provide NHTSA with a framework for reviewing and overseeing ADS-
equipped vehicles at a time when ADS technology continues to rapidly
evolve.
In the future, as ADS technologies mature, NHTSA anticipates there
may be a need to establish minimum standards for ADS safety
performance, much as NHTSA's existing FMVSS govern the performance of
conventional vehicle systems and attributes. However, the data,
methods, and metrics to support such standards do not yet exist. Many
of the elements included in this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM)
are intended to help NHTSA obtain insight and data that could, in turn,
support the future development of such standards. Pending such future
developments, AV STEP would serve as a national program built for the
evolving state of the technology, offering an interim boost to
regulatory oversight and a process for motor vehicle manufacturers and
other participants to build public trust by demonstrating a commitment
to responsible safety practices, accountability, and transparency.
As a voluntary program, AV STEP would be available to vehicle
manufacturers, ADS developers, fleet operators, and system integrators
of ADS-equipped vehicles seeking to operate on public roadways in the
United States. NHTSA proposes AV STEP for two categories of ADS-
equipped vehicles: ADS-equipped vehicles in need of exemptions and ADS-
equipped vehicles that can lawfully operate on public roads today. For
vehicles needing an exemption, AV STEP would offer an exemption pathway
that is tailored for ADS-equipped vehicles (see Section VII
(Requirements for AV STEP Exemptions (Regulatory Text Subpart C)) for
additional details on the proposed exemption process). For all entities
seeking participation in AV STEP (whether needing an exemption or not),
the program would offer participants an opportunity to demonstrate
their operational safety and their commitment to transparency for their
vehicles and operations by engaging in a national program with well-
defined participation and reporting criteria focused on advancing
safety.
Under the proposed program, an applicant would provide NHTSA with
information and data related to the safety of the design, development,
and operations of ADS-equipped vehicles for their intended deployment
under the program. NHTSA would review this information, engage with the
applicant as needed to clarify or ask for additional information, and
establish terms and conditions for participating in the program. Once
admitted into AV STEP, a participant would be required to submit both
periodic and event-triggered reports to NHTSA. To improve public
transparency, the agency also proposes to publish much of the
application and reporting information that NHTSA would receive.
Acceptance into the program would be based on the sufficiency of
information supplied and after coordination with an applicant about
terms and conditions for participation. Acceptance into the program
would reflect a determination by NHTSA that the applicant has provided
evidence showing it followed well-documented engineering processes and
has the needed technical, operational, and management resources in
place to mitigate safety concerns. Acceptance into the program would
not be an assurance of safety, a validation of the ADS technology, or a
guarantee that the applicant will execute its operational oversight
functions as described. NHTSA would continue to exercise its existing
defect and investigation authorities as ADS-equipped vehicles are
deployed on public roadways.
As proposed, the program would be structured around two levels of
participation: Step 1 and Step 2. Generally, Step 1 would apply to
vehicles that rely on fallback personnel \4\ and Step 2 would apply to
vehicles that do not rely on fallback personnel. The proposed
participation requirements differ between these steps, as the approach
to managing risk is significantly different in these two cases. In ADS
operations that rely on fallback personnel, a human is expected to
intervene to compensate for any deficiency in the ADS, whereas in
operations that do not rely on fallback personnel, the ADS must be able
to safely respond to all driving scenarios without such intervention.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ As used within this proposal, fallback personnel are
specially trained individuals that continuously supervise the
performance of prototype ADS-operated vehicles and intervene
whenever necessary to prevent a hazardous event by exercising any
means of vehicle control. The full definition of ``fallback
personnel'' appears in Sec. 597.102 of the proposed rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
AV STEP would enhance public transparency and Federal oversight of
ADS technologies to better understand and address emerging risks
associated with their deployment. The agency proposes to examine
applications for AV STEP in part through the use of an applicant's
safety case, which would
[[Page 4132]]
need to contain structured arguments, supported by evidence, intended
to justify that a system is acceptably safe for a given use in a
specified environment. The safety case concept is commonly used in
safety-critical products and industries such as aviation, energy
(including nuclear), medical devices, and other technology sectors. An
application for AV STEP would require an assessment of an applicant's
safety case by an independent entity with specialized experience and
expertise. This independent assessment would consider the holistic
safety of ADS-equipped vehicles, spanning technical, organizational,
and operational challenges relevant to safety decision-making. While
currently available testing and evaluation methods cannot conclusively
determine an ADS' safety, this approach would facilitate NHTSA's review
of the engineering rigor and due diligence applied to a system's
development and operation. It would also provide a proactive
opportunity to identify and resolve any safety concerns.
It is the agency's expectation that, by promoting a safer, more
transparent, and more responsible environment for developing and
deploying ADS in the United States, AV STEP will help foster the
technological innovation and public confidence needed to advance ADS
and the potentially significant safety benefits of the technology.
II. Program Context
AV STEP would build on NHTSA's other ADS transparency, oversight,
and research activities. The first subsection below describes how the
program would fit into the current ADS technology landscape. The second
subsection describes the legal authorities for the AV STEP proposal and
the agency's other ADS activity taken pursuant to these authorities.
A. How the Current ADS Technology Landscape Shaped This NPRM
Vehicle automation technologies, which include both ADS and
advanced driver assistance systems (ADAS), have significantly
transformed the automotive landscape over the last decade. Currently,
the automation systems available to the public in consumer-owned
vehicles are almost all driver support or convenience ADAS features,
such as partial driving automation systems.\5\ For these features, the
human driver remains responsible for supervising the system and must
stay engaged and attentive.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Partial driving automation systems are described by SAE
International (SAE) as executing ``both the lateral and longitudinal
vehicle motion control subtasks of the [dynamic driving task] with
the expectation that the driver . . . supervises the driving
automation system.'' SAE International, ``J3016 APR2021: Taxonomy
and Definitions for Terms Related to Driving Automation Systems for
On-Road Motor Vehicles,'' (Revised April 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In contrast, an ADS is responsible for performing the entire
dynamic driving task (DDT) \6\ while operating within the system's
operational design domain (ODD),\7\ without any expectation that a
human driver will be attentive. However, a human may still be expected
to take over the driving task when the ADS exits its ODD or, during an
ADS' development, to perform a safety oversight role, such as
preventing the ADS from handling a situation incorrectly.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ This NPRM defines DDT in part as ``all of the real-time
operational and tactical functions required to operate a vehicle in
on-road traffic, excluding the strategic functions such as trip
scheduling and selection of destinations and waypoints . . .'' See
Sec. 597.102 of the proposed rule. This definition is largely
derived from SAE International's definition. See SAE International,
``J3016 APR2021: Taxonomy and Definitions for Terms Related to
Driving Automation Systems for On-Road Motor Vehicles,'' (Revised
April 2021).
\7\ This NPRM defines ODD as ``the operating conditions under
which the Automated Driving System or feature thereof is
specifically designed to function, including, but not limited to,
environmental, geographical, and time-of-day restrictions, and/or
the requisite presence or absence of defined traffic or roadway
characteristics.'' This definition is largely derived from SAE
International's definition. See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NHTSA proposes to limit AV STEP eligibility to ADS-equipped
vehicles. This scope allows focus on the unique complexities of ADS
while most ADS operations are within the control of the companies
responsible for their testing. Currently, very few ADS-equipped
vehicles are available for purchase by the general public.\8\ Instead,
almost all such vehicles are owned and operated by vehicle
manufacturers, ADS developers, or fleet operators. Most of these
vehicles remain in the testing and development stage. If they operate
on public roads at all, they do so only in limited environments.
Limited numbers of ADS-equipped vehicles are engaged in commercial
applications, such as goods delivery platforms or mobility on demand
operations.\9\ However, even those commercial applications remain
largely under development and operate in limited environments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ See, e.g., California Department of Motor Vehicle's
announcement regarding its acceptance of Mercedes' DRIVE PILOT
System, available at https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/news-and-media/california-dmv-approves-mercedes-benz-automated-driving-system-for-certain-highways-and-conditions. The announcement states: ``The
Level 3 Mercedes-Benz DRIVE PILOT system can only operate on
highways during daylight at speeds not exceeding 40 miles per hour.
This permit excludes operation on city or county streets, in
construction zones, during heavy rain or heavy fog, on flooded roads
and during weather conditions that are determined to impact
performance of DRIVE PILOT.''
\9\ Mobility on demand is used to refer to vehicles that are
often colloquially referred to as robotaxis, or, as discussed in SAE
J3016, ``robotic taxis.'' See SAE International, ``J3016 APR2021:
Taxonomy and Definitions for Terms Related to Driving Automation
Systems for On-Road Motor Vehicles,'' (Revised April 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This proposal recognizes that the potential of ADS is still largely
unproven. ADS technologies have the potential to improve safety,
advance sustainability, provide accessible transportation for people
with disabilities, increase mobility options for underserved
communities, and enhance American competitiveness. However, positive
outcomes are not inevitable.\10\ The impact ADS may have in these areas
and others, such as on the workforce and on the environment, will
ultimately be the result of future engineering, deployment, policy, and
other choices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ ADS are defined by their functionality rather than safety:
``the hardware and software that are collectively capable of
performing the entire [dynamic driving task] DDT on a sustained
basis, regardless of whether it [the system] is limited to a
specific operational design domain (ODD).'' SAE International,
``J3016 APR2021: Taxonomy and Definitions for Terms Related to
Driving Automation Systems for On-Road Motor Vehicles,'' (Revised
April 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The capabilities and expectations of ADS are likely to evolve
significantly in the coming years. Currently, ADS can handle narrowly
defined environments, but often struggle with driving tasks that humans
consider relatively simple. Routine occurrences, such as adverse
weather, overgrown foliage, or road construction, can exceed the
capabilities of even the most advanced versions of existing ADS. To
reach broader deployment, the roadway scenarios and ODDs that ADS can
reliably navigate will have to substantially expand.
The tools used to develop and evaluate ADS will also need to
mature. Currently, many different approaches exist within the
automotive industry for designing, testing, and overseeing ADS
operation. Industry standards, guidance documents, and best practices
for ADS have been proposed and published but remain, collectively, in
an early stage of establishment and implementation. Published standards
are frequently updated to reflect the evolving state of the art, and
while generalized performance metrics are sometimes included in these
standards, they do not define specific measurement and analysis methods
or acceptable value ranges. Given their new and evolving state, little
evidence exists to prove that existing methods of evaluating ADS
[[Page 4133]]
technology are capable of ensuring safety. Instead, these industry
approaches often aim to provide safety guidance, such as by
recommending minimal content for safety decision-making frameworks or
by detailing high-level vehicle behavior expectations.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ This issue has been referred to as a long-tail problem.
See, e.g., Phillip Koopman, ``How Safe is Safe Enough: Measuring and
Predicting Autonomous Vehicle Safety'' (2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Given this uncertain landscape, too little transparency exists
about ADS operations on public roads in the United States. There is
sparse public information about basic facts, such as the number of ADS-
equipped vehicles operating on public roads, the areas where those
vehicles are operating, and attributes or limitations of the ADS that
may affect other road users who interact with those vehicles. Publicly
available information is often filtered through the companies that are
proponents of their own technologies. Greater availability of objective
information about ADS capabilities, operations, and outcomes would
promote safety and more responsible growth of ADS technology.
AV STEP's proposed application, review, oversight, and reporting
would create a holistic framework for evaluating and overseeing an ADS-
equipped vehicle. To account for the current limits of performance-
based ADS safety evaluations, the proposed evaluations would focus on
the robustness of safety decision-making during all stages of an ADS
operation--from development of the ADS to system operations on public
roads. Reporting during participation would include data elements that
are designed to oversee how this safety decision-making affects real-
world safety performance. Collectively, these approaches would consider
how comprehensively a company has identified the limits of its system,
has accounted for risks likely to arise during operation, and is
prepared to respond responsibly to problems encountered.
The agency proposes to examine this safety decision-making through
a review of an applicant's safety case. The independent assessment of a
safety case included with an AV STEP application and subsequent NHTSA
review would consider the holistic safety of ADS-equipped vehicle
operations. While currently available methods cannot definitively
conclude that an ADS is safe, this approach would facilitate review of
the robustness of the safety practices employed during a system's
development and operation. It would also provide a proactive
opportunity to identify and resolve any safety concerns.
The requirements for participating in AV STEP must be flexible
enough to evolve as ADS technology evolves. To that end, the proposed
independent assessment would consider industry consensus standards and
best practices that exist at the time of an assessment. Likewise, the
proposed ongoing reporting requirements would facilitate NHTSA's
continued oversight of vehicle operations, and the proposed procedures
would allow for review and changes in operations during participation.
In addition, NHTSA proposes to tailor many of the reporting
requirements to the specific systems under review, to evaluate and
account for the current diversity in approaches to ADS.
AV STEP is also designed to increase the amount of publicly
available information about ADS operations in the United States. This
proposal includes two program steps based on the competency of an ADS.
NHTSA proposes to publish regularly on the agency's website a list of
applicants and participants in the program, along with details
regarding the scope and status of each operation. This publication
would increase the public's awareness and understanding of ADS
operations on public roads.
B. How NHTSA's Authorities Shaped This NPRM
NHTSA proposes AV STEP as a national program available for two
categories of vehicles. The first category consists of vehicles that
can lawfully operate on public roads regardless of participation in AV
STEP, as long as they comply with all other Federal, state, and local
laws. These vehicles include those that are compliant with and
certified to all applicable FMVSS, those that have received exemptions
under other NHTSA programs, and those that may operate on public roads
under 49 U.S.C. 30112(b)(10).\12\ The second category consists of
vehicles that seek an exemption from NHTSA through AV STEP. Under this
proposal, vehicles that do not comply with all applicable FMVSS or
those that originally complied but are taken out of compliance by an
ADS retrofit could seek exemptions through AV STEP. This section
discusses how NHTSA's authorities and other ADS work support both of
these categories of participation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ This provision is described further later in this section.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. NHTSA's Mission and ADS Activity
The establishment of a national program for ADS-equipped vehicles
stems from NHTSA's authority under the Safety Act,\13\ in addition to
other statutory authorities. Under 49 U.S.C 322(a), ``[t]he Secretary
of Transportation may prescribe regulations to carry out the duties and
powers of the Secretary.'' The Safety Act and other statutes provide
NHTSA, by delegation, with authority relating to oversight, rulemaking,
research, transparency, and exemptions. See, e.g., 49 U.S.C. 30101(b)
(noting need ``to prescribe motor vehicle safety standards'' and
``carry out . . . safety research and development''); Section 30111
(authority to ``prescribe motor vehicle safety standards''); Section
30112 (restricting the activities of vehicles that do not comply with
applicable vehicle standards or that contain a defect); Section 30114
(authority to issue FMVSS exemptions for particular purposes); Section
30122 (authority to issue exemptions from the make inoperative
prohibition); and Section 30182 (authority to ``conduct motor vehicle
safety research, develop, and testing programs and activities,
including activities related to new and emerging technologies that
impact or may impact motor vehicle safety'').\14\ This authority forms
the foundation for AV STEP. The remainder of this subsection explains
how AV STEP carries out each of these authorities, as well as how AV
STEP fits into NHTSA's broader regulatory activities pertaining to ADS
technologies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ These duties are generally set forth in 49 U.S.C. chapter
301.
\14\ See also 49 CFR 1.95 (delegating to the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administrator ``the authority vested in the Secretary
under chapter[ ] 301 . . .''), and 49 CFR 1.81 (``each Administrator
is authorized to . . . (3) Exercise the authority vested in the
Secretary to prescribe regulations under 49 U.S.C. 322(a) with
respect to statutory provisions for which authority is delegated by
other sections in this part'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(a) Oversight and Transparency
AV STEP would carry out NHTSA's authorities relating to oversight
and transparency by increasing the amount of information available to
NHTSA about ADS-equipped vehicles, including for those vehicles that
are already operating on public roads. Under the regulatory framework
established by the Safety Act, NHTSA's review and approval is not
needed for most current ADS operations on public roads. The Safety Act
generally requires vehicles to comply with (and be certified as
complying with) all applicable FMVSS
[[Page 4134]]
and to be free of safety defects.\15\ Once a manufacturer self-
certifies that a vehicle meets all applicable FMVSS, it may sell the
vehicle or operate it on public roads without further action from
NHTSA. A manufacturer may also equip the vehicle with additional
technologies not subject to an FMVSS, as long as the technologies do
not pose an unreasonable risk to safety or take the vehicle out of
compliance with an applicable FMVSS.\16\ The FMVSS do not currently set
performance standards specifically for ADS, and compliant vehicles can
generally be equipped with ADS technologies without NHTSA approval.
Many ADS operations already occur on public roads in the United States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ See, e.g., 49 U.S.C. 30112.
\16\ See 49 U.S.C. 30118, 30122.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, the 2015 Fixing America's Surface Transportation
(FAST) Act added a provision to Section 30112 permitting certain
entities to test or evaluate noncompliant vehicles on public roads, as
long as they do not sell those vehicles or offer them for sale once the
testing or evaluation concludes.\17\ Entities eligible to conduct these
testing or evaluation operations are those that had manufactured and
distributed certified vehicles in the United States (as well as
satisfied other information requirements in NHTSA's regulations) by the
date of the FAST Act's enactment, December 4, 2015. Some manufacturers
have relied on this provision to test noncompliant ADS-equipped
vehicles on public roads.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ See 49 U.S.C. 30112(b)(10).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because most ADS operations do not need NHTSA's upfront approval,
the agency's oversight of the ADS in those vehicles primarily occurs
once they are operating. Specifically, NHTSA enforces the general duty
of vehicle and equipment manufacturers to recall and remedy vehicles
and equipment--including ADS or ADS-equipped vehicles--if they contain
a defect that poses an unreasonable risk to motor vehicle safety. To
exercise this oversight on ADS and ADS-equipped vehicles, NHTSA relies
on access to information about ADS and their operations.\18\ NHTSA uses
this information to monitor for ADS defects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ See 49 U.S.C. 30166.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To ensure that NHTSA has access to the information necessary to
exercise its oversight authority, the Safety Act expressly includes
information-gathering authorities.\19\ NHTSA's traditional information-
gathering tools apply to ADS in much the same way as any other item of
motor vehicle equipment.\20\ In recent years, NHTSA has overseen
recalls for ADS \21\ and undertaken defects and compliance
investigations into ADS.\22\ NHTSA has also imposed standing reporting
requirements for ADS crashes through a Standing General Order
(SGO),\23\ which requires identified manufacturers and operators to
report certain crashes involving vehicles equipped with ADS to the
agency. SGO reporting has led to hundreds of crash reports involving
ADS operations, with many of those prompting NHTSA follow-up review. AV
STEP would supplement SGO information through additional reporting
requirements for participation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ See id.
\20\ See 81 FR 65705, 65707 (September 23, 2016) (explaining
that ADS is motor vehicle equipment).
\21\ See Pony.ai, ``Part 573 Safety Recall Report, No. 22E-
016,'' (March 3, 2022), available at https://static.nhtsa.gov/odi/rcl/2022/RCLRPT-22E016-6814.PDF; Cruise, LLC, ``Part 573 Safety
Recall Report, No. 22E-072,'' (August 29, 2022), available at
https://static.nhtsa.gov/odi/rcl/2022/RCLRPT-22E072-8020.PDF;
Cruise, LLC, ``Part 573 Safety Recall Report, No. 23E-029,'' (April
3, 2023), available at https://static.nhtsa.gov/odi/rcl/2023/RCLRPT-23E029-4270.PDF.
\22\ See, e.g., NHTSA, ``ODI Resume: Preliminary Evaluation PE
22-014'' (December 12, 2022); NHTSA, ``ODI Resume: Recall Query RQ
22-001'' (Recall 22E-016) (April 10, 2022); and NHTSA, ``ODI Resume:
Audit Query AQ 23-001'' (March 3, 2023), available at https://static.nhtsa.gov/odi/inv/2023/INOA-AQ23001-2603.PDF.
\23\ NHTSA, ``In re: Second Amended Standing General Order 2021-
01: Incident Reporting for Automated Driving Systems (ADS) and Level
2 Advanced Driver Assistance Systems (ADAS)'' (April 5, 2023),
available at https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.gov/files/2023-04/Second-Amended-SGO-2021-01_2023-04-05_2.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, by their nature, crash reporting and follow-up
investigations are principally reactive, as a problem has already
caused a crash before any reporting occurs. AV STEP aims to complement
these efforts by adding an earlier layer of agency oversight for
participating ADS-equipped vehicles. AV STEP would help NHTSA
proactively identify safety concerns by proposing upfront submission
requirements on the design and capabilities of an ADS and ongoing
performance reporting during operations.
In addition, AV STEP also aims to increase the amount of
information publicly available about ADS operations. In doing so, AV
STEP would further NHTSA's longstanding goal to promote awareness of
matters related to motor vehicle safety. NHTSA has a history of doing
so through a variety of information programs, such as recall
awareness,\24\ motor vehicle labeling requirements,\25\ and driver
behavior education.\26\ This charge to increase public awareness of
motor vehicle safety extends to advanced vehicle technologies as
well,\27\ and NHTSA has undertaken initiatives to publicize information
about vehicle automation, such as by publishing SGO crash reporting,
developing an interactive online tool through the Automated Vehicle
Transparency and Engagement for Safe Testing (AV TEST) Initiative,\28\
and publishing Voluntary Safety Self-Assessments (VSSAs) submitted by
entities engaged in ADS operations.\29\ NHTSA has designed this NPRM to
build on these efforts through proposals to publish information about
AV STEP applications and participations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ See 49 U.S.C. 30118; 49 CFR part 577.
\25\ See 49 U.S.C. chapter 323; 49 CFR part 575.
\26\ See generally NHTSA, ``Research & Evaluation: Behavioral
Research,'' available at https://www.nhtsa.gov/behavioral-research.
\27\ See 49 U.S.C. 32302(e) (directing NHTSA to develop ``a
means for providing to consumers information relating to advanced
crash-avoidance technologies''). See also 87 FR 13452 (March 9,
2022).
\28\ AV TEST is an interactive tool that lets the public view
voluntarily submitted information about automated vehicle
operations. See NHTSA, ``Automated Vehicle Transparency and
Engagement for Safe Testing (AV TEST) Initiative,'' available at
https://www.nhtsa.gov/automated-vehicle-test-tracking-tool.
\29\ NHTSA, ``Automated Driving Systems: Voluntary Safety Self-
Assessment,'' available at https://www.nhtsa.gov/automated-driving-systems/voluntary-safety-self-assessment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(b) Rulemaking and Research
AV STEP also proposes to implement NHTSA's research and rulemaking
authorities under the Safety Act. Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30111, NHTSA
(as delegated from the Secretary of Transportation) ``shall prescribe
motor vehicle safety standards.'' The Safety Act requires these FMVSS
to be ``practicable, meet the need for motor vehicle safety, and be
stated in objective terms.'' \30\ When developing an FMVSS, the agency
must, among other things, ``consider relevant available motor vehicle
safety information'' and ``consider whether a proposed standard is
reasonable, practicable, and appropriate for the particular type of
motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment for which it is prescribed.''
\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ 49 U.S.C. 30111(a).
\31\ 49 U.S.C. 30111(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As a result, when developing an FMVSS, NHTSA builds on extensive
research about the aspect of vehicle performance at issue, including
the extent to which a standard would drive positive safety outcomes and
present objective requirements for regulated entities. Accordingly,
Congress established a policy directing the agency to ``conduct
research, development, and testing on any area or aspect of motor
[[Page 4135]]
vehicle safety necessary to carry out [chapter 301]'' of Title 49.\32\
This charge extends to advanced vehicle technologies. In the Moving
Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act,\33\ Congress instructed the
Secretary to ``[c]onduct motor vehicle safety research, development,
and testing programs and activities, including activities related to
new and emerging technologies that impact or may impact motor vehicle
safety'' \34\ and to ``[c]ollect and analyze all types of motor vehicle
and highway safety data'' relating to motor vehicle performance and
crashes.\35\ This authority to carry out research includes programs
that entail engagement and collaboration with third parties.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ See 49 U.S.C. 30181. This chapter includes NHTSA's core
authorities for prescribing motor vehicle safety standards (Section
30111), adjudicating general and special exemptions to those
standards (Sections 30113 and 30114), evaluating the existence of
unreasonable risks to motor vehicle safety (Section 30116 et seq.),
overseeing the importation of motor vehicles (Section 30141 et
seq.), and securing enforcement of these authorities (Section 30161
et seq.). Sec.
\33\ See Public Law 112-141 (2012).
\34\ See 49 U.S.C. 30182(a). Subsection 30182(b) specifies
activities NHTSA may undertake in carrying out subsection (a).
\35\ NHTSA, 83 FR 50872, 50876 (October 10, 2018).
\36\ See 49 U.S.C. 30182(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to other rulemaking activity regarding ADS, NHTSA has
already begun the process of assessing how ADS may be affected by both
existing and future FMVSS requirements.\37\ For example, in 2022, NHTSA
published a final rule that amended certain occupant protection FMVSS
to account for future vehicles that would not have traditional manual
controls associated with a human driver because they are equipped with
ADS. This rulemaking work is supported by NHTSA's research portfolio,
which spans a range of ADS safety topics and is the outgrowth of
widespread coordination within DOT and with stakeholders. The agency
publishes an Annual Modal Research Plan (AMRP) that summarizes its
research priorities.\38\ The agency also recently published a Report to
Congress that provides a more detailed discussion of NHTSA's ADS
research program.\39\ NHTSA's ADS research portfolio aims to advance
the body of knowledge on ADS-equipped vehicles, including their real-
world performance, as well as explore the technical challenges
associated with the safe testing and deployment of ADS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ Information about NHTSA's full array of regulatory actions,
including those pertaining to vehicle automation technologies, can
be found within the biannually released Unified Agenda. See Office
of Information and Regulatory Affairs, ``Unified Agenda of
Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions,'' available at https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/eAgendaMain.
\38\ NHTSA, ``United States Department of Transportation Annual
Modal Research Plan FY 2022 and Program Outlook FY 2023'' (September
10, 2021), available at https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/2022-02/AMRP%20FY2022-2023%20NHTSA%20FINAL.pdf.
\39\ NHTSA, ``Report to Congress: Automated Vehicles'' (2023),
available at https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.gov/files/2023-06/Automated-Vehicles-Report-to-Congress-06302023.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
AV STEP is designed to complement these research goals in support
of future ADS rulemaking efforts. Given the nascent state of ADS
technology, many of the metrics for evaluating ADS safety are new,
limited, or under development. This AV STEP proposal would enable NHTSA
to consider the effectiveness of such metrics for evaluating ADS safety
by exploring their value to automotive safety, and in turn would help
NHTSA identify data elements that could form effective oversight tools
or be integrated into future FMVSS.\40\ To that end, the AV STEP
proposal would provide NHTSA with in-depth access to information about
the development and operations of ADS technology as it continues to
evolve.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\40\ 49 U.S.C. 30111.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. NHTSA Exemptions
NHTSA proposes to use AV STEP to administer requests for exemptions
of ADS-equipped vehicles under two statutory provisions: 49 U.S.C.
30114(a) and 49 U.S.C. 30122(c). This proposal would not replace any of
NHTSA's existing exemption processes, which would remain available for
any eligible vehicles, including those equipped with ADS. Instead, AV
STEP would establish a streamlined way to seek exemptions through a
framework expressly designed for ADS-equipped vehicles. This proposal
would establish a new framework for ADS-equipped vehicles to seek
Section 30114(a) and Section 30122(c) exemptions.
(a) Section 30114(a) Exemptions
With AV STEP, NHTSA proposes to carry out the agency's special
exemption authority to administer FMVSS exemptions in 49 U.S.C.
30114(a). This statutory authority permits NHTSA to grant special
exemptions to ``vehicles used for particular purposes.'' Specifically,
NHTSA ``may exempt a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment
from Section 30112(a) of this title on terms [it] decides are necessary
for research, investigations, demonstrations, training, competitive
racing events, show, or display.'' This proposed exemption process
would not replace NHTSA's existing two FMVSS exemption processes, as
described below. However, in administering those two exemption
processes, NHTSA has observed that both the frequency and complexity of
ADS exemption requests continue to grow as the technology progresses.
Those two exemption processes were designed to handle any type of
FMVSS exemption that NHTSA receives, originally for traditional
vehicles that do not utilize automation. ADS technologies entail an
array of unique safety and oversight considerations compared to
traditional automotive components. As a result, NHTSA believes that an
exemption process designed from the ground up to account for these
unique considerations could enhance the agency's administration of
exemptions that involve ADS, such as through improved oversight and
efficiency. As described below, NHTSA's two existing exemption
processes would also remain available for ADS-equipped vehicles and may
provide advantages for certain types of operations. However, NHTSA
believes that the current ADS landscape warrants the availability of a
dedicated exemption process for ADS-equipped vehicles, and the
existence of this process would also better equip NHTSA for the
potential growth of ADS technology in the future.
By creating a pathway specifically designed for ADS-equipped
vehicles, NHTSA proposes to use many of the principles that have proven
effective under NHTSA's other exemption programs that implement Section
30114(a). NHTSA currently administers Section 30114(a) through two
programs: (1) exemptions for vehicles imported for purposes of show or
display \41\ and (2) the Temporary Import Exemption (TIE) program,
which administers Section 30114(a) exemptions for vehicles requesting
importation for purposes of research, investigation, demonstrations,
training, or competitive racing events.\42\ In 2016, the TIE program
processed the first Section 30114(a) exemption for an ADS-equipped
vehicle. In 2018, NHTSA
[[Page 4136]]
developed the ADS-equipped Vehicle Exemption Program (AVEP), within the
TIE program, to process the increasing number of Section 30114(a)
exemption requests for the importation of ADS-equipped vehicles. This
number of requests has continued to grow since then, both in number and
complexity. Since the first ADS exemption request in 2016 to the end of
2023, NHTSA permitted 293 imported ADS-equipped vehicles to operate in
249 projects across 25 states. The last several years have accounted
for much of this activity: between 2020 to the end of 2023, NHTSA
permitted 222 imported ADS-equipped vehicles to operate in 194 projects
across 23 states.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\41\ See generally, NHTSA, ``How to Import a Motor Vehicle for
Show or Display'' (October 15, 2012), available at https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.gov/files/documents/how_to_import_show_display_10152012-tag.pdf.
\42\ TIE is often colloquially known as NHTSA's Box 7 program, a
reference to the numbered box associated with this exemption on the
HS-7 Declaration form used during the importation process. See
generally, NHTSA, ``Temporary Importation of a Motor Vehicle Under
Box 7 on the HS-7 Form,'' available at https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.gov/files/documents/box7_form_111920_v3_secured.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Many of the requirements proposed for AV STEP build on AVEP
processes or apply the agency's experience from that program. Like the
proposed AV STEP process, AVEP uses an iterative review process that
considers the safety of the ADS along with the overall safety of the
vehicle and the purposes for which the exemption is requested. This
process culminates in terms and conditions in an exemption letter,
which govern the exempted vehicles' operation. This proposal does not
intend to replace AVEP. However, just as NHTSA's Section 30114(a)
review process evolved to establish AVEP shortly after ADS exemption
requests began, the increasing complexity of ADS exemption requests
merits the development of another framework. NHTSA proposes for AV STEP
to meet this need through a more comprehensive application and
participation framework designed specifically for larger and more
complex ADS operations.
In general, AVEP exemptions do not cover large numbers of vehicles,
with many of those exemptions covering only a single vehicle. AVEP
vehicles often operate on a fixed route expressly approved by NHTSA in
a permission letter. As a result, NHTSA's review of an AVEP application
often involves a detailed turn-by-turn review of the route. NHTSA
receives much of the information about the vehicle's ADS in response to
follow-up questions that arise during review of an application.
Likewise, unique terms and reporting requirements are often developed
for each operation. The AVEP review and participation process is
iterative, and companies often need to request amendments for even
minor changes to a permission, such as requesting to add a turn or stop
to a route.
The AVEP process has proven an effective way to oversee small
numbers of vehicles. Because its processes are tailored to each
exemption, AVEP also offers a flexible program that reduces the burden
on companies who seek smaller-scale importation exemptions. If AV STEP
is finalized, NHTSA expects many companies would still choose to use
the AVEP process, especially for vehicles that are tested in small
numbers, such as early prototypes.
However, AVEP's detailed, iterative process is less efficient for
larger operations. The AV STEP proposal accounts for this by adapting
many of the safety lessons learned from AVEP into processes that are
capable of administering and overseeing exemptions at scale. For
instance, aspects of this proposal--such as the independent assessment,
application review procedures, and reporting on updates to operations--
aim to make reviewing evolving operations with growing numbers of
vehicles or routes more manageable. In turn, AV STEP should help NHTSA
process and oversee complex ADS exemptions more efficiently.
Apart from Section 30114(a), NHTSA also administers exemptions to
ADS-equipped vehicles under 49 U.S.C. 30113. These exemptions are
implemented in NHTSA's regulations in 49 CFR part 555. Compared to
Section 30114(a), companies have not used Section 30113 exemptions as
frequently for ADS-equipped vehicles. NHTSA has received fewer than
five part 555 exemption requests for ADS-equipped vehicles, with only
one of those to date receiving an exemption.\43\ The terms and
conditions on the sole ADS exemption issued under part 555 were
significantly influenced by terms that NHTSA developed for AVEP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\43\ NHTSA, 85 FR 7826, 7842 (February 11, 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exemptions issued under Section 30113 are for more general purposes
than exemptions issued under Section 30114(a). Vehicles receiving them
do not need to meet one of the specific purposes enumerated in Section
30114(a) and, absent restrictions placed by NHTSA, can be more broadly
introduced into interstate commerce. In general, each vehicle
manufactured under a Section 30113 exemption retains the exemption in
perpetuity. Such a broader exemption is warranted because a vehicle
that receives an exemption under Section 30113 must meet one of several
express statutory standards, such as proving that the vehicle's
``overall level of safety is at least equal to the overall safety level
of the nonexempt vehicles.'' \44\ Thus, even if AV STEP exists, NHTSA
expects that some manufacturers will elect to use Section 30113 for
their ADS-equipped vehicles, especially if ADS technologies mature to
the point that more entities consider equipping them on vehicles
intended for sale.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\44\ 49 U.S.C. 30113(b)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As a result, AV STEP would complement existing Section 30113 and
Section 30114(a) exemption processes to create a comprehensive NHTSA
FMVSS exemption portfolio, with each process offering advantages for
certain types of ADS-equipped vehicle use cases. Entities requesting
exemptions for imported vehicles in early development stages would
likely request exemptions through AVEP, due to its flexibility and
potential to reach quicker decisions for limited-scope projects.\45\ AV
STEP would provide an exemption process designed for ADS-equipped
vehicles--regardless of whether they are imported--that are in later or
final stages of development but still within the control of essential
stakeholders. Given their more developed state, vehicles in AV STEP
could begin to engage in some types of commercial operations as long as
that commercialization did not undermine the public purposes for which
the exemption was issued. Finally, manufacturers in need of exemptions
for their ADS-equipped vehicles that have reached a more mature
development state may prefer part 555, especially if the vehicle is
designed for sale. In this way, AV STEP would fill the need for an
FMVSS exemption suited for the current interim stage of ADS technology
development. NHTSA specifically requests comment on how the proposed AV
STEP exemptions would likely be utilized in comparison to NHTSA's other
exemption programs, as well as on how best to design AV STEP to
complement those other exemptions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\45\ Although this process is currently only for imported
vehicles, NHTSA is undertaking a rulemaking to create an equivalent
exemption option for vehicles manufactured in the United States. See
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, ``Unified Agenda of
Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions,'' RIN 2127-AM14: Expansion of
Temporary Exemption Program to Domestic Manufacturers for Research,
Demonstrations, and Other Purposes. This issue is discussed further
in Section VII (Requirements for AV STEP Exemptions (Regulatory Text
Subpart C)) of this NPRM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(b) Section 30122(c) Exemptions
NHTSA proposes to allow exemptions under Section 30122, which
generally prohibits activities that take a previously compliant vehicle
out of compliance with the FMVSS.\46\ NHTSA
[[Page 4137]]
is authorized to prescribe regulations for Make Inoperative Exemptions
as long as those exemptions are consistent with motor vehicle safety
and with 49 U.S.C. 30101, which is the Safety Act's general purpose and
policy statement.\47\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\46\ See 49 U.S.C. 30122(b) (``A manufacturer, distributor,
dealer, rental company, or motor vehicle repair business may not
knowingly make inoperative any part of a device or element of design
installed on or in a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment in
compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard'').
\47\ See 49 U.S.C. 30122(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NHTSA has carried out this authority through regulations that
govern specific situations where making certain safety devices
inoperable, such as airbags, is permissible.\48\ For instance, NHTSA's
regulations create procedures for invoking the exemption to ``install
retrofit air bag on-off switches and to otherwise modify motor vehicles
to enable people with disabilities to operate or ride as a passenger in
a motor vehicle.'' \49\ Part 595 was most recently updated in 2024 to
allow law enforcement vehicles to be modified in a way that deactivates
an automatic emergency braking system required by 49 CFR 571.127,
S5.4.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\48\ 49 CFR part 595 (Make Inoperative Exemptions).
\49\ 49 CFR 595.2; see also 87 FR 14406 (March 15, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The proposed Make Inoperative Exemption in AV STEP would continue
NHTSA's practice of exempting specific situations where the general
make inoperative prohibition may not account for unique vehicle needs.
Engagement with stakeholders on how ADS technology relates to NHTSA's
authorities has repeatedly raised the possibility that equipping an
FMVSS-certified vehicle with an ADS may implicate the make inoperative
prohibition in Section 30122.
NHTSA's 2022 Final Rule on Occupant Protection for Vehicles With
Automated Driving Systems discussed comments that raised hypothetical
situations where ADS modifications to a vehicle may relate to the make
inoperative prohibition.\50\ Questions about how the make inoperative
prohibition in Section 30122 affects ADS equipment will likely persist
over the coming years, particularly as NHTSA promulgates new FMVSS that
govern the performance of vehicle automation features.\51\ NHTSA has
also explored the relationship between Section 30122 and ADS-equipped
vehicles--including the use of exemptions under Section 30122(c)--in
past regulatory notices.\52\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\50\ NHTSA, 87 FR 18560, 18571 n.36 (September 26, 2022).
\51\ See, e.g., 89 FR 39686 (May 9, 2024).
\52\ See NHTSA, 83 FR 50872, 50882 (October 10, 2018)
(requesting comment on: what role could a pilot program play in
determining when to grant an exemption from the make inoperative
prohibition under Section 30122 for certain dual mode vehicles).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NHTSA takes no position in this rulemaking on the effect of the
make inoperative prohibition in Section 30122 on ADS equipment or
associated aftermarket modifications. The AV STEP framework would
enable NHTSA to address this issue by providing a set of procedures to
govern the review and oversight of make inoperative exemptions for ADS-
equipped vehicles.
The AV STEP Make Inoperative Exemption is proposed pursuant to
NHTSA's authority in Section 30122(c). The proposed AV STEP framework
would further the purposes of the Safety Act in carrying out NHTSA's
oversight, rulemaking, research, and transparency authorities, as
explained previously in this section. The AV STEP framework is designed
to help NHTSA identify potential safety issues with an ADS and to
oversee its performance during the course of program participation.
These review and oversight procedures would help NHTSA assess the
statutory criteria for such an exemption.
Exemptions to the make inoperative provision are codified in 49 CFR
part 595. NHTSA proposes to add a new subsection in part 595 that
incorporates the proposed procedures for AV STEP that would be codified
in the new part 597. In addition, NHTSA proposes to amend the Purpose
and Applicability subsections in part 595 so that they encompass all of
the exemptions set forth in the part.
The discussion in this preamble is generally organized around the
sequence in which an entity would engage with AV STEP. The first
section below (Section III) explains the threshold requirements for AV
STEP, including eligibility and required terms and conditions for all
participants. Sections IV through VI provide an overview of the
application process, the participation stage, and the information that
NHTSA proposes to make public regarding both applications and
participations. These aspects of AV STEP would all apply across the
entirety of the program, while Section VII outlines proposals specific
to AV STEP exemptions. For reader convenience, NHTSA includes reference
to the associated subparts of the proposed regulatory text in the
headings for each of these sections.
In past exercises of its authorities, NHTSA has often implemented
standalone voluntary or exemption programs analogous to AV STEP's
various components, and NHTSA intends that the components of the
proposal be severable. AV STEP is proposed as a national framework that
encompasses three independent structural components: (1) a voluntary
program for compliant vehicles; (2) a process for administering FMVSS
exemptions; and (3) a process for administering exemptions from the
make inoperative prohibition. As explained in this proposal, each of
these structural elements stems from independent NHTSA authorities
under the Safety Act. Although NHTSA believes that AV STEP offers an
opportunity to combine all three of these elements into a national
framework, as the proposal explains, each of these structural elements
has independent value.
III. Program Structure (Regulatory Text Subpart A)
This section explains the threshold requirements for AV STEP, such
as those relating to eligibility and the required terms and conditions
for all participants. AV STEP would be available to vehicles that can
lawfully operate on public roads without AV STEP, as well as those that
would need one of the two types of exemptions proposed in this NPRM.
In several places, this document proposes unique requirements for
AV STEP exemptions to account for their particular attributes. However,
in general, the proposed requirements for AV STEP are the same
regardless of whether a subject vehicle needs an AV STEP exemption.
Keeping these requirements consistent would further the continuity of
the program, reduce confusion for potential applicants and the public
about what participation entails, and simplify NHTSA's administration
of the program. When developing these proposed requirements, NHTSA
sought to make program application and participation requirements
stringent enough to require meaningful commitments to safety while also
making them feasible for participating entities. Participation in AV
STEP, as proposed, would be valuable both for vehicles that need one of
the AV STEP exemptions and for entities choosing voluntary
participation.
NHTSA's experience suggests that a variety of incentives may exist
for entities to voluntarily participate in AV STEP. Voluntary programs
have historically played an important role in advancing automotive
safety, particularly for advanced vehicle technologies. Recent examples
include voluntary industry commitments to equip vehicles with specific
safety technologies,\53\ the submission of
[[Page 4138]]
VSSAs to NHTSA by entities engaged in ADS testing and deployment,\54\
the participation of entities engaged in ADS testing in NHTSA's AV TEST
Initiative,\55\ and the participation of vehicle manufacturers in the
Partnership for Analytics Research in Traffic Safety.\56\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\53\ NHTSA, ``NHTSA Announces Update to Historic AEB Commitment
by 20 Automakers'' (December 17, 2019), available at https://www.nhtsa.gov/press-releases/nhtsa-announces-update-historic-aeb-commitment-20-automakers.
\54\ NHTSA, ``Automated Driving Systems: Voluntary Safety Self-
Assessment,'' available at https://www.nhtsa.gov/automated-driving-systems/voluntary-safety-self-assessment.
\55\ NHTSA, ``AV TEST Initiative: Automated Vehicle Transparency
and Engagement for Safe Testing Initiative,'' available at https://www.nhtsa.gov/automated-vehicle-test-tracking-tool.
\56\ NHTSA, ``PARTS: Partnership for Analytics Research in
Traffic Safety,'' available at https://www.nhtsa.gov/parts-partnership-for-analytics-research-in-traffic-safety.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The extent and nature of the incentives for entities to participate
in AV STEP may depend on the entity and the type of operation. NHTSA
believes that companies that strive to develop and implement robust
safety practices will understand that AV STEP participation entails a
public commitment to safety, transparency, and the continuous
refinement of their ADS operations. Public trust is often difficult to
establish for ADS operations, particularly given that incidents
involving ADS-equipped vehicles receive significant negative attention.
Within this climate, some entities may see AV STEP as an opportunity to
demonstrate their commitment to transparency and willingness to subject
their safety decision-making to external scrutiny.
Other entities that engage with ADS operations may find value in
the review and oversight that would be conducted by NHTSA through AV
STEP. Examples of these types of entities could include state or local
authorities that regulate ADS, insurers of ADS-equipped vehicles,
entities providing grants for ADS projects, or business partners, such
as goods delivery services looking to partner with an ADS company.
These third-party relationships could motivate companies to participate
in AV STEP even if their vehicles could lawfully operate without the
program.
As participation in the program grows, competitive forces may
motivate other companies to participate. Accounting for these potential
incentives for voluntary participation, as well as the clear incentives
that would exist for entities in need of exemptions, the proposed AV
STEP requirements balance the value of encouraging participation with
the need to ensure that participation requirements are meaningful.
NHTSA requests comment on how this proposal strikes that balance.
A. Program Eligibility
This proposal is designed to oversee ADS-equipped vehicles under
the control of motor vehicle manufacturers, ADS developers (i.e.,
manufacturers of ADS, which is motor vehicle equipment), fleet
operators, or system integrators that plan to engage in public road
operations where the ADS will perform the driving task.\57\ Section
597.103 of the proposed rule contains the following eligibility
requirements:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\57\ For this NPRM's definition of these terms, see Sec.
597.102 of the proposed rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vehicle Eligibility. NHTSA proposes two eligibility requirements
for vehicles participating in AV STEP. First, the vehicles must be
equipped with an ADS being used or developed for operation without an
expectation of an attentive human driver (whether in-vehicle or remote)
while engaged. Second, the ADS equipped on such vehicles must perform
the entirety of the DDT for all or part of the participating
operations. These vehicle eligibility criteria focus on the ultimate
design intent of the system.\58\ Although these eligibility criteria
are not tied to any preexisting taxonomy for vehicle automation, for
illustration purposes, under the current SAE International levels of
driving automation, these eligibility criteria could apply to certain
vehicles operating at SAE Levels 3, 4, or 5.\59\ The proposal does not
extend AV STEP eligibility to partial driving automation systems, also
known as SAE Level 2 ADAS. Excluding such systems optimizes AV STEP to
address ADS' unique safety considerations and complexities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\58\ For instance, a vehicle would be considered to be equipped
with an ADS even if the ADS remained in development and dependent,
at times, on a human operator such as an onboard test driver.
\59\ SAE International, ``J3016 APR2021: Taxonomy and
Definitions for Terms Related to Driving Automation Systems for On-
Road Motor Vehicles,'' (Revised April 2021). A limited number of
Level 3 systems have recently become available on consumer-owned
vehicles. Those vehicles would not be eligible for participation
because they do not meet the separate program requirement that a
vehicle manufacturer, ADS developer, fleet operator, or system
integrator retain operational control over a subject vehicle.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Beyond these ADS requirements, NHTSA proposes to consider the
effect of other vehicle attributes on a case-by-case basis during the
agency's review, especially insofar as they may impact safety. NHTSA
does not propose to categorically restrict program participation to any
particular vehicle classes or types of operations (e.g., public
transit). However, NHTSA recognizes there may be unique considerations
related to certain vehicle attributes or classes, such as those
relating to accessibility for people with disabilities or impacts on
labor and employment. NHTSA requests comment on incorporating such
considerations into AV STEP, for example, through program limitations
or specialized requirements.
Applicant Eligibility. NHTSA proposes to limit AV STEP
participation to motor vehicle manufacturers, ADS developers, fleet
operators, and system integrators for the subject vehicle. Section
597.102 of the proposed rule defines these entities as follows:
``ADS Developer'' means the entity that is principally responsible
for the manufacture of the ADS at the system level, including but not
limited to its design, development, and testing.
``Manufacturer'' has the meaning given in 49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(6).
Under Section 30102, the term manufacturer includes a person (A)
manufacturing or assembling motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment;
or (B) importing motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for resale.
Under Sec. 597.102 of the proposed rule, an entity qualifying as a
manufacturer would need to be the manufacturer of the subject vehicle.
Other than ADS developers, who are manufacturers of the ADS, which is
motor vehicle equipment, NHTSA is not currently proposing to extend
eligibility to manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment unless they can
meet one of the other eligible classes of applicants. NHTSA does not
believe that other manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment, such as
suppliers of an individual component on a vehicle, are likely to have a
broad enough understanding of the system-level performance of the
vehicle to satisfy the considerations described in the following
paragraphs.
``Fleet Operator'' means the individual or entity that exercises
all or part of the operational control over the ADS installed in a
subject vehicle or group of subject vehicles. The threshold for
``operational control'' is described further in the next subsection.
``System Integrator'' means an entity responsible for integration
of an ADS at the vehicle level. For example, an ADS that was developed
for use across varied vehicle platforms could be integrated into a
given vehicle and validated for that vehicle integration by an entity
that does not qualify as any of the three preceding stakeholders.
In many cases, the same entity may perform the role of multiple
entities. For instance, some vehicle manufacturers
[[Page 4139]]
are responsible for the development and system integration of the
vehicle's ADS and many ADS developers conduct fleet operations for
their own vehicles. However, when one or more of these entities are
separate, their collective contributions are critical to the system-
level operation of an ADS-equipped vehicle. Under the proposal, any of
these four entities or any combination of these four entities could
apply to participate in AV STEP.
The agency believes that an application and a participation must
include at least one of these entities to ensure successful program
engagement. An entity other than these four stakeholders could not meet
the application requirements without relying heavily on these
stakeholders' representations. Likewise, it could not meet the
participation requirements without relying on their commitments
regarding the vehicle's operation or data collection. Limiting
participation to these four entities would promote direct
accountability. NHTSA may also engage with other entities throughout
the application and participation stages. Other proposed provisions
address such engagement.
Operational Control. As a precondition for participation in AV
STEP, NHTSA proposes to limit all operational control of the subject
vehicles to the vehicle manufacturer, ADS developer, fleet operator, or
system integrator. This limitation would ensure that vehicle operations
remain within the direct reach of the entities with the technical
knowledge of the vehicle systems and operations. This requirement would
also maintain a direct relationship between NHTSA and the parties that
exercise control over the subject vehicles. This ``operational
control'' standard has provided an effective threshold for maintaining
oversight in past NHTSA ADS exemptions.\60\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\60\ For instance, a 2020 exemption issued by NHTSA for an ADS-
equipped vehicle under 49 CFR part 555 (which implements 49 U.S.C.
30113) imposed the condition that the vehicle manufacturer: must
maintain ownership and operational control over the [exempted
vehicles] that are built pursuant to this exemption for the life of
the vehicles. 85 FR 7826, 7842 (February 11, 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For operations where only one of those four entities maintains full
ownership and possession of the subject vehicles, this requirement
would be straightforward. In contrast, certain fleet operations may
involve more complicated arrangements, such as projects that involve
multiple entities. For instance, some operations may involve an ADS
developer responsible for the ADS software and a fleet operator
responsible for the fallback personnel present during operations. Other
types of projects may involve entities other than Essential System-
Level Stakeholders,\61\ such as a grocery store that takes possession
of the vehicle while loading goods for delivery. In these situations,
requiring the Essential System-Level Stakeholders to retain ownership
or even possession of the subject vehicles may not always be feasible
given the specific logistics of an operation.\62\ To account for this
possibility, NHTSA proposes to require Essential System-Level
Stakeholders to retain operational control of the subject vehicles.
NHTSA proposes a scope of operational control similar to the scope of a
dispatching entity that exercises control over fleet operations, as
described in SAE J3016.\63\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\61\ As proposed in the AV STEP definitions, the list of
Essential System-Level Stakeholders would include, at a minimum, the
vehicle manufacturer, ADS developer, fleet operator, and system
integrator. Additional entities may be listed as well depending on
their role in the operation.
\62\ Those receiving an exemption under AV STEP would, however,
be subject to additional restrictions on possession or ownership.
See Section VII (Requirements for AV STEP Exemptions (Regulatory
Text Subpart C)).
\63\ See generally SAE International, ``J3016 APR2021: Taxonomy
and Definitions for Terms Related to Driving Automation Systems for
On-Road Motor Vehicles,'' (Revised April 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Definition 3.3 of J3016 defines a ``dispatching entity'' as ``an
entity that dispatches an ADS-equipped vehicle(s) in driverless
operations.'' \64\ Definition 3.4 defines ``dispatch'' as ``[t]o place
an ADS-equipped vehicle into service in driverless operation by
engaging the ADS.'' \65\ Finally, definition 3.13 describes ``fleet
operations'' or fleet functions as:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\64\ Id. at 3.3, p. 7 (``[Driverless Operation] Dispatching
Entity'') (bracketed language in original).
\65\ Id. at 3.4, p. 7 (``Dispatch [In Driverless Operation]'')
(bracketed language in original). Note 1 of this definition
clarifies that ``[t]he term `dispatch,' as used outside of the
context of ADS-equipped vehicles, is generally understood to mean
sending a particular vehicle to a particular pick-up or drop-off
location for purposes of providing a transportation service. In the
context of ADS-equipped vehicles, and as used herein, this term
includes software-enabled dispatch of multiple ADS-equipped vehicles
in driverless operation that may complete multiple trips involving
pick-up and drop-off of passengers or goods throughout a day or
other pre-defined period of service, and which may involve multiple
agents performing various tasks related to the dispatch function. To
highlight this specialized use of the term dispatch, the term is
modified and conditioned by the stipulation that it refers
exclusively to dispatching vehicles in driverless operation.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The activities that support the management of a fleet of ADS-
equipped vehicles in driverless operation, which may include, without
limitation:
Ensuring operational readiness.
Dispatching ADS-equipped vehicles in driverless operation
(i.e., engaging the ADSs prior to placing the vehicles in service on
public roads).
Authorizing each trip (e.g., payment, trip route
selection).
Providing fleet asset management services to vehicles
while in use (e.g., managing emergencies, summoning or providing remote
assistance as needed, responding to customer requests and breakdowns).
Serving as the responsible agent vis-a-vis law
enforcement, emergency responders, and other authorities for vehicles
while in use.
Disengaging the ADS at the end of service.
Performing vehicle repair and maintenance as needed.\66\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\66\ Id. at 3.13, p. 14 (``Fleet Operations [Functions]'')
(bracketed language in original).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under this proposal, a vehicle manufacturer, ADS developer, fleet
operator, or system integrator (or any combination thereof) could each
exercise aspects of this control even if only one of them were an AV
STEP participant. For instance, if the ADS developer were the sole
participant, a fleet operator could exercise some measure of
operational control. Likewise, this proposed requirement is not
intended to prohibit vehicle passengers from having limited control
authority over the vehicle, such as selecting a destination for a ride-
hailing operation.\67\ Given the complex relationships among different
stakeholders in operations, NHTSA requests comment on the workability
of the proposed operational control requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\67\ In such cases, the vehicle user would be acting within a
set of parameters controlled by an ADS developer, such as by
selecting a destination within a developer-established ODD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Location Eligibility. NHTSA proposes to require that AV STEP
operations take place, in part or entirely, on public streets, roads,
and highways in the United States. This eligibility requirement mirrors
statutory language for the Safety Act's definition of ``motor vehicle''
in 49 U.S.C. 30102. Since the program framework for AV STEP is designed
principally to oversee vehicles operating on public roads, this
eligibility requirement ensures that each operation involves at least
some public road usage. During participation, NHTSA expects that
subject vehicles may also engage in operations on non-public roads,
such as closed course testing. In general, the proposed application and
reporting requirements
[[Page 4140]]
for AV STEP would not cover such private road operations.\68\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\68\ However, non-public road testing would likely be relevant
to the validation evidence for the safety case assessment discussed
in Section IV.D.1.b) (Independent Assessment, Safety Case).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Program Steps
AV STEP would have two program participation categories. In
general, Step 1 would apply to vehicles that rely on fallback
personnel, and Step 2 would apply to vehicles that do not rely on
fallback personnel. Given the increased responsibility of the ADS at
Step 2, the level of system maturity is expected to be higher than at
Step 1. As proposed, a vehicle could start participation at either step
level. It would not be necessary to complete Step 1 before moving to
Step 2. However, Step 1 participants could apply to participate at Step
2 as their systems and operations mature. Likewise, under this
proposal, if a company had multiple vehicle platforms or systems, some
of which were more mature than others, the company could apply to
participate in Step 1 for some operations and in Step 2 for others.
The reliance on fallback personnel is used to delineate between
Steps 1 and 2 because the approach to managing risk is significantly
different in these two cases. In an operation that relies on fallback
personnel, a human is expected to compensate for known limitations or
unproven aspects of the ADS. In contrast, in an operation that does not
rely on fallback personnel, the ADS must be capable of handling all
scenarios within an ODD without the intervention of fallback personnel.
AV STEP can more easily account for these unique safety considerations
by dedicating a separate step to each type of operation.
The ADS industry acknowledges the significance of these
differences. For instance, when discussing its ADS, referred to as the
Aurora Driver, Aurora Innovation Inc. (Aurora) explained in its 2022
VSSA that:
as we continue to develop with the Aurora Driver, we currently have
vehicle operators . . . monitoring the performance of the Aurora
Driver at all times and ready to take over as necessary to ensure
operational safety. Therefore, our tailored safety case for this use
case includes claims focused on vehicle controllability and vehicle
operator hiring, training, and operational procedures, among others.
However, when we reach the point of removing the vehicle operators
from cabs, these vehicle operator-centric claims will no longer be
relevant.\69\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\69\ Aurora, ``Safety Report'' (2022), available at https://info.aurora.tech/hubfs/website%20Public%20Files/Q4_Safety_VSSA%202022_digital_r2.pdf.
Similarly, Waymo LLC explained in a 2020 discussion of safety
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
readiness determinations that:
[d]eterminations to move from public road testing with trained
vehicle operators to driverless operations, of course, are conducted
at the greatest level of detail. Going completely driverless entails
extremely rigorous analysis of expected behaviors and risks within
the ODD, including unique risks presented by the absence of a human
driver (e.g., responding to system failures through fallback
maneuvers that do not rely on human intervention).\70\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\70\ Webb, N., Smith, D., Ludwick, C., Victor, T.W., Hommes, Q.,
Favar[ograve] F., Ivanov, G., and Daniel, T., ``Waymo's Safety
Methodologies and Safety Readiness Determinations,'' (2020)
available at https://arxiv.org/abs/2011.00054.
Under the proposal, an entity would be eligible to apply for Step 1
participation for vehicles that operate with fallback personnel during
all participating operations on public roads.\71\ An entity would be
eligible to apply for Step 2 participation for vehicles that operate,
at any time during participation on public roads, without fallback
personnel. NHTSA proposes to define ``Fallback Personnel'' as an
individual specially trained and skilled in supervising the performance
of prototype ADS-operated vehicles in on-road traffic, who continuously
supervises the performance of an ADS-operated vehicle in real time and
intervenes whenever necessary to prevent a hazardous event by
exercising any means of vehicle control. This intervention may occur as
part of a DDT Fallback \72\ or in anticipation of possible future ADS
behavior that is unsafe or otherwise unwanted by the user. This
definition of fallback personnel would not include vehicle assistance,
which does not involve directly exercising vehicle control
authority.\73\ An ADS that relied only on vehicle assistance during
public road operations would fall under Step 2 rather than Step 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\71\ Stakeholders use a variety of terms to refer to the
fallback personnel role, such as in-vehicle fallback test drivers,
safety operators, or testing safety operators.
\72\ Section 597.102 of the proposed rule defines DDT Fallback
as: the response by an individual to either perform the DDT or
achieve a minimal risk condition after occurrence of a DDT
performance-relevant system failure(s) or upon operational design
domain exit, or the response by an ADS to achieve a minimal risk
condition, given the same circumstances.
\73\ Section 597.102 of the proposed rule defines Vehicle
Assistance as: an individual providing information or instruction
about a situation to an ADS-equipped vehicle in driverless operation
(instead of exercising direct control of the vehicle) to help the
ADS continue a trip when encountering a situation that the ADS
cannot manage. Vehicle assistance may be provided remotely, by an
individual not physically present in the vehicle, or by an
individual on board (physically present in) the vehicle. Unlike
fallback personnel, as defined in this section, vehicle assistance
personnel provide information or instruction to an ADS-equipped
vehicle rather than directly exercising vehicle control authority.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As defined in this proposal, individuals who perform the fallback
role could do so from within the vehicle or remotely. Remote fallback
personnel would be considered remote drivers under the proposed
definition of remote driving--the real-time performance of part or all
of the DDT by an individual physically located outside of the
vehicle.\74\ However, NHTSA proposes to narrowly limit remote driving
in AV STEP, as described in Section III.C (Terms and Conditions).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\74\ Some vehicle designs do not facilitate any human occupancy.
Remote fallback personnel would be the only option for such vehicles
to rely on fallback personnel.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The proposed eligibility requirements of Step 2 are not intended to
disincentivize the limited use of fallback personnel when a participant
deems it beneficial for safety. Therefore, once admitted into AV STEP,
a vehicle participating under Step 2 could rely on fallback personnel
on a limited basis during public road operations. For example, fallback
personnel could be temporarily reintroduced during the validation of a
software update. Such limited exceptions notwithstanding, Step 2 is
intended to demarcate an ADS' readiness to operate without fallback
personnel, and the agency does not intend participants in Step 2 to
functionally operate as Step 1 participants through the widespread or
sustained use of fallback personnel. To oversee this expectation, NHTSA
proposes reporting requirements to monitor the extent to which Step 2
operations use fallback personnel.\75\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\75\ These requirements are set forth in Sec. 597.501(f) of the
proposed rule and described further in Section V.A (Reporting
Requirements) of this document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For both steps, NHTSA proposes to prohibit vehicle operations that
rely on fallback personnel from providing rides to public
passengers.\76\ This would mean that no public ridership would be
permitted under Step 1 or in any of the limited situations where
fallback personnel could be used under Step 2. This prohibition is
proposed in light of the lower level of ADS maturity that is expected
of a system that must rely on a human as a fallback. The need for
fallback personnel indicates that an ADS has known limitations or
requires
[[Page 4141]]
further validation. The presence of fallback personnel also introduces
training and human factor considerations into the safety of those
vehicles, such as whether fallback personnel remain attentive while
monitoring the ADS. Although the use of fallback personnel can be
beneficial for safety during testing, NHTSA believes their role is
better suited for operations engaged in significant development than
those ready to carry public passengers. NHTSA requests comment
generally on the conditions under which AV STEP should permit public
ridership, including, more specifically, whether it should be permitted
during operations that rely on fallback personnel.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\76\ This prohibition would apply to any passenger who is a
member of the public other than an employee or agent of an entity
designated as an Essential System-Level Stakeholder or a public
official acting in an official capacity, such as law enforcement or
government personnel. See Sec. 597.105(c) of the proposed rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Terms and Conditions
Each AV STEP participation would be governed by a Final
Determination Letter that establishes the full set of terms and
conditions for the participation. NHTSA's proposed review process that
would lead to the issuance of a Final Determination Letter is described
in Section IV.E (Application Review). In general, the terms and
conditions established by a letter would be tailored to the unique
aspects of a participation and may cover subjects other than those
expressly enumerated in Sec. 597.105(b) of the proposed rule. Section
IV.E lists seven subjects that would, at a minimum, be addressed in a
Final Determination Letter. These include whether the participation is
permitted under Step 1 or 2, the vehicles approved for
participation,\77\ the locations where participation is permitted, the
duration of participation, and the stakeholders deemed essential for
the participation. This letter would also govern the permitted uses of
those vehicles, which could include commercial operations.\78\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\77\ Section VII (Requirements for AV STEP Exemptions
(Regulatory Text Subpart C)) explains a unique set of procedures for
vehicles receiving exemptions under AV STEP.
\78\ Section VII (Requirements for AV STEP Exemptions
(Regulatory Text Subpart C)) explains the requirements for FMVSS
exemptions that involve commercial operations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A Final Determination Letter would also govern the maximum number
of vehicles approved for participation.\79\ This number would be
informed by NHTSA's review of the information submitted in the
application. NHTSA proposes, when appropriate, to authorize increases
in vehicle numbers over time if requested by the participant.
Incrementally increasing participation would allow the scope of
participation to mature along with a technology, enabling expansions to
correspond to performance benchmarks or limiting initial operations
until the agency gains further insight from overseeing the vehicles.
Conversely, NHTSA could reduce the number of vehicles permitted to
participate in AV STEP. For instance, this could occur during
participation by lowering the cap on permitted vehicles through the
concern resolution procedures proposed in this document or through a
term in a Final Determination Letter that sets benchmarks for expanding
or contracting vehicle participation numbers. NHTSA requests comment on
whether the proposed rule should establish a cap on the number of
vehicles allowed for each participant, including what such a cap should
be and the grounds for setting it, as well as whether the cap should be
able to be modified during program participation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\79\ Setting limits on participation numbers through the
adjudication of each request rather than through a categorical cap
that applies to all participants would align with the longstanding
approaches of the other NHTSA programs that administer exemptions
under Section 30114(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NHTSA also proposes for Final Determination Letters to contain
terms governing the use of remote driving during participation. NHTSA
proposes, in Sec. 597.105(j) of the proposed rule, to generally
prohibit remote driving in AV STEP except as temporarily needed to
briefly move a vehicle after the ADS initiates a minimal risk maneuver
or during any situations expressly permitted in a Final Determination
Letter.\80\ This proposal would limit remote driving to short
distances, such as moving a vehicle to the side of the road after it
has stopped in a travel lane or moving a vehicle in response to
direction from emergency responders. Conditioning remote driving on the
initiation of a minimal risk maneuver would, for example, allow this
brief use of remote driving after the vehicle achieves a minimal risk
condition or if remote personnel realize that a vehicle undertaking a
minimal risk maneuver is taking inappropriate action. Minimal risk
maneuvers and minimal risk conditions are discussed further in Section
IV.B.2 (System Fallback Response).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\80\ Human factors issues, connection latency, and jitter can
result in unavoidable challenges for remote driving operations, even
in locations with optimal connectivity. Therefore, although the
agency extends eligibility to prospective operations that would
entail limited remote driving, NHTSA expects, through the review
framework described in the ensuing sections, to significantly
scrutinize such uses. For further discussion of latency, jitter, and
other remote driving considerations, see, e.g., Y. Yu and S. Lee,
``Remote Driving Control With Real-Time Video Streaming Over
Wireless Networks: Design and Evaluation'' (June 2022), available at
https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?arnumber=9797698.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As proposed, this general prohibition on remote driving also allows
an exception for other situations expressly delineated in a Final
Determination Letter. An application would need to describe any such
situations for which permission is requested.\81\ NHTSA requests
comment on the proposed approach to remote driving and, specifically:
(1) whether to include operations that use remote fallback personnel
within the scope of the program; (2) whether the proposed rule should
include a limited allowance for remote driving after the ADS achieves a
minimal risk condition or after the ADS initiates a minimal risk
maneuver; and (3) whether the proposed rule should expressly include
any other exceptions to the general prohibition on remote driving.\82\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\81\ The required information about remote driving in an
application is discussed in Section IV.B (Protocols for ADS
Operations).
\82\ Other potential exceptions could include if remote driving
is unexpectedly needed to respond to a hazardous circumstance or if
remote driving could enable temporary navigation around a roadway
change, such as a construction zone, for which the ADS has not yet
been validated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The proposed rule contains several terms to promote NHTSA's
engagement with other regulatory authorities, such as states and local
governments, during the review of an application and participation in
the program. The proposed rule would require all vehicles, including
their operations, to comply with all Federal, state, and local laws and
requirements during participation.\83\ This provision would cover both
generally applicable requirements, including local traffic laws, and
those specific to ADS technologies. The proposed application and
reporting requirements would provide NHTSA with information to consider
whether an entity has a responsible process for identifying and
following these laws. NHTSA intends to coordinate with Federal, state,
and local governments, as appropriate, regarding these and other issues
associated with ADS operations in their jurisdictions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\83\ This requirement would maintain NHTSA's practice of
imposing a similar term in other exemptions issued under Section
30114(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Federal, state, and local regulatory frameworks and programs
that also cover ADS operations span a range of different regulatory
approaches. At the Federal level, examples include grants for ADS
projects funded by other parts of DOT \84\ and pilot projects to
[[Page 4142]]
explore the potential for ADS to further the mission of other
agencies.\85\ Examples at the state and local levels include state
permitting requirements for ADS-equipped vehicles \86\ and traffic laws
that are specific to ADS-equipped vehicles.\87\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\84\ See, e.g., U.S. Department of Transportation, ``Automated
Driving Systems Demonstration Grants Program,'' available at https://www.transportation.gov/policy-initiatives/automated-vehicles/ads-demonstration-grants. The Federal Transit Administration also
administers grants for ADS. See generally Federal Transit
Administration, ``Transit Automation Research,'' available at
https://www.transit.dot.gov/automation-research.
\85\ National Park Service, ``NPS Emerging Mobility: Summary
Evaluation of Low-Speed Automated Shuttle Pilots at NPS Sites,''
June 2022. https://www.nps.gov/subjects/transportation/upload/NPS-Automated-Shuttle-Pilots-Evaluation-Summary.pdf.
\86\ See, e.g., California Department of Motor Vehicles,
``Autonomous Vehicles,'' available at https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/
vehicle-industry-services/autonomous-vehicles/
#:~:text=The%20DMV%20administers%20the%20Autonomous,and%20applying%20
for%20a%20permit.
\87\ See, e.g., National Conference of State Legislatures,
``Autonomous Vehicles Legislation Database,'' available at https://www.ncsl.org/transportation/autonomous-vehicles-legislation-database.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The goals of these initiatives are varied, given the diverse
regulatory missions of the different jurisdictions. It is not feasible
or appropriate to design AV STEP around all of the various approaches
that other authorities may take concerning ADS. At the same time, AV
STEP would not override any of those other authorities, such as by
imposing Federal preemption of state requirements. Instead, NHTSA
considers AV STEP best suited to exist in parallel with those other
requirements. The proposed requirement that an AV STEP participant
comply with all Federal, state, and local laws and requirements would
ensure the requirements of those other authorities coexist with AV
STEP. This requirement is consistent with how NHTSA has historically
approached exemptions for ADS-equipped vehicles that are issued under
Section 30114(a).
During the review of an AV STEP application, NHTSA will engage with
applicants and other authorities, as appropriate, to explore
opportunities to harmonize certain AV STEP requirements with those of
overlapping authorities. As a result of such engagement, if a reporting
requirement of another authority is identified that is similar to a
subject for which NHTSA proposes a customized requirement in AV STEP, a
Final Determination Letter could scope AV STEP's customized reporting
requirements in a way that harmonizes with another report. Other
jurisdictions could likewise harmonize their own processes with AV STEP
or otherwise find value in the enhanced Federal oversight and
transparency of participating operations when considering whether to
allow those vehicles to operate under their own authorities. As one
example, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) has
oversight authority for motor carrier use and operations of ADS
technologies. Opportunities may exist to harmonize, as appropriate,
certain requirements in AV STEP operations that involve commercial
motor vehicles (CMVs) with any applicable FMCSA activities, in the
interest of a consistent Departmental approach. For instance, FMCSA is
engaged in rulemaking that would govern motor carrier operation of ADS-
equipped CMVs \88\ and other activities related to AV technologies.
NHTSA specifically requests comment on other ways that AV STEP could
help to harmonize regulatory requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\88\ See Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, ``Unified
Agenda of Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions,'' Federal Motor
Carrier Safety Administration, RIN 2126-AC17: Motor Carrier
Operation of Automated Driving Systems (ADS)-Equipped Commercial
Motor Vehicles, available at https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/eAgendaViewRule?pubId=202310&RIN=2126-AC17.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
IV. Application and Review (Regulatory Text Subparts B and D)
A. Application Form
NHTSA proposes that all AV STEP applications contain a standard set
of information, regardless of program step or whether an exemption is
requested.\89\ This proposal would create a common foundation for the
program through consistent, structured responses from all applicants.
It would also ensure that NHTSA has a fundamental understanding of the
systems and requested participation when making decisions on program
admission and overseeing operations. NHTSA proposes that this
information be furnished through an application form containing three
parts: the Operational Baseline; Location Sheet(s); and a Reporting
Confirmation Sheet.\90\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\89\ An exemption would require an additional application form
specific to that purpose, as discussed later in Section VII.C
(Exemption Participation Requirements).
\90\ An example form, based on the proposed requirements, is
available in the docket for this rulemaking under the title ``NPRM
Example of AV STEP Application Form.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Operational Baseline
The Operational Baseline portion of an application would focus on
critical characteristics of an operation. Section 597.201 of the
proposed rule requires 14 items of information, most of which NHTSA
proposes to make public because they reflect basic facts about the
entity's requested participation.\91\ These items are listed below,
accompanied by a description of the expected level of detail:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\91\ See Section VI (Public Reporting Requirements (Regulatory
Text Subpart G)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Participation Category. An applicant would indicate whether it
requests participation under Step 1 or Step 2.
Applicant(s). Each of the entities requesting to participate would
need to be listed. An application could be submitted by a single
applicant or multiple applicants (co-applicants). In either situation,
every applicant would need to meet the eligibility requirements for
participation set forth in Sec. 597.103 of the proposed rule. This
field would also require primary and secondary points of contact for
each applicant.
Essential System-Level Stakeholders. Applicants would identify any
entities that have a significant role in the safety of the operation
covered by the application. At a minimum, these would include the
vehicle manufacturer, the ADS developer, the fleet operator, and the
system integrator. These entities would need to be listed regardless of
whether they were applying for the program or would be participating in
the proposed operation. This requirement is included because, whether
active participants or not, the products or services they provide
factor directly into the vehicle's system-level performance.
Vehicle Platform. Applicants would identify a baseline vehicle
platform being used. This information includes the vehicle make, model,
model year, unloaded vehicle weight,\92\ Gross Vehicle Weight Rating
(GVWR),\93\ and vehicle class.\94\ If the vehicle was certified as
FMVSS compliant, the FMVSS certifying entity should also be listed in
this field. Different vehicle models could not be considered a single
vehicle platform for the purposes of this field,\95\ and would instead
require separate program applications. As long as all vehicles in an
application were the same vehicle model, a single application could be
used for different versions of the model, such as differences in the
model year, trim level, or GVWR. NHTSA would review any differences
within the vehicle model to decide whether any of the vehicles
[[Page 4143]]
should participate separately. This approach would help to streamline
individual applications and preserve the consistency of operations
contained in a single application or participation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\92\ See 49 CFR 571.3.
\93\ Id.
\94\ See 49 CFR part 523.
\95\ Even if the traditional use of the term ``vehicle
platform'' often includes multiple vehicle models, NHTSA considers a
narrower use of the term appropriate in this context. This narrower
use is to account for any developers or manufacturers that do not
characterize their purpose-built ADS vehicle platforms as vehicle
models.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sensing Suite. An applicant would identify any sensors, such as
cameras, radar, lidar, and microphones, involved in the perception of
the ADS.\96\ For any such sensors on the vehicle, a response to this
field would need to identify the specific sensor (i.e., make and model
information), the type of sensor, its location on the subject vehicle,
and its use in ADS operations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\96\ ADS perception is defined in SAE International publication
J3131 as ``an ADS' capability to sense and characterize the
entities, events, and situations, in its environment.'' SAE
International, ``J3131 MAR2022: Definitions for Terms Related to
Automated Driving Systems Reference Architecture,'' Section 3.1.3,
(Revised March 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Crash Detection Capabilities. Applicants would detail the subject
vehicle's crash detection capabilities including, if applicable, any
units towed by the subject vehicle. This response would need to
identify any limitations or thresholds for detecting physical contact
relating to a crash. For example, if only certain scenarios involving
debris impacts are identified as crashes, a response to this element
should explain how those crashes are identified.
Certain Vehicle Modifications. An applicant would identify any
modifications to safety features installed as original equipment on the
subject vehicles, other than any modifications for which an AV STEP
exemption is sought. Modifications associated with an exemption request
would be identified in a response to the requirements detailed in
Section VII.B (Exemption Application Requirements).
Data Logging. Applicants would identify the designed data-logging
functionality, including the continuously recorded data and event-
triggered data logged by a subject vehicle. For each type of data
identified, an applicant would also need to describe the onboard or
offboard storage protocols and the duration of data retention. For this
element, NHTSA anticipates focusing on whether responses explain the
scope of data logging for reporting required under AV STEP, such as the
regular and event-triggered reporting in Sec. Sec. 597.500 and 597.501
of the proposed rule.
Onboard Fallback Personnel. A response to this field would identify
the seating position(s) of any onboard fallback personnel who may be
physically present in the subject vehicle(s) during requested
operations. Even though Step 2 applications would largely not rely on
the presence of fallback personnel during participating operations,
those applications should still list the seating positions of any
onboard fallback personnel that may be present on a limited basis.\97\
If the subject vehicles would never use fallback personnel, even on a
limited basis, a response could indicate that this field is not
applicable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\97\ The possibility of limited reliance on fallback personnel
under Step 2 is discussed in Sections III.B (Program Steps) and
V.A.2 (Event-Triggered Reporting).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Use of Remote Driving. A response to this field should indicate
whether remote driving may be used to control a subject vehicle at any
time during operation. Applicants would need to identify any
restrictions in place for any planned use of remote driving, such as
speed thresholds or limiting its use to locations with validated
network strength. This response would inform whether NHTSA should
permit narrow uses of remote driving in a Final Determination Letter
beyond those allowed under Sec. 597.105(j) of the proposed rule.\98\
In addition, given the potential risks associated with remote
driving,\99\ NHTSA believes that information about the extent of remote
driving in a participation should be publicly available. Accordingly,
an application that involves remote driving would need to also include
a public summary of limitations on the use of remote driving. NHTSA
would publish this summary along with other information from an
application, as discussed in Section VI (Public Reporting Requirements
(Regulatory Text Subpart G)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\98\ More detailed information regarding the technical
parameters and safety of any remote driving included in a
participation request would also need to be provided to NHTSA under
the requirements proposed in Section IV.B (Protocols for ADS
Operations).
\99\ See supra n.80.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Use of Vehicle Assistance. A response to this field would need to
indicate whether any remote or onboard vehicle assistance may be used
to direct the subject vehicle at any time during a requested operation.
The proposed rule defines vehicle assistance as an individual providing
information or advice about a situation to an ADS-equipped vehicle in
driverless operation (instead of performing the DDT for the vehicle) to
help the ADS continue a trip when encountering a situation that the ADS
cannot manage. Vehicle assistance may be provided remotely, by an
individual not physically present in the vehicle,\100\ or by an
individual on board (physically present in) the vehicle.\101\ Any
applications indicating that vehicle assistance may occur would need to
describe the specific capabilities that this assistance could
entail.\102\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\100\ For additional discussion of ``remote assistance,'' see
SAE International, ``J3016 APR2021: Taxonomy and Definitions for
Terms Related to Driving Automation Systems for On-Road Motor
Vehicles,'' Section 3.23: Remote Assistance, (Revised April 2021).
\101\ Unlike Fallback Personnel, as defined in this proposal,
vehicle assistance personnel provide information or instruction to
an ADS-equipped vehicle rather than directly exercising vehicle
control authority.
\102\ As with the preceding remote driving field, more detailed
information regarding any vehicle assistance included in a
participation request would also need to be provided to NHTSA, as
detailed in Section IV.B (Protocols for ADS Operations).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operational Permits Required. An application would indicate whether
any other Federal, state, or local permits are required for the
operations requested in the application. If so, the application should
list each such permit, the regulatory entity requiring a permit, and
the status of each permit. For any permits that have already been
issued at the time of application, an applicant would need to identify
the effective dates of each permit, describe any conditions imposed by
those permits, and provide a copy of each such permit.
AV STEP Exemption. An application would indicate whether the
request to participate in AV STEP includes a request for an AV STEP
exemption. If so, an application would also need to include a separate
exemption form that covers unique application requirements for the
exemption.\103\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\103\ See Section VII.C (Exemption Application Requirements).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Accessibility. An application would summarize any features or
design modifications of the vehicles that are the subject of an
application that are intended to promote the safe accommodation of
passengers with disabilities. This required disclosure would include
any such features or modifications that are intended for passengers
with physical, sensory, and cognitive disabilities--including
passengers who use wheelchairs and other mobility equipment. NHTSA
proposes to publish this summary to enable the public to understand the
accessibility options offered in an operation.\104\ NHTSA also proposes
to require an application to include more information and technical
detail about any such features or designs in response to the separate
application requirements detailed in Section IV.B.3 (Operator, User,
and Surrounding Road User Interactions). NHTSA encourages entities to
include accessibility features for passengers with disabilities in
their
[[Page 4144]]
vehicle designs and believes that it is important for the public to
understand the availability of such features.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\104\ See Section VI (Public Reporting Requirements (Regulatory
Text Subpart G)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Location Sheet
The second proposed portion of an application is a Location Sheet.
Each application would be required to contain at least one Location
Sheet. An application that requests participation in multiple distinct
locations would need to include a Location Sheet for each location.
Entities may combine operations in multiple locations in the same
application or participation, as long as the Operational Baseline
characteristics of the operations remain the same across the locations.
AV STEP's use of Location Sheets would provide enough flexibility
for an operation to evolve over the course of time, including by adding
more Location Sheets during participation as operations expand to new
areas.\105\ It would also reduce the administrative burden of
applications and participations by enabling NHTSA to focus on the
aspects of an operation unique to a particular location once the agency
understands the baseline approach to an operation that would apply no
matter where the operation occurs. The proposed rule would require
applications to include the following information for each Location
Sheet:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\105\ The process for adding new Location Sheets during
participation is discussed in Section V.B.1 (Amendment Process).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Location Name. Applicants would assign a unique reference name to
the operation proposed in the Location Sheet. The Location Name field
in a Location Sheet would provide a unique identifier for each location
that a participation includes. Much of the reporting described in
Sections V.A (Reporting Requirements) and VI (Public Reporting
Requirements (Regulatory Text Subpart G)) is segmented by Location
Sheet.
Location Limitation. Applicants would define the geographical
boundaries for the operations in the Location Sheet, generally by using
maps to define this boundary.\106\ This field could be changed during
an active participation, as discussed in Section V.B.1 (Amendment
Process). However, this response should cover the full breadth of
operations that are anticipated at the time of an application.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\106\ For example, a .kmz/.kml file containing a varied map
boundary could be provided. If operations would be constrained to
specific route maps, this constraint should be reflected in a
response to this field.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum Number of Vehicles Proposed for Participation. An applicant
would identify the maximum number of vehicles for which they seek to
participate under the Location Sheet. This number could correspond to
the actual number of vehicles that an applicant is ready to operate or
reflect a projected number of vehicles.\107\ During participation, the
actual number of vehicles operating would be reported to NHTSA under
the proposed periodic reporting requirements described in Section V.A.1
(Periodic Reporting).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\107\ If an application requests such a projected number of
vehicles, the application information would still need to support
the full scope of requested operations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Legal Speed Limits. This field would require information about the
posted speed limits on roadways on which a vehicle plans to operate. An
applicant would identify specific information for: (1) the road
segments in an operation that have the highest legal speed limit; and
(2) the road segments with the greatest speed differential between the
legal speed limit and the maximum speed allowed for the ADS while
operating on the road segment. NHTSA expects that the most efficient
way to identify roadway segments will usually be pairs of GPS
coordinates for the start and end points. However, an applicant could
use other methods to identify the roadway segments, for example, if
such segments represent a significant portion of an operation. NHTSA
will use this information to understand the speeds of traffic around
which a vehicle could operate and whether the vehicle could pose a risk
by operating at different speeds from the surrounding traffic.
Vehicle Speeds. An application would identify the highest speed
allowed for the ADS upon commencing participation at the location, as
well as the highest speed for which participation is requested for the
ADS at the location. In many cases, these two speeds may be the same.
However, the two answers could diverge, such as if an ADS initially
operates at lower speeds to complete further validation before planned
speed increases are pursued.\108\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\108\ As with any other proposed requirements, the application
information would need to support the full scope of operations
requested, even if it included projected future changes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Public Ridership. An application would indicate whether the subject
vehicle would carry public passengers during the requested
operations.\109\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\109\ The proposed rule refers to public passengers as ``public
ridership.'' See Sec. 597.102.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Intended Use. An applicant would describe the planned use or uses
of vehicles during operations, such as a shuttle or ride hailing
service, goods delivery, or research and development.\110\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\110\ For an applicant seeking an exemption under 49 U.S.C.
30114(a), additional information on use would be required by the
exemption portion of the application.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operational Design Domain. An applicant would provide a complete
specification of all aspects of the ODD. This response should be a
detailed answer that comprehensively explains the entire ODD, which the
proposed rule defines as ``the operating conditions under which the
automated driving system or feature thereof is specifically designed to
function, including, but not limited to, environmental, geographical,
and time-of-day restrictions, and/or the requisite presence or absence
of defined traffic or roadway characteristics.'' \111\ If an
application contains multiple Location Sheets, a response to this
element should identify any ODD differences among the Location Sheets.
Several industry documents provide guidance on the specification of an
ODD.\112\ However, this general guidance may not necessarily address
the full level of detail associated with an ADS developer's particular
approach to defining its system's ODD. NHTSA seeks comment on
incorporating any such guidance into the regulation or otherwise
specifying the form in which minimum information about the proposed ODD
should be described in an application. An applicant would also need to
include a public summary of the ODD. NHTSA proposes to publish this
summary along with other information about an application or
participation. The public reporting section of this document describes
those aspects of the proposal.\113\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\111\ See Sec. 597.102 of the proposed rule.
\112\ See, e.g., International Organization for Standardization,
``ISO 34503: Road Vehicles--Test scenarios for automated driving
systems--Specification for operational design domain'' (2023); and
Automated Vehicle Safety Consortium (AVSC), ``AVSC00002202004: Best
Practice for Describing an Operational Design Domain: Conceptual
Framework and Lexicon'' (2020).
\113\ See Section VI (Public Reporting Requirements (Regulatory
Text Subpart G)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vehicle Equipment. An applicant would describe how several
attributes of a vehicle covered by the Location Sheet compare to the
base model of the vehicle. This information would help NHTSA gauge
whether differences in the same vehicle model may need to be considered
during the application review. This field should disclose how three
categories of equipment or vehicle characteristics compare between the
subject vehicle and the base model, if applicable: (1) any trim level
characteristics that affect safety; (2) any
[[Page 4145]]
optional technologies that affect safety; and (3) any other
distinguishing safety characteristics. If an application contains
multiple Location Sheets, a response to this element should also
identify any differences among the Location Sheets. For example, if
sensor heating elements are used in one location but not necessary in
another, that information should be provided in response to this field.
3. Confirmation of Reporting During Participation
The third portion of the application form would focus on
information necessary to carry out the reporting requirements discussed
in Section V.A (Reporting Requirements) if an applicant is admitted for
participation.
First, an applicant would need to confirm its ability to carry out
all of the AV STEP reporting requirements if approved for
participation. Some reporting requirements may require coordination
with third parties, such as Essential System-Level Stakeholders that
are not participants, or may involve specific technical capabilities.
This confirmation would ensure that an applicant understands these
responsibilities up front. If an application has a single applicant,
that applicant would be responsible for compliance with all of the
reporting requirements. If an application has multiple co-applicants,
they could collectively meet the reporting requirements. If reporting
responsibilities are to be shared by co-applicants, a response to this
element should explain which entity would be primarily responsible for
meeting each reporting requirement that is set forth in Subpart E of
the proposed rule.\114\ In addition to clarifying reporting
responsibilities for co-applicants, this proposed requirement would
ensure that data generation and processing capabilities support the AV
STEP reporting elements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\114\ Even if reporting is shared among multiple participants,
NHTSA proposes that it may suspend, revoke, or take other
appropriate action to address a failure to fully comply with all
reporting required under AV STEP by any participant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Second, this portion of the application would solicit proposals for
``customized'' reporting terms. For reporting requirements designated
as customized, NHTSA has proposed the subject matter for a required
report but has not defined a specific metric or threshold for the
reporting. Applications would need to propose specific metrics or
thresholds to be used for the terms of the reporting. Each such
proposal should be informed by the independent assessment submitted in
an application (and described further in Section IV.D, Independent
Assessment). In developing these proposals, applicants should consider
the extent to which the proposed reporting would support an evaluation
of the operation, performance, and safety of the subject vehicles. Each
proposal should be accompanied by enough information to allow NHTSA to
interpret the proposed metrics or thresholds, as well as explain their
value and relevance to the applicable requirement. In Section V.A
(Reporting Requirements), NHTSA provides high-level examples of
potential terms for each of the proposed customized requirements.
The current state of ADS technology necessitates flexibility in
reporting certain subjects. Even so, these subjects represent important
safety considerations for any ADS operation. Establishing customized
terms would provide this necessary flexibility while ensuring
meaningful reporting. The proposed approach to customized requirements
would enable NHTSA to consider the value of these different types of
reporting metrics and thresholds across various participants.
B. Protocols for ADS Operations
Section 597.204 of the proposed rule would require applications to
explain two types of protocols critical to the safety of subject
vehicle operations. The first pertains to the ADS' compliance with
traffic safety laws and the second covers situations where an ADS is
unable to continue performing the driving task reliably. These
protocols both relate to how an ADS will execute roadway
responsibilities that may arise during an operation. Detailed
information regarding each of these topics in an application would
provide necessary context for the proposed reporting on these topics
that would occur during participation.\115\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\115\ See Section V.A (Reporting Requirements).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Law Abidance
Compliance with traffic safety laws and local requirements for
operating is a critical aspect of safety for ADS-equipped vehicles on
public roads. Section 597.204(a) of the proposed rule lists four
elements of information required in an application that would enable
NHTSA to consider an applicant's strategy for complying with Federal,
state, and local laws that apply to the subject vehicles or their
operations.
A response to this element would, at minimum, summarize how
applicable traffic safety laws are identified (including both initially
and during operations), describe how an ADS' compliance with traffic
safety laws is monitored,\116\ and describe any conditions under which
the design of the ADS may allow the subject vehicle to violate traffic
laws. A response would also need to summarize recognition, interaction,
and response strategies for emergency, law enforcement, and
construction vehicles, personnel, and equipment, as well as crossing
guards and other traffic control personnel. The response should cover
laws that explicitly address ADS-equipped vehicles as well as those
that apply to road users more broadly.\117\ NHTSA recognizes that in
some situations, temporary deviations from traffic safety laws may be
necessary to safely react to roadway conditions. Many traffic safety
laws specifically allow for such exigencies. The information provided
in response to this element is intended to help NHTSA understand the
ADS' approach to determining what behavior is appropriate in these
situations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\116\ As noted elsewhere by NHTSA, vehicle automation features
that contribute to behaviors that cause traffic violations can
constitute a motor vehicle defect. This has been demonstrated by
partial driving automation system recalls relating to such
incidents. See Tesla, Inc., ``Part 573 Safety Recall Report, Recall
No. 23V-085'' (February 15, 2023), available at https://static.nhtsa.gov/odi/rcl/2023/RCLRPT-23V085-3451.PDF.
\117\ A response to this element would not need to include
``unwritten rules of the road'' or ``implicit traffic rules,'' which
are phrases used within the industry to refer to behaviors
associated with good roadway citizenship that are not typically
defined by traffic laws. However, these concepts would likely be
relevant to other aspects of an application, such as certain claims
and evidence in the safety case that would be reviewed by an
independent assessment. For further discussion of these concepts,
see, e.g., Mobileye Technologies Ltd., ``The Unwritten Rules of the
Road, Codified in RSS'' (February 2023), available at https://www.mobileye.com/blog/responsibility-sensitive-safety-unwritten-rules-of-the-road/ and Aptiv et al., ``Safety First for Automated
Driving'' (2019), available at https://static.mobileye.com/website/corporate/media/Intel-Safety-First-for-Automated-Driving.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
An applicant's response to this element should also describe a
vehicle's response plans for emergency, law enforcement, and other
traffic control interactions. In particular, this response would help
the agency evaluate how ADS technologies interact with first
responders. An ADS-equipped vehicle's behavior should be easily
anticipated and understood by these personnel during such
interactions.\118\ NHTSA would use this information to consider whether
the ADS may negatively affect safety-critical functions performed by
first responders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\118\ See AVSC, ``AVSC00005202012: Best Practice for First
Responder Interactions with Fleet-Managed Automated Driving System-
Dedicated Vehicles (ADS-DVs)'' (December 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 4146]]
2. System Fallback Response
Section 597.204(b) of the proposed rule would require an
application to explain protocols surrounding ADS failure scenarios. The
response of an ADS-equipped vehicle to these situations is varyingly
referred to as minimal risk maneuvers (MRMs), fallback strategy,
failsafe response, or other similar terms. For simplicity, this
proposal refers to the achievement of a minimal risk condition (MRC),
which is defined in the proposed rule as ``a stable, stopped condition
to which a user or an ADS may bring a vehicle after performing the DDT
fallback, including after a DDT takeover, to reduce the risk of a crash
when a given trip cannot or should not be continued.'' \119\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\119\ See Sec. 597.102 of the proposed rule. This proposed
definition is derived from SAE International's definition of an MRC:
``a stable, stopped condition to which a user or an ADS may bring a
vehicle after performing the DDT fallback in order to reduce the
risk of a crash when a given trip cannot or should not be
continued.'' SAE International, ``J3016 APR2021: Taxonomy and
Definitions for Terms Related to Driving Automation Systems for On-
Road Motor Vehicles,'' (Revised April 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NHTSA proposes to require an applicant to describe any system
fallback strategies or designs, as well as any protocols for their
execution or activation. A response to this element should describe any
MRCs that might be undertaken by the subject ADS. This description
should identify the circumstances under which each MRC would be
triggered, detail how MRMs to achieve each MRC would be initiated and
executed, and explain any protocols for the ADS following the
achievement of each MRC. An applicant should also explain the
engineering rationale for selecting each MRC and setting triggering
conditions for them.\120\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\120\ For example, do the trigger conditions fully capture any
feasible ODD exits, such as sudden weather changes?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, an applicant would need to provide an overview of any
other protocols associated with averting or achieving a minimal risk
condition. This response should focus on protocols that apply to
individuals who may interact with the vehicle rather than protocols
that are followed by the ADS. This would include any protocols for
providing input to the ADS or disengaging the ADS prior to or during an
MRM, resuming ADS driving following the achievement of an MRC, and
vehicle recovery. This information would provide NHTSA additional
context for the MRC strategies employed by an operation, such as the
role of any vehicle assistance or onboard test drivers and potential
impacts to traffic after an MRC is achieved.
To further understand these issues, NHTSA proposes to require a
response to this element to provide information about the personnel
responsible for each such protocol. This response should include the
role and number \121\ of responsible personnel and each such
personnel's: (1) responsibilities under the protocol, (2) physical
location when performing those responsibilities, (3) expected response
time in performing those responsibilities, (4) potential control
authority over the subject vehicle, (5) means of exercising that
control authority, and (6) any operational restrictions on the use of
that control authority. In addition to informing NHTSA's review of an
application, this information would contribute to the agency's
assessment, during operations that occur under an AV STEP
participation, of whether an ADS-equipped vehicle responded
appropriately after an incident occurred.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\121\ For example, a minimum number of personnel in a certain
role who would be available to respond relative to a given number of
subject vehicles operating on-road.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lastly, NHTSA proposes to require that an application describe any
protocols for vehicle immobilizations that occur without the
achievement of an MRC. This description could include protocols for
responding to a crash or a catastrophic vehicle failure that results in
a vehicle immobilization that the ADS did not initiate. For example, a
vehicle could coast to a stop after loss of all motive power.
3. User and Surrounding Road User Interactions
This section of an application is intended to consider the safety
of members of the public who may interact with the vehicles that are
the subject of an application. Section 597.204(c) of the proposed rule
would require that an application include an overview of any design and
process measures that are in place to facilitate safe and predictable
interactions with members of the public. This element does not include
the inherent functionality of the ADS, such as the object and event
detection and response (OEDR) involved in avoiding collisions. Although
that ADS functionality is, of course, crucial to the safety of both
occupants and surrounding road users, an application would need to
cover it separately in response to the independent assessment
requirements in Section IV.D (Independent Assessment).
To focus the information provided in response to this element, the
proposed rule contains four sub-elements of required information. The
first three relate to communication and behavioral strategies for
promoting safe and predictable interactions with the subject vehicle.
NHTSA considers such predictability an important aspect of ADS safety.
Through ADS crash reporting, NHTSA has observed incidents in which the
unexpected behavior of an ADS-equipped vehicle may have contributed to
a collision even when the ADS was operating as intended. The following
are the sub-elements relating to communication and behavioral
strategies:
Any communication strategies to convey information to
individuals outside of a subject ADS-equipped vehicle, including
individuals with physical, sensory, and cognitive disabilities;
Any measures to promote the predictability of the ADS'
behavior for other road users in the vicinity of the subject vehicle.
This response should include information about how the ADS accounts for
``unwritten rules of the road'' or ``roadmanship.'' \122\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\122\ See, e.g., Fraade-Blanar, Laura, Marjory S. Blumenthal,
James M. Anderson, and Nidhi Kalra, ``Measuring Automated Vehicle
Safety: Forging a Framework. Santa Monica,'' CA: RAND Corporation
(2018), available at https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR2662.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Any communication strategies for non-operator occupants of
the subject ADS-equipped vehicle. This disclosure would be expected to
encompass the communication of safety information or the availability
of safety controls to occupants of the subject vehicles who are not
operators. Examples of responses to this sub-element could include a
system's logic for communicating with occupants about whether they are
wearing a seat belt during a trip or ways in which a passenger could
initiate an emergency stop.\123\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\123\ See AVSC, ``AVSC00003202006: Best Practice for Passenger-
Initiated Emergency Trip Interruption'' (June 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NHTSA also proposes a fourth sub-element, which would focus on the
applicant's approach to ensuring safe and predictable interactions for
passengers with disabilities. An application would need to include
information in response to this fourth sub-element regarding the
response to the Operational Baseline question about accessibility of
subject vehicles containing features or design modifications that are
intended to promote the safe accommodation of passengers with
disabilities. NHTSA proposes for this sub-element to cover:
Any features or design modifications that are intended to
promote safe accommodation of passengers with disabilities. Information
[[Page 4147]]
provided in response to this sub-element should describe how, under
this design, passengers with physical, sensory, and cognitive
disabilities--including passengers who use wheelchairs and other
mobility equipment--would safely locate and enter the vehicle, secure
themselves and any mobility equipment, input information, interact with
the ADS in routine and emergency situations, communicate with any
support personnel in such situations, and exit the vehicle.
Promoting the safety of passengers with disabilities is critical
for ADS-equipped vehicles to reach their full potential for improving
accessible options for mobility. The availability of ADS-equipped
vehicles with effective accessibility features would enable greater
choice, independence, and access to needed transportation for people
with physical, sensory, and cognitive disabilities, as well as others
whose current transportation options are limited, such as older adults.
However, these benefits cannot be realized without intentional
inclusive design choices that consider the needs of such individuals.
NHTSA requests comment on this approach to considering the safety of
accessible design choices, as well as whether any safety data specific
to the experience of passengers with disabilities should be collected
as part of AV STEP and how it could inform the program.
C. Data Governance Plan
ADS-equipped vehicles depend on an array of sensors, computer
systems, and electronic communications. These technologies introduce
cyber risks. To promote good cybersecurity practices for modern
vehicles, NHTSA has embraced a multi-faceted approach that leverages
industry consensus standards \124\ and encourages industry to adopt
practices that improve the cybersecurity posture of their vehicles.
NHTSA has also issued voluntary guidance on cybersecurity best
practices for all motor vehicles.\125\ The agency requests comment on
how participants should validate to NHTSA that they have taken the
proper precautions in evaluating and mitigating cyber risks associated
with ADS operations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\124\ See Section IV.D.1.a) (Conformance with Industry
Standards).
\125\ NHTSA, ``Cybersecurity Best Practices for the Safety of
Modern Vehicles'' (September 2022), available at https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.gov/files/2022-09/cybersecurity-best-practices-safety-modern-vehicles-2022-tag.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While NHTSA is not proposing that participations meet specific
cybersecurity standards, this section proposes to require that an
application contain a governance plan for data relevant to AV STEP.
This plan would outline the applicant's processes for managing the data
to ensure its integrity and security. Participants would need a
continuous stream of reliable data to responsibly monitor the safety of
their ADS operations and comply with the proposed reporting
requirements for AV STEP.\126\ NHTSA requests comment on seven
potential subjects for the data management plan, listed in Sec.
597.207 of the proposed rule.\127\ In general, these subjects consider
organizational processes, including any safeguards or shared
responsibilities for operations in which data are available to multiple
stakeholders or jointly managed. These seven subjects are listed below,
accompanied by a description of the expected level of detail: \128\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\126\ Subpart E of the proposed rule outlines required data
reporting during participation.
\127\ These subjects would supplement the data logging
information that would be required for an application under Sec.
597.201(f) of the proposed rule, as discussed in Section IV.A.1
(Operational Baseline).
\128\ NHTSA expects that some applications may jointly respond
to some of these subjects if information responsive to one is also
responsive to others.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A top-level accountability and management process for the data
governance plan, including a description of the applicable positions
and roles. An explanation of the relevant processes for each
stakeholder that generates or accesses the data,\129\ including the
titles and responsibilities of key individuals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\129\ Such as an ADS developer and fleet operator for operations
in which these are different entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Access control mechanisms to maintain data security and privacy.
Training or procedures for granting data access, the means of
authenticating such access, and anonymization processes--particularly
to the extent they may impact the safety value of the data. This
disclosure should include information regarding the protections in
place for both onboard vehicle data logging and physical or wireless
data transmission.
Processes for maintaining data quality and integrity. Detection and
correction of data corruption and data processing errors.
Monitoring and enforcement mechanisms for adherence to the plan.
How applicants would oversee the governance plan, such as through
automated mechanisms or spot-checking, to ensure that the plan is
followed.
Procedures for identifying and responding to incidents that
compromise data security or integrity. How the responsible parties
would recognize that an incident has occurred \130\ and react to it,
including monitoring for and responding to cybersecurity incidents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\130\ Including, for instance, if an applicant has a process for
quantifying a level of confidence that an incident would be
identified, a response to this element could describe those
calculations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Risk management strategies for mitigating internal and external
data-related risks, including cybersecurity risks. Risk management
strategies not already addressed by other elements in this subsection,
such as data backup protocols.
A list of any published industry standards, guidance, or best
practices with which the plan conforms. This element does not propose
to prescribe standards to which a process must conform. However, if an
applicant claims conformance with any standards, those standards would
need to be identified in response to this element.\131\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\131\ While many potentially relevant standards exist, one
example of such a standard is the International Organization for
Standardization's road vehicle standard: ``Safety and Cybersecurity
for Automated Driving Systems--Design, Verification and
Validation.'' (2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. Independent Assessment
NHTSA proposes to require that AV STEP applications contain
assessments conducted by an independent third party. The independent
assessment requirements are proposed to enhance the efficiency and
efficacy of NHTSA's review. An assessment from a third party with
expertise in the subject technologies would provide value to this
process. In rapidly evolving technology fields, such as ADS,
independent assessments provide an opportunity for the oversight of
such technologies to remain agile and adapt with the changing state of
the art, while also more efficiently managing voluminous data.\132\ The
ADS technologies in AV STEP applications would be complex, technically
specialized, and accompanied by extensive documentation. An independent
assessor's review would streamline NHTSA's review by pinpointing
important aspects of a system and add a neutral perspective on
[[Page 4148]]
an applicant's claims. In addition, the proposed assessments would
provide NHTSA with insight into the value of different third-party ADS
review methodologies and subject matters.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\132\ Outside of the automotive industry, independent
assessments have long existed as standard practice for sophisticated
technologies, such as software systems. For instance, industry
standards and best practices for third-party audits of software
systems have been in place for decades and provide routine and
pivotal support for many aspects of software development. See, e.g.,
Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, ``IEEE 1028-2008:
IEEE Standard for Software Reviews and Audits'' (August 2008);
International Organization for Standardization, ``ISO/IEC
20246:2017: Software and systems engineering--Work product reviews''
(February 2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
These assessments would be informative but not determinative. A
favorable assessment would not necessarily lead to admission into AV
STEP. Instead, NHTSA would consider the perspective provided by an
assessment along with the full context of the other application
materials. This role resembles NHTSA's engagement with third parties in
other oversight activities.\133\ Likewise, the automotive industry
often uses third parties to assess vehicle design or corporate
processes. The proposed assessment for AV STEP builds on these
practices.\134\ NHTSA seeks comment on the proposed independent
assessment, particularly regarding the scope, timing, and logistics of
reviews and assessor qualification requirements and disclosures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\133\ Examples include third parties performing failure analyses
in defects investigations, contractors adding specialized expertise
in vehicle testing, and independent monitors promoting
accountability in regulatory compliance oversight.
\134\ See, e.g., Pete Bigelow, ``Self-driving tech companies
take a hard look at their own blind spots, Automotive News,''
(October 14, 2024), available at https://www.autonews.com/mobility-report/autonomous-driving-companies-seek-independent-safety-reviews/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Focus of Independent Assessment
AV STEP proposes a comprehensive independent assessment of the
subject vehicles, which would encompass an applicant's holistic
approach to vehicle safety. This assessment would consider the full
extent of ADS operations requested in an application. The proposed rule
organizes this assessment around three subjects: (a) conformance with
relevant industry standards, best practices, and guidance; (b) a safety
case, including safety management systems; and (c) specific policies
and capabilities.
NHTSA proposes to apply the same independent assessment
requirements for applications requesting participation under Step 1 and
Step 2. However, an independent assessment at Step 2 would need to be
more rigorous because it would need to consider whether the ADS could
be exclusively relied on during operations. In contrast, an independent
assessment at Step 1 could consider the fallback personnel's ability to
mitigate certain risks rather than fully reviewing the ADS' ability to
address those risks. For instance, a review of a Step 1 safety case
could consider safety claims to be satisfied by fallback personnel even
if the evidence available for the ADS would not support those claims.
In contrast, at Step 2, an ADS would be solely responsible for the DDT
within its ODD, and the independent assessment would need to reflect
these heightened expectations.
(a) Conformance With Industry Standards
First, NHTSA proposes to require third-party review of the
conformance of subject vehicles with relevant industry standards, best
practices, and guidance pertaining to the design, development, or
operation of the ADS.\135\ Industry standards are established through
consensus processes in which a written standard is refined by the
collective contributions of members of the standard-setting bodies, who
possess substantial expertise. Industry standards conformance provides
valuable insight into safety design and the extent to which applicants
adopt state-of-the-art practices. Considering industry standards
conformance also aligns with the goals of the National Technology
Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA).\136\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\135\ While not all best practices or guidance may be considered
``standards,'' for simplicity, they are collectively referred to as
``standards'' or ``industry standards'' hereafter.
\136\ See Public Law 104-113 (1996).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the conformance review, an independent assessment would need to
consider which industry standards are relevant to the ADS under review.
Because the relevant standards will likely differ based on the system
in question and the standards used by a manufacturer during the
development process, NHTSA is not currently proposing to prescribe
particular standards with which conformity is required. This
flexibility accounts for the current early stage of industry standards
pertaining to ADS, which continue to evolve along with the
technologies. A variety of standards currently exist, with the
approaches of some standards overlapping or conflicting with others.
Affording an assessor the flexibility to identify the most relevant
standards in place at the time of the assessment would allow the
assessment to adapt to the ADS safety community's prevailing views on
safety approaches and best practices.
For the standards identified as relevant, the independent
assessment would need to determine full conformance, partial
conformance, or nonconformance with each standard. If an entity had
previously obtained an independent assessment for a standard (such as
for an applicant's internal purposes), NHTSA anticipates that a third
party conducting an assessment for AV STEP could consider this prior
review instead of re-assessing to the standard. To do so, the third-
party assessor for AV STEP would need to verify the approach, results,
and continued applicability of the prior assessment.
For each standard with which partial conformance or nonconformance
is determined, an assessor would also need to assess any justification
provided by an applicant for not conforming with the standard or
portion of the standard and consider any potential safety implications
of the nonconformances. If a third-party reviewer's reasoning for not
assessing conformance with a published industry standard relies upon an
alternative standard,\137\ the reviewer should assess conformance with
the alternative standard and explain how the two standards compare.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\137\ This alternative standard could include a standard used in
the entity's development process, such as a company-specific
standard, in lieu of a comparable published standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, the independent assessment would need to evaluate
whether, collectively, the degree of conformance with relevant
standards represents a responsible approach to developing and operating
the subject vehicles. Despite the evolving landscape of industry
standards, understanding how an ADS conforms to industry standards in
the aggregate would help NHTSA ascertain the level of due diligence
applied to the system's development. Disregarding industry standards
without carefully considering how the safety goals of those standards
could be met may be indicative of whether the system was developed in a
responsible way that reflects state-of-the-art safety practices for
ADS.
Finally, to inform how the assessed approach to industry standards
should shape any further development of the system, an assessor would
also need to provide recommendations regarding: (1) the list of
industry standards with which conformance should, in full or in part,
be achieved or maintained during operations; and (2) how to address any
safety gaps that would not be covered even if this recommended
conformance was met. Collectively, the recommendations regarding these
two subjects would help NHTSA consider the practical impacts of the
reviewed approach to industry standards.
(b) Safety Case
The second subject for which NHTSA proposes to require an
independent assessment is the safety case \138\
[[Page 4149]]
detailing how the safety of the subject vehicle, including the safety
of the vehicle's occupants and surrounding road users, is assured for
the operations requested in an application. Many diverse stakeholders
have generally encouraged the agency to consider such safety cases for
ADS. For example, in response to NHTSA's 2020 ``Framework for ADS
Safety'' Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM),\139\ a wide
variety of organizations--including consumer advocacy groups,\140\ ADS
developers,\141\ and local authorities \142\--advocated for NHTSA to
collect and review safety cases. Such comments informed the safety case
review requirements that NHTSA proposes in this subsection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\138\ This proposal defines a safety case as ``a structured
argument, consisting of claims supported by a body of evidence, that
provides a complete, comprehensible, and valid case that a system is
acceptably safe for a given use in a specified environment.'' See
Sec. 597.102 of the proposed rule.
\139\ 85 FR 78058 (December 3, 2020).
\140\ Center for Automotive Safety, Docket No. NHTSA-2020-0106,
Comment ID NHTSA-2020-0106-0763 (April 2, 2021), available at
https://www.regulations.gov/comment/NHTSA-2020-0106-0763.
\141\ Waymo, Docket No. NHTSA-2020-0106-0771 (April 28, 2021),
available at https://www.regulations.gov/comment/NHTSA-2020-0106-0771.
\142\ City of New York, Docket No. NHTSA-2020-0106-0764 (April
2, 2021), available at https://www.regulations.gov/comment/NHTSA-2020-0106-0764.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In general, an independent assessment of an applicant's safety case
would be required to review the validity and soundness of the safety
case. This review would entail considering whether the safety case
claims for the operations of the subject vehicle are supported by
sufficient evidence, as well as whether appropriate processes exist for
maintaining the safety case throughout the operations. Where a
standardized safety case framework has been adopted,\143\ or where
conformance with industry standards supports safety case claims, this
safety case assessment could incorporate the industry standards
assessment described in the prior subsection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\143\ Such as that published by the UL Standards and Engagement
organization: American National Standards Institute (ANSI), ``UL
Standard ANSI/UL4600: Standard for Evaluation of Autonomous
Products:'' (March 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As with industry standards for ADS more generally, standardized
safety case frameworks for ADS have not yet been universally adopted. A
variety of approaches to arguing the safety of ADS design and
operations are currently used across the ADS safety community. NHTSA
currently prefers to encourage the evolution of these different
approaches so that their maximum potential benefit can be realized.
This proposal does not prescribe a specific format for safety cases.
However, to mitigate the potential for variability in safety cases,
NHTSA proposes to require assessment of a set of minimum considerations
fundamental to operational safety.
Specifically, the proposed rule would require detailed analysis for
these nine aspects of a safety case:
Safety Risk Assessment. Whether the safety case comprehensively
identifies and assesses safety risks, including potential vehicle and
operational hazards and faults.
Safety Risk Management. Whether the safety case contains
appropriate risk management, including mitigations, for the risks
identified.
System Evolution. Whether the safety case contains appropriate
processes for maintaining or improving safety over time.
Safety Performance Indicators. Whether the safety case relies on
appropriate safety performance indicators and thresholds.
Conformance with Traffic Safety Law. Whether appropriate processes
exist for identifying applicable traffic safety laws in an area of
operation and overseeing their conformance during operations.
Vehicle Fallback and Assistance. Whether the safety case contains
appropriate processes for ensuring the effectiveness of any expected
fallback or vehicle assistance.
Human Factors. Whether the safety case appropriately accounts for
human factors considerations that may affect safety, including, where
applicable, those related to fallback personnel, vehicle assistance,
vehicle occupants, or surrounding road users.
Crash Avoidance. Whether the safety case appropriately identifies
and considers the variety of crash-imminent situations that could occur
within the operations.\144\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\144\ This should cover the full extent of potential crash
circumstances within the system's ODD, including the full range of
environmental conditions, such as poor lighting or adverse weather
conditions, as well as the full range of other road users that a
subject vehicle could encounter, such as those using mobility aids
or those with sensory impairments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tool Qualification.\145\ Whether software tools used to evaluate
expected ADS performance are representative and accurate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\145\ For further discussion of tool qualification, particularly
with regards to summarizing the tool qualification approaches
outlined by industry consensus standards, including ISO 26262, see,
e.g., M. Conrad, G. Sandmann, and P. Munier, ``Software Tool
Qualification According to ISO 26262'' (April 2011), available at
https://www.mathworks.com/content/dam/mathworks/tag-team/Objects/s/68068-2011-01-1005-mathworks.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
These nine aspects of the safety case review would probe the
robustness of the analytical framework used to develop and oversee the
ADS. In addition, NHTSA proposes for an assessment of the safety case
to further evaluate the safety processes that govern such development
and oversight by also including a review of the safety management
systems \146\ in place to oversee the safety of subject vehicles,
including during development and operations. This review should focus
on the organizations responsible for the safety of operations involving
the subject vehicles, including any Essential System-Level Stakeholders
that would remain engaged with an operation during AV STEP
participation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\146\ See, e.g., AVSC, ``AVSC00007202107: Information Report for
Adapting a Safety Management System (SMS) for Automated Driving
System (ADS) SAE Level 4 and 5 Testing and Evaluation'' (July 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As with the prior elements, NHTSA is not prescribing a specific
type of safety management system for this requirement but, instead,
proposes eight elements for the required review:
Whether the leadership fosters a positive safety culture
and demonstrates a safety commitment throughout the organization. This
element focuses on how leadership support for safety management
policies may affect their use in the organization. For instance, if
leadership prioritizes achieving development milestones in a way that
tacitly discourages internal reporting of safety concerns, internal
reporting policies that read well may not be followed in practice. Such
policies are more likely to reach their full potential if leadership
rewards identifying and resolving safety issues early.
Whether those responsible for the implementation of the
safety management systems possess appropriate resources, authorities,
and accountability. This element would include considerations that
affect the responsibilities of the workforce that would oversee safe
ADS operations. A review under this element may span working
conditions, such as work intensity, fatigue risk, shift length, length
between shifts, and human-to-vehicle ratios for fallback or vehicle
assistance personnel.
Whether there are appropriate policies and processes for
encouraging the reporting and timely investigation of safety-related
concerns from internal staff and members of the public.
Whether appropriate capabilities and policies exist for
monitoring the location and state of each participating vehicle.
Whether appropriate processes exist to monitor safety
performance indicators.
[[Page 4150]]
Whether sufficient capabilities and policies exist for
timely responding to a vehicle incident or immobilization and, if
necessary, to clear a disabled vehicle from the roadway. This review
must estimate a range of time for an expected response.
Whether an appropriate plan exists for reaching timely
decisions regarding future operations if an emergency arises. For
instance, this element should consider the decision-making processes
for determining when and how operations should be curtailed or paused
after an incident.
Whether there are appropriate processes in place for how
Essential System-Level Stakeholders will engage with each other
regarding ongoing operations, including for carrying out software
updates, operational updates, vehicle maintenance, and the collection
and reporting of safety data.
Collectively, these two focuses of a safety case assessment would
provide insight into whether robust safety assurance frameworks exist
for the public operation of subject vehicles and whether sufficient
organizational support underpins those frameworks.
(c) Policies and Capabilities
Finally, NHTSA proposes to require an independent assessment to
cover three other topics. Each of these topics may already be covered
by a comprehensive safety case or by industry standards conformance. If
so, to the extent an assessment already reviewed these topics, it could
be incorporated in satisfying these requirements. However, the proposed
rule separately enumerates the following topics to ensure that they
would be covered by an assessment:
Community Engagement. Whether policies for engaging with state and
local authorities, local communities, and other entities affected by
the subject vehicle's operation are sufficiently robust to identify the
relevant stakeholders, provide them with appropriate information
regarding operations, engage with them about concerns, and meaningfully
address those concerns as needed. These relevant stakeholders may range
from law enforcement, first responders, and local regulatory
authorities to labor organizations representing the transportation
workforce to residents that live in the area in which the subject
vehicles would operate. The appropriate engagement processes likely
depend on the stakeholders and operations in question. However,
examples of potentially effective engagement strategies from NHTSA's
past experience administering ADS exemptions in AVEP include town halls
hosted by an ADS developer to allow members of the community to express
their views on local operations, demonstrations with local law
enforcement of how to interact with the vehicle during an emergency
situation, and coordination with local officials and law enforcement
about how proposed operations may affect local traffic patterns.
Training and Qualifications of Personnel. Whether the personnel
responsible for developing and maintaining the safety case or executing
safety critical processes possess appropriate qualifications and
training. This should include consideration of training procedures and
materials used, on both an initial and ongoing basis. ADS-equipped
vehicles rely, and are expected to continue to rely, on a skilled human
workforce. Working conditions and training are a key component of
achieving safe ADS operations. To help the agency explore the potential
scope of information that a review of this element should cover, NHTSA
requests comment on the following topics pertaining to how workforce
considerations may affect ADS safety: (1) what data could participants
in AV STEP provide to further the Department's understanding of
impacts, both positive and negative, to the safety of the
transportation workforce; and (2) what data could participants in AV
STEP provide regarding safety-promoting working conditions, including
training, certifications, workplace location, shift length, and
workload, for both vehicle assistance and fallback personnel?
Data Capture. Whether the data capture capabilities for the subject
vehicle suffice to meet the data reporting requirements in AV
STEP.\147\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\147\ This aspect of an assessment would focus on the data
logging capabilities of the vehicle and their ability to support the
requirements detailed in Subpart E of the proposed rule. It would
not necessarily need to cover the data governance plan information
described earlier in this section.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Summary Report Requirements
NHTSA proposes to require that information regarding an assessment
be submitted in an application in the form of a summary report prepared
by the independent assessor. NHTSA is not proposing a particular
format, as the specific subjects under assessment will likely impact
the optimal format. However, for each subject an assessment is required
to review, a summary report would need to provide an overview of the
assessor's findings and the basis for each finding.
A report would also be required to provide an overview of how these
findings were made. To do so, a report would describe the materials
reviewed during the assessment, such as by outlining the material and
the means of review. A report would also describe the process and
format of the review. For instance, this description could include
information regarding the review approach (such as analysis methods and
tools or in-person meetings and reviews) and the procedures used to
structure the review (such as procedures for identifying relevant
standards or reviewing the safety case). A report would further
describe the methods used to identify potential inconsistencies, gaps,
logical fallacies, or other concerns about the information provided for
review. And to help understand how the assessment was overseen, a
report would describe any processes in place to manage the assessment.
The proposed rule lists two additional aspects of an assessment
that would be addressed in a summary report to help NHTSA consider how
the findings of the assessment translate to the agency's review of the
operations requested in an application. First, the report would need to
provide an overview of any concerns identified during an assessment,
including all recommendations made to the applicant(s) regarding those
concerns.\148\ Second, the report would define the parameters under
which the assessment and its conclusions are valid. This overview
should account for potential future changes to operations, system
design, or processes for which the assessment would remain valid. The
overview should also explain any limitations or qualifiers to the
conclusions of the assessment. This information would help NHTSA to
consider whether any changes to an operation during participation
exceeded the scope of a prior assessment.\149\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\148\ This information would help NHTSA evaluate the extent to
which an applicant sought to implement an assessor's feedback when
reviewing an applicant's response to the information required under
Sec. 597.205(e) of the proposed rule.
\149\ Section V.A.3 (Update Reporting) and Sec. 597.502 of the
proposed rule describe how changes to an operation would be
overseen.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lastly, a report would need to describe any access restrictions
that limited the assessment.\150\ This information, along with the
context information submitted by an applicant under the next
subsection, would help NHTSA gauge whether any procedural
[[Page 4151]]
difficulties may have impacted the assessment's informative value.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\150\ For example, if an applicant refused to make certain
documentation or data available to the assessor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Assessment Context Requirements
NHTSA proposes to require an applicant to submit additional
information about the broader context of the independent assessment.
The proposed rule focuses on two topics for this context. First, an
applicant would need to explain any measures taken in response to each
of the recommendations listed in the independent assessment summary
report. To explain these measures, an applicant would likely need to
not only describe the changes made but also explain how they were
responsive to the recommendations. In addition, this element would
provide an applicant with an opportunity to explain the reasoning for
not following any recommendations.
Second, the applicant would need to describe any other independent
assessments initiated for the subjects required of an AV STEP
assessment.\151\ This information would inform whether an applicant
engaged in forum shopping for a favorable assessment. For instance,
this element would reveal if an assessment submitted in an application
replaced a less favorable assessment or if an assessment was terminated
early to avoid unfavorable findings. This information would help inform
the credibility of the conclusions in an assessment submitted under AV
STEP. For instance, if an assessment submitted under AV STEP was
favorable to an applicant but the applicant prematurely terminated a
prior assessment to avoid unfavorable findings, that context could
raise questions about the credibility of the completed assessment.
Nevertheless, NHTSA recognizes that there may be good faith reasons to
terminate, replace, or update a prior assessment. To account for this
possibility, NHTSA proposes to require the disclosure of information
about the prior assessments but is not proposing to automatically
disqualify assessments that were preceded by other assessments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\151\ Section 597.205(e) of the proposed rule explains the
specific content that would be required for this description.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Reliability and Credibility Disclosures
To help NHTSA consider the informative value of an assessment, an
application would need to contain information about the reliability and
credibility of the assessor. This information would focus on the
assessor's independence, qualifications, and resources.
(a) Assessor Qualifications and Resources
NHTSA proposes to require that an assessment be conducted by a
qualified assessor with adequate resources. The proposed rule would
require an assessment to be carried out by an assessor (including its
personnel) with suitable education, technical expertise, experience,
and accreditations. The relevant qualifications would depend on the
technical fields implicated by the analyses undertaken in each
assessment. In addition, an assessor would need to maintain appropriate
policies and practices for conducting and organizing an assessment.
This requirement would ensure that reviewers apply their expertise in a
structured and consistent manner, such as through standard procedures
for completing and supervising assessments. Finally, assessors would
need to maintain appropriate facilities and resources for the
assessments. These could include physical facilities and resources as
well as software capabilities.
An application would need to contain supporting information
regarding these attributes. Specifically, the proposed rule would
require the submission of the curriculum vitae of key personnel
involved in the assessment, any accreditations relevant to the review,
and a description of all policies or protocols that governed the
assessment. NHTSA may ask for additional information about the assessor
as part of the review process.
(b) Assessor Independence
The informative value of an independent assessment depends upon the
assessor retaining independence to objectively apply its expertise. To
that end, Sec. 597.205(f) of the proposed rule would address two types
of conflicts of interest: (1) disqualifying conflicts; and (2)
potential conflicts for which disclosure is required. Even so, the
conflict-of-interest situations expressly listed in the proposed rule
may not be exhaustive.\152\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\152\ Other agencies have acknowledged this limitation when
considering third-party reviews for their own programs. For example,
the Food and Drug Administration has stated that: it is not feasible
to identify or state categorically or inflexibly all of the criteria
for judging that a third party is free of conflicts of interest. 61
FR 14789, 14794 (April 3, 1996).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
When conducting a case-by-case review of the credibility of
assessments under this program, NHTSA would consider any other
indication of a conflict of interest that may appear. The proposed
requirements would provide a foundation for this inquiry. As an
additional safeguard, NHTSA proposes to require each application
submitted for AV STEP to contain a certification from the assessor that
the assessment represents the assessor's independent judgment and that
none of the disqualifying conflicts of interest discussed in the next
paragraph exist.
NHTSA proposes to consider three situations as causing such a
significant risk of bias that the assessment would not fulfill AV
STEP's independent assessment requirements. The first such situation is
if an assessor \153\ is owned, operated, or controlled (directly or
indirectly) by a party with a financial interest in a particular
disposition of the application. The most common example of this
situation would likely be full or partial ownership by an Essential
System-Level Stakeholder or one of its subsidiaries,\154\ but this
situation could also arise through grants or other types of funding.
The second disqualifying situation is if an assessor has any ownership
or financial interest in an interested party to the application. An
assessor that is an investor in an Essential-System Level Stakeholder
would be one example of this second situation.\155\ The third situation
is if the fee structure for an assessment depends in any way on the
outcome of the assessment or application. This situation could include
a fee structure contingent on admission into AV STEP or on the
submission of an application that includes the proposed assessment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\153\ As proposed, the assessor in these situations would also
include any personnel or contractors used by the assessor for the
review.
\154\ NHTSA understands that some companies have internal
auditing organizations. This requirement would preclude those
organizations from conducting an independent assessment for AV STEP.
Nevertheless, NHTSA recognizes the value that internal auditing
practices can add and expects those practices to reflect positively
on the safety management systems under review in an assessment.
\155\ This requirement is not meant to prohibit de minimis or
sufficiently diversified interests. Cf. 28 U.S.C. 208; 5 CFR part
2640.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Even if an assessor does not have one of these disqualifying
conflicts, an assessment's objectivity could be compromised by an
assessor's history with the subjects under review. The proposed rule
expressly lists two such situations: (1) if an assessor participated in
the design, manufacture, or distribution of a product; \156\ or (2) if
an assessor was otherwise separately engaged in the development of a
project within the scope of the assessment.\157\ \158\ In either of
these two
[[Page 4152]]
types of situations, an assessor's judgment may be clouded by a direct
stake in some of the decisions under review. However, given the nuances
of these scenarios and the possibility that potential bias could be
mitigated, NHTSA is not proposing to categorically disqualify an
assessment where these circumstances exist. Instead, NHTSA proposes to
require disclosure to allow the agency to consider how they affected
the credibility of the assessment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\156\ An assessor that previously conducted internal reviews for
a company during the ADS design process would be an example of this
first situation.
\157\ An example of this second situation could involve an
entity that, before conducting an assessment, was engaged to help
shape the project that is the subject of the request, such as by
reviewing and recommending locations for operations.
\158\ Neither of these scenarios is meant to cover situations
where the recommendations of an assessor during an assessment for AV
STEP leads to changes in the product or proposed operation. NHTSA
specifically encourages such recommendations and requests
information about them in an application. See Sec. Sec. 597.205(c)
and 597.205(f) of the proposed rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
E. Application Review
The proposed AV STEP application review is a three-phase process
that considers the unique facts and circumstances of each request.
NHTSA would consider the totality of the information available when
issuing a Final Determination Letter governing the terms of
participation.
Individualized review is necessary to account for the intricacies
of each ADS and the operations that may be requested. The safety of the
ADS depends on the full context of an operation. The relevant safety
considerations for ADS are often as varied as the driving tasks that an
ADS seeks to perform. Nuances of an operation--such as the time a
nearby school dismisses students or how a system accounts for seasonal
changes in vegetation--can meaningfully affect the risk of an
operation. For these reasons, NHTSA proposes a review process that
allows the agency to consider the most relevant aspects of each
operation.
The proposed procedures are also intended to expedite review.
Reviews of ADS are complex and data-intensive. Aspects of the proposal,
including the independent assessment and other upfront submission
requirements, are specifically designed to enable efficient and
transparent review.\159\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\159\ As discussed in Section VI (Public Reporting Requirements
(Regulatory Text Subpart G)), NHTSA proposes to publish the dates on
which an application was received, progressed through each review
phase, and reached a final decision. This will enable stakeholders
and the public to observe the typical timing for an application
review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NHTSA proposes three review phases: Initial Review (Phase 1);
Follow-up Review (Phase 2); and Preliminary Determination (Phase 3).
The first phase would immediately follow the submission of an
application. NHTSA would provide each applicant with a notice of
receipt of the application, which would identify an agency point of
contact for the review and advise whether any required information
appeared to be missing from the application. During Phase 1, NHTSA
would likely schedule introductory meetings with the applicant(s) and
any entities that performed an independent assessment.\160\ NHTSA would
focus on understanding the request and identifying any follow-up items.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\160\ Section 597.106(b) of the proposed rule would establish,
as a condition of the program, NHTSA's ability to communicate freely
and without restriction with any entity that performed an
independent assessment submitted as part of an application.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The second review phase would begin with NHTSA's issuance of a
Follow-Up Index to an applicant, identifying items for which NHTSA
requests additional information. Follow-up may involve either
discussions or a written response and may be iterative. The extent of
this engagement would depend on the breadth of follow-up required and
the completeness and timeliness of an applicant's responses.
After all follow-up has been addressed, NHTSA would initiate Phase
3 of the review process by issuing a proposed decision (``Preliminary
Determination'') to the applicant(s). This Preliminary Determination
would contain the terms and conditions proposed to govern
participation. Providing proposed conditions to applicants would
facilitate resolving or mitigating any problems before a final decision
is issued. For instance, an applicant might be able to eliminate the
need for a condition by curing or clarifying an issue. Similarly,
providing an applicant with the opportunity to review the conditions up
front would encourage dialogue about refinements that could accomplish
the agency's goals in a less burdensome or more technically feasible
way.
Section 597.403 of the proposed rule would establish a consistent
set of considerations for NHTSA when selecting terms and conditions.
Specifically, NHTSA would evaluate the extent to which any required
reports may further NHTSA's understanding of a vehicle's performance,
operations, or ADS; the feasibility of analyzing any reported
information; and the extent to which the terms and conditions are
consistent with motor vehicle safety and further the purposes of 49
U.S.C. 30101.
During the application review process, NHTSA would assess an
applicant's proposed metrics and thresholds and develop terms for each
customized requirement, as discussed above. NHTSA would consider the
extent to which the proposed terms fulfill the required subject of
reporting and their anticipated value for overseeing the subject
vehicle. This consideration would balance the need for consistent
reporting subjects with the reality that many safety topics for ADS
currently lack established approaches to judging performance. Different
entities currently use a variety of metrics to measure the safety of
certain subjects, and the differences among stakeholders' systems and
approaches may cause some metrics to be more informative for some
systems than others.
Under the proposed procedures, on the tenth business day after
issuing a preliminary determination, NHTSA would generally issue a
final decision that adopts the proposed terms.\161\ This timeline would
be extended if any applicant requests, in writing, additional time or a
change to a Preliminary Determination.\162\ Upon such a request, any
necessary next steps for an application would be determined on a case-
by-case basis. To limit this process and enable timely determinations,
unless NHTSA has granted a longer extension request, NHTSA may finalize
any Preliminary Determination that has been pending for 60 days even if
an applicant continues to request changes. The agency expects that it
would likely consider extension requests for longer than 60 days for
applicants seeking, in good faith, to resolve outstanding issues.
However, this 60-day timeframe provides a backstop that would ensure
efficient use of agency resources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\161\ The proposed procedures would allow NHTSA to withdraw a
Preliminary Determination at any time before issuing a final
decision. For example, this could occur if NHTSA becomes aware of
new information after issuing a Preliminary Determination.
\162\ Similarly, at any time after the issuance of a Preliminary
Determination, an applicant would be able to request, in writing,
that the Preliminary Determination become final. If this occurs,
NHTSA would aim to issue a Final Determination Letter sooner than
ten business days.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
V. Participation (Regulatory Text Subparts E and F)
Proposed requirements for participation in AV STEP include: (1)
general reporting on a quarterly basis; (2) event-triggered reporting
of certain incidents and events during operations; and (3) reporting on
updates to an operation. NHTSA also proposes an amendment process for
changes in terms or conditions of participation and a concern
resolution process that the
[[Page 4153]]
agency would use to investigate and respond to any concerns that arise
during participation.
A. Reporting Requirements
NHTSA proposes a reporting framework to help NHTSA oversee the
performance of ADS-equipped vehicles admitted to AV STEP. For these
reporting requirements, the agency drew on its experience overseeing
ADS-equipped vehicle performance in other contexts, such as other
exemptions and enforcement activities.\163\ Table V-1 provides a high-
level depiction of the reporting requirements detailed in Subpart E of
the proposed rule. In addition to these generally applicable
requirements, NHTSA may set further reporting requirements on a case-
by-case basis, through terms and conditions in a Final Determination
Letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\163\ See, e.g., NHTSA, ``Second Amended Standing General Order
2021-01: Incident Reporting for Automated Driving Systems (ADS) and
Level 2 Advanced Driver Assistance Systems (ADAS)'' (April 2023),
available at https://www.nhtsa.gov/laws-regulations/standing-general-order-crash-reporting; and NHTSA and Cruise, LLC, ``In re:
Cruise, LLC Standing General Order 2021-01 Reporting, Consent
Order'' (September 26, 2024), available at https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.gov/files/2024-09/cruise-consent-order-2024-web.pdf.
Table V-1--AV STEP Reporting Requirements Overview
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Periodic Reporting For Each Extent of Operations:
Location Sheet. Number of Vehicles Operated &
Vehicle Identifiers.
Zip Code(s) of Operation.
Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT)
with ADS Engaged, segmented by: Zip
Code, Hour of Day, & Presence of Onboard
Fallback Personnel.
Operational Context.
Operational Performance:
Vehicle Recovery Events.
Otherwise Unreported Contact
Events.
Aggressive Jerk and Acceleration/
Deceleration Instances.
Instances of Unplanned
Interruptions to ADS Operation.
Step 1 Specific:
Customized--Fallback Personnel
Performance Metrics.
Step 2 Specific:
Minimal Risk Condition
Description, Duration, and Location.
Customized--Objective
Performance Metrics, Design Adherence
Metrics, & Process Adherence Metrics.
AV STEP Exemption Specific: VMT
Segmentation by VIN.
Event-Triggered Reporting.... Otherwise Unreported Crash
Data.*
Citable Offenses.
Reportable Changes.
Reportable Changes........... Operational Changes that Exceed
Customized Thresholds.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* NHTSA proposes for current reporting requirements to largely satisfy
this element; subsection 2 discusses this proposal in further detail.
1. Periodic Reporting
To continually assess the performance of participating operations,
NHTSA proposes that certain data be reported on a quarterly basis.
These periodic reporting requirements are in Sec. 597.500 of the
proposed rule. As proposed, each quarterly report would be due on the
final business day of the first month that follows the reporting
period. This schedule would provide participants with nearly a month to
process data and prepare reports for the previous quarter. This
quarterly timeframe would balance the need for timely performance
updates with the burden of more frequent reporting. NHTSA seeks comment
on whether this quarterly cadence is appropriate and whether any
reporting requirements should be revised, added, or removed.
(a) Reporting Requirements for All Participants
NHTSA proposes a set of baseline reporting requirements for all
participants, to ensure receipt of standard information about all
participating operations. This proposed standard reporting would be by
Location Sheet for a given reporting period. The first five
requirements below are proposed to capture the extent of operations,
while the latter five requirements are proposed to cover aspects of ADS
performance during operations. These proposed reporting requirements,
detailed in Sec. 597.500(c) of the proposed rule, are:
Number of Vehicles Operated. The total number of vehicles that
operated under the Location Sheet during the reporting period. As
proposed, this number would include any vehicles that accumulated
vehicle miles traveled (VMT) on public roads. However, NHTSA requests
comment on whether it should specify a de minimis VMT threshold below
which a vehicle need not be reported.
Vehicle Identification Number (VIN). The VIN of each vehicle
included under the preceding requirement. This would link a particular
vehicle to the associated terms and conditions of a participation.
Zip Codes of Operation. Each zip code in which a vehicle operated
on a public road.
Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) with the ADS Engaged. The aggregate
vehicle miles traveled with the ADS engaged, segmented by:
(1) Hour of day; \164\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\164\ For example, a report could state that ``x'' VMT were
accrued between 8:00 a.m. and 9:00 a.m. and ``x'' VMT were accrued
between 9:00 a.m. and 10:00 a.m.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(2) Presence of onboard fallback personnel; and
(3) Each zip code, which would serve as the primary means of
segmenting VMT to better understand where operations occur within the
geographic area of a Location Sheet. Alternatively, the agency could
require that participants report VMT data by road type in addition to
zip code. This information would reveal how driving environments are
represented in operations. The agency seeks comment on this
alternative, particularly as to feasibility.
Operational Context. This requirement would provide insight into
how a particular participating operation compares to other, non-AV STEP
operations conducted by the same key entities and help NHTSA and the
public understand whether numbers reported under AV STEP represent a
large or small proportion of those broader operations. This context
would also
[[Page 4154]]
help avoid misleading the public about the state of a participant's
technology.\165\ To do so, NHTSA proposes reporting on two types of
comparisons. The first would consider how the number of subject
vehicles that participated under each Location Sheet compared to the
number of vehicles for three types of total operations (if they
involved the same combination of vehicle manufacturer, ADS developer,
and fleet operator, regardless of AV STEP participation): (1)
operations on public roads in the United States; (2) operations on
public roads in a geographical area that overlaps the area for the
Location Sheet; and (3) operations on public roads that involve the
same vehicle model as the subject vehicle. The second comparison would
be similar but based on VMT instead of vehicle numbers. Specifically,
it would consider how the VMT accumulated with the ADS engaged on
public roads under each Location Sheet compared to the VMT for the same
three types of broader operations described earlier in this paragraph.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\165\ This might occur, for example, where participation is
sought at Step 2 in a very limited environment when most of the
applicant's operations outside of AV STEP are less mature.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vehicle Recovery Events (VREs). Describe each VRE involving a
subject vehicle. NHTSA proposes to define a VRE as any instance in
which a vehicle needed to be recovered during roadway operations by
personnel other than those already on board the subject vehicle. This
would include, but not be limited to, recovery after achieving an MRC.
A report for this requirement should include, for each VRE, the
duration and location of the vehicle's immobilization before its
recovery and the reason that vehicle recovery was required. A report
for this requirement should also, wherever applicable, cross-reference
any other report required by AV STEP associated with the VRE, such as a
report of a crash or contact event.
Otherwise Unreported Contact Events. Describe any contact event
that does not meet the event-triggered crash reporting criteria
discussed in Section V.A.2 (Event-Triggered Reporting). The proposed
rule defines a contact event as any event in which a subject vehicle
comes into physical contact with another vehicle, road user,
individual, animal, or physical object. This definition would not
include benign intentional contact, such as upon a passenger entering
or exiting a vehicle while it is stationary, or intentional tire
contact with a curb \166\ below speeds of 5 miles per hour. The less
serious nature of contact events that do not meet the injury or
property damage thresholds for crash reporting reduces the need for
more immediate reporting. Nevertheless, this reporting could provide
valuable insight on ADS performance. The agency seeks comment on
whether the reporting threshold for these contact events may be refined
to better distinguish potentially meaningful events.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\166\ For example, when coming to a stop at low speeds to
maximize passing space for other vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Instances of Aggressive Vehicle Jerk.\167\ Report the total number
of instances of a rate of change in vehicle acceleration that exceeds a
customized threshold. NHTSA is considering two options for the
applicable thresholds and the subsequent reporting requirement. First,
the agency could allow applicants to submit proposed thresholds during
the application process. Ideally, these would consist of thresholds
that an entity already uses internally. This information could enable a
greater level of insight if applicants propose more stringent
thresholds than those that the agency might impose. It would also
enable NHTSA to review the reporting through the same lens used by an
entity to review its own operations. Alternately, the agency could
establish default thresholds but accept proposals of lower
thresholds.\168\ While such a requirement would add some consistency to
this reporting, it could dissuade applicants from proposing more
stringent thresholds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\167\ For discussion of the use of jerk as a suggested predictor
of safe vehicle motion control, see AVSC, ``AVSC00006202103: Best
Practice for Metrics and Methods for Assessing Safety Performance of
ADS'' (March 2021).
\168\ For instance, it may be less burdensome for an entity to
report based off of a more stringent internal threshold than to set
up a new process for collecting events based on NHTSA's default
threshold.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Instances of Aggressive Vehicle Acceleration or Deceleration.
Report the total number of instances of vehicle acceleration or
deceleration exceeding a customized threshold.\169\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\169\ See the discussion for Instances of Aggressive Vehicle
Jerk regarding potential approaches to establishing such thresholds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unplanned Interruptions. Report the total number of each of the
following types of interruptions to the ADS, if unplanned:
Initiation of an MRM by: (1) the ADS; (2) an occupant of
the subject vehicle; or (3) remote personnel. This reporting
requirement would encompass instances in which an MRC is achieved as
well as instances in which an MRM is initiated but an MRC is not
achieved (for any reason).
DDT takeovers \170\ other than those reported under the
prior element. Most of these interruptions will likely entail
intervention by onboard fallback personnel to disengage the ADS and
take control of the vehicle. If an ADS initiated or completed an MRM
and fallback personnel subsequently assumed control of the vehicle to
resume driving, the situation would be reported under the prior element
rather than this one to avoid double counting events.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\170\ See Sec. 597.102 of the proposed rule for definition of
DDT Takeover.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Instances in which any direct control authority of the
vehicle is exercised remotely, other than those reported under the two
preceding elements. For example, if remote steering was used to correct
the path of a vehicle but the ADS retained responsibility for lateral
control of the vehicle and an MRM was never executed.
Instances in which onboard vehicle assistance alters the
ADS' operations. This requirement would capture situations in which an
individual providing vehicle assistance from within the subject vehicle
corrects or changes the anticipated behavior of the ADS.\171\ This
requirement would not cover a situation where an individual providing
remote vehicle assistance only confirms the projected ADS behavior. For
instance, if an ADS-equipped vehicle encountered a potential obstacle
in the roadway and requested vehicle assistance regarding whether to
proceed on an identified path, this element would count situations
where the assistance changed the path identified by the ADS but not
situations where assistance simply confirmed the ADS' prospective
path.\172\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\171\ In some situations, personnel may be physically present in
the vehicle but acting in a vehicle assistance role rather than as
onboard test drivers who would have the ability to exercise full
control over the vehicle's DDT.
\172\ If the ADS initiates an MRC in circumstances where it
requests vehicle assistance, but none is received within a certain
time frame, such an event would require reporting under the first
category of interruptions. If subsequent vehicle assistance changed
the behavior projected by the ADS, that would require vehicle
assistance reporting as well.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Instances in which remote vehicle assistance alters the
ADS' operation. This element covers the same situation as the preceding
element, but for vehicle assistance provided from a physical location
outside of the subject vehicle.
Any occurrence other than the five types of interruptions
described above that significantly alters the intended operation of the
ADS. Although the preceding categories would likely make up the
majority of unplanned
[[Page 4155]]
interruptions, this category provides a catch-all for any other
circumstances in which unplanned interruptions could occur. For
instance, it would include a situation where a vehicle component
experienced a catastrophic failure that caused the vehicle to stop
operating without any initiation of an MRC.
NHTSA recognizes that the ADS community has a range of perspectives
on the value of considering unplanned interruptions (such as
disengagements) when assessing ADS performance. Some stakeholders
express concern that disengagements do not provide a meaningful point
of comparison between ADS \173\ because disengagement metrics are
affected by many factors that vary across operations. For instance, a
lower rate of disengagement may simply mean that a system is traveling
on less complicated roads than another system. Relying too heavily on
disengagement numbers to assess ADS safety could disincentivize
fallback personnel from intervening for safety. Nevertheless, NHTSA's
experience in receiving this type of data in other contexts indicates
the data's value. For instance, periodic reporting can illustrate how a
particular system is performing on a given route, such as by
pinpointing particularly difficult intersections or identifying how
other variables, such as seasonal changes or weather patterns, can
affect the same ADS operations over time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\173\ See, e.g., Levi Sumagaysay, ``Self-driving companies:
Don't measure us by `disengagements,' '' Protocol (February 26,
2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, NHTSA is also considering an additional reporting
requirement for instances in which vehicle assistance or remote driving
inputs are not executed by the vehicle. Examples of this reporting
could include instances in which an ADS does not follow a route
provided by vehicle assistance due to a change in the roadway
environment, such as a VRU entering the vehicle's path, or instances in
which a malfunction or design flaw causes the ADS to not follow an
input to the system. NHTSA is not currently proposing to include this
reporting element because the agency believes these situations would
either be a desired result of intended functionality or, for ADS
failures, largely covered by other proposed reporting elements.
However, NHTSA seeks comment on the frequency of such occurrences and
their reporting value.
(b) Step 1 Unique Reporting
In addition to the standard requirements in the previous
subsection, participants at Step 1 would be required to report safety
metrics to gauge the performance of fallback personnel under customized
terms.\174\ These reports would occur with the same periodic cadence as
the other requirements in this subsection (V.A.1) and be segmented by
Location Sheet. Applications for Step 1 participation would need to
contain proposed metrics for this requirement and include the
information required for customized terms in Sec. 597.206 of the
proposed rule. Possible examples of these types of safety metrics
include reporting of violations of fallback personnel processes or data
associated with distraction monitoring. For instance, SAE J3018
provides that companies engaged in ADS testing should use a
``monitoring system in the test vehicle capable of detecting and
recording incidents of prolonged inattention, error and/or misuse by
[in-vehicle fallback test drivers] during test trips.'' \175\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\174\ Section IV.A.3 (Confirmation of Reporting During
Participation) discusses NHTSA's proposed approach to using
customized terms for certain reporting requirements.
\175\ SAE International, ``J3018 DEC2020: Safety-Relevant
Guidance for On-Road Testing of Prototype Automated Driving System
(ADS)-Operated Vehicles,'' Section 6.3: IFTD State Monitoring,
(Revised December 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Currently, many different approaches exist for monitoring the
effectiveness of onboard test drivers in performing the DDT fallback
function, and many stakeholders have their own unique standards for
doing so. As a result, it would be premature to impose standard metrics
for this assessment. Establishing customized terms would instead enable
these metrics to fit each stakeholder's processes and allow NHTSA to
consider a range of approaches.
(c) Step 2 Unique Reporting
This proposal includes additional reporting requirements for Step 2
participation to account for the elevated scope and maturity expected
of Step 2 systems. This reporting would also occur on a quarterly basis
and be segmented by Location Sheet. Section 597.500(e) of the proposed
rule includes four reporting requirements for Step 2 participants.
First, it would require reporting of the VIN, duration, location, and
cause of each minimal risk condition that was achieved. For this
requirement, the agency is considering defining the relevant duration
as either the period of time that elapses between the initiation of an
MRM and the termination of an achieved MRC, or the period of time that
elapses between the time MRC is achieved and its termination.
Resumption of ADS operation, completion of a VRE, and DDT takeover are
all examples of events that would be considered as terminating
achievement of an MRC.
For the remaining three proposed reporting requirements, Step 2
participants would be required to report metrics for the following
subjects under customized terms: \176\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\176\ Section IV.A.3 (Confirmation of Reporting During
Participation) discusses NHTSA's proposed approach to using
customized terms for certain reporting requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The safety performance of the ADS, including adherence to
the expected driving behavior and scenarios in which there is an
increased likelihood of a crash. Metrics proposed for this term should
be feasible to measure without proprietary access to the ADS.\177\ This
would enable the agency to evaluate whether metrics that rely on data
that can be collected and analyzed independent of the ADS, such as via
a separately-installed measurement device, can effectively monitor
safety performance.\178\ For example, this element could involve
tracking and analyzing a safety envelope metric \179\ or other
instantaneous safety metrics.\180\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\177\ In practice, AV STEP participations will involve direct
access to vehicle data. As such, the data actually used for this
metric may be collected via proprietary access to the ADS even if
that data could also have been measured independently.
\178\ NHTSA is already undertaking research in this area, as
explained in a recent report to Congress: NHTSA is researching the
development of ground truth trip recorder tools that can be
installed on an ADS equipped vehicle. Such a system would record the
surround view data with its own independent perception stack to
identify scenarios and ADS behaviors of interest that are
encountered during public on-road driving. The ground truth trip
recorder is separate from the ADS itself and would not interfere
with any aspects of the ADS functionality. See NHTSA, ``Report to
Congress: Automated Vehicles,'' https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.gov/files/2023-06/Automated-Vehicles-Report-to-Congress-06302023.pdf.
\179\ AVSC, ``AVSC00006202103: Best Practice for Metrics and
Methods for Assessing Safety Performance of ADS'' (March 2021)
describes a violation of a safety envelope metric as ``a violation
of a kinematically defined state space around a vehicle that
represents a buffer between the subject vehicle and other objects in
the environment,'' and notes that ``the separation threshold may be
contextually modified.'' This AVSC best practice also discusses the
potential correlation of these types of metrics to safety outcomes
and provides additional relevant references.
\180\ ISM and MPrISM are examples of instantaneous safety
metrics. See, respectively, Joshua Every et al., ``A Novel Method To
Evaluate The Safety Of Highly Automated Vehicles,'' No. 17-0076,
available at https://www-esv.nhtsa.dot.gov/Proceedings/25/25ESV-000076.pdf and Bowen Weng et al., ``Model Predictive Instantaneous
Safety Metric for Evaluation of Automated Driving Systems'' (May
2020), available at https://arxiv.org/abs/2005.09999.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The extent to which the system-level performance of the
ADS adheres to design assumptions or expectations. This element could
involve a variety of metrics, such as those regarding object and event
detection and response
[[Page 4156]]
(OEDR) reaction time,\181\ other system latency considerations, or
metrics regarding the identification and reduction of system
errors.\182\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\181\ Defined as ``the time it takes for the ADS to initiate a
measurable response following the onset of an initiating event in
the context of scenario-based testing in a controlled environment
(e.g., track testing or simulation)'' by AVSC, ``AVSC00006202103:
Best Practice for Metrics and Methods for Assessing Safety
Performance of ADS'' (March 2021).
\182\ Specific system error reduction concepts--for example,
identification of observed anomalies relative to model assumptions
or object classification accuracy and precision--can be found in
ANSI, ``UL Standard ANSI/UL4600: Standard for Evaluation of
Autonomous Products,'' (March 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adherence to internal safety processes during the subject
vehicle's development or operations. This element could include
reporting of response times relative to established thresholds or
metrics associated with understanding what proportion of issues that
may arise result from best practice violations.
2. Event-Triggered Reporting
In addition to the periodic reporting discussed above, NHTSA also
proposes to require AV STEP participants to report certain incidents or
events on an ad hoc basis when they occur. Section 597.501 of the
proposed rule sets forth three such ``event-triggered'' categories of
reporting.
Crash reporting is the first proposed category of event-triggered
reporting. NHTSA proposes to largely incorporate the current scope of
crash reporting under NHTSA's Second Amended Standing General Order
(SGO) 2021-01, which was issued in April 2023.\183\ To incorporate the
scope of the SGO, Sec. 597.501(b) of the proposed rule would
incorporate the SGO definition of a crash. The content required for a
crash report would be set by a term in the Final Determination Letter.
NHTSA expects this content to match the most current Incident Report
Form for the SGO.\184\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\183\ NHTSA, ``Second Amended Standing General Order 2021-01:
Incident Reporting for Automated Driving Systems (ADS) and Level 2
Advanced Driver Assistance Systems (ADAS)'' (April 5, 2023)
available at https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.gov/files/2023-04/Second-Amended-SGO-2021-01_2023-04-05_2.pdf.
\184\ The current Incident Report Form is available as appendix
C to the SGO. See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The SGO has enabled NHTSA to quickly identify crashes and assess
whether they should be investigated. NHTSA anticipates that most--if
not all--participants in AV STEP would also be responsible for
reporting under the SGO. As long as the SGO or any analogous form of
reporting remains in place, reports outside of AV STEP should provide
NHTSA with effective oversight of crashes involving subject vehicles.
To avoid duplicate reporting between AV STEP and the SGO, Sec.
597.501(f) of the proposed rule would treat a timely report under the
SGO (including any future form it may take) \185\ as meeting the AV
STEP crash reporting requirement, as long as the SGO report contained
all of the information required for a crash report in this program. As
explained in the prior paragraph, the scope of crash reporting in AV
STEP would be set by the combined requirements of the proposed rule and
terms of a Final Determination Letter. NHTSA expects the scope of this
reporting to mirror the most current version of the SGO. Therefore,
timely crash reporting under the SGO would typically satisfy crash
reporting for AV STEP. If an SGO report containing the information
required by a Final Determination Letter is submitted for a subject
vehicle, a participant would simply need to submit notice of the
Location Sheet applicable to the report (as well as potentially submit
any video, as discussed in the next paragraph).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\185\ NHTSA is considering a rulemaking relating to the SGO's
requirements since the SGO was issued as an enforcement order and is
scheduled to sunset in April 2026 if not renewed. See Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs, ``Unified Agenda of Regulatory
and Deregulatory Actions,'' RIN 2127-AM63: Incident Reporting
Requirements for Automated Driving Systems and Level 2 Advanced
Driver Assistance Systems, available at https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/eAgendaViewRule?pubId=202404&RIN=2127-AM63.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NHTSA also proposes to expand on the current scope of SGO reporting
in two ways. First, NHTSA proposes to require reporting of all crashes
involving subject vehicles regardless of the engagement status of the
ADS, whereas the SGO applies only if the ADS was engaged at any point
within 30 seconds of a crash. This expanded reporting would ensure that
any crashes involving AV STEP vehicles are known.\186\ Second, NHTSA
proposes to require a participant to submit any video footage possessed
by an Essential System-Level Stakeholder for any incident that meets
the most urgent level of proposed crash reporting.\187\ NHTSA often
obtains video footage of ADS crashes to help assess incidents as part
of its follow-up with entities on their SGO reports. Crashes that would
require video reporting in AV STEP would also be reportable under the
current scope of the SGO. As described in the prior paragraph, those
SGO reports would likely satisfy the need to report the crash in AV
STEP apart from providing this video footage and advising NHTSA of the
Location Sheet applicable to the crash.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\186\ A report would also need to indicate whether the ADS was
engaged at any point during the time surrounding the crash.
\187\ This would apply to any crashes that meet the one-day
reporting requirement of the SGO. Because the processing of video
files may add logistical difficulty to a report, NHTSA proposes to
require video to be submitted within two business days after an
Essential System-Level Stakeholder obtains possession of the video.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the second category of event-triggered reporting, NHTSA
proposes to require participants to report citable offenses of traffic
safety law violations. This reporting would include any violations that
result in an actual citation, as well as any known violations that did
not result in citations. For actual citations, this reporting standard
is straightforward and would require reports for any citations issued
by an authority responsible for enforcing traffic safety laws where the
vehicle is operating. For violations that did not result in citations,
NHTSA proposes to scope reporting to events for which a participant is
aware and understands, in good faith, the behavior to constitute a
violation of an applicable traffic safety law. The ``known'' threshold
for non-ticketed violations means that this reporting requirement would
not create an affirmative duty to search for those incidents. Instead,
as part of the application requirements proposed for AV STEP,
participants would provide information about their processes for
identifying applicable traffic safety laws and monitoring adherence to
them.\188\ These processes should ensure that participants are not
willfully ignoring behavior that may form non-ticketed violations.
Likewise, these processes should ensure that the participants exercise
reasonable judgment as to whether necessity permits a vehicle to
deviate from the general rule of conduct expected by a traffic safety
law. For instance, vehicles may appropriately cross a double yellow
line or drive onto the shoulder to avoid an obstacle or when directed
by law enforcement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\188\ As proposed, the Protocols for ADS Operations and
Independent Assessment portions of an application would include
information about traffic safety law compliance. See Section IV.A
(Application Form).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The last category of proposed event-triggered reporting relates to
changes in the extent to which fallback personnel are used for a Step 2
participation. Under the AV STEP eligibility requirements, vehicles
participating at Step 2 should generally operate without fallback
personnel during participating operations. However, NHTSA recognizes
that some Step 2 participants may rely on fallback personnel
[[Page 4157]]
sparingly. For example, a participant could temporarily introduce
onboard fallback personnel as a safeguard after the release of a
software update or rely on fallback personnel for a subset of the
participating fleet that would be engaged in specific validation
operations. NHTSA does not intend the scope of Step 2 to disincentivize
such limited uses of fallback personnel if a participant deems them
beneficial for safety.
At the same time, Step 2 participation should demarcate readiness
to operate with an ADS competent enough to not need fallback personnel
when operating in its ODD. Therefore, participants in Step 2 should not
functionally operate as Step 1 participants through the widespread and
sustained use of fallback personnel. To oversee this balance and
provide more transparency regarding operations, NHTSA proposes that
participants at Step 2 be required to report the percentage of subject
vehicles using fallback personnel at each location. If this percentage
changes, a participant would need to report that change by the time it
occurs. As under Step 1, any Step 2 vehicle would be prohibited from
carrying public passengers when operating with fallback personnel.\189\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\189\ See Section III.C (Terms and Conditions) for more
explanation of this restriction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NHTSA is also considering whether, as a fourth category of event-
triggered reporting, participants should be required to report cyber-
related incidents with a potential safety impact. The agency seeks
comment on such a requirement, particularly regarding how cyber
incidents should be defined and thresholds for reporting such
incidents, timing requirements for reporting such events, and how such
requirements may relate to NHTSA's existing requirements for safety-
related defect reporting.
3. Update Reporting
NHTSA expects a participant's authorized ADS operations to evolve
over time. Routes or other aspects of an operation may need to be
refined, an ADS should continue to mature, and participants should
maintain and refine their internal processes. To accommodate this
continuous improvement, NHTSA proposes a reporting framework for
updates that occur during AV STEP participation. This reporting
framework is designed to ensure NHTSA is notified of meaningful changes
without slowing the pace of progress. If a change is significant enough
to affect important premises of NHTSA's original decision on an
application, this framework also would enable NHTSA to request more
information before the change could take effect.
This change reporting supplements rather than supplants the
amendment process described in the next subsection. If a reportable
change would violate a term or condition of a Final Determination
Letter, a participant would need to separately request and receive an
amended letter before any such change could take effect. For such a
change, the report described in this subsection would still be
necessary.
Final Determination Letters would contain terms that set customized
thresholds for changes that would need to be reported to NHTSA.
Applicants would propose such thresholds.\190\ These proposals should
be based on the extent to which changes may alter information submitted
in an application or reviewed by an independent assessor for the
assessment submitted with an application. They should avoid capturing
routine changes or those contemplated in an application. NHTSA's goal
in proposing these thresholds is to craft standards specific to a
particular operation that account for the information upon which the
agency's decision on the application was based.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\190\ Section IV.A.3 (Confirmation of Reporting During
Participation) discusses NHTSA's proposed approach to using
customized terms for certain reporting requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Any change that exceeds these customized thresholds would need to
be reported to NHTSA. A report would need to describe the change,
identify the date on which it is proposed to occur, and contain an
independent assessor's position on whether the change would materially
affect an earlier independent assessment of the safety case for the
operation. This requirement would not entail a new independent
assessment for each reportable change. Instead, the agency anticipates
a much narrower independent review of whether the prospective change
would alter a critical aspect of the safety case or exceed the bounds
of the safety case in a way not accounted for by the earlier
independent assessment. As proposed, an independent assessment summary
report submitted as part of an application would need to include an
overview of the parameters under which the assessment and its
conclusions are valid.\191\ NHTSA expects these parameters to
significantly inform whether reportable changes would materially affect
a prior assessment.\192\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\191\ See Sec. 597.205(d)(3)(vi) of the proposed rule.
\192\ As proposed, this position could be provided by an
assessor other than the one that conducted the original analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NHTSA proposes to require seven days of advance notice for
reportable changes an independent assessor has indicated will not
materially affect a prior assessment. NHTSA would not plan to require
affirmative approval of any such non-material changes. However, advance
notice would provide NHTSA with an opportunity to request more
information or explore concerns before a change takes effect. In
contrast, any changes that an independent assessor has indicated will
materially affect a prior assessment would require written NHTSA
approval before they could occur. As part of its review, the agency
could require a more robust update to any portions of an independent
assessment affected by such changes.
B. Agency Protocols
1. Amendment Process
As proposed, the terms and conditions in a Final Determination
Letter would govern the scope of participation. Changes to these terms
and conditions would require NHTSA's review and approval through the
issuance of an Amended Final Determination Letter. This NPRM proposes a
process through which a participant could request amendments to a Final
Determination Letter. During NHTSA's review of an amendment request, a
program participant would remain able to continue AV STEP participation
under the existing terms.
The specific contents of an amendment request would vary depending
on the scope of changes requested. However, any amendment request
should describe each requested change and how it may affect the system
design, process, or operations. In addition, the amendment request
would be required to include an updated response to each of the
affected elements of the participant's AV STEP application, apart from
the independent assessment.\193\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\193\ The change reporting framework described in the prior
subsection is designed to consider how changes would affect the
conclusions of a prior independent assessment. If changes that
prompted an amendment request also met the change reporting
thresholds, those reports would provide insight into how the changes
bear upon an assessment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Certain changes that are expected to occur during normal operations
would not require written approval from NHTSA, even if they might
potentially implicate terms in a Final Determination Letter. A
participant could make such changes at any time by providing written
notice to NHTSA by the time the change takes effect. These changes,
detailed in Sec. 597.601(e) of the
[[Page 4158]]
proposed rule, include: (1) changes to a participant's contact
information; (2) changes to the geographical boundaries of an approved
location, as long as all other information in the application remains
the same; and (3) the addition of entirely new locations through
Location Sheets, as long as the new locations are substantially similar
operations to at least one already approved location. Any such new
location under this third type of change could not expand the total
number of vehicles for which participation has been permitted without
requiring an amendment to that effect. In addition, the new location
would need to involve the same ODD (other than the geographical
location), vehicle equipment, intended use, and approach to public
ridership as for the previously approved participation location(s). If
any of those conditions are not met, a participant could add a new
location only by requesting an amendment and receiving approval from
NHTSA.
In contrast, certain changes to a participation are so fundamental
that NHTSA proposes that they would not be eligible for an amendment
and, instead, would require a new application. These proposed changes
are: (1) any change to a program step; or (2) the removal, replacement,
or addition of an Essential System-Level Stakeholder. In addition, for
participations with an AV STEP exemption, a new application would be
required for any change to: (1) the type of AV STEP exemption; (2) the
exempted subject vehicle; \194\ (3) the FMVSS or bumper standard
(including subsection) for which an FMVSS Exemption is granted; (4) the
device or element made inoperative for a Make Inoperative Exemption; or
(5) the FMVSS subsection affected by the requested modification for a
Make Inoperative Exemption.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\194\ This category would include changes to the subject vehicle
platform, such as requesting a new model year or vehicle model. This
proposal includes a separate procedure to add exemptions for
identical vehicles to those already in receipt of an exemption, as
described in Section VII (Requirements for AV STEP Exemptions
(Regulatory Text Subpart C)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The next subsection describes the proposed procedure through which
NHTSA may unilaterally amend the terms or conditions of a Final
Determination Letter in response to concerns that arise during
participation. In addition, NHTSA may change a term with the consent of
all participants, such as to issue a technical correction or to refine
a condition.
2. Concern Resolution Process
The oversight goals of AV STEP necessitate an effective and
transparent process for resolving concerns that arise during
participation. This process should enable NHTSA to swiftly modify the
terms of participation when required for safety, while also, when
possible, affording program participants opportunities to participate
in the resolution process. To account for these considerations, NHTSA
proposes procedures for reviewing and resolving concerns that arise
during AV STEP participation.\195\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\195\ This process would not replace NHTSA's traditional defects
process under the Safety Act. No part of AV STEP, including this
proposed concern resolution process, is intended to supplant or
affect NHTSA's defect process. Participants would not be absolved
from any obligations under the Safety Act to identify and provide
notice of safety defects nor would NHTSA be precluded from using its
defect process or other applicable authorities for participants in
AV STEP. See 49 CFR part 573 and 49 U.S.C. 30116 et seq.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NHTSA proposes a response process for AV STEP in which issues would
be classified as either: (1) apparent issues; and (2) severe apparent
issues. Apparent issues would consist of any circumstance that calls
into question the safety of an operation, compliance with AV STEP
responsibilities, or the reliability of information provided under the
program.\196\ A concern may emerge even before a problem has
materialized in real-world operations or risen to the level of an
unreasonable risk to motor vehicle safety under the Safety Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\196\ Although these types of concerns are expected to most
commonly involve potential safety issues, they may also entail
process violations, such as deviating from approved program
parameters, failing to report required information, or problems with
the accuracy or completeness of information submitted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Once a concern arises, the agency would undertake a preliminary
review aimed at ascertaining whether an apparent issue exists and, if
so, the severity. Severity would be determined on a case-by-case basis,
considering how timely a response to the problem would need to be. As
proposed, the biggest difference in apparent and severe apparent issues
is the imminency with which a concern may need to be addressed during
existing operations. NHTSA expects that severe concerns would typically
entail significant safety problems or the disregard of program
requirements in a manner that undermines confidence in ongoing
operations. The severity of an apparent issue may also reflect how
quickly a risk is likely to manifest itself in operations. While the
severity of a concern will depend on the specific circumstances,
potential examples of severe apparent issues could include crashes
stemming from a problem with an ADS that also exists in other
continuing operations or learning that participants violated terms and
conditions of a permission in a manner that calls into question the
safety of their operations.
The agency may engage with participants to learn more about the
concern during this preliminary review. If a concern is substantiated,
the agency would notify the participant of the apparent issue, describe
it with reasonable particularity, advise whether it is categorized as
severe, and describe any impending modifications of a term or condition
of a Final Determination Letter to mitigate the concern. NHTSA would
seek to develop a narrow modification tailored to the scope of the
issue but could impose a full suspension from participation if
needed.\197\ In other contexts, NHTSA has found that working with the
affected stakeholders throughout the review of a problem increases the
chances the problem can be addressed in a way that prioritizes safety
while limiting the scope of operational impacts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\197\ This practice would match NHTSA's practice in
administering Section 30114(a) exemptions. For instance, if an ADS
demonstrates problems navigating a particular intersection or
roadway feature, such as a traffic circle, NHTSA has typically aimed
to curtail operations around the feature rather than suspend all
operations. This tailored approach, in particular, highlights the
need for the flexibility of a case-by-case concern resolution
process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For apparent issues identified by NHTSA but not categorized as
severe, any modifications of participation terms listed in the notice
would automatically take effect 10 business days after the agency
issues a notice to a participant. For issues designated as severe, the
timing of the modification would be determined on a case-by-case basis.
NHTSA would aim to provide as much notice as possible for severe
apparent issues, but if needed, modifications for severe apparent
issues could become effective as soon as issued. In practice, if a
situation is serious enough to warrant an immediate modification of a
permission, NHTSA expects a company's internal policies would
independently lead the company to take appropriate and timely measures,
such as curtailing its operations while it evaluates the issue.
NHTSA would retain the discretion to further modify or cancel a
planned modification to the terms of participation, including by
extending the time by which the modifications would take effect. For
instance, a participant may moot a problem by implementing a sufficient
mitigation or deciding to voluntarily suspend
[[Page 4159]]
operations of all affected vehicles.\198\ NHTSA intends this framework
to encourage participants to use responsible incident response
protocols that quickly and proactively address problems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\198\ As appropriate, NHTSA could also unilaterally revoke an
operation from AV STEP or suspend it through the modifications
described in this section.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reinstating any curtailed aspects of an operation would also be
handled case-by-case. Given the variety of potential issues and their
range of complexity, NHTSA anticipates working iteratively with
participants and project stakeholders to develop tailored plans for
resolving each issue. If mitigations or corrections are required,
participants would need to develop proposed mitigations, prepare
corrective action plans, and demonstrate their sufficiency to the
agency. NHTSA would review the proposed mitigations and develop a
return-to-service plan. Where possible and consistent with safety,
participants would be afforded flexibility in how vehicles could be
returned to service, such as by deciding whether to implement
mitigations on a rolling basis or all at once. NHTSA has used a similar
process for the reinstatement of suspended ADS operations with Section
30114(a) exemptions and believes this approach would translate well to
AV STEP.
VI. Public Reporting Requirements (Regulatory Text Subpart G)
NHTSA intends for AV STEP to boost transparency surrounding ADS
technology and, through this increased access to information, lay the
groundwork for greater public understanding of participating
operations. To promote such transparency, NHTSA proposes to publish
certain information about each application and participation.\199\ This
information focuses on the topics most relevant to the public's
engagement with the vehicles. Given the importance of this information
to the public, its availability via NHTSA's intended public AV STEP
reporting would be a condition of AV STEP application and
participation.\200\ In addition to specific comment requests below, the
agency seeks comment on any topics that are important to the public's
engagement with ADS operations that are not covered by the proposed
public reporting elements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\199\ See Subpart G of the proposed rule.
\200\ Due to the public-facing nature of the specific
information NHTSA proposes to publish, the agency does not believe a
claim of confidential business information (CBI) is appropriate in
this context and would not provide an assurance of privacy for that
information. See 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4); 18 U.S.C. 1905; Food Marketing
Inst. v. Argus Leader Media, 139 S. Ct. 2356, 2363 (2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Upon receipt of an application, NHTSA proposes to publish a subset
of information from the application, including much of the material in
the Operational Baseline and Location Sheet sections of an application.
Through this information, NHTSA intends for the public to understand
the scope and nature of requested participation. In addition to
publishing the date an application was received, NHTSA would publish
the current application review phase to provide transparency regarding
the status of each application. Published information about an
application would identify the relevant stakeholders, describe the
subject vehicles, and identify any use of fallback personnel, remote
driving, or vehicle assistance. NHTSA also proposes to publish
information about the operations requested under each Location Sheet of
an application. This information would cover the location, vehicle
numbers, maximum vehicle speed, speed limits, intended use of the
vehicles, whether the applicant seeks to transport public passengers,
and a summary of the ODD.
In addition to these elements, NHTSA proposes to publish a list of
each industry standard, best practice, or guidance with which the
subject vehicle fully conforms according to the independent assessment
submitted as part of the application. In proposing to publish this
information, NHTSA recognizes that entities, including ADS developers,
sometimes proactively publish claims of conformance to industry
standards.\201\ Including this express disclosure provision in the rule
enables entities to understand how the agency intends to publicly
communicate about an application or participation and allows them to
make informed decisions about whether to apply to this voluntary
program. NHTSA specifically requests comment on its proposal to publish
industry standards conformance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\201\ See, e.g., Argo AI, LLC, ``Press Release: Argo AI Conforms
to Autonomous Vehicle Testing Standards According to Leading
Independent Auditor'' (December 20, 2021), available at https://
www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/argo-ai-conforms-to-autonomous-
vehicle-testing-standards-according-to-leading-independent-auditor-
301447984.html#:~:text=The%20result%20of%20T%C3%9CV%20S%C3%9CD's,bein
g%20compliant%20with%20these%20applicable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NHTSA proposes to publish each Final Determination Letter,
including any Amended Final Determination Letter, that reflects a
decision on an application. A letter granting admission to AV STEP
would contain the full set of terms and conditions that govern
participation.\202\ Thereafter, NHTSA would publish information about
each participation's operational status, including the dates of
participation. Doing so would allow the public to understand whether an
operation remains active, is inactive, is under a suspension, or has
concluded.\203\ To help the public understand ongoing operations, NHTSA
proposes to publish certain information from quarterly reports. This
information would include the number of subject vehicles operated on
public roads, a list of zip codes where such operations occurred, and
the number and location of any vehicle recovery events.\204\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\202\ To the extent this letter memorializes information for
which an applicant requested treatment as CBI under NHTSA's
regulations in 49 CFR part 512, those portions of the letter may
require redaction.
\203\ For the proposed definitions of these statuses, see Sec.
597.701(b)(1) of the proposed rule.
\204\ NHTSA is not currently proposing to separately publish
crash reporting through this program. As proposed, an SGO report
would fulfill a crash report requirement in AV STEP. As such, NHTSA
does not expect extensive crash reporting unique to this program and
believes the transparency goals of crash reporting are already met
through NHTSA's periodic publication of SGO reports.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In general, the information proposed for publication focuses on
public-facing information about an operation. However, in other
contexts, stakeholders have expressed interest in NHTSA collecting and
publicizing information about VMT for ADS operations. The periodic
reporting to NHTSA proposed for AV STEP includes several categories of
VMT, as well as an element entitled ``Operational Context,'' which
would indicate how such VMT compares to analogous operations outside of
AV STEP. NHTSA requests comment on whether any of this information
should be published for AV STEP.
In general, information would be published for AV STEP as it is
submitted to the agency. While NHTSA's publication of the information
would not be an endorsement of its accuracy, as with any other
reporting requirement, an entity is responsible for ensuring the
accuracy of the information reported to NHTSA, and the agency would
take appropriate action if it became aware of incorrect information.
NHTSA is considering how best to present all of this information as
well as exploring information technology solutions for doing so. In
addition to the above-described information, the agency would consider
periodically publishing broader insights gained through administering
AV STEP.
[[Page 4160]]
VII. Requirements for AV STEP Exemptions (Regulatory Text Subpart C)
As described in Section II (Program Context), this proposal
includes two types of exemptions: (1) an FMVSS Exemption under 49
U.S.C. 30114(a); and (2) a Make Inoperative Exemption under 49 U.S.C.
30122. For consistency, where possible, the same AV STEP requirements
would apply to all vehicles regardless of whether an exemption is
sought. However, several additional requirements are proposed only for
vehicles seeking exemptions. Some requirements would apply to both
types of AV STEP exemptions and others to only one of the two
exemptions. A Final Determination Letter would set the full terms and
conditions for an exemption. Vehicles exempted under AV STEP would
retain their exempt status only while participating in AV STEP.\205\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\205\ Under Sec. 597.303(f) of the proposed rule, vehicles
imported into the United States under an AV STEP exemption could
remain in the country after AV STEP participation ends, as long as
they do not operate on public roads.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. Exemption Eligibility Requirements
In addition to the general eligibility requirements, at least one
applicant for each AV STEP FMVSS Exemption must satisfy an eligibility
requirement specific to exemptions as specified in Sec. 597.103 of the
proposed rule. If the vehicles for which exemptions are sought require
importation into the United States, at least one applicant must be the
importer of record for each vehicle. This requirement would ensure
accountability for the importation process. For vehicles that do not
require importation, at least one applicant must be the manufacturer of
each subject vehicle. This requirement is necessary because, absent an
exemption, the manufacturer is the only party eligible to participate
in AV STEP that is responsible for compliance and certification of the
vehicle with all applicable FMVSS.\206\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\206\ See 49 U.S.C. 30115.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Exemption Application Requirements
Each application would need to specify whether it includes a
request for an FMVSS Exemption under Section 30114(a) or Make
Inoperative Exemption under Section 30122(c). Either exemption would
require an additional application form. The application requirements
for an AV STEP exemption are proposed in Sec. 597.202 of the proposed
rule, and include the following:
Vehicle Information: An application for an exemption would need to
include identifying information about each vehicle for which an
exemption is sought, as well as the total anticipated number of
vehicles for which each exemption will be sought during AV STEP
participation. Under the process described in the next subsection, this
number would be used to cap the actual number of vehicles that could
receive an exemption. In addition, an application would need to
identify each proposed vehicle label to meet the exemption labeling
requirements detailed in the next subsection.
Insurance Disclosure: NHTSA proposes that an entity requesting
either exemption confirm it will maintain insurance coverage from a
regulated insurance company at all times in an amount sufficient to
cover liability for damages, including for bodily injury or death, that
may result from the operation of the vehicle in the manner and
location(s) described in the application. This requirement resembles
one currently used in NHTSA exemption programs under 49 U.S.C.
30114(a).\207\ NHTSA has found this disclosure helpful in confirming
that sufficient coverage exists while allowing state law to govern
specifics about such coverage.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\207\ This question is used in the existing process for
temporary import exemptions, including in the ADS-equipped Vehicle
Exemption Process, which implements 49 CFR part 591. See NHTSA,
``Form: Temporary Import Exemption Application for Vehicles, Section
2: Vehicles Interacting with the Public,'' Question 2.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Safety Comparisons and Mitigations: An applicant for an exemption
would need to describe, in detail, each requirement of an FMVSS or
bumper standard for which there is noncompliance or, in the case of a
Make Inoperative Exemption, the device or element rendered inoperative.
It would also need to describe any mitigations of associated safety
impacts and how the vehicle's safety compares to that of a compliant
vehicle, including comparisons of the crash protection for vehicle
occupants and the safety of vulnerable road users. An application for a
Make Inoperative Exemption would also need to describe each
modification at issue and the extent to which the vehicle's original
manufacturer was consulted regarding the modification. This disclosure
would provide insight into how well the system-level effects of the
modification are understood by the applicant. NHTSA would consider all
of this information when assessing whether risks have been sufficiently
addressed to justify the exemption sought.
NHTSA proposes that any FMVSS or bumper standard may be the subject
of an AV STEP exemption request, consistent with NHTSA's other
exemption programs. However, NHTSA requests comment on whether any
standards should be ineligible for exemption under AV STEP.\208\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\208\ For instance, in 2022, NHTSA amended occupant protection
standards to account for ADS-equipped vehicles that lack traditional
manual controls. 87 FR 18560 (March 30, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eligibility of Domestic and Imported Vehicles: As proposed, both
domestic and imported vehicles could apply for an FMVSS or Make
Inoperative Exemption through AV STEP. NHTSA proposes to treat domestic
and imported vehicles equally in the proposal, apart from unique
requirements necessary for the importation process.
For the proposed Make Inoperative Exemption, this approach is
consistent with Section 30122, which does not make any distinction
between imported and domestic vehicles. NHTSA's regulations
implementing other make inoperative exemptions likewise do not
distinguish between imported and domestic vehicles. For the proposed
FMVSS Exemption, this approach implements the express language of
Section 30114(a), which contains no restrictions on a vehicle's country
of origin. In this respect, the language of Section 30114(a) is
consistent with other provisions in Section 30114, which apply equally
to domestic and imported vehicles. For instance, Section 30114(b)
authorizes an exemption for replica vehicles through similarly broad
language that applies generally to any motor vehicles. NHTSA's
regulations implement Section 30114(b) through a replica vehicle
exemption program that applies to vehicles built both in the United
States and abroad.\209\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\209\ See 49 CFR part 586.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the past, NHTSA has implemented Section 30114(a) only for
imported vehicles. The original statutory language for Section 30114(a)
first arose to refine exemptions that the agency was already issuing in
the imports context in conjunction with the U.S. Customs Service.\210\
NHTSA implemented Section 30114(a) authority in the imports context
through the regulatory framework codified in 49 CFR part 591. Because
the text of Section 30114(a) is not by its terms limited to imported
vehicles, however, NHTSA has since initiated a rulemaking to consider
creating an equivalent to the part 591 exemptions for domestic
vehicles.\211\
[[Page 4161]]
Separately implementing Section 30114(a) exemptions for domestic
vehicles in the AV STEP rulemaking would be consistent with this
ongoing work to equalize the opportunities for domestic vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\210\ See 58 FR12905, 12906 (March 8, 1993) (explaining the
legislative and regulatory history of the provision).
\211\ This rulemaking remains ongoing. See Office of Information
and Regulatory Affairs, ``Unified Agenda of Regulatory and
Deregulatory Actions,'' RIN 2127-AM14: Expansion of Temporary
Exemption Program to Domestic Manufacturers for Research,
Demonstrations, and Other Purposes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since AV STEP exemptions would span imported and domestic vehicles,
an AV STEP exemption application would need to identify whether any
vehicles require importation into the United States to ensure that
requirements for importation were met. NHTSA proposes to amend the
agency's HS-7 declaration form to add a new box for vehicles imported
under an AV STEP exemption. A new box is needed because none of the
existing fields for the HS-7 form fit the AV STEP exemptions.\212\ All
vehicles currently imported under a Section 30114(a) exemption use Box
7 of the form. However, Box 7 is limited to research and demonstration
purposes under Section 30114(a) and is also specific to the importation
restrictions in 49 CFR part 591. Thus, a new box is needed to declare
that a vehicle does not conform to all applicable FMVSS and Bumper
Standards but is being imported pursuant to an AV STEP exemption. NHTSA
requests comment on whether the agency should amend 49 CFR 591.5 to
specify that AV STEP vehicles may be imported in this way.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\212\ See Declaration HS-7, Importation of Motor Vehicles and
Motor Vehicle Equipment Subject to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety,
Bumper and Theft Prevention Standards, available at https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.gov/files/documents/hs7_111920_v3_secured.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed Section 30114(a) Purpose: An application for an FMVSS
Exemption would need to identify which purpose in 49 U.S.C. 30114(a) is
the basis for the exemption. The applicant would bear the burden of
persuasion to demonstrate that a statutory purpose applies to the
requested vehicles.\213\ While any purpose enumerated in Section
30114(a) could be claimed for an exemption, NHTSA's experience
administering AVEP suggests that most ADS exemption requests claim
research, investigations, or demonstration purposes.\214\ Any of these
statutory purposes claimed under Section 30114(a) should be
proportionate to the scope of a requested exemption, given the
increased potential risk from exposure to larger numbers of
noncompliant vehicles. For instance, if a request claimed a research
purpose, the extent of the research interest should scale with the
scope of the requested exemption. As a high-level example, the research
purposes and scope of operations may be misaligned if a request claimed
to research how ADS operations improve mobility options in rural
communities but the operations in question occurred primarily in urban
environments. To that end, Sec. 597.202(b) of the proposed rule
contains application requirements that allow the applicant to explain
the rationale for a stated purpose, its relation to the exemption
sought, and whether that purpose is expected to remain valid throughout
the exemption.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\213\ See 58 FR 12905, 12906 (March 8, 1993).
\214\ NHTSA has explained that ``research'' and
``investigations'' often entail some sort of ``test or experiment.''
58 FR 12905, 12906 (March 8, 1993). NHTSA has similarly stated that
a demonstration of a motor vehicle has traditionally involved
exhibiting its operation or use, both in the showroom and on the
road. Id. Earlier versions of the statute also listed ``studies'' as
an express statutory purpose. See 15 U.S.C. 1397(j). NHTSA has
looked to ordinary use of the word ``study'' when construing this
term, explaining that the primary meaning of the word `study' is
`the application of the mind to the acquisition of knowledge. 58 FR
12905, 12907 (March 8, 1993). NHTSA has historically considered
vehicles of ``technological interest'' as emblematic of vehicles
contemplated by this purpose. Id. Although the term ``studies'' was
dropped in the 1994 recodification of the Safety Act, Congress made
clear that this recodification was non-substantive. Compare 15
U.S.C. 1397(j), with Public Law 103-272, 108 Stat. 947 (1994). As
such, and given the overlap in terminology in research,
demonstration, investigations, and studies, the recodification
maintained the prior scope under this more streamlined set of terms.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NHTSA proposes to allow vehicles exempted under AV STEP to engage
in commercial activities. The statutory language of Section 30114(a)
does not prohibit commercial activity, provided a statutory purpose is
met.
For Section 30114(a) exemptions administered under part 591, NHTSA
has typically set terms that prohibit certain public-facing commercial
activities, such as charging fares during passenger-carrying services
or imposing fees in goods delivery services. This restriction is
designed to limit situations in which the Section 30114(a) purposes are
claimed as a pretense for other private interests.\215\ That approach
reflects the practical difficulty of disentangling an entity's stated
research, demonstration, or other interest from the inherent commercial
motivations that may accompany an operation that generates revenue. A
commercial operation prohibition sets a bright line that prevents the
comingling of these motivations and ensures the statutory purpose is
the reason the exemption is sought.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\215\ 58 FR 12905, 12907 (March 8, 1993) (expressing concern
with a purpose, such as static display, that: can be undermined,
however, by importations under subterfuge, where the hidden but real
intent of the importer is to operate the vehicle on the public roads
for his or her private enjoyment.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, since AV STEP proposes to accommodate more complex
exemptions than part 591, NHTSA considers a more nuanced approach to
commercialization appropriate. The procedural safeguards proposed for
AV STEP would provide NHTSA with information necessary to ensure an
appropriate statutory purpose for the exemption even if an operation is
commercialized. These safeguards would include a robust disclosure of
any commercialization and a justification for how the statutory
purposes are nevertheless met. In addition, NHTSA proposes to require
any AV STEP exemption involving commercial activity to demonstrate that
the claimed Section 30114(a) purpose furthers a public, rather than
purely private, interest. It is difficult to weigh an applicant's
competing private interests, especially when one involves monetary
gain. However, if an applicant can establish that a claimed Section
30114(a) purpose furthers a public interest, the agency could consider
whether it justifies the requested exemption, even if some
commercialization were to occur.
NHTSA does not propose to delineate appropriate public interests in
advance. Given the wide range of potential societal benefits from ADS,
NHTSA intends for an applicant to describe and substantiate the public
interest instead. Examples of potential public interests could range
from environmental, accessibility for people with disabilities, equity,
or labor impacts to interests relating to the improvement of
transportation efficiency. As NHTSA explained recently in another
exemption context: 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 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
[[Page 4162]]
development of advanced vehicle technologies.\216\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\216\ 87 FR 43602, 43607 (July 21, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The information submitted through an application would enable NHTSA
to review the claimed statutory purpose in light of any expected
commercialization.
C. Exemption Participation Requirements
The proposed rule also includes several participation requirements
specific to exempted vehicles. In general, an exemption would expire at
the end of a vehicle's AV STEP participation. However, imported
vehicles that relied on the exemption to enter the United States could
remain in the country as long as they did not operate on public roads
or otherwise engage in interstate commerce. In addition to the
operational control requirements for all AV STEP participants, an AV
STEP exemption holder would need to maintain ownership and possession
of each exempted vehicle and could not license it for use, unless
otherwise permitted by NHTSA. This restriction ensures that tighter
control is exercised over the vehicles to account for their
nonconformance with safety standards. As with all participations, the
terms of a Final Determination Letter could generally be amended under
AV STEP's proposed amendment process. However, NHTSA proposes to
require a new application for several fundamental changes to an
exemption.\217\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\217\ See Sec. 597.601(d)(3) of the proposed rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NHTSA also proposes to require vehicles receiving either exemption
to display at least two labels--one on the vehicle's exterior and one
on the interior--stating that the vehicles might not conform with all
applicable FMVSS. Exterior labels would inform surrounding road users
or those entering the vehicle, whereas interior labels would inform
vehicle occupants.\218\ NHTSA would review each label proposed by an
applicant during the review of an application and set terms for the
labels in the Final Determination Letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\218\ As proposed in Sec. 597.105(g) of the proposed rule, the
interior label would only be necessary for vehicle occupants. As
such, if the design of a subject vehicle precluded passengers, no
such interior label would be required.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Final Determination Letter would also list the specific
vehicles receiving an exemption at that time, as well as cap the
maximum number of vehicles that may be exempted.\219\ As long as the
list of exempted vehicles has not exceeded this cap, an exemption
holder would be able to notify NHTSA of an intent to apply the
exemption to additional vehicles. Unless NHTSA provides otherwise
within 30 days of this notice, those additional vehicles would be
exempt and subject to the same terms as previously exempted vehicles of
the same type. The proposed rule would not set a limit on the number of
vehicles that may receive an exemption in each participation, because
NHTSA proposes the terms of a Final Determination Letter to govern
vehicle numbers.\220\ However, NHTSA requests comment on whether the
proposed rule should include such a limit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\219\ As with other terms in a Final Determination Letter, an
exemption-holder could request to amend this cap during
participation.
\220\ Since the original promulgation of part 591, NHTSA has
recognized that Section 30114(a) may support issuing exemptions to
multiple vehicles at once See 57 FR 2043, 2046 (January 17, 1992)
(noting that the exemption could apply to a fleet of test vehicles).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This procedure is proposed to remain consistent with NHTSA's
practice of issuing Section 30114(a) exemptions for existing vehicles
rather than prospectively for vehicles that have not yet been
built.\221\ It would also avoid the burden of restarting the
application process for new vehicles. Moreover, NHTSA believes that the
agency, applicants, and the public should understand the volume of
exemptions expected over the course of a participation. This
information would help NHTSA assess the full scope of the anticipated
participation when reviewing an application, provide applicants with
more regulatory certainty for their vehicle manufacturing plans, and
better enable the public to understand the extent of expected ADS-
equipped vehicle activity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\221\ This usual approach to Section 30114(a) exemptions differs
from how NHTSA currently administers exemptions under Section 30113
through part 555. Specifically, 49 CFR 555.7 provides: unless a
later effective date is specified in the notice of the grant, a
temporary exemption is effective upon publication of the notice in
the Federal Register and exempts vehicles manufactured on and after
the effective date. 49 CFR 555.7(f) (Processing of applications).
Some entities have expressed that part 555's current limitation to
vehicles manufactured on or after the date the exemption is granted
presents difficulties. NHTSA has received a petition for rulemaking
from an ADS developer to this effect. NHTSA is currently considering
a proposed rule to change this provision to allow part 555
exemptions to be granted to vehicles manufactured prior to the
issuance of the grant of petition, if they are identical to the
vehicles for which the exemption was sought. See Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs, ``Unified Agenda of Regulatory
and Deregulatory Actions,'' DOT, RIN 2127-AM57: Temporary Exemption
From Motor Vehicle Safety and Bumper Standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. Exemption Public Reporting
NHTSA proposes to publish additional information about AV STEP
exempted vehicles beyond the information that NHTSA proposes to make
public about all AV STEP participations. That additional information is
set forth in Sec. 597.701(a) of the proposed rule and includes the
type of exemption requested or received, the exempted FMVSS or bumper
standard requirements, a summary of risk mitigations, and the Section
30114(a) purpose for FMVSS Exemptions.
VIII. Public Comments
NHTSA requests comment on all aspects of this proposed rule. This
section describes how you can participate in this process.
How do I prepare and submit comments?
Your comments must be written and in English.\222\ To ensure that
your comments are correctly filed in the docket, please include the
docket number NHTSA-2024-0100 in your comments. If you are submitting
comments electronically as a PDF (Adobe) file, we ask that the
documents submitted be scanned using the optical character recognition
(OCR) process, thus allowing NHTSA to search and copy certain portions
of your submissions.\223\ Please note that pursuant to the Data Quality
Act, in order for the substantive data to be relied upon and used by
NHTSA, it must meet the information quality standards set forth in the
Office of Management and Budget (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 https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/information-regulatory-affairs/information-policy. DOT's guidelines may be accessed at https://www.transportation.gov/dot-information-dissemination-quality-guidelines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\222\ See 49 CFR 553.21.
\223\ OCR is the process of converting an image of text, such as
a scanned paper document or electronic fax file, into computer-
editable text.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tips for Preparing Your Comments
When submitting comments, please remember to:
Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other
identifying information (subject heading, Federal Register date and
page number).
Explain why you agree or disagree, suggest alternatives
and substitute language for your requested changes.
Describe any assumptions and provide any technical
information and/or data that you used.
[[Page 4163]]
If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how
you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns and
suggest alternatives.
Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the
use of profanity or personal threats.
Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period
deadline identified in the DATES section above.
How can I be sure that my comments were received?
If you submit your comments by mail and wish Docket Management to
notify you upon its receipt of your comments, enclose a self-addressed,
stamped postcard in the envelope containing your comments. Upon
receiving your comments, Docket Management will return the postcard by
mail.
How do I submit confidential business information?
If you wish to submit any information under a claim of
confidentiality, you should submit your complete submission, including
the information you claim to be confidential business information
(CBI), to the NHTSA Chief Counsel. When you send a comment containing
CBI, you should include a cover letter setting forth the information
specified in our CBI regulation.\224\ In addition, you should submit a
copy from which you have deleted the claimed CBI to the Docket by one
of the methods set forth above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\224\ See 49 CFR part 512.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NHTSA is treating electronic submission as an acceptable method for
submitting CBI to the agency under 49 CFR part 512. Any CBI submissions
sent via email should be sent to an attorney in the Office of the Chief
Counsel at the address given above under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT. Likewise, for CBI submissions via a secure file transfer
application, an attorney in the Office of Chief Counsel must be set to
receive a notification when files are submitted and have access to
retrieve the submitted files. At this time, regulated entities should
not send a duplicate hardcopy of their electronic CBI submissions to
DOT headquarters.
If you have any questions about CBI or the procedures for claiming
CBI, please consult the person identified in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section.
Will NHTSA consider late comments?
NHTSA will consider all comments received before the close of
business on the comment closing date indicated above under DATES. To
the extent practicable, we will also consider comments received after
that date. If interested persons believe that any information that
NHTSA places in the docket after the issuance of the NPRM affects their
comments, they may submit comments after the closing date concerning
how NHTSA should consider that information for the final rule. However,
NHTSA's ability to consider any such late comments in this rulemaking
will be limited due to the time frame for issuing a final rule.
If a comment is received too late for us to practicably consider in
developing a final rule, we will consider that comment as an informal
suggestion for future rulemaking action.
How can I read the comments submitted by other people?
You may read the materials placed in the docket for this document
(e.g., the comments submitted in response to this document by other
interested persons) at any time by going to http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for accessing the dockets. You may also
read the materials at the NHTSA Docket Management Facility by going to
the street addresses given above under ADDRESSES.
IX. Regulatory Notices and Analyses
A. Executive Orders 12866, 13563, 14094 and DOT Regulatory Policies and
Procedures
NHTSA has considered the impact of this rulemaking action under
Executive Order (E.O.) 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and Review,'' as
supplemented by E.O. 13563, ``Improving Regulation and Regulatory
Review,'' and amended by E.O. 14094, ``Modernizing Regulatory Review,''
as well as under DOT's regulatory procedures. Although the rule does
not meet the $200 million threshold for significance pursuant to
section 3(f)(1) of E.O. 12866 as amended, this NPRM has been designated
as significant and was reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) under E.O. 12866. This section summarizes NHTSA's assessment of
potential benefits and costs relating to this proposal.
NHTSA proposes AV STEP as a voluntary national program that would
be available for two categories of vehicles. The first category
consists of vehicles that can lawfully operate on public roads
regardless of participation in AV STEP, as long as they comply with all
other Federal, state, and local laws. These vehicles include those that
are compliant with and certified to all applicable FMVSS, those that
have received exemptions under other NHTSA programs, and those that may
operate on public roads pursuant to the FAST Act, as provided for by 49
U.S.C. 30112(b)(10). The second category consists of vehicles that
would seek an exemption from NHTSA through AV STEP. Under this
proposal, vehicles that do not comply with all applicable FMVSS or
those that originally complied but are taken out of compliance by an
ADS retrofit could seek exemptions through AV STEP.
NHTSA has qualitatively assessed many of the costs and benefits of
AV STEP because the agency does not currently have sufficient data to
calculate all costs and benefits. Data is limited because the novel
aspects of this proposal and ADS-equipped vehicles create significant
uncertainties. NHTSA seeks comment and additional data regarding the
potential impacts of this proposed program.
1. Need for Regulation
The AV STEP proposal was developed to address several complexities
relating to the current nascent state of ADS technology. Those
challenges, as well as the ways in which AV STEP proposes to address
them, are explained in Section II (Program Context) of this NPRM.
Specifically, that section explains how definitive, objective ADS
safety assessment test methods are lacking, and that this proposal is
designed to account for the current ADS technological landscape as well
as complement NHTSA's other activities pertaining to ADS.
ADS technology is in a transitional period of development. The
technology has reached a point at which ADS operations are increasingly
occurring and expanding on public roads. However, the technology is
still in a relative state of infancy. Most ADS operations focus on
testing or demonstrating the ADS. The tools used to evaluate the safety
of an ADS are likewise in early stages of development. Existing
industry standards and best practices for ADS safety continue to evolve
and are often used differently across the industry. As the performance
capabilities of ADS continue to mature, the expectations about the
performance of the technology will likewise evolve. As a result, more
information and development are needed before ADS technology will be
ready for minimum performance standards, such as FMVSS.
However, safety must remain a priority, even though ADS
technologies
[[Page 4164]]
are in a nascent state of development. Many ADS-equipped vehicles are
currently operating on public roads across the United States, in
proximity to other road users. Some of those ADS operations are
carrying public passengers. As such, the operation of ADS-equipped
vehicles entails a safety responsibility to the public, even as the
technology continues to develop. The Safety Act formalizes this
responsibility by requiring vehicles and vehicle equipment, including
ADS, to be free of safety defects. NHTSA oversees these Safety Act
responsibilities, and the agency's oversight relies on access to
information about the vehicles and their ADS to monitor for safety-
related defects.
AV STEP would complement NHTSA's existing oversight, transparency,
rulemaking, and research efforts relating to ADS in a way that builds
on the agency's precedent for the technology and enhances the agency's
ability to carry out each of these statutory responsibilities when
regulating ADS. The additional information that AV STEP would provide
about ADS operations on public roads would improve NHTSA's oversight of
vehicles that participate in the program. Likewise, AV STEP would help
to increase the amount of information that is publicly available about
participating ADS-equipped vehicle operations.
In addition, evolving approaches to assessing ADS safety merit a
flexible safety assessment framework that is designed for the current
transitional stage of ADS. Focusing on the engineering rigor and level
of due diligence applied to an ADS' development and operation would
allow a review to probe the safety of an ADS even though proven
performance standards do not currently exist. This approach to safety
reviews would also allow the review framework to evolve as best
practices and understanding of ADS safety evolve. This document
proposes such a framework for AV STEP and would enable NHTSA to gain
insight into how a company's safety practices and metrics for assessing
safety correspond to real world ADS performance.
Finally, over the last several years, the number and complexity of
FMVSS exemption requests involving ADS-equipped vehicles has
significantly increased. In addition, questions have arisen about how
the make inoperative prohibition in 49 U.S.C. 30122 affects ADS
equipment retrofits. Currently, NHTSA's regulations lack a way for an
entity to request a Make Inoperative Exemption in order to equip a
compliant vehicle with an ADS in a way that would take the vehicle out
of compliance with an FMVSS. AV STEP would address both of these
situations by providing a framework through which NHTSA could consider
FMVSS Exemptions under 49 U.S.C. 30114(a) or Make Inoperative
Exemptions under Section 30122 for ADS-equipped vehicles. The agency
designed AV STEP to review and oversee complex ADS operations, which
would improve the agency's ability to efficiently administer FMVSS
Exemptions for ADS-equipped vehicles under Section 30114(a) and afford
eligible entities an opportunity to request a Make Inoperative
Exemption for an ADS retrofit.
2. Uncertainties and Assumptions
As part of the cost-benefit analysis for this rulemaking, NHTSA
estimated the costs that would arise from compliance with the key
aspects of the application and participation requirements that are
proposed for AV STEP. This analysis is informed by the agency's past
regulatory activity pertaining to ADS, such as exemptions issued under
Section 30114(a) through the AVEP process, reporting under the SGO, and
voluntary agency initiatives involving ADS, such as AV TEST and VSSAs.
The agency's experience administering those programs helped shape the
proposed requirements for AV STEP, as well as informed the agency's
expectations about both the level of interest that ADS companies may
have in participating in AV STEP and the burden that such participation
would entail. Nevertheless, the specific type of national program
proposed in this NPRM is new, as are many aspects of the ADS technology
that it covers. As a result, inherent uncertainties exist regarding the
projected impacts of this rule.
First, uncertainty exists as to the number of entities that would
apply to AV STEP. Since NHTSA proposes AV STEP as a voluntary program,
the number of entities directly affected by this proposal would depend
upon the level of interest in participation amongst eligible entities.
As a starting point in estimating the number of entities interested
in participating, NHTSA first estimated the number of entities that
would be eligible to participate in AV STEP. The pool of eligible
applicants is limited to entities that meet the proposed eligibility
requirements in Sec. 597.103 of the proposed rule. Eligible entities
would be vehicle manufacturers, ADS developers, fleet operators, or
system integrators of ADS-equipped vehicles.
The SGO reporting provides a starting point for estimating the
total number of eligible entities who may qualify to apply to AV STEP.
The SGO contains a service list of entities that NHTSA has identified
as potentially engaged in activities relating to ADS and SAE Level 2
ADAS in the United States. NHTSA actively maintains this service list
and has updated it in amended versions of the SGO, as the agency
becomes aware of new entities or updates regarding previously served
entities. The service list for the latest version of the SGO, which was
issued in April 2023, contains 114 entities.\225\ Apart from a small
number of component suppliers and several other miscellaneous entities
that were project stakeholders in particular operations, most of the
entities on the SGO's service list are vehicle manufacturers, system
developers, fleet operators, or system integrators of vehicles equipped
with automation technologies. Thus, the entities on the SGO service
list helps estimate the potential pool of eligible applicants for AV
STEP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\225\ The SGO service list can be found at the end of the
published Order. See NHTSA, ``Second Amended Standing General Order
2021-01'' (April 2023), available at: https://www.nhtsa.gov/document/sgo-crash-reporting-adas-ads.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, the SGO encompasses both Level 2 ADAS and ADS, whereas AV
STEP is proposed to only encompass ADS. As such, the full service list
for the SGO is broader than the pool of eligible applicants for AV
STEP. Instead, a more analogous segment of the SGO data is the number
of entities that have submitted ADS reports under the SGO. When
submitting a crash report under the SGO, an entity must indicate
whether the vehicle automation system that is the subject of the report
is classified as an ADS or Level 2 ADAS. Thus far, 42 entities have
submitted ADS crash reports under the SGO.
This number would not account for any new ADS entities that may
emerge during the course of AV STEP. Given the evolving state of ADS
technology, companies engaged in ADS operations are in a constant state
of change, with new startups frequently created and existing companies
often winding down. This state of change adds uncertainty to any
estimated number of eligible entities. In addition, the figure of 42
entities that have submitted an ADS crash report does not account for
SGO entities involved in ADS who have not yet experienced a reportable
crash. The level of participation interest from eligible entities that
have not submitted an ADS report under the SGO is less certain because
the absence of any reporting may suggest that the company
[[Page 4165]]
is not involved in extensive public road ADS operations. To estimate
the potential interest of these entities in AV STEP, NHTSA analyzed
entities' engagement with other ADS regulatory activities, such as
VSSA, other NHTSA exemption programs, and state and local ADS
permitting programs. Through this, the agency identified additional
entities that may have some future interest in participating in AV
STEP. Given these considerations, NHTSA considers the figure of 50
entities a reasonable starting point for estimating the number of
entities that are currently engaged in ADS operations on public roads
in the United States at a level that may generate interest in
participating in AV STEP.
Additionally, given the potential growth of the ADS industry, NHTSA
believes that it is reasonable to assume that the number of entities
engaged in more extensive ADS operations will continue to grow over the
coming years. Therefore, rather than exclusively relying on the number
of entities that have already reported an ADS crash under the SGO,
NHTSA considers an estimate of 60 eligible entities a more appropriate
estimate for AV STEP. NHTSA seeks comment on this estimate of the
eligible pool of participants.
Since AV STEP is proposed as voluntary, NHTSA does not expect all
eligible entities would decide to apply to the program. In addition, as
proposed, AV STEP would permit joint applications from essential
system-level stakeholders on a project. As a result, some of these
eligible entities may jointly apply to AV STEP for operations that they
work on together. This may further reduce the total number of unique
applications compared to the total number of eligible entities.
Finally, NHTSA considers many of the incentives to participate in
AV STEP applicable to all eligible entities. However, an eligible
entity's particular level of interest in participating would likely be
affected by the type of participation requested. This is particularly
the case for FMVSS and Make Inoperative Exemptions requested through AV
STEP because vehicles subject to those requests would not be permitted
to operate on public roads in the United States without an exemption
(attained through either existing exemption programs or through AV
STEP). In contrast, vehicles that are compliant with all applicable
NHTSA requirements could conduct operations without AV STEP. As a
result, entities with ADS-equipped vehicles in need of an exemption
because they do not comply with all applicable NHTSA requirements would
be more likely to apply to AV STEP. Entities with compliant ADS-
equipped vehicles may have less obvious interest in the program, as
discussed further in Section III (Program Structure (Regulatory Text
Subpart A)).
These variables create uncertainty in the number of eligible
entities that would apply to participate in AV STEP. Given these
considerations, NHTSA estimates that one in 12 of the entities eligible
to participate in AV STEP would apply to the program annually. Given
that some eligible entities will likely take time to gain familiarity
with the program and consider whether to participate, the agency
expects participation to ramp up over the first 3 to 5 years followed
by a tapering-off of new applicants. For purposes of this analysis,
NHTSA estimated an average of five applicants to AV STEP each year.
For purposes of this analysis, NHTSA did not adjust the anticipated
number of participants in AV STEP for any estimated denials of
applications. In practice, as explained in this document, NHTSA may
deny an application based on concerns that arise during the application
review process or suspend or revoke permission to participate based on
concerns that arise during participation. However, sufficient data does
not currently exist to project the number of applications that would be
denied or the number of participations that would be suspended or
revoked. Moreover, AV STEP, as proposed, is structured to reduce the
likelihood of deficient applications. The proposed requirements for AV
STEP set forth clear expectations for an application, and the proposed
application review process would afford applicants an opportunity to
rectify issues prior to NHTSA's final decision on an application. As
proposed, NHTSA could also set terms and conditions in an AV STEP Final
Determination Letter that restrict the requested operation, enabling
NHTSA to address certain issues with a requested operation without
resorting to a full denial. As a result of these considerations, NHTSA
estimated that AV STEP participation will increase by the number of
applicants every year. As explained above, the agency estimated that an
average of five entities would apply annually during the first seven
years of the program.
The agency also expects that, over time, some entities will
conclude operations that participated in AV STEP. For example, an
entity could cease ADS operations entirely or choose to operate
differently in a way that would require a new, distinct application.
The continuing changes to the ADS industry landscape discussed above,
with frequent acquisitions and market exits influenced by varied
unpredictable factors, such as funding, make projections difficult. For
the purposes of this analysis, NHTSA has estimated that by the seventh
year after initiation of the program, a total of 35 entities would have
applied for and been accepted into AV STEP. At the same time, NHTSA
expects that, starting in the fourth year after the initiation of AV
STEP, some program participations would conclude (for a variety of
reasons, as noted earlier) such that total participation in the program
would reach 29 participants in the seventh year of the program. NHTSA
seeks comment and data on these assumptions and estimates.
A second notable uncertainty inherent to this proposal is the rate
at which ADS technology will progress and the extent to which the
technology will be adopted by the public. This proposal recognizes that
the potential of ADS is still largely unproven. ADS technologies have
the potential to improve safety as well as provide other societal
benefits. The impacts of ADS, however, will ultimately be the
cumulative result of numerous engineering, deployment, policy, and
other choices. Likewise, the capabilities and expectations of ADS are
likely to evolve significantly in the coming years.
To account for this evolving technological landscape, certain
proposed AV STEP requirements are crafted to evolve over time or allow
for a customized approach that can account for the unique attributes of
individual applications. For instance, NHTSA proposes for independent
assessments to consider relevant industry standards, guidance, and best
practices, which should evolve as the industry's understanding of the
technology improves. Likewise, as proposed, NHTSA would oversee
operations that participate in AV STEP through terms and conditions set
in a Final Determination Letter. Those terms would be tailored to the
details of each operation, such as the types of subject vehicles, the
ODDs in they would operate, and the use cases for such operations. As a
result, those terms would depend on the types of applications that
NHTSA receives and the capabilities of the ADS equipped on those
vehicles. Thus, the specific impacts of this proposal would be largely
contingent on the unknown future levels of ADS maturity.
Another uncertainty in this rulemaking is the extent to which the
independent assessment proposed for AV STEP would represent unique
costs
[[Page 4166]]
for an applicant. As explained in Section IV.D (Independent
Assessment), an application would need to contain a summary report of
an independent assessment covering three focus areas regarding the
subject vehicles' ADS and operations: (a) their conformance with
industry standards; (b) the applicant's safety case; and (c) specific
other policies and ADS capabilities. NHTSA developed these requirements
based on the agency's experience with independent assessments conducted
for other sectors of the automotive industry, as well as the burgeoning
practice of ADS companies voluntarily obtaining independent assessments
for their own operations.
Nevertheless, the assessment proposed for AV STEP is new, as are
independent assessments for ADS. As ADS technologies mature and the
independent assessment landscape grows, NHTSA expects that companies
will more commonly undertake third-party assessments as part of their
own development processes. Nevertheless, the extent to which companies
would voluntarily conduct assessments in the future is still uncertain,
as is the scope of those assessments.
For purposes of this analysis, NHTSA estimates that half of AV STEP
applicants will have already voluntarily obtained an independent
assessment of their ADS operations before applying to AV STEP or would
have done so even if they did not apply to AV STEP. This estimate is
based on the agency's understanding of the current frequency with which
ADS companies initiate such assessments and the expectation that, given
the history of other safety-critical industries with independent
assessments, the voluntary usage of these assessments will grow as ADS
practices and operations evolve. As a result, NHTSA has discounted the
projected costs of an independent assessment for AV STEP to account for
this estimate that applicants would have incurred similar costs from
assessments in the absence of AV STEP.
3. Costs
NHTSA assessed, in 2023 dollars, multiple categories of costs for
this proposal. First, the agency assessed costs for which NHTSA could
estimate monetized impacts of the rule. These costs primarily relate to
the costs that an entity would incur to apply to AV STEP and
participate in the program if admitted, as well as the costs that NHTSA
would incur to administer the program. NHTSA also assessed several
types of costs as baseline costs that would be incurred even in the
absence of AV STEP. Finally, NHTSA assessed several types of costs
qualitatively because insufficient data currently exist to support any
approach to estimating their monetized impact.
Two characteristics of this proposal are overarching considerations
in NHTSA's assessment of costs. First, given that AV STEP is proposed
as a voluntary program, any costs incurred by an entity would be
voluntarily incurred because the entity has chosen to engage with the
program. Moreover, entities that apply to AV STEP would have other
regulatory options to legally operate their vehicles. This includes
entities that request exemptions under AV STEP, who could decide
instead to comply with NHTSA's requirements so that no exemptions are
needed. Likewise, certain entities requesting an FMVSS exemption
through AV STEP could alternatively request an FMVSS exemption under
two other NHTSA programs, set forth in 49 CFR parts 555 and 591. An
FMVSS exemption could also offset certain costs of complying with the
FMVSS, such as designing a vehicle or equipment to meet a particular
performance standard or conducting certification testing. As such,
entities that elect to engage with AV STEP would presumably consider
the benefits of this program to justify its costs.
The Make Inoperative Exemption proposed for AV STEP would be new.
No such exemption process for ADS-equipped vehicles is currently
available in NHTSA's regulations. However, as explained in this
document, this exemption would be largely proactive and would provide
additional regulatory flexibility for entities to pursue ADS retrofits
to compliant vehicles in ways that they could not otherwise consider.
In addition, only a portion of ADS-equipped vehicles are equipped with
ADS through aftermarket modifications. As a result, this exemption
would be of interest to only a limited subset of ADS-equipped vehicles,
which themselves currently represent only a very small percentage of
all motor vehicles on public roads in the United States.
Second, this document proposes a set of procedures to organize the
information NHTSA would receive for its review of AV STEP applications
and administration of AV STEP participation. This rulemaking would not
exempt or admit any particular vehicles into AV STEP. Those decisions
would be left to future NHTSA adjudication of applications. As
explained throughout this document, while the information proposed for
AV STEP would be helpful in informing NHTSA's review, the agency would
reserve discretion for its ultimate adjudications of AV STEP admission,
including exemptions. Thus, many potential impacts associated with AV
STEP would ultimately stem from NHTSA's decisions on those applications
rather than the procedures proposed in this document. Because there are
requirements set forth in the rule that would accrue as a result of
participation however, such as reporting to NHTSA, NHTSA considers the
costs of those requirements for program participants in this analysis.
(a) Baseline Costs
NHTSA estimates that several notable requirements for AV STEP would
not involve significant unique costs for an applicant or participant.
This is because those costs are part of the baseline and would be
incurred by the entity in the absence of AV STEP. As a result, NHTSA
does not consider those costs attributable to AV STEP and has not
included them in the estimated costs of this proposal. Subsection 2
(Uncertainties and Assumptions) above explains one of them: the cost of
an independent assessment for applicants that would have voluntarily
conducted an assessment even apart from AV STEP. Other baseline costs
pertain to data generation and storage, crash reporting, and
information submitted as part of application or reporting requirements
for FMVSS exemptions.
NHTSA does not anticipate data generation and storage costs for AV
STEP beyond those costs incurred by entities during operations in the
baseline. The agency designed the program to largely use data that
entities should already generate and store as part of responsible
operations. The application and reporting requirements proposed for AV
STEP focus on a company's internal processes and assessment methods for
its operations. This proposal expressly recognizes that those practices
may vary between entities. To account for this variation, NHTSA
proposes to tailor the most technology-dependent reporting elements to
the data and metrics already used by a company, to the extent that
these would further the goals of AV STEP. These are framed as
``customized'' requirements in the proposed rule. For such
requirements, applications would need to include proposals for specific
metrics or thresholds that could be used for the terms of customized
reporting. As a result, this reporting is expected to correspond to
data that a company is already using, reducing the likelihood that
these requirements would entail
[[Page 4167]]
new data generation or storage capabilities.
Likewise, NHTSA does not anticipate crash reporting costs from AV
STEP beyond those incurred in the baseline from other crash reporting
requirements. As proposed, entities would be required to submit several
types of reports about crashes involving a subject vehicle. The first
type of required report would consist of reports of crashes that occur
during or near a time that the vehicle's ADS is engaged. Crash report
under the SGO is expected to satisfy this ADS crash reporting
requirement in AV STEP.\226\ As explained in Section V.A.2 (Event-
Triggered Reporting), the crash reporting requirements in AV STEP are
largely designed to mirror the crash reporting requirements under the
SGO. To avoid duplicate reporting, a timely crash report under the SGO
would satisfy obligations to report that information for AV STEP. NHTSA
expects participants in AV STEP to be reporting entities under the SGO.
As such, NHTSA would not expect AV STEP participants to incur reporting
requirements for ADS crashes beyond those incurred in the baseline.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\226\ For NHTSA's cost analysis of SGO reporting requirements,
see 86 FR 74217 (December 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The second type of crash reporting proposed for AV STEP would
require, participants to submit video footage of the most severe types
of crashes that are reported. The SGO does not require crash reports to
include video.\227\ However, NHTSA usually requests video for the most
serious crashes reported under the SGO, as part of the agency's follow-
up on SGO reports. NHTSA also typically requires video submission for
crashes involving ADS-equipped vehicles exempted under other NHTSA
programs. As such, baseline costs in the absence of AV STEP already
include costs associated with the submission of video footage, and the
video reporting requirement proposed in AV STEP would not expand on the
amount of effort required of a reporting entity to process video
footage and transmit it to NHTSA. Therefore, NHTSA considers the costs
of submitting video footage in AV STEP to be costs that exist in the
baseline and not costs attributable to this program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\227\ The other difference between the proposed AV STEP crash
reporting requirement and the SGO is that AV STEP proposes to
require reports of all crashes whereas the SGO only requires reports
of crashes that occur with the ADS engaged during or immediately
preceding the crash event. This difference is covered under Section
IX.A.3.c)(2) (Participation Costs).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, costs associated with an FMVSS exemption in AV STEP also
exist in the baseline because they would be incurred if an entity
sought an FMVSS exemption under a different NHTSA exemption program
instead. As explained in Section III (Program Structure (Regulatory
Text Subpart A)), apart from AV STEP, certain ADS-equipped vehicles
could request FMVSS exemptions under two other NHTSA regulations: (1)
49 CFR part 591, which implements Section 30114(a) exemptions; and (2)
49 CFR part 555, which implements Section 30113 exemptions.\228\ The
application and reporting requirements proposed for AV STEP are based
on information that NHTSA receives when administering each of those
exemptions, either directly as part of an application or through
follow-up with an applicant. Specifically, the proposed application for
an FMVSS Exemption under AV STEP focuses on each noncompliance and the
ways in which an applicant mitigated any safety risks from each
noncompliance. Entities that request FMVSS exemptions under AVEP or
part 555 must provide similar information about each noncompliance for
which an exemption is requested.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\228\ NHTSA has previously analyzed costs of FMVSS exemption
processes under Section 30114(a) (the authority that the agency
proposes to use for AV STEP) for the TIE program. As discussed in
Section II.B.2 (NHTSA Exemptions), the TIE program is used for both
non-ADS exemptions and ADS exemptions. Thus, ADS operations
represent only a portion of the cost analysis for the TIE program.
For this analysis, see 87 FR 41861 (July 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As such, even in the baseline, an entity that requested an FMVSS
Exemption under one of NHTSA's other exemption programs would incur the
costs of providing this information. If AV STEP did not exist, NHTSA
expects most, if not all, of the applicants for an FMVSS Exemption
under AV STEP would request exemptions under either part 591 or part
555. As such, NHTSA considers costs from the requirements for an FMVSS
Exemption in AV STEP to be baseline costs that would be incurred
without this program.
(b) Non-Quantified Costs
Several types of potential costs of an AV STEP application or
participation are dependent on currently unknown future variables. As
such, NHTSA analyzed these qualitatively. The first such cost is the
cost to applicants associated with the application review process. For
AV STEP, NHTSA proposes a phased application review process that
entails follow-up with an applicant on their application, as well as
coordination on terms and conditions of participation. The amount of
engagement necessary for this process will depend significantly on
variables such as the thoroughness of an application, the complexity of
the operations requested, and the responsiveness of an applicant. Those
factors are largely within the control of the applicant and influenced
by the capabilities of the ADS that is the subject of an application.
Costs associated with the concern resolution process are also
dependent on similar variables. The concern resolution process proposed
for AV STEP would be initiated only if problems arose during a
participation. NHTSA cannot currently predict the frequency or nature
of such problems. Likewise, the agency also cannot currently predict
the types of resolutions that may be necessary under this process, as
these would turn on the specific mitigations for a problem and a
participant's willingness to cooperate when concerns arise. NHTSA also
cannot predict the extent to which a participant may have mitigated
those concerns on their own even in the absence of AV STEP.
Finally, NHTSA did not quantify safety costs as part of this
proposal. The overall objective of this proposal is to further public
safety, and NHTSA expects AV STEP to have a net safety benefit. The
variety of benefits to motor vehicle safety from this proposal are
explained throughout this document. NHTSA does not expect safety costs
to result from AV STEP, particularly since compliant vehicles that
participate in AV STEP could conduct the same operations on public
roads without this program.
NHTSA likewise does not expect the FMVSS or Make Inoperative
Exemptions in AV STEP to entail negative safety impacts. As explained
in Section VII.B (Exemption Application Requirements), applications for
FMVSS or Make Inoperative Exemptions would need to identify each
requirement or modification for which an exemption is needed, explain
all associated mitigations of safety impacts, and explain how the
vehicle's safety compares to that of a compliant vehicle. NHTSA would
consider all of this information, in conjunction with the other
information submitted in an application, when assessing whether risks
have been sufficiently addressed to justify granting the exemption
sought. Given these requirements, NHTSA does not expect FMVSS
nonconformance to lead to negative safety impacts.
(c) Quantified Costs
NHTSA's analysis of the quantified costs for AV STEP estimated the
burden to applicants of preparing an application as well as the burden
to
[[Page 4168]]
participants from reporting or preparing amendment requests during
participation. NHTSA's general methodology for estimating these costs
entailed projecting the annual burden that an applicant or participant
would incur for each program requirement. Specifically, these costs
were calculated by predicting the types of personnel that would be
necessary to complete each requirement, the burden hours for each of
those types of personnel, and the wage rates for such personnel. NHTSA
used the National Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates of the
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics in conducting this analysis.\229\ In
general, most burden hours were assumed to be incurred by one or more
of the following occupational categories: Administration Specialist
($34.04 per hour); Operations Specialist ($80.60 per hour); Engineer
($84.74 per hour); Senior Manager ($116.22); or Lawyer ($120.64 per
hour).\230\ The labor rates for these occupational categories are based
on average rates for multiple occupational titles/codes within a
particular category (and as listed in the National Occupational
Employment and Wage Estimates of the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics).
For example, wage rates for the ``Engineer'' category are based on an
average of the wage rates for: Electrical and Electronic Engineers (17-
2070), Industrial Engineers (17-2112), Mechanical Engineers (17-2141),
Computer Engineers (17-2061), Computer Systems Analysts (15-1211),
Computer and Information Research Scientists (15-1221), and Software
Developers (15-1252). NHTSA will publish spreadsheets in the docket for
this rulemaking that reflect the estimates summarized below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\229\ See U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, ``National
Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates, United States'' (May
2023), available at https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_nat.htm#11-0000.
\230\ These labor costs include wages and fringe benefits,
including paid leave, bonuses and overtime pay, health and other
types of insurance, retirement plans, and legally required benefits
(Social Security, Medicare, unemployment insurance, and workers'
compensation insurance). NHTSA estimated that the fringe benefits
are approximately 42.2 percent of the average hourly wage. For the
information that NHTSA used to derive this, see Bureau of Labor
Statistics, ``Employer Costs for Employee Compensation'' (September
2024), available at: https://www.bls.gov/news.release/ecec.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
These projections were informed by NHTSA's engagement with
regulated entities in NHTSA programs that contain certain requirements
analogous to those proposed in AV STEP, such as the agency's review of
applications and oversight of exemptions under AVEP or follow-up with
entities after a reported SGO crash. Through administering these
programs, NHTSA has gained experience with the types of personnel that
typically handle various types of responsibilities as well as the level
of work that certain tasks typically entail. NHTSA seeks comment on
these estimated costs and requests data that may further inform the
agency's projections.
(1) Application Costs
The first set of costs that NHTSA estimated are those that would be
incurred by an applicant to prepare and submit an AV STEP application.
These costs would arise from the four major areas of proposed
application requirements, as discussed in Section IV (Application and
Review (Regulatory Text Subparts B and D)): (1) application form
information requirements; (2) required information regarding certain
protocols for ADS operations; (3) required information regarding the
applicant's data governance plan; and (4) independent assessment
requirements.
When projecting the burden that filling out application forms would
impose, NHTSA separately considered the costs of each requirement
within the four proposed form sheets. One set of operational baseline
sheet responses would need to be provided for each application, as
would one set of responses to a second sheet regarding confirmation of
ongoing reporting. Together, these would be expected to incur a total
of 207 burden hours. NHTSA expects that these hours would be accrued by
personnel with the occupational titles listed above and would impose a
total cost of $17,501 per application.
Similarly, responses to a single Location Sheet would be expected
to incur a total of 145 burden hours, with a cost of $12,482. While at
least one Location Sheet would be required for each application,
multiple Location Sheets could be submitted for a single application.
Accordingly, NHTSA projected that one in ten applicants would submit
two Location Sheets, and that one in ten applicants would submit three
Location Sheets. This accounts for NHTSA's observation that once an ADS
operation expands beyond its initial location, subsequent expansions
occur more frequently. The agency translated this projection into an
estimated average of 1.3 Location Sheets per application, which would
result in a total Location Sheet average cost of $16,227 per
application from 189 average burden hours.
As proposed, the application form would require a separate sheet
for information about any exemptions requested under AV STEP. NHTSA
considers these costs part of the baseline costs for FMVSS Exemptions,
as discussed in Section IX.A.3.a) (Baseline Costs). Thus, requests for
Make Inoperative Exemptions would incur the only separate cost for this
portion of an application. As explained in the introduction of this
Costs section, NHTSA expects that Make Inoperative Exemptions will
represent only a limited proportion of AV STEP interest. Accordingly,
the agency projected that one in fifteen applications to AV STEP would
include a request for a Make Inoperative Exemption. The agency
estimated that preparing this sheet for each Make Inoperative Exemption
request would entail 232 burden hours at a cost of $22,737. But using
the projected one in fifteen multiplier, this would translate to an
average of 15 burden hours with an average cost of $1,516 per
application.
The second and third types of proposed requirements for an
application would respectively require an applicant to provide
information about certain protocols for the requested ADS operations
and certain aspects of the data governance plan for those operations.
Only one set of such information would need to be provided per
application for each of these subjects. NHTSA estimated that detailing
and submitting the protocols for ADS operations would entail 286 burden
hours, for a cost of $26,676 per application. The agency further
estimated that detailing and submitting the data governance plan would
entail 210 burden hours, for a cost of $19,511 per application.
When projecting the burden of the proposed independent assessment
requirements, NHTSA separately estimated the amount that an applicant
would pay to an independent assessor and the burden that applicants
would incur directly when engaging with and preparing certain required
information about independent assessments for an application. As
explained in Section IX.A.2 (Uncertainties and Assumptions), these
costs are largely unknown. Nonetheless, NHTSA considered available data
regarding similar assessments from other industries \231\ and the
agency's experience in non-ADS contexts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\231\ See, e.g., Commission for Energy Regulation, ``Safety Case
Fees Structure and Methodology'' (February 2016), available at:
https://cruie-live-96ca64acab2247eca8a850a7e54b-5b34f62.divio-media.com/documents/CER16032-Safety-Case-Fees-Version-2.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NHTSA projected that paying for an independent assessment of the
scope proposed for AV STEP would cost an
[[Page 4169]]
applicant $800,000 on average. However, as explained in Section IX.A.2
(Uncertainties and Assumptions), NHTSA assumed that more than half of
applicants will already have undertaken some form of an independent
assessment or would have undertaken such an assessment even in the
absence of AV STEP. As such, NHTSA believes that it is appropriate to
offset this projected cost and has assumed an average cost of $400,000
per application.
NHTSA projected additional burdens for an applicant's engagement
with an independent assessment, as well as an applicant's preparation
of information about the assessment for an application. NHTSA estimated
that this additional burden would entail 304 burden hours, with a total
cost of $25,301 per application. Together with the $400,000 cost
explained above, the agency estimated an average cost of $425,301 per
application for the proposed independent assessment requirements.
Overall, these estimated application burdens sum to an average net
cost of $506,732 per application, due (in part) to a net average of
1,211 burden hours. As noted in Section IX.A.2 (Uncertainties and
Assumptions), it is difficult to project how many eligible entities
would apply to AV STEP. In general, NHTSA would expect to receive fewer
applications in the years immediately following a Final Rule, due to
the time that would be needed for interested entities to undertake
independent assessments and prepare applications. The agency would
expect to receive increasing numbers of applications in subsequent
years, particularly as more entities reach the more mature state of ADS
development for which AV STEP has been shaped. Although NHTSA expects
such fluctuation, the agency believes that assuming an average of five
applications annually over the first seven years of the program would
be appropriate. Multiplying this with the estimated average net cost of
an application, NHTSA estimated that the average annual cost to
industry associated with the preparation and submission of AV STEP
applications would be $2,533,660 due (in part) to a net average of
6,055 burden hours.
(2) Participation Costs
NHTSA estimated the costs of participation by projecting the costs
of each of the reporting requirements in AV STEP, as well as the costs
of preparing a request for an amendment during participation.
Participation in AV STEP may entail other costs as well, such as those
incurred through the concern resolution process if problems arise
during an operation. However, as explained in Section IX.A.2
(Uncertainties and Assumptions), those costs are unpredictable because
they are contingent on variables that are currently unknown. The
proposed AV STEP reporting requirements break down into three main
categories: (1) periodic reporting; (2) event-triggered reporting; and
(3) reportable changes to an operation.
As proposed, AV STEP would include periodic reporting that occurs
on a quarterly basis. To estimate periodic reporting costs, NHTSA
projected the burden of several subsets of the quarterly reporting
requirements. These estimates assume that administration and operations
specialists would primarily prepare these responses, with support from
engineers and senior managers. First, all entities in AV STEP would be
required to report the ten elements of information that are set forth
in Sec. 597.500(c) of the proposed rule. NHTSA estimates that a
participant's responses to this information would require a total of
216 burden hours, for a cost of $14,373. Given that four such reports
would be required each year, this would translate to 864 burden hours,
for a cost of $57,492 annually. Since the information reported under
these elements largely entails standardized characteristics about an
operation, such as VMT or performance metrics, some entities may find
ways to reduce these estimated costs by automating the collection and
organization of this information.
The second proposed type of periodic reporting requirement is
specific to the step at which an entity is participating. Step 1
participants would need to report customized metrics regarding fallback
personnel performance and Step 2 participants would need to report
customized metrics for the ADS, as well as information about MRCs.
NHTSA estimates that this requirement at Step 1 would entail 46 burden
hours, for a cost of $3,624 per report. At Step 2, NHTSA estimates that
this requirement would entail 176 burden hours, for a cost of $14,447
per report. As these reports would also be required four times a year,
these would translate to annual burdens of 184 burden hours, for a cost
of $14,496, at Step 1 and 704 burden hours, for a cost of $57,788 at
Step 2. One of the benefits of NHTSA's proposal to use customized
reporting requirements is that entities may propose metrics and
thresholds that they already use for other purposes. As such, some
entities may be able to offset portions of these costs through
customized reporting that mirrors metrics used apart from AV STEP.
The third proposed type of periodic reporting requirement is only
for vehicles that participate under an AV STEP exemption. For this
requirement, an entity would need to report the VMT segmented by each
exempted vehicle's VIN. The first category of periodic reporting,
discussed above, includes reports of several data elements pertaining
to the VMT of subject vehicles. As a result, NHTSA's estimates for the
first category of periodic reporting already include the costs of
reviewing and organizing VMT data for vehicles operating under AV STEP.
That same data would support the VMT reporting requirement for AV STEP
Exemptions. As such, NHTSA expects that the estimated costs for the
first category of periodic reporting would already account for the
costs of this reporting requirement.
The next category of reporting during participation is event-
triggered reporting of incidents within a specified timeframe after
their occurrence. This requirement encompasses crash reporting, the
submission of videos for particularly severe crashes, and the reporting
of citable offenses. Most crash reporting under this requirement will
likely entail ADS crash reports. As explained in subsection a)
(Baseline Costs) above, NHTSA does not consider costs for ADS crash
reporting to be attributable to AV STEP because all of these reporting
costs exist in the baseline due to separate NHTSA requirements.
In this document, NHTSA also proposes to require AV STEP
participants to report crashes involving subject vehicles even if the
ADS was not engaged during or near the time of the crash. NHTSA did not
estimate separate costs for this reporting, however, because the
agency's experience with a similar requirement in other exemption
programs indicates that such crashes are infrequent enough to result in
de minimis reporting costs. The final proposed crash reporting
requirement would require an entity to submit video footage for the
most severe types of crashes. NHTSA also did not estimate unique costs
for this reporting requirement, as explained in Section IX.A.3.a)
(Baseline Costs) above, because video footage of such crashes is
typically obtained through the SGO and other NHTSA exemption programs.
For the last type of incident reporting, NHTSA estimated that
annual reporting for citable offenses will require 336 burden hours,
for a cost of $30,050 per participant. ADS developers and operators
already regularly collect and
[[Page 4170]]
analyze such performance data as part of their normal product
monitoring and improvement programs. However, NHTSA did not
specifically offset these estimates for this work because those
practices vary among entities.
As explained in Section V.A.3 (Update Reporting), for the third
type of reporting proposed, AV STEP participants would also need to
submit certain information about changes that occur during
participation. The Final Determination Letter would set the parameters
for when such reports are needed. Depending on the extent of a reported
change, the required information may entail updated independent
assessments. While the agency anticipates that AV STEP operations will
continually evolve over the course of program participation, NHTSA
expects that eligible entities would endeavor to minimize the need to
submit these update reports. Applicants could do so by ensuring that
the independent assessments submitted in an application are as
comprehensive as possible, since the scope of an independent assessment
would inform the parameters for this reporting. This would make it more
likely that a greater proportion of updates would not require reports.
Although the number of reportable changes under this requirement will
likely vary for each participant, NHTSA estimates that, on average,
each participant would submit one update report per year. The agency
estimated that the cost of preparing and submitting the information
required for an update report would entail 237 burden hours, with a
cost of $20,575.
Whether a reportable update requires an updated independent
assessment would depend on a number of variables that are dependent on
the specific changes at issue. The agency assumed for the purposes of
this analysis that half of these reportable updates would require an
updated independent assessment. While the cost of these updated
independent assessments is also likely to vary significantly according
to the specific nature of the changes, NHTSA estimated that each such
assessment would cost a participant, on average, one eighth of what a
complete independent assessment would cost (as discussed in the
preceding subsection), or $100,000. Using the projection that this
would only be necessary for half of the assumed update reports, NHTSA
annualized this cost to $50,000. Combining this with the burden of
preparing and submitting the update report, NHTSA estimated that update
reporting would incur an average annual cost of $70,575 per
participant.
As with this update reporting, given that NHTSA expects
participating operations to continue to evolve, the agency expects that
participants will also incur costs that result from the preparation and
submission of amendment requests. Under this proposal, a participant
that wished to change any of the terms or conditions contained in a
Final Determination Letter could request to do so through the
submission of such amendment requests. NHTSA proposes specific required
information that an amendment request would need to include, as
discussed in Section V.B.1 (Amendment Process). The agency has
estimated that preparing such information would entail 400 burden
hours, with a cost of $35,757 per amendment request. NHTSA projects
that each participant would request one amendment every two years.
Accordingly, the agency estimated that the annual average burden of
submitting amendment requests would entail 200 burden hours, for a cost
of $17,879 per participant.
Combining all of these participation costs, NHTSA estimated that
the proposed AV STEP participation requirements would impose an average
annual burden of 2,081 burden hours, with a cost of $212,138 per
participant. The agency further projected the average number of annual
participants that would be expected during the first seven years of the
program. Using the previously discussed average of five applicants per
year over this time period, and assuming that, starting in the fourth
year of the program, two participations would conclude each year, NHTSA
estimated that there would be an average of 17 active participants
annually. Multiplying this by the burden of each participation, the
agency estimated that AV STEP participation would represent an annual
burden for participants of 35,377 burden hours, with a cost of
$3,606,346.
(3) Costs of NHTSA's Review and Oversight
NHTSA will also incur costs, through its review of AV STEP
applications and oversight of AV STEP participants. The agency will
thoroughly review applications under the process proposed in Section
IV.E (Application Review). NHTSA estimated that its review of an
application would entail 953 burden hours across administrative and
engineering staff in pay grades from GS-9 through GS-14, GS-15 and
Senior Executive Service leadership positions, and legal staff. Using
corresponding wages from the Office of Personnel Management \232\ and
assuming Washington, DC locality pay, NHTSA estimated that these burden
hours would translate to a cost of $102,748 per application.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\232\ Office of Management and Budget, ``Salaries and Wages''
(January 2024), available at: https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/pay-leave/salaries-wages/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agency personnel would oversee AV STEP participants through
monitoring of the reporting discussed in the preceding subsection, as
well as through the concern resolution process discussed in Section
V.B.2 (Concern Resolution Process). While NHTSA did not quantify the
latter, as explained in Section IX.A.3.b) (Non-Quantified Costs), the
agency estimated that monitoring and analyzing the information it would
receive from AV STEP participants would entail an average of 329 burden
hours annually per participant, across the same types of personnel
identified in the previous paragraph. These burden hours would
translate to an estimated annual cost of $35,237 per participant.
NHTSA further used these values as well as the applicant and
participant numbers the agency projected (as discussed in the two
preceding subsections) to estimate its average annual burden across the
first seven years of the program. For the projected average of 5
applicants per year, NHTSA estimated that reviewing AV STEP
applications would require 4,700 burden hours, with a cost of $513,740.
For the projected average of 17 participants over the first seven years
of program, NHTSA estimated that overseeing AV STEP participants would
require 5,593 burden hours, with a cost of $599,029. Combining these,
NHTSA estimated that its average annual burden to administer AV STEP
over the first seven years of the program would entail 10,293 burden
hours, with a cost of $1,112,769.
(4) Total Program Costs
Summing the burdens explained under subsections (1) and (2) above,
NHTSA estimated that the average annual burden to all AV STEP
applicants and participants, over the first seven years of the program,
would amount to 41,432 burden hours, with a cost of $6,140,006.
Combining this with the estimated burden AV STEP would entail for
NHTSA, as explained in the preceding subsection, the agency estimated
that the program would entail a net annual average burden of 51,725
burden hours, with a cost of $7,252,775. Over this first seven years of
the program, this would present a net
[[Page 4171]]
burden of 362,075 burden hours, with a cost of $50,769,425.
4. Benefits
As explained throughout this NPRM, including in subsection 1 (Need
for Regulation) above, NHTSA intends for AV STEP to enhance the
transparency and oversight of ADS-equipped vehicles, accelerate
learning relating to ADS safety, and provide an efficient framework for
reviewing ADS operations and exemptions. NHTSA has qualitatively
assessed these benefits because the nature of how they may arise and
uncertainties surrounding the progression of ADS technology preclude
sufficient data to quantify them. Nevertheless, NHTSA considers each of
these benefits significant. This section summarizes those benefits,
which are also discussed throughout this proposal.
AV STEP would further safety in several important ways. First, AV
STEP would provide a new type of assessment framework tailored
specifically for the nascent stage of ADS technology. This would
enhance the agency's ability to review and oversee the safety of
participating ADS-equipped vehicles. Second, AV STEP would likely
motivate some ADS companies to more thoroughly refine their own
approaches to ADS development and operations if interested in
participating in this program. AV STEP's proposed clear, upfront
application and participation requirements should allow prospective
participants to understand the level of safety commitment needed for
this program and to prepare for this commitment. AV STEP may also
accelerate the pace at which ADS safety practices evolve, such as by
creating a broader market for independent assessments, evaluating the
use of industry standards, and probing the effectiveness of safety
metrics. The insight gained through AV STEP would also help to inform
NHTSA's consideration of potential FMVSS for ADS.
NHTSA expects that AV STEP would also provide an effective
framework for administering exemptions to ADS-equipped vehicles. In
turn, this would enable the agency to effectively process and oversee
complex exemptions involving ADS, including potential future requests
to retrofit compliant vehicles with ADS. This would improve regulatory
flexibility for innovative ADS technologies in a way that still
prioritizes the safety of those vehicles.
In addition, the information that NHTSA proposes to publish about
AV STEP applications and participations would increase transparency
surrounding ADS operations. The data NHTSA would make available would
better inform the public about where participating operations are
occurring, the nature and status of those operations, and opportunities
to interact with those vehicles. In turn, this additional information
would enable the public to make more informed decisions about how to
engage with ADS technologies.
ADS safety and transparency is a prerequisite to other societal
benefits ADS technology may offer. ADS has the potential to positively
impact many aspects of society, including the environment,
accessibility for people with disabilities, and equity. The public
safety benefits that NHTSA expects from AV STEP could improve the
prospects for ADS technologies to achieve non-safety benefits as well.
AV STEP also offers an opportunity to improve regulatory
harmonization for jurisdictions with overlapping engagement with ADS
technologies. As explained in Section III (Program Structure
(Regulatory Text Subpart A)), AV STEP would require that participants
comply with all applicable Federal, state, and local laws. During the
review of an AV STEP application, NHTSA would engage with applicants
and other authorities, as appropriate, to explore opportunities to
harmonize certain AV STEP requirements with those that other
jurisdictions may impose. Those authorities may likewise consider
harmonizing their own requirements with AV STEP. As a result, AV STEP
would offer an opportunity to enhance regulatory collaboration and
dialogue in a way that could benefit both regulatory authorities and
regulated entities.
Similarly, NHTSA anticipates that AV STEP may increase the
opportunities for ADS companies with responsible safety practices to
demonstrate their public commitment to safety in a more objective and
transparent way. In turn, this may help those entities establish public
trust and build potential relationships with other entities looking to
engage with ADS business partners that prioritize safety. As such, this
program offers the potential to encourage more responsible growth of
ADS technology.
5. Regulatory Approaches Considered
This section presents three alternatives to the proposed rule that
NHTSA considered when developing this proposal. None of these options
were incorporated into the lead proposal as they would not address the
complexities of regulating ADS technologies as well or otherwise
appropriately balance encouraging AV STEP participation with the need
for program participation to entail a meaningful commitment to safety.
(a) Baseline (No Action)
The no action alternative would maintain the status quo and not
propose a national program for ADS-equipped vehicles. NHTSA does not
prefer this alternative because, as described throughout this NPRM,
NHTSA believes that AV STEP would address multiple unique challenges
posed by the evolving state of ADS technology. Currently, detailed
information about ADS-equipped vehicles operating on public roads is
often limited. More information about participating vehicles would
enhance NHTSA's oversight of those vehicles and increase the amount of
public transparency. The information gleaned through this program could
also inform and expedite NHTSA's consideration of future standards for
ADS by providing greater insight into the effectiveness of ADS safety
assessment methods and metrics. As a result, keeping the status quo
would maintain the challenges that the agency has identified throughout
this document.
(b) Less Stringent Program Alternative
The second alternative considered by NHTSA when developing this
rule entailed a less stringent version of the proposal that placed a
greater priority on encouraging participation through reduced
application and participation requirements. For example, the agency
considered reducing the stringency by adding an entry level of program
participation that would remove the substantive technical review of an
application and focus exclusively on more limited participation
reporting. In such a scenario, this entry level of participation would
be available only for vehicles that do not need an exemption under AV
STEP. Because those vehicles can operate currently without AV STEP,
some entities with such vehicles may be more motivated to participate
if participation burdens are reduced.
NHTSA did not include such an entry-level of participation in the
lead proposal because the agency believes that adding such a less
stringent participation option, particularly at the outset of this
program, would disrupt the appropriate balance between encouraging
participation and ensuring participation is meaningful. Encouraging
participation should not come at the expense of the robustness of the
program. Participation should remain meaningful in terms of the types
of information submitted to the agency
[[Page 4172]]
and the scrutiny of the agency's oversight. At least some minimum
requirements for participation should exist for the sake of consistency
between entities and to ensure that Program participation translates to
a commitment to responsible safety practices.
The alternative of an entry-level option for compliant vehicles to
participate in AV STEP would strike this balance differently than the
primary proposal by prioritizing increased participation over
meaningful participation. Although this alternative might boost FMVSS-
certified vehicle participation, it would mean that some vehicles are
admitted into AV STEP without a substantive review. Including both
unreviewed operations (e.g., those entities requesting participation
for FMVSS compliant vehicles) and operations that would be reviewed
within AV STEP (e.g., those entities requesting participation for
vehicles needing an exemption), could increase confusion for interested
applicants and the public. Further, this alternative would stratify
step eligibility requirements based on whether vehicles were seeking an
exemption under AV STEP instead of based on the ADS' use of fallback
personnel during operations. Applicants may not necessarily understand
the differences in these participation options, which could lead to
confusion as to which step an entity should request for program
admission. In addition, those differences may not be apparent to the
public, which could lead to public perception that entry-level
participation is more meaningful than would actually be the case. These
risks of confusion could undermine the transparency goals of AV STEP.
Finally, NHTSA intends for AV STEP to require a participant's
meaningful commitment to responsible safety practices and due diligence
in the design and development of an ADS and its operation. A key aspect
of this meaningful commitment is providing NHTSA with critical safety
information through an application. Providing a participation option
that would not entail such a safety commitment may disincentivize
certain companies from participating at higher levels with their
compliant vehicles because they could forego such a commitment and
still participate in AV STEP.
Even without an entry-level participation step, NHTSA still
believes that many entities will have strong incentives to participate
in AV STEP with their compliant vehicles. Those incentives are
discussed further in Section II (Program Context). As such, NHTSA does
not currently consider this alternative to be an effective option for
satisfying the goals of this rulemaking.
(c) More Stringent Program Alternative
The third alternative considered by NHTSA when developing this
proposal was a more stringent version of the Program. One structural
way to increase the stringency of AV STEP would be to omit Step 1,
which would narrow the program to vehicles that would operate without
fallback personnel during participating operations on public roads.
This alternative would require all participants to meet the most
stringent aspects of the program to participate in AV STEP. As
explained in Section IV (Application and Review (Regulatory Text
Subparts B and D)) and Section V (Participation (Regulatory Text
Subparts E and F)), the requirements for AV STEP are designed to become
more stringent as the responsibility of the ADS increases. For
instance, under the lead proposal, an independent assessment at Step 2
would need to be more rigorous than at Step 1 because it would need to
consider whether the ADS could be exclusively relied on during
operations. In contrast, an independent assessment at Step 1 could
consider fallback personnel's ability to mitigate certain risks rather
than fully reviewing the ADS' ability to address those risks.
NHTSA does not consider this more stringent alternative an optimal
balance of participation and stringency. Whereas a less stringent
alternative would favor participation numbers at the expense of
meaningful participation, this more stringent alternative would move
too far in the opposite direction. Excluding ADS operations that rely
on fallback personnel would miss a valuable opportunity to improve
transparency and insight surrounding the safety of a significant
portion of current ADS operations. Fallback personnel play an important
role in the safety of ADS development and are frequently used across
industry. One of the primary goals of AV STEP is to provide a framework
for assessing the safety of ADS while the technology remains in a state
of development. Omitting operations that rely on fallback personnel at
all times from this framework would limit the potential for AV STEP to
accomplish this goal.
Moreover, this more stringent alternative would likely take an
oversimplified approach to the realities of the development cycle for
ADS operations. In practice, most ADS operations continue to use
fallback personnel under certain circumstances or for specific vehicles
even once they begin some operations without fallback personnel. For
example, a portion of a fleet could operate without fallback personnel
while the remainder of the fleet continues to use fallback personnel to
validate certain aspects of an operation, such as new software versions
or new potential routes. Fallback personnel may also need to be
temporarily reintroduced for safety reasons if concerns arise about the
ADS' performance. As such, NHTSA considers the option to participate in
AV STEP with fallback personnel an important program characteristic
that accounts for the reality of ADS operations and that avoids
disincentivizing the use of fallback personnel for safety.
B. National Environmental Policy Act
NHTSA has analyzed this proposed rule for the purposes of the
National Environmental Policy Act. NHTSA is aware of the November 12,
2024 decision in Marin Audubon Society v. Federal Aviation
Administration, No. 23-1067 (D.C. Cir. Nov. 12, 2024). To the extent
that a court may conclude that the Council on Environmental Quality
(CEQ) regulations implementing NEPA are not judicially enforceable or
binding on this agency action, NHTSA has nonetheless elected to follow
those regulations at 40 CFR parts 1500-1508, in addition to DOT's
procedures/regulations implementing NEPA at DOT NEPA Order 5610.1C, to
meet the agency's obligations under NEPA, 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.
In accordance with 49 CFR 1.81, 42 U.S.C. 4336, and DOT NEPA Order
5610.1C, NHTSA has determined that this rule is categorically excluded
pursuant to 23 CFR 771.118(c)(4) (planning and administrative
activities, such as promulgation of rules, that do not involve or lead
directly to construction). This rulemaking is not anticipated to result
in any environmental impacts, and there are no extraordinary
circumstances present in connection with this rulemaking.
The rulemaking proposes a procedural framework for organizing
information that NHTSA receives to inform future adjudications of
participation in AV STEP. NHTSA's decisions on AV STEP participation
and any actions taken while overseeing participants would constitute
separate agency actions that are independent of this proposal.
Similarly, the information required by the proposed rule should largely
already exist or be planned for subject vehicles independent of this
proposal. Finally, all vehicles that are eligible to participate in AV
STEP under this proposal would either do so voluntarily or under an
exemption that
[[Page 4173]]
is analogous to exemptions already available under NHTSA's regulations.
As such, this proposal is not expected to significantly affect the
quality of the human environment compared to the baseline regulatory
framework for subject vehicles in the status quo.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.,
as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
(SBREFA) of 1996), whenever an agency is required to publish a notice
of proposed rulemaking or final rule, it must evaluate the potential
effects of the rule on small entities (i.e., small businesses, small
organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions). The Small
Business Administration's regulations at 13 CFR part 121 define a small
business, in part, as a business entity ``which operates primarily
within the United States.'' (13 CFR 121.105(a)(1)). A regulatory
flexibility analysis is not required if the head of an agency certifies
the proposed or final rule will not have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities. SBREFA amended the
Regulatory Flexibility Act to require Federal agencies to provide a
statement of the factual basis for certifying that a proposed or final
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities.
NHTSA has undertaken an initial regulatory flexibility analysis to
understand the possible impacts of this rulemaking on small entities.
NHTSA requests comment from small businesses that would be eligible for
and interested in AV STEP regarding this analysis and the potential
impacts of this proposal. Ultimately, given the analysis presented
below and the burden estimates in Section IX.A (Executive Orders 12866,
13563, 14094 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures), NHTSA
believes this proposal is unlikely to have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small businesses. As such, the agency
seeks comment, in particular, on whether any significant impacts to
small businesses would be expected to result from AV STEP. A
description of the reasons why action by the agency is being considered
and the objectives of and legal basis for the proposal rule are
explained elsewhere in the preamble and not repeated here.
Description and estimate of the number of small entities to which
the proposal or final rule will apply:
For the purposes of receiving Small Business Administration (SBA)
assistance, the thresholds for considering entities to be small
businesses vary for each North American Industry Classification System
(NAICS) code.\233\ These criteria for determining small business size,
as stated in 13 CFR 121.201, may be monetary or based on number of
employees. As proposed in this NPRM, vehicle manufacturers, ADS
developers, fleet operators, and system integrators would be eligible
to participate in AV STEP. As such, a variety of business categories
may be affected by this proposal and the applicable small business size
thresholds under the SBA's regulations may vary accordingly:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\233\ U.S. Small Business Administration, ``Table of Small
Business Size Standards'' (March 2023), available at: https://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/2023-06/Table%20of%20Size%20Standards_Effective%20March%2017%2C%202023%20%282%29.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A vehicle manufacturer may qualify as a small Automobile
and Light Duty Motor Vehicle Manufacturing business (NAICS 336110) or
as a small Heavy Duty Truck Manufacturing business (NAICS 336120) if it
has fewer than 1,500 employees.
An ADS developer that is not a vehicle manufacturer or
fleet operator may qualify as a small business under technology-
specific NAICS codes, such as those for Software Developers (NAICS
513210, for which a 47 million dollar threshold is used) or Custom
Computer Programming Services (NAICS 541511, for which a 34 million
dollar threshold is used).
A fleet operator may similarly fall under a variety of
NAICS codes, such as those beginning with ``484'' (Truck
Transportation), ``485'' (Transit and Ground Passenger Transportation),
or ``492'' (Couriers and Messengers). The monetary thresholds for being
considered a small business under these classifications range from 19
to 34 million dollars.
A system integrator that does not qualify as any of the
above may be considered under Motor Vehicle Electrical and Electronic
Equipment Manufacturing (NAICS 336320) or Other Motor Vehicle Parts
Manufacturing (NAICS 336390), among other possible classifications. For
both of these, an entity must have fewer than 1,000 employees to be
considered a small business by the SBA.
As this list illustrates, it is difficult to identify the NAICS
codes and associated thresholds used by the SBA for all of the
individual entities that may be eligible to apply to AV STEP under this
proposal. For purposes of this analysis, NHTSA uses the 1,000-employee
threshold to consider whether eligible entities may qualify as a small
business. NHTSA expects this threshold to encompass any entities that
may qualify as a small business under applicable monetary thresholds as
well. The companies eligible to apply to AV STEP would predominantly
consist of entities, such as ADS developers, that are relatively new
and employ less than 1,000 individuals and are unlikely to have annual
receipts in excess of the applicable monetary thresholds. As such, it
is unlikely that a monetary threshold would identify additional small
entities not already accounted for by this employee threshold. NHTSA
seeks comment on whether this employee threshold fully encompasses
eligible small entities and, if not, data to identify other such
entities based on monetary thresholds.
To identify entities with less than 1,000 employees, the agency
analyzed entities that have reported under NHTSA's SGO ADS
requirements, submitted VSSAs to the agency, received exemptions under
AVEP, or that NHTSA has other reason to believe would be potentially
eligible for AV STEP. NHTSA estimates that 25 of these entities have
fewer than 1,000 employees and considers these entities to be small
businesses for the purpose of this analysis. Given that AV STEP
application and participation would be voluntary, the agency does not
expect that all 25 of these entities would ultimately be affected by
these proposals.
Description of the projected reporting, record keeping and other
compliance requirements for small entities:
As proposed, AV STEP would be a voluntary program that would
include both initial application requirements as well as ongoing
participation requirements. Due to its voluntary nature, NHTSA expects
that eligible small businesses would only apply if they deem it
economically prudent to do so and if they would be able to comply with
these requirements. AV STEP participation would not be a Federal
requirement for entities with ADS-equipped vehicles that can already
lawfully operate on public roads, because these entities could operate
those vehicles even if they were not a part of this program.
Moreover, since AV STEP is designed to complement other NHTSA
programs, those other programs may provide preferable alternatives for
certain small entities with smaller scale operations. As explained in
Section II.B.2 (NHTSA Exemptions), AV STEP is especially designed for
the review and oversight of ADS-equipped vehicle operations at scale.
Many of the proposed requirements and objectives of AV STEP
[[Page 4174]]
reflect this goal, such as fleetwide reporting metrics or reviews of an
organization's safety management systems for conducting complex
operations. NHTSA maintains other programs that entities with smaller
scale operations may consider capable of providing analogous benefits
to AV STEP in a less burdensome way. For instance, entities with
smaller-scale operations that involve imported vehicles in need of an
FMVSS exemption may prefer to use AVEP rather than AV STEP. Similarly,
a small entity that sought to increase transparency for its operations
but did not want to undergo the level of commitment needed for AV STEP
could voluntarily submit information about its ADS or operations under
a VSSA or NHTSA's AV TEST initiative.
NHTSA's analysis of the burden that these AV STEP requirements
would impose on applicants and participants includes cost ranges in
several areas. This is because, while the requirements themselves are
not differentiated by business size, this burden is expected to
increase along with the scale and complexity of an operation. In
general, NHTSA anticipates that small businesses that choose to apply
and participate would incur costs closer to the lower end of these
ranges. The costs to a small entity may even be below those estimated,
because the agency's analysis of some requirements assumed an average
cost across the program or the cost anticipated for greater scale or
complexity of operations than might be relevant for a small business.
Section IX.A (Executive Orders 12866, 13563, 14094 and DOT Regulatory
Policies and Procedures) describes NHTSA's cost analysis in more
detail.
The initial cost of applying to AV STEP is estimated to be, on
average, $506,732. NHTSA expects that the proposed application
requirements--discussed in Section IV (Application and Review
(Regulatory Text Subparts B and D)--would impose a lower burden for
small businesses, since those requirements generally scale with the
size and complexity of the requested participation. In general, smaller
operations involve reduced exposure and a narrower set of
considerations for safety oversight. As a result, certain subjects in
an application may not be applicable to a small operation or may entail
less detailed information. Likewise, an independent assessment of a
smaller operation could likely be completed more quickly and easily
than an assessment of a larger, more complex operation.
The annual cost of participating in AV STEP is estimated to be, on
average, $212,138. Similar to the application requirements, NHTSA
expects the participation requirements proposed in Section V.A
(Reporting Requirements) to present a lower burden for small
businesses. All participants would be required to provide standard
information quarterly and additional information after certain
incidents occur. Collecting and reporting the required quarterly
information for smaller operations would entail less effort than would
be necessary for larger operations. Likewise, given their lower
exposure, smaller operations would be expected to have fewer incidents
that would need to be separately reported. The customized nature of
many reporting requirements (as described in Section IV.A.3
(Confirmation of Reporting During Participation)) could also help to
reduce the burden for small businesses.
Duplication with other Federal rules:
This NPRM proposes to establish a voluntary review and oversight
framework for ADS-equipped vehicles. No other existing Federal
regulation provides such a program. While ADS-equipped vehicles may be
eligible to request FMVSS exemptions under existing exemption
processes, AV STEP would provide a process specifically tailored for
ADS-equipped vehicles. Section II.B (How NHTSA's Authorities Shaped
this NPRM) discusses how this proposal has been shaped to complement,
rather than duplicate, NHTSA's existing exemption processes. NHTSA also
shaped certain reporting requirements for AV STEP participation to
avoid duplication with overlapping requirements. Examples of this
design include the event-triggered reporting requirements for AV STEP,
which are proposed to avoid duplication with any other NHTSA reporting
requirement that covers the same information (see Section V.A.2 (Event-
Triggered Reporting)), and customized requirements that could be
harmonized with requirements from other jurisdictions (see Section
III.C (Terms and Conditions)).
Description of any significant alternatives to the proposed rule:
AV STEP is designed to enhance the transparency and oversight of
ADS-equipped vehicles in a way that affords enough flexibility to
account for the evolving nature of ADS technology. When developing this
program, the agency sought to strike an effective balance between
encouraging participation and ensuring that participation was
meaningful. Ultimately, NHTSA found that a comprehensive but voluntary
program would best support the goals of this proposal, which are
described further in Section II (Program Context).
If NHTSA were to take no action, the agency would not be able to
realize the advantages AV STEP would offer that are described
throughout this NPRM. Critically, NHTSA would bypass the opportunity
for AV STEP to help the agency proactively identify safety concerns
with an ADS prior to the occurrence of negative safety outcomes. NHTSA
developed AV STEP to meet the needs of this crucial transitional time
in ADS development and to inform future NHTSA regulation and oversight.
If the agency were to take no action, small businesses would not have
the option to participate in such a national program for ADS-equipped
vehicles or to request an exemption to take a previously compliant
vehicle out of compliance with FMVSS when retrofitting it with an ADS.
NHTSA has also considered the potential impacts of altering the
burden associated with the proposed application and participation
requirements for AV STEP. Section IX.A (Executive Orders 12866, 13563,
14094 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures) explains how NHTSA
specifically considered changing program characteristics to alter this
stringency, as well as the reasons that the agency did not feel such
changes were effective options for AV STEP. While eliminating or
reducing the stringency of specific requirements across the program
could reduce the costs they would incur, this would undermine the
intended safety benefits of the program. Reducing the stringency only
for small businesses could reduce the value of AV STEP participation
for these entities, such as by reducing the program's potential to
represent a meaningful safety commitment for these entities. A
different level of stringency for small businesses would also increase
the complexity of the program in a way that would make AV STEP more
difficult for the public and eligible entities to understand.
In addition, the agency considered increasing the stringency of
participation in AV STEP. Although more stringent requirements could
potentially provide more insight into the development and operation of
participating ADS-equipped vehicles, heightened stringency would
increase the burden to apply for AV STEP and participate if admitted,
which could more significantly impact small entities seeking to apply.
As a result, fewer entities may consider applying, and the program's
overall value could be comprised. NHTSA considers the proposed rule an
appropriate balance of
[[Page 4175]]
these considerations, as discussed throughout this NPRM and
particularly in the introduction to Section III (Program Structure
(Regulatory Text Subpart A)).
D. Paperwork Reduction Act
In this proposed rule, the Department proposes new collections of
information that require approval by the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13,
49 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). Notwithstanding any other provisions of law,
no person shall be subject to penalty for failing to comply with a
collection of information if the collection of information does not
display a currently valid OMB control number. An Information Collection
Request (ICR) for the new information collection described in this
subsection has been submitted to OMB for review and comment. The ICR
describes the nature of the information collections and their expected
burden.
While AV STEP would be voluntary, this proposed rule would
establish new collection of information requirements for eligible
entities that choose to apply to participate in AV STEP. The
information collected would be intended to inform NHTSA's review of an
application, adjudication of program admission, oversight of program
participation, and, ultimately, the agency's future research,
rulemaking, and other actions related to ADS. Since AV STEP
participation would be voluntary, this information collection
requirement would apply only if a vehicle manufacturer, ADS developer,
fleet operator, or system integrator decided to apply to participate in
the Program. Entities that choose not to apply to AV STEP would not be
subject to these proposed information collection requirements.
Most of the information required for an application would be
consistent across the program,\234\ but additional information would be
required if the applicant sought one of two types of exemptions under
AV STEP.\235\ In addition, this document proposes to establish ongoing
information collection requirements for AV STEP participants, including
both periodic and event-triggered reporting requirements.\236\ In
general, the information collected under these AV STEP requirements
would be expected to help NHTSA identify potential safety issues with
requested or participating ADS operations, gain insight into the
performance of the ADS technology in those operations, and enhance the
transparency of those operations on public roads in the United States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\234\ These requirements are described in Section IV
(Application and Review (Regulatory Text Subparts B and D)).
\235\ See Section VII.B (Exemption Application Requirements).
\236\ These requirements are described in Section V.A (Reporting
Requirements).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In compliance with the requirements of the PRA and OMB's
implementing regulations, NHTSA has prepared the following analysis
relating to the proposed rule to establish AV STEP. NHTSA requests
public comments on this collection of information.
Title: 49 CFR part 597, ADS-equipped Vehicle Safety, Transparency,
and Evaluation Program.
Type of Request: New collection.
Affected Public: Manufacturers of ADS-equipped vehicles, ADS
developers, fleet operators, or system integrators of ADS-equipped
vehicles who seek to participate in AV STEP.
Requested Expiration Date of Approval: Three years from the date of
approval.
Summary of the Collection of Information:
This proposed rule would establish a national program for ADS-
equipped vehicles that operate on public roads in the United States. As
proposed, four types of eligible entities could apply for AV STEP at
one of two steps--Step 1 or Step 2. Entities admitted to the program
would be subject to terms and conditions that would govern the subject
vehicles during their participation.
NHTSA proposes AV STEP as a voluntary program and would not require
eligible entities to participate. Those entities in need of an
exemption could receive the exemption through AV STEP, but could also
use NHTSA's existing exemption processes if they expect those processes
to be better suited to their request. The information collection
requirements proposed in this document would apply only to entities
that chose to apply to AV STEP. As a result, all of the information
collection requirements proposed in this document are voluntary in
nature because entities may forego them by deciding not to apply to
participate in AV STEP.
To administer AV STEP, NHTSA proposes to impose information
collection requirements on applicants and participants. The application
requirements would generally entail information collections about the
ADS-equipped vehicles that are the subject of the request, the nature
of the requested operations, and the safety processes used for ADS
development and operations. This document also proposes to consider
applications for two types of exemptions through AV STEP--FMVSS
exemptions for particular purposes enumerated in 49 U.S.C. 30114 and
exemptions to the prohibition in 49 U.S.C. 30122 on making a safety
device or element inoperative on a vehicle that is certified as
compliant with all applicable FMVSS. AV STEP would entail additional
information collection requirements for applicants requesting either of
these exemptions. These requirements focus on information about the
specific exemption requested, the manner in which an applicant would
mitigate any safety risks stemming from the nonconformance that
requires an exemption, and, for an FMVSS exemption, the purposes for
which the exemption is requested.
This NPRM also includes three types of proposed reporting
requirements for participants that are admitted to AV STEP. The first
type of reporting proposed is periodic reporting, under which quarterly
reports of information about subject vehicle operations and performance
would be required. The second type of reporting proposed is event-
triggered reporting, under which information about certain safety-
relevant incidents, such as crashes, would be required within specified
timeframes after their occurrence. The third type of proposed reporting
focuses on information that would be required regarding updates to an
operation, if a participant planned to pursue such updates during the
course of participation. Overall, these reporting requirements would be
more extensive for Step 2 participation compared to Step 1
participation.
Last, NHTSA proposes information collection requirements for
requests from participants to amend the specific terms and conditions
governing a participation. This information would focus on the nature
of requested changes and the participants' reasons for seeking such
changes.
Description of the Need for the Information and Use of the
Information:
The information required for an application would inform NHTSA's
review and adjudication of applications to participate in AV STEP,
including (for any agency decision to grant an application's request to
participate) the terms and conditions that would govern a specific
operation. The information required for reporting would facilitate
NHTSA's oversight of participating operations. This oversight would
include monitoring for potential safety issues and ensuring
participants adhere to the terms and conditions that apply to subject
vehicles. Collectively, the information received under these
[[Page 4176]]
requirements would also inform future NHTSA ADS activities outside of
AV STEP, such as the agency's consideration of potential safety
standards for ADS. The information required for an amendment would
enable NHTSA to review requests from participants to change the terms
and conditions that govern the participation.
Description of the Likely Respondents (Including Estimated Number,
and Proposed Frequency of Response to the Collection of Information):
Respondents would be limited to entities that meet the proposed
eligibility requirements for AV STEP and who elect to apply to the
program. As mentioned above, four types of entities would be eligible
to apply and participate in the program: vehicle manufacturers, ADS
developers, fleet operators, or system integrators of ADS-equipped
vehicles. Section IX.A (Executive Orders 12866, 13563, 14094 and DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures) of this NPRM explains the approach
used by NHTSA to estimate the likely number of AV STEP applicants and
participants that would be respondents to this collection of
information. That section also discusses how NHTSA estimated the
frequency of responses.
NHTSA estimates that over the first seven years of the program an
average of 5 entities would apply for AV STEP each year and that an
average of 17 entities would participate in AV STEP each year.\237\ For
the proposed periodic reporting, each participant would be required to
submit four quarterly reports each year. NHTSA further estimates that
participation would entail, on average, reporting for 5 incidents, 1
update, and 0.5 amendment requests per participant each year, under the
corresponding requirements proposed for AV STEP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\237\ As described in Section IX.A (Executive Orders 12866,
13563, 14094 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures), NHTSA
expects that both of these numbers of entities would initially be
lower--during the time period immediately following the publication
of a Final Rule--but would increase over time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours:
As with the description of likely respondents above, the
methodology used by NHTSA to estimate the total annual burden hours is
explained in Section IX.A (Executive Orders 12866, 13563, 14094 and DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures). NHTSA estimates that each
application would require an average of 1,211 burden hours. Multiplying
by 5, the estimated average number of annual applicants, this would
yield 6,055 annual burden hours for applications. Assuming the
frequency of reporting described above, NHTSA estimates that periodic
reporting, event-triggered reporting, and amendment requests would
require an average of 2,081 annual burden hours. Multiplying by 17, the
estimated average number of annual participants, this would yield
35,377 annual burden hours for participations. Finally, NHTSA estimates
that the agency's review of applications and oversight of participants
would require 10,293 burden hours. Combining these 6,055 annual
application burden hours, 35,377 annual participation burden hours, and
10,293 annual agency burden hours, NHTSA estimates a total of 51,725
annual burden hours for this ICR.
Estimate of the Total Annual Reporting and Recordkeeping Burden
Resulting from the Collection of Information:
Section IX.A (Executive Orders 12866, 13563, 14094 and DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures) also explains NHTSA's approach to
estimating the annual burden from this collection. Using the estimated
burden hours described above as well as the other costs described in
Section IX.A, NHTSA estimates the following annual burdens: for
applicants, $2,533,660; for participants, $3,606,346; and for agency
resources $1,112,769. Summing these, NHTSA estimates that the total
annual burden of this ICR would be $6,252,775.
Public Comments Invited:
The public is asked to comment on any aspects of this information
collection, including (a) whether the collection of information is
necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the
Department, including whether the information will have practical
utility; (b) the accuracy of the Department's estimate of the burden of
the information collection; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility
and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to
minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents,
including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of
information technology.
Please submit any comments, identified by the docket number in the
heading of this document, by the methods described in the ADDRESSES
section of this document to NHTSA and OMB.
E. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)
Executive Order 13132 requires NHTSA to develop an accountable
process to ensure ``meaningful and timely input by State and local
officials in the development of regulatory policies that have
federalism implications.'' \238\ ``Policies that have federalism
implications'' is defined in the Executive order to include regulations
that have ``substantial direct effects on the States, on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government.'' \239\ Executive Order 13132 imposes additional
consultation requirements on two types of regulations that have
federalism implications: (1) A regulation that imposes substantial
direct compliance costs on state and local governments, and that is not
required by statute; and (2) a regulation that preempts state law.\240\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\238\ Executive Order 13132, Federalism, sec. 1(a) (August 4,
1999).
\239\ Id. at sec. 1(a).
\240\ Id. at sec. 6(b), (c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This proposed rule does not propose either type of regulation
covered by Executive Order 13132's consultation requirements. NHTSA
does not propose for AV STEP to preempt any state or local approaches
to regulating ADS-equipped vehicles within their jurisdictions. To the
contrary, this proposal recognizes that states and local governments
are often best situated to understand the unique needs of their
communities, including the value or concerns regarding ADS-equipped
vehicle operations within their respective communities.
Under this proposal, NHTSA would require vehicles participating in
AV STEP to comply with all applicable state and local requirements,
including adherence to any licensure or permitting requirements and
traffic laws. NHTSA proposes to require an applicant to explain the
subject vehicle's law abidance protocols to ensure appropriate
safeguards exist for identifying and adhering to applicable state and
local requirements.
As such, although NHTSA believes that AV STEP could provide a
valuable tool for states and local governments, this rulemaking does
not propose to override any state or local approaches to ADS-equipped
vehicles or otherwise alter any existing distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of Federal, state, and local
governments. Finally, NHTSA notes that although this rulemaking does
not implicate the consultation conditions under Executive Order 13132,
the agency engaged with state and local authorities as part of the
broader stakeholder engagement that led up to this rulemaking. More
information on this engagement can be found in a
[[Page 4177]]
memorandum available in the docket for this rulemaking.
F. Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform)
When promulgating a regulation, Executive Order 12988, ``Civil
Justice Reform'' (61 FR 4729; February 7, 1996), specifically requires
that the agency must make every reasonable effort to ensure that the
regulation, as appropriate: (1) Specifies in clear language the
preemptive effect; (2) specifies in clear language the effect on
existing Federal law or regulation, including all provisions repealed,
circumscribed, displaced, impaired, or modified; (3) provides a clear
legal standard for affected conduct rather than a general standard,
while promoting simplification and burden reduction; (4) specifies in
clear language the retroactive effect; (5) specifies whether
administrative proceedings are to be required before parties may file
suit in court; (6) explicitly or implicitly defines key terms; and (7)
addresses other important issues affecting clarity and general
draftsmanship of regulations.
Pursuant to this Order, NHTSA notes as follows. The preemptive
effect of this proposal is discussed above in connection with Executive
Order 13132. NHTSA has also determined that this proposed rule would
not have any retroactive effect. NHTSA notes further that there is no
requirement that individuals submit a petition for reconsideration or
pursue other administrative proceedings before they may file suit in
court.
G. Executive Order 13609: Promoting International Regulatory
Cooperation
Under Executive Order 13609 (77 FR 26413, May 4, 2012), agencies
must consider whether the impacts associated with significant
variations between domestic and international regulatory approaches are
unnecessary or may impair the ability of American business to export
and compete internationally. In meeting shared challenges involving
health, safety, labor, security, environmental, and other issues,
international regulatory cooperation can identify approaches that are
at least as protective as those that are or would be adopted in the
absence of such cooperation. International regulatory cooperation can
also reduce, eliminate, or prevent unnecessary differences in
regulatory requirements. Sections 3 and 4 of Executive Order 13609
direct an agency to conduct a regulatory analysis and ensure that a
proposed rule does not cause unnecessary obstacles to foreign trade.
This requirement applies if a rule constitutes a significant regulatory
action, or if a regulatory evaluation must be prepared for the rule.
NHTSA has analyzed this action under the policies and agency
responsibilities of Executive Order 13609 and has determined that this
action would have no effect on international regulatory cooperation.
This rulemaking proposes a set of procedures to govern NHTSA's
adjudication and administration of participation in a national program
for ADS-equipped vehicles. This proposal does not impose any mandatory
requirements on motor vehicles or regulated entities or otherwise alter
the existing regulatory landscape that governs motor vehicles in the
United States under the Safety Act. As such, this proposal does not
affect any regulatory cooperation with respect to the harmonization of
vehicle standards or establish any requirements for vehicles that may
conflict with those in other countries. Likewise, this rule would also
not impose any obstacles to foreign trade. The two exemption procedures
proposed in this document may even provide regulatory flexibility for
certain vehicles facing importation.
Moreover, as described in the ensuing subsection on the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement Act, this proposal incorporates
existing global industry standards as part of the independent
assessment required in applications. To the extent applicants use
international standards or approaches not expressly referenced in the
proposed disclosure requirements of an application, this proposal
includes options for an applicant to identify and explain those
alternative approaches. Ultimately, NHTSA believes that this proposed
framework would afford sufficient flexibility for entities to explain
the safety methodologies used for their vehicles, including those that
incorporate international standards. Moreover, the disclosure
requirements in this proposal should foster greater agency insight into
the use of any such international standards, better equipping NHTSA to
account for them in future agency actions regarding ADS.
NHTSA requests public comment on whether any regulatory approaches
taken by foreign governments concerning the subject matter of this
rulemaking have any implications for this rulemaking.
H. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
Under the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995
(NTTAA) (Pub. L. 104-113), all Federal agencies and departments shall
use technical standards that are developed or adopted by voluntary
consensus standards bodies, using such technical standards to carry out
policy objectives or activities determined by the agencies and
departments, except when use of such a voluntary consensus standard
would be inconsistent with the law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary
consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., materials
specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and business
practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus
standards bodies, such as the International Organization for
Standardization (ISO) and SAE International. The NTTAA directs NHTSA to
provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the agency decides not
to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.
This document explains at length the proposed approach to
incorporating industry standards, best practices, and guidance into AV
STEP's requirements and procedures. NHTSA does not currently view any
specific industry standards for ADS as mature enough to require
conformance for AV STEP. Industry standards, best practices, and
guidance regarding ADS remain in their infancy. Existing standards are,
to a large extent, untested, continue to evolve, and are often used
differently when applied to varied ADS technologies. As such, NHTSA
believes that it is premature to require conformance with any
particular industry standard for AV STEP.
Nevertheless, the agency recognizes the value in understanding, at
an aggregate level, how an entity approaches relevant industry
standards when developing its ADS-equipped vehicles. Considering how an
entity accounts for or deviates from industry standards would help the
agency understand the overall safety approaches built into an ADS. This
perspective would also provide valuable context for the other technical
material that NHTSA proposes to require as part of an AV STEP
application. Accordingly, although NHTSA does not propose to require
conformance with any particular industry standards in AV STEP, the
agency proposes instead to require an independent assessment of
conformance with relevant industry standards.
As proposed, these disclosure and assessment requirements would
account for the relevant available industry standards for ADS as well
as provide an applicant with enough flexibility to identify alternative
approaches to those
[[Page 4178]]
standards or otherwise justify why those standards were not appropriate
or sufficient for the safety design of its ADS. Moreover, NHTSA intends
for this approach to enhance the agency's understanding of industry
standards applicable to ADS, to better assess whether any such
standards would be appropriate to incorporate into future FMVSS for ADS
in any capacity. This approach would ultimately further the NTTAA's
goals of promoting the use of technical standards that are developed or
adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies.
Finally, by using existing standards to gain better insight into
the ADS technologies under review, NHTSA aims to efficiently use agency
resources by making use of the pertinent technical information and
processes already incorporated into those standards. This effort to
preserve resources is consistent with the NTTAA's goal of reducing,
when possible, the agency's cost of developing its own standards.
I. Privacy Act
Please note that anyone is able to search the electronic form of
all comments received into any of DOT's dockets by the name of the
individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted
on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). For
information on DOT's compliance with the Privacy Act, please visit
https://www.transportation.gov/privacy.
J. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, Public Law 104-4,
requires agencies to prepare a written assessment of the cost, benefits
and other effects of proposed or final rules that include a Federal
mandate likely to result in the expenditure by state, local, or tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of more than
$100 million annually (adjusted annually for inflation with base year
of 1995). The 2024 inflationary adjustment for this threshold is $200
million. Because this rulemaking is not expected to include a Federal
mandate or exceed an impact over this amount, no unfunded mandate
assessment will be prepared.
K. Regulation Identifier Number
The Department of Transportation assigns a regulation identifier
number (RIN) to each regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of
Federal Regulations. The Regulatory Information Service Center
publishes the Unified Agenda in April and October of each year. You may
use the RIN contained in the heading at the beginning of this document
(RIN 2127-AM60) to find this action in the Unified Agenda.
L. Plain Language
Executive Order 12866 requires each agency to write all rules in
plain language. Application of the principles of plain language
includes consideration of the following questions:
Have we organized the material to suit the public's needs?
Are the requirements in the rule clearly stated?
Does the rule contain technical language or jargon that
isn't clear?
Would a different format (grouping and order of sections,
use of headings, paragraphing) make the rule easier to understand?
Would more (but shorter) sections be better?
Could we improve clarity by adding tables, lists, or
diagrams?
What else could we do?
If you have any responses to these questions, please write to us
with your views.
M. Rule Summary
This notice proposes a framework for the review and assessment of
Automated Driving System (ADS)-equipped vehicles, to evaluate
operations or requests for exemptions involving such technologies while
also informing the agency's approach to future rulemaking and
oversight.
As required by 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(4), a summary of this rule can be
found in the rulemaking docket at www.regulations.gov and in the entry
for RIN 2127-AM60 in the Department's portion of the Unified Agenda of
Regulatory And Deregulatory Affairs, available at https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/eAgendaViewRule?pubId=202404&RIN=2127-AM60.
List of Subjects
49 CFR Part 595
Exemptions, Labeling, Motor vehicles, Motor vehicle safety,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
49 CFR Part 597
Exemptions, Imports, Labeling, Motor vehicles, Motor vehicle
equipment, Motor vehicle safety, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA proposes to add 49 CFR
part 597 and amend 49 CFR part 595 as follows:
PART 595--MAKE INOPERATIVE EXEMPTIONS
0
1. The authority citation for part 595 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117, 30122 and 30166;
delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.95.
0
2. Amend Sec. 595.2 to read as follows:
Sec. 595.2 Purpose.
The purpose of this part is to provide exemptions from the ``make
inoperative'' provision of 49 U.S.C. 30122 for specific situations set
forth in each exemption.
0
3. Amend Sec. 595.3 to read as follows:
Sec. 595.3 Applicability.
The exemptions in this part apply, collectively, to manufacturers,
distributors, dealers, motor vehicle repair businesses, and rental
companies. Each exemption set forth in this part specifies the entities
eligible for the exemption.
0
4. Add subpart E to read as follows:
Subpart E--Vehicle Modifications for Automated Driving Systems
Sec. 595.10 Vehicle Modifications for Automated Driving Systems.
An applicant to the ADS-Equipped Vehicle Safety, Transparency, and
Evaluation Program in part 597 of this chapter may request an exemption
from the ``make inoperative'' provision in 49 U.S.C. 30122(a) for
modifications to ADS-equipped vehicles. Part 597 sets forth the
conditions governing such exemptions.
0
5. Add part 597 to read as follows.
PART 597--REQUIREMENTS AND PROCEDURES FOR ADS-EQUIPPED VEHICLE
SAFETY, TRANSPARENCY, AND EVALUATION PROGRAM
Sec.
Subpart A--General
597.100 Scope.
597.101 Purpose.
597.102 Definitions.
597.103 Eligibility for participation.
597.104 Program step eligibility.
597.105 Terms and conditions of participation.
597.106 Engagement with entities other than an applicant or
participant.
Subpart B--Application Requirements
597.200 General application requirements.
597.201 Operational baseline information.
597.202 Vehicle exemption information.
597.203 Location sheet information.
597.204 Protocols for ADS operations.
597.205 Independent Assessment.
597.206 Customized terms.
597.207 Data governance plan.
597.208 Confirmation of reporting during participation.
Subpart C--AV STEP Exemptions
597.300 In general.
597.301 AV STEP FMVSS exemption.
597.302 AV STEP Make Inoperative exemption.
[[Page 4179]]
597.303 Restrictions on exemptions.
Subpart D--Application Review Process
597.400 In general
597.401 Review Phase 1: Initial Review.
597.402 Review Phase 2: Follow-up Review.
597.403 Review Phase 3: Preliminary Determination.
597.404 Final determination.
Subpart E--Reporting by Participants
597.500 General reporting requirements.
597.501 Event-triggered reporting requirements.
597.502 Changes to an operation.
Subpart F--Procedures During Participation
597.600 Concern resolution process.
597.601 Amendment process.
Subpart G--Public Reporting Requirements
597.700 In general.
597.701 Information for publication.
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30112, 30114, 30122, 30166,
and 30182; delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.95.
Subpart A--General
Sec. 597.100 Scope.
This part specifies requirements and procedures for eligibility and
participation in the ADS-equipped Vehicle Safety, Transparency, and
Evaluation Program (AV STEP), including the conditions under which:
(a) Certain ADS-equipped motor vehicles may receive special
exemptions under 49 U.S.C. 30114 from compliance with one or more
Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) issued under part 571 of
this chapter and bumper standards issued under part 581 of this
chapter;
(b) Persons may receive exemptions under 49 U.S.C. 30122 from the
prohibition on making inoperative any part of a device or element of
design installed on an ADS-equipped vehicle in compliance with an
applicable FMVSS; and
(c) Persons may participate in AV STEP with an ADS-equipped vehicle
that separately complies with all applicable requirements of 49 CFR
chapter V without an exemption under AV STEP.
Sec. 597.101 Purpose.
This part specifies eligibility requirements for entities to
participate in AV STEP, identifies the information that must be
submitted in an application, describes how NHTSA will review and
respond to applications, sets forth the requirements for participating
in AV STEP, and specifies the processes associated with the revocation
or amendment of Program admission.
Sec. 597.102 Definitions.
ADS Developer means the entity principally responsible for the
manufacture of the ADS at the system level, including but not limited
to its design, development, and testing.
Applicant means an entity seeking NHTSA approval for an ADS-
equipped vehicle to participate in AV STEP.
Automated Driving System (ADS) means the hardware and software that
are collectively capable of performing the entire Dynamic Driving Task
on a sustained basis, regardless of whether the system is limited to a
specific operational design domain.
AV STEP or Program means the ADS-equipped Vehicle Safety,
Transparency, and Evaluation Program.
AV STEP Exemption means an AV STEP FMVSS Exemption or an AV STEP
Make Inoperative Exemption.
AV STEP FMVSS Exemption means an exemption, requested through AV
STEP under 49 U.S.C. 30114(a), to one or more of the FMVSS issued under
part 571 of this chapter or the bumper standards issued under part 581
of this chapter.
AV STEP Make Inoperative Exemption means an exemption, requested
through AV STEP, to 49 U.S.C. 30122(b).
Contact event means any event in which a subject vehicle comes into
physical contact with another vehicle, road user, individual, animal,
or physical object. For the purposes of this part, a contact event does
not include benign intentional contact, such as upon a vehicle
passenger entering or exiting a stationary vehicle, or intentional tire
contact with a curb below a speed of 5 miles per hour.
Customized term means a term or condition related to the operation,
performance, and safety of a subject vehicle, including metric(s) and
threshold(s), proposed by an applicant informed by the Independent
Assessment, and set by the agency in the terms and conditions of an
approval.
Dynamic Driving Task (DDT) means all of the real-time operational
and tactical functions required to operate a vehicle in on-road
traffic, excluding the strategic functions such as trip scheduling and
selection of destinations and waypoints, and including, without
limitation, the following subtasks:
(1) Lateral vehicle motion control, e.g., via steering.
(2) Longitudinal vehicle motion control via acceleration and
deceleration.
(3) Monitoring the driving environment via object and event
detection, recognition, classification, and response preparation.
(4) Object and event response execution.
(5) Maneuver planning.
(6) Enhancing conspicuity, such as via lighting, sounding the horn,
signaling, and gesturing.
Dynamic Driving Task Fallback (DDT Fallback) means the response by
an individual to either perform the DDT or achieve a minimal risk
condition after occurrence of a DDT performance-relevant system
failure(s) or upon operational design domain exit, or the response by
an ADS to achieve a minimal risk condition, given the same
circumstances.
Dynamic Driving Task Takeover (DDT Takeover) means an individual's
planned or unplanned overriding of the operation of the ADS to manually
perform the DDT, including to achieve a minimal risk condition. A DDT
Takeover may occur as part of a DDT Fallback or in anticipation of
possible future ADS behavior unwanted by the user.
Essential system-level stakeholder means an entity with a
significant role in the safety of an operation requested in an
application to participate in AV STEP, including but not limited to, a
manufacturer of the subject vehicle, an ADS developer for the subject
vehicle, a fleet operator of the subject vehicle, and a system
integrator.
Fallback personnel means an individual specially trained and
skilled in supervising the performance of prototype ADS-operated
vehicles in on-road traffic, who continuously supervises the
performance of an ADS-operated vehicle in real time and intervenes
whenever necessary to prevent a hazardous event by exercising any means
of vehicle control. This intervention may occur as part of a DDT
Fallback or in anticipation of possible future ADS behavior that is
unsafe or otherwise unwanted by the user. Fallback personnel may be
physically present in the vehicle or remote. The fallback personnel
role does not include Vehicle Assistance, as defined in this section.
Fleet operator means the individual or entity that exercises all or
part of the operational control over the ADS installed in a subject
vehicle or group of subject vehicles.
Manufacturer has the meaning given in 49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(6).
Minimal risk condition means a stable, stopped condition to which a
user, such as fallback personnel, or an ADS may bring a vehicle after
performing the DDT Fallback, including after a DDT Takeover, to reduce
the risk of a crash when a given trip cannot or should not be
continued.
[[Page 4180]]
Minimal risk maneuver means a driving maneuver intended to achieve
a minimal risk condition.
Operational control means control over functions of ADS-equipped
vehicles that include, without limitation, ensuring operational
readiness; authorizing each trip; dispatching ADS-equipped vehicles;
providing fleet asset management services to vehicles while in-use;
serving as the responsible agent vis-[agrave]-vis law enforcement,
emergency responders and other authorities for vehicles while in use;
disengaging the ADS at the end of service; and performing vehicle
repair and maintenance as needed.
Operational Design Domain (ODD) means the operating conditions
under which the ADS or feature thereof is specifically designed to
function, including, but not limited to, environmental, geographical,
and time-of-day restrictions, and/or the requisite presence or absence
of defined traffic or roadway characteristics.
Participant means an entity that has received NHTSA approval for an
ADS-equipped vehicle to participate in AV STEP, provided such approval
has not expired. A participant may be involved in multiple
Participations at a time.
Participation means the entire operation or group of operations
that is governed by a Final Determination Letter issued under Sec.
597.404, including any Amended Final Determination Letter under Sec.
597.601.
Public ridership means transporting as a passenger any member of
the public other than an employee or agent of an Essential system-level
stakeholder or a public official acting in an official capacity, such
as law enforcement or government personnel.
Remote driving means the real-time performance of part or all of
the DDT by an individual physically located outside of the vehicle.
Safety case means a structured argument, consisting of claims
supported by a body of evidence, that provides a complete,
comprehensible, and valid case that a system is acceptably safe for a
given use in a specified environment.
Subject vehicle means a motor vehicle operating, or that an
applicant intends to operate, under AV STEP.
System integrator means an entity responsible for integration of an
ADS at the vehicle level.
Vehicle assistance means an individual providing information or
instruction about a situation to an ADS-equipped vehicle in driverless
operation (instead of exercising direct control of the vehicle) to help
the ADS continue a trip when encountering a situation that the ADS
cannot manage. Vehicle assistance may be provided remotely, by an
individual not physically present in the vehicle, or by an individual
on board (physically present in) the vehicle. Unlike fallback
personnel, as defined in this section, vehicle assistance personnel
provide information or instruction to an ADS-equipped vehicle rather
than directly exercising vehicle control authority.
Vehicle recovery event means any instance in which a vehicle needs
to be recovered during roadway operations by personnel other than those
already on board the subject vehicle, including, but not limited to,
recovery after a minimal risk condition has been achieved.
Vulnerable road user means any person who is not an occupant of a
motor vehicle with more than three wheels, heavy equipment, or a
railway vehicle. This definition includes, but is not limited to,
pedestrians, persons traveling in wheelchairs, bicyclists,
motorcyclists, and riders or occupants of other transport vehicles that
are not motor vehicles, such as all-terrain vehicles and lawnmowers.
Sec. 597.103 Eligibility for participation.
(a) In general. An entity may apply for one or more ADS-equipped
vehicles to participate in AV STEP only upon meeting the eligibility
requirements of this subpart.
(b) Vehicle eligibility. Subject vehicles must be equipped with an
ADS that:
(1) Is being used or developed for operation without an expectation
of an attentive human driver (whether in-vehicle or remote) while
engaged; and
(2) Performs the entirety of the dynamic driving task for all or
part of the operations for which participation is requested.
(c) Applicant eligibility. (1) An application may be submitted by a
single applicant or multiple co-applicants, all of whom must meet the
eligibility requirements in this section.
(2) Every applicant must qualify as at least one of the following:
(i) The manufacturer of the subject vehicle(s);
(ii) The ADS developer for the subject vehicle(s);
(iii) The fleet operator for the subject vehicle(s); or
(iv) The system integrator.
(3) In addition to the requirements in paragraph (c)(1) of this
section, every applicant (or at least one co-applicant in applications
that have multiple co-applicants) requesting an AV STEP FMVSS Exemption
must:
(i) Be the manufacturer of all subject vehicles in an application
that are not subject to importation; or
(ii) Be the importer of record of all subject vehicles in an
application that are subject to importation into the United States.
(d) Operational eligibility. The operation of a subject vehicle
during AV STEP participation must:
(1) Take place, in part or entirely, on public streets, roads, and
highways in the United States; and
(2) Take place in a manner in which all operational control is
exercised, at all times, by one or more of the following:
(i) The manufacturer of the subject vehicle;
(ii) The ADS developer for the subject vehicle;
(iii) The fleet operator of the subject vehicle; or
(iv) The system integrator for the subject vehicle.
Sec. 597.104 Program step eligibility.
(a) In general. Participation in AV STEP must occur at one of the
two program steps defined in paragraph (b) of this section.
(b) Eligibility criteria. The minimum eligibility requirements for
the program steps are as follows:
(1) Step 1: ADS operations with fallback personnel. An entity is
eligible to apply for Step 1 participation for subject vehicle(s) that
would operate only with continuous supervision from fallback personnel
during all participating operations on public roads.
(2) Step 2: ADS operations without fallback personnel. An entity is
eligible to apply for Step 2 participation for subject vehicle(s) that
would operate without fallback personnel during participating
operations on public roads.
Sec. 597.105 Terms and conditions of participation.
(a) NHTSA may place terms and conditions as appropriate on
participation in AV STEP. In addition to the terms and conditions
specified in this section, NHTSA may prescribe other terms and
conditions governing an operation in a Final Determination Letter
issued under Sec. 597.404.
(b) At a minimum, the terms and conditions in a Final Determination
Letter granting AV STEP participation will govern the following
subjects:
(1) The program step in which participation is permitted;
(2) The maximum number of vehicles approved for participation;
(3) The vehicles approved for participation;
(4) The permitted use(s) of participating vehicles;
[[Page 4181]]
(5) The permitted duration of participation;
(6) The permitted location(s) for participation; and
(7) The Essential System-Level Stakeholders for the participation.
(c) A subject vehicle may not operate with public ridership during
operations involving fallback personnel.
(d) All participants must report the information specified in
subpart E of this part, and NHTSA may establish additional reporting
requirements as a term or condition of participation.
(e) All subject vehicles, including their operations, must comply
with all Federal, state and local laws and requirements during
participation.
(f) All subject vehicles participating through an AV STEP Exemption
must display vehicle labels advising that the vehicles may not conform
with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. These
labels must be formatted in a manner that can be easily read and
consist of:
(1) At least one label on the exterior of the vehicle that is
readily visible to persons external to the vehicle; and
(2) One or more labels on the interior of the vehicle such that at
least one label is readily visible to vehicle occupants in all seating
positions.
(g) Unless NHTSA provides otherwise in a term or condition of a
Final Determination Letter, a participant with an AV STEP Exemption
must maintain ownership and possession of each subject vehicle.
(h) A participant with an AV STEP exemption may not license the
subject vehicle for use or operate it except as provided in a term or
condition of a Final Determination Letter.
(i) Unless otherwise provided by NHTSA in a term or condition of a
Final Determination Letter, remote driving of a subject vehicle is
prohibited during participation in AV STEP except as temporarily needed
to briefly move a vehicle after the ADS initiates a minimal risk
maneuver.
Sec. 597.106 Engagement with entities other than an applicant or
participant.
(a) An applicant or participant is required to furnish sufficient
information to NHTSA, directly or through other stakeholders, to enable
NHTSA to assess the system-level performance of the subject vehicle in
the requested operations.
(b) NHTSA's ability to fully communicate with any entity performing
an independent assessment under Sec. 597.205 regarding any aspect of
an application or participation is a condition of this Program.
Subpart B--Application Requirements
Sec. 597.200 General application requirements.
To be considered for participation in AV STEP, an applicant must:
(a) Write the application in the English language;
(b) Submit the application electronically using the NHTSA Product
Information Catalog and Vehicle Listing (vPIC) platform (https://vpic.nhtsa.dot.gov) or send to: Director, Office of Automation Safety,
NRM-400, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590;
(c) Include the information described in this subpart;
(d) During the pendency of an application, promptly notify NHTSA
upon becoming aware of information in an application that is inaccurate
or that has changed since the application was submitted.
Sec. 597.201 Operational baseline information.
An applicant seeking participation must, as part of the
application:
(a) Identify the program step under which participation is
requested;
(b) Identify each applicant;
(c) Provide primary and secondary contact information for each
applicant;
(d) Identify each Essential System-Level Stakeholder;
(e) Identify the vehicle platform for which participation is
requested, including the following for the subject vehicle:
(1) Make;
(2) Model;
(3) Model year;
(4) Unloaded vehicle weight;
(5) Gross Vehicle Weight Rating;
(6) Claimed vehicle class; and
(7) FMVSS certifying entity, if applicable.
(f) For the ADS on a subject vehicle, identify:
(1) The following information regarding each sensor contributing to
the perception capabilities of the ADS:
(i) The type of sensor;
(ii) The make and model of the sensor;
(iii) The use of the sensor in ADS operations; and
(iv) The location of the sensor on the subject vehicle;
(2) The crash detection capabilities of the subject vehicle's ADS
and, if applicable, any units towed by the subject vehicle, including
any limitations or thresholds for detecting physical contact relating
to a crash;
(3) Any modifications to safety features installed as original
equipment on the subject vehicle, other than modifications identified
pursuant to Sec. 597.202; and
(4) The designed data logging functionality of the subject vehicle,
including:
(i) Continuously recorded data;
(ii) Event-triggered data; and
(iii) For each type of data identified in response to paragraphs
(f)(4)(i) and (f)(4)(ii) of this section:
(A) The onboard or offboard storage protocols; and
(B) The duration of retention.
(g) Identify the seating position(s) of any onboard fallback
personnel that may be present during a subject vehicle's participating
operation.
(h) Identify whether any remote driving of the subject vehicle may
occur during participating operations and, if so:
(1) Whether any participating operations will rely on fallback
personnel who possess remote driving control authority;
(2) Any restrictions in place for the use of remote driving; and
(3) Provide a public summary of the limitations in place on the use
of remote driving for reporting purposes under Sec. 597.701(a)(2)(ix).
(i) Identify whether any other remote or onboard vehicle assistance
may occur during participating operations.
(j) Identify whether any Federal, State, or local permits are
required for the operations described in the application. If so,
provide a copy of each such permit if it has been issued, and describe,
for each required permit:
(1) The regulatory entity requiring the permit;
(2) The status of the permit;
(3) The effective dates of any existing permits; and
(4) Any conditions imposed by the permit.
(k) Identify whether an AV STEP Exemption is sought for any subject
vehicle in the application.
(l) Identify whether the subject vehicle(s) contain any features or
design modifications that are intended to promote the safe
accommodation of passengers with disabilities and, if so, provide a
public summary of the features or design modifications for reporting
purposes under Sec. 597.701(a)(2)(xii).
Sec. 597.202 Vehicle exemption information.
(a) Any application seeking an AV STEP Exemption must identify the
following information concerning each subject vehicle for which an
exemption is requested.
(1) Whether an AV STEP FMVSS Exemption or an AV STEP Make
Inoperative Exemption is requested for the subject vehicle;
(2) The total anticipated number of vehicles for which each AV STEP
[[Page 4182]]
Exemption will be sought during the course of participation;
(3) Each subject vehicle for which an exemption is requested,
including:
(i) The vehicle make;
(ii) The vehicle model;
(iii) The vehicle model year or date of manufacture; and
(iv) The vehicle identification number or unique identifier for the
subject vehicle.
(4) Whether sufficient insurance coverage for each subject vehicle
for which an exemption is requested will be maintained at all times for
the operations described in the application;
(5) All labels proposed for the requirements of Sec. 597.105(g);
(6) Whether the subject vehicle requires importation into the
United States;
(7) How the safety performance of the subject vehicle compares to
the safety performance required by the FMVSS standard(s) at issue in
the requested FMVSS Exemption or Make Inoperative Exemption, including:
(i) A comparison of the following:
(A) Crash protection for vehicle occupants;
(B) The safety of vulnerable road users; and
(C) The overall safety of the subject vehicle during its expected
operation.
(ii) The process and evidence used to assess each element of Sec.
597.202(a)(7)(i);
(8) All mitigations of safety risks resulting from:
(i) Each noncompliance identified in paragraph (b)(1) of this
section; and
(ii) Each modification identified in paragraph (c) of this section.
(9) A public summary of the mitigations of safety risks for
reporting purposes under Sec. 597.701(a)(1).
(b) For each subject vehicle for which an AV STEP FMVSS Exemption
is requested, the applicant must:
(1) Identify each applicable standard and subsection with which the
vehicle may not comply and provide a description of each noncompliance;
(2) List each purpose under Sec. 597.202(b) applicable to a
requested exemption, and for each identified purpose:
(i) Describe how the purpose is fulfilled; and
(ii) Explain the timeframe for which the purpose applies.
(3) Describe whether operations of the subject vehicle(s) will
involve any commercialization. If so, the applicant must describe:
(i) The type of commercialization;
(ii) The extent of the commercialization; and
(iii) Any public interest furthered through a purpose claimed under
paragraph (b)(2) of this section.
(c) For each subject vehicle for which an AV STEP Make Inoperative
Exemption is requested, the applicant must identify each modification
for which an exemption is requested and, for each modification:
(1) The device(s) or element(s) rendered inoperative by the
modification;
(2) The FMVSS and subsection affected by the modification;
(3) The extent of the applicant's consultation with the original
manufacturer of the subject vehicle or affected device regarding the
modification, including:
(i) Any information provided to the original manufacturer about the
modification;
(ii) Any safety effects of the modification identified by the
original manufacturer;
(iii) Any recommendations by the original manufacturer regarding
mitigations of such potential safety effects; and
(iv) Any mitigations undertaken by the applicant to address such
potential safety effects.
Sec. 597.203 Location sheet information.
An application must include the following information concerning
each geographical location in which participation is requested:
(a) Location Name. Provide a unique reference name for the
location;
(b) Location Limitation. Define the geographical boundaries for the
operation of the subject vehicle;
(c) Maximum Number of Vehicles Proposed for Participation. Identify
the maximum number of vehicles for which AV STEP participation is
requested for the location;
(d) Legal Speed Limits. Provide the following information regarding
the speed limits for roadways on which operation is planned for the
subject vehicle for the location:
(1) Highest Speed. Identify the highest legal speed limit for the
operation and the segment(s) of road in which this speed limit occurs;
and
(2) Maximum Speed Differential. For the road segment with the
largest differential between the legal speed limit and the maximum
allowed speed of the subject vehicle with the ADS engaged while
operating on the road segment, identify:
(i) The segment(s) of road in which the differential exists;
(ii) The legal speed limit; and
(iii) The maximum allowable speed of the ADS on the segment of the
road.
(e) Vehicle Speeds. Identify:
(1) The highest speed currently allowed for the ADS while operating
in the location; and
(2) The highest speed for which participation is requested for the
ADS while operating in the location.
(f) Public Ridership. Identify whether the operation will involve
any public ridership.
(g) Intended Use. Describe the planned use case(s) for the subject
vehicle(s) during operation.
(h) Operational Design Domain. Describe the operational design
domain for the subject vehicles, including the following:
(1) A complete specification of all aspects of the operational
design domain, which must identify operational design domain
differences between Location Sheets, where applicable; and
(2) A summary of the operational design domain for public reporting
purposes under Sec. 597.701(a)(3)(viii).
(i) Vehicle Equipment. Identify the following equipment and
characteristics for each subject vehicle operating under a Location
Sheet as compared to the base model of the subject vehicle, when
applicable, and if multiple Location Sheets are requested, any
differences between Location Sheets:
(1) Any trim level characteristics that affect safety;
(2) Any optional technologies that affect safety; and
(3) Any other distinguishing safety characteristics.
Sec. 597.204 Protocols for ADS Operations.
An application must include the following information concerning
any applicable protocols for the development and operation of the
subject vehicles and ADS:
(a) An explanation of the subject vehicle's adherence with Federal,
State, and local laws, including:
(1) A summary of how applicable traffic safety laws are identified;
(2) A description of how an ADS' compliance with traffic safety
laws is monitored;
(3) A description of any conditions under which the design of the
ADS may allow the subject vehicle to not follow traffic laws; and
(4) A summary of recognition, interaction, and response strategies
for:
(i) Emergency and law enforcement vehicles, personnel, and
equipment;
(ii) Construction vehicles, personnel, and equipment; and
(iii) Crossing guards or other traffic control personnel.
(b) A description of any system fallback or failure mitigation
strategies, including:
(1) A description of any minimal risk conditions the ADS may
achieve, which must include:
[[Page 4183]]
(i) A description of each minimal risk condition and the
engineering rationale for its use;
(ii) The circumstances under which each minimal risk condition is
triggered;
(iii) A description of how the minimal risk maneuver is initiated
and executed; and
(iv) Any protocols for the ADS following the achievement of each
minimal risk condition.
(2) An overview of any protocols not identified under paragraph
(b)(1) of this section that are associated with averting or achieving a
minimal risk condition, which:
(i) Includes any protocols for the following:
(A) Providing input to the ADS or disengaging the ADS prior to or
during a minimal risk maneuver;
(B) Resuming ADS driving following the achievement of a minimal
risk condition; and
(C) Vehicle recovery events.
(ii) Identifies the role and number of persons responsible for each
protocol described in paragraph (b)(2)(i) of this section and describes
each such person's:
(A) Responsibilities under the protocol;
(B) Physical location when performing an identified responsibility;
(C) Expected response time in performing an identified
responsibility;
(D) Potential control authority over the subject vehicle;
(E) Means of exercising any control authority over the subject
vehicle; and
(F) Operational restrictions on the use of any control authority.
(3) A description of any protocols for vehicle immobilizations that
occur without the achievement of a minimal risk condition.
(c) An overview of any design and process measures that are in
place to facilitate safe and predictable interactions with members of
the public, including:
(1) Any communication strategies to convey information to
individuals outside of a subject ADS-equipped vehicle;
(2) Any measures to promote the predictability of the ADS' behavior
for other road users in the vicinity of the subject vehicle;
(3) Any communication strategies for non-operator occupants of the
subject ADS-equipped vehicle; and
(4) Any features or design modifications that are intended to
promote the safe accommodation of passengers with disabilities.
Sec. 597.205 Independent assessment.
(a) In general. An application requires an independent assessment
that conforms to the requirements of this section. Information
regarding this assessment must be conveyed to NHTSA through a summary
report, as provided under subsection (d), prepared by an assessor that
meets the independence and qualification requirements of this section.
(b) Scope of Independent Assessment. An independent assessment must
consider the full extent of operations requested for the subject
vehicle(s) in an application.
(c) Subjects of Independent Assessment. An independent assessment
must include a review of the following:
(1) The conformance of the subject vehicle's ADS and its operations
with relevant industry standards, best practices, and guidance. This
conformity assessment must:
(i) Determine non-, partial, or full conformance with each such
industry standard, best practice, or guidance;
(ii) Assess the justification and safety implications of any non-
or partial compliance determined under paragraph (c)(1)(i) of this
section;
(iii) Assess whether, collectively, the degree of conformance with
relevant industry standards, best practices, and guidance represents a
responsible approach to developing and operating the subject vehicle;
and
(iv) Contain recommendations regarding:
(A) The list of industry standards, best practices, and guidance
with which conformance should, in full or in part, be achieved or
maintained during operations; and
(B) How to address any safety gaps in the design and operation of
the subject vehicle that would not be covered by the conformance
recommended under paragraph (c)(1)(iv)(A) of this section.
(2) A safety case that details how the safety of the subject
vehicle, including the safety of the subject vehicle's occupants and
surrounding road users, is assured for the operations requested in an
application. The assessment of the safety case by the assessor:
(i) May incorporate the assessment under paragraph (c)(1) of this
section;
(ii) Must include a review of the validity and soundness of the
safety case, including whether:
(A) The safety case arguments and claims support the operations of
the subject vehicle;
(B) The safety case claims are supported with sufficient evidence;
and
(C) Appropriate processes exist for maintaining the safety case
throughout the operations.
(iii) Must include a detailed analysis of the following aspects of
the safety case:
(A) Safety Risk Assessment. Whether the safety case comprehensively
identifies and assesses safety risks, including potential vehicle and
operational hazards and faults;
(B) Safety Risk Management. Whether the safety case contains
appropriate risk management, including mitigations, for the risks
identified;
(C) System Evolution. Whether the safety case contains appropriate
processes for maintaining or improving safety over time;
(D) Safety Performance Indicators. Whether the safety case relies
on appropriate safety performance indicators and thresholds;
(E) Conformance with Traffic Safety Law. Whether appropriate
processes exist for identifying applicable traffic safety laws in an
area of operation and overseeing their conformance during operations;
(F) Vehicle Fallback and Assistance. Whether the safety case
contains appropriate processes for ensuring the effectiveness of any
expected fallback or vehicle assistance;
(G) Human Factors. Whether the safety case appropriately accounts
for human factors considerations that may affect safety, including,
where applicable, those related to fallback personnel, vehicle
assistance, vehicle occupants, or surrounding road users;
(H) Crash Avoidance. Whether the safety case appropriately
identifies and considers the variety of crash-imminent situations that
could occur within the operations; and
(I) Tool Qualification. Whether software tools used to evaluate
expected ADS performance are representative and accurate.
(iv) Must include a review of the safety management systems in
place to oversee the safety of the subject vehicle for the operations
requested in an application. This review must include an assessment of
the following for the organizations responsible for the safety of the
operations involving the subject vehicle:
(A) Whether the leadership fosters a positive safety culture and
demonstrates a safety commitment throughout the organization;
(B) Whether those responsible for the implementation of the safety
management systems possess appropriate resources, authorities, and
accountability;
(C) Whether there are appropriate policies and processes for
encouraging reporting and timely investigation of safety-related
concerns from internal staff and members of the public;
(D) Whether appropriate capabilities and policies exist for
monitoring the
[[Page 4184]]
location and state of each participating vehicle;
(E) Whether appropriate processes exist to monitor safety
performance indicators;
(F) Whether sufficient capabilities and policies exist for timely
responding to a vehicle incident or immobilization and, if necessary,
to clear a disabled vehicle from the roadway. This review must estimate
a range of time for an expected response;
(G) Whether an appropriate plan exists for reaching timely
decisions regarding future operations if an emergency arises; and
(H) Whether there are appropriate processes in place for how
Essential System-Level Stakeholders will engage with each other
regarding ongoing operations, including for carrying out:
(1) Software updates;
(2) Operational updates;
(3) Vehicle maintenance; and
(4) The collection and reporting of safety data.
(3) The following policies and capabilities:
(i) Community Engagement. Whether the policies for engaging with
State and local authorities, local communities, and other entities
affected by the subject vehicle's operation are sufficiently robust to
identify the relevant stakeholders, provide them with appropriate
information regarding operations, engage with them about concerns, and
meaningfully address those concerns as needed;
(ii) Training and Qualifications of Personnel. Whether the
personnel who are responsible for developing and maintaining the safety
case or executing safety critical processes possess appropriate
qualifications and training; and
(iii) Data Capture. Whether the data capture capabilities for the
subject vehicle suffice to meet the data reporting requirements in
subpart E of this part.
(d) Independent Assessment Summary Report. An application must
include a report prepared by the independent assessor that summarizes
the independent assessment. This summary report must be submitted in an
application in its original form, and must include the following:
(1) An overview of any assessor processes in place to manage the
assessment;
(2) Any access restrictions that limited the assessment;
(3) For the assessment requirements detailed in paragraph (c) of
this section, an overview of:
(i) The assessor's findings and the basis for each finding;
(ii) Materials reviewed during the assessment;
(iii) The processes and format of reviews;
(iv) The methods used to identify potential inconsistencies, gaps,
logical fallacies, or other concerns with the information provided for
a review;
(v) Concerns identified during an assessment, including all
recommendations made to the applicant(s) regarding identified concerns;
and
(vi) The parameters under which the assessment and its conclusions
are valid. This overview should account for potential future changes to
operations, system design, or processes for which the assessment would
remain valid.
(e) Context for the Assessment. An application must include the
following information regarding an assessment conducted for an
application:
(1) Applicant Response to Assessor Recommendations. A summary
report from an applicant that explains any measures taken in response
to each assessor recommendation; and
(2) Prior Assessments. A description of any other independent
assessment initiated for the topics covered in paragraph (c) of this
section, which includes:
(i) The identity of the entity conducting the assessment;
(ii) The purpose of the assessment;
(iii) If the assessment was completed, the conclusions of the
assessment; and
(iv) If the assessment was not completed, the reasons for its
termination.
(f) Assessor Independence. (1) An assessment conducted under this
section must not be performed by an entity with any of the following
conflicts of interest:
(i) The assessor, including any personnel and contractors used by
the assessor for review, is owned, operated, or controlled, directly or
indirectly, by a party with a financial interest in a particular
disposition of the AV STEP application;
(ii) The assessor, including any of its personnel and contractors
used for a review, has any ownership or financial interest in an
interested party to the AV STEP application; or
(iii) The fee structure for the assessment is dependent in any way
on the outcome of the assessment or the outcome of the AV STEP
application.
(2) An application must contain the following information regarding
the independence of the assessor:
(i) A disclosure of the existence of any of any other circumstance
that may affect the objectivity of an assessor, including:
(A) Whether the assessor, including any personnel and contractors
used by the assessor for review, participated in the design,
manufacture, or distribution of a product within the scope of the
assessment; and
(B) Whether the assessor, including any personnel and contractors
used by the assessor for review, were separately engaged in the
development of a project or operation within the scope of an
application.
(ii) For any circumstances disclosed pursuant to paragraph
(f)(2)(i) of this section, a description of any measures put in place
to uphold the independence of an assessment; and
(iii) A certification from the assessor that:
(A) The assessment represents the independent judgment of the
assessor; and
(B) No conflict of interest in paragraph (f)(1) of this section
exists or existed at any time during the assessment.
(g) Assessor Qualifications and Resources. (1) An assessment
conducted under this section must be conducted by an entity with the
following qualifications and capabilities:
(i) The assessor and its personnel have suitable education,
technical expertise, experience, and appropriate accreditations to be
qualified to carry out the assessment;
(ii) The assessor maintains appropriate policies and practices for
conducting and organizing assessments; and
(iii) The assessor maintains facilities and resources appropriate
for the types of assessments conducted.
(2) An application must contain supporting information regarding
the assessor's qualifications, policies, and protocols for personnel
involved in the assessment, including:
(i) Curriculum Vitae (CV) of key personnel that demonstrate their
relevant education, training, and experience;
(ii) Any relevant accreditations of the assessor or key personnel
conducting the assessment; and
(iii) A description of all policies or protocols that governed the
conduct of assessor personnel during the assessment or the scope of the
assessment.
Sec. 597.206 Customized terms.
(a) An applicant must propose customized terms for consideration by
the agency in setting the terms and conditions of participation.
(b) Each such proposed customized term shall include:
(1) Proposed metric(s) and threshold(s) to assist in the agency's
[[Page 4185]]
evaluation of operation, performance, and safety of the subject
vehicles, including an explanation and any context necessary to
interpret the metric(s) and threshold(s); and
(2) A justification of the value and relevance of the proposed
metric(s) and threshold(s).
Sec. 597.207 Data governance plan.
(a) In general. An application must contain a data governance plan
that outlines the processes for the integrity, security, and management
of data generated by the subject vehicle that are relevant to AV STEP.
The plan must include:
(1) A top-level accountability and management process for the data
governance plan, including a description of the applicable positions
and roles;
(2) Access control mechanisms to maintain data security and
privacy;
(3) Processes for maintaining data quality and integrity;
(4) Monitoring and enforcement mechanisms for adherence to the
plan;
(5) Procedures for identifying and responding to incidents that
compromise data security or integrity;
(6) Risk management strategies for mitigating internal and external
data-related risks, including cybersecurity; and
(7) A list of any published industry standards, guidance, or best
practices with which the plan conforms.
(b) [Reserved]
Sec. 597.208 Confirmation of Reporting During Participation.
(a) As part of an application, the applicant must confirm that if a
request for participation is granted by NHTSA, the applicant is capable
of carrying out all of the AV STEP reporting requirements set forth in
this part for the program step at which the application requests
participation.
(b) An application must contain the information detailed in Sec.
597.206(b) for each reporting requirement in this part that is labeled
as customized.
Subpart C--AV STEP Exemptions
Sec. 597.300 In general.
(a) An applicant may request the following types of exemptions
through AV STEP:
(1) An AV STEP FMVSS Exemption; and
(2) An AV STEP Make Inoperative Exemption.
(b) A subject vehicle's participation in AV STEP is a requirement
for an AV STEP exemption of the subject vehicle to remain in effect.
Sec. 597.301 AV STEP FMVSS exemption.
(a) An applicant for AV STEP participation may request an exemption
for a subject vehicle from one or more Federal motor vehicle safety
standards issued under part 571 of this chapter or bumper standards
issued under part 581 of this chapter.
(b) An exemption issued under this section must be for:
(i) Research;
(ii) Investigations;
(iii) Demonstrations;
(iv) Training;
(v) Competitive racing events; or
(vi) Show or Display.
Sec. 597.302 AV STEP Make inoperative exemption.
An applicant may request an exemption from the ``make inoperative''
provision in 49 U.S.C. 30122(a).
Sec. 597.303 Restrictions on exemptions.
(a) NHTSA may place such terms and conditions as it deems
appropriate on AV STEP exemptions issued under this part. NHTSA will
review the appropriateness of terms and conditions based on the
information and review processes set forth in this part and issue a
written Final Determination Letter under Sec. 597.404 at the
conclusion of the review.
(b) When an AV STEP exemption is granted under this part, a Final
Determination Letter issued under Sec. 597.404 will include the
following terms regarding the number of subject vehicles receiving an
exemption:
(1) A list of each vehicle receiving an exemption at the time a
Final Determination Letter is issued. This list will designate each
vehicle by its vehicle identification number or other unique
identifier; and
(2) A maximum number of unique vehicles that may be exempted during
the participation.
(c) The number of vehicles receiving an AV STEP exemption under
paragraph (b)(1) of this section may not exceed the maximum number of
unique vehicles that may be exempted under paragraph (b)(2) of this
section.
(d) If the number of vehicles receiving an AV STEP exemption under
paragraph (b)(1) of this section has not reached the maximum number of
unique vehicles that may be exempted under paragraph (b)(2) of this
section, the recipient of the AV STEP exemption may provide notice to
NHTSA of an intent to apply the exemption to additional vehicles. Such
notice shall:
(1) Identify each new vehicle by its vehicle identification number
or other unique identifier;
(2) Specify the applicable Location Sheet(s) for the new
vehicle(s);
(3) Include a statement from the applicant that:
(i) Compared to already exempted vehicles, the new vehicles are the
same make and model, and all equipment is substantially similar; and
(ii) Acknowledges that the new vehicles would be subject to all
applicable terms and conditions as the already exempted vehicles
participating under the same Location Sheet(s).
(4) Unless NHTSA provides otherwise, vehicles properly identified
in a notice that contains all of the required disclosures and
statements in this subsection will automatically receive the applicable
AV STEP exemption 30 calendar days after the submission of the notice.
In such case, all terms and conditions applicable to already exempted
vehicles participating under the same Location Sheet(s) will apply to
vehicles that receive an exemption through a notice under this
subsection.
(e) Any violation of a term or condition on an exemption imposed
under this part shall be considered a violation of 49 U.S.C. 30112(a)
or 49 U.S.C. 30122(b), as applicable, for which a civil penalty may be
imposed. Such a violation may also act to void the authorization for
the exemption under the AV STEP Concern Resolution process in Sec.
597.600.
(f) The expiration of a vehicle's AV STEP exemption terminates any
exemption to the restrictions in chapter 301 of title 49 of the United
States Code, including the general prohibitions in 49 U.S.C. 30112(a),
except to the extent that a vehicle:
(1) Is the subject of other exemptions under 49 CFR chapter V,
which remain in place;
(2) Receives subsequent exemptions under 49 CFR chapter V; or
(3) Was imported into the United States after receiving the AV STEP
exemption, in which case all original restrictions on the vehicle in
chapter 301 of title 49 of the United States Code continue to apply,
except that, unless NHTSA provides otherwise, the vehicle may remain in
the United States as long as it does not operate on public streets,
roads, and highways and is not otherwise introduced in interstate
commerce.
Subpart D--Application Review Process
Sec. 597.400 In general.
(a) NHTSA will conduct a case-by-case review of each application
under the procedures in this subpart and based on the totality of the
information available to NHTSA.
[[Page 4186]]
(b) Notwithstanding any other procedure described in this subpart,
NHTSA may request additional information from an applicant at any time
during a review of an application.
(c) An applicant may amend or withdraw an application at any time
before a Final Determination is issued under Sec. 597.404. The effect
of an amendment on the phase of review will depend on the nature and
extent of the amended material.
Sec. 597.401 Review Phase 1: Initial Review.
Phase 1 commences upon NHTSA's receipt of an application. During
Phase 1, NHTSA will issue each applicant a notice of receipt, which
confirms receipt of the application and identifies a NHTSA point of
contact for the review, and will undertake an initial review of all
application materials. As part of this review, NHTSA will review the
proposed customized terms.
Sec. 597.402 Review Phase 2: Follow-up Review.
Phase 2 commences upon NHTSA's issuance of a Follow Up Index to
each applicant, which identifies items for which NHTSA requests
additional information. NHTSA may subsequently request additional
information as needed.
Sec. 597.403 Review Phase 3: Preliminary Determination.
(a) Phase 3 commences upon NHTSA's issuance of a Preliminary
Determination to each applicant, which contains NHTSA's proposed
decision on an application, including, if applicable, the full set of
terms and conditions proposed to govern AV STEP participation.
(b) NHTSA will determine terms and conditions, including those
associated with proposed customized terms. In determining terms and
conditions, NHTSA will:
(1) With respect to proposed customized terms, evaluate the extent
to which they fulfill the applicable requirement and their anticipated
value for overseeing the subject vehicles; and
(2) With respect to all terms and conditions, evaluate the extent
to which any required reports may further NHTSA's understanding of the
subject vehicle's performance, operations, or ADS; the feasibility of
analyzing any reported information; and the extent to which the terms
and conditions are consistent with motor vehicle safety and further the
purposes of 49 U.S.C. 30101.
(c) A Preliminary Determination is not a final decision on an
application and does not confer approval to participate under its
proposed terms.
(d) On the tenth business day after issuing a Preliminary
Determination, NHTSA will issue a Final Determination under Sec.
597.404, which contains the same decision as proposed in the
Preliminary Determination, including any terms and conditions, unless
before a Final Determination is issued:
(1) NHTSA revokes the Preliminary Determination;
(2) An applicant requests, in writing, additional time or changes
to the Preliminary Determination, pursuant to paragraphs (d) or (e) of
this section;
(3) All applicants confirm, in writing, acceptability of the
Preliminary Determination, in which case NHTSA may issue a Final
Determination as soon as practicable; or
(4) The application is withdrawn or amended.
(e) Any applicant may request, in writing, additional time before a
Preliminary Determination becomes final, stating the reasons for the
request. NHTSA shall promptly respond in writing, granting or denying
the request, and provide the reason for its decision.
(f) Any applicant may request, in writing, changes to the
Preliminary Determination. Such a request must be submitted before a
Preliminary Determination becomes final, identify each term or
condition of the Preliminary Determination for which a change is
requested, describe the nature of the requested change; and briefly
explain the basis for each requested change.
(g) If, under paragraphs (c)(1) or (c)(2) of this section, a
Preliminary Determination does not become final, NHTSA will reissue a
Preliminary Determination once any remaining issues are addressed. The
procedures in this section apply to both an initial Preliminary
Determination and any reissued Preliminary Determination.
Sec. 597.404 Final Determination.
(a) NHTSA may issue a Final Determination Letter at any point more
than 60 days after issuance of a Preliminary Determination on the same
application, unless an extension for longer than 60 days has been
granted under Sec. 597.403(d).
(b) A written Final Determination Letter will convey NHTSA's final
decision to all applicants. The Final Determination Letter grants or
denies a request to participate in AV STEP, including any request for
an AV STEP Exemption.
(c) A Final Determination Letter granting a request to participate
contains the full set of terms and conditions governing participation,
including any metrics or reporting thresholds associated with
customized terms. These terms and conditions may impose additional
participation requirements or limitations beyond those set forth in
this part.
Subpart E--Reporting by Participants
Sec. 597.500 General reporting requirements.
(a) In general. Participants must comply with the reporting
requirements of this subpart and any reporting requirement in a term or
condition of a Final Determination Letter issued under Sec. 597.404.
Unless otherwise provided, a report under this subpart does not satisfy
any other reporting requirement and compliance with a reporting
requirement outside of this subpart does not satisfy a reporting
requirement of this subpart.
(b) Timing. All reports submitted under this section must be
submitted on a quarterly basis, for the duration of participation. Each
quarterly report is due on the final business day of the first month
that follows the reporting period.
(c) Reporting requirements for all participants. All AV STEP
participants must report the following information for operations on
public roads during each reporting period, segmented by Location Sheet
and covering all subject vehicles participating under the Location
Sheet during the reporting period:
(1) The total number of subject vehicles that operated under the
Location Sheet during the reporting period;
(2) The vehicle identification number or other unique vehicle
identifier of each vehicle reported under paragraph (c)(1) of this
section;
(3) Each zip code in which a subject vehicle reported under
paragraph (c)(1) of this section operated with the ADS engaged on a
public road;
(4) Aggregate vehicle miles traveled with the ADS engaged,
segmented by:
(i) Each zip code reported under paragraph (c)(3) of this section;
(ii) The hour of the day during which the vehicle miles were
traveled; and
(iii) The presence of onboard fallback personnel.
(5) What percentage the participation numbers in paragraph
(c)(4)(i) of this section comprise of each of the three categories of
operations in paragraph (c)(4)(ii) of this section.
(i) Participation numbers. (A) The number of subject vehicles
participating under the Location Sheet, reported under paragraph (c)(1)
of this section; and
(B) The total number of vehicle miles traveled with the ADS engaged
on public roads under the Location Sheet.
[[Page 4187]]
(ii) Categories of Operations. Each of the following ADS
operations, regardless of AV STEP participation status, if they involve
the same combination of vehicle manufacturer, ADS developer, and fleet
operator:
(A) Operations on public roads in the United States;
(B) Operations on public roads in an overlapping geographical area
of the Location Sheet; and
(C) Operations on public roads in the United States that involve
the same vehicle model as the subject vehicle.
(6) A description of each vehicle recovery event that occurred for
a vehicle reported under paragraph (c)(1) of this section. This
description must include:
(i) The location of the event;
(ii) The duration of the vehicle's immobilization prior to its
recovery;
(iii) The reason a vehicle recovery was required; and
(iv) A cross-reference to any other report under this section
associated with the reported recovery.
(7) A description of any contact event involving a subject vehicle
that does not meet the reporting criteria under Sec. 597.501(b);
(8) The total number of instances of rate of change in vehicle
acceleration (including deceleration) exceeding a threshold associated
with a customized term;
(9) The total number of instances of vehicle acceleration or
deceleration exceeding a threshold associated with a customized term;
and
(10) The total number of each of the following types of
interruptions to the ADS, if unplanned:
(i) Initiation of a maneuver to put the subject vehicle in a
minimal risk condition by:
(A) The ADS;
(B) An occupant of the subject vehicle; or
(C) Remote personnel.
(ii) DDT takeovers, other than those reported under paragraph
(c)(10)(i) of this section;
(iii) Instances in which any direct control authority of the
vehicle is exercised remotely, other than those reported under
paragraphs (c)(10)(i) or (c)(10)(ii) of this section;
(iv) Instances in which onboard vehicle assistance alters the ADS'
operation;
(v) Instances in which remote vehicle assistance alters the ADS'
operation; and
(vi) Any other occurrence that significantly alters the intended
operation of the ADS.
(d) Step 1 reporting requirements. In addition to the requirements
in paragraph (c) of this section, participants at Step 1 must report
for each reporting period, segmented by Location Sheet and covering all
subject vehicles participating under the Location Sheet during the
reporting period, safety metric(s) for customized terms, to gauge the
performance of fallback personnel.
(e) Step 2 reporting requirements. In addition to the requirements
in paragraph (c) of this section, participants at Step 2 must report
the following information for each reporting period, segmented by
Location Sheet and covering all subject vehicles participating under
the Location Sheet during the reporting period:
(1) The duration, location, and cause of each minimal risk
condition achieved on a public road, and the VIN of the vehicle
involved;
(2) Performance metrics for customized terms for the following:
(i) The safety performance of the ADS, including:
(A) Adherence to expected driving behavior; and
(B) For scenarios in which there is an increased likelihood of a
crash.
(ii) The extent to which the system-level performance of the ADS
adheres to design assumptions or expectations; and
(iii) Adherence to internal safety processes during the subject
vehicle's development or operations.
Sec. 597.501 Event-triggered reporting requirements.
(a) In general. All AV STEP participants must report events to
NHTSA pursuant to the requirements in this section. These reports must
be submitted on a rolling basis, as determined based on the time of the
event's occurrence.
(b) Crash reporting. Report each crash that occurs involving a
subject vehicle. For this requirement, a crash is any physical impact
between a subject vehicle and another road user (such as a vehicle,
pedestrian, or cyclist) or property that results or allegedly results
in any property damage, injury, or fatality. A subject vehicle is
involved in a crash if it physically impacts another road user or if it
contributes or is alleged to contribute (by steering, braking,
acceleration, or other operational performance) to another vehicle's
physical impact with another road user or property involved in that
crash. Each report must:
(1) Contain the information for a crash report specified in a term
of a Final Determination Letter;
(2) Identify whether:
(i) the ADS was active at any time during the 30 seconds
immediately prior to the commencement of the crash through the
conclusion of the crash event; or
(ii) An attempt was made to engage the ADS or to transfer partial
or full control to the ADS, even if the attempt is rejected, aborted,
or underway during the 30 seconds immediately prior to the commencement
of the crash through the conclusion of the crash event.
(3) Be submitted to NHTSA within the following timeframes after any
Essential System-Level Stakeholder receives notice of the crash:
(i) One calendar day, if the crash results in a fatality or any
individual being transported to a hospital for medical treatment, or
involves a vulnerable road user;
(ii) Five calendar days, if the crash results in a vehicle tow-away
or an air bag deployment but does not result in a fatality or any
individual being transported to a hospital for medical treatment and
does not involve a vulnerable road user; or
(iii) For each crash that is not reportable under subsections
(b)(3)(i) or (b)(3)(ii) of this section, by the fifteenth calendar day
of the month following the calendar month in which notice of the crash
was received.
(c) Crash video reporting. For any crash requiring a report within
one calendar day under paragraph (b)(3)(i) of this section, an AV STEP
participant must also submit all video footage in the possession of any
Essential System-Level Stakeholder that depicts any aspect of the crash
during the 30 seconds immediately prior to the commencement of the
crash through the conclusion of the crash event. Video footage must be
submitted within two business days of the date the Essential System-
Level Stakeholder obtains possession of the video.
(d) Crash report updates. A participant must submit updates to a
crash report within the following timeframes:
(1) For any report required under paragraph (b)(3)(i) of this
section, on the tenth calendar day following the initial report;
(2) For any report required under paragraph (b) of this section, on
the fifteenth calendar day of the month following any calendar month in
which an Essential System-Level Stakeholder receives notice of any
material new or materially different information about the crash; and
(3) As otherwise requested by NHTSA.
(e) Citable offense reporting. Report known citable offenses
involving a subject vehicle. For this requirement, a citable offense
includes any ticketed
[[Page 4188]]
traffic safety violation and non-ticketed traffic safety violations.
Each report must be submitted to NHTSA within 5 business days after any
Essential System-Level Stakeholder's notice of the incident and
identify:
(1) The date and location of the offense, and whether the offense
was ticketed or non-ticketed;
(2) The traffic safety violation in question;
(3) The applicable Location Sheet;
(4) Whether:
(i) The ADS was active at any time during the 30 seconds
immediately prior to the commencement of the maneuver that resulted in
the citable offense; or
(ii) An attempt was made to engage the ADS or to transfer partial
or full control to the ADS, even the attempt is rejected, aborted, or
underway during the 30 seconds immediately prior to the commencement of
the maneuver that resulted in the citable offense.
(5) In the case of a Step 2 participant, whether the operation of
the subject vehicle involved fallback personnel at the time of the
offense.
(f) Avoiding duplicative reporting. A participant required to
report an incident pursuant to any other NHTSA requirement outside of
this part will be deemed to comply with the reporting requirement for
the same incident under this section, provided:
(1) The participant timely satisfies the other reporting
requirement, including any requirements to update an initial report;
(2) The other report covers all of the information required by this
section; and
(3) Within the timeframe in which an AV STEP crash report would
otherwise be required, the participant submits to NHTSA through AV STEP
a notice of the other report that:
(i) Identifies the report number for the other report; and
(ii) Identifies the AV STEP Location Sheet with which the incident
is associated.
(g) Reporting use of fallback personnel (Step 2). A Step 2
participant must report changes in the extent to which fallback
personnel are used in its operations. This report must:
(1) Identify the Location Sheet(s) to which the report applies;
(2) Identify the updated percentage of subject vehicles using
fallback personnel under the Location Sheet; and
(3) Be submitted to NHTSA in writing by the time the change occurs.
Sec. 597.502 Changes to an operation.
(a) A participant must report to NHTSA any prospective change to
its operations that exceeds existing thresholds for customized terms.
In proposing new thresholds for such customized terms, an applicant
must address the extent to which a prospective change may alter
information submitted in an application or reviewed by an independent
assessor under Sec. 597.205.
(b) A participant's report of a prospective change must:
(1) Identify the Location Sheet(s) to which the prospective change
would apply;
(2) Describe the prospective change;
(3) Identify the date on which the change is proposed to occur; and
(4) Contain an independent assessor's position regarding whether
the prospective change would materially affect a prior independent
assessment of the safety case conducted under Sec. 597.205(c)(2).
(c) Any proposed change considered material under paragraph (b)(4)
of this section may occur only upon written approval from NHTSA. Before
determining whether to approve the change, NHTSA may require an updated
independent assessment of any aspect of the safety case reviewed in
Sec. 597.205(c)(2) that would be materially affected by the proposed
change.
(d) Prospective changes considered immaterial under paragraph
(b)(4) of this section must be reported to NHTSA at least seven
calendar days before the change takes effect.
(e) In addition to the requirements of this section, a participant
must request and receive an amendment under Sec. 597.601 for any
change that modifies a term or a condition of a Final Determination
Letter.
Subpart F--Procedures During Participation
Sec. 597.600 Concern resolution process.
(a) The procedures in this subpart govern the review of how
concerns of potential issues, as defined in paragraphs (b)(3) and
(b)(4) of this section, may affect a party's participation in AV STEP.
Nothing in this part is intended to limit or otherwise affect NHTSA's
authority under chapter 301 of title 49 of the United States Code,
including but not limited to the authority to inspect, investigate, or
otherwise take enforcement action, as appropriate. In addition, nothing
in this subpart is intended to limit or otherwise affect a party's
obligations under chapter 301 of title 49 of the United States Code,
including but not limited to the requirements for notification and
remedy of defects related to motor vehicle safety and noncompliance set
forth in subchapter II of chapter 301 of title 49 of the United States
Code.
(b) NHTSA may modify any term or condition of participation,
including suspending or revoking permission to participate in AV STEP,
in accordance with the following procedures:
(1) NHTSA will undertake a preliminary review of concerns that
arise during participation. NHTSA may engage with the participant
during this review.
(2) If a concern persists following a preliminary review, NHTSA
will provide each applicant with a written notice of the concern that:
(i) Identifies whether the concern is an Apparent Issue or a Severe
Apparent Issue, as described in paragraphs (b)(3) and (b)(4) of this
section;
(ii) Describes the concern with reasonable particularity; and
(iii) Identifies the date on which a change in terms or conditions,
including a suspension or revocation, is scheduled to take effect.
(3) An Apparent Issue consists of any circumstance that calls into
question the safety of an operation, compliance with an AV STEP
responsibility, or the reliability of information provided by a
participant under AV STEP. The change in terms and conditions will take
effect 10 business days after issuance of notice of an Apparent Issue.
(4) A Severe Apparent Issue consists of an Apparent Issue where the
facts and circumstances signify an elevated concern that undermines
confidence in the safety of continued operations or the participant's
ability to otherwise comply with AV STEP requirements. NHTSA will
determine the appropriate timing for a change in terms or conditions
due to a Severe Apparent Issue on a case-by-case basis, including the
imposition of a suspension or revocation. If NHTSA deems it
appropriate, a change in terms or conditions due to a Severe Apparent
Issue may take effect as early as the time of issuance.
(5) NHTSA may change terms and conditions imposed under paragraphs
(b)(3) or (b)(4) of this section, as appropriate.
(6) After a term or condition has been modified under this section,
NHTSA will engage with each affected participant to determine the
possibility and conditions of a reinstatement. Reinstatements will be
considered on a case-by-case basis depending on the nature of the
concern and the appropriateness and effectiveness of any mitigation of
the concern.
[[Page 4189]]
Sec. 597.601 Amendment process.
(a) In general. Terms and condition in a Final Determination Letter
may be changed only by issuance of an Amended Final Determination
Letter.
(b) Amendment of Final Determination Letter by NHTSA. NHTSA may
modify any term or condition of a Final Determination Letter at any
time upon the agreement of all participants or pursuant to the
amendment or concern resolution processes set forth in this part.
(c) Participant request to amend a Final Determination Letter. A
participant may submit a written request to NHTSA to amend a Final
Determination Letter, which must include:
(1) A description of each requested amendment;
(2) A description of each prospective change to system design,
processes, or operations that relates to the requested amendment;
(3) An updated response to each application requirement in subpart
B of this part that would be affected by the prospective change(s),
apart from Sec. 597.205; and
(d) NHTSA will review each request from a participant to amend a
Final Determination Letter on a case-by-case basis.
(e) Changes requiring a new application. The following changes
require a new application to participate in AV STEP, rather than an
amendment request to an existing approval to participate:
(1) Any change to program step;
(2) The removal, replacement, or addition of an Essential System-
Level Stakeholder; or
(3) For participants with an AV STEP Exemption, a change to any of
the following Vehicle Exemption Information required under Sec.
597.202:
(i) The type of exemption requested under Sec. 597.202(a)(1);
(ii) The subject vehicle for which an exemption is requested, other
than as provided under Sec. 597.303(d);
(iii) For an AV STEP FMVSS Exemption, each requirement of an FMVSS
or bumper standard for which an exemption is requested under Sec.
597.202(b)(1);
(iv) For an AV STEP Make Inoperative Exemption, the device or
element requested to be rendered inoperative under Sec.
597.202(c))(1); or
(v) For an AV STEP Make Inoperative Exemption, each requirement of
an FMVSS affected by the requested modification under Sec.
597.202(c)(2).
(f) Changes not requiring an amendment. No amendment is needed for
the following changes:
(1) Changes to the primary and secondary contact information field
of the Operational Baseline Definition required under Sec. 597.201. A
participant may change this information at any time by providing
written notice to NHTSA;
(2) Changes to an existing Location Sheet required under Sec.
597.203, as long as the changes:
(i) Are submitted to NHTSA through an updated Location Sheet before
the change takes effect; and
(ii) Are limited to the Location Limitation of Sec. 597.203(b).
(3) The addition of a new Location Sheet required under Sec.
597.203, as long as:
(i) The new Location Sheet is submitted to NHTSA before operations
under the new Location Sheet commence;
(ii) The new Location Sheet does not require a report under Sec.
597.502; and
(iii) All of the following fields under Sec. 597.203 for the new
Location Sheet are the same as those in an existing Location Sheet for
the participation:
(A) Maximum number of vehicles requested;
(B) Public ridership;
(C) Intended use;
(D) Operational design domain elements other than location; and
(E) Vehicle equipment.
Subpart G--Public Reporting Requirements
Sec. 597.700 In general.
(a) The public availability of the information described in this
subpart is a condition of participation in AV STEP. NHTSA will publish
the information described in this subpart for each application and
participation and update it on an ongoing basis.
(b) The information published pursuant to this subpart reflects the
information as reported to NHTSA by an applicant or participant.
Sec. 597.701 Information for Publication.
(a) Application Information. NHTSA will publish:
(1) The following information regarding each application:
(i) The date an application was received;
(ii) The status of the application, including the phase and history
of the Application Review Process as described in subpart D of this
part;
(iii) Whether the application requests an AV STEP exemption and, if
so:
(A) The type of exemption requested;
(B) Each requirement of an FMVSS or bumper standard affected by the
exemption;
(C) A summary of risk mitigations, as required under Sec.
597.202(a)(9); and
(D) For an FMVSS Exemption, the purpose requested for the
exemption.
(iv) After review of an application concludes, the Final
Determination Letter.
(2) The following information from the Operational Baseline section
of an application, as required by Sec. 597.201:
(i) The name of each applicant;
(ii) The name of each Essential System-Level Stakeholder;
(iii) The subject vehicle make, model, and model year;
(iv) Unloaded vehicle weight;
(v) Gross Vehicle Weight Rating;
(vi) Claimed vehicle class;
(vii) FMVSS certifying entity, if applicable;
(viii) Whether an application includes the use of onboard fallback
personnel and the number of such personnel per subject vehicle;
(ix) Whether an application includes the use of remote driving and,
if so, a summary of limitations in place on the use of remote driving,
as required under Sec. 597.201(h)(3);
(x) Whether an application includes the use of any remote fallback
personnel who will not utilize remote driving; and
(xi) Whether an application includes use of any remote or onboard
vehicle assistance.
(xii) Whether the subject vehicle(s) contain any features or design
modifications that are intended to promote the safe accommodation of
passengers with disabilities and, if so, a summary of the features or
design modifications.
(3) The application's response to each of the following fields in
each Location Sheet section of an application, as required by Sec.
597.203:
(i) Location Name;
(ii) Location Limitation;
(iii) Maximum Number of Vehicles Requested;
(iv) Legal Speed Limits;
(v) Vehicle Speeds;
(vi) Public Ridership;
(vii) Intended Use; and
(viii) A summary of the operational design domain requested in an
application.
(4) A list of each standard, best practice, or guidance with which
an independent assessment has determined full conformance in response
to the requirements in Sec. 597.205.
(b) Participation Information. NHTSA will publish:
(1) The following information regarding the status of each
participation:
(i) The date participation commenced;
(ii) The current status of each Location Sheet in the
participation, indicating whether subject vehicle operations are:
[[Page 4190]]
(A) Active. This status applies if any vehicle miles traveled were
reported during the preceding reporting period under Sec.
597.500(c)(5) of this part;
(B) Inactive. This status applies if no vehicle miles traveled were
reported during the preceding reporting period under Sec.
597.500(c)(5) of this part or if a participant has otherwise notified
NHTSA of a temporary stoppage of operations;
(C) Suspended. This status applies if any subject vehicles are
subject to a suspension under Sec. 597.600 of this part; or
(D) Concluded. This status applies if the term limit for
participation has expired or if all participants have otherwise
notified NHTSA of the conclusion of the operations.
(iii) The date participation is scheduled to conclude or concluded,
as applicable; and
(iv) Any Amended Final Determination Letter, if applicable.
(2) The following information from responses to the reporting
requirements in Sec. 597.500:
(i) The number of subject vehicles operated on public roads during
the reporting period for each Location Sheet;
(ii) A list of zip codes in which subject vehicles operated on
public roads during the reporting period; and
(iii) The number and location of vehicle recovery events reported
during the reporting period.
Issued in Washington, DC, on December 19, 2024, under authority
delegated in 49 CFR 1.95 and part 501.
Adam Raviv,
Chief Counsel.
[FR Doc. 2024-30854 Filed 1-14-25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P