[Federal Register Volume 91, Number 146 (Friday, July 31, 2026)]
[Notices]
[Pages 48494-48507]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2026-15485]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA-2025-0523]
Zoox--Grant of Temporary Exemption From Portions of Various
Requirements of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards for an
Automated Driving System-Equipped Vehicle
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (Department or DOT).
ACTION: Notice of grant of application for temporary exemption from
portions of eight Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: NHTSA is granting an exemption to Zoox, Inc. (Zoox) to allow
it to manufacture and deploy commercially a passenger car, which is
equipped with an Automated Driving System (ADS), that does not comply
with certain requirements in the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards
(FMVSS). Specifically, NHTSA grants Zoox an exemption for its Zoox
sedan from certain requirements in eight FMVSS: FMVSS No. 103,
Windshield defrosting and defogging systems; FMVSS No. 104, Windshield
wiping and washing systems; FMVSS No. 108, Lamps, reflective devices,
and associated equipment; FMVSS No. 111, Rear visibility; FMVSS No.
135, Light vehicle brake systems; FMVSS No. 201, Occupant protection in
interior impact; FMVSS No. 205, Glazing materials; and FMVSS No. 208,
Occupant crash protection. NHTSA is granting Zoox's application on the
basis that compliance with these requirements would prevent Zoox from
selling, or otherwise commercially deploying, a motor vehicle with an
overall safety level at least equal to the overall safety level of a
vehicle that complies with all
[[Page 48495]]
applicable FMVSS. NHTSA grants Zoox an exemption subject to certain
specified terms and conditions, including the application of an
enhanced oversight condition. Under this condition, NHTSA will issue
Operational Authorizations that may update and expand as Zoox's ADS
technology matures.
DATES: NHTSA grants Zoox's exemption effective from July 31, 2026
through July 31, 2028.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
For legal issues: Callie Roach, Office of the Chief Counsel,
[email protected].
For technical issues: Emily Shull, Rulemaking Office of Automation
Safety, [email protected]. Mailing address: National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Executive Summary
II. Authority and Procedures for General Exemptions
III. Zoox's Application
IV. Receipt Notice, Request for Additional Information From Zoox,
and Comment Summary
V. Framework for Analyzing Zoox's Application
VI. FMVSS-Specific Analysis of Zoox's Application
VII. Compliance With the FMVSS From Which Zoox Seeks Exemption Would
Prevent Zoox From Selling the Robotaxis
VIII. Analysis of Whether Granting Zoox's Application Is in the
Public Interest and Consistent With the Objectives of the Safety Act
IX. Conclusion
X. Terms and Conditions
I. Executive Summary
NHTSA is granting an application submitted by Zoox for an exemption
from certain requirements in eight FMVSS for its ``Zoox sedan'' model
(referred to as the ``Zoox robotaxi''). The Zoox robotaxi is a
passenger car that is equipped with an ADS \1\ and lacks manually
operated driving controls. In its application, Zoox stated that the
robotaxi was designed specifically for autonomous ride hailing. The
vehicle is symmetrical longitudinally, meaning its front and rear are
identical. The interior is configured in a carriage-style arrangement
with two rows of seating facing each other toward the center of the
vehicle. The Zoox robotaxi can be operated with input by a remote
assistant.\2\ Such inputs include requests to pull over, contextual
scene information, a suggested path, or help with assessing a scenario.
It also can be remotely driven,\3\ if necessary, at low speeds within
line of sight using a handheld controller. Zoox stated that it will not
sell the robotaxi but will instead maintain ownership and be
responsible for daily operations, including fleet management,
maintenance and repair, fleet routing and optimization, remote
operations support, and customer service.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ For purposes of this Grant Notice, the term Automated
Driving System and the abbreviation ``ADS'' are used as defined in
SAE International J3016, ``Taxonomy and Definitions for Terms
Related to On-Road Motor Vehicle Automated Driving Systems'' (April
2021), available at https://www.sae.org/standards/j3016_202104-taxonomy-definitions-terms-related-driving-automation-systems-road-motor-vehicles. This standard is hereafter referred to as ``SAE
J3016.''
\2\ For purposes of this Grant Notice, the terms ``remote
assistant'' and ``remote assistance'' are used as defined in SAE
J3016.
\3\ For purposes of this Grant Notice, the term ``remote
driving'' is used as defined in SAE J3016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NHTSA is granting Zoox an exemption on the basis that ``compliance
with the standard would prevent the manufacturer from selling a motor
vehicle with an overall safety level at least equal to the overall
safety level of nonexempt vehicles.'' \4\ Under this exemption, Zoox is
permitted to manufacture vehicles that do not need to comply with
portions of: FMVSS No. 103, Windshield defrosting and defogging
systems; FMVSS No. 104, Windshield wiping and washing systems; FMVSS
No. 108, Lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment; FMVSS No.
111, Rear visibility; FMVSS No. 135, Light vehicle brake systems; FMVSS
No. 201, Occupant protection in interior impact; FMVSS No. 205, Glazing
materials; and FMVSS No. 208, Occupant crash protection. Zoox is
permitted to manufacture vehicles pursuant to this exemption for two
years, provided that not more than 2,500 exempted vehicles are
introduced into interstate commerce for commercial deployment in any
12-month period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ 49 U.S.C. 30113 (b)(3)(B)(iv).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As discussed below, NHTSA finds that a Zoox robotaxi that does not
comply with the FMVSS for which this exemption is being granted would
provide an equivalent level of safety to a nonexempt vehicle. Further,
NHTSA finds that requiring compliance with those specific requirements
would render Zoox unable to deploy commercially a motor vehicle with an
overall safety level at least equal to that of a nonexempt vehicle. In
view of the terms and conditions discussed in this notice and to which
this exemption is subject, NHTSA also finds that granting this
exemption is consistent with the Safety Act, which requires a finding
that the exemption is in the public interest and that compliance with
the standard would prevent the manufacturer from selling a motor
vehicle with an overall safety level at least equal to the overall
safety level of nonexempt vehicles.
The Zoox robotaxi is the first passenger-carrying ADS-equipped
vehicle to be granted an exemption under NHTSA's general exemption
authority.\5\ It is also the first exemption to be issued since NHTSA
introduced process improvements under the Department's Automated
Vehicle (AV) Framework.\6\ These process improvements have been made in
accordance with the AV Framework's three core principles: (1)
prioritize the safety of ongoing AV operations on public roads; (2)
unleash innovation by removing unnecessary regulatory barriers; and (3)
enable the commercial deployment of AVs to enhance safety and mobility
for the American public.\7\ As described in more detail in Section V,
NHTSA's new approach for processing part 555 exemptions for ADS-
equipped vehicles enhances the agency's ability to process applications
efficiently and exercise appropriate oversight of the exempt vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ The first exemption under this authority for an ADS-equipped
vehicle was granted to Nuro for an occupantless low-speed delivery
vehicle. See 85 FR 7826.
\6\ See June 13, 2025 letter to manufacturers at https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.gov/files/2025-06/part-555-letter-june-2025.pdf.
\7\ See U.S. Dept. of Transp., Trump's Transportation Secretary
Sean P. Duffy Unveils New Automated Vehicle Framework as Part of
Innovation Agenda (Apr. 24, 2025), available at https://www.transportation.gov/briefing-room/trumps-transportation-secretary-sean-p-duffy-unveils-new-automated-vehicle-framework.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are currently no requirements under the Safety Act that
prohibit the operation of ADS-equipped vehicles on public roads if the
vehicle has been self-certified by its manufacturer that it complies
with all applicable FMVSS and the system does not present an
unreasonable risk to motor vehicle safety. NHTSA's analysis of whether
Zoox's vehicle provides an overall safety level at least equal to the
overall safety level of a vehicle that complies with all applicable
FMVSS compares Zoox's vehicle to a vehicle that would be identical
except for compliance with the standards for which Zoox sought
exemption. NHTSA finds that requiring compliance with the portions of
the standards listed above is unnecessary to achieve an overall level
of safety at least equal to that of a nonexempt vehicle because most of
those provisions require certain features to be provided to assist a
human and do not provide a safety benefit in a vehicle designed never
to be driven by a human occupant. The remaining provisions require
certain
[[Page 48496]]
features and performance that are unnecessary or do not accommodate the
Zoox robotaxi's novel design.
NHTSA's safety equivalency analysis is limited to the specific
requirements under the FMVSS for which Zoox sought an exemption. In
processing Zoox's application, NHTSA has not made any conclusions
regarding whether the vehicle otherwise complies with all other
applicable FMVSS requirements. It remains the manufacturer's
responsibility to perform a complete analysis of the vehicle's
compliance with FMVSS requirements.
Although NHTSA did not consider Zoox's ADS in its safety
equivalency analysis beyond functional performance that may be directly
related to a particular exemption, NHTSA has considered the safety and
maturity of Zoox's ADS in its determination of whether granting the
exemption would be in the public interest and consistent with the
objectives of the Safety Act. This consideration informed development
of operational oversight conditions for this exemption.
NHTSA is granting this exemption subject to several terms and
conditions that provide increased transparency of operations and allow
NHTSA to exercise increased oversight, including to ensure that the
exempted vehicles do not undermine the public's interest in safe
operations. In its June 13, 2025 letter to manufacturers, NHTSA stated
that it was adopting a more dynamic and flexible approach to evaluating
and overseeing exemptions for ADS-equipped vehicles.\8\ NHTSA has used
this new approach to process Zoox's application. In granting Zoox's
exemption, NHTSA is establishing a permanent term that subjects the
exempted vehicles to continued operational oversight implemented
through Operational Authorizations. Operational Authorizations
prescribe specific operating conditions for exempted vehicles and may
be tailored to different operating environments. The Operational
Authorizations offer flexibility because they allow NHTSA to oversee
more dynamically the operations of the exempted vehicles by allowing
the agency to modify or expand the authorizations as appropriate. The
first Operational Authorization is being issued concurrently with this
decision notice and is tailored to Zoox, its robotaxi, and the ADS's
existing capabilities. NHTSA is placing a copy of the Operational
Authorization in the docket for this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.gov/files/2025-06/part-555-letter-june-2025.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Authority and Procedures for General Exemptions
The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act),
codified at 49 U.S.C. ch. 301, et seq., provides the Secretary of
Transportation with broad authority to exempt motor vehicles from an
FMVSS or bumper standard on a temporary basis, under specified
circumstances, and on terms the Secretary deems appropriate. This
authority is set forth at 49 U.S.C. 30113. The Secretary has delegated
the authority for implementing this section to NHTSA.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ 49 CFR 1.95.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In exercising this authority, NHTSA must look comprehensively at
the request for exemption and find that an exemption would be
consistent with the public interest and with the objectives of the
Safety Act.\10\ In addition, NHTSA must make at least one of the
following more-focused findings, which NHTSA commonly refers to as the
``basis'' for the exemption:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ 49 U.S.C. 30113(b)(3)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(i) compliance with the standard[s] [from which exemption is
sought] would cause substantial economic hardship to a manufacturer
that has tried to comply with the standard[s] in good faith;
(ii) the exemption would make easier the development or field
evaluation of a new motor vehicle safety feature providing a safety
level at least equal to the safety level of the standard;
(iii) the exemption would make the development or field evaluation
of a low-emission motor vehicle easier and would not unreasonably lower
the safety level of that vehicle; or
(iv) compliance with the standard would prevent the manufacturer
from selling a motor vehicle with an overall safety level at least
equal to the overall safety level of nonexempt vehicles.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ 49 U.S.C. 30113(b)(3)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NHTSA established 49 CFR part 555, Temporary Exemption from Motor
Vehicle Safety and Bumper Standards, to implement the statutory
provisions concerning temporary exemptions. The requirements in 49 CFR
555.5 state that the applicant must set forth the basis of the
application by providing the information required under 49 CFR 555.6,
and the reasons why the exemption would be in the public interest and
consistent with the objectives of the Safety Act.
III. Zoox's Application
On August 22, 2025, Zoox submitted an application for exemption
from portions of eight FMVSS for its ADS-equipped robotaxi. Zoox cited
two bases for exemption, section 30113(b)(3)(B)(iv) and section
30113(b)(3)(B)(ii), stating that compliance with these FMVSS would
prevent Zoox from offering a motor vehicle ``with an overall safety
level at least equal to the overall safety level of nonexempt
vehicles'' and that granting the exemption would permit Zoox to
introduce new motor vehicle safety features ``providing a safety level
at least equal to the safety level of the standard.''
Zoox requested an exemption from portions of the following FMVSS:
FMVSS No. 103: Windshield defrosting and defogging
systems.
FMVSS No. 104: Windshield wiping and washing systems.
FMVSS No. 108: Lamps, reflective devices, and associated
equipment.
FMVSS No. 111: Rear visibility.
FMVSS No. 135: Light vehicle brake systems.
FMVSS No. 201: Occupant protection in interior impact.
FMVSS No. 205: Glazing materials.
FMVSS No. 208: Occupant crash protection.
Zoox's application provided an overview of the robotaxi, a
description of each of the specified FMVSS requirements for which Zoox
is seeking an exemption, and its arguments supporting the required
statutory findings. NHTSA notes that any of the descriptions provided
in this section of its application are Zoox's characterizations and do
not necessarily reflect the views of NHTSA. The application included
Zoox's claims regarding the safety of the Zoox robotaxi compared to
nonexempt vehicles and its arguments that granting this exemption would
be in the public interest.\12\ In addition, Zoox's application stated
that it anticipates it will comply with all applicable FMVSS at the end
of the exemption period based on future anticipated regulatory changes
that account for ADS-equipped vehicles.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Redacted versions of Zoox's application and supporting
documents are available in the docket (https://www.regulations.gov/docket/NHTSA-2025-0523).
\13\ 49 CFR 555.6(d)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Zoox describes the robotaxi as a purpose-built, fully autonomous,
all-electric vehicle optimized for ride hailing in cities. It is
classified as a passenger car and has a top speed of 75 mph. The
vehicle seats a maximum of four passengers and has a gross vehicle
weight rating (GVWR) of 3,000 kilograms (6,614 pounds). Zoox states
that its ADS is developed entirely in-house and consists of the
hardware and
[[Page 48497]]
software collectively capable of performing the entire dynamic driving
task and fallback on a sustained basis within a specified operational
design domain (ODD), without any expectation that a passenger will need
to intervene. Zoox states that, therefore, their system meets the
description of a Level 4 ADS under SAE J3016: Taxonomy and Definitions
for Terms Related to Driving Automation Systems for On-Road Motor
Vehicles (April 2021).
Unlike conventional human-driven cars, the Zoox robotaxi is
symmetrical, meaning its front and rear are identical. Rather than
forward-facing rows, the Zoox robotaxi's seats are configured in a
carriage-style arrangement where seated occupants face the center of
the cabin. Zoox states that the primary difference between the Zoox
robotaxi and a nonexempt vehicle is that the Zoox robotaxi is not
capable of being driven by a human.\14\ Instead, the Zoox robotaxi is
equipped with lidar, radar, cameras, long-wave infrared cameras,
microphones, and other sensors that perceive the environment with
custom perception software. This information is then fed into planner
and control systems which plan and execute the driving maneuvers
autonomously. Zoox explains that, therefore, the Zoox robotaxi is not
equipped with:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ In the context of this statement, we understand Zoox to be
referring to the vehicle not being able to be driven by a human
occupant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Manually operated driving controls as defined by 571.3
(i.e., ``system of controls that are used by an occupant for real-time,
sustained, manual manipulation of the motor vehicle's heading
(steering) and/or speed (accelerator and brake)'');
Manually operated ``non-driving'' controls (i.e., a turn
signal operating unit that is capable of ``cancellation by a manually
operated control,'' a headlamp beam switching device that is ``designed
and located so that it may be operated conveniently by a simple
movement of the driver's hand or foot,'' or a parking brake control
that ``may be either a hand or foot control''); or
Human driver visibility aids (i.e., windshield wipers and
defrosters, sun visors, abrasion-resistant glazing, rearview and side
mirrors, or a rearview image display).
Although the Zoox robotaxi lacks manually operated driving
controls, Zoox personnel (``the Zoox Support Team'') are capable of
limited, manual, low-speed operation of the robotaxi, with direct and
constant line of sight, through an industrial handheld ``remote''
control.\15\ Zoox also states that other Zoox personnel (``TeleGuidance
tacticians'') can provide remote guidance to the ADS, and the ADS then
determines when and how it is appropriate to execute that guidance.
Zoox states that the tacticians do not have direct control of the
motion of the robotaxi.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ NHTSA considers operation via the ``remote'' control to be
remote driving as defined in SAE J3016.
\16\ NHTSA considers this remote guidance to be remote
assistance as defined in SAE J3016 and understands Zoox's remote
assistants can initiate the vehicles to stop, remain stopped, or
pull over, as well as provide suggested paths or contextual scene
information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Zoox's arguments and rationale supporting granting their exemption
are discussed in the relevant sections below.
IV. Receipt Notice, Request for Additional Information From Zoox, and
Comment Summary
NHTSA published a Notice of Receipt of Zoox's application in the
Federal Register on September 25, 2025.\17\ The Notice of Receipt
stated that NHTSA had received an application for exemption from Zoox
and listed the FMVSS containing the requirements for which Zoox sought
an exemption. The notice told the public that NHTSA made a copy of
Zoox's application available in the docket and that it would separately
publish a notice seeking public comment on Zoox's application after
determining that the agency had received adequate information to
consider the merits of the request.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ 90 FR 46300.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
After conducting an initial evaluation of Zoox's application and
requesting and receiving additional information from Zoox, NHTSA
published a notice requesting public comment on March 11, 2026, and
noted that copies of Zoox's application, appendices, and responses to
NHTSA's questions were placed in the docket, with redactions of
information for which Zoox sought confidential treatment.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ 91 FR 04730.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NHTSA received 119 public comments in response to the request for
comment. NHTSA received one request to extend the 30-day comment period
from the Transportation Trades Department,\19\ which requested a 90-day
extension. Before responding to the request, NHTSA received a comment
from the Transportation Trades Department submitted via email one day
after the comment period closed, which was added to the docket.\20\
Because Zoox's application was made available in September 2025 and the
emailed comment from the Transportation Trades Department did not
reference the extension request nor needing additional time for review,
NHTSA did not extend or re-open the comment period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ Transportation Trades Department, Docket No. NHTSA-2025-
0523-0064.
\20\ Transportation Trades Department, Docket No. NHTSA-2025-
0523-0130.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NHTSA received comments both in support and in opposition to
granting Zoox's application for exemption. NHTSA identified several
recurring themes among the supportive comments, including discussion of
transportation infrastructure, accessibility and inclusivity, economic
benefit, safety, American technological advancement, data gathering,
and overcoming regulatory hurdles. Some commenters expressed support
for granting the exemption if subject to certain conditions, such as a
variety of safety reporting requirements, limitations on the number of
vehicles, and oversight of the operational domain. Some organizations
and individuals opposed granting Zoox's application, with comments
focused on occupant safety, crashworthiness concerns, vehicle testing,
limited transparency, and Zoox's failure to meet statutory
requirements. More detailed discussion of specific comments is included
in the relevant sections that follow.
V. Framework for Analyzing Zoox's Application
NHTSA's determination of whether to grant a part 555 exemption
application relies on two analyses: (1) an analysis of whether at least
one of the four statutory bases for an exemption is met; and (2) an
analysis of whether granting the exemption would be in the public
interest and consistent with the objectives of the Safety Act.
A. Selection of Statutory Basis on Which To Analyze Zoox's Application
Zoox cited two bases for exemption in its application, section
30113(b)(3)(B)(iv) and section 30113(b)(3)(B)(ii), stating that
compliance with the specified FMVSS would prevent Zoox from offering a
motor vehicle ``with an overall safety level at least equal to the
overall safety level of nonexempt vehicles'' and that granting the
exemption would permit Zoox to introduce new motor vehicle safety
features ``providing a safety level at least equal to the safety level
of the standard.'' NHTSA has decided to consider only the first of
these bases. Although Zoox's ADS is a new vehicle
[[Page 48498]]
feature that may perform functions related to the exemptions sought,
NHTSA does not believe they are replacement for those features because
almost all those features are provided to assist a human driver
performing the driving task.\21\ In the Zoox robotaxi, the ADS is
replacing the human driver, not the features designed to assist human
drivers. Instead, the ADS renders those features superfluous. In this
situation, because the ADS is not performing the same safety function
as the features required by the FMVSS for which they are seeking an
exemption, NHTSA believes the equivalent overall level of safety
(``EOS'') basis is the appropriate standard under which to evaluate
Zoox's application.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ Zoox is also seeking exemption from requirements on the
basis that the design of the vehicle renders those requirements
unnecessary or inapplicable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To examine the effects of the requested exemptions and make the EOS
finding, NHTSA compared the Zoox robotaxi to a nearly identical
compliant vehicle. NHTSA believes this is the appropriate comparison
for an EOS analysis based on its interpretation of the statute. NHTSA
interprets the EOS statutory finding to be narrowed to an analysis of
the impact on features and performance directly related to the
exemption requested. In this case, NHTSA views the appropriate
comparison vehicle to be a hypothetical compliant version of the Zoox
robotaxi, which is also designed to be exclusively driven by an ADS
during normal operations. Many of the exemptions sought by Zoox pertain
to features and performance that assist a human driver in performing
the driving task. Because the comparison compliant vehicle would also
be driven exclusively by an ADS during normal operations, the absence
of those features or that performance would not impact safety if the
only safety benefit of the requirements is derived from assisting a
human driver.
Although not part of its EOS analysis, NHTSA did consider the
information provided by Zoox about its ADS's ability to perform the
function of a human driver as it relates to each of the requested
exemptions as part of the agency's determination of whether granting
the exemption is in the public interest. The Agency notes, however,
that there are no performance requirements for an ADS that is replacing
a human driver performing the dynamic driving task and NHTSA has no
authority to require a higher level of safety performance in the
context of deciding whether to grant an exemption. As explained above,
NHTSA believes the statutory analysis of whether the EOS finding is met
should be based on the impacts of the specific exemptions sought.
Because a compliant vehicle may be operated on public roads with Zoox's
ADS, presuming that it is free from safety-related defects, NHTSA's
consideration of the ADS's performance is limited. In light of this,
NHTSA believes that the maturity of the Zoox robotaxi's ADS is best
considered in the context of an adaptable oversight condition.
B. New Approach to Processing Exemption Applications for ADS-Equipped
Vehicles
The Safety Act grants the Secretary, as delegated to NHTSA,
discretion to condition the grant of an exemption ``on terms [NHTSA]
considers appropriate.'' \22\ Historically, NHTSA has applied terms and
conditions to the grant of a General Exemption infrequently and, when
it did so, only established a single set of static terms and conditions
that would apply for the lifespan of exempted vehicles. However, the
statute does not require the terms issued by NHTSA to be static nor
prescribe how those terms must be implemented. Instead, the statute
affords NHTSA discretion to apply ``appropriate'' terms and conditions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ 49 U.S.C. 30113(b)(1) (delegation of authority at 49 CFR
1.95).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
These terms and conditions are applied on a case-by-case basis and
tailored to the particular exempted vehicles. When evaluating the
merits of an application, NHTSA may consider whether applying terms and
conditions are appropriate to ensure that granting the exemption is in
the public interest or to ensure that the statutory basis on which the
exemption is granted is met. To enable both better oversight and a
quicker assessment of the threshold question of whether to grant an
exemption, NHTSA is adopting a more dynamic and flexible approach to
applying terms and conditions.
Because ADS-equipped vehicles are capable of changing performance
and extending operational design domains over time, NHTSA has found
that establishing a single set of static terms and conditions for such
vehicles throughout their lifespan is often impractical and
inefficient. Static terms also do not always effectively promote motor
vehicle safety because they cannot account for the dynamic nature of
ADS technologies. Particularly at an early stage in the development of
an ADS, capabilities can improve dramatically as the technology
improves and operational design domains are updated over the lifespan
of a particular vehicle or generation of vehicles.
NHTSA announced process improvements in June 2025, one of which is
the adoption of a dynamic approach for evaluating exemptions for ADS-
equipped vehicles. This approach includes an improved oversight
structure that provides needed flexibility and can be applied when
NHTSA believes that such oversight is necessary or appropriate. This
oversight structure would be established via a permanent term or
condition in the Grant Notice, which subjects the exempted vehicles to
continued operational oversight as outlined in operational terms and
conditions in permission letters.
NHTSA determined that it would be appropriate to apply the
operational oversight structure to Zoox's exemption if granted and
evaluated the merits of Zoox's application with this in mind. Zoox's
application is the first to be evaluated since NHTSA announced the
process improvements in June 2025 and, as predicted, NHTSA has found
that the application of the dynamic oversight structure allows the
agency to process and evaluate applications more efficiently and
effectively.
Within the oversight structure, Operational Authorizations are
tailored to the individual manufacturer and the ADS's existing
capabilities. If an exemption is granted, the manufacturer is able to
begin manufacturing and/or commercially deploying vehicles immediately
consistent with the terms and conditions of the Operational
Authorization, which may be modified via subsequent Authorizations,
such as after a manufacturer requests a change. This approach gives
NHTSA flexibility to change operational terms quickly, such as by
expanding the scope of the operational permission as the ADS continues
to develop.
This approach also enables NHTSA to process General Exemption
applications more quickly by allowing the agency to rely on an
adaptable oversight framework. In turn, NHTSA's initial review can
focus on the current capabilities of the vehicles, rather than needing
to develop specific terms and conditions that anticipate possible
future changes. This process improvement also builds on processes that
have proven effective for ADS in Special Exemptions issued under
NHTSA's Automated Vehicle Exemption Program.
[[Page 48499]]
VI. FMVSS-Specific Analysis of Zoox's Application
This section provides a detailed discussion of Zoox's application
for exemption from specific portions of eight FMVSS, Zoox's arguments
of safety equivalency, relevant public comments, NHTSA's analyses, and
NHTSA's determinations regarding safety equivalency for each of the
requirements for which an exemption is sought. Seven of the eight FMVSS
for which Zoox requested exemptions assume the presence of a human
driver and the availability of manually operated driving controls. In
each FMVSS-specific section, NHTSA also discusses any related issues
that were considered in NHTSA's analysis of whether granting Zoox's
exemption is in the public interest and consistent with the objectives
of the Safety Act.
A. Analysis of Zoox's Request for Exemption From the Windshield
Defrosting and Defogging Systems Requirements in FMVSS No. 103 and the
Windshield Wiping and Washing Systems Requirements in FMVSS No. 104
Zoox sought exemption from the windshield defrosting and defogging
systems requirements in FMVSS No. 103 and the windshield wiping and
washing systems requirements in FMVSS No. 104. Section 4.1 of FMVSS No.
103 requires each vehicle to have windshield defrosting and defogging
systems. Sections 4.1 and 4.2.1 of FMVSS No. 104 require each vehicle
to have a power-driven windshield wiping system and a windshield
washing system that meets the requirements of SAE Recommended Practice
J903a and J942, respectively. The Zoox robotaxi is not equipped with
any windshield defrosting, defogging, wiping, or washing system because
the vehicle is designed to be operated exclusively by an ADS, which
perceives the driving environment through exterior-mounted sensors
rather than through a windshield as a human driver would.
NHTSA did not receive any specific comments regarding Zoox's
request for exemption from the requirements in FMVSS Nos. 103 and 104.
Consistent with the agency's position expressed in the Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) on modernizing FMVSS Nos. 103 and 104 to
accommodate ADS-equipped vehicles, NHTSA finds that granting an
exemption from these requirements would not have a substantive adverse
safety effect.\23\ Therefore, NHTSA finds that the Zoox robotaxi has an
overall safety level equivalent to a nonexempt vehicle.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ 91 FR 12537 (March 16, 2026).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Zoox also provided additional information that is relevant to
NHTSA's determination of whether granting the application is in the
public interest and consistent with the objectives of the Safety Act.
Zoox states that the vehicle's exterior-mounted sensors serve as the
foundation of the ADS's visibility and that the vehicle is equipped
with sensor cleaning and clearing systems that remove water, debris,
and frost from the critical viewing surfaces of the sensors. Zoox
asserts that the performance requirements for the sensor systems were
derived from the performance requirements of FMVSS Nos. 103 and 104 and
exceeds these standards, stating that their system must clean or clear
the entire critical sensing surface whereas FMVSS Nos. 103 and 104 only
require cleaning or clearing of a percentage of the critical area. In
assessing the performance of the sensor cleaning and clearing system,
Zoox stated that it used the test procedures and conditions specified
in FMVSS Nos. 103 and 104 and SAE Recommended Practice J942 (1965) with
the only modification being the pass/fail criteria (100% clearance for
Zoox). NHTSA reviewed test reports provided by Zoox regarding
defogging, defrosting, and cleansing for critical sensor areas and
found the performance to be indicative of performance that serves a
safety purpose analogous to the safety purpose of requirements in FMVSS
Nos. 103 and 104 for which Zoox sought an exemption.
B. Analysis of Zoox's Request for Exemption From Various Portions of
FMVSS No. 108 That Reference Turn Signal Operating Units and Headlamp
Beam Switching Devices
Zoox sought exemption from Section 9.1.1 of FMVSS No. 108, which
requires that all vehicles be equipped with a turn signal operating
unit that is self-canceling by steering wheel rotation and capable of
cancellation by a manually operated control. Zoox states that there is
no need for a manually operated (i.e., human operated) turn signal
operating unit. Instead, based on the vehicle's location and
trajectory, the ADS's planning system sends a command requesting the
activation or deactivation of a turn signal. If a command from a remote
assistant requires the (de)activation of a turn signal, the ADS will
(de)activate the turn signal as appropriate once the ADS has confirmed
a path.
Zoox also sought exemption from S9.4, which requires each vehicle
to have a means of switching between lower and upper beam headlamps
designed and located so that it may be operated conveniently by a
simple movement of the driver's hand or foot. In supplemental
information submitted by Zoox on May 6, 2026, Zoox explained that it
has developed and implemented autonomous beam switching.
NHTSA did not receive any specific comments regarding Zoox's
request for exemption from the requirements in FMVSS No. 108.
NHTSA finds that granting an exemption from these requirements
would not impact safety because the requirements for manually operated
turn signals and manually operated beam switching devices do not
provide a safety benefit in a vehicle that would never be driven by a
human occupant. Therefore, NHTSA finds that the Zoox robotaxi has an
overall safety level equivalent to a nonexempt vehicle.
C. Analysis of Zoox's Request for Exemption From Various Portions of
FMVSS No. 111 That Require Interior and Exterior Mirrors and Rearview
Image Display
Zoox sought exemptions from requirements in sections 5.1.1 and
5.2.1 of FMVSS No. 111, which require that all passenger cars be
equipped with a unit-magnification inside rearview mirror providing a
20-degree horizontal field of view and a unit-magnification driver's
side outside mirror, both of which must utilize a film-based or
silvered-glass reflective surface meeting specified reflectance
criteria to ensure image clarity and minimize glare.
Zoox also sought exemption from requirements in section 5.5 of
FMVSS No. 111 which requires that all passenger cars display a rearview
image meeting requirements for field of view, size, response time,
linger time, deactivation, default view, and durability.
In its application, Zoox states that the safety problem addressed
by FMVSS No. 111 (i.e., that the ``driver does not have a clear and
reasonably unobstructed view to the rear'') does not exist in the Zoox
robotaxi. Instead, the Zoox robotaxi is equipped with a sensor suite,
including multiple cameras, lidar, and radar, that creates a 360-degree
field of view with redundancy that, according to Zoox, exceeds the
field of view specified by FMVSS No. 111 Sections 5.1.1, 5.2.1, and 5.5
and provides much better total visibility than a human would have in
any vehicle.
[[Page 48500]]
The Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety \24\ (``Advocates'')
commented on the lack of evidence in terms of test results or analyses
about how the Zoox robotaxi perceives and responds to pedestrians
within the target range for a sensor or camera used for compliance with
FMVSS No. 111's rear visibility requirements. The Advocates cited
NHTSA's recognition that in order for the requirement to meet the need
for safety the driver needed to both perceive and respond appropriately
before impact with the pedestrian.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety, Docket No. NHTSA-
2025-0523-0104 at 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although the Advocates are correct that NHTSA established the
requirement for a rear-view image based on information about how human
drivers would respond to the presence of objects within the field of
view, the standard itself does not require a particular response.
Although the ADS in the Zoox robotaxi will be performing the dynamic
driving task, NHTSA has not regulated that aspect of motor vehicle
performance. Accordingly, NHTSA cannot require a higher level of
vehicle safety performance in the context of evaluating whether to
grant an exemption simply because a vehicle is being operated by an ADS
as opposed to a human driver.
NHTSA also received a comment from the American Automobile
Association (AAA) \25\ expressing concern with the lack of outside
mirrors, stating that passengers' exiting the vehicle may have limited
visibility of approaching cyclists or vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ American Automobile Association, Docket No. NHTSA-2025-
0523-0121 at 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the Nuro, Inc. grant notice, NHTSA identified potential
ancillary benefits that mirrors provide, such as providing a warning to
vehicle occupants exiting vehicles (or opening doors) about approaching
traffic and persons in the vicinity of the vehicle. An example would be
a passenger exiting a vehicle without mirrors while also failing to
look both ways to avoid an oncoming cyclist. Although the outside
mirror can serve a potential ancillary purpose for exiting passengers
and oncoming cyclists, FMVSS No. 111 was not designed or drafted with
this in mind. NHTSA considers these ancillary benefits important, but
notes that other features may also provide these benefits.
In supplemental information submitted by Zoox on January 28,
2026,\26\ Zoox stated that it addresses safe passenger loading and
unloading by opening only the doors on the side closest to the road
edge (e.g., curb). Additionally, an audio prompt reminds occupants to
check for traffic once they arrive at their drop-off location. In
addition, because the doors pop out slightly and slide along the body
of the robotaxi, occupants can look both ways with the doors open
before exiting the vehicle.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ https://www.regulations.gov/document/NHTSA-2025-0523-0004
at 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
After considering the information provided by Zoox and the public
comments, NHTSA finds that the Zoox robotaxi provides an equivalent
level of safety to a vehicle that complies with the rear visibility
requirements in sections 5.1.1 and 5.2.1, as well as section 5.5.
First, NHTSA finds that mirrors do not address the safety problem of
drivers not having a clear and reasonably unobstructed view to the rear
in vehicles that will never be driven by a human. Likewise, NHTSA also
finds that displaying a rearview image that meets the requirements for
size, response time, linger time, deactivation, and default view do not
provide a safety benefit for a vehicle that will not be driven by a
human occupant. We note that Zoox provided test reports demonstrating
that their vehicle's cameras meet certain requirements in sections
5.2.1 and 5.5. However, because Zoox requested exemption from sections
5.2.1 and 5.5 in their entirety, NHTSA evaluated each as such and found
that the vehicle's rearview image provides an overall safety level
equivalent to a nonexempt vehicle. Further, while not required for an
exemption, NHTSA finds that Zoox's approach to ensuring safe passenger
unloading, by unloading curb side and providing reminders to passengers
can even substitute for the ancillary benefit provided by exterior
mirrors.
D. Analysis of Zoox's Request for Exemption From the Manual Brake
Control Requirements in FMVSS No. 135
Section 5.3.1 of FMVSS No. 135 requires the service brakes to be
activated by means of a foot control. In addition, the control of the
parking brake must be independent of the service brake control and may
be either a hand or foot control. The Zoox ADS uses control functions,
carried out through actuators and their associated control systems, to
activate the service and parking brakes. The ADS then uses a series of
electronic messages that are relayed to the brake controller to request
negative torque, similar to a human driver applying the brake pedal or
pressing a parking brake button.
AAA \27\ expressed concern with the lack of sufficient public
details regarding system behavior under cascading failures, performance
in degraded environments, and robustness of fallback strategies in
dense urban settings. NHTSA notes that FMVSS No. 135 prescribes minimum
foundational brake performance requirements. Zoox's application asserts
that the Zoox robotaxi has been tested and complies with the equipment,
performance, and warning requirements in FMVSS No. 135, specifically
the requirements in S5.1, S5.2, S5.4, S5.5, S5.6, and S7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ American Automobile Association, Docket No. NHTSA-2025-
0523-0121 at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consistent with the agency's position expressed in the NPRM on
modernizing FMVSS No. 135 to accommodate ADS-equipped vehicles,\28\
NHTSA finds that requiring manual controls for the activation of the
service and parking brakes is unnecessary for operation of a vehicle by
ADS. Accordingly, NHTSA finds that a Zoox robotaxi exempt from the
manual brake control requirements in FMVSS No. 135 would have an
overall safety level equivalent to a nonexempt vehicle.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ 91 FR 38593 (June 26, 2026).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
E. Analysis of Zoox's Request for Exemption From the Sun Visor
Requirements in FMVSS No. 201
Section 5.4 of FMVSS No. 201 requires each front outboard
designated seating position to be provided with a sun visor that is
constructed of or covered with energy-absorbing material. The sun
visors must also be designed and mounted such that they do not present
sharp edges or rigid projections that could increase the risk of injury
during an occupant's head impact.
In a notice from 1982 that granted an exemption from the
requirement to provide sun visors, NHTSA stated that sun visors
function as an occupant protection device by providing impact absorbing
material in the windshield header area in addition to keeping the sun
from interfering with the vision of the operator.\29\ Zoox's
application addresses both of these purposes. Regarding the occupant
protection function of sun visors, Zoox states that it believes
rationale for the sun visor requirements is to ``minimize the risk of
injury from contacting the sun visor'' and argues that because the Zoox
robotaxi is not equipped with sun visors, there is no need to protect
the occupants from the sun visors. Regarding the purpose of reducing
sun glare for human drivers, Zoox notes that
[[Page 48501]]
the ADS is not affected by the presence or absence of a sun visor
because it does not view the roadway through a windshield.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ 47 FR 34071 (August 5, 1982), Anden Holdings Ltd., Grant of
Petition for Temporary Exemption From Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
Standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NHTSA did not receive any public comments regarding Zoox's request
for exemption from the sun visor requirement. After consideration,
NHTSA believes that the Zoox robotaxi provides an overall level of
safety equal to that of a vehicle that is not exempt from the sun visor
requirement because of the positioning of the seats in the Zoox
robotaxi. Because the seating positions are facing inward, toward the
center of the vehicle, the header area in which the sun visors would be
installed is behind the passengers' heads and head restraints. Based on
the design configuration of the vehicle, NHTSA finds that providing sun
visors would not provide an occupant protection benefit. Regarding the
secondary function of sun visors, NHTSA finds that there is no safety
need to block sun glare for a human driver for a vehicle that will
never be driven by a human occupant. Therefore, NHTSA finds that the
Zoox robotaxi provides an equivalent level of safety to a vehicle that
complies with the sun visor requirement. Inasmuch as the padding on a
sun visor may provide additional occupant protection when the sun visor
is in certain positions, the level of energy absorption and volume
padding in an FMVSS No. 201-compliant sun visor is not defined and will
vary with different vehicles, different occupant sizes, the positioning
of the sun visor and various other factors. We note that there have
been significant improvements in motor vehicle safety since the
requirement was first issued, including improvements to FMVSS No. 201
issued in 1995 that established performance requirements for impact
area inclusive of the area in which sun visors are stowed, thus
reducing any incremental benefit associated with providing energy-
absorbing sun visors. Zoox stated that the robotaxi has been tested and
complies with all other relevant components required by FMVSS No. 201.
For the same reasons, NHTSA believes granting Zoox and exemption from
portions of FMVSS No. 201 is in the public interest.
F. Analysis of Zoox's Request for Exemption From the Windshield
Abrasion Resistance and Deviation and Distortion Requirements in FMVSS
No. 205
Section 5.1 of FMVSS No. 205 requires that glazing materials used
in motor vehicles conform to the ANSI/SAE Z26.1-1996 standard, which
dictates specific performance and testing criteria based on the
glazing's location and designation as a particular `Item' type. The
purpose of FMVSS No. 205 is to reduce injuries (e.g., lacerations)
resulting from impact to glazing surfaces, to ensure a necessary degree
of transparency in motor vehicle windows for driver visibility, and to
minimize the possibility of occupants being thrown through the windows
in collisions. Zoox is requesting an exemption from the requirements
for their vehicle's windshields to be AS1 glazing.
Zoox states that none of the glazing in the robotaxi is necessary
for driving visibility as there is no driver seat and the ADS views the
world through the sensors mounted on the exterior of the vehicle, not
through the windows. Zoox states that the glazing at either end of the
robotaxi (referred to as ``service bays'' by Zoox) is marked ``AS4''
and satisfies the associated requirements for Item 4 glazing. In
addition, Zoox states that the glazing was tested and met the occupant
safety tests for AS1 glazing. Zoox submitted test reports indicating
that the glazing used in the service bays on the robotaxis meets the
requirements for AS4 glazing as well as tests 9, 12, and 26 for AS1
glazing.
NHTSA did not receive any public comments about Zoox's request for
exemption from the requirements for windshields to use AS1 glazing.
After considering the information provided by Zoox, NHTSA finds
that glazing used for the service bays is not requisite for driving
visibility. Accordingly, NHTSA finds that exempting the Zoox robotaxi
from the requirements for AS1 glazing that relate to driving visibility
would not have an adverse impact on safety. However, because NHTSA
believes that the glazing in the service bays should still provide the
same level of occupant protection as a compliant windshield, NHTSA is
conditioning Zoox's exemption from the requirement that windshields be
comprised of AS1 glazing on the glazing meeting AS4 requirements as
well as tests 9, 12, and 26 for AS1 glazing. Subject to this condition,
NHTSA finds that the Zoox robotaxi would provide an equivalent level of
safety to a nonexempt vehicle.
G. Analysis of Zoox's Request for Exemption From the Air Bag Warning
Label Requirements in FMVSS No. 208
Section 4.5.1 of FMVSS No. 208 requires each vehicle to have a
label permanently affixed to either side of the sun visor at each front
outboard seating position equipped with an inflatable restraint and the
content must conform with the standard. Zoox reasoned that since the
robotaxi is not equipped with sun visors, the vehicle cannot comply
with the requirements of the standard. Instead, Zoox argued that since
an air bag warning label is conspicuously located adjacent to each
seating position, the vehicle provides an equivalent level of safety to
a nonexempt vehicle. Zoox's approach to the air bag warning label
content and pictogram strays slightly from what is required by
4.5.1(b), but Zoox argued that the differences more accurately
represent the design of the vehicle. For example, the Zoox air bag
warning label references the Zoox App containing the Rider Manual
rather than the owner's manual,\30\ and the pictogram displays the Zoox
bespoke air bag design compared to traditional air bags. NHTSA agrees
that Zoox's approach of relocating the air bag warning labels to a
location at each seating position, as well as altering the contents of
the warning label to represent the unique vehicle design accurately
while still conveying safety information to the occupants, adequately
addresses the safety need met by S4.5.1(b). Therefore, NHTSA finds that
the Zoox robotaxi provides an equivalent level of safety to a vehicle
that complies with the sun visor labeling requirements in FMVSS No.
208.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ Because Zoox will maintain ownership of its vehicles under
this exemption, as stated in Zoox's application and in this Grant
Notice, certain information often found in an owner's manual that is
relevant to the occupants of the exempted vehicles will be provided
in a Rider Manual which is accessible via Zoox's website and app.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
VII. Compliance With the FMVSS From Which Zoox Seeks Exemption Would
Prevent Zoox From Selling the Robotaxis
As noted above, NHTSA evaluated Zoox's application on the statutory
basis that the manufacturer would be otherwise unable to sell a motor
vehicle with an overall level of safety at least equal to that of a
nonexempted vehicle. Although the statutory language for equivalent
overall safety states that NHTSA must find that compliance with the
FMVSS would prevent Zoox from ``selling'' the robotaxi, this language
does not limit the application of the statutory basis to only vehicles
that will be offered for sale (which Zoox states the robotaxi will
not). Rather, to grant an exemption under the equivalent overall safety
basis, NHTSA must find that compliance with the standard would prevent
Zoox from selling the robotaxi regardless of whether Zoox actually
intends to sell the robotaxi. Section 30113 of the Vehicle Safety Act
does not require that a vehicle exempted
[[Page 48502]]
under the equivalent overall safety basis enter interstate commerce
only through a sale, and NHTSA declines to read such a limitation into
the statute. Accordingly, we have determined that Zoox may introduce
the robotaxi into interstate commerce by means other than selling, even
if the vehicle is exempted under this basis.
Based on its expertise and the information available to it, NHTSA
finds that granting Zoox's application for its robotaxi would result in
a vehicle that has an overall level of safety equivalent to a nonexempt
version of the vehicle. As discussed above, NHTSA has evaluated each of
the exemptions sought and has determined that exempting the Zoox
robotaxi from those requirements would not decrease safety. Although
evaluated individually above, NHTSA also finds that the Zoox robotaxi,
as exempt from those requirements, provides an overall equivalent level
of safety to an otherwise identical compliant vehicle that is also
operated by an ADS. Most of the exemptions sought are for features
designed to assist human drivers and therefore are unnecessary for a
vehicle that will not be operated by a human occupant, with the
remaining exemptions being sought for requirements that are
incompatible or unnecessary for the Zoox robotaxi's carriage seating
design.
VIII. Analysis of Whether Granting Zoox's Application Is in the Public
Interest and Consistent With the Objectives of the Safety Act
The Safety Act and its implementing regulations provide the
Secretary and, by delegation, NHTSA with broad authority and discretion
in determining whether granting the application for temporary exemption
is consistent with the public interest and objectives of the Safety
Act. Here, NHTSA finds that granting Zoox's exemption is consistent
with the public interest and 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 because doing so
furthers the Federal Government's interest in facilitating the safe
development and deployment of innovative transportation technologies,
which is enabled through NHTSA's oversight authority and conditions the
agency is placing on Zoox. Given the innovative nature of the Zoox
robotaxi and the agency's determination that the exemption will not
lower the safety of the robotaxi as compared to a nonexempt version of
the vehicle, the agency believes that these reasons are more than
sufficient to justify this finding.
A. Zoox's Public Interest Argument
Zoox argued that granting its application for exemption for the
robotaxi is consistent with the public interest and the objectives of
the Safety Act for several reasons. Zoox stated that introducing an
automated robotaxi that meets or exceeds the performance of a human
driver would enhance the overall safety of the transportation system
and would directly support the U.S. economy by supporting existing
businesses and offering consumers additional transportation mobility.
Zoox also argued the exemption would be in the public interest as it
would further advance and solidify U.S. standing and leadership in AI
and automated vehicle technology, as well as signal to the industry and
global competitors this administration's commitment to ensuring
American companies can achieve and maintain the lead in automated
vehicle innovation. Specific to the Safety Act, Zoox argued that safety
is maintained because the robotaxi provides at least an overall level
of safety equivalent to nonexempt vehicles. In addition, Zoox asserted
that the standards from which it seeks exemptions are predicated on the
presence of physical controls and equipment intended for use by a human
driver and, therefore, do not improve the safety of a vehicle designed
to be operated exclusively by an ADS. Zoox also contended that,
notwithstanding the absence of such driver-related equipment, the
robotaxi satisfies the underlying performance objectives and safety
functions embodied in the standards for which exemptions are sought.
More specifically, allowing for the introduction of the robotaxi as
it has been designed by Zoox to optimize its performance as a highly
automated passenger car could further the development of new and
innovative vehicle automation technologies, which may in turn lead to
future benefits for vehicle safety and the economy. Although NHTSA
cannot fully predict the extent to which these benefits will
materialize in the future and, more specifically, the effect that
granting this exemption would have on those benefits, the agency
recognizes that development of the ADS technology necessary to make
these potential benefits possible is supported by use on vehicles that
are designed to be automated.
However, the agency recognizes some of the concerns raised by some
commenters about ADS and passenger safety, and has imposed conditions
upon this exemption grant to mitigate safety risks and provide enhanced
oversight to respond to issues that may arise.
B. Public Interest Issues Raised by Commenters
NHTSA requested comment from the public on the merits of Zoox's
application and potential terms and conditions that should be applied
to the exemption, if granted.
(1) Supportive Comments
An overwhelming majority of the public comments supported NHTSA
granting Zoox's exemption, particularly as it relates to public
interest, though many commenters did not elaborate on their reasoning
for certain supportive comments. Although NHTSA appreciates public
participation and takes such comments into consideration, the agency
will not respond to non-substantive comments in this notice.
In terms of safety benefits, the Southern Nevada Bicycle Coalition
\31\ noted that automated vehicles have the potential to eliminate
common causes of crashes (e.g., distraction, speeding) due to advanced
sensing, situational awareness, predictive algorithms, and adherence to
traffic laws. Transform \32\ and the California Bicycle Coalition \33\
expressed similar sentiments in terms of safety benefits for vulnerable
road users.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ Southern Nevada Bicycle Coalition, Docket No. NHTSA-2025-
0523-0029 at 1.
\32\ Transform, Docket No. NHTSA-2025-0523-0041 at 1.
\33\ California Bicycle Coalition, Docket No. NHTSA-2025-0523-
0073 at 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, some commenters \34\ agreed that granting Zoox's
exemption was in the public interest because of NHTSA's oversight
authority, specifically citing that exempting 2,500 vehicles per year
for two years allows NHTSA to monitor operations closely while allowing
Zoox to run a commercial service.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ Robo Shepherd Inc, Docket No. NHTSA-2025-0523-0015 at 1;
Corporation for Automated Road Transportation Safety, Docket No.
NHTSA-2025-0523-0061 at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(2) Child Ridership
S.D. Thomas LLC \35\ suggested several reporting requirements,
primarily related to child ridership. For example, reporting on the
presence of observed children generally and who are incorrectly
restrained in a child restraint or booster seat was suggested, as well
as requiring Zoox to provide instructions on properly attaching a child
restraint to the vehicle and properly restraining a child in a child
restraint seat. At the
[[Page 48503]]
time of granting Zoox's exemption, riders under the age of eight are
not permitted. Therefore, NHTSA expects to review relevant materials
from Zoox and consider incorporating conditions into Operational
Authorizations, should Zoox seek to expand eligible ridership. Although
ridership is currently restricted to certain ages, NHTSA acknowledges
that the seat belts in the robotaxi may not properly fit all children
ages 8 and above. Zoox's Rider Manual states that parents and guardians
are responsible for ensuring that children riding with them are safely
and properly belted, using a booster seat if necessary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ S.D. Thomas LLC, Docket No. NHTSA-2025-0523-0124 at 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(3) Passenger Egress
Several commenters \36\ raised concerns about the safety of the
Zoox robotaxi. One common theme among safety concerns was passenger
egress.\37\ Specifically, SMART-TD \38\ and the Transportation Trades
Department \39\ expressed concern over passenger egress since the
robotaxi does not have manual door controls. NHTSA notes that, while
the emergency door handle (EDH) equipped on the robotaxi is not a
traditional handle commonly seen in conventional vehicles, the robotaxi
has two methods to open the doors manually. For passengers, a lever is
located on either side of the interior that, while pulled, allows
passengers to push the door open. If air bags are deployed, the
passenger-facing side of the horseshoe air bag provides instructions
for locating and using the EDH. For first responders located outside
the vehicle, an exterior door button is available. In the event of a
severe crash resulting in a non-functioning door button, instructions
are shown on the exterior of the horseshoe air bag instructing first
responders where to break the glass to access the EDH.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ Cristina Perez Hesano, Docket No. NHTSA-2025-0523-0034 at
1; Donald Slavik, Docket No. NHTSA-2025-0523-0035 at 1; Delaney
Howard, Docket No. NHTSA-2025-0523-0052 at 1; Anonymous, Docket No.
NHTSA-2025-0523-0083 at 1; Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety,
Docket No. NHTSA-2025-0523-0104 at 3-4; Transport Workers Union of
America, Docket No. NHTSA-2025-0523-0105 at 3; SMART-TD, Docket No.
NHTSA-2025-0523-0107 at 3; American Automobile Association, Docket
No. NHTSA-2025-0523-0121 at 4; Transportation Trades Department,
Docket No. NHTSA-2025-0523-0130 at 2.
\37\ SMART-TD, Docket No. NHTSA-2025-0523-0107 at 3; American
Automobile Association, Docket No. NHTSA-2025-0523-0121 at 4;
Transportation Trades Department, Docket No. NHTSA-2025-0523-0130 at
2.
\38\ SMART-TD, Docket No. NHTSA-2025-0523-0107 at 3.
\39\ Transportation Trades Department, Docket No. NHTSA-2025-
0523-0130 at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
AAA \40\ expressed concern over the lack of side mirrors and the
implication on passenger safety during loading and unloading. Although
Zoox does not have side mirrors, the vehicle incorporates several
precautionary measures to support safe loading and unloading. At a
pick-up/drop-off, only the door closest to the road edge will be
opened. When a pick-up/drop-off occurs outside a parking spot or
parking lane, the hazard warning signal flasher is activated, causing
the required turn signals to flash providing a visual indicator to
external parties the presence of a vehicular hazard and to use caution.
Finally, upon exiting the robotaxi, an auditory prompt reminds
passengers to check for traffic.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\40\ American Automobile Association, Docket No. NHTSA-2025-
0523-0121 at 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(4) Workforce Requirements
NHTSA received several comments expressing concern over the
qualifications and training of remote operators. Particularly, the
Advocates \41\ and SMART-TD \42\ questioned the sufficiency of remote
operator training and qualifications as details were not provided in
the public-facing materials. Specifically, both commenters expressed
concern over the lack of detail provided on workforce training and
certification standards, communication requirements, location, and
latency. NHTSA has evaluated Zoox's materials on these matters and has
found them to be sufficient. Further, NHTSA has placed certain
conditions in the Grant Notice and Operational Authorization for these
reasons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\41\ Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety, Docket No. NHTSA-
2025-0523-0104 at 4.
\42\ SMART-TD, Docket No. NHTSA-2025-0523-0107 at 3-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(5) Crashworthiness Testing
Another common theme among commenters was Zoox's lack of
crashworthiness testing and data. The Consortium for Constituents with
Disabilities \43\ and the American Foundation for the Blind \44\ both
noted that they would like to see testing for people with disabilities,
as both passengers and pedestrians, before the exemption is granted.
Although the Americans with Disabilities Act does not require
accessibility for passenger vehicles not operating on a fixed route,
NHTSA strongly supports the use of automated driving system
technologies to expand mobility for people with disabilities. While not
included as a condition to this exemption, the agency encourages the
development of safety measures designed to enable safe transportation
of people with physical and other disabilities, including wheelchair
securement mechanisms.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\43\ Consortium for Constituents with Disabilities, Docket No.
NHTSA-2025-0523-0120 at 3.
\44\ American Foundation for the Blind, Docket No. NHTSA-2025-
0523-0126 at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
AAA \45\ and the Service Employees International Union \46\ argued
that Zoox's safety claims should be supported by scenario-based
evaluations and independent validation rather than internal metrics.
NHTSA notes that Zoox provided a significant amount of Zoox's crash
test data, which were redacted because Zoox claimed those data
constitute confidential business information (CBI). Although the
specific information cannot be shared with the public, the CBI provided
to NHTSA addressed the concerns raised by public commenters in
sufficient detail for NHTSA to find equivalent or greater overall
safety.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\45\ American Automobile Association, Docket No. NHTSA-2025-
0523-0121 at 3.
\46\ Service Employees International Union, Docket No. NHTSA-
2025-0523-0103 at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A comment submitted by S.D. Thomas LLC \47\ asked numerous
questions concerning Zoox's seating configurations and crash testing.
However, most questions were addressed previously in Zoox's materials
while others were out of scope in finding equivalent overall safety.
The commenter questioned whether Zoox had any additional information on
equivalent performance evaluations for several crashworthiness
standards. Zoox confirmed in its application that the Zoox robotaxi met
all requirements for the remaining applicable FMVSSs. Accordingly, the
company is not required to provide additional information related to
the requirements for the standards which they did not seek exemptions.
The commenter also asked whether the robotaxis meet certain
requirements \48\ unrelated to the applicable FMVSS, but such
requirements are not relevant to the requisite FMVSS-specific safety
equivalence determination.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\47\ S.D. Thomas LLC, Docket No. NHTSA-2025-0523-0124 at 5-7.
\48\ DOT HS 813 716; DOT HS 813 755; 2026-01-0578; and 2026-01-
0576.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Additional Issues Raised by Commenters
(1) Confidential Business Information Claims
Several commenters expressed disagreement with Zoox's CBI claims,
commonly stating that an application seeking exemption for
noncompliance should be scrutinized by the public, and that the lack of
transparency in Zoox's
[[Page 48504]]
application and supplemental materials prevents such scrutiny. Further,
commenters \49\ recommended that NHTSA require full public disclosure
as a condition, including remote operations requirements and training,
performance tests supporting the equivalent level of safety claims, and
incident data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\49\ Ross Templeton, Docket No. NHTSA-2025-0523-0108 at 2-5;
S.D. Thomas LLC, Docket No. NHTSA-2025-0523-0124 at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Zoox has requested that the information in question be treated as
CBI. Federal law requires NHTSA to protect CBI, including trade
secrets. See 49 U.S.C. 30167(a). See also 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4); 18 U.S.C.
1905; Food Marketing Institute v. Argus Leader Media, 139 S. Ct. 2356
(2019). NHTSA regulations afford entities like Zoox an opportunity to
request that certain material submitted to the agency be afforded CBI
status. See 49 CFR part 512. These regulations require NHTSA to keep
such information confidential until the agency makes a determination
regarding its confidentiality. See 49 CFR 512.20. Thus far, NHTSA has
not reached any determination that the information subject to Zoox's
request is not entitled to confidential treatment or otherwise
necessary to disclose. See id. See also 49 U.S.C. 30167. Thus, the
statutes, regulations, and Supreme Court precedent governing the agency
prohibit the disclosure of this information. Nevertheless, at various
places in this notice, NHTSA has sought to describe confidential
information more broadly to help the public understand the general
nature of the withheld information.
(2) Regulatory Structure of Part 555
Several commenters \50\ expressed concern with NHTSA's handling of
Zoox's exemption more generally. The most common theme mentioned was
that, if granted, Zoox's exemption may be interpreted as a de facto
safety standard for future automated vehicles.\51\ NHTSA notes that it
evaluates all part 555 applicants on a case-by-case basis. Therefore,
all vehicles are evaluated against the basis, or bases, chosen by the
applicant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\50\ Cristina Perez Hesano, Docket No. NHTSA-2025-0523-0034;
Donald Slavik, Docket No. NHTSA-2025-0523-0035; Delaney Howard,
Docket No. NHTSA-2025-0523-0052 at 1; Anonymous, Docket No. NHTSA-
2025-0523-0083 at 1; Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety, Docket
No. NHTSA-2025-0523-0104 at 2; Transport Workers Union of America,
Docket No. NHTSA-2025-0523-0105 at 2; SMART-TD, Docket No. NHTSA-
2025-0523-0107 at 2-3; Ross Templeton, Docket No. NHTSA-2025-0523-
0108 at 1; S.D. Thomas LLC, Docket No. NHTSA-2025-0523-0124 at 2;
Transportation Trades Department, Docket No. NHTSA-2025-0523-0130 at
2.
\51\ Cristina Perez Hesano, Docket No. NHTSA-2025-0523-0034 at
1; Transport Workers Union of America, Docket No. NHTSA-2025-0523-
0105 at 2; SMART-TD, Docket No. NHTSA-2025-0523-0107 at 2-3; Ross
Templeton, Docket No. NHTSA-2025-0523-0108 at 1; S.D. Thomas LLC,
Docket No. NHTSA-2025-0523-0124 at 2; Transportation Trades
Department, Docket No. NHTSA-2025-0523-0130 at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Several commenters \52\ argued that NHTSA should prioritize the
development of standards applicable to ADS-equipped vehicles like the
Zoox robotaxi instead of considering individual exemptions on a case-
by-case basis. NHTSA acknowledges the need to amend its standards to
apply to innovative designs and is in the process of modernizing
several FMVSSs to account for the lack of manually operated driving
controls in such vehicles. The agency notes the Vehicle Safety Act was
designed to provide flexibility for manufacturers developing vehicles
with advancing technology through exemptions that allow for limited
deployments of non-conforming vehicles. Such exemptions are not
intended to provide a permanent deployment pathway, which requires
rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\52\ Transport Workers Union of America, Docket No. NHTSA-2025-
0523-0105 at 1; SMART-TD, Docket No. NHTSA-2025-0523-0107 at 3; Ross
Templeton, Docket No. NHTSA-2025-0523-0108 at 1; Transportation
Trades Department, Docket No. NHTSA-2025-0523-0130 at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Advocates \53\ raised concern over Zoox's lack of compliance in
the past, citing Zoox's claims of self-certification and NHTSA's
Special Order and Audit Query. NHTSA notes that a part 555 exemption
allows NHTSA to maintain enhanced oversight over the exempted vehicles
and operations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\53\ Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety, Docket No. NHTSA-
2025-0523-0104 at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. Discussion of Conditions
NHTSA grants this exemption subject to a number of terms, violation
of which enables the agency to take appropriate action, up to and
including a determination that the exemption is no longer in the public
interest, which is a ground for the agency to terminate the exemption
under 49 CFR 555.8(d). NHTSA may also take appropriate enforcement
action under its broad defect authorities. Further, NHTSA may--and
has--established terms that continue to apply to the vehicles
throughout their service life where it determines such continued
application is necessary, considering the public interest and the
objectives of the Safety Act.
(1) Number of Vehicles
The Safety Act limits exemptions granted under the equivalent level
of safety basis to a maximum of 2,500 vehicles to be sold in any 12-
month period.\54\ Consistent with this statutory provision, NHTSA is
granting Zoox an exemption to manufacture and introduce into interstate
commerce for commercial deployment up to 2,500 vehicles. However, the
total number of exempted vehicles that may be simultaneously operated
is limited to the maximum number of vehicles permitted in the initial
Operational Authorization, which may be modified in subsequent
Authorizations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\54\ 49 U.S.C. 30113(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(2) Oversight Condition
The terms of this exemption are designed in consideration of the
public interest and include both grant and operational conditions. The
grant conditions are considered fixed conditions because they
contributed to NHTSA's overall safety finding and therefore cannot be
changed without a modification to this exemption. Zoox must comply with
the grant conditions for the life of the exempted vehicles. They are
detailed in Section X of this Grant Notice.
In addition, NHTSA anticipates that Zoox's operations, ODD, and use
case will change over time. Therefore, NHTSA believes the public
interest is best served through a condition that requires continuing
NHTSA oversight of the operation of the exempted vehicles. This
oversight is most consistent with the public interest when exercised
through a set of operational conditions that can be updated over time
to remain relevant to Zoox's evolving technology and operational use
case. These conditions are set forth in an Operational Authorization.
The operational conditions are intended to be adaptable to the changing
ADS and operations and therefore, may be modified, added, or removed
throughout the lifecycle of the vehicle. The operational conditions
must be followed by Zoox and all parties involved.
NHTSA notes that many of the terms the agency has involved in this
Grant Notice and the Operational Authorization are similar to those
NHTSA has previously imposed on the importation of noncompliant ADS
vehicles under 49 CFR part 591, though, consistent with the differing
requirements of part 591, Zoox's exemption will allow for commercial
deployment, rather than only testing and demonstration.
[[Page 48505]]
(3) Labeling
Under 49 CFR 555.9(b), a manufacturer of an exempted vehicle must
securely affix to the windshield or side window of each exempted
vehicle a label containing a statement that the vehicle meets all
applicable FMVSS in effect on the date of manufacture ``except for
Standard Nos. [Listing the standards by number and title for which an
exemption has been granted] exempted pursuant to NHTSA Exemption No.
__.'' This label is intended to notify prospective purchasers about the
exemption and its subject. Under Sec. 555.9(c)(2), this information
must also be included on the vehicle's certification label.
The text of Sec. 555.9 does not expressly indicate how the
required statement on the two labels should read in situations in which
an exemption covers a portion of an FMVSS. In this case, NHTSA believes
that a blanket statement that the vehicle has been exempted from each
of the standards in its entirely, without an indication that the
exemption is limited to specific provisions, could lead to confusion
about the nature of Zoox's exemption.
Accordingly, with regard to the requirement in 49 CFR 555.9(c),
NHTSA is adding a condition that Zoox must affix to each exempt Zoox
robotaxi a label that meets all applicable requirements of 49 CFR part
567 and that ends with the phrase ``except for specific requirements
within Standard No. 103--Windshield defrosting and defogging systems;
Standard No. 104--Windshield wiping and washing systems; Standard No.
108--Lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment; Standard No.
111--Rear visibility; Standard No. 135--Light vehicle brake systems;
Standard No. 201--Occupant protection in interior impact; Standard No.
205--Glazing materials; and Standard No. 208--Occupant crash
protection, exempted pursuant to NHTSA Exemption No. 2026-01.''
Further, because the Zoox robotaxi will not be sold to consumers
but will instead be operated by Zoox for ride hailing services, NHTSA
is adding a condition that would require Zoox to provide language about
Zoox's exemption in its Rider Manual in lieu of affixing a temporary
label to the windshield or side window as specified in Sec. 555.9(b).
The purpose of the requirement to affix a label to the window or side
window is to inform prospective purchasers about a vehicle's exemption.
Because the Zoox robotaxi will not be sold to consumers, NHTSA finds
that it would be in the public interest to provide information to
consumers via alternative means. Zoox suggested the inclusion of
language in their Rider Manual and NHTSA agrees that would be
appropriate and would better fulfill the purpose of the requirement in
Sec. 555.9(b). Accordingly, NHTSA is establishing a condition that
would require Zoox to provide the required language in its Rider Manual
and include brief, plain language descriptions of the requirements from
which the Zoox robotaxi is exempt. NHTSA is also requiring Zoox to
provide sample language for its Rider Manual within 30 days of
publication of this Grant Notice.
(4) Conditions Suggested by Commenters
Several commenters \55\ recommended conditions that NHTSA should
put in place before granting Zoox's part 555 exemption. NHTSA
incorporated a number of commenters' suggestions into Zoox's initial
set of conditions. However, NHTSA also determined many of the
commenters' suggestions to be out of scope for the purpose of this
exemption or already addressed in Zoox's application and supplemental
materials.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\55\ Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety, Docket No. NHTSA-
2025-0523-0104 at 4-5; Transport Workers Union of America, Docket
No. NHTSA-2025-0523-0105 at 4-5; SMART-TD, Docket No. NHTSA-2025-
0523-0107 at 4-5; Ross Templeton, Docket No. NHTSA-2025-0523-0108 at
2-5; S.D. Thomas LLC, Docket No. NHTSA-2025-0523-0124 at 8-9;
Transportation Trades Department, Docket No. NHTSA-2025-0523-0130 at
3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Advocates,\56\ SMART-TD,\57\ and the Transportation Trades
Department \58\ suggested NHTSA require full public disclosure of
various aspects of Zoox's operation, including incident data and
workforce management. Although NHTSA has determined it unnecessary for
Zoox to disclose all aspects of its operations, Zoox has said it
intends to disclose aspects of its safety clearance process in the
future.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\56\ Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety, Docket No. NHTSA-
2025-0523-0104 at 5.
\57\ SMART-TD, Docket No. NHTSA-2025-0523-0107 at 4.
\58\ Transportation Trades Department, Docket No. NHTSA-2025-
0523-0130 at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Advocates \59\ recommended NHTSA require Zoox to coordinate
with State and local authorities and communicate effectively with the
public in all localities where Zoox operates. NHTSA agrees with the
value of public disclosure and has included Condition X.J in this Grant
Notice to require disclosure of Zoox's operating areas. In addition,
NHTSA expects to request Zoox's coordination plans prior to expansion
to new operational areas. The Advocates \60\ also suggested NHTSA
condition Zoox's exemption on making all exempted vehicles readily and
individually identifiable. However, NHTSA has determined this condition
to be unnecessary as the robotaxis are currently labeled clearly with
Zoox markings, license plates, and VINs on either end of the vehicle.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\59\ Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety, Docket No. NHTSA-
2025-0523-0104 at 5.
\60\ Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety, Docket No. NHTSA-
2025-0523-0104 at 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Several commenters also suggested that NHTSA implement certain
reporting requirements. The Transport Workers Union of America,\61\
SMART-TD,\62\ and Ross Templeton \63\ suggested Zoox be required to
report on the number of personnel employed, both by Zoox and
contractors, including the location of workers, relevant
qualifications, and total hours spent performing duties. Certain
aspects of this request are incorporated into Zoox's reporting
requirements at the time of granting (see Condition X.I), while other
aspects like total hours spent performing duties are unnecessary for
compliance with other conditions relevant to safety performance which
are included in the initial Operational Authorization (e.g., remote
assistance performance, fleet operations personnel roles and
responsibilities). Additional suggested reporting requirements included
the number of ``floaters'' who may be reassigned or called upon to do
remote operations duties, the total number of exempted vehicles removed
from service due to safety-related maintenance issues, median hourly
compensation and employee benefits, and the annualized turnover rate.
NHTSA does not believe details like these are necessary for the
agency's safety-focused operational oversight at the time of granting
this exemption. In the future, reporting requirements may be added
should NHTSA deem them necessary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\61\ Transport Workers Union of America, Docket No. NHTSA-2025-
0523-0105 at 4-5.
\62\ SMART-TD, Docket No. NHTSA-2025-0523-0107 at 2-5.
\63\ Ross Templeton, Docket No. NHTSA-2025-0523-0108 at 2-5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, three commenters \64\ suggested NHTSA place a condition on
Zoox's exemption prohibiting any use that would require additional
exemptions from Federal agencies and from marketing for use by public
transportation agencies, though they did not specify the reasons for
such
[[Page 48506]]
conditions. NHTSA has included a term requiring compliance with all
Federal, State and Local laws (see Condition X.E) and determined
additional conditions unnecessary as the other agencies have authority
to administer their respective exemptions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\64\ Transport Workers Union of America, Docket No. NHTSA-2025-
0523-0105 at 4; SMART-TD, Docket No. NHTSA-2025-0523-0107 at 5;
Transportation Trades Department, Docket No. NHTSA-2025-0523-0130 at
3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
E. Conclusion That Granting Zoox an Exemption Is in the Public Interest
and Consistent With the Objectives of the Safety Act
Based upon the Federal government's interest in facilitating the
safe deployment of innovative transportation technologies, and public
interest arguments raised by Zoox and commenters, NHTSA has determined
that granting Zoox a temporary exemption, subject to the terms and
conditions established in this notice (Section X) and the Operational
Authorization letter, is in the public interest. Although Zoox and
public commenters offer a variety of reasons for why granting Zoox's
exemption is in the public interest, NHTSA's analyses primarily turn on
questions of motor vehicle safety.
NHTSA believes that ADS technology has the potential to improve
safety and mobility in the transportation of both people and goods.
While these benefits are still largely aspirational and unquantifiable,
they provide reasons to grant the exemption, especially after finding
that exempt Zoox robotaxis have an equivalent or greater level of motor
vehicle safety compared to an otherwise identical FMVSS-compliant
vehicle. NHTSA also notes that ADS technology is being deployed on
public roads and the agency does not believe that exempt Zoox robotaxis
would pose additional risks to motor vehicle safety compared to a
compliant vehicle using the same ADS. The difference in safety,
however, between granting or denying Zoox's application is that with
this grant, as NHTSA has formulated it, NHTSA has more direct and
tailored oversight. With this increased oversight, NHTSA finds that
granting the exemption would be net positive for safety. Accordingly,
because of the other benefits associated with facilitating Zoox's
deployment of a vehicle with a novel design with requiring unnecessary
features, NHTSA also finds that, overall, granting Zoox's exemption is
consistent with the public interest and the objectives of the Safety
Act.
IX. Conclusion
Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30113(b)(3)(B)(iv), NHTSA is granting
Temporary Exemption No. 2026-01 to Zoox for the production of its
``Zoox sedan'' model vehicle from paragraph S4.1 of FMVSS No. 103;
paragraphs S4.1 and S4.2.1 of FMVSS No. 104; paragraphs S9.1.1 and S9.4
of FMVSS No. 108; paragraphs S5.1, S5.2.1, and S5.5 of FMVSS No. 111;
paragraph S5.3.1 of FMVSS No. 135; paragraph S5.4 of FMVSS No. 201; the
requirement of FMVSS No. 205 that windshields be comprised of AS1
glazing; and paragraph S4.5.1 of FMVSS No. 208, subject to the
condition provided that Zoox complies with the terms described in
Section X. The exemption shall be effective from July 31, 2026 through
July 31, 2028.
X. Terms and Conditions
The terms set out in this grant notice are specific to Zoox's
``Zoox sedan'' model, a robotaxi vehicle, based on information provided
by Zoox in its application and supplemental information provided to
NHTSA. These terms include an Operational Authorization, which governs
the public road operation of the exempted vehicles. In general, the
Operational Authorization describes processes for reporting changes to
vehicle operations and capabilities and requesting to operate under
changed conditions. If NHTSA finds that a change to the vehicle affects
the overall equivalent level of safety finding by which this exemption
was granted, NHTSA may require Zoox to request a modification to the
exemption, which would require notice and public comment and would be
processed under 49 CFR 555.8. Violation of any of the terms included in
this notice or the associated Operational Authorization are grounds for
NHTSA action, up to and including termination of the exemption.
A. Operational Authorization
Zoox must comply with all terms and conditions in the applicable
Operational Authorization(s). The Operational Authorization will govern
the operation of the exempted vehicles on public roads and may be
modified by NHTSA as appropriate or necessary. NHTSA may issue
additional Operational Authorizations that contain specific conditions
on an operation-to-operation basis, and therefore, multiple
Authorizations may exist concurrently depending on operating areas,
locations, or routes. Zoox must be able to access and provide vehicle,
ADS, and other data to NHTSA as required by the reporting conditions
specified in the Authorization. The Operational Authorizations will be
made publicly available in the docket for this exemption notice (NHTSA-
2025-0523).
B. Vehicles Permitted Under the Current Exemption
The current exemption applies exclusively to the Zoox sedan model
vehicle described in Zoox's application and supplemental documentation.
C. Labeling
In accordance with 49 CFR 555.9(c), Zoox must affix to each exempt
Zoox sedan vehicle a label that meets all applicable requirements of 49
CFR part 567 and that ends with the phrase ``except for specific
requirements within Standard No. 103--Windshield defrosting and
defogging systems; Standard No. 104--Windshield wiping and washing
systems; Standard No. 108--Lamps, reflective devices, and associated
equipment; Standard No. 111--Rear visibility; Standard No. 135--Light
vehicle brake systems; Standard No. 201--Occupant protection in
interior impact; Standard No. 205--Glazing materials; and Standard No.
208--Occupant crash protection, exempted pursuant to NHTSA Exemption
No. 2026-01.''
In lieu of affixing securely to the windshield or side window of
each exempted vehicle a label in the English language containing the
statement required by 49 CFR 567.4(g)(5) and including the language
specified above in accordance with Sec. 555.9(c), Zoox may instead
provide the required language in its Rider Manual and include brief,
plain language descriptions of the requirements from which the Zoox
sedan is exempt. Zoox must provide sample language for its Rider Manual
within 30 days of publication of this Grant Notice.
D. Equipment Requirement for the Vehicles
The glazing in the Zoox robotaxi's ``service bays'' must meet all
requirements for AS4 glazing as well as tests 9, 12, and 26 for AS1
glazing.
E. Compliance With Federal, State, and Local Laws
Zoox, the robotaxis, and their operation must comply with all
Federal, State, and local laws and requirements. Each vehicle must be
duly permitted, if applicable, and authorized to operate upon all
roadways traversed in the manner and conditions described in the
associated Operational Authorization. Zoox remains responsible for
communicating, cooperating, and coordinating with law enforcement
personnel as may be necessary in the deployment regions. This exemption
does not supplant or affect any recall or reporting obligations that
may arise
[[Page 48507]]
under the Safety Act for the subject vehicles.
F. Inspection
The Zoox robotaxis must be made available for inspection by NHTSA
upon request.
G. Sale and Transfer of Possession
Zoox must maintain operational control of all vehicles under this
exemption for the entire life of the vehicles. Zoox shall not sell, or
transfer possession of, or title to, any vehicle, and shall not license
it for use, or operate it on the public roads, except under such terms
and conditions authorized by NHTSA.
H. Modification, Suspension, or Revocation of an Exemption
NHTSA may modify, suspend, or revoke an exemption, in its
discretion and as appropriate, including upon determining that:
a. The exemption is no longer consistent with the public interest
and the objectives of the Act, for example if NHTSA determines that the
robotaxi(s) or its operation(s) presents an unreasonable risk to
safety, which may include if the robotaxi contains safety-related
defects that NHTSA determines cannot be satisfactorily remedied or
otherwise mitigated; or
b. The exemption was granted on the basis of false, fraudulent, or
misleading representation or information.
I. Location of Personnel Involved in Safety-Critical Tasks
Zoox shall ensure that all personnel involved in safety-critical
tasks (e.g., remote assistants) are located in jurisdictions within the
Continental United States such that the location of remote personnel
does not degrade system safety, data integrity, or regulatory
accountability. To mitigate the risks associated with signal
degradation, Zoox must ensure that these locations provide a
communication environment where geographic distance does not introduce
prohibitive latency or jitter. Performance for these operations must be
validated against Zoox's safety clearance process to ensure that the
vehicle remains within a safe, controllable state at all times, with
the burden on Zoox to ensure that the chosen remote architecture
maintains a level of safety according to its process.
Beyond technical performance, the location of remote personnel must
allow the chain of accountability to remain intact regardless of
physical jurisdiction. All remote assistants must comply with Zoox's
training requirements and procedures. Zoox must verify that the chosen
geographic distribution ensures all remote personnel remain reachable
and legally accountable to U.S. law enforcement and regulatory bodies.
J. Disclosure of Operating Areas
To ensure transparency regarding where exempted vehicles are
operating on public roads, Zoox must publish maps of current operating
areas indicating where the vehicles operate on public roads in each
city, county, or State. The maps must be made available to the public
on Zoox's website and must be updated no later than 14 days after any
substantive change in the operating area.
K. Reporting Manufactured Vehicles
Zoox must submit an Annual Report to NHTSA identifying the VINs of
all vehicles manufactured under the exemption. The report should
identify, by VIN, whether each vehicle is continuing to operate on
public roads. If none of the vehicles have operated on public roads for
more than two (2) consecutive years, you are no longer required to
submit an Annual Report until operation resumes, if applicable. In
addition, the Annual Report should include a list of the geographic
locations of all remote assistance centers involved in operation of the
vehicles on public roads.
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30113 and 49 U.S.C. 30166; delegations of
authority at 49 CFR 1.95 and 49 CFR 501.5.
Issued on July 28, 2026 under authority delegated in 49 CFR 1.95
and 501.5.
Jonathan Morrison,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2026-15485 Filed 7-30-26; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P