Notice2022-15557
General Motors-Receipt of Petition for Temporary Exemption From Various Requirements of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards for an Automated Driving System-Equipped Vehicle
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
July 21, 2022
Issuing agencies
Transportation DepartmentNational Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Abstract
General Motors (GM) has petitioned NHTSA for a temporary exemption from certain requirements in six Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) for its ADS-equipped vehicle, the "Cruise Origin." Specifically, GM seeks exemption from portions of FMVSS No. 102; Transmission shift position sequence, starter interlock, and transmission braking effect, FMVSS No. 104; Windshield wiping and washing systems, FMVSS No. 108; Lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment, FMVSS No. 111; Rear visibility, FMVSS No. 201; Occupant protection in interior impact, and FMVSS No. 208; Occupant crash protection. NHTSA is publishing this document in accordance with statutory and administrative provisions and seeks comment on the merits of GM's exemption petition and on potential terms and conditions that should be applied to a temporary exemption if granted. After receiving and considering public comments, NHTSA will assess the merits of the petition and will publish a notice in the Federal notice setting forth NHTSA's reasoning for either granting or denying the petition.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 87 Issue 139 (Thursday, July 21, 2022)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 139 (Thursday, July 21, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 43595-43602]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2022-15557]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA-2022-0067]
General Motors--Receipt of Petition for Temporary Exemption From
Various Requirements of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards for
an Automated Driving System-Equipped Vehicle
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Notice of receipt of petition for temporary exemption; request
for public comment.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: General Motors (GM) has petitioned NHTSA for a temporary
exemption from certain requirements in six Federal motor vehicle safety
standards (FMVSS) for its ADS-equipped vehicle, the ``Cruise Origin.''
Specifically, GM seeks exemption from portions of FMVSS No. 102;
Transmission shift position sequence, starter interlock, and
transmission braking effect, FMVSS No. 104; Windshield wiping and
washing systems, FMVSS No. 108; Lamps, reflective devices, and
associated equipment, FMVSS No. 111; Rear visibility, FMVSS No. 201;
Occupant protection in interior impact, and FMVSS No. 208; Occupant
crash protection. NHTSA is publishing this document in accordance with
statutory and administrative provisions and seeks comment on the merits
of GM's exemption petition and on potential terms and conditions that
should be applied to a temporary exemption if granted. After receiving
and considering public comments, NHTSA will assess
[[Page 43596]]
the merits of the petition and will publish a notice in the Federal
notice setting forth NHTSA's reasoning for either granting or denying
the petition.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before August 22, 2022.
ADDRESSES: NHTSA invites you to submit comments on the petition
described herein and the questions posed below. You may submit comments
identified by docket number in the heading of this notice by any of the
following methods:
<bullet> Fax: 202-493-2251.
<bullet> Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington,
DC 20590.
<bullet> Hand Delivery: 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building
Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays.
<bullet> Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">http://www.regulations.gov</a>. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
<bullet> Instructions: All submissions must include the agency name
and docket number. Note that all comments received will be posted
without change to <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">http://www.regulations.gov</a>, including any personal
information provided. Please see the Privacy Act discussion below.
NHTSA will consider all comments received before the close of business
on the comment closing date indicated above. To the extent possible,
NHTSA will also consider comments filed after the closing date.
Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments received, go to <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">http://www.regulations.gov</a> at any time or to
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140,
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal Holidays. Telephone: 202-366-9826.
Privacy Act: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits
comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT
posts these comments, without edit, to <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a>, as
described in the system of records notice, DOT/ALL-14 FDMS, accessible
through <a href="http://www.dot.gov/privacy">www.dot.gov/privacy</a>. In order to facilitate comment tracking
and response, we encourage commenters to provide their name, or the
name of their organization; however, submission of names is completely
optional. Whether or not commenters identify themselves, all timely
comments will be fully considered. If you wish to provide comments
containing proprietary or confidential information, please contact the
agency for alternate submission instructions.
Confidential Business Information: If you wish to submit any
information under a claim of confidentiality, you must submit your
request directly to NHTSA's Office of the Chief Counsel. Requests for
confidentiality are governed by part 512. NHTSA is currently treating
electronic submission as an acceptable method for submitting
confidential business information to the agency under part 512. If you
would like to submit a request for confidential treatment, you may
email your submission to Dan Rabinovitz in the Office of the Chief
Counsel at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#1357727d7a767f3d4172717a7d7c657a676953777c673d747c65"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="c286a3acaba7aeec90a3a0abacadb4abb6b882a6adb6eca5adb4">[email protected]</span></a> or you may contact Dan for a
secure file transfer link. At this time, you should not send a
duplicate hardcopy of your electronic CBI submissions to DOT
headquarters. If you claim that any of the information or documents
provided to the agency constitute confidential business information
within the meaning of 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4), or are protected from
disclosure pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1905, you must submit supporting
information together with the materials that are the subject of the
confidentiality request, in accordance with part 512, to the Office of
the Chief Counsel. Your request must include a cover letter setting
forth the information specified in our confidential business
information regulation (49 CFR 512.8) and a certificate, pursuant to
Sec. 512.4(b) and part 512, appendix A. In addition, you should submit
a copy, from which you have deleted the claimed confidential business
information, to the Docket at the address given above.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Callie Roach or Sara R. Bennett,
Office of the Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.
Telephone: 202-366-2992; Fax: 202-366-3820.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Introduction
II. Authority and Procedures for Temporary Exemption
III. GM's Petition
A. Overview of the Origin Vehicles
B. Safety Showing
C. GM's Public Interest Argument
IV. Agency's Review of GM's Petition
V. Public Interest Considerations
VI. Statement on Terms
VII. Public Participation
I. Introduction
NHTSA is responsible for promulgating and enforcing Federal motor
vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) designed to improve motor vehicle
safety. Generally, a manufacturer may not manufacture for sale, sell,
offer for sale, or introduce or deliver for introduction into
interstate commerce a vehicle that does not comply with all applicable
FMVSS.\1\ There are limited exceptions to this general prohibition.\2\
One path permits manufacturers to petition NHTSA for an exemption for
noncompliant vehicles under a specified set of statutory bases.\3\ The
details of these bases, and on which basis General Motors (GM)
petitions under, is provided in the sections of this notice that
follow.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 49 U.S.C. 30112(a)(1).
\2\ 49 U.S.C. 30112(b); 49 U.S.C. 30113; 49 U.S.C. 30114.
\3\ 49 U.S.C. 30113.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On February 17, 2022, GM \4\ submitted a petition for exemption for
its Origin vehicle, which GM states is a multipurpose passenger vehicle
equipped with a ``Level 4 Automated Driving System'' (ADS).\5\ This
document notifies the public that NHTSA has received from GM a petition
for a temporary exemption from portions of six FMVSS.\6\ GM requests a
two-year exemption, during which it seeks to be allowed to manufacture
not more than 2,500 exempted vehicles for each 12-month period covered
by the exemption. The exemption, if granted, will allow GM to
manufacture and deploy into interstate commerce vehicles that lack
certain safety features required by the FMVSS. GM states that it
assures its majority-owned subsidiary
[[Page 43597]]
Cruise will maintain ``continuous ownership and control of the Origin''
vehicles produced under this exemption, meaning that GM commits that
the vehicles produced under this exemption will not be sold and will
stay under GM's ownership and possession, either by itself or through
its majority-owned and controlled subsidiary, Cruise, throughout the
entire lifecycle of the vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ The petition submitted by GM states ``General Motors LLC
(`GM'), a Delaware limited liability company, with support from its
majority-owned self-driving subsidiary, Cruise LLC (`Cruise'),
respectfully submits this petition to the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (`NHTSA') for temporary exemption (`Petition')
from certain Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (`FMVSS' or
`Standards').'' Page 5 of the petition. In other places, the
petitions states: ``GM and Cruise respectfully request temporary
exemptions consistent with the Vehicle Safety Act, NHTSA guidance,
and applicable law for certain requirements of nine FMVSS, all of
which were developed for human-driven operations. [. . .] GM and
Cruise seek these exemptions pursuant to both the `equivalent
overall safety' and `evaluation of a low emission vehicle'
provisions established by Congress in 49 U.S.C. 30113(b)(3).'' Id.
\5\ Page 2 of the Petition.
\6\ Note that the petition discussed in this notice is separate
and distinct from the petition GM submitted in 2018 for its ``Zero
Emission Autonomous Vehicle'' (ZEAV). NHTSA sought comment on this
petition in a Federal Register notice published on March 19, 2019
(84 FR 10182). In 2020, GM withdrew the petition. GM's submission of
this new petition, requested jointly with Cruise, began a new part
555 proceeding. Accordingly, while comments received on the 2019
notice may inform NHTSA's decision-making regarding processing part
555 petitions generally, NHTSA will not consider comments from the
previous notice as comments received on this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Authority and Procedures for Temporary Exemption
The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act),
codified at 49 U.S.C. chapter 301, authorizes the Secretary of
Transportation to exempt motor vehicles, on a temporary basis and under
specified circumstances, and on terms the Secretary considers
appropriate, from a FMVSS or bumper standard. This authority is set
forth at 49 U.S.C. 30113. The Secretary has delegated the authority for
implementing this section to NHTSA.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ 49 CFR 1.95.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Safety Act authorizes the Secretary to grant, in whole or in
part, a temporary exemption to a vehicle manufacturer if the Secretary
makes one of four specified findings.\8\ The Secretary must also look
comprehensively at the request for exemption and find that the
exemption is consistent with the public interest and with the
objectives of the Safety Act.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ 49 U.S.C. 30113(b)(3).
\9\ 49 U.S.C. 30113(b)(3)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Secretary may act under Sec. 30113 on finding that:
(i) Compliance with the standard[s] [from which exemption is
sought] would cause substantial economic hardship to a manufacturer
that has tried to comply with the standard[s] in good faith;
(ii) the exemption would make easier the development or field
evaluation of a new motor vehicle safety feature providing a safety
level at least equal to the safety level of the standard;
(iii) the exemption would make the development or field
evaluation of a low-emission motor vehicle easier and would not
unreasonably lower the safety level of that vehicle; or
(iv) compliance with the standard would prevent the manufacturer
from selling a motor vehicle with an overall safety level at least
equal to the overall safety level of nonexempt vehicles.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ 49 U.S.C. 30113(b)(3)(B).
GM seeks exemption under two alternative bases, stating that its
Origin vehicle meets both bases. The first basis is that an exemption
would make the development or field evaluation of a low-emission
vehicle easier without unreasonably lowering the safety of that
vehicle.\11\ The second basis is that compliance with the six FMVSS
would prevent GM from selling a motor vehicle with an overall safety
level at least equal to the overall safety level of nonexempt (i.e.,
compliant) vehicles.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ 49 U.S.C. 30113(b)(3)(B)(iii).
\12\ 49 U.S.C. 30113(b)(3)(B)(iv).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NHTSA established 49 CFR part 555, Temporary Exemption from Motor
Vehicle Safety and Bumper Standards, to implement the statutory
provisions concerning temporary exemptions. The requirements in 49 CFR
555.5 state that the petitioner must set forth the basis of the
petition by providing the information required under 49 CFR 555.6, and
the reasons why the exemption would be in the public interest and
consistent with the objectives of the Safety Act.
A petition justified on the low-emission vehicle exemption basis
must include the information specified in 49 CFR 555.6(c). Similarly, a
petition submitted on the basis that the applicant is otherwise unable
to sell (or in this instance, manufacture) a vehicle whose overall
level of safety or impact protection is at least equal to that of a
nonexempt vehicle must include the information specified in 49 CFR
555.6(d).
III. GM's Petition
The following discussion provides: An overview of the Origin based
on information submitted in GM's petition; a brief summary of GM's
safety showing and arguments for exemption from portions of certain
FMVSS; and a summary of the petitioner's arguments that granting its
petition for exemption would be in the public interest. Because GM has
sought confidential treatment of some aspects of its petition, a
redacted version of GM's petition is included in the docket referenced
at the beginning of this notice. NHTSA notes that any of the
descriptions provided in this section are GM's characterizations
included in its petition and do not necessarily reflect the views of
NHTSA.
A. Overview of the Origin Vehicles
GM describes the Origin as a zero-emission American-made vehicle,
operated by an ADS, that is built for fleet-controlled rideshare and
delivery services. GM states that it and Cruise will manage the fleet
of vehicles and that the vehicle is classified as a multipurpose
vehicle (MPV) with a curb weight of 3,084 kg and a gross vehicle weight
rating (GVWR) of 3,640 kg. While its size is similar to that of a
modern sport utility vehicle (SUV), its design deviates from more
traditional vehicle designs in a number of ways. First, the Origin has
carriage seating, meaning a front row of seats that faces backwards and
a back row of seats that faces forwards. It also has split sliding
doors on either side of the vehicle to permit passenger exit and entry.
The Origin is operated almost entirely by an ADS,\13\ and thus, is not
equipped with manually operated driving controls or features (e.g.,
steering wheel, pedals, manual turn signals, mirrors) that a human
might need if they were driving. In its petition, GM provides many
photos of the Origin.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ The petition mentions ``Cruise Remote Assistance.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
GM also includes details of various novel, operational information
about its vehicles, such as the start/stop ride button, the call button
that contacts rider support, the mobile application GM intends to use,
the battery that powers the vehicle, various occupant protection
systems, and information about the Origin's sensing systems. Finally,
GM provides some basic information about the ADS and various safety
topics surrounding the ADS and its operation. For specific FMVSS, GM's
petition goes into greater detail about how the ADS and the
accompanying sensor suite fulfill those FMVSS requirements with which
it does not comply and is seeking exemption.
B. Safety Showing
GM has petitioned NHTSA for a temporary exemption from certain
requirements in six FMVSS for its ADS-equipped vehicle, the Origin.
Specifically, GM seeks exemption from portions of:
<bullet> FMVSS No. 102; Transmission shift position sequence,
starter interlock, and transmission braking effect.
<bullet> FMVSS No. 104; Windshield wiping and washing systems.
<bullet> FMVSS No. 108; Lamps, reflective devices, and associated
equipment.
<bullet> FMVSS No. 111; Rear visibility.
<bullet> FMVSS No. 201; Occupant protection in interior impact, and
<bullet> FMVSS No. 208; Occupant crash protection.
In its petition for exemption, GM states that certain requirements
are either not necessary for safety as applied to the Origin's design
and performance, or their purpose and intent continue to be met through
innovative, alternative means that each provide an equivalent level of
safety, and together provide an overall safety level at least equal to
the overall safety of nonexempt vehicles and would not unreasonably
lower the safety of the vehicle. GM states its
[[Page 43598]]
``safety-equivalency approach to the FMVSS that are the subject of this
Petition has focused on the performance requirements of the applicable
standard, considering the language of the applicable standard as a
whole, with a particular focus on NHTSA's stated purpose and intent for
that standard.'' A short description of the rationale GM provides for
why its Origin vehicle should receive an exemption follows. The
appendixes attached to GM's petition include additional support for its
arguments related to each FMVSS.
GM petitions for exemption from portions of four of NHTSA's crash
avoidance FMVSS. FMVSS No. 102 requires the identification of gear
selection shift positions to be visibly identified, including the
positions in relation to each other. GM argues that the Origin, unlike
a human, does not need transmission shift positions to be presented
visibly in relation to each other because the Origin is programmed to
always select the correct shift position and the ADS knows which
position it is selecting. For GM's petition for exemption from portions
of FMVSS No. 104, GM argues that the purpose and intent of the safety
standard is obviated by the Origin's sensor system design. GM argues
the Origin's sensor system does not rely on the windshield for forward
visibility thanks to its suite of sensors surrounding the Origin
vehicles and thus, is not equipped with a windshield wiping or washing
system. Portions of FMVSS No. 108 contain requirements related to
manual controls for use by humans in switching various signals and
lights. GM argues an ADS would not need manual devices to operate
signals and lights, and the Origin's ADS is capable of activation and
control of all lighting and signals through other means. FMVSS No. 111
contains requirements for outside and/or inside mirrors and linger time
of a rearview image, among other requirements. GM argues that its
sensor suite on the Origin provides the ADS the same, if not better,
visibility than FMVSS No. 111 would provide human drivers.
Additionally, GM points out that the purpose and intent of FMVSS No.
111 is based on human perception and visibility so there is no
operational safety need for these requirements when applied to a
vehicle driven by an ADS.
GM petitions for exemption from portions of two of NHTSA's occupant
protection FMVSS. The first is FMVSS No. 201, which requires that a sun
visor be provided for each front outboard seating position. GM argues
that sun visors are not necessary because the Origin is not operated by
a human driver, and the ADS does not use the windshield for visibility.
Next, FMVSS No. 208 requires that a seat belt assembly provided at the
left front outboard seating position shall be equipped with a warning
device that activates based on the status of the ignition switch. GM
states that it meets the requirement that there be a warning system, it
provides warnings to occupants when the seat belt is not fastened, but
that such a warning is based upon occupants pressing start/stop buttons
in the vehicle (i.e., not the ignition position). Thus, GM argues it
meets the purpose and intent of the requirement.
Finally, GM's petition included requests for exemption from FMVSS
Nos. 203, 204, and 207, but NHTSA believes exemption from portions of
those standards is no longer necessary due to the publication of the
Occupant Protection for Vehicles with Automated Driving Systems final
rule, published in the Federal Register on March 30, 2022.\14\ GM's
petition states that it may amend its petition to address the Occupant
Protection for Vehicles with Automated Driving Systems final rule,
including to remove those safety standards from the petition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ 87 FR 18560.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. GM's Public Interest Argument
GM argues that granting its petition for exemption for the Origin
furthers the Safety Act's objectives and advances other public
interests, including:
1. Enabling the sharing of substantive ADS information with
NHTSA;
2. Promoting safety of the transportation system by advancing
autonomous technology;
3. Taking an important step towards unlocking potentially
significant environmental benefits;
4. Helping advance environmental justice;
5. Helping advance greater transportation accessibility for all
users;
6. Supporting US jobs and investment;
7. Supporting the US with shaping AV norms and standards; and,
8. Helping foster public acceptance of autonomous and electric
technologies.
NHTSA requests comment on the strength and persuasiveness of these
arguments and the support for each provided by GM.
IV. Agency's Review of GM's Petition
NHTSA has not yet made any judgment on the merits of GM's petition
nor on the adequacy of the information submitted. NHTSA will assess the
merits of the petition and consider public comments on the petition, as
well as any additional information that the agency receives from GM.
NHTSA is placing a non-confidential copy of the petition in the docket
in accordance with statutory and administrative provisions.
V. Public Interest Considerations
Section 30113 authorizes NHTSA to grant exemptions that are
consistent with the public interest and the Safety Act and authorizes
NHTSA to apply appropriate terms to any such grant. Whether granting
the exemption is consistent with the public interest and the objectives
of the Safety Act are required findings that are no less critical than
a discussion of the particular statutory basis on which the exemption
is sought (e.g., whether the subject vehicle provides an equivalent
level of safety to a nonexempt vehicle). Although NHTSA's mission is
primarily a safety mission, NHTSA's authority under section 30113
requires the agency to extend its consideration to issues beyond
traffic safety.\15\ NHTSA is seeking comment on the agency's
consideration of specific matters of public interest in both deciding
whether granting the exemption is consistent with the public interest
and in developing terms and conditions with which the petitioner must
comply if its petition is granted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ NHTSA stated, in the February 11, 2020 Federal Register
notice granting an exemption for the first ADS-equipped vehicle to
Nuro, that the broad authority to determine whether the public
interest and general goals of the Vehicle Safety Act will be served
by granting the exemption allows the Secretary to consider many
diverse effects of the exemption, including: The overall safety of
the transportation system beyond the analysis required in the safety
determination; how an exemption will further technological
innovation; economic impacts, such as consumer benefits; and
environmental effects. (85 FR 7826, 7828).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As the expert agency in automotive safety and the interpretation of
its existing standards, NHTSA has significant discretion in making the
safety findings required under these provisions. Further, the broad
authority to determine whether the public interest and general goals of
the Safety Act will be served by granting the exemption allows the
agency to consider many diverse effects of the exemption, including:
the overall safety of the transportation system beyond the analysis
required in the safety determination; how an exemption will further
technological innovation; economic impacts, such as consumer benefits;
and environmental effects.
ADS vehicles have the potential to benefit our transportation
system significantly beyond the analysis required in the safety
determination. As NHTSA considers the potentially transformative impact
of ADS
[[Page 43599]]
technology, it is also considering its role in encouraging the use of
ADS vehicles in ways that maximize their benefit to society.
Specifically, NHTSA is exploring its role and responsibility in
considering environmental impacts, accessibility and equity when an
exemption is sought for an ADS-equipped vehicle. Climate, accessibility
and equity, in addition to road safety, are important public interest
goals of the Department and NHTSA. NHTSA will also continue to consider
how exemptions affect the development of advanced vehicle technologies.
With regard to environmental impacts, NHTSA seeks to learn about
the interplay between fuel efficiency and ADS technologies. NHTSA seeks
public comment on whether it should adopt reporting requirements when
granting part 555 petitions for vehicles with ADS that would allow the
agency to better understand the energy use of the vehicles throughout
their service life and, possibly, to better assess, and quantify, the
environmental impacts of ADS-equipped vehicles. NHTSA is also seeking
comment regarding the weight it should give to the environmental
impacts of internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles when deciding
whether to grant an exemption to an ICE vehicle moving forward.
Finally, NHTSA is seeking comment about whether to seek from entities
that receive a grant of a petition information about how, exactly,
their vehicles would promote environmental justice.
NHTSA seeks comment on the extent to which accessibility and equity
might be considered in either determining whether an exemption is in
the public interest or applying appropriate conditions to an exemption
as it is granted. Proponents of ADS technology often claim that ADS-
equipped vehicles would help advance greater transportation
accessibility for persons with disabilities. GM states in its petition
that one of the reasons that granting its petition for the Origin
vehicle is in the public interest is because doing so would help
advance greater transportation accessibility for all users. GM states
broadly that the Origin will ``help expand mobility options for
seniors, people who are blind or have low vision, and other communities
that have traditionally had lower access to reliable transportation.''
GM states in the petition that it has conducted studies to inform user
experience and vehicle design in ways that would make the Origin more
accessible for all passengers, and that this research has resulted in
GM developing a wheelchair accessible version of the Origin. GM also
implies that it has taken into account the needs of people who are
blind or have low vision. NHTSA appreciates this potential and
appreciates that manufacturers are considering the benefits to
underserved populations.
NHTSA is interested in learning more about specific actions that
manufacturers and operators of ADS-equipped exempted vehicles are
taking to ensure that accessibility and equity goals will be met. For
example, we are considering seeking information from entities that
receive a grant of a petition about how they ensure that their ride-
hailing services comply with any applicable Americans with Disabilities
Act (ADA) requirements. NHTSA is also considering seeking information
about how many vehicles manufactured under a part 555 exemption would
be wheelchair accessible. Additionally, NHTSA is interested in what,
specifically, the manufacturer would do to ensure access to people with
vision disabilities, or to ensure that persons with wheelchairs,
walkers, or other mobility devices, can safely transition from the
vehicle to the sidewalk and vice versa. NHTSA seeks comment on these
questions about accessibility.
NHTSA is also considering seeking information about how the
exempted vehicles would be used to improve accessibility and equity in
serving underserved communities. The agency seeks comments on whether
an entity that receives a grant of a petition should be required to
provide plans about how it intends to ensure that access to its
services is equitable in terms of neighborhood, income levels, race and
ethnicity, age (etc.), and/or should be required to provide reports of
how it achieved those objectives through use of the exempted vehicles.
Should the agency require manufacturers granted an exemption to report
to NHTSA about how the exempted vehicles will be used to improve
accessibility and equity in serving underserved communities? Data
reported on these elements would help DOT and NHTSA assess if
assumptions about the beneficial societal impacts of ADS-equipped
vehicles are bearing out, and if not, why not.
NHTSA is also considering seeking information about the economic
impacts of granting a petition. Many advocates of ADS technology argue
that deploying ADS-equipped vehicles will increase U.S. jobs and
innovation. For example, should the agency seek information about
potential job creation and displacement of workers? Should NHTSA seek
other information about how the grant would impact investment in the
U.S. economy, such as through the generation of tax revenue or
development of intellectual property?
Further, NHTSA seeks comments on whether the agency should consider
additional matters of public interest in developing terms and
conditions with which a part 555 petitioner must comply if its petition
were granted. To the extent that you believe other areas should be
considered, please tell us how we can best promote the public interest
through the exercise of our discretion in granting exemptions and
establishing terms and conditions to such exemptions.
VI. Statement on Terms
Section 30113 authorizes the Secretary, NHTSA by delegation, to
condition the grant of a temporary exemption ``on terms [NHTSA]
considers appropriate.'' \16\ The agency's authority to set terms is
broad. It is not limited solely to terms and conditions relevant to its
specific determination. Instead, this provision allows the agency to
set terms that would allow NHTSA to collect information about the
exempted vehicles that would service the public interest, such as
information concerning the performance of the ADS.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ 49 U.S.C. 30113(b)(1) (delegation of authority at 49 CFR
1.95).
\17\ 85 FR 7826, 7840 (February 11, 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Once a manufacturer receives a temporary exemption from the
prohibitions of 49 U.S.C. 30112(a)(1), NHTSA can affect the use of
those vehicles produced pursuant to the exemption through the terms in
partially or fully granting the exemption or as it exercises its
enforcement authority (e.g., its safety defect authority). The agency's
authority to set terms is broad. Since the terms would be the primary
means of monitoring and affecting the operation of the exempted
vehicles, the agency would carefully consider whether to establish
terms and what types of terms to establish if it were to grant a
petition. The manufacturer would need to agree to abide by the terms
set for that exemption in order to begin and continue producing
vehicles pursuant to that exemption.
Due to the novel nature of ADS technology and NHTSA's interest in
better understanding the safety and utility of ADS-equipped vehicles,
if the petition were granted in whole or in part, the agency
anticipates applying conditions to the grant.
NHTSA exercised its ability to apply a variety of terms when it
granted Nuro's petition for the first ADS-equipped vehicle exempted
under part
[[Page 43600]]
555.\18\ The terms NHTSA chose were designed to enhance the public
interest and included post-crash reporting, periodic reporting, terms
concerning cybersecurity, and certain general requirements. NHTSA seeks
comment on whether the agency should apply the same type of conditions,
and others, to GM if NHTSA decides to grant its petition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NHTSA will carefully consider whether to establish terms and what
types of terms to establish if it grants GM's petition. If GM's
petition were granted, GM would need to agree to abide by the terms set
for that exemption in order to begin and continue producing vehicles
pursuant to that exemption. Nothing in either the statute or
implementing regulations limits the application of these terms to the
period during which the exempted vehicles are produced. NHTSA could set
terms that continue to apply to the vehicles throughout their normal
service life if it deems that such application is necessary to be
consistent with the Safety Act.
Thus, if NHTSA were to grant an exemption, in whole or in part, it
could establish, for example, reporting terms to ensure a continuing
flow of information to the agency throughout the normal service life of
the exempted vehicles, not just during the two-year period of
exemption. When NHTSA granted Nuro's exemption, NHTSA stated that the
terms would apply throughout the useful life of the vehicles. Beyond
the two-year exemption period, GM could be subject to civil penalties
for failure to comply with the terms established as a condition for
granting the part 555 exemption.
Given the uniqueness of GM's vehicles, its petition, and public
interest concerns, extended reporting may be appropriate. Since only a
portion of the total mileage that the vehicles, if exempted, could be
expected to travel during their normal service life would have been
driven by the end of the exemption period, the data would need to be
reported over a longer period of time to enable the agency to make
sufficiently reliable judgments. Such judgments might include those
made in a retrospective review of the agency's determination about the
anticipated safety effects of the exemption.
NHTSA could also establish terms to specify what the consequences
would be if the flow of information were to cease or become inadequate
during or after the exemption period. Other potential terms could
include limitations on vehicle operations (based upon speed, weather,
identified Operational Design Domains, road types, ownership, and
management, etc.). Conceivably, some conditions could be graduated,
i.e., restrictions could be progressively relaxed after a period of
demonstrated driving performance. Further, as with data-sharing, it may
be necessary to specify that these terms would apply to the exempted
vehicles beyond the two-year exemption period.
NHTSA notes that its regulations at 49 CFR part 555 provide that
the agency can revoke a part 555 exemption if a manufacturer fails to
satisfy the terms of the exemption. NHTSA could also seek injunctive
relief.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ 49 U.S.C. 30163(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NHTSA seeks comment on whether the agency should apply the same
types of conditions that it applied to Nuro's exemption for ADS-
equipped low-speed occupantless vehicles. NHTSA seeks comment not only
on whether these conditions are appropriate to apply to GM's exemption,
if granted, but also whether there are additional terms that NHTSA
should apply. GM's exemption request differs significantly from Nuro's
in that the request is for a passenger vehicle, and it is not limited
to 25 mph, as was the case of the Nuro vehicle. As such, there are
likely to be additional terms that would be appropriate to apply to
GM's exemption, if granted.
Please comment on whether NHTSA should apply the following terms
and conditions to a potential grant of GM's exemption request:
1. Reporting within 24 hours of an exempt vehicle being involved
in any crash, to include: \20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ GM and Cruise are currently required to submit reports to
NHTSA for crashes involving ADS pursuant to NHTSA Standing General
Order (2021-01). More information about the General Order is
available on NHTSA's website at <a href="https://www.nhtsa.gov/laws-regulations/standing-general-order-crash-reporting-levels-driving-automation-2-5">https://www.nhtsa.gov/laws-regulations/standing-general-order-crash-reporting-levels-driving-automation-2-5</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
a. The data elements specified in 49 CFR part 563, Event Data
Recorders.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ See Table I--Reported Data Elements and Table II--Reported
Data Element Format. 85 FR 78426, 7841 (February 11, 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. If the ADS was in control of the vehicle during the event, a
detailed timeline of the 30 seconds leading up to the crash,
including a detailed read-out and interpretation of all sensors in
operation during that time period, the ADS's object detection and
classification output, and the vehicle actions taken (i.e., commands
for braking, throttle, steering, etc.).
c. If a human operator took over control of the vehicle prior to
the event, a detailed timeline of the 30 seconds leading up to the
human operator taking over control, including a detailed read-out
and interpretation of all ADS sensors in operation during that time
period, the ADS's object detection and classification output, and
the vehicle actions taken (i.e., commands for braking, throttle,
steering, etc.).
d. If a human operator was in control of the vehicle at any
point during or up to 30 seconds before the event, a detailed
timeline of any actions the human operator took that affected the
crash event, as well as any technical problems that could have
contributed to the crash (signal latency, poor field of view, etc.).
e. Any additional information about the event that NHTSA deems
pertinent for determining either crash or injury causation,
including additional information related to the ADS or remote
operator system.
2. Beginning 90 days after the date of the exemption grant, and
at an interval of every 90 days thereafter, a report detailing the
operation of each exempted vehicle in operation during that time
period. This report may provide this information either in aggregate
or on a per-vehicle basis, but it must include the following:
a. A calculation of the total miles the vehicle has traveled
using the ADS during the report period, and heat maps of the
geofenced area in which the vehicle operates to illustrate travel
density.
b. Detailed descriptions of any material changes made to the
subject vehicle's Operational Design Domain (ODD) or ADS software
during the reporting period.
c. Detailed descriptions of any incidents in which any exempted
vehicle violated any local or State traffic law, whether operating
using the ADS or under human control.
d. Detailed descriptions of any incidents in which the exempt
vehicles experienced a sustained acceleration of at least 0.7g on
any axis for at least 150 ms, or of any incidents in which the
vehicle had an unexpected interaction with humans or other objects
(other than crashes that require immediate reporting).
e. Detailed descriptions of all instances in which a public
safety official, including law enforcement, attempted to interact
with an exempted vehicle, such as to pull it over, or contacted GM
regarding an attempted interaction with an exempted vehicle.
f. Detailed descriptions of any ``minimal risk condition
fallback'' events that occurred, even if no crash has occurred. If
the event has occurred because the vehicle self-diagnosed a
malfunction of a vehicle system, the report must include a detailed
description of the cause and nature of the malfunction, and what
remedial steps were taken. If the event was caused by the vehicle
encountering a complex or unexpected driving situation, the report
must include a detailed timeline of the ADS's decision-making
process that led to the event, including any difficulties the ADS
had in detecting and classifying objects.
g. In addition, GM must make necessary staff available to meet
with NHTSA staff quarterly to discuss the status of its deployment
program.
3. GM must have a documented cybersecurity incident response
plan that includes its risk mitigation strategies and the incident
notification requirements listed below.
[[Page 43601]]
a. GM must cease operations of all exempt vehicles immediately
upon becoming aware of any cybersecurity incident involving the
exempt vehicles and any systems connected to the exempt vehicles
that has the potential to impact the safety of the exempt vehicles.
b. No later than 24 hours after being made aware of a
cybersecurity incident, GM must inform NHTSA's Office of Defects
Investigations (ODI) of the incident. GM must also respond to any
additional requests for information from NHTSA on the cybersecurity
incident.
c. Prior to resuming its operation of any exempt vehicles
following the discovery of a cybersecurity incident, GM must inform
NHTSA of the steps it has taken to patch the vulnerability and
mitigate the risks associated with the incident, and receive NHTSA
approval to resume operation.
4. GM must be capable of issuing a ``stop order'' that causes
all deployed exempted vehicles to, as quickly as possible, cease
operations in a safe manner, in the event that NHTSA or GM
determines that the exempted vehicles present an unreasonable or
unforeseen risk to safety.
5. GM must coordinate any planned deployment of the exempted
vehicles or change to the ADS/ODD with State and local authorities
with jurisdiction over the operation of the vehicle as required by
the laws or regulations of that jurisdiction.
6. The exempted vehicles must comply with all State and local
laws and requirements at all times while in operation. Each vehicle
must be duly permitted, if applicable, and authorized to operate
within all properties and upon all roadways traversed.
7. GM must maintain ownership and operational control over the
exempted vehicle that are built pursuant to this exemption for the
life of those vehicles.
8. GM must create and maintain a hotline or other method of
communication for the public and GM employees to directly
communicate feedback or potential safety concerns about the exempted
vehicles to the company.
9. If there are other categories of data that should be
considered, please identify them and the purposes for which they
would be useful to the agency in carrying out its responsibilities
under the Safety Act.
10. If the agency were to require the reporting of data, for
what period should the agency require it to be reported--the two-
year exemption period or the vehicles' entire normal service life?
11. Given estimates that vehicles with ADS would generate
terabytes of data per vehicle per day, how should the need for data
be appropriately balanced with the burden on manufacturers of
providing and maintaining it and the ability of the agency to absorb
and use it effectively?
12. As explained in the section above, NHTSA has broad authority
to determine whether the public interest and general goals of the
Safety Act will be served by granting an exemption. NHTSA seeks to
understand the many diverse effects of the exemption, including: the
overall safety of the transportation system beyond the analysis
required in the safety determination; how an exemption will further
technological innovation; whether the exemption will address
transportation accessibility and equity; economic impacts, such as
consumer benefits; and environmental effects.
13. With regard to environmental impacts, how should NHTSA use
the part 555 exemptions to learn about the interplay between fuel
efficiency and ADS technologies? Should the agency adopt reporting
requirements that would allow the agency to better understand the
energy use of the vehicles throughout their service life and
possibly better assess, and quantify, the environmental impacts of
ADS-equipped vehicles? Should NHTSA require an entity whose petition
has been granted to provide data about, for example, how often and
how far its vehicles are driving around unoccupied v. occupied? Is
there other information related to the environmental consequences
and effects of the vehicles covered by the petition that NHTSA
should require from entities granted an exemption?
14. How should NHTSA consider accessibility in applying
appropriate conditions to an exemption if it were granted? As noted
above, many proponents of ADS technology often claim that ADS-
equipped vehicles could help advance greater transportation
accessibility for persons with disabilities. Should NHTSA impose
conditions on grants of part 555 exemptions to learn more about
specific actions that manufacturers and operators of ADS-equipped
exempted vehicles are planning, or have taken, to further the
attainment of accessibility and equity goals? Should NHTSA seek
information from manufacturers granted an exemption as to how they
ensure that their ride-hailing services comply with any applicable
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements, how many
vehicles would be wheelchair accessible, how they reach people with
disabilities to offer access to ride sharing services, or whether
the exempt vehicles provide other accommodations for individuals
with disabilities, such as communication and/or human-machine
interface (HMI) features designed for individuals with sensory
disabilities (such as sight or hearing) or cognitive disabilities?
Should NHTSA require grantees to report on efforts, such as research
or community outreach, that the manufacturer is planning, or has
taken, to increase the likelihood that accessibility goals will be
met? Comments are requested on whether there is other information
related to accessibility that NHTSA should require from an entity
when granting its petition.
15. How should NHTSA consider equity in applying appropriate
conditions to an exemption if it were granted? For example, should
NHTSA require entities receiving a grant of their petition to report
how the exempted vehicles will be used to improve accessibility and
equity in serving underserved communities? Should such an entity be
required to provide plans about how it intends to ensure that access
to its services is equitable in terms of neighborhood, income
levels, race and ethnicity, age (etc.), and/or provide reports of
how it achieved those objectives through use of the exempted
vehicles? Should entities receiving a petition grant be required to
report on barriers they encountered to deploying ADS-equipped
vehicles in underserved communities and how those barriers could be
overcome? Should such an entity be required to provide demographic
data about its services, or report on efforts, such as research or
community outreach, that the manufacturer is planning or has taken
to ensure better that equity goals will be met? Comments are
requested on whether there is other information related to equity
that NHTSA should require when granting a petition.
16. How should NHTSA consider economic impacts when applying
appropriate conditions to an exemption if it were granted?
Public Participation
A. Request for Comment and Comment Period
The agency seeks comment from the public on the merits of GM's
petition for a temporary exemption. NHTSA is also seeking comment on
the potential types of terms the agency should set if the agency
decides to grant the petition.
NHTSA is providing a 30-day comment period. After considering
public comments and other available information, NHTSA will publish a
notice of final action on the petition in the Federal Register.
B. Instructions for Submitting Comments
How long do I have to submit comments?
Please see DATES section at the beginning of this document.
How do I prepare and submit comments?
<bullet> Your comments must be written in English.
<bullet> To ensure that your comments are correctly filed in the
Docket, please include the Docket Number shown at the beginning of this
document in your comments.
<bullet> If you are submitting comments electronically as a PDF
(Adobe) File, NHTSA asks that the documents be submitted using the
Optical Character Recognition (OCR) process, thus allowing NHTSA to
search and copy certain portions of your submissions. Comments may be
submitted to the docket electronically by logging onto the Docket
Management System website at <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">http://www.regulations.gov</a>. Follow the
online instructions for submitting comments.
<bullet> You may also submit two copies of your comments, including
the attachments, to Docket Management at the address given above under
ADDRESSES.
[[Page 43602]]
Please note that pursuant to the Data Quality Act, in order for
substantive data to be relied upon and used by the agency, it must meet
the information quality standards set forth in the OMB and DOT Data
Quality Act guidelines. Accordingly, we encourage you to consult the
guidelines in preparing your comments. OMB's guidelines may be accessed
at <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/fedreg/reproducible.html">http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/fedreg/reproducible.html</a>. DOT's
guidelines may be accessed at <a href="http://www.bts.gov/programs/statistical_policy_and_research/data_quality_guidelines">http://www.bts.gov/programs/statistical_policy_and_research/data_quality_guidelines</a>.
How do I submit confidential business information?
If you wish to submit any information under a claim of
confidentiality, you must submit your request directly to NHTSA's
Office of the Chief Counsel. Requests for confidentiality are governed
by part 512. NHTSA is currently treating electronic submission as an
acceptable method for submitting confidential business information to
the agency under part 512. If you would like to submit a request for
confidential treatment, you may email your submission to Dan Rabinovitz
in the Office of the Chief Counsel at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#074366696e626b295566656e6968716e737d4763687329606871"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="d591b4bbbcb0b9fb87b4b7bcbbbaa3bca1af95b1baa1fbb2baa3">[email protected]</span></a> or you
may contact Dan for a secure file transfer link. At this time, you
should not send a duplicate hardcopy of your electronic CBI submissions
to DOT headquarters. If you claim that any of the information or
documents provided to the agency constitute confidential business
information within the meaning of 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4), or are protected
from disclosure pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1905, you must submit supporting
information together with the materials that are the subject of the
confidentiality request, in accordance with part 512, to the Office of
the Chief Counsel. Your request must include a cover letter setting
forth the information specified in our confidential business
information regulation (49 CFR 512.8) and a certificate, pursuant to
Sec. 512.4(b) and part 512, appendix A. In addition, you should submit
a copy, from which you have deleted the claimed confidential business
information, to the Docket at the address given above.
Will the Agency consider late comments?
We will consider all comments that Docket Management receives
before the close of business on the comment closing date indicated
above under DATES. To the extent possible, we will also consider
comments that Docket Management receives after that date.
How can I read the comments submitted by other people?
You may see the comments on the internet. To read the comments on
the internet, go to <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">http://www.regulations.gov</a>. Follow the online
instructions for accessing the dockets.
Please note that, even after the comment closing date, we will
continue to file relevant information in the Docket as it becomes
available. Further, some people may submit late comments. Accordingly,
we recommend that you periodically check the Docket for new material.
(Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30113 and 49 U.S.C. 30166; delegations of
authority at 49 CFR 1.95.)
Issued in Washington, DC, under authority delegated in 49 CFR
1.95.
Steven S. Cliff,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2022-15557 Filed 7-20-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on July 21, 2022.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.