Proposed Rule2024-30854
ADS-Equipped Vehicle Safety, Transparency, and Evaluation Program
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
January 15, 2025
Issuing agencies
Transportation DepartmentNational Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Abstract
This document proposes a voluntary framework for the evaluation and oversight of motor vehicles equipped with automated driving systems (ADS). The ADS-equipped Vehicle Safety, Transparency, and Evaluation Program (AV STEP) would establish a national program for ADS-equipped vehicles that operate or may operate on public roads in the United States under NHTSA's oversight with the goal of improving public transparency related to the safety of certain ADS-equipped vehicles, while allowing for responsible development of this technology. This proposal includes procedures for application, participation, public reporting, and program administration. It identifies content requirements for applications, including independent assessments of ADS safety processes, such as the safety cases used and conformance to industry standards. These application requirements will inform NHTSA's decisions on terms and conditions for participation. The proposal also contains reporting requirements for participants, including periodic and event-triggered reporting.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 90 Issue 9 (Wednesday, January 15, 2025)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 9 (Wednesday, January 15, 2025)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 4130-4190]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2024-30854]
[[Page 4129]]
Vol. 90
Wednesday,
No. 9
January 15, 2025
Part III
Department of Transportation
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
49 CFR Parts 595 and 597
ADS-Equipped Vehicle Safety, Transparency, and Evaluation Program;
Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 9 / Wednesday, January 15, 2025 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 4130]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
49 CFR Parts 595 and 597
[Docket No. NHTSA-2024-0100]
RIN 2127-AM60
ADS-Equipped Vehicle Safety, Transparency, and Evaluation Program
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document proposes a voluntary framework for the
evaluation and oversight of motor vehicles equipped with automated
driving systems (ADS). The ADS-equipped Vehicle Safety, Transparency,
and Evaluation Program (AV STEP) would establish a national program for
ADS-equipped vehicles that operate or may operate on public roads in
the United States under NHTSA's oversight with the goal of improving
public transparency related to the safety of certain ADS-equipped
vehicles, while allowing for responsible development of this
technology. This proposal includes procedures for application,
participation, public reporting, and program administration. It
identifies content requirements for applications, including independent
assessments of ADS safety processes, such as the safety cases used and
conformance to industry standards. These application requirements will
inform NHTSA's decisions on terms and conditions for participation. The
proposal also contains reporting requirements for participants,
including periodic and event-triggered reporting.
DATES: Comments are requested on or before March 17, 2025. In
compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, NHTSA is also seeking
comment on a new information collection. For additional information,
see subsection D (Paperwork Reduction Act) under Section IX (Regulatory
Notices and Analyses). All comments relating to the information
collection requirements should be submitted to NHTSA and to the Office
of Management and Budget (OMB) at the address listed in the ADDRESSES
section on or before March 17, 2025.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments to the docket number identified in
the heading of this document by any of the following methods:
<bullet> Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a> and
follow the instructions for submitting comments.
<bullet> Mail: Docket Management Facility, M-30, U.S. Department of
Transportation, West Building, Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.
<bullet> Hand Delivery or Courier: U.S. Department of
Transportation, West Building, Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.
Eastern time, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
<bullet> Fax: (202) 493-2251.
Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name
and docket number or Regulatory Information Number (RIN) for this
rulemaking. All comments received will be posted without change to
<a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a>, including any personal information provided. For
detailed instructions on sending comments and additional information on
the rulemaking process, see the ``Public Participation'' heading of the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document. Comments on the
proposed information collection requirements should be submitted to OMB
at <a href="http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain">www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain</a>. To find this particular
information collection, select ``Currently under Review--Open for
Public Comment'' or use the search function. It is requested that
comments sent to OMB also be sent to the NHTSA rulemaking docket
identified in the heading of this document.
Docket: For access to the dockets or to read background documents
or comments received, please visit <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a>, and/or Docket
Management Facility, M-30, U.S. Department of Transportation, West
Building, Ground Floor, Rm. W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE,
Washington, DC 20590. The Docket Management Facility is open between 9
a.m. and 4 p.m. Eastern time, Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For non-legal issues: Katherine L.
Chasins, Rulemaking Office of Automation Safety by email:
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#1f747e6b777a6d76717a317c777e6c76716c5f7b706b31787069"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="c9a2a8bda1acbba0a7ace7aaa1a8baa0a7ba89ada6bde7aea6bf">[email protected]</span></a>, or phone: (202) 366-7396. For legal issues:
Hunter B. Oliver, Office of the Chief Counsel by email:
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#741c011a0011065a1b181d02110634101b005a131b02"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="d2baa7bca6b7a0fcbdbebba4b7a092b6bda6fcb5bda4">[email protected]</span></a>, phone: (202) 366-8875. The mailing address for
these officials is: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration,
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Executive Summary
II. Program Context
A. How the Current ADS Technology Landscape Shaped This NPRM
B. How NHTSA's Authorities Shaped This NPRM
1. NHTSA's Mission and ADS Activity
2. NHTSA Exemptions
III. Program Structure (Regulatory Text Subpart A)
A. Program Eligibility
B. Program Steps
C. Terms and Conditions
IV. Application and Review (Regulatory Text Subparts B and D)
A. Application Form
1. Operational Baseline
2. Location Sheet
3. Confirmation of Reporting During Participation
B. Protocols for ADS Operations
1. Law Abidance
2. System Fallback Response
3. User and Surrounding Road User Interactions
C. Data Governance Plan
D. Independent Assessment
1. Focus of Independent Assessment
2. Summary Report Requirements
3. Assessment Context Requirements
4. Reliability and Credibility Disclosures
E. Application Review
V. Participation (Regulatory Text Subparts E and F)
A. Reporting Requirements
1. Periodic Reporting
2. Event-Triggered Reporting
3. Update Reporting
B. Agency Protocols
1. Amendment Process
2. Concern Resolution Process
VI. Public Reporting Requirements (Regulatory Text Subpart G)
VII. Requirements for AV STEP Exemptions (Regulatory Text Subpart C)
A. Exemption Eligibility Requirements
B. Exemption Application Requirements
C. Exemption Participation Requirements
D. Exemption Public Reporting
VIII. Public Comments
IX. Regulatory Notices and Analyses
A. Executive Orders 12866, 13563, 14094 and DOT Regulatory
Policies and Procedures
1. Need for Regulation
2. Uncertainties and Assumptions
3. Costs
4. Benefits
5. Regulatory Approaches Considered
B. National Environmental Policy Act
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
D. Paperwork Reduction Act
E. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)
F. Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform)
G. Executive Order 13609: Promoting International Regulatory
Cooperation
H. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
I. Privacy Act
J. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
K. Regulation Identifier Number
L. Plain Language
M. Rule Summary
[[Page 4131]]
I. Executive Summary
Automated driving systems (ADS) \1\ are evolving rapidly, posing
challenges to vehicle manufacturers and the agency alike regarding the
safety of the traveling public. It is important that ADS technology be
deployed in a manner that protects the public from unreasonable safety
risk while at the same time allowing for responsible development of
this technology, which has the potential to advance safety. Under
NHTSA's existing regulatory framework, which implements the National
Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act),\2\ motor vehicle
manufacturers may already deploy ADS-equipped vehicles on public roads,
as long as they comply with existing Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
Standards (FMVSS) and state and local laws.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Automated driving systems are systems developed (or being
developed) to fully perform the driving task without any expectation
of an attentive human driver. ADS-equipped vehicles are sometimes
referred to as self-driving cars or autonomous vehicles. In
contrast, driver support features (sometimes referred to as Advanced
Driver Assistance Systems or ADAS), such as highway or parking
assist features, must be continuously supervised by a human driver.
\2\ 49 U.S.C. Ch. 301.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Many ADS operations take this approach, and the FMVSS do not
currently set performance standards specifically for ADS. Vehicles that
are compliant with all applicable FMVSS can generally be equipped with
ADS technology without NHTSA approval. Alternatively, if an ADS-
equipped vehicle does not comply with all applicable FMVSS, exemptions
may be requested from NHTSA. Past exemption requests involving ADS have
typically involved purpose-built vehicles (those designed specifically
for ADS operations).\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See 85 FR 7826, 7842 (February 11, 2020) (granting an
exemption ``to the requirements that an LSV be equipped with
exterior and/or interior mirrors; have a windshield that complies
with FMVSS No. 205, `Glazing materials'; and a backup camera system
that meets the requirement in FMVSS No. 111, `Rear visibility,'
limiting the length of time that a rearview image can remain
displayed by the system after a vehicle's transmission has been
shifted out of reverse gear.'') NHTSA also publishes notices of
receipt of exemption requests under 49 CFR part 555, which provide
examples of other standards for which exemptions have been requested
for ADS-equipped vehicles. See 89 FR 88856 (November 8, 2024); 87 FR
43602, 43607 (July 21, 2022); 87 FR 43595 (July 21, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To account for this current ADS landscape, this document proposes a
national program, entitled the ADS-equipped Vehicle Safety,
Transparency, and Evaluation Program (AV STEP), designed to complement
and further NHTSA's ADS oversight, rulemaking, research, and
transparency efforts as well as to support new proposed processes for
exemptions involving ADS-equipped vehicles. This voluntary program
would provide NHTSA with a framework for reviewing and overseeing ADS-
equipped vehicles at a time when ADS technology continues to rapidly
evolve.
In the future, as ADS technologies mature, NHTSA anticipates there
may be a need to establish minimum standards for ADS safety
performance, much as NHTSA's existing FMVSS govern the performance of
conventional vehicle systems and attributes. However, the data,
methods, and metrics to support such standards do not yet exist. Many
of the elements included in this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM)
are intended to help NHTSA obtain insight and data that could, in turn,
support the future development of such standards. Pending such future
developments, AV STEP would serve as a national program built for the
evolving state of the technology, offering an interim boost to
regulatory oversight and a process for motor vehicle manufacturers and
other participants to build public trust by demonstrating a commitment
to responsible safety practices, accountability, and transparency.
As a voluntary program, AV STEP would be available to vehicle
manufacturers, ADS developers, fleet operators, and system integrators
of ADS-equipped vehicles seeking to operate on public roadways in the
United States. NHTSA proposes AV STEP for two categories of ADS-
equipped vehicles: ADS-equipped vehicles in need of exemptions and ADS-
equipped vehicles that can lawfully operate on public roads today. For
vehicles needing an exemption, AV STEP would offer an exemption pathway
that is tailored for ADS-equipped vehicles (see Section VII
(Requirements for AV STEP Exemptions (Regulatory Text Subpart C)) for
additional details on the proposed exemption process). For all entities
seeking participation in AV STEP (whether needing an exemption or not),
the program would offer participants an opportunity to demonstrate
their operational safety and their commitment to transparency for their
vehicles and operations by engaging in a national program with well-
defined participation and reporting criteria focused on advancing
safety.
Under the proposed program, an applicant would provide NHTSA with
information and data related to the safety of the design, development,
and operations of ADS-equipped vehicles for their intended deployment
under the program. NHTSA would review this information, engage with the
applicant as needed to clarify or ask for additional information, and
establish terms and conditions for participating in the program. Once
admitted into AV STEP, a participant would be required to submit both
periodic and event-triggered reports to NHTSA. To improve public
transparency, the agency also proposes to publish much of the
application and reporting information that NHTSA would receive.
Acceptance into the program would be based on the sufficiency of
information supplied and after coordination with an applicant about
terms and conditions for participation. Acceptance into the program
would reflect a determination by NHTSA that the applicant has provided
evidence showing it followed well-documented engineering processes and
has the needed technical, operational, and management resources in
place to mitigate safety concerns. Acceptance into the program would
not be an assurance of safety, a validation of the ADS technology, or a
guarantee that the applicant will execute its operational oversight
functions as described. NHTSA would continue to exercise its existing
defect and investigation authorities as ADS-equipped vehicles are
deployed on public roadways.
As proposed, the program would be structured around two levels of
participation: Step 1 and Step 2. Generally, Step 1 would apply to
vehicles that rely on fallback personnel \4\ and Step 2 would apply to
vehicles that do not rely on fallback personnel. The proposed
participation requirements differ between these steps, as the approach
to managing risk is significantly different in these two cases. In ADS
operations that rely on fallback personnel, a human is expected to
intervene to compensate for any deficiency in the ADS, whereas in
operations that do not rely on fallback personnel, the ADS must be able
to safely respond to all driving scenarios without such intervention.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ As used within this proposal, fallback personnel are
specially trained individuals that continuously supervise the
performance of prototype ADS-operated vehicles and intervene
whenever necessary to prevent a hazardous event by exercising any
means of vehicle control. The full definition of ``fallback
personnel'' appears in Sec. 597.102 of the proposed rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
AV STEP would enhance public transparency and Federal oversight of
ADS technologies to better understand and address emerging risks
associated with their deployment. The agency proposes to examine
applications for AV STEP in part through the use of an applicant's
safety case, which would
[[Page 4132]]
need to contain structured arguments, supported by evidence, intended
to justify that a system is acceptably safe for a given use in a
specified environment. The safety case concept is commonly used in
safety-critical products and industries such as aviation, energy
(including nuclear), medical devices, and other technology sectors. An
application for AV STEP would require an assessment of an applicant's
safety case by an independent entity with specialized experience and
expertise. This independent assessment would consider the holistic
safety of ADS-equipped vehicles, spanning technical, organizational,
and operational challenges relevant to safety decision-making. While
currently available testing and evaluation methods cannot conclusively
determine an ADS' safety, this approach would facilitate NHTSA's review
of the engineering rigor and due diligence applied to a system's
development and operation. It would also provide a proactive
opportunity to identify and resolve any safety concerns.
It is the agency's expectation that, by promoting a safer, more
transparent, and more responsible environment for developing and
deploying ADS in the United States, AV STEP will help foster the
technological innovation and public confidence needed to advance ADS
and the potentially significant safety benefits of the technology.
II. Program Context
AV STEP would build on NHTSA's other ADS transparency, oversight,
and research activities. The first subsection below describes how the
program would fit into the current ADS technology landscape. The second
subsection describes the legal authorities for the AV STEP proposal and
the agency's other ADS activity taken pursuant to these authorities.
A. How the Current ADS Technology Landscape Shaped This NPRM
Vehicle automation technologies, which include both ADS and
advanced driver assistance systems (ADAS), have significantly
transformed the automotive landscape over the last decade. Currently,
the automation systems available to the public in consumer-owned
vehicles are almost all driver support or convenience ADAS features,
such as partial driving automation systems.\5\ For these features, the
human driver remains responsible for supervising the system and must
stay engaged and attentive.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Partial driving automation systems are described by SAE
International (SAE) as executing ``both the lateral and longitudinal
vehicle motion control subtasks of the [dynamic driving task] with
the expectation that the driver . . . supervises the driving
automation system.'' SAE International, ``J3016 APR2021: Taxonomy
and Definitions for Terms Related to Driving Automation Systems for
On-Road Motor Vehicles,'' (Revised April 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In contrast, an ADS is responsible for performing the entire
dynamic driving task (DDT) \6\ while operating within the system's
operational design domain (ODD),\7\ without any expectation that a
human driver will be attentive. However, a human may still be expected
to take over the driving task when the ADS exits its ODD or, during an
ADS' development, to perform a safety oversight role, such as
preventing the ADS from handling a situation incorrectly.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ This NPRM defines DDT in part as ``all of the real-time
operational and tactical functions required to operate a vehicle in
on-road traffic, excluding the strategic functions such as trip
scheduling and selection of destinations and waypoints . . .'' See
Sec. 597.102 of the proposed rule. This definition is largely
derived from SAE International's definition. See SAE International,
``J3016 APR2021: Taxonomy and Definitions for Terms Related to
Driving Automation Systems for On-Road Motor Vehicles,'' (Revised
April 2021).
\7\ This NPRM defines ODD as ``the operating conditions under
which the Automated Driving System or feature thereof is
specifically designed to function, including, but not limited to,
environmental, geographical, and time-of-day restrictions, and/or
the requisite presence or absence of defined traffic or roadway
characteristics.'' This definition is largely derived from SAE
International's definition. See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NHTSA proposes to limit AV STEP eligibility to ADS-equipped
vehicles. This scope allows focus on the unique complexities of ADS
while most ADS operations are within the control of the companies
responsible for their testing. Currently, very few ADS-equipped
vehicles are available for purchase by the general public.\8\ Instead,
almost all such vehicles are owned and operated by vehicle
manufacturers, ADS developers, or fleet operators. Most of these
vehicles remain in the testing and development stage. If they operate
on public roads at all, they do so only in limited environments.
Limited numbers of ADS-equipped vehicles are engaged in commercial
applications, such as goods delivery platforms or mobility on demand
operations.\9\ However, even those commercial applications remain
largely under development and operate in limited environments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ See, e.g., California Department of Motor Vehicle's
announcement regarding its acceptance of Mercedes' DRIVE PILOT
System, available at <a href="https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/news-and-media/california-dmv-approves-mercedes-benz-automated-driving-system-for-certain-highways-and-conditions">https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/news-and-media/california-dmv-approves-mercedes-benz-automated-driving-system-for-certain-highways-and-conditions</a>. The announcement states: ``The
Level 3 Mercedes-Benz DRIVE PILOT system can only operate on
highways during daylight at speeds not exceeding 40 miles per hour.
This permit excludes operation on city or county streets, in
construction zones, during heavy rain or heavy fog, on flooded roads
and during weather conditions that are determined to impact
performance of DRIVE PILOT.''
\9\ Mobility on demand is used to refer to vehicles that are
often colloquially referred to as robotaxis, or, as discussed in SAE
J3016, ``robotic taxis.'' See SAE International, ``J3016 APR2021:
Taxonomy and Definitions for Terms Related to Driving Automation
Systems for On-Road Motor Vehicles,'' (Revised April 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This proposal recognizes that the potential of ADS is still largely
unproven. ADS technologies have the potential to improve safety,
advance sustainability, provide accessible transportation for people
with disabilities, increase mobility options for underserved
communities, and enhance American competitiveness. However, positive
outcomes are not inevitable.\10\ The impact ADS may have in these areas
and others, such as on the workforce and on the environment, will
ultimately be the result of future engineering, deployment, policy, and
other choices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ ADS are defined by their functionality rather than safety:
``the hardware and software that are collectively capable of
performing the entire [dynamic driving task] DDT on a sustained
basis, regardless of whether it [the system] is limited to a
specific operational design domain (ODD).'' SAE International,
``J3016 APR2021: Taxonomy and Definitions for Terms Related to
Driving Automation Systems for On-Road Motor Vehicles,'' (Revised
April 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The capabilities and expectations of ADS are likely to evolve
significantly in the coming years. Currently, ADS can handle narrowly
defined environments, but often struggle with driving tasks that humans
consider relatively simple. Routine occurrences, such as adverse
weather, overgrown foliage, or road construction, can exceed the
capabilities of even the most advanced versions of existing ADS. To
reach broader deployment, the roadway scenarios and ODDs that ADS can
reliably navigate will have to substantially expand.
The tools used to develop and evaluate ADS will also need to
mature. Currently, many different approaches exist within the
automotive industry for designing, testing, and overseeing ADS
operation. Industry standards, guidance documents, and best practices
for ADS have been proposed and published but remain, collectively, in
an early stage of establishment and implementation. Published standards
are frequently updated to reflect the evolving state of the art, and
while generalized performance metrics are sometimes included in these
standards, they do not define specific measurement and analysis methods
or acceptable value ranges. Given their new and evolving state, little
evidence exists to prove that existing methods of evaluating ADS
[[Page 4133]]
technology are capable of ensuring safety. Instead, these industry
approaches often aim to provide safety guidance, such as by
recommending minimal content for safety decision-making frameworks or
by detailing high-level vehicle behavior expectations.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ This issue has been referred to as a long-tail problem.
See, e.g., Phillip Koopman, ``How Safe is Safe Enough: Measuring and
Predicting Autonomous Vehicle Safety'' (2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Given this uncertain landscape, too little transparency exists
about ADS operations on public roads in the United States. There is
sparse public information about basic facts, such as the number of ADS-
equipped vehicles operating on public roads, the areas where those
vehicles are operating, and attributes or limitations of the ADS that
may affect other road users who interact with those vehicles. Publicly
available information is often filtered through the companies that are
proponents of their own technologies. Greater availability of objective
information about ADS capabilities, operations, and outcomes would
promote safety and more responsible growth of ADS technology.
AV STEP's proposed application, review, oversight, and reporting
would create a holistic framework for evaluating and overseeing an ADS-
equipped vehicle. To account for the current limits of performance-
based ADS safety evaluations, the proposed evaluations would focus on
the robustness of safety decision-making during all stages of an ADS
operation--from development of the ADS to system operations on public
roads. Reporting during participation would include data elements that
are designed to oversee how this safety decision-making affects real-
world safety performance. Collectively, these approaches would consider
how comprehensively a company has identified the limits of its system,
has accounted for risks likely to arise during operation, and is
prepared to respond responsibly to problems encountered.
The agency proposes to examine this safety decision-making through
a review of an applicant's safety case. The independent assessment of a
safety case included with an AV STEP application and subsequent NHTSA
review would consider the holistic safety of ADS-equipped vehicle
operations. While currently available methods cannot definitively
conclude that an ADS is safe, this approach would facilitate review of
the robustness of the safety practices employed during a system's
development and operation. It would also provide a proactive
opportunity to identify and resolve any safety concerns.
The requirements for participating in AV STEP must be flexible
enough to evolve as ADS technology evolves. To that end, the proposed
independent assessment would consider industry consensus standards and
best practices that exist at the time of an assessment. Likewise, the
proposed ongoing reporting requirements would facilitate NHTSA's
continued oversight of vehicle operations, and the proposed procedures
would allow for review and changes in operations during participation.
In addition, NHTSA proposes to tailor many of the reporting
requirements to the specific systems under review, to evaluate and
account for the current diversity in approaches to ADS.
AV STEP is also designed to increase the amount of publicly
available information about ADS operations in the United States. This
proposal includes two program steps based on the competency of an ADS.
NHTSA proposes to publish regularly on the agency's website a list of
applicants and participants in the program, along with details
regarding the scope and status of each operation. This publication
would increase the public's awareness and understanding of ADS
operations on public roads.
B. How NHTSA's Authorities Shaped This NPRM
NHTSA proposes AV STEP as a national program available for two
categories of vehicles. The first category consists of vehicles that
can lawfully operate on public roads regardless of participation in AV
STEP, as long as they comply with all other Federal, state, and local
laws. These vehicles include those that are compliant with and
certified to all applicable FMVSS, those that have received exemptions
under other NHTSA programs, and those that may operate on public roads
under 49 U.S.C. 30112(b)(10).\12\ The second category consists of
vehicles that seek an exemption from NHTSA through AV STEP. Under this
proposal, vehicles that do not comply with all applicable FMVSS or
those that originally complied but are taken out of compliance by an
ADS retrofit could seek exemptions through AV STEP. This section
discusses how NHTSA's authorities and other ADS work support both of
these categories of participation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ This provision is described further later in this section.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. NHTSA's Mission and ADS Activity
The establishment of a national program for ADS-equipped vehicles
stems from NHTSA's authority under the Safety Act,\13\ in addition to
other statutory authorities. Under 49 U.S.C 322(a), ``[t]he Secretary
of Transportation may prescribe regulations to carry out the duties and
powers of the Secretary.'' The Safety Act and other statutes provide
NHTSA, by delegation, with authority relating to oversight, rulemaking,
research, transparency, and exemptions. See, e.g., 49 U.S.C. 30101(b)
(noting need ``to prescribe motor vehicle safety standards'' and
``carry out . . . safety research and development''); Section 30111
(authority to ``prescribe motor vehicle safety standards''); Section
30112 (restricting the activities of vehicles that do not comply with
applicable vehicle standards or that contain a defect); Section 30114
(authority to issue FMVSS exemptions for particular purposes); Section
30122 (authority to issue exemptions from the make inoperative
prohibition); and Section 30182 (authority to ``conduct motor vehicle
safety research, develop, and testing programs and activities,
including activities related to new and emerging technologies that
impact or may impact motor vehicle safety'').\14\ This authority forms
the foundation for AV STEP. The remainder of this subsection explains
how AV STEP carries out each of these authorities, as well as how AV
STEP fits into NHTSA's broader regulatory activities pertaining to ADS
technologies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ These duties are generally set forth in 49 U.S.C. chapter
301.
\14\ See also 49 CFR 1.95 (delegating to the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administrator ``the authority vested in the Secretary
under chapter[ ] 301 . . .''), and 49 CFR 1.81 (``each Administrator
is authorized to . . . (3) Exercise the authority vested in the
Secretary to prescribe regulations under 49 U.S.C. 322(a) with
respect to statutory provisions for which authority is delegated by
other sections in this part'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(a) Oversight and Transparency
AV STEP would carry out NHTSA's authorities relating to oversight
and transparency by increasing the amount of information available to
NHTSA about ADS-equipped vehicles, including for those vehicles that
are already operating on public roads. Under the regulatory framework
established by the Safety Act, NHTSA's review and approval is not
needed for most current ADS operations on public roads. The Safety Act
generally requires vehicles to comply with (and be certified as
complying with) all applicable FMVSS
[[Page 4134]]
and to be free of safety defects.\15\ Once a manufacturer self-
certifies that a vehicle meets all applicable FMVSS, it may sell the
vehicle or operate it on public roads without further action from
NHTSA. A manufacturer may also equip the vehicle with additional
technologies not subject to an FMVSS, as long as the technologies do
not pose an unreasonable risk to safety or take the vehicle out of
compliance with an applicable FMVSS.\16\ The FMVSS do not currently set
performance standards specifically for ADS, and compliant vehicles can
generally be equipped with ADS technologies without NHTSA approval.
Many ADS operations already occur on public roads in the United States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ See, e.g., 49 U.S.C. 30112.
\16\ See 49 U.S.C. 30118, 30122.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, the 2015 Fixing America's Surface Transportation
(FAST) Act added a provision to Section 30112 permitting certain
entities to test or evaluate noncompliant vehicles on public roads, as
long as they do not sell those vehicles or offer them for sale once the
testing or evaluation concludes.\17\ Entities eligible to conduct these
testing or evaluation operations are those that had manufactured and
distributed certified vehicles in the United States (as well as
satisfied other information requirements in NHTSA's regulations) by the
date of the FAST Act's enactment, December 4, 2015. Some manufacturers
have relied on this provision to test noncompliant ADS-equipped
vehicles on public roads.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ See 49 U.S.C. 30112(b)(10).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because most ADS operations do not need NHTSA's upfront approval,
the agency's oversight of the ADS in those vehicles primarily occurs
once they are operating. Specifically, NHTSA enforces the general duty
of vehicle and equipment manufacturers to recall and remedy vehicles
and equipment--including ADS or ADS-equipped vehicles--if they contain
a defect that poses an unreasonable risk to motor vehicle safety. To
exercise this oversight on ADS and ADS-equipped vehicles, NHTSA relies
on access to information about ADS and their operations.\18\ NHTSA uses
this information to monitor for ADS defects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ See 49 U.S.C. 30166.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To ensure that NHTSA has access to the information necessary to
exercise its oversight authority, the Safety Act expressly includes
information-gathering authorities.\19\ NHTSA's traditional information-
gathering tools apply to ADS in much the same way as any other item of
motor vehicle equipment.\20\ In recent years, NHTSA has overseen
recalls for ADS \21\ and undertaken defects and compliance
investigations into ADS.\22\ NHTSA has also imposed standing reporting
requirements for ADS crashes through a Standing General Order
(SGO),\23\ which requires identified manufacturers and operators to
report certain crashes involving vehicles equipped with ADS to the
agency. SGO reporting has led to hundreds of crash reports involving
ADS operations, with many of those prompting NHTSA follow-up review. AV
STEP would supplement SGO information through additional reporting
requirements for participation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ See id.
\20\ See 81 FR 65705, 65707 (September 23, 2016) (explaining
that ADS is motor vehicle equipment).
\21\ See Pony.ai, ``Part 573 Safety Recall Report, No. 22E-
016,'' (March 3, 2022), available at <a href="https://static.nhtsa.gov/odi/rcl/2022/RCLRPT-22E016-6814.PDF">https://static.nhtsa.gov/odi/rcl/2022/RCLRPT-22E016-6814.PDF</a>; Cruise, LLC, ``Part 573 Safety
Recall Report, No. 22E-072,'' (August 29, 2022), available at
<a href="https://static.nhtsa.gov/odi/rcl/2022/RCLRPT-22E072-8020.PDF">https://static.nhtsa.gov/odi/rcl/2022/RCLRPT-22E072-8020.PDF</a>;
Cruise, LLC, ``Part 573 Safety Recall Report, No. 23E-029,'' (April
3, 2023), available at <a href="https://static.nhtsa.gov/odi/rcl/2023/RCLRPT-23E029-4270.PDF">https://static.nhtsa.gov/odi/rcl/2023/RCLRPT-23E029-4270.PDF</a>.
\22\ See, e.g., NHTSA, ``ODI Resume: Preliminary Evaluation PE
22-014'' (December 12, 2022); NHTSA, ``ODI Resume: Recall Query RQ
22-001'' (Recall 22E-016) (April 10, 2022); and NHTSA, ``ODI Resume:
Audit Query AQ 23-001'' (March 3, 2023), available at <a href="https://static.nhtsa.gov/odi/inv/2023/INOA-AQ23001-2603.PDF">https://static.nhtsa.gov/odi/inv/2023/INOA-AQ23001-2603.PDF</a>.
\23\ NHTSA, ``In re: Second Amended Standing General Order 2021-
01: Incident Reporting for Automated Driving Systems (ADS) and Level
2 Advanced Driver Assistance Systems (ADAS)'' (April 5, 2023),
available at <a href="https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.gov/files/2023-04/Second-Amended-SGO-2021-01_2023-04-05_2.pdf">https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.gov/files/2023-04/Second-Amended-SGO-2021-01_2023-04-05_2.pdf</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, by their nature, crash reporting and follow-up
investigations are principally reactive, as a problem has already
caused a crash before any reporting occurs. AV STEP aims to complement
these efforts by adding an earlier layer of agency oversight for
participating ADS-equipped vehicles. AV STEP would help NHTSA
proactively identify safety concerns by proposing upfront submission
requirements on the design and capabilities of an ADS and ongoing
performance reporting during operations.
In addition, AV STEP also aims to increase the amount of
information publicly available about ADS operations. In doing so, AV
STEP would further NHTSA's longstanding goal to promote awareness of
matters related to motor vehicle safety. NHTSA has a history of doing
so through a variety of information programs, such as recall
awareness,\24\ motor vehicle labeling requirements,\25\ and driver
behavior education.\26\ This charge to increase public awareness of
motor vehicle safety extends to advanced vehicle technologies as
well,\27\ and NHTSA has undertaken initiatives to publicize information
about vehicle automation, such as by publishing SGO crash reporting,
developing an interactive online tool through the Automated Vehicle
Transparency and Engagement for Safe Testing (AV TEST) Initiative,\28\
and publishing Voluntary Safety Self-Assessments (VSSAs) submitted by
entities engaged in ADS operations.\29\ NHTSA has designed this NPRM to
build on these efforts through proposals to publish information about
AV STEP applications and participations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ See 49 U.S.C. 30118; 49 CFR part 577.
\25\ See 49 U.S.C. chapter 323; 49 CFR part 575.
\26\ See generally NHTSA, ``Research & Evaluation: Behavioral
Research,'' available at <a href="https://www.nhtsa.gov/behavioral-research">https://www.nhtsa.gov/behavioral-research</a>.
\27\ See 49 U.S.C. 32302(e) (directing NHTSA to develop ``a
means for providing to consumers information relating to advanced
crash-avoidance technologies''). See also 87 FR 13452 (March 9,
2022).
\28\ AV TEST is an interactive tool that lets the public view
voluntarily submitted information about automated vehicle
operations. See NHTSA, ``Automated Vehicle Transparency and
Engagement for Safe Testing (AV TEST) Initiative,'' available at
<a href="https://www.nhtsa.gov/automated-vehicle-test-tracking-tool">https://www.nhtsa.gov/automated-vehicle-test-tracking-tool</a>.
\29\ NHTSA, ``Automated Driving Systems: Voluntary Safety Self-
Assessment,'' available at <a href="https://www.nhtsa.gov/automated-driving-systems/voluntary-safety-self-assessment">https://www.nhtsa.gov/automated-driving-systems/voluntary-safety-self-assessment</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(b) Rulemaking and Research
AV STEP also proposes to implement NHTSA's research and rulemaking
authorities under the Safety Act. Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30111, NHTSA
(as delegated from the Secretary of Transportation) ``shall prescribe
motor vehicle safety standards.'' The Safety Act requires these FMVSS
to be ``practicable, meet the need for motor vehicle safety, and be
stated in objective terms.'' \30\ When developing an FMVSS, the agency
must, among other things, ``consider relevant available motor vehicle
safety information'' and ``consider whether a proposed standard is
reasonable, practicable, and appropriate for the particular type of
motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment for which it is prescribed.''
\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ 49 U.S.C. 30111(a).
\31\ 49 U.S.C. 30111(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As a result, when developing an FMVSS, NHTSA builds on extensive
research about the aspect of vehicle performance at issue, including
the extent to which a standard would drive positive safety outcomes and
present objective requirements for regulated entities. Accordingly,
Congress established a policy directing the agency to ``conduct
research, development, and testing on any area or aspect of motor
[[Page 4135]]
vehicle safety necessary to carry out [chapter 301]'' of Title 49.\32\
This charge extends to advanced vehicle technologies. In the Moving
Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act,\33\ Congress instructed the
Secretary to ``[c]onduct motor vehicle safety research, development,
and testing programs and activities, including activities related to
new and emerging technologies that impact or may impact motor vehicle
safety'' \34\ and to ``[c]ollect and analyze all types of motor vehicle
and highway safety data'' relating to motor vehicle performance and
crashes.\35\ This authority to carry out research includes programs
that entail engagement and collaboration with third parties.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ See 49 U.S.C. 30181. This chapter includes NHTSA's core
authorities for prescribing motor vehicle safety standards (Section
30111), adjudicating general and special exemptions to those
standards (Sections 30113 and 30114), evaluating the existence of
unreasonable risks to motor vehicle safety (Section 30116 et seq.),
overseeing the importation of motor vehicles (Section 30141 et
seq.), and securing enforcement of these authorities (Section 30161
et seq.). Sec.
\33\ See Public Law 112-141 (2012).
\34\ See 49 U.S.C. 30182(a). Subsection 30182(b) specifies
activities NHTSA may undertake in carrying out subsection (a).
\35\ NHTSA, 83 FR 50872, 50876 (October 10, 2018).
\36\ See 49 U.S.C. 30182(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to other rulemaking activity regarding ADS, NHTSA has
already begun the process of assessing how ADS may be affected by both
existing and future FMVSS requirements.\37\ For example, in 2022, NHTSA
published a final rule that amended certain occupant protection FMVSS
to account for future vehicles that would not have traditional manual
controls associated with a human driver because they are equipped with
ADS. This rulemaking work is supported by NHTSA's research portfolio,
which spans a range of ADS safety topics and is the outgrowth of
widespread coordination within DOT and with stakeholders. The agency
publishes an Annual Modal Research Plan (AMRP) that summarizes its
research priorities.\38\ The agency also recently published a Report to
Congress that provides a more detailed discussion of NHTSA's ADS
research program.\39\ NHTSA's ADS research portfolio aims to advance
the body of knowledge on ADS-equipped vehicles, including their real-
world performance, as well as explore the technical challenges
associated with the safe testing and deployment of ADS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ Information about NHTSA's full array of regulatory actions,
including those pertaining to vehicle automation technologies, can
be found within the biannually released Unified Agenda. See Office
of Information and Regulatory Affairs, ``Unified Agenda of
Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions,'' available at <a href="https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/eAgendaMain">https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/eAgendaMain</a>.
\38\ NHTSA, ``United States Department of Transportation Annual
Modal Research Plan FY 2022 and Program Outlook FY 2023'' (September
10, 2021), available at <a href="https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/2022-02/AMRP%20FY2022-2023%20NHTSA%20FINAL.pdf">https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/2022-02/AMRP%20FY2022-2023%20NHTSA%20FINAL.pdf</a>.
\39\ NHTSA, ``Report to Congress: Automated Vehicles'' (2023),
available at <a href="https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.gov/files/2023-06/Automated-Vehicles-Report-to-Congress-06302023.pdf">https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.gov/files/2023-06/Automated-Vehicles-Report-to-Congress-06302023.pdf</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
AV STEP is designed to complement these research goals in support
of future ADS rulemaking efforts. Given the nascent state of ADS
technology, many of the metrics for evaluating ADS safety are new,
limited, or under development. This AV STEP proposal would enable NHTSA
to consider the effectiveness of such metrics for evaluating ADS safety
by exploring their value to automotive safety, and in turn would help
NHTSA identify data elements that could form effective oversight tools
or be integrated into future FMVSS.\40\ To that end, the AV STEP
proposal would provide NHTSA with in-depth access to information about
the development and operations of ADS technology as it continues to
evolve.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\40\ 49 U.S.C. 30111.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. NHTSA Exemptions
NHTSA proposes to use AV STEP to administer requests for exemptions
of ADS-equipped vehicles under two statutory provisions: 49 U.S.C.
30114(a) and 49 U.S.C. 30122(c). This proposal would not replace any of
NHTSA's existing exemption processes, which would remain available for
any eligible vehicles, including those equipped with ADS. Instead, AV
STEP would establish a streamlined way to seek exemptions through a
framework expressly designed for ADS-equipped vehicles. This proposal
would establish a new framework for ADS-equipped vehicles to seek
Section 30114(a) and Section 30122(c) exemptions.
(a) Section 30114(a) Exemptions
With AV STEP, NHTSA proposes to carry out the agency's special
exemption authority to administer FMVSS exemptions in 49 U.S.C.
30114(a). This statutory authority permits NHTSA to grant special
exemptions to ``vehicles used for particular purposes.'' Specifically,
NHTSA ``may exempt a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment
from Section 30112(a) of this title on terms [it] decides are necessary
for research, investigations, demonstrations, training, competitive
racing events, show, or display.'' This proposed exemption process
would not replace NHTSA's existing two FMVSS exemption processes, as
described below. However, in administering those two exemption
processes, NHTSA has observed that both the frequency and complexity of
ADS exemption requests continue to grow as the technology progresses.
Those two exemption processes were designed to handle any type of
FMVSS exemption that NHTSA receives, originally for traditional
vehicles that do not utilize automation. ADS technologies entail an
array of unique safety and oversight considerations compared to
traditional automotive components. As a result, NHTSA believes that an
exemption process designed from the ground up to account for these
unique considerations could enhance the agency's administration of
exemptions that involve ADS, such as through improved oversight and
efficiency. As described below, NHTSA's two existing exemption
processes would also remain available for ADS-equipped vehicles and may
provide advantages for certain types of operations. However, NHTSA
believes that the current ADS landscape warrants the availability of a
dedicated exemption process for ADS-equipped vehicles, and the
existence of this process would also better equip NHTSA for the
potential growth of ADS technology in the future.
By creating a pathway specifically designed for ADS-equipped
vehicles, NHTSA proposes to use many of the principles that have proven
effective under NHTSA's other exemption programs that implement Section
30114(a). NHTSA currently administers Section 30114(a) through two
programs: (1) exemptions for vehicles imported for purposes of show or
display \41\ and (2) the Temporary Import Exemption (TIE) program,
which administers Section 30114(a) exemptions for vehicles requesting
importation for purposes of research, investigation, demonstrations,
training, or competitive racing events.\42\ In 2016, the TIE program
processed the first Section 30114(a) exemption for an ADS-equipped
vehicle. In 2018, NHTSA
[[Page 4136]]
developed the ADS-equipped Vehicle Exemption Program (AVEP), within the
TIE program, to process the increasing number of Section 30114(a)
exemption requests for the importation of ADS-equipped vehicles. This
number of requests has continued to grow since then, both in number and
complexity. Since the first ADS exemption request in 2016 to the end of
2023, NHTSA permitted 293 imported ADS-equipped vehicles to operate in
249 projects across 25 states. The last several years have accounted
for much of this activity: between 2020 to the end of 2023, NHTSA
permitted 222 imported ADS-equipped vehicles to operate in 194 projects
across 23 states.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\41\ See generally, NHTSA, ``How to Import a Motor Vehicle for
Show or Display'' (October 15, 2012), available at <a href="https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.gov/files/documents/how_to_import_show_display_10152012-tag.pdf">https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.gov/files/documents/how_to_import_show_display_10152012-tag.pdf</a>.
\42\ TIE is often colloquially known as NHTSA's Box 7 program, a
reference to the numbered box associated with this exemption on the
HS-7 Declaration form used during the importation process. See
generally, NHTSA, ``Temporary Importation of a Motor Vehicle Under
Box 7 on the HS-7 Form,'' available at <a href="https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.gov/files/documents/box7_form_111920_v3_secured.pdf">https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.gov/files/documents/box7_form_111920_v3_secured.pdf</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Many of the requirements proposed for AV STEP build on AVEP
processes or apply the agency's experience from that program. Like the
proposed AV STEP process, AVEP uses an iterative review process that
considers the safety of the ADS along with the overall safety of the
vehicle and the purposes for which the exemption is requested. This
process culminates in terms and conditions in an exemption letter,
which govern the exempted vehicles' operation. This proposal does not
intend to replace AVEP. However, just as NHTSA's Section 30114(a)
review process evolved to establish AVEP shortly after ADS exemption
requests began, the increasing complexity of ADS exemption requests
merits the development of another framework. NHTSA proposes for AV STEP
to meet this need through a more comprehensive application and
participation framework designed specifically for larger and more
complex ADS operations.
In general, AVEP exemptions do not cover large numbers of vehicles,
with many of those exemptions covering only a single vehicle. AVEP
vehicles often operate on a fixed route expressly approved by NHTSA in
a permission letter. As a result, NHTSA's review of an AVEP application
often involves a detailed turn-by-turn review of the route. NHTSA
receives much of the information about the vehicle's ADS in response to
follow-up questions that arise during review of an application.
Likewise, unique terms and reporting requirements are often developed
for each operation. The AVEP review and participation process is
iterative, and companies often need to request amendments for even
minor changes to a permission, such as requesting to add a turn or stop
to a route.
The AVEP process has proven an effective way to oversee small
numbers of vehicles. Because its processes are tailored to each
exemption, AVEP also offers a flexible program that reduces the burden
on companies who seek smaller-scale importation exemptions. If AV STEP
is finalized, NHTSA expects many companies would still choose to use
the AVEP process, especially for vehicles that are tested in small
numbers, such as early prototypes.
However, AVEP's detailed, iterative process is less efficient for
larger operations. The AV STEP proposal accounts for this by adapting
many of the safety lessons learned from AVEP into processes that are
capable of administering and overseeing exemptions at scale. For
instance, aspects of this proposal--such as the independent assessment,
application review procedures, and reporting on updates to operations--
aim to make reviewing evolving operations with growing numbers of
vehicles or routes more manageable. In turn, AV STEP should help NHTSA
process and oversee complex ADS exemptions more efficiently.
Apart from Section 30114(a), NHTSA also administers exemptions to
ADS-equipped vehicles under 49 U.S.C. 30113. These exemptions are
implemented in NHTSA's regulations in 49 CFR part 555. Compared to
Section 30114(a), companies have not used Section 30113 exemptions as
frequently for ADS-equipped vehicles. NHTSA has received fewer than
five part 555 exemption requests for ADS-equipped vehicles, with only
one of those to date receiving an exemption.\43\ The terms and
conditions on the sole ADS exemption issued under part 555 were
significantly influenced by terms that NHTSA developed for AVEP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\43\ NHTSA, 85 FR 7826, 7842 (February 11, 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exemptions issued under Section 30113 are for more general purposes
than exemptions issued under Section 30114(a). Vehicles receiving them
do not need to meet one of the specific purposes enumerated in Section
30114(a) and, absent restrictions placed by NHTSA, can be more broadly
introduced into interstate commerce. In general, each vehicle
manufactured under a Section 30113 exemption retains the exemption in
perpetuity. Such a broader exemption is warranted because a vehicle
that receives an exemption under Section 30113 must meet one of several
express statutory standards, such as proving that the vehicle's
``overall level of safety is at least equal to the overall safety level
of the nonexempt vehicles.'' \44\ Thus, even if AV STEP exists, NHTSA
expects that some manufacturers will elect to use Section 30113 for
their ADS-equipped vehicles, especially if ADS technologies mature to
the point that more entities consider equipping them on vehicles
intended for sale.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\44\ 49 U.S.C. 30113(b)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As a result, AV STEP would complement existing Section 30113 and
Section 30114(a) exemption processes to create a comprehensive NHTSA
FMVSS exemption portfolio, with each process offering advantages for
certain types of ADS-equipped vehicle use cases. Entities requesting
exemptions for imported vehicles in early development stages would
likely request exemptions through AVEP, due to its flexibility and
potential to reach quicker decisions for limited-scope projects.\45\ AV
STEP would provide an exemption process designed for ADS-equipped
vehicles--regardless of whether they are imported--that are in later or
final stages of development but still within the control of essential
stakeholders. Given their more developed state, vehicles in AV STEP
could begin to engage in some types of commercial operations as long as
that commercialization did not undermine the public purposes for which
the exemption was issued. Finally, manufacturers in need of exemptions
for their ADS-equipped vehicles that have reached a more mature
development state may prefer part 555, especially if the vehicle is
designed for sale. In this way, AV STEP would fill the need for an
FMVSS exemption suited for the current interim stage of ADS technology
development. NHTSA specifically requests comment on how the proposed AV
STEP exemptions would likely be utilized in comparison to NHTSA's other
exemption programs, as well as on how best to design AV STEP to
complement those other exemptions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\45\ Although this process is currently only for imported
vehicles, NHTSA is undertaking a rulemaking to create an equivalent
exemption option for vehicles manufactured in the United States. See
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, ``Unified Agenda of
Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions,'' RIN 2127-AM14: Expansion of
Temporary Exemption Program to Domestic Manufacturers for Research,
Demonstrations, and Other Purposes. This issue is discussed further
in Section VII (Requirements for AV STEP Exemptions (Regulatory Text
Subpart C)) of this NPRM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(b) Section 30122(c) Exemptions
NHTSA proposes to allow exemptions under Section 30122, which
generally prohibits activities that take a previously compliant vehicle
out of compliance with the FMVSS.\46\ NHTSA
[[Page 4137]]
is authorized to prescribe regulations for Make Inoperative Exemptions
as long as those exemptions are consistent with motor vehicle safety
and with 49 U.S.C. 30101, which is the Safety Act's general purpose and
policy statement.\47\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\46\ See 49 U.S.C. 30122(b) (``A manufacturer, distributor,
dealer, rental company, or motor vehicle repair business may not
knowingly make inoperative any part of a device or element of design
installed on or in a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment in
compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard'').
\47\ See 49 U.S.C. 30122(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NHTSA has carried out this authority through regulations that
govern specific situations where making certain safety devices
inoperable, such as airbags, is permissible.\48\ For instance, NHTSA's
regulations create procedures for invoking the exemption to ``install
retrofit air bag on-off switches and to otherwise modify motor vehicles
to enable people with disabilities to operate or ride as a passenger in
a motor vehicle.'' \49\ Part 595 was most recently updated in 2024 to
allow law enforcement vehicles to be modified in a way that deactivates
an automatic emergency braking system required by 49 CFR 571.127,
S5.4.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\48\ 49 CFR part 595 (Make Inoperative Exemptions).
\49\ 49 CFR 595.2; see also 87 FR 14406 (March 15, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The proposed Make Inoperative Exemption in AV STEP would continue
NHTSA's practice of exempting specific situations where the general
make inoperative prohibition may not account for unique vehicle needs.
Engagement with stakeholders on how ADS technology relates to NHTSA's
authorities has repeatedly raised the possibility that equipping an
FMVSS-certified vehicle with an ADS may implicate the make inoperative
prohibition in Section 30122.
NHTSA's 2022 Final Rule on Occupant Protection for Vehicles With
Automated Driving Systems discussed comments that raised hypothetical
situations where ADS modifications to a vehicle may relate to the make
inoperative prohibition.\50\ Questions about how the make inoperative
prohibition in Section 30122 affects ADS equipment will likely persist
over the coming years, particularly as NHTSA promulgates new FMVSS that
govern the performance of vehicle automation features.\51\ NHTSA has
also explored the relationship between Section 30122 and ADS-equipped
vehicles--including the use of exemptions under Section 30122(c)--in
past regulatory notices.\52\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\50\ NHTSA, 87 FR 18560, 18571 n.36 (September 26, 2022).
\51\ See, e.g., 89 FR 39686 (May 9, 2024).
\52\ See NHTSA, 83 FR 50872, 50882 (October 10, 2018)
(requesting comment on: what role could a pilot program play in
determining when to grant an exemption from the make inoperative
prohibition under Section 30122 for certain dual mode vehicles).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NHTSA takes no position in this rulemaking on the effect of the
make inoperative prohibition in Section 30122 on ADS equipment or
associated aftermarket modifications. The AV STEP framework would
enable NHTSA to address this issue by providing a set of procedures to
govern the review and oversight of make inoperative exemptions for ADS-
equipped vehicles.
The AV STEP Make Inoperative Exemption is proposed pursuant to
NHTSA's authority in Section 30122(c). The proposed AV STEP framework
would further the purposes of the Safety Act in carrying out NHTSA's
oversight, rulemaking, research, and transparency authorities, as
explained previously in this section. The AV STEP framework is designed
to help NHTSA identify potential safety issues with an ADS and to
oversee its performance during the course of program participation.
These review and oversight procedures would help NHTSA assess the
statutory criteria for such an exemption.
Exemptions to the make inoperative provision are codified in 49 CFR
part 595. NHTSA proposes to add a new subsection in part 595 that
incorporates the proposed procedures for AV STEP that would be codified
in the new part 597. In addition, NHTSA proposes to amend the Purpose
and Applicability subsections in part 595 so that they encompass all of
the exemptions set forth in the part.
The discussion in this preamble is generally organized around the
sequence in which an entity would engage with AV STEP. The first
section below (Section III) explains the threshold requirements for AV
STEP, including eligibility and required terms and conditions for all
participants. Sections IV through VI provide an overview of the
application process, the participation stage, and the information that
NHTSA proposes to make public regarding both applications and
participations. These aspects of AV STEP would all apply across the
entirety of the program, while Section VII outlines proposals specific
to AV STEP exemptions. For reader convenience, NHTSA includes reference
to the associated subparts of the proposed regulatory text in the
headings for each of these sections.
In past exercises of its authorities, NHTSA has often implemented
standalone voluntary or exemption programs analogous to AV STEP's
various components, and NHTSA intends that the components of the
proposal be severable. AV STEP is proposed as a national framework that
encompasses three independent structural components: (1) a voluntary
program for compliant vehicles; (2) a process for administering FMVSS
exemptions; and (3) a process for administering exemptions from the
make inoperative prohibition. As explained in this proposal, each of
these structural elements stems from independent NHTSA authorities
under the Safety Act. Although NHTSA believes that AV STEP offers an
opportunity to combine all three of these elements into a national
framework, as the proposal explains, each of these structural elements
has independent value.
III. Program Structure (Regulatory Text Subpart A)
This section explains the threshold requirements for AV STEP, such
as those relating to eligibility and the required terms and conditions
for all participants. AV STEP would be available to vehicles that can
lawfully operate on public roads without AV STEP, as well as those that
would need one of the two types of exemptions proposed in this NPRM.
In several places, this document proposes unique requirements for
AV STEP exemptions to account for their particular attributes. However,
in general, the proposed requirements for AV STEP are the same
regardless of whether a subject vehicle needs an AV STEP exemption.
Keeping these requirements consistent would further the continuity of
the program, reduce confusion for potential applicants and the public
about what participation entails, and simplify NHTSA's administration
of the program. When developing these proposed requirements, NHTSA
sought to make program application and participation requirements
stringent enough to require meaningful commitments to safety while also
making them feasible for participating entities. Participation in AV
STEP, as proposed, would be valuable both for vehicles that need one of
the AV STEP exemptions and for entities choosing voluntary
participation.
NHTSA's experience suggests that a variety of incentives may exist
for entities to voluntarily participate in AV STEP. Voluntary programs
have historically played an important role in advancing automotive
safety, particularly for advanced vehicle technologies. Recent examples
include voluntary industry commitments to equip vehicles with specific
safety technologies,\53\ the submission of
[[Page 4138]]
VSSAs to NHTSA by entities engaged in ADS testing and deployment,\54\
the participation of entities engaged in ADS testing in NHTSA's AV TEST
Initiative,\55\ and the participation of vehicle manufacturers in the
Partnership for Analytics Research in Traffic Safety.\56\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\53\ NHTSA, ``NHTSA Announces Update to Historic AEB Commitment
by 20 Automakers'' (December 17, 2019), available at <a href="https://www.nhtsa.gov/press-releases/nhtsa-announces-update-historic-aeb-commitment-20-automakers">https://www.nhtsa.gov/press-releases/nhtsa-announces-update-historic-aeb-commitment-20-automakers</a>.
\54\ NHTSA, ``Automated Driving Systems: Voluntary Safety Self-
Assessment,'' available at <a href="https://www.nhtsa.gov/automated-driving-systems/voluntary-safety-self-assessment">https://www.nhtsa.gov/automated-driving-systems/voluntary-safety-self-assessment</a>.
\55\ NHTSA, ``AV TEST Initiative: Automated Vehicle Transparency
and Engagement for Safe Testing Initiative,'' available at <a href="https://www.nhtsa.gov/automated-vehicle-test-tracking-tool">https://www.nhtsa.gov/automated-vehicle-test-tracking-tool</a>.
\56\ NHTSA, ``PARTS: Partnership for Analytics Research in
Traffic Safety,'' available at <a href="https://www.nhtsa.gov/parts-partnership-for-analytics-research-in-traffic-safety">https://www.nhtsa.gov/parts-partnership-for-analytics-research-in-traffic-safety</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The extent and nature of the incentives for entities to participate
in AV STEP may depend on the entity and the type of operation. NHTSA
believes that companies that strive to develop and implement robust
safety practices will understand that AV STEP participation entails a
public commitment to safety, transparency, and the continuous
refinement of their ADS operations. Public trust is often difficult to
establish for ADS operations, particularly given that incidents
involving ADS-equipped vehicles receive significant negative attention.
Within this climate, some entities may see AV STEP as an opportunity to
demonstrate their commitment to transparency and willingness to subject
their safety decision-making to external scrutiny.
Other entities that engage with ADS operations may find value in
the review and oversight that would be conducted by NHTSA through AV
STEP. Examples of these types of entities could include state or local
authorities that regulate ADS, insurers of ADS-equipped vehicles,
entities providing grants for ADS projects, or business partners, such
as goods delivery services looking to partner with an ADS company.
These third-party relationships could motivate companies to participate
in AV STEP even if their vehicles could lawfully operate without the
program.
As participation in the program grows, competitive forces may
motivate other companies to participate. Accounting for these potential
incentives for voluntary participation, as well as the clear incentives
that would exist for entities in need of exemptions, the proposed AV
STEP requirements balance the value of encouraging participation with
the need to ensure that participation requirements are meaningful.
NHTSA requests comment on how this proposal strikes that balance.
A. Program Eligibility
This proposal is designed to oversee ADS-equipped vehicles under
the control of motor vehicle manufacturers, ADS developers (i.e.,
manufacturers of ADS, which is motor vehicle equipment), fleet
operators, or system integrators that plan to engage in public road
operations where the ADS will perform the driving task.\57\ Section
597.103 of the proposed rule contains the following eligibility
requirements:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\57\ For this NPRM's definition of these terms, see Sec.
597.102 of the proposed rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vehicle Eligibility. NHTSA proposes two eligibility requirements
for vehicles participating in AV STEP. First, the vehicles must be
equipped with an ADS being used or developed for operation without an
expectation of an attentive human driver (whether in-vehicle or remote)
while engaged. Second, the ADS equipped on such vehicles must perform
the entirety of the DDT for all or part of the participating
operations. These vehicle eligibility criteria focus on the ultimate
design intent of the system.\58\ Although these eligibility criteria
are not tied to any preexisting taxonomy for vehicle automation, for
illustration purposes, under the current SAE International levels of
driving automation, these eligibility criteria could apply to certain
vehicles operating at SAE Levels 3, 4, or 5.\59\ The proposal does not
extend AV STEP eligibility to partial driving automation systems, also
known as SAE Level 2 ADAS. Excluding such systems optimizes AV STEP to
address ADS' unique safety considerations and complexities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\58\ For instance, a vehicle would be considered to be equipped
with an ADS even if the ADS remained in development and dependent,
at times, on a human operator such as an onboard test driver.
\59\ SAE International, ``J3016 APR2021: Taxonomy and
Definitions for Terms Related to Driving Automation Systems for On-
Road Motor Vehicles,'' (Revised April 2021). A limited number of
Level 3 systems have recently become available on consumer-owned
vehicles. Those vehicles would not be eligible for participation
because they do not meet the separate program requirement that a
vehicle manufacturer, ADS developer, fleet operator, or system
integrator retain operational control over a subject vehicle.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Beyond these ADS requirements, NHTSA proposes to consider the
effect of other vehicle attributes on a case-by-case basis during the
agency's review, especially insofar as they may impact safety. NHTSA
does not propose to categorically restrict program participation to any
particular vehicle classes or types of operations (e.g., public
transit). However, NHTSA recognizes there may be unique considerations
related to certain vehicle attributes or classes, such as those
relating to accessibility for people with disabilities or impacts on
labor and employment. NHTSA requests comment on incorporating such
considerations into AV STEP, for example, through program limitations
or specialized requirements.
Applicant Eligibility. NHTSA proposes to limit AV STEP
participation to motor vehicle manufacturers, ADS developers, fleet
operators, and system integrators for the subject vehicle. Section
597.102 of the proposed rule defines these entities as follows:
``ADS Developer'' means the entity that is principally responsible
for the manufacture of the ADS at the system level, including but not
limited to its design, development, and testing.
``Manufacturer'' has the meaning given in 49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(6).
Under Section 30102, the term manufacturer includes a person (A)
manufacturing or assembling motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment;
or (B) importing motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for resale.
Under Sec. 597.102 of the proposed rule, an entity qualifying as a
manufacturer would need to be the manufacturer of the subject vehicle.
Other than ADS developers, who are manufacturers of the ADS, which is
motor vehicle equipment, NHTSA is not currently proposing to extend
eligibility to manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment unless they can
meet one of the other eligible classes of applicants. NHTSA does not
believe that other manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment, such as
suppliers of an individual component on a vehicle, are likely to have a
broad enough understanding of the system-level performance of the
vehicle to satisfy the considerations described in the following
paragraphs.
``Fleet Operator'' means the individual or entity that exercises
all or part of the operational control over the ADS installed in a
subject vehicle or group of subject vehicles. The threshold for
``operational control'' is described further in the next subsection.
``System Integrator'' means an entity responsible for integration
of an ADS at the vehicle level. For example, an ADS that was developed
for use across varied vehicle platforms could be integrated into a
given vehicle and validated for that vehicle integration by an entity
that does not qualify as any of the three preceding stakeholders.
In many cases, the same entity may perform the role of multiple
entities. For instance, some vehicle manufacturers
[[Page 4139]]
are responsible for the development and system integration of the
vehicle's ADS and many ADS developers conduct fleet operations for
their own vehicles. However, when one or more of these entities are
separate, their collective contributions are critical to the system-
level operation of an ADS-equipped vehicle. Under the proposal, any of
these four entities or any combination of these four entities could
apply to participate in AV STEP.
The agency believes that an application and a participation must
include at least one of these entities to ensure successful program
engagement. An entity other than these four stakeholders could not meet
the application requirements without relying heavily on these
stakeholders' representations. Likewise, it could not meet the
participation requirements without relying on their commitments
regarding the vehicle's operation or data collection. Limiting
participation to these four entities would promote direct
accountability. NHTSA may also engage with other entities throughout
the application and participation stages. Other proposed provisions
address such engagement.
Operational Control. As a precondition for participation in AV
STEP, NHTSA proposes to limit all operational control of the subject
vehicles to the vehicle manufacturer, ADS developer, fleet operator, or
system integrator. This limitation would ensure that vehicle operations
remain within the direct reach of the entities with the technical
knowledge of the vehicle systems and operations. This requirement would
also maintain a direct relationship between NHTSA and the parties that
exercise control over the subject vehicles. This ``operational
control'' standard has provided an effective threshold for maintaining
oversight in past NHTSA ADS exemptions.\60\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\60\ For instance, a 2020 exemption issued by NHTSA for an ADS-
equipped vehicle under 49 CFR part 555 (which implements 49 U.S.C.
30113) imposed the condition that the vehicle manufacturer: must
maintain ownership and operational control over the [exempted
vehicles] that are built pursuant to this exemption for the life of
the vehicles. 85 FR 7826, 7842 (February 11, 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For operations where only one of those four entities maintains full
ownership and possession of the subject vehicles, this requirement
would be straightforward. In contrast, certain fleet operations may
involve more complicated arrangements, such as projects that involve
multiple entities. For instance, some operations may involve an ADS
developer responsible for the ADS software and a fleet operator
responsible for the fallback personnel present during operations. Other
types of projects may involve entities other than Essential System-
Level Stakeholders,\61\ such as a grocery store that takes possession
of the vehicle while loading goods for delivery. In these situations,
requiring the Essential System-Level Stakeholders to retain ownership
or even possession of the subject vehicles may not always be feasible
given the specific logistics of an operation.\62\ To account for this
possibility, NHTSA proposes to require Essential System-Level
Stakeholders to retain operational control of the subject vehicles.
NHTSA proposes a scope of operational control similar to the scope of a
dispatching entity that exercises control over fleet operations, as
described in SAE J3016.\63\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\61\ As proposed in the AV STEP definitions, the list of
Essential System-Level Stakeholders would include, at a minimum, the
vehicle manufacturer, ADS developer, fleet operator, and system
integrator. Additional entities may be listed as well depending on
their role in the operation.
\62\ Those receiving an exemption under AV STEP would, however,
be subject to additional restrictions on possession or ownership.
See Section VII (Requirements for AV STEP Exemptions (Regulatory
Text Subpart C)).
\63\ See generally SAE International, ``J3016 APR2021: Taxonomy
and Definitions for Terms Related to Driving Automation Systems for
On-Road Motor Vehicles,'' (Revised April 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Definition 3.3 of J3016 defines a ``dispatching entity'' as ``an
entity that dispatches an ADS-equipped vehicle(s) in driverless
operations.'' \64\ Definition 3.4 defines ``dispatch'' as ``[t]o place
an ADS-equipped vehicle into service in driverless operation by
engaging the ADS.'' \65\ Finally, definition 3.13 describes ``fleet
operations'' or fleet functions as:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\64\ Id. at 3.3, p. 7 (``[Driverless Operation] Dispatching
Entity'') (bracketed language in original).
\65\ Id. at 3.4, p. 7 (``Dispatch [In Driverless Operation]'')
(bracketed language in original). Note 1 of this definition
clarifies that ``[t]he term `dispatch,' as used outside of the
context of ADS-equipped vehicles, is generally understood to mean
sending a particular vehicle to a particular pick-up or drop-off
location for purposes of providing a transportation service. In the
context of ADS-equipped vehicles, and as used herein, this term
includes software-enabled dispatch of multiple ADS-equipped vehicles
in driverless operation that may complete multiple trips involving
pick-up and drop-off of passengers or goods throughout a day or
other pre-defined period of service, and which may involve multiple
agents performing various tasks related to the dispatch function. To
highlight this specialized use of the term dispatch, the term is
modified and conditioned by the stipulation that it refers
exclusively to dispatching vehicles in driverless operation.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The activities that support the management of a fleet of ADS-
equipped vehicles in driverless operation, which may include, without
limitation:
<bullet> Ensuring operational readiness.
<bullet> Dispatching ADS-equipped vehicles in driverless operation
(i.e., engaging the ADSs prior to placing the vehicles in service on
public roads).
<bullet> Authorizing each trip (e.g., payment, trip route
selection).
<bullet> Providing fleet asset management services to vehicles
while in use (e.g., managing emergencies, summoning or providing remote
assistance as needed, responding to customer requests and breakdowns).
<bullet> Serving as the responsible agent vis-a-vis law
enforcement, emergency responders, and other authorities for vehicles
while in use.
<bullet> Disengaging the ADS at the end of service.
<bullet> Performing vehicle repair and maintenance as needed.\66\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\66\ Id. at 3.13, p. 14 (``Fleet Operations [Functions]'')
(bracketed language in original).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under this proposal, a vehicle manufacturer, ADS developer, fleet
operator, or system integrator (or any combination thereof) could each
exercise aspects of this control even if only one of them were an AV
STEP participant. For instance, if the ADS developer were the sole
participant, a fleet operator could exercise some measure of
operational control. Likewise, this proposed requirement is not
intended to prohibit vehicle passengers from having limited control
authority over the vehicle, such as selecting a destination for a ride-
hailing operation.\67\ Given the complex relationships among different
stakeholders in operations, NHTSA requests comment on the workability
of the proposed operational control requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\67\ In such cases, the vehicle user would be acting within a
set of parameters controlled by an ADS developer, such as by
selecting a destination within a developer-established ODD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Location Eligibility. NHTSA proposes to require that AV STEP
operations take place, in part or entirely, on public streets, roads,
and highways in the United States. This eligibility requirement mirrors
statutory language for the Safety Act's definition of ``motor vehicle''
in 49 U.S.C. 30102. Since the program framework for AV STEP is designed
principally to oversee vehicles operating on public roads, this
eligibility requirement ensures that each operation involves at least
some public road usage. During participation, NHTSA expects that
subject vehicles may also engage in operations on non-public roads,
such as closed course testing. In general, the proposed application and
reporting requirements
[[Page 4140]]
for AV STEP would not cover such private road operations.\68\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\68\ However, non-public road testing would likely be relevant
to the validation evidence for the safety case assessment discussed
in Section IV.D.1.b) (Independent Assessment, Safety Case).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Program Steps
AV STEP would have two program participation categories. In
general, Step 1 would apply to vehicles that rely on fallback
personnel, and Step 2 would apply to vehicles that do not rely on
fallback personnel. Given the increased responsibility of the ADS at
Step 2, the level of system maturity is expected to be higher than at
Step 1. As proposed, a vehicle could start participation at either step
level. It would not be necessary to complete Step 1 before moving to
Step 2. However, Step 1 participants could apply to participate at Step
2 as their systems and operations mature. Likewise, under this
proposal, if a company had multiple vehicle platforms or systems, some
of which were more mature than others, the company could apply to
participate in Step 1 for some operations and in Step 2 for others.
The reliance on fallback personnel is used to delineate between
Steps 1 and 2 because the approach to managing risk is significantly
different in these two cases. In an operation that relies on fallback
personnel, a human is expected to compensate for known limitations or
unproven aspects of the ADS. In contrast, in an operation that does not
rely on fallback personnel, the ADS must be capable of handling all
scenarios within an ODD without the intervention of fallback personnel.
AV STEP can more easily account for these unique safety considerations
by dedicating a separate step to each type of operation.
The ADS industry acknowledges the significance of these
differences. For instance, when discussing its ADS, referred to as the
Aurora Driver, Aurora Innovation Inc. (Aurora) explained in its 2022
VSSA that:
as we continue to develop with the Aurora Driver, we currently have
vehicle operators . . . monitoring the performance of the Aurora
Driver at all times and ready to take over as necessary to ensure
operational safety. Therefore, our tailored safety case for this use
case includes claims focused on vehicle controllability and vehicle
operator hiring, training, and operational procedures, among others.
However, when we reach the point of removing the vehicle operators
from cabs, these vehicle operator-centric claims will no longer be
relevant.\69\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\69\ Aurora, ``Safety Report'' (2022), available at <a href="https://info.aurora.tech/hubfs/website%20Public%20Files/Q4_Safety_VSSA%202022_digital_r2.pdf">https://info.aurora.tech/hubfs/website%20Public%20Files/Q4_Safety_VSSA%202022_digital_r2.pdf</a>.
Similarly, Waymo LLC explained in a 2020 discussion of safety
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
readiness determinations that:
[d]eterminations to move from public road testing with trained
vehicle operators to driverless operations, of course, are conducted
at the greatest level of detail. Going completely driverless entails
extremely rigorous analysis of expected behaviors and risks within
the ODD, including unique risks presented by the absence of a human
driver (e.g., responding to system failures through fallback
maneuvers that do not rely on human intervention).\70\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\70\ Webb, N., Smith, D., Ludwick, C., Victor, T.W., Hommes, Q.,
Favar[ograve] F., Ivanov, G., and Daniel, T., ``Waymo's Safety
Methodologies and Safety Readiness Determinations,'' (2020)
available at <a href="https://arxiv.org/abs/2011.00054">https://arxiv.org/abs/2011.00054</a>.
Under the proposal, an entity would be eligible to apply for Step 1
participation for vehicles that operate with fallback personnel during
all participating operations on public roads.\71\ An entity would be
eligible to apply for Step 2 participation for vehicles that operate,
at any time during participation on public roads, without fallback
personnel. NHTSA proposes to define ``Fallback Personnel'' as an
individual specially trained and skilled in supervising the performance
of prototype ADS-operated vehicles in on-road traffic, who continuously
supervises the performance of an ADS-operated vehicle in real time and
intervenes whenever necessary to prevent a hazardous event by
exercising any means of vehicle control. This intervention may occur as
part of a DDT Fallback \72\ or in anticipation of possible future ADS
behavior that is unsafe or otherwise unwanted by the user. This
definition of fallback personnel would not include vehicle assistance,
which does not involve directly exercising vehicle control
authority.\73\ An ADS that relied only on vehicle assistance during
public road operations would fall under Step 2 rather than Step 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\71\ Stakeholders use a variety of terms to refer to the
fallback personnel role, such as in-vehicle fallback test drivers,
safety operators, or testing safety operators.
\72\ Section 597.102 of the proposed rule defines DDT Fallback
as: the response by an individual to either perform the DDT or
achieve a minimal risk condition after occurrence of a DDT
performance-relevant system failure(s) or upon operational design
domain exit, or the response by an ADS to achieve a minimal risk
condition, given the same circumstances.
\73\ Section 597.102 of the proposed rule defines Vehicle
Assistance as: an individual providing information or instruction
about a situation to an ADS-equipped vehicle in driverless operation
(instead of exercising direct control of the vehicle) to help the
ADS continue a trip when encountering a situation that the ADS
cannot manage. Vehicle assistance may be provided remotely, by an
individual not physically present in the vehicle, or by an
individual on board (physically present in) the vehicle. Unlike
fallback personnel, as defined in this section, vehicle assistance
personnel provide information or instruction to an ADS-equipped
vehicle rather than directly exercising vehicle control authority.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As defined in this proposal, individuals who perform the fallback
role could do so from within the vehicle or remotely. Remote fallback
personnel would be considered remote drivers under the proposed
definition of remote driving--the real-time performance of part or all
of the DDT by an individual physically located outside of the
vehicle.\74\ However, NHTSA proposes to narrowly limit remote driving
in AV STEP, as described in Section III.C (Terms and Conditions).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\74\ Some vehicle designs do not facilitate any human occupancy.
Remote fallback personnel would be the only option for such vehicles
to rely on fallback personnel.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The proposed eligibility requirements of Step 2 are not intended to
disincentivize the limited use of fallback personnel when a participant
deems it beneficial for safety. Therefore, once admitted into AV STEP,
a vehicle participating under Step 2 could rely on fallback personnel
on a limited basis during public road operations. For example, fallback
personnel could be temporarily reintroduced during the validation of a
software update. Such limited exceptions notwithstanding, Step 2 is
intended to demarcate an ADS' readiness to operate without fallback
personnel, and the agency does not intend participants in Step 2 to
functionally operate as Step 1 participants through the widespread or
sustained use of fallback personnel. To oversee this expectation, NHTSA
proposes reporting requirements to monitor the extent to which Step 2
operations use fallback personnel.\75\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\75\ These requirements are set forth in Sec. 597.501(f) of the
proposed rule and described further in Section V.A (Reporting
Requirements) of this document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For both steps, NHTSA proposes to prohibit vehicle operations that
rely on fallback personnel from providing rides to public
passengers.\76\ This would mean that no public ridership would be
permitted under Step 1 or in any of the limited situations where
fallback personnel could be used under Step 2. This prohibition is
proposed in light of the lower level of ADS maturity that is expected
of a system that must rely on a human as a fallback. The need for
fallback personnel indicates that an ADS has known limitations or
requires
[[Page 4141]]
further validation. The presence of fallback personnel also introduces
training and human factor considerations into the safety of those
vehicles, such as whether fallback personnel remain attentive while
monitoring the ADS. Although the use of fallback personnel can be
beneficial for safety during testing, NHTSA believes their role is
better suited for operations engaged in significant development than
those ready to carry public passengers. NHTSA requests comment
generally on the conditions under which AV STEP should permit public
ridership, including, more specifically, whether it should be permitted
during operations that rely on fallback personnel.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\76\ This prohibition would apply to any passenger who is a
member of the public other than an employee or agent of an entity
designated as an Essential System-Level Stakeholder or a public
official acting in an official capacity, such as law enforcement or
government personnel. See Sec. 597.105(c) of the proposed rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Terms and Conditions
Each AV STEP participation would be governed by a Final
Determination Letter that establishes the full set of terms and
conditions for the participation. NHTSA's proposed review process that
would lead to the issuance of a Final Determination Letter is described
in Section IV.E (Application Review). In general, the terms and
conditions established by a letter would be tailored to the unique
aspects of a participation and may cover subjects other than those
expressly enumerated in Sec. 597.105(b) of the proposed rule. Section
IV.E lists seven subjects that would, at a minimum, be addressed in a
Final Determination Letter. These include whether the participation is
permitted under Step 1 or 2, the vehicles approved for
participation,\77\ the locations where participation is permitted, the
duration of participation, and the stakeholders deemed essential for
the participation. This letter would also govern the permitted uses of
those vehicles, which could include commercial operations.\78\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\77\ Section VII (Requirements for AV STEP Exemptions
(Regulatory Text Subpart C)) explains a unique set of procedures for
vehicles receiving exemptions under AV STEP.
\78\ Section VII (Requirements for AV STEP Exemptions
(Regulatory Text Subpart C)) explains the requirements for FMVSS
exemptions that involve commercial operations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A Final Determination Letter would also govern the maximum number
of vehicles approved for participation.\79\ This number would be
informed by NHTSA's review of the information submitted in the
application. NHTSA proposes, when appropriate, to authorize increases
in vehicle numbers over time if requested by the participant.
Incrementally increasing participation would allow the scope of
participation to mature along with a technology, enabling expansions to
correspond to performance benchmarks or limiting initial operations
until the agency gains further insight from overseeing the vehicles.
Conversely, NHTSA could reduce the number of vehicles permitted to
participate in AV STEP. For instance, this could occur during
participation by lowering the cap on permitted vehicles through the
concern resolution procedures proposed in this document or through a
term in a Final Determination Letter that sets benchmarks for expanding
or contracting vehicle participation numbers. NHTSA requests comment on
whether the proposed rule should establish a cap on the number of
vehicles allowed for each participant, including what such a cap should
be and the grounds for setting it, as well as whether the cap should be
able to be modified during program participation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\79\ Setting limits on participation numbers through the
adjudication of each request rather than through a categorical cap
that applies to all participants would align with the longstanding
approaches of the other NHTSA programs that administer exemptions
under Section 30114(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NHTSA also proposes for Final Determination Letters to contain
terms governing the use of remote driving during participation. NHTSA
proposes, in Sec. 597.105(j) of the proposed rule, to generally
prohibit remote driving in AV STEP except as temporarily needed to
briefly move a vehicle after the ADS initiates a minimal risk maneuver
or during any situations expressly permitted in a Final Determination
Letter.\80\ This proposal would limit remote driving to short
distances, such as moving a vehicle to the side of the road after it
has stopped in a travel lane or moving a vehicle in response to
direction from emergency responders. Conditioning remote driving on the
initiation of a minimal risk maneuver would, for example, allow this
brief use of remote driving after the vehicle achieves a minimal risk
condition or if remote personnel realize that a vehicle undertaking a
minimal risk maneuver is taking inappropriate action. Minimal risk
maneuvers and minimal risk conditions are discussed further in Section
IV.B.2 (System Fallback Response).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\80\ Human factors issues, connection latency, and jitter can
result in unavoidable challenges for remote driving operations, even
in locations with optimal connectivity. Therefore, although the
agency extends eligibility to prospective operations that would
entail limited remote driving, NHTSA expects, through the review
framework described in the ensuing sections, to significantly
scrutinize such uses. For further discussion of latency, jitter, and
other remote driving considerations, see, e.g., Y. Yu and S. Lee,
``Remote Driving Control With Real-Time Video Streaming Over
Wireless Networks: Design and Evaluation'' (June 2022), available at
<a href="https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?arnumber=9797698">https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?arnumber=9797698</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As proposed, this general prohibition on remote driving also allows
an exception for other situations expressly delineated in a Final
Determination Letter. An application would need to describe any such
situations for which permission is requested.\81\ NHTSA requests
comment on the proposed approach to remote driving and, specifically:
(1) whether to include operations that use remote fallback personnel
within the scope of the program; (2) whether the proposed rule should
include a limited allowance for remote driving after the ADS achieves a
minimal risk condition or after the ADS initiates a minimal risk
maneuver; and (3) whether the proposed rule should expressly include
any other exceptions to the general prohibition on remote driving.\82\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\81\ The required information about remote driving in an
application is discussed in Section IV.B (Protocols for ADS
Operations).
\82\ Other potential exceptions could include if remote driving
is unexpectedly needed to respond to a hazardous circumstance or if
remote driving could enable temporary navigation around a roadway
change, such as a construction zone, for which the ADS has not yet
been validated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The proposed rule contains several terms to promote NHTSA's
engagement with other regulatory authorities, such as states and local
governments, during the review of an application and participation in
the program. The proposed rule would require all vehicles, including
their operations, to comply with all Federal, state, and local laws and
requirements during participation.\83\ This provision would cover both
generally applicable requirements, including local traffic laws, and
those specific to ADS technologies. The proposed application and
reporting requirements would provide NHTSA with information to consider
whether an entity has a responsible process for identifying and
following these laws. NHTSA intends to coordinate with Federal, state,
and local governments, as appropriate, regarding these and other issues
associated with ADS operations in their jurisdictions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\83\ This requirement would maintain NHTSA's practice of
imposing a similar term in other exemptions issued under Section
30114(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Federal, state, and local regulatory frameworks and programs
that also cover ADS operations span a range of different regulatory
approaches. At the Federal level, examples include grants for ADS
projects funded by other parts of DOT \84\ and pilot projects to
[[Page 4142]]
explore the potential for ADS to further the mission of other
agencies.\85\ Examples at the state and local levels include state
permitting requirements for ADS-equipped vehicles \86\ and traffic laws
that are specific to ADS-equipped vehicles.\87\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\84\ See, e.g., U.S. Department of Transportation, ``Automated
Driving Systems Demonstration Grants Program,'' available at <a href="https://www.transportation.gov/policy-initiatives/automated-vehicles/ads-demonstration-grants">https://www.transportation.gov/policy-initiatives/automated-vehicles/ads-demonstration-grants</a>. The Federal Transit Administration also
administers grants for ADS. See generally Federal Transit
Administration, ``Transit Automation Research,'' available at
<a href="https://www.transit.dot.gov/automation-research">https://www.transit.dot.gov/automation-research</a>.
\85\ National Park Service, ``NPS Emerging Mobility: Summary
Evaluation of Low-Speed Automated Shuttle Pilots at NPS Sites,''
June 2022. <a href="https://www.nps.gov/subjects/transportation/upload/NPS-Automated-Shuttle-Pilots-Evaluation-Summary.pdf">https://www.nps.gov/subjects/transportation/upload/NPS-Automated-Shuttle-Pilots-Evaluation-Summary.pdf</a>.
\86\ See, e.g., California Department of Motor Vehicles,
``Autonomous Vehicles,'' available at https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/
vehicle-industry-services/autonomous-vehicles/
#:~:text=The%20DMV%20administers%20the%20Autonomous,and%20applying%20
for%20a%20permit.
\87\ See, e.g., National Conference of State Legislatures,
``Autonomous Vehicles Legislation Database,'' available at <a href="https://www.ncsl.org/transportation/autonomous-vehicles-legislation-database">https://www.ncsl.org/transportation/autonomous-vehicles-legislation-database</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The goals of these initiatives are varied, given the diverse
regulatory missions of the different jurisdictions. It is not feasible
or appropriate to design AV STEP around all of the various approaches
that other authorities may take concerning ADS. At the same time, AV
STEP would not override any of those other authorities, such as by
imposing Federal preemption of state requirements. Instead, NHTSA
considers AV STEP best suited to exist in parallel with those other
requirements. The proposed requirement that an AV STEP participant
comply with all Federal, state, and local laws and requirements would
ensure the requirements of those other authorities coexist with AV
STEP. This requirement is consistent with how NHTSA has historically
approached exemptions for ADS-equipped vehicles that are issued under
Section 30114(a).
During the review of an AV STEP application, NHTSA will engage with
applicants and other authorities, as appropriate, to explore
opportunities to harmonize certain AV STEP requirements with those of
overlapping authorities. As a result of such engagement, if a reporting
requirement of another authority is identified that is similar to a
subject for which NHTSA proposes a customized requirement in AV STEP, a
Final Determination Letter could scope AV STEP's customized reporting
requirements in a way that harmonizes with another report. Other
jurisdictions could likewise harmonize their own processes with AV STEP
or otherwise find value in the enhanced Federal oversight and
transparency of participating operations when considering whether to
allow those vehicles to operate under their own authorities. As one
example, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) has
oversight authority for motor carrier use and operations of ADS
technologies. Opportunities may exist to harmonize, as appropriate,
certain requirements in AV STEP operations that involve commercial
motor vehicles (CMVs) with any applicable FMCSA activities, in the
interest of a consistent Departmental approach. For instance, FMCSA is
engaged in rulemaking that would govern motor carrier operation of ADS-
equipped CMVs \88\ and other activities related to AV technologies.
NHTSA specifically requests comment on other ways that AV STEP could
help to harmonize regulatory requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\88\ See Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, ``Unified
Agenda of Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions,'' Federal Motor
Carrier Safety Administration, RIN 2126-AC17: Motor Carrier
Operation of Automated Driving Systems (ADS)-Equipped Commercial
Motor Vehicles, available at <a href="https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/eAgendaViewRule?pubId=202310&RIN=2126-AC17">https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/eAgendaViewRule?pubId=202310&RIN=2126-AC17</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
IV. Application and Review (Regulatory Text Subparts B and D)
A. Application Form
NHTSA proposes that all AV STEP applications contain a standard set
of information, regardless of program step or whether an exemption is
requested.\89\ This proposal would create a common foundation for the
program through consistent, structured responses from all applicants.
It would also ensure that NHTSA has a fundamental understanding of the
systems and requested participation when making decisions on program
admission and overseeing operations. NHTSA proposes that this
information be furnished through an application form containing three
parts: the Operational Baseline; Location Sheet(s); and a Reporting
Confirmation Sheet.\90\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\89\ An exemption would require an additional application form
specific to that purpose, as discussed later in Section VII.C
(Exemption Participation Requirements).
\90\ An example form, based on the proposed requirements, is
available in the docket for this rulemaking under the title ``NPRM
Example of AV STEP Application Form.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Operational Baseline
The Operational Baseline portion of an application would focus on
critical characteristics of an operation. Section 597.201 of the
proposed rule requires 14 items of information, most of which NHTSA
proposes to make public because they reflect basic facts about the
entity's requested participation.\91\ These items are listed below,
accompanied by a description of the expected level of detail:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\91\ See Section VI (Public Reporting Requirements (Regulatory
Text Subpart G)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Participation Category. An applicant would indicate whether it
requests participation under Step 1 or Step 2.
Applicant(s). Each of the entities requesting to participate would
need to be listed. An application could be submitted by a single
applicant or multiple applicants (co-applicants). In either situation,
every applicant would need to meet the eligibility requirements for
participation set forth in Sec. 597.103 of the proposed rule. This
field would also require primary and secondary points of contact for
each applicant.
Essential System-Level Stakeholders. Applicants would identify any
entities that have a significant role in the safety of the operation
covered by the application. At a minimum, these would include the
vehicle manufacturer, the ADS developer, the fleet operator, and the
system integrator. These entities would need to be listed regardless of
whether they were applying for the program or would be participating in
the proposed operation. This requirement is included because, whether
active participants or not, the products or services they provide
factor directly into the vehicle's system-level performance.
Vehicle Platform. Applicants would identify a baseline vehicle
platform being used. This information includes the vehicle make, model,
model year, unloaded vehicle weight,\92\ Gross Vehicle Weight Rating
(GVWR),\93\ and vehicle class.\94\ If the vehicle was certified as
FMVSS compliant, the FMVSS certifying entity should also be listed in
this field. Different vehicle models could not be considered a single
vehicle platform for the purposes of this field,\95\ and would instead
require separate program applications. As long as all vehicles in an
application were the same vehicle model, a single application could be
used for different versions of the model, such as differences in the
model year, trim level, or GVWR. NHTSA would review any differences
within the vehicle model to decide whether any of the vehicles
[[Page 4143]]
should participate separately. This approach would help to streamline
individual applications and preserve the consistency of operations
contained in a single application or participation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\92\ See 49 CFR 571.3.
\93\ Id.
\94\ See 49 CFR part 523.
\95\ Even if the traditional use of the term ``vehicle
platform'' often includes multiple vehicle models, NHTSA considers a
narrower use of the term appropriate in this context. This narrower
use is to account for any developers or manufacturers that do not
characterize their purpose-built ADS vehicle platforms as vehicle
models.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sensing Suite. An applicant would identify any sensors, such as
cameras, radar, lidar, and microphones, involved in the perception of
the ADS.\96\ For any such sensors on the vehicle, a response to this
field would need to identify the specific sensor (i.e., make and model
information), the type of sensor, its location on the subject vehicle,
and its use in ADS operations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\96\ ADS perception is defined in SAE International publication
J3131 as ``an ADS' capability to sense and characterize the
entities, events, and situations, in its environment.'' SAE
International, ``J3131 MAR2022: Definitions for Terms Related to
Automated Driving Systems Reference Architecture,'' Section 3.1.3,
(Revised March 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Crash Detection Capabilities. Applicants would detail the subject
vehicle's crash detection capabilities including, if applicable, any
units towed by the subject vehicle. This response would need to
identify any limitations or thresholds for detecting physical contact
relating to a crash. For example, if only certain scenarios involving
debris impacts are identified as crashes, a response to this element
should explain how those crashes are identified.
Certain Vehicle Modifications. An applicant would identify any
modifications to safety features installed as original equipment on the
subject vehicles, other than any modifications for which an AV STEP
exemption is sought. Modifications associated with an exemption request
would be identified in a response to the requirements detailed in
Section VII.B (Exemption Application Requirements).
Data Logging. Applicants would identify the designed data-logging
functionality, including the continuously recorded data and event-
triggered data logged by a subject vehicle. For each type of data
identified, an applicant would also need to describe the onboard or
offboard storage protocols and the duration of data retention. For this
element, NHTSA anticipates focusing on whether responses explain the
scope of data logging for reporting required under AV STEP, such as the
regular and event-triggered reporting in Sec. Sec. 597.500 and 597.501
of the proposed rule.
Onboard Fallback Personnel. A response to this field would identify
the seating position(s) of any onboard fallback personnel who may be
physically present in the subject vehicle(s) during requested
operations. Even though Step 2 applications would largely not rely on
the presence of fallback personnel during participating operations,
those applications should still list the seating positions of any
onboard fallback personnel that may be present on a limited basis.\97\
If the subject vehicles would never use fallback personnel, even on a
limited basis, a response could indicate that this field is not
applicable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\97\ The possibility of limited reliance on fallback personnel
under Step 2 is discussed in Sections III.B (Program Steps) and
V.A.2 (Event-Triggered Reporting).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Use of Remote Driving. A response to this field should indicate
whether remote driving may be used to control a subject vehicle at any
time during operation. Applicants would need to identify any
restrictions in place for any planned use of remote driving, such as
speed thresholds or limiting its use to locations with validated
network strength. This response would inform whether NHTSA should
permit narrow uses of remote driving in a Final Determination Letter
beyond those allowed under Sec. 597.105(j) of the proposed rule.\98\
In addition, given the potential risks associated with remote
driving,\99\ NHTSA believes that information about the extent of remote
driving in a participation should be publicly available. Accordingly,
an application that involves remote driving would need to also include
a public summary of limitations on the use of remote driving. NHTSA
would publish this summary along with other information from an
application, as discussed in Section VI (Public Reporting Requirements
(Regulatory Text Subpart G)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\98\ More detailed information regarding the technical
parameters and safety of any remote driving included in a
participation request would also need to be provided to NHTSA under
the requirements proposed in Section IV.B (Protocols for ADS
Operations).
\99\ See supra n.80.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Use of Vehicle Assistance. A response to this field would need to
indicate whether any remote or onboard vehicle assistance may be used
to direct the subject vehicle at any time during a requested operation.
The proposed rule defines vehicle assistance as an individual providing
information or advice about a situation to an ADS-equipped vehicle in
driverless operation (instead of performing the DDT for the vehicle) to
help the ADS continue a trip when encountering a situation that the ADS
cannot manage. Vehicle assistance may be provided remotely, by an
individual not physically present in the vehicle,\100\ or by an
individual on board (physically present in) the vehicle.\101\ Any
applications indicating that vehicle assistance may occur would need to
describe the specific capabilities that this assistance could
entail.\102\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\100\ For additional discussion of ``remote assistance,'' see
SAE International, ``J3016 APR2021: Taxonomy and Definitions for
Terms Related to Driving Automation Systems for On-Road Motor
Vehicles,'' Section 3.23: Remote Assistance, (Revised April 2021).
\101\ Unlike Fallback Personnel, as defined in this proposal,
vehicle assistance personnel provide information or instruction to
an ADS-equipped vehicle rather than directly exercising vehicle
control authority.
\102\ As with the preceding remote driving field, more detailed
information regarding any vehicle assistance included in a
participation request would also need to be provided to NHTSA, as
detailed in Section IV.B (Protocols for ADS Operations).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operational Permits Required. An application would indicate whether
any other Federal, state, or local permits are required for the
operations requested in the application. If so, the application should
list each such permit, the regulatory entity requiring a permit, and
the status of each permit. For any permits that have already been
issued at the time of application, an applicant would need to identify
the effective dates of each permit, describe any conditions imposed by
those permits, and provide a copy of each such permit.
AV STEP Exemption. An application would indicate whether the
request to participate in AV STEP includes a request for an AV STEP
exemption. If so, an application would also need to include a separate
exemption form that covers unique application requirements for the
exemption.\103\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\103\ See Section VII.C (Exemption Application Requirements).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Accessibility. An application would summarize any features or
design modifications of the vehicles that are the subject of an
application that are intended to promote the safe accommodation of
passengers with disabilities. This required disclosure would include
any such features or modifications that are intended for passengers
with physical, sensory, and cognitive disabilities--including
passengers who use wheelchairs and other mobility equipment. NHTSA
proposes to publish this summary to enable the public to understand the
accessibility options offered in an operation.\104\ NHTSA also proposes
to require an application to include more information and technical
detail about any such features or designs in response to the separate
application requirements detailed in Section IV.B.3 (Operator, User,
and Surrounding Road User Interactions). NHTSA encourages entities to
include accessibility features for passengers with disabilities in
their
[[Page 4144]]
vehicle designs and believes that it is important for the public to
understand the availability of such features.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\104\ See Section VI (Public Reporting Requirements (Regulatory
Text Subpart G)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Location Sheet
The second proposed portion of an application is a Location Sheet.
Each application would be required to contain at least one Location
Sheet. An application that requests participation in multiple distinct
locations would need to include a Location Sheet for each location.
Entities may combine operations in multiple locations in the same
application or participation, as long as the Operational Baseline
characteristics of the operations remain the same across the locations.
AV STEP's use of Location Sheets would provide enough flexibility
for an operation to evolve over the course of time, including by adding
more Location Sheets during participation as operations expand to new
areas.\105\ It would also reduce the administrative burden of
applications and participations by enabling NHTSA to focus on the
aspects of an operation unique to a particular location once the agency
understands the baseline approach to an operation that would apply no
matter where the operation occurs. The proposed rule would require
applications to include the following information for each Location
Sheet:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\105\ The process for adding new Location Sheets during
participation is discussed in Section V.B.1 (Amendment Process).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Location Name. Applicants would assign a unique reference name to
the operation proposed in the Location Sheet. The Location Name field
in a Location Sheet would provide a unique identifier for each location
that a participation includes. Much of the reporting described in
Sections V.A (Reporting Requirements) and VI (Public Reporting
Requirements (Regulatory Text Subpart G)) is segmented by Location
Sheet.
Location Limitation. Applicants would define the geographical
boundaries for the operations in the Location Sheet, generally by using
maps to define this boundary.\106\ This field could be changed during
an active participation, as discussed in Section V.B.1 (Amendment
Process). However, this response should cover the full breadth of
operations that are anticipated at the time of an application.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\106\ For example, a .kmz/.kml file containing a varied map
boundary could be provided. If operations would be constrained to
specific route maps, this constraint should be reflected in a
response to this field.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum Number of Vehicles Proposed for Participation. An applicant
would identify the maximum number of vehicles for which they seek to
participate under the Location Sheet. This number could correspond to
the actual number of vehicles that an applicant is ready to operate or
reflect a projected number of vehicles.\107\ During participation, the
actual number of vehicles operating would be reported to NHTSA under
the proposed periodic reporting requirements described in Section V.A.1
(Periodic Reporting).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\107\ If an application requests such a projected number of
vehicles, the application information would still need to support
the full scope of requested operations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Legal Speed Limits. This field would require information about the
posted speed limits on roadways on which a vehicle plans to operate. An
applicant would identify specific information for: (1) the road
segments in an operation that have the highest legal speed limit; and
(2) the road segments with the greatest speed differential between the
legal speed limit and the maximum speed allowed for the ADS while
operating on the road segment. NHTSA expects that the most efficient
way to identify roadway segments will usually be pairs of GPS
coordinates for the start and end points. However, an applicant could
use other methods to identify the roadway segments, for example, if
such segments represent a significant portion of an operation. NHTSA
will use this information to understand the speeds of traffic around
which a vehicle could operate and whether the vehicle could pose a risk
by operating at different speeds from the surrounding traffic.
Vehicle Speeds. An application would identify the highest speed
allowed for the ADS upon commencing participation at the location, as
well as the highest speed for which participation is requested for the
ADS at the location. In many cases, these two speeds may be the same.
However, the two answers could diverge, such as if an ADS initially
operates at lower speeds to complete further validation before planned
speed increases are pursued.\108\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\108\ As with any other proposed requirements, the application
information would need to support the full scope of operations
requested, even if it included projected future changes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Public Ridership. An application would indicate whether the subject
vehicle would carry public passengers during the requested
operations.\109\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\109\ The proposed rule refers to public passengers as ``public
ridership.'' See Sec. 597.102.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Intended Use. An applicant would describe the planned use or uses
of vehicles during operations, such as a shuttle or ride hailing
service, goods delivery, or research and development.\110\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\110\ For an applicant seeking an exemption under 49 U.S.C.
30114(a), additional information on use would be required by the
exemption portion of the application.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operational Design Domain. An applicant would provide a complete
specification of all aspects of the ODD. This response should be a
detailed answer that comprehensively explains the entire ODD, which the
proposed rule defines as ``the operating conditions under which the
automated driving system or feature thereof is specifically designed to
function, including, but not limited to, environmental, geographical,
and time-of-day restrictions, and/or the requisite presence or absence
of defined traffic or roadway characteristics.'' \111\ If an
application contains multiple Location Sheets, a response to this
element should identify any ODD differences among the Location Sheets.
Several industry documents provide guidance on the specification of an
ODD.\112\ However, this general guidance may not necessarily address
the full level of detail associated with an ADS developer's particular
approach to defining its system's ODD. NHTSA seeks comment on
incorporating any such guidance into the regulation or otherwise
specifying the form in which minimum information about the proposed ODD
should be described in an application. An applicant would also need to
include a public summary of the ODD. NHTSA proposes to publish this
summary along with other information about an application or
participation. The public reporting section of this document describes
those aspects of the proposal.\113\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\111\ See Sec. 597.102 of the proposed rule.
\112\ See, e.g., International Organization for Standardization,
``ISO 34503: Road Vehicles--Test scenarios for automated driving
systems--Specification for operational design domain'' (2023); and
Automated Vehicle Safety Consortium (AVSC), ``AVSC00002202004: Best
Practice for Describing an Operational Design Domain: Conceptual
Framework and Lexicon'' (2020).
\113\ See Section VI (Public Reporting Requirements (Regulatory
Text Subpart G)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vehicle Equipment. An applicant would describe how several
attributes of a vehicle covered by the Location Sheet compare to the
base model of the vehicle. This information would help NHTSA gauge
whether differences in the same vehicle model may need to be considered
during the application review. This field should disclose how three
categories of equipment or vehicle characteristics compare between the
subject vehicle and the base model, if applicable: (1) any trim level
characteristics that affect safety; (2) any
[[Page 4145]]
optional technologies that affect safety; and (3) any other
distinguishing safety characteristics. If an application contains
multiple Location Sheets, a response to this element should also
identify any differences among the Location Sheets. For example, if
sensor heating elements are used in one location but not necessary in
another, that information should be provided in response to this field.
3. Confirmation of Reporting During Participation
The third portion of the application form would focus on
information necessary to carry out the reporting requirements discussed
in Section V.A (Reporting Requirements) if an applicant is admitted for
participation.
First, an applicant would need to confirm its ability to carry out
all of the AV STEP reporting requirements if approved for
participation. Some reporting requirements may require coordination
with third parties, such as Essential System-Level Stakeholders that
are not participants, or may involve specific technical capabilities.
This confirmation would ensure that an applicant understands these
responsibilities up front. If an application has a single applicant,
that applicant would be responsible for compliance with all of the
reporting requirements. If an application has multiple co-applicants,
they could collectively meet the reporting requirements. If reporting
responsibilities are to be shared by co-applicants, a response to this
element should explain which entity would be primarily responsible for
meeting each reporting requirement that is set forth in Subpart E of
the proposed rule.\114\ In addition to clarifying reporting
responsibilities for co-applicants, this proposed requirement would
ensure that data generation and processing capabilities support the AV
STEP reporting elements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\114\ Even if reporting is shared among multiple participants,
NHTSA proposes that it may suspend, revoke, or take other
appropriate action to address a failure to fully comply with all
reporting required under AV STEP by any participant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Second, this portion of the application would solicit proposals for
``customized'' reporting terms. For reporting requirements designated
as customized, NHTSA has proposed the subject matter for a required
report but has not defined a specific metric or threshold for the
reporting. Applications would need to propose specific metrics or
thresholds to be used for the terms of the reporting. Each such
proposal should be informed by the independent assessment submitted in
an application (and described further in Section IV.D, Independent
Assessment). In developing these proposals, applicants should consider
the extent to which the proposed reporting would support an evaluation
of the operation, performance, and safety of the subject vehicles. Each
proposal should be accompanied by enough information to allow NHTSA to
interpret the proposed metrics or thresholds, as well as explain their
value and relevance to the applicable requirement. In Section V.A
(Reporting Requirements), NHTSA provides high-level examples of
potential terms for each of the proposed customized requirements.
The current state of ADS technology necessitates flexibility in
reporting certain subjects. Even so, these subjects represent important
safety considerations for any ADS operation. Establishing customized
terms would provide this necessary flexibility while ensuring
meaningful reporting. The proposed approach to customized requirements
would enable NHTSA to consider the value of these different types of
reporting metrics and thresholds across various participants.
B. Protocols for ADS Operations
Section 597.204 of the proposed rule would require applications to
explain two types of protocols critical to the safety of subject
vehicle operations. The first pertains to the ADS' compliance with
traffic safety laws and the second covers situations where an ADS is
unable to continue performing the driving task reliably. These
protocols both relate to how an ADS will execute roadway
responsibilities that may arise during an operation. Detailed
information regarding each of these topics in an application would
provide necessary context for the proposed reporting on these topics
that would occur during participation.\115\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\115\ See Section V.A (Reporting Requirements).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Law Abidance
Compliance with traffic safety laws and local requirements for
operating is a critical aspect of safety for ADS-equipped vehicles on
public roads. Section 597.204(a) of the proposed rule lists four
elements of information required in an application that would enable
NHTSA to consider an applicant's strategy for complying with Federal,
state, and local laws that apply to the subject vehicles or their
operations.
A response to this element would, at minimum, summarize how
applicable traffic safety laws are identified (including both initially
and during operations), describe how an ADS' compliance with traffic
safety laws is monitored,\116\ and describe any conditions under which
the design of the ADS may allow the subject vehicle to violate traffic
laws. A response would also need to summarize recognition, interaction,
and response strategies for emergency, law enforcement, and
construction vehicles, personnel, and equipment, as well as crossing
guards and other traffic control personnel. The response should cover
laws that explicitly address ADS-equipped vehicles as well as those
that apply to road users more broadly.\117\ NHTSA recognizes that in
some situations, temporary deviations from traffic safety laws may be
necessary to safely react to roadway conditions. Many traffic safety
laws specifically allow for such exigencies. The information provided
in response to this element is intended to help NHTSA understand the
ADS' approach to determining what behavior is appropriate in these
situations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\116\ As noted elsewhere by NHTSA, vehicle automation features
that contribute to behaviors that cause traffic violations can
constitute a motor vehicle defect. This has been demonstrated by
partial driving automation system recalls relating to such
incidents. See Tesla, Inc., ``Part 573 Safety Recall Report, Recall
No. 23V-085'' (February 15, 2023), available at <a href="https://static.nhtsa.gov/odi/rcl/2023/RCLRPT-23V085-3451.PDF">https://static.nhtsa.gov/odi/rcl/2023/RCLRPT-23V085-3451.PDF</a>.
\117\ A response to this element would not need to include
``unwritten rules of the road'' or ``implicit traffic rules,'' which
are phrases used within the industry to refer to behaviors
associated with good roadway citizenship that are not typically
defined by traffic laws. However, these concepts would likely be
relevant to other aspects of an application, such as certain claims
and evidence in the safety case that would be reviewed by an
independent assessment. For further discussion of these concepts,
see, e.g., Mobileye Technologies Ltd., ``The Unwritten Rules of the
Road, Codified in RSS'' (February 2023), available at <a href="https://www.mobileye.com/blog/responsibility-sensitive-safety-unwritten-rules-of-the-road/">https://www.mobileye.com/blog/responsibility-sensitive-safety-unwritten-rules-of-the-road/</a> and Aptiv et al., ``Safety First for Automated
Driving'' (2019), available at <a href="https://static.mobileye.com/website/corporate/media/Intel-Safety-First-for-Automated-Driving.pdf">https://static.mobileye.com/website/corporate/media/Intel-Safety-First-for-Automated-Driving.pdf</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
An applicant's response to this element should also describe a
vehicle's response plans for emergency, law enforcement, and other
traffic control interactions. In particular, this response would help
the agency evaluate how ADS technologies interact with first
responders. An ADS-equipped vehicle's behavior should be easily
anticipated and understood by these personnel during such
interactions.\118\ NHTSA would use this information to consider whether
the ADS may negatively affect safety-critical functions performed by
first responders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\118\ See AVSC, ``AVSC00005202012: Best Practice for First
Responder Interactions with Fleet-Managed Automated Driving System-
Dedicated Vehicles (ADS-DVs)'' (December 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 4146]]
2. System Fallback Response
Section 597.204(b) of the proposed rule would require an
application to explain protocols surrounding ADS failure scenarios. The
response of an ADS-equipped vehicle to these situations is varyingly
referred to as minimal risk maneuvers (MRMs), fallback strategy,
failsafe response, or other similar terms. For simplicity, this
proposal refers to the achievement of a minimal risk condition (MRC),
which is defined in the proposed rule as ``a stable, stopped condition
to which a user or an ADS may bring a vehicle after performing the DDT
fallback, including after a DDT takeover, to reduce the risk of a crash
when a given trip cannot or should not be continued.'' \119\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\119\ See Sec. 597.102 of the proposed rule. This proposed
definition is derived from SAE International's definition of an MRC:
``a stable, stopped condition to which a user or an ADS may bring a
vehicle after performing the DDT fallback in order to reduce the
risk of a crash when a given trip cannot or should not be
continued.'' SAE International, ``J3016 APR2021: Taxonomy and
Definitions for Terms Related to Driving Automation Systems for On-
Road Motor Vehicles,'' (Revised April 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NHTSA proposes to require an applicant to describe any system
fallback strategies or designs, as well as any protocols for their
execution or activation. A response to this element should describe any
MRCs that might be undertaken by the subject ADS. This description
should identify the circumstances under which each MRC would be
triggered, detail how MRMs to achieve each MRC would be initiated and
executed, and explain any protocols for the ADS following the
achievement of each MRC. An applicant should also explain the
engineering rationale for selecting each MRC and setting triggering
conditions for them.\120\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\120\ For example, do the trigger conditions fully capture any
feasible ODD exits, such as sudden weather changes?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, an applicant would need to provide an overview of any
other protocols associated with averting or achieving a minimal risk
condition. This response should focus on protocols that apply to
individuals who may interact with the vehicle rather than protocols
that are followed by the ADS. This would include any protocols for
providing input to the ADS or disengaging the ADS prior to or during an
MRM, resuming ADS driving following the achievement of an MRC, and
vehicle recovery. This information would provide NHTSA additional
context for the MRC strategies employed by an operation, such as the
role of any vehicle assistance or onboard test drivers and potential
impacts to traffic after an MRC is achieved.
To further understand these issues, NHTSA proposes to require a
response to this element to provide information about the personnel
responsible for each such protocol. This response should include the
role and number \121\ of responsible personnel and each such
personnel's: (1) responsibilities under the protocol, (2) physical
location when performing those responsibilities, (3) expected response
time in performing those responsibilities, (4) potential control
authority over the subject vehicle, (5) means of exercising that
control authority, and (6) any operational restrictions on the use of
that control authority. In addition to informing NHTSA's review of an
application, this information would contribute to the agency's
assessment, during operations that occur under an AV STEP
participation, of whether an ADS-equipped vehicle responded
appropriately after an incident occurred.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\121\ For example, a minimum number of personnel in a certain
role who would be available to respond relative to a given number of
subject vehicles operating on-road.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lastly, NHTSA proposes to require that an application describe any
protocols for vehicle immobilizations that occur without the
achievement of an MRC. This description could include protocols for
responding to a crash or a catastrophic vehicle failure that results in
a vehicle immobilization that the ADS did not initiate. For example, a
vehicle could coast to a stop after loss of all motive power.
3. User and Surrounding Road User Interactions
This section of an application is intended to consider the safety
of members of the public who may interact with the vehicles that are
the subject of an application. Section 597.204(c) of the proposed rule
would require that an application include an overview of any design and
process measures that are in place to facilitate safe and predictable
interactions with members of the public. This element does not include
the inherent functionality of the ADS, such as the object and event
detection and response (OEDR) involved in avoiding collisions. Although
that ADS functionality is, of course, crucial to the safety of both
occupants and surrounding road users, an application would need to
cover it separately in response to the independent assessment
requirements in Section IV.D (Independent Assessment).
To focus the information provided in response to this element, the
proposed rule contains four sub-elements of required information. The
first three relate to communication and behavioral strategies for
promoting safe and predictable interactions with the subject vehicle.
NHTSA considers such predictability an important aspect of ADS safety.
Through ADS crash reporting, NHTSA has observed incidents in which the
unexpected behavior of an ADS-equipped vehicle may have contributed to
a collision even when the ADS was operating as intended. The following
are the sub-elements relating to communication and behavioral
strategies:
<bullet> Any communication strategies to convey information to
individuals outside of a subject ADS-equipped vehicle, including
individuals with physical, sensory, and cognitive disabilities;
<bullet> Any measures to promote the predictability of the ADS'
behavior for other road users in the vicinity of the subject vehicle.
This response should include information about how the ADS accounts for
``unwritten rules of the road'' or ``roadmanship.'' \122\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\122\ See, e.g., Fraade-Blanar, Laura, Marjory S. Blumenthal,
James M. Anderson, and Nidhi Kalra, ``Measuring Automated Vehicle
Safety: Forging a Framework. Santa Monica,'' CA: RAND Corporation
(2018), available at <a href="https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR2662.html">https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR2662.html</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
<bullet> Any communication strategies for non-operator occupants of
the subject ADS-equipped vehicle. This disclosure would be expected to
encompass the communication of safety information or the availability
of safety controls to occupants of the subject vehicles who are not
operators. Examples of responses to this sub-element could include a
system's logic for communicating with occupants about whether they are
wearing a seat belt during a trip or ways in which a passenger could
initiate an emergency stop.\123\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\123\ See AVSC, ``AVSC00003202006: Best Practice for Passenger-
Initiated Emergency Trip Interruption'' (June 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NHTSA also proposes a fourth sub-element, which would focus on the
applicant's approach to ensuring safe and predictable interactions for
passengers with disabilities. An application would need to include
information in response to this fourth sub-element regarding the
response to the Operational Baseline question about accessibility of
subject vehicles containing features or design modifications that are
intended to promote the safe accommodation of passengers with
disabilities. NHTSA proposes for this sub-element to cover:
<bullet> Any features or design modifications that are intended to
promote safe accommodation of passengers with disabilities. Information
[[Page 4147]]
provided in response to this sub-element should describe how, under
this design, passengers with physical, sensory, and cognitive
disabilities--including passengers who use wheelchairs and other
mobility equipment--would safely locate and enter the vehicle, secure
themselves and any mobility equipment, input information, interact with
the ADS in routine and emergency situations, communicate with any
support personnel in such situations, and exit the vehicle.
Promoting the safety of passengers with disabilities is critical
for ADS-equipped vehicles to reach their full potential for improving
accessible options for mobility. The availability of ADS-equipped
vehicles with effective accessibility features would enable greater
choice, independence, and access to needed transportation for people
with physical, sensory, and cognitive disabilities, as well as others
whose current transportation options are limited, such as older adults.
However, these benefits cannot be realized without intentional
inclusive design choices that consider the needs of such individuals.
NHTSA requests comment on this approach to considering the safety of
accessible design choices, as well as whether any safety data specific
to the experience of passengers with disabilities should be collected
as part of AV STEP and how it could inform the program.
C. Data Governance Plan
ADS-equipped vehicles depend on an array of sensors, computer
systems, and electronic communications. These technologies introduce
cyber risks. To promote good cybersecurity practices for modern
vehicles, NHTSA has embraced a multi-faceted approach that leverages
industry consensus standards \124\ and encourages industry to adopt
practices that improve the cybersecurity posture of their vehicles.
NHTSA has also issued voluntary guidance on cybersecurity best
practices for all motor vehicles.\125\ The agency requests comment on
how participants should validate to NHTSA that they have taken the
proper precautions in evaluating and mitigating cyber risks associated
with ADS operations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\124\ See Section IV.D.1.a) (Conformance with Industry
Standards).
\125\ NHTSA, ``Cybersecurity Best Practices for the Safety of
Modern Vehicles'' (September 2022), available at <a href="https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.gov/files/2022-09/cybersecurity-best-practices-safety-modern-vehicles-2022-tag.pdf">https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.gov/files/2022-09/cybersecurity-best-practices-safety-modern-vehicles-2022-tag.pdf</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While NHTSA is not proposing that participations meet specific
cybersecurity standards, this section proposes to require that an
application contain a governance plan for data relevant to AV STEP.
This plan would outline the applicant's processes for managing the data
to ensure its integrity and security. Participants would need a
continuous stream of reliable data to responsibly monitor the safety of
their ADS operations and comply with the proposed reporting
requirements for AV STEP.\126\ NHTSA requests comment on seven
potential subjects for the data management plan, listed in Sec.
597.207 of the proposed rule.\127\ In general, these subjects consider
organizational processes, including any safeguards or shared
responsibilities for operations in which data are available to multiple
stakeholders or jointly managed. These seven subjects are listed below,
accompanied by a description of the expected level of detail: \128\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\126\ Subpart E of the proposed rule outlines required data
reporting during participation.
\127\ These subjects would supplement the data logging
information that would be required for an application under Sec.
597.201(f) of the proposed rule, as discussed in Section IV.A.1
(Operational Baseline).
\128\ NHTSA expects that some applications may jointly respond
to some of these subjects if information responsive to one is also
responsive to others.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A top-level accountability and management process for the data
governance plan, including a description of the applicable positions
and roles. An explanation of the relevant processes for each
stakeholder that generates or accesses the data,\129\ including the
titles and responsibilities of key individuals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\129\ Such as an ADS developer and fleet operator for operations
in which these are different entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Access control mechanisms to maintain data security and privacy.
Training or procedures for granting data access, the means of
authenticating such access, and anonymization processes--particularly
to the extent they may impact the safety value of the data. This
disclosure should include information regarding the protections in
place for both onboard vehicle data logging and physical or wireless
data transmission.
Processes for maintaining data quality and integrity. Detection and
correction of data corruption and data processing errors.
Monitoring and enforcement mechanisms for adherence to the plan.
How applicants would oversee the governance plan, such as through
automated mechanisms or spot-checking, to ensure that the plan is
followed.
Procedures for identifying and responding to incidents that
compromise data security or integrity. How the responsible parties
would recognize that an incident has occurred \130\ and react to it,
including monitoring for and responding to cybersecurity incidents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\130\ Including, for instance, if an applicant has a process for
quantifying a level of confidence that an incident would be
identified, a response to this element could describe those
calculations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Risk management strategies for mitigating internal and external
data-related risks, including cybersecurity risks. Risk management
strategies not already addressed by other elements in this subsection,
such as data backup protocols.
A list of any published industry standards, guidance, or best
practices with which the plan conforms. This element does not propose
to prescribe standards to which a process must conform. However, if an
applicant claims conformance with any standards, those standards would
need to be identified in response to this element.\131\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\131\ While many potentially relevant standards exist, one
example of such a standard is the International Organization for
Standardization's road vehicle standard: ``Safety and Cybersecurity
for Automated Driving Systems--Design, Verification and
Validation.'' (2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. Independent Assessment
NHTSA proposes to require that AV STEP applications contain
assessments conducted by an independent third party. The independent
assessment requirements are proposed to enhance the efficiency and
efficacy of NHTSA's review. An assessment from a third party with
expertise in the subject technologies would provide value to this
process. In rapidly evolving technology fields, such as ADS,
independent assessments provide an opportunity for the oversight of
such technologies to remain agile and adapt with the changing state of
the art, while also more efficiently managing voluminous data.\132\ The
ADS technologies in AV STEP applications would be complex, technically
specialized, and accompanied by extensive documentation. An independent
assessor's review would streamline NHTSA's review by pinpointing
important aspects of a system and add a neutral perspective on
[[Page 4148]]
an applicant's claims. In addition, the proposed assessments would
provide NHTSA with insight into the value of different third-party ADS
review methodologies and subject matters.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\132\ Outside of the automotive industry, independent
assessments have long existed as standard practice for sophisticated
technologies, such as software systems. For instance, industry
standards and best practices for third-party audits of software
systems have been in place for decades and provide routine and
pivotal support for many aspects of software development. See, e.g.,
Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, ``IEEE 1028-2008:
IEEE Standard for Software Reviews and Audits'' (August 2008);
International Organization for Standardization, ``ISO/IEC
20246:2017: Software and systems engineering--Work product reviews''
(February 2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
These assessments would be informative but not determinative. A
favorable assessment would not necessarily lead to admission into AV
STEP. Instead, NHTSA would consider the perspective provided by an
assessment along with the full context of the other application
materials. This role resembles NHTSA's engagement with third parties in
other oversight activities.\133\ Likewise, the automotive industry
often uses third parties to assess vehicle design or corporate
processes. The proposed assessment for AV STEP builds on these
practices.\134\ NHTSA seeks comment on the proposed independent
assessment, particularly regarding the scope, timing, and logistics of
reviews and assessor qualification requirements and disclosures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\133\ Examples include third parties performing failure analyses
in defects investigations, contractors adding specialized expertise
in vehicle testing, and independent monitors promoting
accountability in regulatory compliance oversight.
\134\ See, e.g., Pete Bigelow, ``Self-driving tech companies
take a hard look at their own blind spots, Automotive News,''
(October 14, 2024), available at <a href="https://www.autonews.com/mobility-report/autonomous-driving-companies-seek-independent-safety-reviews/">https://www.autonews.com/mobility-report/autonomous-driving-companies-seek-independent-safety-reviews/</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Focus of Independent Assessment
AV STEP proposes a comprehensive independent assessment of the
subject vehicles, which would encompass an applicant's holistic
approach to vehicle safety. This assessment would consider the full
extent of ADS operations requested in an application. The proposed rule
organizes this assessment around three subjects: (a) conformance with
relevant industry standards, best practices, and guidance; (b) a safety
case, including safety management systems; and (c) specific policies
and capabilities.
NHTSA proposes to apply the same independent assessment
requirements for applications requesting participation under Step 1 and
Step 2. However, an independent assessment at Step 2 would need to be
more rigorous because it would need to consider whether the ADS could
be exclusively relied on during operations. In contrast, an independent
assessment at Step 1 could consider the fallback personnel's ability to
mitigate certain risks rather than fully reviewing the ADS' ability to
address those risks. For instance, a review of a Step 1 safety case
could consider safety claims to be satisfied by fallback personnel even
if the evidence available for the ADS would not support those claims.
In contrast, at Step 2, an ADS would be solely responsible for the DDT
within its ODD, and the independent assessment would need to reflect
these heightened expectations.
(a) Conformance With Industry Standards
First, NHTSA proposes to require third-party review of the
conformance of subject vehicles with relevant industry standards, best
practices, and guidance pertaining to the design, development, or
operation of the ADS.\135\ Industry standards are established through
consensus processes in which a written standard is refined by the
collective contributions of members of the standard-setting bodies, who
possess substantial expertise. Industry standards conformance provides
valuable insight into safety design and the extent to which applicants
adopt state-of-the-art practices. Considering industry standards
conformance also aligns with the goals of the National Technology
Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA).\136\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\135\ While not all best practices or guidance may be considered
``standards,'' for simplicity, they are collectively referred to as
``standards'' or ``industry standards'' hereafter.
\136\ See Public Law 104-113 (1996).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the conformance review, an independent assessment would need to
consider which industry standards are relevant to the ADS under review.
Because the relevant standards will likely differ based on the system
in question and the standards used by a manufacturer during the
development process, NHTSA is not currently proposing to prescribe
particular standards with which conformity is required. This
flexibility accounts for the current early stage of industry standards
pertaining to ADS, which continue to evolve along with the
technologies. A variety of standards currently exist, with the
approaches of some standards overlapping or conflicting with others.
Affording an assessor the flexibility to identify the most relevant
standards in place at the time of the assessment would allow the
assessment to adapt to the ADS safety community's prevailing views on
safety approaches and best practices.
For the standards identified as relevant, the independent
assessment would need to determine full conformance, partial
conformance, or nonconformance with each standard. If an entity had
previously obtained an independent assessment for a standard (such as
for an applicant's internal purposes), NHTSA anticipates that a third
party conducting an assessment for AV STEP could consider this prior
review instead of re-assessing to the standard. To do so, the third-
party assessor for AV STEP would need to verify the approach, results,
and continued applicability of the prior assessment.
For each standard with which partial conformance or nonconformance
is determined, an assessor would also need to assess any justification
provided by an applicant for not conforming with the standard or
portion of the standard and consider any potential safety implications
of the nonconformances. If a third-party reviewer's reasoning for not
assessing conformance with a published industry standard relies upon an
alternative standard,\137\ the reviewer should assess conformance with
the alternative standard and explain how the two standards compare.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\137\ This alternative standard could include a standard used in
the entity's development process, such as a company-specific
standard, in lieu of a comparable published standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, the independent assessment would need to evaluate
whether, collectively, the degree of conformance with relevant
standards represents a responsible approach to developing and operating
the subject vehicles. Despite the evolving landscape of industry
standards, understanding how an ADS conforms to industry standards in
the aggregate would help NHTSA ascertain the level of due diligence
applied to the system's development. Disregarding industry standards
without carefully considering how the safety goals of those standards
could be met may be indicative of whether the system was developed in a
responsible way that reflects state-of-the-art safety practices for
ADS.
Finally, to inform how the assessed approach to industry standards
should shape any further development of the system, an assessor would
also need to provide recommendations regarding: (1) the list of
industry standards with which conformance should, in full or in part,
be achieved or maintained during operations; and (2) how to address any
safety gaps that would not be covered even if this recommended
conformance was met. Collectively, the recommendations regarding these
two subjects would help NHTSA consider the practical impacts of the
reviewed approach to industry standards.
(b) Safety Case
The second subject for which NHTSA proposes to require an
independent assessment is the safety case \138\
[[Page 4149]]
detailing how the safety of the subject vehicle, including the safety
of the vehicle's occupants and surrounding road users, is assured for
the operations requested in an application. Many diverse stakeholders
have generally encouraged the agency to consider such safety cases for
ADS. For example, in response to NHTSA's 2020 ``Framework for ADS
Safety'' Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM),\139\ a wide
variety of organizations--including consumer advocacy groups,\140\ ADS
developers,\141\ and local authorities \142\--advocated for NHTSA to
collect and review safety cases. Such comments informed the safety case
review requirements that NHTSA proposes in this subsection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\138\ This proposal defines a safety case as ``a structured
argument, consisting of claims supported by a body of evidence, that
provides a complete, comprehensible, and valid case that a system is
acceptably safe for a given use in a specified environment.'' See
Sec. 597.102 of the proposed rule.
\139\ 85 FR 78058 (December 3, 2020).
\140\ Center for Automotive Safety, Docket No. NHTSA-2020-0106,
Comment ID NHTSA-2020-0106-0763 (April 2, 2021), available at
<a href="https://www.regulations.gov/comment/NHTSA-2020-0106-0763">https://www.regulations.gov/comment/NHTSA-2020-0106-0763</a>.
\141\ Waymo, Docket No. NHTSA-2020-0106-0771 (April 28, 2021),
available at <a href="https://www.regulations.gov/comment/NHTSA-2020-0106-0771">https://www.regulations.gov/comment/NHTSA-2020-0106-0771</a>.
\142\ City of New York, Docket No. NHTSA-2020-0106-0764 (April
2, 2021), available at <a href="https://www.regulations.gov/comment/NHTSA-2020-0106-0764">https://www.regulations.gov/comment/NHTSA-2020-0106-0764</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In general, an independent assessment of an applicant's safety case
would be required to review the validity and soundness of the safety
case. This review would entail considering whether the safety case
claims for the operations of the subject vehicle are supported by
sufficient evidence, as well as whether appropriate processes exist for
maintaining the safety case throughout the operations. Where a
standardized safety case framework has been adopted,\143\ or where
conformance with industry standards supports safety case claims, this
safety case assessment could incorporate the industry standards
assessment described in the prior subsection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\143\ Such as that published by the UL Standards and Engagement
organization: American National Standards Institute (ANSI), ``UL
Standard ANSI/UL4600: Standard for Evaluation of Autonomous
Products:'' (March 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As with industry standards for ADS more generally, standardized
safety case frameworks for ADS have not yet been universally adopted. A
variety of approaches to arguing the safety of ADS design and
operations are currently used across the ADS safety community. NHTSA
currently prefers to encourage the evolution of these different
approaches so that their maximum potential benefit can be realized.
This proposal does not prescribe a specific format for safety cases.
However, to mitigate the potential for variability in safety cases,
NHTSA proposes to require assessment of a set of minimum considerations
fundamental to operational safety.
Specifically, the proposed rule would require detailed analysis for
these nine aspects of a safety case:
Safety Risk Assessment. Whether the safety case comprehensively
identifies and assesses safety risks, including potential vehicle and
operational hazards and faults.
Safety Risk Management. Whether the safety case contains
appropriate risk management, including mitigations, for the risks
identified.
System Evolution. Whether the safety case contains appropriate
processes for maintaining or improving safety over time.
Safety Performance Indicators. Whether the safety case relies on
appropriate safety performance indicators and thresholds.
Conformance with Traffic Safety Law. Whether appropriate processes
exist for identifying applicable traffic safety laws in an area of
operation and overseeing their conformance during operations.
Vehicle Fallback and Assistance. Whether the safety case contains
appropriate processes for ensuring the effectiveness of any expected
fallback or vehicle assistance.
Human Factors. Whether the safety case appropriately accounts for
human factors considerations that may affect safety, including, where
applicable, those related to fallback personnel, vehicle assistance,
vehicle occupants, or surrounding road users.
Crash Avoidance. Whether the safety case appropriately identifies
and considers the variety of crash-imminent situations that could occur
within the operations.\144\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\144\ This should cover the full extent of potential crash
circumstances within the system's ODD, including the full range of
environmental conditions, such as poor lighting or adverse weather
conditions, as well as the full range of other road users that a
subject vehicle could encounter, such as those using mobility aids
or those with sensory impairments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tool Qualification.\145\ Whether software tools used to evaluate
expected ADS performance are representative and accurate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\145\ For further discussion of tool qualification, particularly
with regards to summarizing the tool qualification approaches
outlined by industry consensus standards, including ISO 26262, see,
e.g., M. Conrad, G. Sandmann, and P. Munier, ``Software Tool
Qualification According to ISO 26262'' (April 2011), available at
<a href="https://www.mathworks.com/content/dam/mathworks/tag-team/Objects/s/68068-2011-01-1005-mathworks.pdf">https://www.mathworks.com/content/dam/mathworks/tag-team/Objects/s/68068-2011-01-1005-mathworks.pdf</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
These nine aspects of the safety case review would probe the
robustness of the analytical framework used to develop and oversee the
ADS. In addition, NHTSA proposes for an assessment of the safety case
to further evaluate the safety processes that govern such development
and oversight by also including a review of the safety management
systems \146\ in place to oversee the safety of subject vehicles,
including during development and operations. This review should focus
on the organizations responsible for the safety of operations involving
the subject vehicles, including any Essential System-Level Stakeholders
that would remain engaged with an operation during AV STEP
participation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\146\ See, e.g., AVSC, ``AVSC00007202107: Information Report for
Adapting a Safety Management System (SMS) for Automated Driving
System (ADS) SAE Level 4 and 5 Testing and Evaluation'' (July 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As with the prior elements, NHTSA is not prescribing a specific
type of safety management system for this requirement but, instead,
proposes eight elements for the required review:
<bullet> Whether the leadership fosters a positive safety culture
and demonstrates a safety commitment throughout the organization. This
element focuses on how leadership support for safety management
policies may affect their use in the organization. For instance, if
leadership prioritizes achieving development milestones in a way that
tacitly discourages internal reporting of safety concerns, internal
reporting policies that read well may not be followed in practice. Such
policies are more likely to reach their full potential if leadership
rewards identifying and resolving safety issues early.
<bullet> Whether those responsible for the implementation of the
safety management systems possess appropriate resources, authorities,
and accountability. This element would include considerations that
affect the responsibilities of the workforce that would oversee safe
ADS operations. A review under this element may span working
conditions, such as work intensity, fatigue risk, shift length, length
between shifts, and human-to-vehicle ratios for fallback or vehicle
assistance personnel.
<bullet> Whether there are appropriate policies and processes for
encouraging the reporting and timely investigation of safety-related
concerns from internal staff and members of the public.
<bullet> Whether appropriate capabilities and policies exist for
monitoring the location and state of each participating vehicle.
<bullet> Whether appropriate processes exist to monitor safety
performance indicators.
[[Page 4150]]
<bullet> Whether sufficient capabilities and policies exist for
timely responding to a vehicle incident or immobilization and, if
necessary, to clear a disabled vehicle from the roadway. This review
must estimate a range of time for an expected response.
<bullet> Whether an appropriate plan exists for reaching timely
decisions regarding future operations if an emergency arises. For
instance, this element should consider the decision-making processes
for determining when and how operations should be curtailed or paused
after an incident.
<bullet> Whether there are appropriate processes in place for how
Essential System-Level Stakeholders will engage with each other
regarding ongoing operations, including for carrying out software
updates, operational updates, vehicle maintenance, and the collection
and reporting of safety data.
Collectively, these two focuses of a safety case assessment would
provide insight into whether robust safety assurance frameworks exist
for the public operation of subject vehicles and whether sufficient
organizational support underpins those frameworks.
(c) Policies and Capabilities
Finally, NHTSA proposes to require an independent assessment to
cover three other topics. Each of these topics may already be covered
by a comprehensive safety case or by industry standards conformance. If
so, to the extent an assessment already reviewed these topics, it could
be incorporated in satisfying these requirements. However, the proposed
rule separately enumerates the following topics to ensure that they
would be covered by an assessment:
Community Engagement. Whether policies for engaging with state and
local authorities, local communities, and other entities affected by
the subject vehicle's operation are sufficiently robust to identify the
relevant stakeholders, provide them with appropriate information
regarding operations, engage with them about concerns, and meaningfully
address those concerns as needed. These relevant stakeholders may range
from law enforcement, first responders, and local regulatory
authorities to labor organizations representing the transportation
workforce to residents that live in the area in which the subject
vehicles would operate. The appropriate engagement processes likely
depend on the stakeholders and operations in question. However,
examples of potentially effective engagement strategies from NHTSA's
past experience administering ADS exemptions in AVEP include town halls
hosted by an ADS developer to allow members of the community to express
their views on local operations, demonstrations with local law
enforcement of how to interact with the vehicle during an emergency
situation, and coordination with local officials and law enforcement
about how proposed operations may affect local traffic patterns.
Training and Qualifications of Personnel. Whether the personnel
responsible for developing and maintaining the safety case or executing
safety critical processes possess appropriate qualifications and
training. This should include consideration of training procedures and
materials used, on both an initial and ongoing basis. ADS-equipped
vehicles rely, and are expected to continue to rely, on a skilled human
workforce. Working conditions and training are a key component of
achieving safe ADS operations. To help the agency explore the potential
scope of information that a review of this element should cover, NHTSA
requests comment on the following topics pertaining to how workforce
considerations may affect ADS safety: (1) what data could participants
in AV STEP provide to further the Department's understanding of
impacts, both positive and negative, to the safety of the
transportation workforce; and (2) what data could participants in AV
STEP provide regarding safety-promoting working conditions, including
training, certifications, workplace location, shift length, and
workload, for both vehicle assistance and fallback personnel?
Data Capture. Whether the data capture capabilities for the subject
vehicle suffice to meet the data reporting requirements in AV
STEP.\147\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\147\ This aspect of an assessment would focus on the data
logging capabilities of the vehicle and their ability to support the
requirements detailed in Subpart E of the proposed rule. It would
not necessarily need to cover the data governance plan information
described earlier in this section.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Summary Report Requirements
NHTSA proposes to require that information regarding an assessment
be submitted in an application in the form of a summary report prepared
by the independent assessor. NHTSA is not proposing a particular
format, as the specific subjects under assessment will likely impact
the optimal format. However, for each subject an assessment is required
to review, a summary report would need to provide an overview of the
assessor's findings and the basis for each finding.
A report would also be required to provide an overview of how these
findings were made. To do so, a report would describe the materials
reviewed during the assessment, such as by outlining the material and
the means of review. A report would also describe the process and
format of the review. For instance, this description could include
information regarding the review approach (such as analysis methods and
tools or in-person meetings and reviews) and the procedures used to
structure the review (such as procedures for identifying relevant
standards or reviewing the safety case). A report would further
describe the methods used to identify potential inconsistencies, gaps,
logical fallacies, or other concerns about the information provided for
review. And to help understand how the assessment was overseen, a
report would describe any processes in place to manage the assessment.
The proposed rule lists two additional aspects of an assessment
that would be addressed in a summary report to help NHTSA consider how
the findings of the assessment translate to the agency's review of the
operations requested in an application. First, the report would need to
provide an overview of any concerns identified during an assessment,
including all recommendations made to the applicant(s) regarding those
concerns.\148\ Second, the report would define the parameters under
which the assessment and its conclusions are valid. This overview
should account for potential future changes to operations, system
design, or processes for which the assessment would remain valid. The
overview should also explain any limitations or qualifiers to the
conclusions of the assessment. This information would help NHTSA to
consider whether any changes to an operation during participation
exceeded the scope of a prior assessment.\149\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\148\ This information would help NHTSA evaluate the extent to
which an applicant sought to implement an assessor's feedback when
reviewing an applicant's response to the information required under
Sec. 597.205(e) of the proposed rule.
\149\ Section V.A.3 (Update Reporting) and Sec. 597.502 of the
proposed rule describe how changes to an operation would be
overseen.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lastly, a report would need to describe any access restrictions
that limited the assessment.\150\ This information, along with the
context information submitted by an applicant under the next
subsection, would help NHTSA gauge whether any procedural
[[Page 4151]]
difficulties may have impacted the assessment's informative value.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\150\ For example, if an applicant refused to make certain
documentation or data available to the assessor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Assessment Context Requirements
NHTSA proposes to require an applicant to submit additional
information about the broader context of the independent assessment.
The proposed rule focuses on two topics for this context. First, an
applicant would need to explain any measures taken in response to each
of the recommendations listed in the independent assessment summary
report. To explain these measures, an applicant would likely need to
not only describe the changes made but also explain how they were
responsive to the recommendations. In addition, this element would
provide an applicant with an opportunity to explain the reasoning for
not following any recommendations.
Second, the applicant would need to describe any other independent
assessments initiated for the subjects required of an AV STEP
assessment.\151\ This information would inform whether an applicant
engaged in forum shopping for a favorable assessment. For instance,
this element would reveal if an assessment submitted in an application
replaced a less favorable assessment or if an assessment was terminated
early to avoid unfavorable findings. This information would help inform
the credibility of the conclusions in an assessment submitted under AV
STEP. For instance, if an assessment submitted under AV STEP was
favorable to an applicant but the applicant prematurely terminated a
prior assessment to avoid unfavorable findings, that context could
raise questions about the credibility of the completed assessment.
Nevertheless, NHTSA recognizes that there may be good faith reasons to
terminate, replace, or update a prior assessment. To account for this
possibility, NHTSA proposes to require the disclosure of information
about the prior assessments but is not proposing to automatically
disqualify assessments that were preceded by other assessments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\151\ Section 597.205(e) of the proposed rule explains the
specific content that would be required for this description.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Reliability and Credibility Disclosures
To help NHTSA consider the informative value of an assessment, an
application would need to contain information about the reliability and
credibility of the assessor. This information would focus on the
assessor's independence, qualifications, and resources.
(a) Assessor Qualifications and Resources
NHTSA proposes to require that an assessment be conducted by a
qualified assessor with adequate resources. The proposed rule would
require an assessment to be carried out by an assessor (including its
personnel) with suitable education, technical expertise, experience,
and accreditations. The relevant qualifications would depend on the
technical fields implicated by the analyses undertaken in each
assessment. In addition, an assessor would need to maintain appropriate
policies and practices for conducting and organizing an assessment.
This requirement would ensure that reviewers apply their expertise in a
structured and consistent manner, such as through standard procedures
for completing and supervising assessments. Finally, assessors would
need to maintain appropriate facilities and resources for the
assessments. These could include physical facilities and resources as
well as software capabilities.
An application would need to contain supporting information
regarding these attributes. Specifically, the proposed rule would
require the submission of the curriculum vitae of key personnel
involved in the assessment, any accreditations relevant to the review,
and a description of all policies or protocols that governed the
assessment. NHTSA may ask for additional information about the assessor
as part of the review process.
(b) Assessor Independence
The informative value of an independent assessment depends upon the
assessor retaining independence to objectively apply its expertise. To
that end, Sec. 597.205(f) of the proposed rule would address two types
of conflicts of interest: (1) disqualifying conflicts; and (2)
potential conflicts for which disclosure is required. Even so, the
conflict-of-interest situations expressly listed in the proposed rule
may not be exhaustive.\152\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\152\ Other agencies have acknowledged this limitation when
considering third-party reviews for their own programs. For example,
the Food and Drug Administration has stated that: it is not feasible
to identify or state categorically or inflexibly all of the criteria
for judging that a third party is free of conflicts of interest. 61
FR 14789, 14794 (April 3, 1996).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
When conducting a case-by-case review of the credibility of
assessments under this program, NHTSA would consider any other
indication of a conflict of interest that may appear. The proposed
requirements would provide a foundation for this inquiry. As an
additional safeguard, NHTSA proposes to require each application
submitted for AV STEP to contain a certification from the assessor that
the assessment represents the assessor's independent judgment and that
none of the disqualifying conflicts of interest discussed in the next
paragraph exist.
NHTSA proposes to consider three situations as causing such a
significant risk of bias that the assessment would not fulfill AV
STEP's independent assessment requirements. The first such situation is
if an assessor \153\ is owned, operated, or controlled (directly or
indirectly) by a party with a financial interest in a particular
disposition of the application. The most common example of this
situation would likely be full or partial ownership by an Essential
System-Level Stakeholder or one of its subsidiaries,\154\ but this
situation could also arise through grants or other types of funding.
The second disqualifying situation is if an assessor has any ownership
or financial interest in an interested party to the application. An
assessor that is an investor in an Essential-System Level Stakeholder
would be one example of this second situation.\155\ The third situation
is if the fee structure for an assessment depends in any way on the
outcome of the assessment or application. This situation could include
a fee structure contingent on admission into AV STEP or on the
submission of an application that includes the proposed assessment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\153\ As proposed, the assessor in these situations would also
include any personnel or contractors used by the assessor for the
review.
\154\ NHTSA understands that some companies have internal
auditing organizations. This requirement would preclude those
organizations from conducting an independent assessment for AV STEP.
Nevertheless, NHTSA recognizes the value that internal auditing
practices can add and expects those practices to reflect positively
on the safety management systems under review in an assessment.
\155\ This requirement is not meant to prohibit de minimis or
sufficiently diversified interests. Cf. 28 U.S.C. 208; 5 CFR part
2640.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Even if an assessor does not have one of these disqualifying
conflicts, an assessment's objectivity could be compromised by an
assessor's history with the subjects under review. The proposed rule
expressly lists two such situations: (1) if an assessor participated in
the design, manufacture, or distribution of a product; \156\ or (2) if
an assessor was otherwise separately engaged in the development of a
project within the scope of the assessment.\157\ \158\ In either of
these two
[[Page 4152]]
types of situations, an assessor's judgment may be clouded by a direct
stake in some of the decisions under review. However, given the nuances
of these scenarios and the possibility that potential bias could be
mitigated, NHTSA is not proposing to categorically disqualify an
assessment where these circumstances exist. Instead, NHTSA proposes to
require disclosure to allow the agency to consider how they affected
the credibility of the assessment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\156\ An assessor that previously conducted internal reviews for
a company during the ADS design process would be an example of this
first situation.
\157\ An example of this second situation could involve an
entity that, before conducting an assessment, was engaged to help
shape the project that is the subject of the request, such as by
reviewing and recommending locations for operations.
\158\ Neither of these scenarios is meant to cover situations
where the recommendations of an assessor during an assessment for AV
STEP leads to changes in the product or proposed operation. NHTSA
specifically encourages such recommendations and requests
information about them in an application. See Sec. Sec. 597.205(c)
and 597.205(f) of the proposed rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
E. Application Review
The proposed AV STEP application review is a three-phase process
that considers the unique facts and circumstances of each request.
NHTSA would consider the totality of the information available when
issuing a Final Determination Letter governing the terms of
participation.
Individualized review is necessary to account for the intricacies
of each ADS and the operations that may be requested. The safety of the
ADS depends on the full context of an operation. The relevant safety
considerations for ADS are often as varied as the driving tasks that an
ADS seeks to perform. Nuances of an operation--such as the time a
nearby school dismisses students or how a system accounts for seasonal
changes in vegetation--can meaningfully affect the risk of an
operation. For these reasons, NHTSA proposes a review process that
allows the agency to consider the most relevant aspects of each
operation.
The proposed procedures are also intended to expedite review.
Reviews of ADS are complex and data-intensive. Aspects of the proposal,
including the independent assessment and other upfront submission
requirements, are specifically designed to enable efficient and
transparent review.\159\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\159\ As discussed in Section VI (Public Reporting Requirements
(Regulatory Text Subpart G)), NHTSA proposes to publish the dates on
which an application was received, progressed through each review
phase, and reached a final decision. This will enable stakeholders
and the public to observe the typical timing for an application
review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NHTSA proposes three review phases: Initial Review (Phase 1);
Follow-up Review (Phase 2); and Preliminary Determination (Phase 3).
The first phase would immediately follow the submission of an
application. NHTSA would provide each applicant with a notice of
receipt of the application, which would identify an agency point of
contact for the review and advise whether any required information
appeared to be missing from the application. During Phase 1, NHTSA
would likely schedule introductory meetings with the applicant(s) and
any entities that performed an independent assessment.\160\ NHTSA would
focus on understanding the request and identifying any follow-up items.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\160\ Section 597.106(b) of the proposed rule would establish,
as a condition of the program, NHTSA's ability to communicate freely
and without restriction with any entity that performed an
independent assessment submitted as part of an application.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The second review phase would begin with NHTSA's issuance of a
Follow-Up Index to an applicant, identifying items for which NHTSA
requests additional information. Follow-up may involve either
discussions or a written response and may be iterative. The extent of
this engagement would depend on the breadth of follow-up required and
the completeness and timeliness of an applicant's responses.
After all follow-up has been addressed, NHTSA would initiate Phase
3 of the review process by issuing a proposed decision (``Preliminary
Determination'') to the applicant(s). This Preliminary Determination
would contain the terms and conditions proposed to govern
participation. Providing proposed conditions to applicants would
facilitate resolving or mitigating any problems before a final decision
is issued. For instance, an applicant might be able to eliminate the
need for a condition by curing or clarifying an issue. Similarly,
providing an applicant with the opportunity to review the conditions up
front would encourage dialogue about refinements that could accomplish
the agency's goals in a less burdensome or more technically feasible
way.
Section 597.403 of the proposed rule would establish a consistent
set of considerations for NHTSA when selecting terms and conditions.
Specifically, NHTSA would evaluate the extent to which any required
reports may further NHTSA's understanding of a vehicle's performance,
operations, or ADS; the feasibility of analyzing any reported
information; and the extent to which the terms and conditions are
consistent with motor vehicle safety and further the purposes of 49
U.S.C. 30101.
During the application review process, NHTSA would assess an
applicant's proposed metrics and thresholds and develop terms for each
customized requirement, as discussed above. NHTSA would consider the
extent to which the proposed terms fulfill the required subject of
reporting and their anticipated value for overseeing the subject
vehicle. This consideration would balance the need for consistent
reporting subjects with the reality that many safety topics for ADS
currently lack established approaches to judging performance. Different
entities currently use a variety of metrics to measure the safety of
certain subjects, and the differences among stakeholders' systems and
approaches may cause some metrics to be more informative for some
systems than others.
Under the proposed procedures, on the tenth business day after
issuing a preliminary determination, NHTSA would generally issue a
final decision that adopts the proposed terms.\161\ This timeline would
be extended if any applicant requests, in writing, additional time or a
change to a Preliminary Determination.\162\ Upon such a request, any
necessary next steps for an application would be determined on a case-
by-case basis. To limit this process and enable timely determinations,
unless NHTSA has granted a longer extension request, NHTSA may finalize
any Preliminary Determination that has been pending for 60 days even if
an applicant continues to request changes. The agency expects that it
would likely consider extension requests for longer than 60 days for
applicants seeking, in good faith, to resolve outstanding issues.
However, this 60-day timeframe provides a backstop that would ensure
efficient use of agency resources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\161\ The proposed procedures would allow NHTSA to withdraw a
[…truncated; see source link]Indexed from Federal Register on January 15, 2025.
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.