Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 12 / Thursday, January 18, 2018 / Proposed Rules 2607 

Dated: January 11, 2018. 

Michael D. Emerson, 

Director, Marine Transportation Systems, 

U.S. Coast Guard. 

[FR Doc. 2018–00781 Filed 1–17–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

49 CFR Part 571 

[Docket No. NHTSA–2018–0009] 

Removing Regulatory Barriers for 

Vehicles With Automated Driving 

Systems 

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration (NHTSA), 

Department of Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Request for comment (RFC). 

SUMMARY: NHTSA seeks public 

comments to identify any regulatory 

barriers in the existing Federal Motor 

Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) to 

the testing, compliance certification and 

compliance verification of motor 

vehicles with Automated Driving 

Systems (ADSs) and certain 

unconventional interior designs. 

NHTSA is focusing primarily, but not 

exclusively, on vehicles with ADSs that 

lack controls for a human driver; e.g., 

steering wheel, brake pedal or 

accelerator pedal. The absence of 

manual driving controls, and thus of a 

human driver, poses potential barriers 

to testing, compliance certification and 

compliance verification. For example, 

many of the FMVSS refer to the ‘‘driver’’ 

or ‘‘driver’s seating position’’ in 

specifying where various vehicle 

features and systems need to be located 

so that they can be seen and/or used by 

a person sitting in that position. Further, 

the compliance test procedures of some 

FMVSS depend on the presence of such 

things as a human test driver who can 

follow instructions on test driving 

maneuvers or a steering wheel that can 

be used by an automated steering 

machine. NHTSA also seeks comments 

on the research that would be needed to 

determine how to amend the FMVSS in 

order to remove such barriers, while 

retaining those existing safety 

requirements that will be needed and 

appropriate for those vehicles. In all 

cases, the Agency’s goal would be to 

ensure the maintenance of currently 

required levels of safety performance. 

These comments will aid the Agency in 

setting research priorities as well as 

inform its subsequent actions to lay a 

path for innovative vehicle designs and 

technologies that feature ADSs. 

DATES: Comments are due no later than 

March 5, 2018. 

ADDRESSES: Comments must refer to the 

docket number above and be submitted 

by one of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

online instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• Mail: Docket Management Facility, 

M–30, U.S. Department of 

Transportation, West Building, Ground 

Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590. 

• Hand Delivery or Courier: U.S. 

Department of Transportation, West 

Building, Ground Floor, Room W12– 

140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, 

Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 

p.m. Eastern time, Monday through 

Friday, except Federal holidays. 

• Fax: 202–493–2251. 

Regardless of how you submit your 

comments, you must include the docket 

number identified in the heading of this 

notice. 

Note that all comments received, 

including any personal information 

provided, will be posted without change 

to http://www.regulations.gov. Please 

see the ‘‘Privacy Act’’ heading below. 

You may call the Docket Management 

Facility at 202–366–9324. 

Docket: For access to the docket to 

read background documents or 

comments received, go to http://

www.regulations.gov or the street 

address listed above. We will continue 

to file relevant information in the 

Docket as it becomes available. 

Privacy Act: In accordance with 5 

U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments 

from the public to better inform its 

decision-making process. DOT posts 

these comments, without edit, including 

any personal information the 

commenter provides, to http://

www.regulations.gov, as described in 

the system of records notice (DOT/ALL– 

14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at 

https://www.transportation.gov/privacy. 

Anyone can search the electronic form 

of all comments received into any of our 

dockets by the name of the individual 

submitting the comment (or signing the 

comment, if submitted on behalf of an 

association, business, labor union, etc.). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

For research issues, John Harding, 

Intelligent Technologies Research 

Division, Office of Vehicle Crash 

Avoidance and Electronic Controls 

Research, telephone: 202–366–5665, 

email: John.Harding@dot.gov; 

For rulemaking issues, David Hines, 

Director, Office of Crash Avoidance 

Standards, telephone 202–366–1810, 

email David.Hines@dot.gov; 

For legal issues, Stephen Wood, 

Assistant Chief Counsel, Vehicle 

Rulemaking and Harmonization, Office 

of Chief Counsel, 202–366–2992, email 

Steve.Wood@dot.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Overview 

II. Automation Revolution 

III. Changes in Vehicle Interior Designs and 

Their Effect on Testing, Certification and 

Compliance Verification Under the 

Federal Safety Standards 

IV. Initial Agency Efforts To Identify Testing, 

Certification and Compliance 

Verification Issues 

V. Requests for Comment 

A. Barriers to Testing, Certification and 

Compliance Verification 

B. Research Needed To Address Those 

Barriers and NHTSA’s Role in 

Conducting it 

VI. Public Participation 

Appendix 

1. Executive Summary of the Volpe Report 

2. List of Standards Identified in the Volpe 

Report 

I. Overview 

NHTSA wants to avoid impeding 

progress with unnecessary or 

unintended regulatory barriers to motor 

vehicles that have Automated Driving 

Systems (ADS) and unconventional 

designs, especially those with 

unconventional interior designs. These 

barriers may complicate or may even 

make impossible the testing and 

certification of motor vehicles. At this 

stage, the Agency is primarily, but not 

exclusively, concerned with vehicles 

with ADSs that do not have the means 

for human driving, e.g., a steering wheel 

and brake and accelerator pedals. 

NHTSA is also interested in the 

additional testing and certification 

problems for vehicles with ADSs and 

with seating or other systems that have 

multiple modes, such as front seats that 

rotate. Some FMVSS, therefore, may 

pose barriers to the testing and 

certification of these vehicles. 

To enable vehicles with ADSs and 

with unconventional interiors while 

maintaining those existing safety 

requirements that will be needed and 

appropriate for those vehicles, NHTSA 

is developing plans and proposals for 

removing or modifying existing 

regulatory barriers to testing and 

compliance certification in those areas 

for which existing data and knowledge 

are sufficient to support decisionmaking. In other areas, plans and 

proposals cannot be developed until the 

completion of near term research to 

determine how to revise the test 

procedures for those vehicles. In all 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
2608 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 12 / Thursday, January 18, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

1As defined in FMVSS No. 101, Control and 

Displays, ‘‘telltale means an optical signal that, 

when illuminated, indicates the actuation of a 

device, a correct or improper functioning or 

condition, or a failure to function.’’ 

2Lidar (light detection and ranging) is a type of 

sensor that continually fires beams of laser light, 

and then measures how long it takes for the light 

to return to the sensor. The measurements are used 

to create three-dimensional images of a vehicle’s 

surroundings, everything from cars to cyclists to 

pedestrians to fixed objects like poles and trees, in 

a variety of environments and under a variety of 

lighting conditions. 

3U.S. Department of Transportation, Automated 

Driving Systems—A Vision for Safety, 2017, p. 

i–11 (https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.dot.gov/ 

files/documents/13069a-ads2.0_090617_v9a_

tag.pdf; last accessed November 8, 2017). 

4The National Motor Vehicle Crash Causation 

Survey (NMVCCS), conducted from 2005 to 2007, 

was aimed at collecting on-scene information about 

the events and associated factors leading up to 

crashes involving light vehicles. Several facets of 

crash occurrence were investigated during data 

collection, namely the pre-crash movement, critical 

pre-crash event, critical reason, and the associated 

factors. A weighted sample of 5,470 crashes was 

investigated over a period of two and a half years, 

which represents an estimated 2,189,000 crashes 

nationwide. About 4,031,000 vehicles, 3,945,000 

drivers, and 1,982,000 passengers were estimated to 

have been involved in these crashes. The critical 

reason, which is the last event in the crash causal 

chain, was assigned to the driver in 94 percent 

(±2.2%)† of the crashes. In about 2 percent (±0.7%) 

of the crashes, the critical reason was assigned to 

a vehicle component’s failure or degradation, and 

in 2 percent (±1.3%) of crashes, it was attributed to 

the environment (slick roads, weather, etc.). Among 

an estimated 2,046,000 drivers who were assigned 

critical reasons, recognition errors accounted for 

about 41 percent (±2.1%), decision errors 33 

percent (±3.7%), and performance errors 11 percent 

(±2.7%) of the crashes. 

A fact sheet containing more detail can be found 

at https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ 

ViewPublication/812115. 

5 70 FR 48295 (August 17, 2005). 

6 60 FR 62061 (December 4, 1995). 

7See, e.g., 59 FR 11004 (March 9, 1994) and 59 

FR 49901 (September 30, 1994). 

8 49 U.S.C. 30112(a)(1). 

cases, the Agency’s goals would be to 

ensure that the safety performance 

currently required by the FMVSS is as 

effective and needed for safety in 

vehicles with unconventional interiors 

(or exteriors) as in conventionallydesigned vehicles. 

The Agency is mindful that, in some 

cases, the most appropriate response to 

an existing requirement in a FMVSS 

that may complicate or may even make 

impossible to test a motor vehicle to 

assess compliance with that 

requirement may not be to ask how the 

requirement can be adapted to apply to 

motor vehicles without manual driving 

controls. Instead, a more appropriate 

response may be to ask whether the 

requirement should be applied in any 

form to those motor vehicles. These 

requirements may serve a safety purpose 

in vehicles with manual driving 

controls, but may not in vehicles 

without such means of control. For 

example, there may not be any need to 

require that the telltales 1 and other 

displays in a vehicle that does not have 

any manual driving controls be visible 

either to the occupant of a particular 

seating position or even to any occupant 

at all. In addition, some requirements 

may serve a safety purpose in vehicles 

that carry human occupants, but not in 

vehicles that will not carry any 

occupants. 

To these ends, NHTSA is soliciting 

public comments on (1) the barriers 

identified thus far, (2) any as of yet 

unidentified, barriers, (3) whether the 

requirements or test procedures creating 

those barriers should be modified to 

eliminate the testing difficulties or 

should simply be amended so that the 

requirements do not apply to vehicles 

without means of manual control, (4) 

the research that needs to be done to 

determine how to remove some of the 

barriers; (5) and how to prioritize this 

research and any follow-on rulemaking 

proceedings. 

This input will help NHTSA to plan 

and undertake more comprehensive and 

strategic efforts to remove barriers and 

to develop a stronger, more 

collaborative research plan that will 

complement research by the motor 

vehicle industry and other stakeholders. 

This will enable the Agency to use its 

resources as efficiently as possible in 

moving toward eliminating potential 

regulatory barriers to innovation. 

II. Automation Revolution 

Automotive transportation is evolving 

faster today than it has at any time since 

the introduction of the first motor 

vehicle. Artificial intelligence, 

combined with rapid improvements in 

sensors, such as cameras, lidar,2 and 

radar, is beginning to enable motor 

vehicles to drive themselves. 

The introduction of vehicles with 

ADSs into the fleet has the potential to 

reduce injuries, the loss of life, and 

property damage, reduce congestion, 

enhance mobility, and improve 

productivity.3 NHTSA anticipates that 

automation can serve a vital safety role 

given that human error or choice are 

estimated to be the critical reason in 94 

percent 4 of crashes. In the best of 

circumstances, people make errors in 

judgment or action. In the best of 

circumstances, human drivers make 

errors in judgment or action. Many 

people drive in less favorable 

circumstances as a result of the choices 

they make. Despite decades of efforts by 

NHTSA, States, local jurisdictions, 

safety groups, and industry, many 

people continue to choose to drive 

when they are fatigued, intoxicated, 

speeding, unbelted, or distracted. To the 

extent that ADSs are able to support and 

perhaps eventually replace human 

drivers, human error and unsafe choices 

would likely be reduced as causes of 

crashes. As the Federal agency whose 

primary mission is to reduce motor 

vehicle related deaths and injuries, 

NHTSA is excited about these prospects 

and is working with industry and other 

stakeholders to help make them a 

reality. 

III. Changes in Vehicle Interior Designs 

and Their Effect on Testing, 

Certification and Compliance 

Verification Under the Federal Safety 

Standards 

Part of NHTSA’s responsibility in 

carrying out its safety mission is not 

only to develop and set new safety 

standards for new motor vehicles and 

motor vehicle equipment, but also to 

modify existing standards as necessary 

to respond to changing circumstances 

such as the introduction of new 

technologies. Some old standards or 

portions of standards may no longer be 

needed or at least need to be updated to 

keep them relevant. Examples of 

previous technological transitions that 

triggered the need to adapt and/or 

replace requirements in the FMVSS 

include the replacing of analog 

dashboards by digital ones,5 the 

replacing of mechanical control systems 

by electronic ones 6 and then by 

wireless ones, and the first production 

of electric vehicles in appreciable 

numbers.7

The existing FMVSS can be found in 

the Code of Federal Regulations at 49 

CFR part 571. NHTSA has over 60 

FMVSS today. 

The FMVSS specify minimum 

performance requirements and test 

procedures for brakes, accelerator 

controls, electronic stability control, 

seat belts, airbags, exterior lighting and 

interior warning telltales that illuminate 

to alert the driver when there is a 

vehicle malfunction, and for other 

equipment. Manufacturers are 

prohibited from selling vehicles and 

vehicle equipment unless they comply 

with all applicable FMVSS and their 

compliance has been self-certified by 

their manufacturer.8

Almost all of NHTSA’s FMVSS were 

developed and established well before 

vehicles with ADSs became a 

practicable possibility. As a result, the 

performance requirements and test 

procedures in many of the FMVSS are 

based on the assumption that the driver 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 12 / Thursday, January 18, 2018 / Proposed Rules 2609 

9See, e.g., May 6, 1986 letter to Paul Utans 

regarding a Subaru with two adjustment positions 

for suspension—a high one and a low one. In it, 

NHTSA stated that it reserves the right to activate 

either mode in conducting compliance tests. 

10 5 U.S.C. 551 et seq. 

11 49 U.S.C. 30101 et seq. 

will be human, will sit in the vehicle’s 

left front seat to drive (in left-hand drive 

vehicles), and will need certain controls 

to be accessible and telltales and other 

displays to be viewable in order to do 

the driving. A further and even more 

basic assumption is that there will be at 

least one occupant in each vehicle. In 

the case of ADS delivery vehicles 

without manual driving controls, this 

assumption may prove incorrect. If, 

instead, a vehicle is designed so that 

only an ADS can drive it and vehicle 

designers modify the passenger 

compartment to take advantage of the 

flexibility afforded them if a human 

driver is not needed, then many of those 

assumptions will likely be invalid for 

that vehicle, and some may be actually 

problematic from a testing perspective. 

NHTSA has set out below some 

illustrative examples of potential 

problems with the existing FMVSS. The 

Agency requests commenters to identify 

other potential problems. 

• If the FMVSS can no longer specify 

where controls and displays are located 

by requiring them to be visible to or 

within the reach of a person sitting in 

the driver’s seat, then it is unclear for 

which person or persons in which 

seating position or positions must they 

be visible to or within the reach of or 

even if they are necessary at all. 

• After the barriers to determining 

compliance are removed from the 

FMVSS, the Agency will turn to other 

closely related questions such as 

whether there is a continued need for 

certain current performance 

requirements in the FMVSS. For 

example, among the questions that the 

agency would need to address are: 

Would occupants still need warning 

telltales and other displays to be 

viewable if they did not have any means 

of driving their vehicles? Could there be 

any risk of adverse safety consequences 

if some or all of those warnings and 

messages were not provided to the 

occupants of those vehicles either before 

or during trips? If a vehicle, such as an 

ADS delivery vehicle without manual 

driving controls, were unlikely to be 

occupied during trips, would there be 

any safety need for warning telltales and 

other displays to be viewable? 

• If future vehicles with ADSs lack 

any means of human control, it is 

unclear how the Agency and the 

manufacturers can conduct compliance 

tests (such as those for stopping 

distance) that are currently performed 

by human test drivers performing 

prescribed driving maneuvers on test 

tracks. 

• FMVSS No. 126, Electronic stability 

control systems for light vehicles, 

specifies the use of an automated 

steering machine that depends on a 

vehicle’s steering wheel to steer vehicles 

when they are tested for compliance. If 

a vehicle with ADS is not equipped 

with a steering wheel because the ADS 

will do all of the driving, the agency 

would need to determine how to amend 

the standard to enable the agency to 

conduct stability control testing and 

maintain the current level of 

effectiveness. 

• Some vehicles with ADSs may have 

unique seating configurations that may 

make it impossible for existing crash 

protection requirements, test procedures 

and test devices (e.g., anthropomorphic 

dummies) to evaluate adequately the 

level of crashworthiness protection 

provided. 

• There may be other existing 

performance requirements and test 

procedures that would fail to 

accommodate unconventional designs. 

If there are, the Agency will need to 

identify them and determine how the 

Agency should amend them in ways 

maintain the current level of 

effectiveness. 

• There may be some safety attributes 

or testing procedures that will no longer 

have sufficient value in a vehicle whose 

usage is anticipated to be predominantly 

automated, but still retains manual 

driving controls. 

The Agency wishes to address these 

issues (and many others) in the coming 

months and years. We anticipate doing 

so publicly, seeking all available 

research and public input to help us 

adapt the FMVSS and possibly adopt 

other measures that are well-calibrated 

to promote innovation, respond to 

changing circumstances and address 

emerging technologies while 

maintaining safety. 

We want to emphasize, in an attempt 

to ensure that there is not any 

misunderstanding about the source and 

nature of the barriers or about the 

vehicles affected by those barriers, that 

the FMVSS (or any other kind of legallybinding standards) do not have any 

provisions designed to address the selfdriving capability of a motor vehicle. 

Further, nothing in the existing FMVSS 

prohibit ADS. Likewise, nothing in 

those standards poses testing or 

certification challenges for vehicles with 

ADSs so long as the vehicles have 

means of manual control and 

conventional seating. 

If, however, manufacturers design 

vehicles with ADSs not only lack 

manual driving controls, but also have 

unconventional, flexible seating, i.e., 

seats that slide and/or rotate, then under 

the Agency’s line of interpretations 

involving vehicle systems that have 

multiple modes, there may be testing or 

even compliance difficulties.9 Similar 

problems might be encountered by 

vehicles with ADSs equipped with 

retractable manual driving controls. 

Thus, it is not the inclusion of an ADS 

in a new vehicle that complicates 

testing and certifying the compliance of 

the vehicle to the existing FMVSS. 

Testing and certifying compliance 

potentially becomes complicated only if 

a manufacturer wishes to go a step 

further and design a vehicle with ADS 

but without a steering wheel, brake 

pedal and accelerator pedal or with 

novel configurations or orientations for 

certain vehicle systems. As noted above, 

this problem arises because the FMVSS, 

as currently written, are premised on 

the presence of means of manual control 

and on conventional seating 

configurations and orientations. 

Although the Agency may have a 

degree of flexibility in interpreting some 

of its existing FMVSS to accommodate 

innovative interior designs, in most 

instances, it will be necessary to amend 

the FMVSS. The FMVSS and the 

rulemaking process through which they 

are established and amended are subject 

to the Administrative Procedure Act,10

the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle 

Safety Act (Vehicle Safety Act),11 other 

statutes, and various Executive Orders 

and guidance documents from the 

Office of Management and Budget. 

Together, they ensure the FMVSS meet 

the requirements and goals set by 

Congress and are adopted only after 

sufficient opportunities for public 

participation and careful consideration 

and analysis of available information 

and public comments. Under the 

Vehicle Safety Act, moreover, the 

FMVSS need to be ‘‘objective, 

practicable, and meet the need for 

safety’’ when initially issued and must 

remain so after being amended. If 

NHTSA revises a test procedure in an 

FMVSS to accommodate an innovative 

new vehicle design, it must make sure 

that the FMVSS continues to be 

objective and practicable and meet the 

need for safety. Accomplishing this goal 

will, in a number of instances, require 

research to develop revised test 

procedures and performance criteria. 

Defining the needed research and 

establishing priorities in conducting it is 

the subject of this RFC. 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
2610 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 12 / Thursday, January 18, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

12Available at https://isearch.nhtsa.gov/files/ 

Google%20--%20-compiled%20response%20

to%2012%20Nov%20%2015%20interp%20

request%20--%204%20Feb%2016%20final.htm. 

13 Kim, Anita, David Perlman, Dan Bogard, and 

Ryan Harrington. ‘‘Review of Federal Motor Vehicle 

Safety Standards (FMVSS) for Automated 

Vehicles,’’ Preliminary Report—March 2016. U.S. 

DOT Volpe Center, Cambridge, MA. Available at 

https://rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/12260. For a 

specific listing of potential barriers, see Appendix 

B of that report, pp. 26 et seq. 

14 Ibid, pp. 9–10. FMVSS 114 presents several 

issues. One is whether, for the purposes of 

satisfying the requirement an automatic 

transmission ‘‘vehicle must be designed such that 

the transmission or gear selection control cannot 

move from the ‘‘park’’ position, unless the key is 

in the starting system,’’ an electronic code 

transmitted from a smartphone application to a 

vehicle can be interpreted as being a key. The report 

notes that NHTSA has historically interpreted the 

electronic code transmitted by a wireless 

transponder directly to a vehicle as a key for the 

purposes of FMVSS 114. Although the report notes 

the existence of a technological difference in these 

two different methods of transmitting an electronic 

code to a vehicle, it does not suggest why that 

difference should lead to a different conclusion by 

the Agency. 

FMVSS 135 requires that the service brakes ‘‘shall 

be activated by means of a foot control’’. 

IV. Initial Agency Efforts To Identify 

Testing, Certification and Compliance 

Verification Issues 

NHTSA began the process of 

evaluating existing FMVSS for potential 

barriers in 2015. In August of that year, 

NHTSA contracted with DOT’s Volpe 

Center to conduct a review of the 

FMVSS and issue a report identifying 

the standards that pose potential 

barriers to the introduction of vehicles 

with ADSs and with unconventional 

interior designs. 

While that review was underway, 

Google submitted a letter, dated 

November 12, 2015, requesting an 

interpretation regarding the application 

of certain FMVSS to vehicles with 

ADSs. In describing its ADS vehicle, 

Google indicated its intent to design the 

vehicle so that it does not include 

conventional manual driving controls, 

including a steering wheel, accelerator, 

or brake pedal. NHTSA responded to 

that letter on February 4, 2016.12

In its letter, NHTSA took the position 

that a motor vehicle’s ‘‘self-driving 

system’’ (SDS) could be regarded as the 

driver or that the left front seating 

position could be regarded as the 

driver’s position in a variety of 

standards referencing the ‘‘driver’’ or 

‘‘driver’s seating position.’’ 

The response then addressed the 

question of whether and how Google 

could certify that the SDS meets a 

standard developed and designed to 

apply to a vehicle with a human driver. 

NHTSA said that in order for it to 

interpret a standard as allowing 

certification of compliance by a vehicle 

manufacturer, NHTSA must first have a 

suitable test procedure or other means 

of verifying such compliance. That is, 

NHTSA said that if a FMVSS lacks a test 

procedure that is suitable for the 

Agency’s use in verifying a 

manufacturer’s certification of the 

compliance of some of its vehicles with 

a FMVSS, the manufacturer cannot 

validly certify the compliance of those 

vehicles with the standard. As NHTSA 

further explained in the letter, 

The critical point of NHTSA’s responses 

for many of the requested interpretations is 

that defining the driver as the SDS (or the 

driver’s position as the left front position) 

does not end the inquiry or determine the 

result. Once the SDS is deemed to be the 

driver for purposes of a particular standard 

or test, the next question is whether and how 

Google could certify that the SDS meets a 

standard developed and designed to apply to 

a vehicle with a human driver. Related, in 

order for NHTSA to interpret a standard as 

allowing certification of compliance by a 

vehicle manufacturer, NHTSA must first 

have a test procedure or other means of 

verifying such compliance. 

Volpe completed its review of the 

FMVSS before NHTSA sent its February 

4 letter to Google and thus did not 

consider that letter in conducting its 

review. The report on the results of the 

review was published one month later 

in March 2016.13 (To read the executive 

summary of the report and a list of the 

FMVSS identified in the report, please 

see the appendix at the end of this 

document.) In that report, Volpe 

described the two reviews that it 

conducted of the FMVSS: A driver 

reference scan to identify which 

standards include an explicit or implicit 

reference to a human driver and a 

driving automation concepts scan to 

identify which standards could pose a 

challenge for a wide range of driving 

automation capabilities and concepts. 

The review revealed that there are few 

barriers for a vehicle with ADS to 

comply with the FMVSS, so long as the 

vehicle does not significantly diverge 

from a conventional vehicle design. 

Two standards, FMVSS 114 for theft 

protection and rollaway prevention and 

FMVSS 135 for light vehicle brake 

systems, were identified as having 

potential issues for vehicles with an 

ADS and with conventional designs.14

In addition, NHTSA subject matter 

experts have identified specific 

requirements and test procedure 

limitations. NHTSA is initiating new 

research on the assessment and 

evaluation of, and solutions to, the 

preliminary challenges identified in the 

Volpe report to the testing, compliance 

verification and self-certification of 

vehicles with ADSs. Most of these 

challenges are precipitated by 

alternative vehicle designs, such as ones 

lacking manual driving controls. 

NHTSA’s initial research focuses 

primarily on the FMVSS compliance 

test procedures, but will also explore 

options for telltales, visual and auditory 

displays and controls and other 

innovative new vehicle design 

challenges that may not have been 

identified in the original Volpe report. 

NHTSA has contracted with the Virginia 

Tech Transportation Institute to perform 

this research. This is a multidisciplinary 

project to develop technical translations 

to existing FMVSS and related testing 

procedure approaches for emerging 

innovative and non-traditional vehicle 

designs. The project is being conducted 

by a core team comprising FMVSS 

experts; industry team members General 

Motors and Nissan; testing facilities 

Dynamic Research, Inc., and MGA 

Research Corporation; and research 

institutions Booz Allen Hamilton and 

the Southwest Research Institute in 

concert with stakeholder and peer 

review groups. The research will review 

and identify alternative new vehicle 

designs, develop candidate alternative 

approaches, and establish an evaluation 

process as well as associated tools in 

close collaboration with critical 

stakeholders. This research project 

started at the beginning of FY2018 and 

is expected to develop robust alternative 

approaches within the next 12 months 

to demonstrate compliance with many 

of the identified FMVSS whose existing 

test procedures present challenges. The 

results of this research will be made 

public after the completion of the 

project. 

V. Requests for Comment 

To help guide NHTSA’s research to 

address testing and self-certification 

issues, we seek comments on the topics 

below. The Agency urges that, where 

possible, comments be supported by 

data and analysis to increase their 

usefulness. Please clearly indicate the 

source of such data. 

A. Barriers to Testing, Certification and 

Compliance Verification 

1. What are the different categories of 

barriers that the FMVSS potentially 

create to the testing, certification and 

compliance verification of a new ADS 

vehicle lacking manual driving 

controls? Examples of barrier categories 

include the following: 

a. Test procedures that cannot be 

conducted for vehicles with ADSs and 

with innovative interior designs; and 

b. performance requirements that may 

serve a reduced safety purpose or even 

no safety purpose at all for a vehicle 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 12 / Thursday, January 18, 2018 / Proposed Rules 2611 

15For example, if vehicles with ADSs were tested 

by instructing them to follow a fixed path through 

a maze of streets simulating a series of adjacent 

urban or suburban blocks and if, along that path, 

the vehicles encountered surrogate vehicles, 

cyclists and pedestrians at fixed time intervals and 

in fixed locations, it might be possible for the 

vehicles to avoid any collisions if the vehicles were 

programmed to stop in those locations at the 

scheduled time intervals in lieu of the vehicles’ 

actually relying on their sensors to detect the 

surrogates and on their algorithms to manage 

braking and steering in such a way as to avoid any 

collisions. 

16Examples of such displays are the malfunction 

displays for systems like Antilock Braking System 

(ABS), Electronic Stability Control (ESC), Tire 

Pressure Monitoring System (TPMS), air bags, etc. 

with ADS and thus potentially impose 

more cost and more restrictions on 

design than are warranted. 

As noted earlier in this document, the 

first of the above categories is the 

primary focus of this document. 

However, the Agency seeks comments 

on both categories of barriers. If you 

believe that there are still other barrier 

categories, please identify them. 

2. NHTSA requests comments on the 

statement made in NHTSA’s February 

2016 letter of interpretation to Google, 

that if a FMVSS lacks a test procedure 

that is suitable for the Agency’s use in 

verifying a manufacturer’s certification 

of compliance with a provision in that 

FMVSS, the manufacturer cannot 

validly certify the compliance of its 

vehicles with that provision. Do 

commenters agree that each of the 

standards identified in the letter as 

needing to be amended before 

manufacturers can certify compliance 

with it must be amended in order to 

permit certification? Why or why not? If 

there are other solutions, please 

describe them. 

3. Do you agree (or disagree) that the 

FMVSS provisions identified in the 

Volpe report or Google letter as posing 

barriers to testing and certification are, 

in fact, barriers? Please explain why. 

4. Do commenters think there are 

FMVSS provisions that pose barriers to 

testing and certification of innovative 

new vehicle designs, but were not 

covered in the Volpe report or Google 

letter? If so, what are they, how do they 

pose barriers, and how do you believe 

NHTSA should consider addressing 

them? 

5. Are there ways to solve the 

problems that may be posed by any of 

these FMVSS provisions without 

conducting additional research? If so, 

what are they and why do you believe 

that no further research is necessary? 

For example, can some apparent 

problems be solved through 

interpretation? If so, which ones? 

6. Similarly, are there ways to solve 

the problems that may be posed by any 

of these FMVSS provisions without 

rulemaking? For example, can some 

apparent problems be solved through 

interpretation without either additional 

research or through rulemaking? If so, 

which ones? 

7. In contrast, if a commenter believes 

that legislation might be necessary to 

enable NHTSA to remove a barrier 

identified by the commenter, please 

explain why and please identify the 

specific existing law that the commenter 

thinks should be changed and describe 

how it should be changed. If there are 

associated regulations that the 

commenter believes should be changed, 

please identify the specific CFR citation 

and explain why they need to be 

changed. 

8. Many FMVSS contain test 

procedures that are based on the 

assumed presence of a human driver, 

and will therefore likely need to be 

amended to accommodate vehicles that 

cannot be driven by humans. Other 

FMVSS test procedures may seem, 

based on a plain reading of their 

language, to accommodate vehicles that 

cannot be driven by humans, but it may 

nevertheless be unclear how NHTSA (or 

a manufacturer attempting to self-certify 

to the test) would instruct the vehicle to 

perform the test as written. 

a. Do commenters believe that these 

procedures should apply to a vehicle 

that cannot be driven by a human? If so, 

why? If there are data to support this 

positon, please provide it. 

b. If not, can NHTSA test in some 

other manner? Please identify the 

alternative manner and explain why it 

would be appropriate. 

9. What research would be necessary 

to determine how to instruct a vehicle 

with ADS but without manual means of 

control to follow a driving test 

procedure? Is it possible to develop a 

single approach to inputting these 

‘‘instructions’’ in a manner applicable to 

all vehicle designs and all FMVSS, or 

will the approach need to vary, and if 

so, why and how? If commenters believe 

there is a risk of gaming,15 what would 

that risk be and how could it be reduced 

or prevented? 

10. In lieu of the approaches 

suggested in questions 8 and 9, is there 

an alternative means of demonstrating 

equivalent level of safety that is reliable, 

objective and practicable? 

11. For FMVSS that include test 

procedures that assume a human driver 

is seated in a certain seating position 

(for example, procedures that assess 

whether a rearview mirror provides an 

image in the correct location), should 

NHTSA simply amend the FMVSS to 

require, for instance, that ‘‘driver’s seat’’ 

requirements apply to any front seating 

position? If so, please explain why. If 

not, what research would need to be 

conducted to determine how NHTSA 

should amend those requirements? 

12. A variety of FMVSS require safetyrelated dashboard telltales and other 

displays, if provided, to be visible to a 

human driver and controls to be within 

reach of that driver. Generally speaking, 

is there a safety need for the telltales 

and other displays in Table 1 and 2 of 

FMVSS 101 to be visible to any of the 

occupants in vehicles without manual 

driving controls? 16 Commenters are 

requested to provide their own list of 

the telltales and other displays they 

believe are most relevant to meeting any 

potential safety need in those vehicles. 

For each item on that list, please answer 

the following questions: 

a. Should the telltale or other display 

be required to be visible to one or more 

vehicle occupants in vehicles without 

manual driving controls? 

b. If there is a need for continued 

visibility, to the occupant(s) of which 

seating position(s) should the telltale or 

other display be visible? 

c. Does the answer to the question 

about the continued need for a telltale 

or other display to be visible to the 

occupant of a vehicle without manual 

driving controls change if a 

manufacturer equips the vehicle with a 

device like an ‘‘emergency stop button’’? 

Why or why not? 

d. Would the informational safety 

needs of the occupants of vehicles with 

ADSs differ according to whether the 

vehicle has a full set of manual driving 

controls, just an emergency stop button 

or no controls whatsoever? 

e. Conversely, if a vehicle is designed 

such that it can be driven only by an 

ADS, does the ADS need to be provided 

with some or all of the same information 

currently required to be provided for a 

human driver? For example, does the 

ADS need to know if the tires are 

underinflated? Why or why not? 

f. If commenters believe that it would 

enhance safety if a vehicle’s ADS were 

required to receive information similar 

to some or all of that currently required 

to be provided to human drivers by 

telltales and other displays, what 

research needs to be conducted to 

develop the kinds of objective and 

practicable performance requirements or 

test procedures that would enable 

manufacturers and the Agency to 

evaluate whether that information was 

provided to and understood by the 

ADS? 

13. If NHTSA is going to conduct 

research to determine whether there is 

any safety need for the occupants of 

fully-self-driving vehicles to continue to 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
2612 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 12 / Thursday, January 18, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

17The purpose of formulating safety performance 

metrics for motor vehicles is to facilitate the 

quantitative assessment of their capabilities. An 

example of a crash avoidance performance metric 

is the ability of a vehicle with ADS to sense and 

avoid colliding with a surrogate pedestrian crossing 

a street on a test course. 

have any access to any of the nondriving 

controls (e.g., controls for windshield 

washer/wiper system, turn signals and 

lights) in a vehicle without manual 

driving controls, what should that 

research include and how should 

NHTSA conduct it? 

a. If there is a safety need for the 

occupants of fully-self-driving vehicles 

to have access to any of the existing 

vehicle non-driving controls, please 

identify those controls and explain the 

safety need. 

b. Do commenters believe that 

research should be conducted to 

determine whether any additional 

controls (such as an emergency stop 

button) might be necessary for safety or 

public acceptance if manual driving 

controls are removed from fully-selfdriving vehicles? Why or why not, and 

what is the basis for your belief? 

c. If NHTSA is going to conduct 

research to determine whether there is 

any safety need for the occupants of 

fully-self-driving vehicles to continue to 

be able to control exterior lighting like 

turn signals and headlamp beam 

switching devices, what should that 

research include and how should 

NHTSA conduct it? Separately, if 

NHTSA is going to conduct research on 

what exterior lighting continues to be 

needed for safety when a human is not 

driving, what should that research 

include and how should NHTSA 

conduct it? 

14. If NHTSA is going to conduct 

research to determine whether there is 

a safety need for the occupants of 

vehicles with ADSs but without manual 

driving controls to be able to see to the 

side and behind those vehicles using 

mirrors or cameras, what should that 

research include and how should 

NHTSA conduct it? Separately, if 

NHTSA is going to conduct research to 

determine how NHTSA would test the 

ability of a vehicle’s ADS’ to ‘‘see’’ 

around and behind the vehicle as well 

as (or better than) a human driver 

would, what should that research 

include and how should NHTSA 

conduct it? 

15. Do the FMVSS create testing and 

certification issues for vehicles with 

ADSs other than those discussed above? 

If so, which FMVSS do so and why do 

you believe they present such issues? 

For example, FMVSS No. 108, ‘‘Lamps, 

reflective devices, and associated 

equipment,’’ could potentially pose 

obstacles to certifying the compliance of 

a vehicle that uses exterior lighting and 

messaging, through words or symbols, 

to communicate to nearby pedestrians, 

cyclists and motorists, such as at a 4- 

way stop intersection, the vehicle’s 

awareness of their presence and the 

vehicle’s willingness to cede priority of 

movement to any of those people. If 

research is needed to eliminate the 

barriers in an appropriate way, please 

describe the research and explain why 

it is needed. Are there other lighting 

issues that should be considered? For 

example, what lighting will be needed 

to ensure the proper functioning of the 

different types of vehicle sensors, 

especially cameras whose functions 

include reading traffic control signs? 

16. If occupants of vehicles with 

ADSs, especially those without manual 

driving controls, are less likely to sit in 

what is now called the driver’s seating 

position or are less likely to sit in seats 

that are facing forward, how should 

these factors affect existing 

requirements for crashworthiness safety 

features? 

17. If vehicles with ADSs have 

emergency controls that can be accessed 

through unconventional means, such as 

a smart phone or multi-purpose display 

and have unconventional interiors, how 

should the Agency address those 

controls? 

18. Are there any specific regulatory 

barriers related to small businesses that 

NHTSA should consider, specifically 

those that may help facilitate small 

business participation in this emerging 

technology? 

B. Research Needed To Address Those 

Barriers and NHTSA’s Role in 

Conducting it 

19. For issues about FMVSS barriers 

that NHTSA needs research to resolve, 

do commenters believe that there are 

specific items that would be better 

addressed through research by outside 

stakeholders, such as industry or 

research organizations, instead of by 

NHTSA itself? 

a. Which issues is industry better 

equipped to undertake on its own, and 

why? Which issues are research 

organizations or other stakeholders 

better equipped to undertake on their 

own, and why? 

b. What research is needed to 

determine which types of safety 

performance metrics 17 should be used 

to evaluate a particular safety capability 

and to develop a test procedure for 

evaluating how well a vehicle performs 

in terms of those metrics? 

c. Which questions is NHTSA better 

equipped to undertake and why? For 

example, would NHTSA, as the 

regulator, be the more appropriate party 

to conduct research needed to 

determine what performance threshold 

to require vehicles to meet with respect 

to that metric? Why or why not? 

d. What research have industry, 

research organizations, and other 

stakeholders done related to barriers to 

testing and certification? What research 

are they planning to do? With respect to 

research planned, but not yet 

completed, please identify the research 

and state the starting and end dates for 

that research. 

e. How can NHTSA, industry, states, 

research organizations, and other 

stakeholders work together to ensure 

that, if the research on these issues were 

eventually to lead to rulemaking, it is 

done with the rigor and thoroughness 

that NHTSA would need to meet its 

statutory obligations, regardless of who 

performs it (e.g., done in a manner that 

enables the Agency to ensure that the 

FMVSS continue to be objective and 

practicable and continue to meet the 

need for safety)? 

20. For the issues identified above or 

by commenters, which merit the most 

attention? How should the agency 

prioritize its research and any follow-on 

rulemakings to remove the barriers to 

testing and certification? 

21. Correcting barriers associated with 

the track testing of motor vehicles will 

be particularly challenging. Examples of 

such barriers follow: 

a. As noted above, FMVSS No. 126 

specifies the use of an automated 

steering machine that depends on a 

vehicle’s steering wheel to steer vehicles 

when they are tested for compliance. 

NHTSA will need to determine how to 

amend the standard to enable the 

agency to conduct stability control 

testing in vehicles that lack a steering 

wheel. Further, if NHTSA is going to 

conduct research to consider how to 

change the ‘‘sine with dwell’’ test 

procedure for FMVSS No. 126, so that 

steering wheel angle need not be 

measured at the steering wheel in 

determining compliance with the 

standard, what should that research 

include and how should NHTSA 

conduct it? 

b. If NHTSA is going to conduct 

research to develop a performance test 

to verify how a vehicle is activating its 

service brakes, what should that 

research include and how should 

NHTSA conduct it? If NHTSA is going 

to conduct research to determine 

whether there continues to be a safety 

need to maintain a human-operable 

service brake, what should that research 

include and how should NHTSA 

conduct it? 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 12 / Thursday, January 18, 2018 / Proposed Rules 2613 

22. Are there industry standards, 

existing or in development, that may be 

suitable for incorporation by reference 

by NHTSA in accordance with the 

standards provisions of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 and Office of Management 

and Budget Circular A–119, ‘‘Federal 

Participation in the Development and 

Use of Voluntary Consensus Standards 

and Conformity Assessment Activities?’’ 

VI. Public Participation 

How do I prepare and submit 

comments? 

Your comments must be written and 

in English. To ensure that your 

comments are filed in the correct 

docket, please include the docket 

number of this document in your 

comments. 

Your comments must not be more 

than 15 pages long (49 CFR 553.21). 

NHTSA established this limit to 

encourage you to write your primary 

comments in a concise fashion. 

However, you may attach necessary 

additional documents to your 

comments. There is no limit on the 

length of the attachments. 

Please submit one copy (two copies if 

submitting by mail or hand delivery) of 

your comments, including the 

attachments, to the docket following the 

instructions given above under 

ADDRESSES. Please note, if you are 

submitting comments electronically as a 

PDF (Adobe) file, we ask that the 

documents submitted be scanned using 

an Optical Character Recognition (OCR) 

process, thus allowing NHTSA to search 

and copy certain portions of your 

submissions. 

How do I submit confidential business 

information? 

If you wish to submit any information 

under a claim of confidentiality, you 

must submit three copies of your 

complete submission, including the 

information you claim to be confidential 

business information, to the Office of 

the Chief Counsel, NHTSA, at the 

address given above under FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT. 

In addition, you may submit a copy 

(two copies if submitting by mail or 

hand delivery) from which you have 

deleted the claimed confidential 

business information, to the docket by 

one of the methods given above under 

ADDRESSES. When you send a comment 

containing information claimed to be 

confidential business information, you 

should include a cover letter setting 

forth the information specified in 

NHTSA’s confidential business 

information regulation (49 CFR part 

512). 

Will NHTSA consider late comments? 

NHTSA will consider all comments 

received before the close of business on 

the comment closing date indicated 

above under DATES. To the extent 

possible, NHTSA will also consider 

comments received after that date. 

How can I read the comments submitted 

by other people? 

You may read the comments received 

at the address given above under 

ADDRESSES. The hours of the docket are 

indicated above in the same location. 

You may also read the comments on the 

internet, identified by the docket 

number at the heading of this notice, at 

http://www.regulations.gov. 

Please note that, even after the 

comment closing date, NHTSA will 

continue to file relevant information in 

the docket as it becomes available. 

Further, some people may submit late 

comments. Accordingly, NHTSA 

recommends that you periodically 

check the docket for new material. 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30101 et seq., 49 

U.S.C. 30182. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on January 10, 

2018, under authority delegated in 49 CFR 

part 1.95. 

Heidi King, 

Deputy Administrator. 

Appendix 

1. Executive Summary of the Volpe Report 

Review of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety 

Standards (FMVSS) for Automated Vehicles 

Identifying Potential Barriers and 

Challenges for the Certification of 

Automated Vehicles Using Existing FMVSS 

Preliminary Report—March 2016 

Anita Kim, David Perlman, Dan Bogard and 

Ryan Harrington Technology Innovation and 

Policy Division 

‘‘• Current Federal Motor Vehicle Safety 

Standards (FMVSS) do not explicitly address 

automated vehicle technology and often 

assume the presence of a human driver. As 

a result, existing language may create 

certification challenges for manufacturers of 

automated vehicles that choose to pursue 

certain vehicle concepts. 

• The purpose of this work is to identify 

instances where the existing FMVSS may 

pose challenges to the introduction of 

automated vehicles. It identifies standards 

requiring further review—both to ensure that 

existing regulations do not unduly stifle 

innovation and to help ensure that automated 

vehicles perform their functions safely. 

• The review highlighted standards in the 

FMVSS that may create certification 

challenges for automated vehicle concepts 

with particular characteristics, including 

situations in which those characteristics 

could introduce ambiguity into the 

interpretation of existing standards. The 

review team’s approach was meant to be as 

inclusive as possible, with the intent to 

identify standards that would require further 

review or discussion. 

• This is a preliminary report summarizing 

the review of FMVSS and includes a 

discussion on approach, findings, and 

analysis. As a preliminary review, the 

contents of this report reflect the results of 

an initial analysis and may be modified 

based on stakeholder input and future 

discussion. 

• The Volpe team conducted two reviews 

of the FMVSS: a driver reference scan to 

identify which standards include an explicit 

or implicit reference to a human driver and 

an automated vehicle concepts scan to 

identify which standards could pose a 

challenge for a wide range of automated 

vehicle capabilities and concepts. 

Æ The driver reference scan revealed 

references in numerous standards to a driver 

(defined in § 571.3 as ‘‘. . . the occupant of 

the motor vehicle seated immediately behind 

the steering control system’’), a driver’s 

seating position, or controls and displays that 

must be visible to or operable by a driver, or 

actuated by a driver’s hands or feet. 

Æ In order to conduct the automated 

vehicle concepts scan, the Volpe team 

developed 13 different automated vehicle 

concepts, ranging from limited levels of 

automation (and near-term applications) to 

highly-automated, driverless concepts with 

innovative vehicle designs. The idea was to 

evaluate the FMVSS against these different 

automated vehicle concepts. 

• In summary, the review revealed that 

there are few barriers for automated vehicles 

to comply with FMVSS, as long as the 

vehicle does not significantly diverge from a 

conventional vehicle design. Two standards: 

theft protection and rollaway prevention 

(§ 571.114) and light vehicle brake systems 

(§ 571.135) were identified as having 

potential issues for automated vehicles with 

conventional designs. 

• Automated vehicles that begin to push 

the boundaries of conventional design (e.g., 

alternative cabin layouts, omission of manual 

controls) would be constrained by the current 

FMVSS or may conflict with policy 

objectives of the FMVSS. Many standards, as 

currently written, are based on assumptions 

of conventional vehicle designs and thus 

pose challenges for certain design concepts, 

particularly for ‘driverless’ concepts where 

occupants have no way of driving the vehicle 

(e.g., § 571.101, controls and displays, 

§ 571.111, rear visibility, § 571.208, occupant 

crash protection represent a few examples). 

• Subsequent to the Volpe Center’s review 

of the FMVSS, but prior to the publication of 

this report, NHTSA released interpretations 

to BMW of North America and Google, Inc. 

in response to questions regarding how to 

interpret certain FMVSS requirements in the 

context of automated vehicles. As a result, 

the review does not reflect this subsequent 

development. The full text of these 

interpretations are available in NHTSA’s 

repository of interpretation files at the 

website: isearch.nhtsa.gov.’’ 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
2614 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 12 / Thursday, January 18, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

2. List of Standards Identified in the Volpe 

Report 

In the report, the Volpe Center reported 32 

of 63 FMVSS’s that may present certification 

challenges for certain types of automated 

vehicles because they contain performance 

specifications, test procedures, or equipment 

requirements that present potential barriers 

to the certification of one or more AV 

concepts: 

1. Conventional Vehicles (with driver 

controls) with highly-automated features (2 

standards identified). 

• key must be in position before moving 

out of park position, and park position 

interlock with the service brake (571.114), 

• foot-actuated service brake control, brake 

system warning indicator, and warning 

device for lining replacements (571.135). 

2. Fully-self-driving vehicles (no driver 

controls or novel design) (32 standards 

identified, some examples listed below). 

• controls and displays visible to the 

driver (571.101), 

• transmission shift position sequence and 

interlock (571.102), 

• windshield defrosting and defogging 

(571.103), 

• windshield wipers (571.104), 

• foot-actuated service brake control, brake 

system warning indicator, and warning 

device for lining replacements (571.105), 

• turn signal, flasher, headlamp beam 

switch, and upper beam indicator (571.108), 

• tire/rim retention requirement for driver 

(571.110), 

• requirements for rear visibility for the 

driver (571.111), 

• key must be in position before moving 

out of park position, and park position 

interlock with the service brake (571.114), 

• powered windows and roof panels 

(571.118), 

• foot-actuated service brake control, lowpressure brake system warning indicator, and 

brake adjustment indicators (571.121), 

• motorcycle brake systems (571.122), 

• accelerator pedal must return to neutral 

when released by the driver (571.124), 

• a steering wheel (a requirement for 

completing tests) and certain controls and 

displays (571.126), 

• foot-actuated service brake control, brake 

system warning indicator, and warning 

device for lining replacements (571.135), 

• TPMS telltale for low tire pressure to 

warn driver (571.138), 

• occupant protection in interior impact 

(571.201), 

• door locks and door retention 

components (571.206), 

• a designated seating position for the 

driver (571.207), 

• occupant protection and warning system 

for non-buckled seat belt (571.208), 

• seat belt anchorages (571.210), 

• side impact protection (571.214), 

• windshield zone intrusion (571.219), 

• child restraint anchorage systems 

(571.225), 

• readiness monitor for ejection mitigation 

countermeasures visible to the driver 

(571.226), 

• flammability of interior materials 

(571.302), 

• interior trunk release (571.401), 

• other equipment may pose barriers to 

certification. 

[FR Doc. 2018–00671 Filed 1–17–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS