4130 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 9 / Wednesday, January 15, 2025 / Proposed Rules 

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 ADSequipped vehicles that operate or may 

operate on public roads in the United 

States under NHTSA’s oversight with 

the goal of improving public 

transparency related to the safety of 

certain ADS-equipped vehicles, while 

allowing for responsible development of 

this technology. This proposal includes 

procedures for application, 

participation, public reporting, and 

program administration. It identifies 

content requirements for applications, 

including independent assessments of 

ADS safety processes, such as the safety 

cases used and conformance to industry 

standards. These application 

requirements will inform NHTSA’s 

decisions on terms and conditions for 

participation. The proposal also 

contains reporting requirements for 

participants, including periodic and 

event-triggered reporting. 

DATES: Comments are requested on or 

before March 17, 2025. In compliance 

with the Paperwork Reduction Act, 

NHTSA is also seeking comment on a 

new information collection. For 

additional information, see subsection D 

(Paperwork Reduction Act) under 

Section IX (Regulatory Notices and 

Analyses). All comments relating to the 

information collection requirements 

should be submitted to NHTSA and to 

the Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) at the address listed in the 

ADDRESSES section on or before March 

17, 2025. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

to the docket number identified in the 

heading of this document by any of the 

following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

www.regulations.gov and follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Mail: Docket Management Facility, 

M–30, U.S. Department of 

Transportation, West Building, Ground 

Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590. 

• Hand Delivery or Courier: U.S. 

Department of Transportation, West 

Building, Ground Floor, Room W12– 

140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, 

Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. 

and 5 p.m. Eastern time, Monday 

through Friday, except Federal holidays. 

• Fax: (202) 493–2251. 

Instructions: All submissions received 

must include the agency name and 

docket number or Regulatory 

Information Number (RIN) for this 

rulemaking. All comments received will 

be posted without change to 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided. For 

detailed instructions on sending 

comments and additional information 

on the rulemaking process, see the 

‘‘Public Participation’’ heading of the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of 

this document. Comments on the 

proposed information collection 

requirements should be submitted to 

OMB at www.reginfo.gov/public/do/ 

PRAMain. To find this particular 

information collection, select ‘‘Currently 

under Review—Open for Public 

Comment’’ or use the search function. It 

is requested that comments sent to OMB 

also be sent to the NHTSA rulemaking 

docket identified in the heading of this 

document. 

Docket: For access to the dockets or to 

read background documents or 

comments received, please visit 

www.regulations.gov, and/or Docket 

Management Facility, M–30, U.S. 

Department of Transportation, West 

Building, Ground Floor, Rm. W12–140, 

1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, 

Washington, DC 20590. The Docket 

Management Facility is open between 9 

a.m. and 4 p.m. Eastern time, Monday 

through Friday, except Federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

non-legal issues: Katherine L. Chasins, 

Rulemaking Office of Automation Safety 

by email: katherine.chasins@dot.gov, or 

phone: (202) 366–7396. For legal issues: 

Hunter B. Oliver, Office of the Chief 

Counsel by email: hunter.oliver@

dot.gov, 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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 9 / Wednesday, January 15, 2025 / Proposed Rules 4131 

1Automated 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. 

3See 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). 

4As used within this proposal, fallback personnel 

are specially trained individuals that continuously 

supervise the performance of prototype ADSoperated 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 

§ 597.102 of the proposed rule. 

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 ADSequipped vehicles on public roads, as 

long as they comply with existing 

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards 

(FMVSS) and state and local laws. 

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

To account for this current ADS 

landscape, this document proposes a 

national program, entitled the ADSequipped 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 ADSequipped 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 ADSequipped 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 eventtriggered 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. 

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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
4132 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 9 / Wednesday, January 15, 2025 / Proposed Rules 

5Partial 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). 

6This 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 

§ 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). 

7This 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. 

8See, e.g., California Department of Motor 

Vehicle’s announcement regarding its acceptance of 

Mercedes’ DRIVE PILOT System, available at 

https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/news-and-media/ 

california-dmv-approves-mercedes-benzautomated-driving-system-for-certain-highwaysand-conditions. The announcement states: ‘‘The 

Level 3 Mercedes-Benz DRIVE PILOT system can 

only operate on highways during daylight at speeds 

not exceeding 40 miles per hour. This permit 

excludes operation on city or county streets, in 

construction zones, during heavy rain or heavy fog, 

on flooded roads and during weather conditions 

that are determined to impact performance of 

DRIVE PILOT.’’ 

9Mobility 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). 

10ADS 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). 

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 decisionmaking. 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. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 9 / Wednesday, January 15, 2025 / Proposed Rules 4133 

11This 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). 

12This provision is described further later in this 

section. 

13These duties are generally set forth in 49 U.S.C. 

chapter 301. 

14See 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’’). 

technology are capable of ensuring 

safety. Instead, these industry 

approaches often aim to provide safety 

guidance, such as by recommending 

minimal content for safety decisionmaking frameworks or by detailing highlevel vehicle behavior expectations.11

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 ADSequipped 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 ADSequipped 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. 

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. 

(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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
4134 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 9 / Wednesday, January 15, 2025 / Proposed Rules 

15See, e.g., 49 U.S.C. 30112. 

16See 49 U.S.C. 30118, 30122. 

17See 49 U.S.C. 30112(b)(10). 

18See 49 U.S.C. 30166. 

19See id. 

20See 81 FR 65705, 65707 (September 23, 2016) 

(explaining that ADS is motor vehicle equipment). 

21See Pony.ai, ‘‘Part 573 Safety Recall Report, No. 

22E–016,’’ (March 3, 2022), available at https://

static.nhtsa.gov/odi/rcl/2022/RCLRPT-22E016- 

6814.PDF; Cruise, LLC, ‘‘Part 573 Safety Recall 

Report, No. 22E–072,’’ (August 29, 2022), available 

at https://static.nhtsa.gov/odi/rcl/2022/RCLRPT22E072-8020.PDF; Cruise, LLC, ‘‘Part 573 Safety 

Recall Report, No. 23E–029,’’ (April 3, 2023), 

available at https://static.nhtsa.gov/odi/rcl/2023/ 

RCLRPT-23E029-4270.PDF. 

22See, e.g., NHTSA, ‘‘ODI Resume: Preliminary 

Evaluation PE 22–014’’ (December 12, 2022); 

NHTSA, ‘‘ODI Resume: Recall Query RQ 22–001’’ 

(Recall 22E–016) (April 10, 2022); and NHTSA, 

‘‘ODI Resume: Audit Query AQ 23–001’’ (March 3, 

2023), available at https://static.nhtsa.gov/odi/inv/ 

2023/INOA-AQ23001-2603.PDF. 

23NHTSA, ‘‘In re: Second Amended Standing 

General Order 2021–01: Incident Reporting for 

Automated Driving Systems (ADS) and Level 2 

Advanced Driver Assistance Systems (ADAS)’’ 

(April 5, 2023), available at https://www.nhtsa.gov/ 

sites/nhtsa.gov/files/2023-04/Second-AmendedSGO-2021-01_2023-04-05_2.pdf. 

24See 49 U.S.C. 30118; 49 CFR part 577. 

25See 49 U.S.C. chapter 323; 49 CFR part 575. 

26See generally NHTSA, ‘‘Research & Evaluation: 

Behavioral Research,’’ available at https://

www.nhtsa.gov/behavioral-research. 

27See 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). 

28AV TEST is an interactive tool that lets the 

public view voluntarily submitted information 

about automated vehicle operations. See NHTSA, 

‘‘Automated Vehicle Transparency and Engagement 

for Safe Testing (AV TEST) Initiative,’’ available at 

https://www.nhtsa.gov/automated-vehicle-testtracking-tool. 

29NHTSA, ‘‘Automated Driving Systems: 

Voluntary Safety Self-Assessment,’’ available at 

https://www.nhtsa.gov/automated-driving-systems/ 

voluntary-safety-self-assessment. 

30 49 U.S.C. 30111(a). 

31 49 U.S.C. 30111(b). 

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. 

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 ADSequipped vehicles on public roads. 

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. 

To ensure that NHTSA has access to 

the information necessary to exercise its 

oversight authority, the Safety Act 

expressly includes informationgathering 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. 

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 SelfAssessments (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. 

(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

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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 9 / Wednesday, January 15, 2025 / Proposed Rules 4135 

32See 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.). § 

33See Public Law 112–141 (2012). 

34See 49 U.S.C. 30182(a). Subsection 30182(b) 

specifies activities NHTSA may undertake in 

carrying out subsection (a). 

35NHTSA, 83 FR 50872, 50876 (October 10, 

2018). 

36See 49 U.S.C. 30182(b). 

37 Information about NHTSA’s full array of 

regulatory actions, including those pertaining to 

vehicle automation technologies, can be found 

within the biannually released Unified Agenda. See 

Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, 

‘‘Unified Agenda of Regulatory and Deregulatory 

Actions,’’ available at https://www.reginfo.gov/ 

public/do/eAgendaMain. 

38NHTSA, ‘‘United States Department of 

Transportation Annual Modal Research Plan FY 

2022 and Program Outlook FY 2023’’ (September 

10, 2021), available at https://

www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/2022-02/ 

AMRP%20FY2022-2023%20NHTSA%20FINAL.

pdf. 

39NHTSA, ‘‘Report to Congress: Automated 

Vehicles’’ (2023), available at https://

www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.gov/files/2023-06/ 

Automated-Vehicles-Report-to-Congress06302023.pdf. 

40 49 U.S.C. 30111. 

41See generally, NHTSA, ‘‘How to Import a Motor 

Vehicle for Show or Display’’ (October 15, 2012), 

available at https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.gov/ 

files/documents/how_to_import_show_display_

10152012-tag.pdf. 

42TIE is often colloquially known as NHTSA’s 

Box 7 program, a reference to the numbered box 

associated with this exemption on the HS–7 

Declaration form used during the importation 

process. See generally, NHTSA, ‘‘Temporary 

Importation of a Motor Vehicle Under Box 7 on the 

HS–7 Form,’’ available at https://www.nhtsa.gov/ 

sites/nhtsa.gov/files/documents/box7_form_

111920_v3_secured.pdf. 

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

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. 

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. 

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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
4136 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 9 / Wednesday, January 15, 2025 / Proposed Rules 

43NHTSA, 85 FR 7826, 7842 (February 11, 2020). 

44 49 U.S.C. 30113(b)(3). 

45Although 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. 

46See 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’’). 

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 ADSequipped 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. 

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 ADSequipped 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. 

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. 

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. 

(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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 9 / Wednesday, January 15, 2025 / Proposed Rules 4137 

47See 49 U.S.C. 30122(c). 

48 49 CFR part 595 (Make Inoperative 

Exemptions). 

49 49 CFR 595.2; see also 87 FR 14406 (March 15, 

2022). 

50NHTSA, 87 FR 18560, 18571 n.36 (September 

26, 2022). 

51See, e.g., 89 FR 39686 (May 9, 2024). 

52See 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). 

53NHTSA, ‘‘NHTSA Announces Update to 

Historic AEB Commitment by 20 Automakers’’ 

Continued 

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

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. 

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 FMVSScertified 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

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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
4138 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 9 / Wednesday, January 15, 2025 / Proposed Rules 

(December 17, 2019), available at https://

www.nhtsa.gov/press-releases/nhtsa-announcesupdate-historic-aeb-commitment-20-automakers. 

54NHTSA, ‘‘Automated Driving Systems: 

Voluntary Safety Self-Assessment,’’ available at 

https://www.nhtsa.gov/automated-driving-systems/ 

voluntary-safety-self-assessment. 

55NHTSA, ‘‘AV TEST Initiative: Automated 

Vehicle Transparency and Engagement for Safe 

Testing Initiative,’’ available at https://

www.nhtsa.gov/automated-vehicle-test-trackingtool. 

56NHTSA, ‘‘PARTS: Partnership for Analytics 

Research in Traffic Safety,’’ available at https://

www.nhtsa.gov/parts-partnership-for-analyticsresearch-in-traffic-safety. 

57For this NPRM’s definition of these terms, see 

§ 597.102 of the proposed rule. 

58For 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. 

59SAE 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. 

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

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: 

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. 

Beyond these ADS requirements, 

NHTSA proposes to consider the effect 

of other vehicle attributes on a case-bycase 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 § 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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 9 / Wednesday, January 15, 2025 / Proposed Rules 4139 

60For 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). 

61As 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. 

62Those 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)). 

63See generally SAE International, ‘‘J3016 

APR2021: Taxonomy and Definitions for Terms 

Related to Driving Automation Systems for OnRoad Motor Vehicles,’’ (Revised April 2021). 

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 ADSequipped 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 ADSequipped 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.’’). 

66 Id. at 3.13, p. 14 (‘‘Fleet Operations 

[Functions]’’) (bracketed language in original). 

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. 

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 systemlevel 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

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 SystemLevel 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

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: 

The activities that support the 

management of a fleet of ADS-equipped 

vehicles in driverless operation, which 

may include, without limitation: 

• Ensuring operational readiness. 

• Dispatching ADS-equipped vehicles 

in driverless operation (i.e., engaging 

the ADSs prior to placing the vehicles 

in service on public roads). 

• Authorizing each trip (e.g., 

payment, trip route selection). 

• Providing fleet asset management 

services to vehicles while in use (e.g., 

managing emergencies, summoning or 

providing remote assistance as needed, 

responding to customer requests and 

breakdowns). 

• Serving as the responsible agent visa-vis law enforcement, emergency 

responders, and other authorities for 

vehicles while in use. 

• Disengaging the ADS at the end of 

service. 

• Performing vehicle repair and 

maintenance as needed.66

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. 

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 nonpublic roads, such as closed course 

testing. In general, the proposed 

application and reporting requirements 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
4140 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 9 / Wednesday, January 15, 2025 / Proposed Rules 

68However, 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). 

69Aurora, ‘‘Safety Report’’ (2022), available at 

https://info.aurora.tech/hubfs/website%20

Public%20Files/Q4_Safety_VSSA%202022_digital_

r2.pdf. 

70Webb, N., Smith, D., Ludwick, C., Victor, T.W., 

Hommes, Q., Favaro` F., Ivanov, G., and Daniel, T., 

‘‘Waymo’s Safety Methodologies and Safety 

Readiness Determinations,’’ (2020) available at 

https://arxiv.org/abs/2011.00054. 

71Stakeholders 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. 

72Section 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 performancerelevant 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. 

73Section 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. 

74Some vehicle designs do not facilitate any 

human occupancy. Remote fallback personnel 

would be the only option for such vehicles to rely 

on fallback personnel. 

75These requirements are set forth in § 597.501(f) 

of the proposed rule and described further in 

Section V.A (Reporting Requirements) of this 

document. 

76This 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 

§ 597.105(c) of the proposed rule. 

for AV STEP would not cover such 

private road operations.68

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

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

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 onroad traffic, who continuously 

supervises the performance of an ADSoperated 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. 

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). 

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

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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 9 / Wednesday, January 15, 2025 / Proposed Rules 4141 

77Section VII (Requirements for AV STEP 

Exemptions (Regulatory Text Subpart C)) explains 

a unique set of procedures for vehicles receiving 

exemptions under AV STEP. 

78Section VII (Requirements for AV STEP 

Exemptions (Regulatory Text Subpart C)) explains 

the requirements for FMVSS exemptions that 

involve commercial operations. 

79Setting 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). 

80Human factors issues, connection latency, and 

jitter can result in unavoidable challenges for 

remote driving operations, even in locations with 

optimal connectivity. Therefore, although the 

agency extends eligibility to prospective operations 

that would entail limited remote driving, NHTSA 

expects, through the review framework described in 

the ensuing sections, to significantly scrutinize 

such uses. For further discussion of latency, jitter, 

and other remote driving considerations, see, e.g., 

Y. Yu and S. Lee, ‘‘Remote Driving Control With 

Real-Time Video Streaming Over Wireless 

Networks: Design and Evaluation’’ (June 2022), 

available at https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/ 

stamp.jsp?arnumber=9797698. 

81The required information about remote driving 

in an application is discussed in Section IV.B 

(Protocols for ADS Operations). 

82Other 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. 

83This requirement would maintain NHTSA’s 

practice of imposing a similar term in other 

exemptions issued under Section 30114(a). 

84See, e.g., U.S. Department of Transportation, 

‘‘Automated Driving Systems Demonstration Grants 

Program,’’ available at https:// 

Continued 

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. 

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 § 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

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. 

NHTSA also proposes for Final 

Determination Letters to contain terms 

governing the use of remote driving 

during participation. NHTSA proposes, 

in § 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). 

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

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. 

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 DOT84 and pilot projects to 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
4142 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 9 / Wednesday, January 15, 2025 / Proposed Rules 

www.transportation.gov/policy-initiatives/ 

automated-vehicles/ads-demonstration-grants. The 

Federal Transit Administration also administers 

grants for ADS. See generally Federal Transit 

Administration, ‘‘Transit Automation Research,’’ 

available at https://www.transit.dot.gov/ 

automation-research. 

85National Park Service, ‘‘NPS Emerging 

Mobility: Summary Evaluation of Low-Speed 

Automated Shuttle Pilots at NPS Sites,’’ June 2022. 

https://www.nps.gov/subjects/transportation/ 

upload/NPS-Automated-Shuttle-Pilots-EvaluationSummary.pdf. 

86See, e.g., California Department of Motor 

Vehicles, ‘‘Autonomous Vehicles,’’ available at 

https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/vehicle-industryservices/autonomous-vehicles/#:∼:text=

The%20DMV%20administers

%20the%20Autonomous,and%20applying

%20for%20a%20permit. 

87See, e.g., National Conference of State 

Legislatures, ‘‘Autonomous Vehicles Legislation 

Database,’’ available at https://www.ncsl.org/

transportation/autonomous-vehicles-legislationdatabase. 

88See Office of Information and Regulatory 

Affairs, ‘‘Unified Agenda of Regulatory and 

Deregulatory Actions,’’ Federal Motor Carrier Safety 

Administration, RIN 2126–AC17: Motor Carrier 

Operation of Automated Driving Systems (ADS)- 

Equipped Commercial Motor Vehicles, available at 

https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/ 

eAgendaViewRule?pubId=202310&RIN=2126- 

AC17. 

89An exemption would require an additional 

application form specific to that purpose, as 

discussed later in Section VII.C (Exemption 

Participation Requirements). 

90An 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.’’ 

91See Section VI (Public Reporting Requirements 

(Regulatory Text Subpart G)). 

92See 49 CFR 571.3. 

93 Id. 

94See 49 CFR part 523. 

95Even 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. 

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

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. 

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

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: 

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 § 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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 9 / Wednesday, January 15, 2025 / Proposed Rules 4143 

96ADS 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). 

97The 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). 

98More 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). 

99See supra n.80. 

100For additional discussion of ‘‘remote 

assistance,’’ see SAE International, ‘‘J3016 

APR2021: Taxonomy and Definitions for Terms 

Related to Driving Automation Systems for OnRoad Motor Vehicles,’’ Section 3.23: Remote 

Assistance, (Revised April 2021). 

101Unlike 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. 

102As 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). 

103See Section VII.C (Exemption Application 

Requirements). 

104See Section VI (Public Reporting 

Requirements (Regulatory Text Subpart G)). 

should participate separately. This 

approach would help to streamline 

individual applications and preserve the 

consistency of operations contained in a 

single application or participation. 

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. 

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 eventtriggered 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 eventtriggered reporting in §§ 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. 

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 § 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)). 

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 ADSequipped 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

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

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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
4144 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 9 / Wednesday, January 15, 2025 / Proposed Rules 

105The process for adding new Location Sheets 

during participation is discussed in Section V.B.1 

(Amendment Process). 

106For 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. 

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. 

108As 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. 

109The proposed rule refers to public passengers 

as ‘‘public ridership.’’ See § 597.102. 

110For 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. 

111See § 597.102 of the proposed rule. 

112See, 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). 

113See Section VI (Public Reporting 

Requirements (Regulatory Text Subpart G)). 

vehicle designs and believes that it is 

important for the public to understand 

the availability of such features. 

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: 

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. 

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). 

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

Public Ridership. An application 

would indicate whether the subject 

vehicle would carry public passengers 

during the requested operations.109

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

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 timeof-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

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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 9 / Wednesday, January 15, 2025 / Proposed Rules 4145 

114Even 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. 115See Section V.A (Reporting Requirements). 

116As noted elsewhere by NHTSA, vehicle 

automation features that contribute to behaviors 

that cause traffic violations can constitute a motor 

vehicle defect. This has been demonstrated by 

partial driving automation system recalls relating to 

such incidents. See Tesla, Inc., ‘‘Part 573 Safety 

Recall Report, Recall No. 23V–085’’ (February 15, 

2023), available at https://static.nhtsa.gov/odi/rcl/ 

2023/RCLRPT-23V085-3451.PDF. 

117A response to this element would not need to 

include ‘‘unwritten rules of the road’’ or ‘‘implicit 

traffic rules,’’ which are phrases used within the 

industry to refer to behaviors associated with good 

roadway citizenship that are not typically defined 

by traffic laws. However, these concepts would 

likely be relevant to other aspects of an application, 

such as certain claims and evidence in the safety 

case that would be reviewed by an independent 

assessment. For further discussion of these 

concepts, see, e.g., Mobileye Technologies Ltd., 

‘‘The Unwritten Rules of the Road, Codified in 

RSS’’ (February 2023), available at https://

www.mobileye.com/blog/responsibility-sensitivesafety-unwritten-rules-of-the-road/ and Aptiv et al., 

‘‘Safety First for Automated Driving’’ (2019), 

available at https://static.mobileye.com/website/ 

corporate/media/Intel-Safety-First-for-AutomatedDriving.pdf. 

118See AVSC, ‘‘AVSC00005202012: Best Practice 

for First Responder Interactions with Fleet-Managed 

Automated Driving System-Dedicated Vehicles 

(ADS–DVs)’’ (December 2020). 

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 coapplicants, 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. 

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

1. Law Abidance 

Compliance with traffic safety laws 

and local requirements for operating is 

a critical aspect of safety for ADSequipped 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. 

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. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
4146 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 9 / Wednesday, January 15, 2025 / Proposed Rules 

119See § 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). 

120For example, do the trigger conditions fully 

capture any feasible ODD exits, such as sudden 

weather changes? 

121For 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. 

122See, e.g., Fraade-Blanar, Laura, Marjory S. 

Blumenthal, James M. Anderson, and Nidhi Kalra, 

‘‘Measuring Automated Vehicle Safety: Forging a 

Framework. Santa Monica,’’ CA: RAND Corporation 

(2018), available at https://www.rand.org/pubs/ 

research_reports/RR2662.html. 

123See AVSC, ‘‘AVSC00003202006: Best Practice 

for Passenger-Initiated Emergency Trip 

Interruption’’ (June 2020). 

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

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

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. 

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 subelements relating to communication and 

behavioral strategies: 

• Any communication strategies to 

convey information to individuals 

outside of a subject ADS-equipped 

vehicle, including individuals with 

physical, sensory, and cognitive 

disabilities; 

• Any measures to promote the 

predictability of the ADS’ behavior for 

other road users in the vicinity of the 

subject vehicle. This response should 

include information about how the ADS 

accounts for ‘‘unwritten rules of the 

road’’ or ‘‘roadmanship.’’ 122

• 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

NHTSA also proposes a fourth subelement, which would focus on the 

applicant’s approach to ensuring safe 

and predictable interactions for 

passengers with disabilities. An 

application would need to include 

information in response to this fourth 

sub-element regarding the response to 

the Operational Baseline question about 

accessibility of subject vehicles 

containing features or design 

modifications that are intended to 

promote the safe accommodation of 

passengers with disabilities. NHTSA 

proposes for this sub-element to cover: 

• Any features or design 

modifications that are intended to 

promote safe accommodation of 

passengers with disabilities. Information 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 9 / Wednesday, January 15, 2025 / Proposed Rules 4147 

124See Section IV.D.1.a) (Conformance with 

Industry Standards). 

125NHTSA, ‘‘Cybersecurity Best Practices for the 

Safety of Modern Vehicles’’ (September 2022), 

available at https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.gov/ 

files/2022-09/cybersecurity-best-practices-safetymodern-vehicles-2022-tag.pdf. 

126Subpart E of the proposed rule outlines 

required data reporting during participation. 

127These subjects would supplement the data 

logging information that would be required for an 

application under § 597.201(f) of the proposed rule, 

as discussed in Section IV.A.1 (Operational 

Baseline). 

128NHTSA expects that some applications may 

jointly respond to some of these subjects if 

information responsive to one is also responsive to 

others. 

129Such as an ADS developer and fleet operator 

for operations in which these are different entities. 

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. 

131While 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). 

132Outside 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). 

provided in response to this subelement 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 ADSequipped 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. 

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 § 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

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. 

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 spotchecking, 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. 

Risk management strategies for 

mitigating internal and external datarelated 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

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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
4148 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 9 / Wednesday, January 15, 2025 / Proposed Rules 

133Examples 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. 

134See, e.g., Pete Bigelow, ‘‘Self-driving tech 

companies take a hard look at their own blind 

spots, Automotive News,’’ (October 14, 2024), 

available at https://www.autonews.com/mobilityreport/autonomous-driving-companies-seekindependent-safety-reviews/. 

135While not all best practices or guidance may 

be considered ‘‘standards,’’ for simplicity, they are 

collectively referred to as ‘‘standards’’ or ‘‘industry 

standards’’ hereafter. 136See Public Law 104–113 (1996). 

137This 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. 

138This proposal defines a safety case as ‘‘a 

structured argument, consisting of claims supported 

by a body of evidence, that provides a complete, 

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. 

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. 

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

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. 

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-ofthe-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


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 9 / Wednesday, January 15, 2025 / Proposed Rules 4149 

comprehensible, and valid case that a system is 

acceptably safe for a given use in a specified 

environment.’’ See § 597.102 of the proposed rule. 

139 85 FR 78058 (December 3, 2020). 

140Center for Automotive Safety, Docket No. 

NHTSA–2020–0106, Comment ID NHTSA–2020– 

0106–0763 (April 2, 2021), available at https://

www.regulations.gov/comment/NHTSA-2020-0106- 

0763. 

141Waymo, Docket No. NHTSA–2020–0106–0771 

(April 28, 2021), available at https://

www.regulations.gov/comment/NHTSA-2020-0106- 

0771. 

142City of New York, Docket No. NHTSA–2020– 

0106–0764 (April 2, 2021), available at https://

www.regulations.gov/comment/NHTSA-2020-0106- 

0764. 

143Such 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). 

144This 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. 

145For further discussion of tool qualification, 

particularly with regards to summarizing the tool 

qualification approaches outlined by industry 

consensus standards, including ISO 26262, see, e.g., 

M. Conrad, G. Sandmann, and P. Munier, ‘‘Software 

Tool Qualification According to ISO 26262’’ (April 

2011), available at https://www.mathworks.com/ 

content/dam/mathworks/tag-team/Objects/s/68068- 

2011-01-1005-mathworks.pdf. 

146See, 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). 

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. 

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. 

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

Tool Qualification.145 Whether 

software tools used to evaluate expected 

ADS performance are representative and 

accurate. 

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. 

As with the prior elements, NHTSA is 

not prescribing a specific type of safety 

management system for this 

requirement but, instead, proposes eight 

elements for the required review: 

• Whether the leadership fosters a 

positive safety culture and demonstrates 

a safety commitment throughout the 

organization. This element focuses on 

how leadership support for safety 

management policies may affect their 

use in the organization. For instance, if 

leadership prioritizes achieving 

development milestones in a way that 

tacitly discourages internal reporting of 

safety concerns, internal reporting 

policies that read well may not be 

followed in practice. Such policies are 

more likely to reach their full potential 

if leadership rewards identifying and 

resolving safety issues early. 

• Whether those responsible for the 

implementation of the safety 

management systems possess 

appropriate resources, authorities, and 

accountability. This element would 

include considerations that affect the 

responsibilities of the workforce that 

would oversee safe ADS operations. A 

review under this element may span 

working conditions, such as work 

intensity, fatigue risk, shift length, 

length between shifts, and human-tovehicle ratios for fallback or vehicle 

assistance personnel. 

• Whether there are appropriate 

policies and processes for encouraging 

the reporting and timely investigation of 

safety-related concerns from internal 

staff and members of the public. 

• Whether appropriate capabilities 

and policies exist for monitoring the 

location and state of each participating 

vehicle. 

• Whether appropriate processes exist 

to monitor safety performance 

indicators. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
4150 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 9 / Wednesday, January 15, 2025 / Proposed Rules 

147This 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. 

148This 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 § 597.205(e) of the proposed rule. 

149Section V.A.3 (Update Reporting) and 

§ 597.502 of the proposed rule describe how 

changes to an operation would be overseen. 

150For example, if an applicant refused to make 

certain documentation or data available to the 

assessor. 

• Whether sufficient capabilities and 

policies exist for timely responding to a 

vehicle incident or immobilization and, 

if necessary, to clear a disabled vehicle 

from the roadway. This review must 

estimate a range of time for an expected 

response. 

• Whether an appropriate plan exists 

for reaching timely decisions regarding 

future operations if an emergency arises. 

For instance, this element should 

consider the decision-making processes 

for determining when and how 

operations should be curtailed or 

paused after an incident. 

• Whether there are appropriate 

processes in place for how Essential 

System-Level Stakeholders will engage 

with each other regarding ongoing 

operations, including for carrying out 

software updates, operational updates, 

vehicle maintenance, and the collection 

and reporting of safety data. 

Collectively, these two focuses of a 

safety case assessment would provide 

insight into whether robust safety 

assurance frameworks exist for the 

public operation of subject vehicles and 

whether sufficient organizational 

support underpins those frameworks. 

(c) Policies and Capabilities 

Finally, NHTSA proposes to require 

an independent assessment to cover 

three other topics. Each of these topics 

may already be covered by a 

comprehensive safety case or by 

industry standards conformance. If so, 

to the extent an assessment already 

reviewed these topics, it could be 

incorporated in satisfying these 

requirements. However, the proposed 

rule separately enumerates the 

following topics to ensure that they 

would be covered by an assessment: 

Community Engagement. Whether 

policies for engaging with state and 

local authorities, local communities, 

and other entities affected by the subject 

vehicle’s operation are sufficiently 

robust to identify the relevant 

stakeholders, provide them with 

appropriate information regarding 

operations, engage with them about 

concerns, and meaningfully address 

those concerns as needed. These 

relevant stakeholders may range from 

law enforcement, first responders, and 

local regulatory authorities to labor 

organizations representing the 

transportation workforce to residents 

that live in the area in which the subject 

vehicles would operate. The appropriate 

engagement processes likely depend on 

the stakeholders and operations in 

question. However, examples of 

potentially effective engagement 

strategies from NHTSA’s past 

experience administering ADS 

exemptions in AVEP include town halls 

hosted by an ADS developer to allow 

members of the community to express 

their views on local operations, 

demonstrations with local law 

enforcement of how to interact with the 

vehicle during an emergency situation, 

and coordination with local officials 

and law enforcement about how 

proposed operations may affect local 

traffic patterns. 

Training and Qualifications of 

Personnel. Whether the personnel 

responsible for developing and 

maintaining the safety case or executing 

safety critical processes possess 

appropriate qualifications and training. 

This should include consideration of 

training procedures and materials used, 

on both an initial and ongoing basis. 

ADS-equipped vehicles rely, and are 

expected to continue to rely, on a 

skilled human workforce. Working 

conditions and training are a key 

component of achieving safe ADS 

operations. To help the agency explore 

the potential scope of information that 

a review of this element should cover, 

NHTSA requests comment on the 

following topics pertaining to how 

workforce considerations may affect 

ADS safety: (1) what data could 

participants in AV STEP provide to 

further the Department’s understanding 

of impacts, both positive and negative, 

to the safety of the transportation 

workforce; and (2) what data could 

participants in AV STEP provide 

regarding safety-promoting working 

conditions, including training, 

certifications, workplace location, shift 

length, and workload, for both vehicle 

assistance and fallback personnel? 

Data Capture. Whether the data 

capture capabilities for the subject 

vehicle suffice to meet the data 

reporting requirements in AV STEP.147

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

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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 9 / Wednesday, January 15, 2025 / Proposed Rules 4151 

151Section 597.205(e) of the proposed rule 

explains the specific content that would be required 

for this description. 

152Other 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). 

153As proposed, the assessor in these situations 

would also include any personnel or contractors 

used by the assessor for the review. 154NHTSA 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. 

155This requirement is not meant to prohibit de 

minimis or sufficiently diversified interests. Cf. 28 

U.S.C. 208; 5 CFR part 2640. 

156An assessor that previously conducted 

internal reviews for a company during the ADS 

design process would be an example of this first 

situation. 

157An example of this second situation could 

involve an entity that, before conducting an 

Continued 

difficulties may have impacted the 

assessment’s informative value. 

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. 

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, § 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

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. 

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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
4152 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 9 / Wednesday, January 15, 2025 / Proposed Rules 

assessment, was engaged to help shape the project 

that is the subject of the request, such as by 

reviewing and recommending locations for 

operations. 

158Neither 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 §§ 597.205(c) and 

597.205(f) of the proposed rule. 

159As 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. 

160Section 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. 

161The proposed procedures would allow 

NHTSA to withdraw a Preliminary Determination at 

any time before issuing a final decision. For 

example, this could occur if NHTSA becomes aware 

of new information after issuing a Preliminary 

Determination. 

162Similarly, at any time after the issuance of a 

Preliminary Determination, an applicant would be 

able to request, in writing, that the Preliminary 

Determination become final. If this occurs, NHTSA 

would aim to issue a Final Determination Letter 

sooner than ten business days. 

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. 

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

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. 

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. 

V. Participation (Regulatory Text 

Subparts E and F) 

Proposed requirements for 

participation in AV STEP include: (1) 

general reporting on a quarterly basis; 

(2) event-triggered reporting of certain 

incidents and events during operations; 

and (3) reporting on updates to an 

operation. NHTSA also proposes an 

amendment process for changes in 

terms or conditions of participation and 

a concern resolution process that the 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 9 / Wednesday, January 15, 2025 / Proposed Rules 4153 

163See, e.g., NHTSA, ‘‘Second Amended Standing 

General Order 2021–01: Incident Reporting for 

Automated Driving Systems (ADS) and Level 2 

Advanced Driver Assistance Systems (ADAS)’’ 

(April 2023), available at https://www.nhtsa.gov/ 

laws-regulations/standing-general-order-crashreporting; and NHTSA and Cruise, LLC, ‘‘In re: 

Cruise, LLC Standing General Order 2021–01 

Reporting, Consent Order’’ (September 26, 2024), 

available at https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.gov/ 

files/2024-09/cruise-consent-order-2024-web.pdf. 

164For example, a report could state that ‘‘x’’ 

VMT were accrued between 8:00 a.m. and 9:00 a.m. 

and ‘‘x’’ VMT were accrued between 9:00 a.m. and 

10:00 a.m. 

agency would use to investigate and 

respond to any concerns that arise 

during participation. 

A. Reporting Requirements 

NHTSA proposes a reporting 

framework to help NHTSA oversee the 

performance of ADS-equipped vehicles 

admitted to AV STEP. For these 

reporting requirements, the agency drew 

on its experience overseeing ADSequipped vehicle performance in other 

contexts, such as other exemptions and 

enforcement activities.163 Table V–1 

provides a high-level depiction of the 

reporting requirements detailed in 

Subpart E of the proposed rule. In 

addition to these generally applicable 

requirements, NHTSA may set further 

reporting requirements on a case-bycase basis, through terms and conditions 

in a Final Determination Letter. 

TABLE V–1—AV STEP REPORTING REQUIREMENTS OVERVIEW

Periodic Reporting For Each 

Location Sheet.

Extent of Operations: 

• Number of Vehicles Operated & Vehicle Identifiers. 

• Zip Code(s) of Operation. 

• Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) with ADS Engaged, segmented by: Zip Code, Hour of Day, & Presence of 

Onboard Fallback Personnel. 

• Operational Context. 

Operational Performance: 

• Vehicle Recovery Events. 

• Otherwise Unreported Contact Events. 

• Aggressive Jerk and Acceleration/Deceleration Instances. 

• Instances of Unplanned Interruptions to ADS Operation. 

Step 1 Specific: 

• Customized—Fallback Personnel Performance Metrics. 

Step 2 Specific: 

• Minimal Risk Condition Description, Duration, and Location. 

• Customized—Objective Performance Metrics, Design Adherence Metrics, & Process Adherence Metrics. 

AV STEP Exemption Specific: VMT Segmentation by VIN. 

Event-Triggered Reporting ... • Otherwise Unreported Crash Data.* 

• Citable Offenses. 

• Reportable Changes. 

Reportable Changes ............ Operational Changes that Exceed Customized Thresholds. 

* NHTSA proposes for current reporting requirements to largely satisfy this element; subsection 2 discusses this proposal in further detail. 

1. Periodic Reporting 

To continually assess the performance 

of participating operations, NHTSA 

proposes that certain data be reported 

on a quarterly basis. These periodic 

reporting requirements are in § 597.500 

of the proposed rule. As proposed, each 

quarterly report would be due on the 

final business day of the first month that 

follows the reporting period. This 

schedule would provide participants 

with nearly a month to process data and 

prepare reports for the previous quarter. 

This quarterly timeframe would balance 

the need for timely performance updates 

with the burden of more frequent 

reporting. NHTSA seeks comment on 

whether this quarterly cadence is 

appropriate and whether any reporting 

requirements should be revised, added, 

or removed. 

(a) Reporting Requirements for All 

Participants 

NHTSA proposes a set of baseline 

reporting requirements for all 

participants, to ensure receipt of 

standard information about all 

participating operations. This proposed 

standard reporting would be by 

Location Sheet for a given reporting 

period. The first five requirements 

below are proposed to capture the 

extent of operations, while the latter five 

requirements are proposed to cover 

aspects of ADS performance during 

operations. These proposed reporting 

requirements, detailed in § 597.500(c) of 

the proposed rule, are: 

Number of Vehicles Operated. The 

total number of vehicles that operated 

under the Location Sheet during the 

reporting period. As proposed, this 

number would include any vehicles that 

accumulated vehicle miles traveled 

(VMT) on public roads. However, 

NHTSA requests comment on whether it 

should specify a de minimis VMT 

threshold below which a vehicle need 

not be reported. 

Vehicle Identification Number (VIN). 

The VIN of each vehicle included under 

the preceding requirement. This would 

link a particular vehicle to the 

associated terms and conditions of a 

participation. 

Zip Codes of Operation. Each zip code 

in which a vehicle operated on a public 

road. 

Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) with 

the ADS Engaged. The aggregate vehicle 

miles traveled with the ADS engaged, 

segmented by: 

(1) Hour of day; 164

(2) Presence of onboard fallback 

personnel; and 

(3) Each zip code, which would serve 

as the primary means of segmenting 

VMT to better understand where 

operations occur within the geographic 

area of a Location Sheet. Alternatively, 

the agency could require that 

participants report VMT data by road 

type in addition to zip code. This 

information would reveal how driving 

environments are represented in 

operations. The agency seeks comment 

on this alternative, particularly as to 

feasibility. 

Operational Context. This 

requirement would provide insight into 

how a particular participating operation 

compares to other, non-AV STEP 

operations conducted by the same key 

entities and help NHTSA and the public 

understand whether numbers reported 

under AV STEP represent a large or 

small proportion of those broader 

operations. This context would also 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
4154 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 9 / Wednesday, January 15, 2025 / Proposed Rules 

165This might occur, for example, where 

participation is sought at Step 2 in a very limited 

environment when most of the applicant’s 

operations outside of AV STEP are less mature. 

166For example, when coming to a stop at low 

speeds to maximize passing space for other 

vehicles. 

167For discussion of the use of jerk as a suggested 

predictor of safe vehicle motion control, see AVSC, 

‘‘AVSC00006202103: Best Practice for Metrics and 

Methods for Assessing Safety Performance of ADS’’ 

(March 2021). 

168For instance, it may be less burdensome for an 

entity to report based off of a more stringent 

internal threshold than to set up a new process for 

collecting events based on NHTSA’s default 

threshold. 

169See the discussion for Instances of Aggressive 

Vehicle Jerk regarding potential approaches to 

establishing such thresholds. 

170See § 597.102 of the proposed rule for 

definition of DDT Takeover. 

171 In some situations, personnel may be 

physically present in the vehicle but acting in a 

vehicle assistance role rather than as onboard test 

drivers who would have the ability to exercise full 

control over the vehicle’s DDT. 

172 If the ADS initiates an MRC in circumstances 

where it requests vehicle assistance, but none is 

received within a certain time frame, such an event 

would require reporting under the first category of 

interruptions. If subsequent vehicle assistance 

changed the behavior projected by the ADS, that 

would require vehicle assistance reporting as well. 

help avoid misleading the public about 

the state of a participant’s 

technology.165 To do so, NHTSA 

proposes reporting on two types of 

comparisons. The first would consider 

how the number of subject vehicles that 

participated under each Location Sheet 

compared to the number of vehicles for 

three types of total operations (if they 

involved the same combination of 

vehicle manufacturer, ADS developer, 

and fleet operator, regardless of AV 

STEP participation): (1) operations on 

public roads in the United States; (2) 

operations on public roads in a 

geographical area that overlaps the area 

for the Location Sheet; and (3) 

operations on public roads that involve 

the same vehicle model as the subject 

vehicle. The second comparison would 

be similar but based on VMT instead of 

vehicle numbers. Specifically, it would 

consider how the VMT accumulated 

with the ADS engaged on public roads 

under each Location Sheet compared to 

the VMT for the same three types of 

broader operations described earlier in 

this paragraph. 

Vehicle Recovery Events (VREs). 

Describe each VRE involving a subject 

vehicle. NHTSA proposes to define a 

VRE as any instance in which a vehicle 

needed to be recovered during roadway 

operations by personnel other than 

those already on board the subject 

vehicle. This would include, but not be 

limited to, recovery after achieving an 

MRC. A report for this requirement 

should include, for each VRE, the 

duration and location of the vehicle’s 

immobilization before its recovery and 

the reason that vehicle recovery was 

required. A report for this requirement 

should also, wherever applicable, crossreference any other report required by 

AV STEP associated with the VRE, such 

as a report of a crash or contact event. 

Otherwise Unreported Contact Events. 

Describe any contact event that does not 

meet the event-triggered crash reporting 

criteria discussed in Section V.A.2 

(Event-Triggered Reporting). The 

proposed rule defines a contact event as 

any event in which a subject vehicle 

comes into physical contact with 

another vehicle, road user, individual, 

animal, or physical object. This 

definition would not include benign 

intentional contact, such as upon a 

passenger entering or exiting a vehicle 

while it is stationary, or intentional tire 

contact with a curb 166 below speeds of 

5 miles per hour. The less serious nature 

of contact events that do not meet the 

injury or property damage thresholds for 

crash reporting reduces the need for 

more immediate reporting. 

Nevertheless, this reporting could 

provide valuable insight on ADS 

performance. The agency seeks 

comment on whether the reporting 

threshold for these contact events may 

be refined to better distinguish 

potentially meaningful events. 

Instances of Aggressive Vehicle 

Jerk.167 Report the total number of 

instances of a rate of change in vehicle 

acceleration that exceeds a customized 

threshold. NHTSA is considering two 

options for the applicable thresholds 

and the subsequent reporting 

requirement. First, the agency could 

allow applicants to submit proposed 

thresholds during the application 

process. Ideally, these would consist of 

thresholds that an entity already uses 

internally. This information could 

enable a greater level of insight if 

applicants propose more stringent 

thresholds than those that the agency 

might impose. It would also enable 

NHTSA to review the reporting through 

the same lens used by an entity to 

review its own operations. Alternately, 

the agency could establish default 

thresholds but accept proposals of lower 

thresholds.168 While such a requirement 

would add some consistency to this 

reporting, it could dissuade applicants 

from proposing more stringent 

thresholds. 

Instances of Aggressive Vehicle 

Acceleration or Deceleration. Report the 

total number of instances of vehicle 

acceleration or deceleration exceeding a 

customized threshold.169

Unplanned Interruptions. Report the 

total number of each of the following 

types of interruptions to the ADS, if 

unplanned: 

• Initiation of an MRM by: (1) the 

ADS; (2) an occupant of the subject 

vehicle; or (3) remote personnel. This 

reporting requirement would encompass 

instances in which an MRC is achieved 

as well as instances in which an MRM 

is initiated but an MRC is not achieved 

(for any reason). 

• DDT takeovers 170 other than those 

reported under the prior element. Most 

of these interruptions will likely entail 

intervention by onboard fallback 

personnel to disengage the ADS and 

take control of the vehicle. If an ADS 

initiated or completed an MRM and 

fallback personnel subsequently 

assumed control of the vehicle to 

resume driving, the situation would be 

reported under the prior element rather 

than this one to avoid double counting 

events. 

• Instances in which any direct 

control authority of the vehicle is 

exercised remotely, other than those 

reported under the two preceding 

elements. For example, if remote 

steering was used to correct the path of 

a vehicle but the ADS retained 

responsibility for lateral control of the 

vehicle and an MRM was never 

executed. 

• Instances in which onboard vehicle 

assistance alters the ADS’ operations. 

This requirement would capture 

situations in which an individual 

providing vehicle assistance from 

within the subject vehicle corrects or 

changes the anticipated behavior of the 

ADS.171 This requirement would not 

cover a situation where an individual 

providing remote vehicle assistance 

only confirms the projected ADS 

behavior. For instance, if an ADSequipped vehicle encountered a 

potential obstacle in the roadway and 

requested vehicle assistance regarding 

whether to proceed on an identified 

path, this element would count 

situations where the assistance changed 

the path identified by the ADS but not 

situations where assistance simply 

confirmed the ADS’ prospective path.172

• Instances in which remote vehicle 

assistance alters the ADS’ operation. 

This element covers the same situation 

as the preceding element, but for vehicle 

assistance provided from a physical 

location outside of the subject vehicle. 

• Any occurrence other than the five 

types of interruptions described above 

that significantly alters the intended 

operation of the ADS. Although the 

preceding categories would likely make 

up the majority of unplanned 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 9 / Wednesday, January 15, 2025 / Proposed Rules 4155 

173See, e.g., Levi Sumagaysay, ‘‘Self-driving 

companies: Don’t measure us by ‘disengagements,’ ’’ 

Protocol (February 26, 2020). 

174Section IV.A.3 (Confirmation of Reporting 

During Participation) discusses NHTSA’s proposed 

approach to using customized terms for certain 

reporting requirements. 

175SAE International, ‘‘J3018 DEC2020: SafetyRelevant Guidance for On-Road Testing of 

Prototype Automated Driving System (ADS)- 

Operated Vehicles,’’ Section 6.3: IFTD State 

Monitoring, (Revised December 2020). 

176Section IV.A.3 (Confirmation of Reporting 

During Participation) discusses NHTSA’s proposed 

approach to using customized terms for certain 

reporting requirements. 

177 In practice, AV STEP participations will 

involve direct access to vehicle data. As such, the 

data actually used for this metric may be collected 

via proprietary access to the ADS even if that data 

could also have been measured independently. 

178NHTSA is already undertaking research in this 

area, as explained in a recent report to Congress: 

NHTSA is researching the development of ground 

truth trip recorder tools that can be installed on an 

ADS equipped vehicle. Such a system would record 

the surround view data with its own independent 

perception stack to identify scenarios and ADS 

behaviors of interest that are encountered during 

public on-road driving. The ground truth trip 

recorder is separate from the ADS itself and would 

not interfere with any aspects of the ADS 

functionality. See NHTSA, ‘‘Report to Congress: 

Automated Vehicles,’’ https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/ 

nhtsa.gov/files/2023-06/Automated-VehiclesReport-to-Congress-06302023.pdf. 

179AVSC, ‘‘AVSC00006202103: Best Practice for 

Metrics and Methods for Assessing Safety 

Performance of ADS’’ (March 2021) describes a 

violation of a safety envelope metric as ‘‘a violation 

of a kinematically defined state space around a 

vehicle that represents a buffer between the subject 

vehicle and other objects in the environment,’’ and 

notes that ‘‘the separation threshold may be 

contextually modified.’’ This AVSC best practice 

also discusses the potential correlation of these 

types of metrics to safety outcomes and provides 

additional relevant references. 

180 ISM and MPrISM are examples of 

instantaneous safety metrics. See, respectively, 

Joshua Every et al., ‘‘A Novel Method To Evaluate 

The Safety Of Highly Automated Vehicles,’’ No. 17– 

0076, available at https://www-esv.nhtsa.dot.gov/ 

Proceedings/25/25ESV-000076.pdf and Bowen 

Weng et al., ‘‘Model Predictive Instantaneous Safety 

Metric for Evaluation of Automated Driving 

Systems’’ (May 2020), available at https://arxiv.org/ 

abs/2005.09999. 

interruptions, this category provides a 

catch-all for any other circumstances in 

which unplanned interruptions could 

occur. For instance, it would include a 

situation where a vehicle component 

experienced a catastrophic failure that 

caused the vehicle to stop operating 

without any initiation of an MRC. 

NHTSA recognizes that the ADS 

community has a range of perspectives 

on the value of considering unplanned 

interruptions (such as disengagements) 

when assessing ADS performance. Some 

stakeholders express concern that 

disengagements do not provide a 

meaningful point of comparison 

between ADS 173 because disengagement 

metrics are affected by many factors that 

vary across operations. For instance, a 

lower rate of disengagement may simply 

mean that a system is traveling on less 

complicated roads than another system. 

Relying too heavily on disengagement 

numbers to assess ADS safety could 

disincentivize fallback personnel from 

intervening for safety. Nevertheless, 

NHTSA’s experience in receiving this 

type of data in other contexts indicates 

the data’s value. For instance, periodic 

reporting can illustrate how a particular 

system is performing on a given route, 

such as by pinpointing particularly 

difficult intersections or identifying 

how other variables, such as seasonal 

changes or weather patterns, can affect 

the same ADS operations over time. 

Finally, NHTSA is also considering an 

additional reporting requirement for 

instances in which vehicle assistance or 

remote driving inputs are not executed 

by the vehicle. Examples of this 

reporting could include instances in 

which an ADS does not follow a route 

provided by vehicle assistance due to a 

change in the roadway environment, 

such as a VRU entering the vehicle’s 

path, or instances in which a 

malfunction or design flaw causes the 

ADS to not follow an input to the 

system. NHTSA is not currently 

proposing to include this reporting 

element because the agency believes 

these situations would either be a 

desired result of intended functionality 

or, for ADS failures, largely covered by 

other proposed reporting elements. 

However, NHTSA seeks comment on 

the frequency of such occurrences and 

their reporting value. 

(b) Step 1 Unique Reporting 

In addition to the standard 

requirements in the previous 

subsection, participants at Step 1 would 

be required to report safety metrics to 

gauge the performance of fallback 

personnel under customized terms.174

These reports would occur with the 

same periodic cadence as the other 

requirements in this subsection (V.A.1) 

and be segmented by Location Sheet. 

Applications for Step 1 participation 

would need to contain proposed metrics 

for this requirement and include the 

information required for customized 

terms in § 597.206 of the proposed rule. 

Possible examples of these types of 

safety metrics include reporting of 

violations of fallback personnel 

processes or data associated with 

distraction monitoring. For instance, 

SAE J3018 provides that companies 

engaged in ADS testing should use a 

‘‘monitoring system in the test vehicle 

capable of detecting and recording 

incidents of prolonged inattention, error 

and/or misuse by [in-vehicle fallback 

test drivers] during test trips.’’ 175

Currently, many different approaches 

exist for monitoring the effectiveness of 

onboard test drivers in performing the 

DDT fallback function, and many 

stakeholders have their own unique 

standards for doing so. As a result, it 

would be premature to impose standard 

metrics for this assessment. Establishing 

customized terms would instead enable 

these metrics to fit each stakeholder’s 

processes and allow NHTSA to consider 

a range of approaches. 

(c) Step 2 Unique Reporting 

This proposal includes additional 

reporting requirements for Step 2 

participation to account for the elevated 

scope and maturity expected of Step 2 

systems. This reporting would also 

occur on a quarterly basis and be 

segmented by Location Sheet. Section 

597.500(e) of the proposed rule includes 

four reporting requirements for Step 2 

participants. First, it would require 

reporting of the VIN, duration, location, 

and cause of each minimal risk 

condition that was achieved. For this 

requirement, the agency is considering 

defining the relevant duration as either 

the period of time that elapses between 

the initiation of an MRM and the 

termination of an achieved MRC, or the 

period of time that elapses between the 

time MRC is achieved and its 

termination. Resumption of ADS 

operation, completion of a VRE, and 

DDT takeover are all examples of events 

that would be considered as terminating 

achievement of an MRC. 

For the remaining three proposed 

reporting requirements, Step 2 

participants would be required to report 

metrics for the following subjects under 

customized terms: 176

• The safety performance of the ADS, 

including adherence to the expected 

driving behavior and scenarios in which 

there is an increased likelihood of a 

crash. Metrics proposed for this term 

should be feasible to measure without 

proprietary access to the ADS.177 This 

would enable the agency to evaluate 

whether metrics that rely on data that 

can be collected and analyzed 

independent of the ADS, such as via a 

separately-installed measurement 

device, can effectively monitor safety 

performance.178 For example, this 

element could involve tracking and 

analyzing a safety envelope metric 179 or 

other instantaneous safety metrics.180

• The extent to which the systemlevel performance of the ADS adheres to 

design assumptions or expectations. 

This element could involve a variety of 

metrics, such as those regarding object 

and event detection and response 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
4156 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 9 / Wednesday, January 15, 2025 / Proposed Rules 

181 Defined as ‘‘the time it takes for the ADS to 

initiate a measurable response following the onset 

of an initiating event in the context of scenariobased testing in a controlled environment (e.g., 

track testing or simulation)’’ by AVSC, 

‘‘AVSC00006202103: Best Practice for Metrics and 

Methods for Assessing Safety Performance of ADS’’ 

(March 2021). 

182Specific system error reduction concepts—for 

example, identification of observed anomalies 

relative to model assumptions or object 

classification accuracy and precision—can be found 

in ANSI, ‘‘UL Standard ANSI/UL4600: Standard for 

Evaluation of Autonomous Products,’’ (March 

2022). 

183NHTSA, ‘‘Second Amended Standing General 

Order 2021–01: Incident Reporting for Automated 

Driving Systems (ADS) and Level 2 Advanced 

Driver Assistance Systems (ADAS)’’ (April 5, 2023) 

available at https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.gov/ 

files/2023-04/Second-Amended-SGO-2021-01_

2023-04-05_2.pdf. 

184The current Incident Report Form is available 

as appendix C to the SGO. See id. 

185NHTSA is considering a rulemaking relating to 

the SGO’s requirements since the SGO was issued 

as an enforcement order and is scheduled to sunset 

in April 2026 if not renewed. See Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs, ‘‘Unified 

Agenda of Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions,’’ 

RIN 2127–AM63: Incident Reporting Requirements 

for Automated Driving Systems and Level 2 

Advanced Driver Assistance Systems, available at 

https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/

eAgendaViewRule?pubId=202404&RIN=2127- 

AM63. 

186A report would also need to indicate whether 

the ADS was engaged at any point during the time 

surrounding the crash. 

187This would apply to any crashes that meet the 

one-day reporting requirement of the SGO. Because 

the processing of video files may add logistical 

difficulty to a report, NHTSA proposes to require 

video to be submitted within two business days 

after an Essential System-Level Stakeholder obtains 

possession of the video. 

188As proposed, the Protocols for ADS 

Operations and Independent Assessment portions 

of an application would include information about 

traffic safety law compliance. See Section IV.A 

(Application Form). 

(OEDR) reaction time,181 other system 

latency considerations, or metrics 

regarding the identification and 

reduction of system errors.182

• Adherence to internal safety 

processes during the subject vehicle’s 

development or operations. This 

element could include reporting of 

response times relative to established 

thresholds or metrics associated with 

understanding what proportion of issues 

that may arise result from best practice 

violations. 

2. Event-Triggered Reporting 

In addition to the periodic reporting 

discussed above, NHTSA also proposes 

to require AV STEP participants to 

report certain incidents or events on an 

ad hoc basis when they occur. Section 

597.501 of the proposed rule sets forth 

three such ‘‘event-triggered’’ categories 

of reporting. 

Crash reporting is the first proposed 

category of event-triggered reporting. 

NHTSA proposes to largely incorporate 

the current scope of crash reporting 

under NHTSA’s Second Amended 

Standing General Order (SGO) 2021–01, 

which was issued in April 2023.183 To 

incorporate the scope of the SGO, 

§ 597.501(b) of the proposed rule would 

incorporate the SGO definition of a 

crash. The content required for a crash 

report would be set by a term in the 

Final Determination Letter. NHTSA 

expects this content to match the most 

current Incident Report Form for the 

SGO.184

The SGO has enabled NHTSA to 

quickly identify crashes and assess 

whether they should be investigated. 

NHTSA anticipates that most—if not 

all—participants in AV STEP would 

also be responsible for reporting under 

the SGO. As long as the SGO or any 

analogous form of reporting remains in 

place, reports outside of AV STEP 

should provide NHTSA with effective 

oversight of crashes involving subject 

vehicles. To avoid duplicate reporting 

between AV STEP and the SGO, 

§ 597.501(f) of the proposed rule would 

treat a timely report under the SGO 

(including any future form it may 

take) 185 as meeting the AV STEP crash 

reporting requirement, as long as the 

SGO report contained all of the 

information required for a crash report 

in this program. As explained in the 

prior paragraph, the scope of crash 

reporting in AV STEP would be set by 

the combined requirements of the 

proposed rule and terms of a Final 

Determination Letter. NHTSA expects 

the scope of this reporting to mirror the 

most current version of the SGO. 

Therefore, timely crash reporting under 

the SGO would typically satisfy crash 

reporting for AV STEP. If an SGO report 

containing the information required by 

a Final Determination Letter is 

submitted for a subject vehicle, a 

participant would simply need to 

submit notice of the Location Sheet 

applicable to the report (as well as 

potentially submit any video, as 

discussed in the next paragraph). 

NHTSA also proposes to expand on 

the current scope of SGO reporting in 

two ways. First, NHTSA proposes to 

require reporting of all crashes 

involving subject vehicles regardless of 

the engagement status of the ADS, 

whereas the SGO applies only if the 

ADS was engaged at any point within 30 

seconds of a crash. This expanded 

reporting would ensure that any crashes 

involving AV STEP vehicles are 

known.186 Second, NHTSA proposes to 

require a participant to submit any 

video footage possessed by an Essential 

System-Level Stakeholder for any 

incident that meets the most urgent 

level of proposed crash reporting.187

NHTSA often obtains video footage of 

ADS crashes to help assess incidents as 

part of its follow-up with entities on 

their SGO reports. Crashes that would 

require video reporting in AV STEP 

would also be reportable under the 

current scope of the SGO. As described 

in the prior paragraph, those SGO 

reports would likely satisfy the need to 

report the crash in AV STEP apart from 

providing this video footage and 

advising NHTSA of the Location Sheet 

applicable to the crash. 

For the second category of eventtriggered reporting, NHTSA proposes to 

require participants to report citable 

offenses of traffic safety law violations. 

This reporting would include any 

violations that result in an actual 

citation, as well as any known 

violations that did not result in 

citations. For actual citations, this 

reporting standard is straightforward 

and would require reports for any 

citations issued by an authority 

responsible for enforcing traffic safety 

laws where the vehicle is operating. For 

violations that did not result in 

citations, NHTSA proposes to scope 

reporting to events for which a 

participant is aware and understands, in 

good faith, the behavior to constitute a 

violation of an applicable traffic safety 

law. The ‘‘known’’ threshold for nonticketed violations means that this 

reporting requirement would not create 

an affirmative duty to search for those 

incidents. Instead, as part of the 

application requirements proposed for 

AV STEP, participants would provide 

information about their processes for 

identifying applicable traffic safety laws 

and monitoring adherence to them.188

These processes should ensure that 

participants are not willfully ignoring 

behavior that may form non-ticketed 

violations. Likewise, these processes 

should ensure that the participants 

exercise reasonable judgment as to 

whether necessity permits a vehicle to 

deviate from the general rule of conduct 

expected by a traffic safety law. For 

instance, vehicles may appropriately 

cross a double yellow line or drive onto 

the shoulder to avoid an obstacle or 

when directed by law enforcement. 

The last category of proposed eventtriggered reporting relates to changes in 

the extent to which fallback personnel 

are used for a Step 2 participation. 

Under the AV STEP eligibility 

requirements, vehicles participating at 

Step 2 should generally operate without 

fallback personnel during participating 

operations. However, NHTSA 

recognizes that some Step 2 participants 

may rely on fallback personnel 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 9 / Wednesday, January 15, 2025 / Proposed Rules 4157 

189See Section III.C (Terms and Conditions) for 

more explanation of this restriction. 

190Section IV.A.3 (Confirmation of Reporting 

During Participation) discusses NHTSA’s proposed 

approach to using customized terms for certain 

reporting requirements. 

191See § 597.205(d)(3)(vi) of the proposed rule. 

192As proposed, this position could be provided 

by an assessor other than the one that conducted 

the original analysis. 

193The change reporting framework described in 

the prior subsection is designed to consider how 

changes would affect the conclusions of a prior 

independent assessment. If changes that prompted 

an amendment request also met the change 

reporting thresholds, those reports would provide 

insight into how the changes bear upon an 

assessment. 

sparingly. For example, a participant 

could temporarily introduce onboard 

fallback personnel as a safeguard after 

the release of a software update or rely 

on fallback personnel for a subset of the 

participating fleet that would be 

engaged in specific validation 

operations. NHTSA does not intend the 

scope of Step 2 to disincentivize such 

limited uses of fallback personnel if a 

participant deems them beneficial for 

safety. 

At the same time, Step 2 participation 

should demarcate readiness to operate 

with an ADS competent enough to not 

need fallback personnel when operating 

in its ODD. Therefore, participants in 

Step 2 should not functionally operate 

as Step 1 participants through the 

widespread and sustained use of 

fallback personnel. To oversee this 

balance and provide more transparency 

regarding operations, NHTSA proposes 

that participants at Step 2 be required to 

report the percentage of subject vehicles 

using fallback personnel at each 

location. If this percentage changes, a 

participant would need to report that 

change by the time it occurs. As under 

Step 1, any Step 2 vehicle would be 

prohibited from carrying public 

passengers when operating with fallback 

personnel.189

NHTSA is also considering whether, 

as a fourth category of event-triggered 

reporting, participants should be 

required to report cyber-related 

incidents with a potential safety impact. 

The agency seeks comment on such a 

requirement, particularly regarding how 

cyber incidents should be defined and 

thresholds for reporting such incidents, 

timing requirements for reporting such 

events, and how such requirements may 

relate to NHTSA’s existing requirements 

for safety-related defect reporting. 

3. Update Reporting 

NHTSA expects a participant’s 

authorized ADS operations to evolve 

over time. Routes or other aspects of an 

operation may need to be refined, an 

ADS should continue to mature, and 

participants should maintain and refine 

their internal processes. To 

accommodate this continuous 

improvement, NHTSA proposes a 

reporting framework for updates that 

occur during AV STEP participation. 

This reporting framework is designed to 

ensure NHTSA is notified of meaningful 

changes without slowing the pace of 

progress. If a change is significant 

enough to affect important premises of 

NHTSA’s original decision on an 

application, this framework also would 

enable NHTSA to request more 

information before the change could 

take effect. 

This change reporting supplements 

rather than supplants the amendment 

process described in the next 

subsection. If a reportable change would 

violate a term or condition of a Final 

Determination Letter, a participant 

would need to separately request and 

receive an amended letter before any 

such change could take effect. For such 

a change, the report described in this 

subsection would still be necessary. 

Final Determination Letters would 

contain terms that set customized 

thresholds for changes that would need 

to be reported to NHTSA. Applicants 

would propose such thresholds.190

These proposals should be based on the 

extent to which changes may alter 

information submitted in an application 

or reviewed by an independent assessor 

for the assessment submitted with an 

application. They should avoid 

capturing routine changes or those 

contemplated in an application. 

NHTSA’s goal in proposing these 

thresholds is to craft standards specific 

to a particular operation that account for 

the information upon which the 

agency’s decision on the application 

was based. 

Any change that exceeds these 

customized thresholds would need to be 

reported to NHTSA. A report would 

need to describe the change, identify the 

date on which it is proposed to occur, 

and contain an independent assessor’s 

position on whether the change would 

materially affect an earlier independent 

assessment of the safety case for the 

operation. This requirement would not 

entail a new independent assessment for 

each reportable change. Instead, the 

agency anticipates a much narrower 

independent review of whether the 

prospective change would alter a critical 

aspect of the safety case or exceed the 

bounds of the safety case in a way not 

accounted for by the earlier 

independent assessment. As proposed, 

an independent assessment summary 

report submitted as part of an 

application would need to include an 

overview of the parameters under which 

the assessment and its conclusions are 

valid.191 NHTSA expects these 

parameters to significantly inform 

whether reportable changes would 

materially affect a prior assessment.192

NHTSA proposes to require seven 

days of advance notice for reportable 

changes an independent assessor has 

indicated will not materially affect a 

prior assessment. NHTSA would not 

plan to require affirmative approval of 

any such non-material changes. 

However, advance notice would provide 

NHTSA with an opportunity to request 

more information or explore concerns 

before a change takes effect. In contrast, 

any changes that an independent 

assessor has indicated will materially 

affect a prior assessment would require 

written NHTSA approval before they 

could occur. As part of its review, the 

agency could require a more robust 

update to any portions of an 

independent assessment affected by 

such changes. 

B. Agency Protocols 

1. Amendment Process 

As proposed, the terms and 

conditions in a Final Determination 

Letter would govern the scope of 

participation. Changes to these terms 

and conditions would require NHTSA’s 

review and approval through the 

issuance of an Amended Final 

Determination Letter. This NPRM 

proposes a process through which a 

participant could request amendments 

to a Final Determination Letter. During 

NHTSA’s review of an amendment 

request, a program participant would 

remain able to continue AV STEP 

participation under the existing terms. 

The specific contents of an 

amendment request would vary 

depending on the scope of changes 

requested. However, any amendment 

request should describe each requested 

change and how it may affect the system 

design, process, or operations. In 

addition, the amendment request would 

be required to include an updated 

response to each of the affected 

elements of the participant’s AV STEP 

application, apart from the independent 

assessment.193

Certain changes that are expected to 

occur during normal operations would 

not require written approval from 

NHTSA, even if they might potentially 

implicate terms in a Final 

Determination Letter. A participant 

could make such changes at any time by 

providing written notice to NHTSA by 

the time the change takes effect. These 

changes, detailed in § 597.601(e) of the 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
4158 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 9 / Wednesday, January 15, 2025 / Proposed Rules 

194This category would include changes to the 

subject vehicle platform, such as requesting a new 

model year or vehicle model. This proposal 

includes a separate procedure to add exemptions 

for identical vehicles to those already in receipt of 

an exemption, as described in Section VII 

(Requirements for AV STEP Exemptions 

(Regulatory Text Subpart C)). 

195This process would not replace NHTSA’s 

traditional defects process under the Safety Act. No 

part of AV STEP, including this proposed concern 

resolution process, is intended to supplant or affect 

NHTSA’s defect process. Participants would not be 

absolved from any obligations under the Safety Act 

to identify and provide notice of safety defects nor 

would NHTSA be precluded from using its defect 

process or other applicable authorities for 

participants in AV STEP. See 49 CFR part 573 and 

49 U.S.C. 30116 et seq. 

196Although these types of concerns are expected 

to most commonly involve potential safety issues, 

they may also entail process violations, such as 

deviating from approved program parameters, 

failing to report required information, or problems 

with the accuracy or completeness of information 

submitted. 

197This practice would match NHTSA’s practice 

in administering Section 30114(a) exemptions. For 

instance, if an ADS demonstrates problems 

navigating a particular intersection or roadway 

feature, such as a traffic circle, NHTSA has 

typically aimed to curtail operations around the 

feature rather than suspend all operations. This 

tailored approach, in particular, highlights the need 

for the flexibility of a case-by-case concern 

resolution process. 

proposed rule, include: (1) changes to a 

participant’s contact information; (2) 

changes to the geographical boundaries 

of an approved location, as long as all 

other information in the application 

remains the same; and (3) the addition 

of entirely new locations through 

Location Sheets, as long as the new 

locations are substantially similar 

operations to at least one already 

approved location. Any such new 

location under this third type of change 

could not expand the total number of 

vehicles for which participation has 

been permitted without requiring an 

amendment to that effect. In addition, 

the new location would need to involve 

the same ODD (other than the 

geographical location), vehicle 

equipment, intended use, and approach 

to public ridership as for the previously 

approved participation location(s). If 

any of those conditions are not met, a 

participant could add a new location 

only by requesting an amendment and 

receiving approval from NHTSA. 

In contrast, certain changes to a 

participation are so fundamental that 

NHTSA proposes that they would not be 

eligible for an amendment and, instead, 

would require a new application. These 

proposed changes are: (1) any change to 

a program step; or (2) the removal, 

replacement, or addition of an Essential 

System-Level Stakeholder. In addition, 

for participations with an AV STEP 

exemption, a new application would be 

required for any change to: (1) the type 

of AV STEP exemption; (2) the 

exempted subject vehicle; 194 (3) the 

FMVSS or bumper standard (including 

subsection) for which an FMVSS 

Exemption is granted; (4) the device or 

element made inoperative for a Make 

Inoperative Exemption; or (5) the 

FMVSS subsection affected by the 

requested modification for a Make 

Inoperative Exemption. 

The next subsection describes the 

proposed procedure through which 

NHTSA may unilaterally amend the 

terms or conditions of a Final 

Determination Letter in response to 

concerns that arise during participation. 

In addition, NHTSA may change a term 

with the consent of all participants, 

such as to issue a technical correction 

or to refine a condition. 

2. Concern Resolution Process 

The oversight goals of AV STEP 

necessitate an effective and transparent 

process for resolving concerns that arise 

during participation. This process 

should enable NHTSA to swiftly modify 

the terms of participation when required 

for safety, while also, when possible, 

affording program participants 

opportunities to participate in the 

resolution process. To account for these 

considerations, NHTSA proposes 

procedures for reviewing and resolving 

concerns that arise during AV STEP 

participation.195

NHTSA proposes a response process 

for AV STEP in which issues would be 

classified as either: (1) apparent issues; 

and (2) severe apparent issues. Apparent 

issues would consist of any 

circumstance that calls into question the 

safety of an operation, compliance with 

AV STEP responsibilities, or the 

reliability of information provided 

under the program.196 A concern may 

emerge even before a problem has 

materialized in real-world operations or 

risen to the level of an unreasonable risk 

to motor vehicle safety under the Safety 

Act. 

Once a concern arises, the agency 

would undertake a preliminary review 

aimed at ascertaining whether an 

apparent issue exists and, if so, the 

severity. Severity would be determined 

on a case-by-case basis, considering how 

timely a response to the problem would 

need to be. As proposed, the biggest 

difference in apparent and severe 

apparent issues is the imminency with 

which a concern may need to be 

addressed during existing operations. 

NHTSA expects that severe concerns 

would typically entail significant safety 

problems or the disregard of program 

requirements in a manner that 

undermines confidence in ongoing 

operations. The severity of an apparent 

issue may also reflect how quickly a risk 

is likely to manifest itself in operations. 

While the severity of a concern will 

depend on the specific circumstances, 

potential examples of severe apparent 

issues could include crashes stemming 

from a problem with an ADS that also 

exists in other continuing operations or 

learning that participants violated terms 

and conditions of a permission in a 

manner that calls into question the 

safety of their operations. 

The agency may engage with 

participants to learn more about the 

concern during this preliminary review. 

If a concern is substantiated, the agency 

would notify the participant of the 

apparent issue, describe it with 

reasonable particularity, advise whether 

it is categorized as severe, and describe 

any impending modifications of a term 

or condition of a Final Determination 

Letter to mitigate the concern. NHTSA 

would seek to develop a narrow 

modification tailored to the scope of the 

issue but could impose a full 

suspension from participation if 

needed.197 In other contexts, NHTSA 

has found that working with the affected 

stakeholders throughout the review of a 

problem increases the chances the 

problem can be addressed in a way that 

prioritizes safety while limiting the 

scope of operational impacts. 

For apparent issues identified by 

NHTSA but not categorized as severe, 

any modifications of participation terms 

listed in the notice would automatically 

take effect 10 business days after the 

agency issues a notice to a participant. 

For issues designated as severe, the 

timing of the modification would be 

determined on a case-by-case basis. 

NHTSA would aim to provide as much 

notice as possible for severe apparent 

issues, but if needed, modifications for 

severe apparent issues could become 

effective as soon as issued. In practice, 

if a situation is serious enough to 

warrant an immediate modification of a 

permission, NHTSA expects a 

company’s internal policies would 

independently lead the company to take 

appropriate and timely measures, such 

as curtailing its operations while it 

evaluates the issue. 

NHTSA would retain the discretion to 

further modify or cancel a planned 

modification to the terms of 

participation, including by extending 

the time by which the modifications 

would take effect. For instance, a 

participant may moot a problem by 

implementing a sufficient mitigation or 

deciding to voluntarily suspend 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 9 / Wednesday, January 15, 2025 / Proposed Rules 4159 

198As appropriate, NHTSA could also 

unilaterally revoke an operation from AV STEP or 

suspend it through the modifications described in 

this section. 

199See Subpart G of the proposed rule. 

200 Due to the public-facing nature of the specific 

information NHTSA proposes to publish, the 

agency does not believe a claim of confidential 

business information (CBI) is appropriate in this 

context and would not provide an assurance of 

privacy for that information. See 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4); 

18 U.S.C. 1905; Food Marketing Inst. v. Argus 

Leader Media, 139 S. Ct. 2356, 2363 (2019). 

201See, e.g., Argo AI, LLC, ‘‘Press Release: Argo 

AI Conforms to Autonomous Vehicle Testing 

Standards According to Leading Independent 

Auditor’’ (December 20, 2021), available at https:// 

www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/argo-aiconforms-to-autonomous-vehicle-testing-standardsaccording-to-leading-independent-auditor301447984.html#:∼:text=The%20result%20

of%20T%C3%9CV%20S%C3%9CD’s,

being%20compliant%20with%20these

%20applicable. 

202To the extent this letter memorializes 

information for which an applicant requested 

treatment as CBI under NHTSA’s regulations in 49 

CFR part 512, those portions of the letter may 

require redaction. 

203For the proposed definitions of these statuses, 

see § 597.701(b)(1) of the proposed rule. 

204NHTSA is not currently proposing to 

separately publish crash reporting through this 

program. As proposed, an SGO report would fulfill 

a crash report requirement in AV STEP. As such, 

NHTSA does not expect extensive crash reporting 

unique to this program and believes the 

transparency goals of crash reporting are already 

met through NHTSA’s periodic publication of SGO 

reports. 

operations of all affected vehicles.198

NHTSA intends this framework to 

encourage participants to use 

responsible incident response protocols 

that quickly and proactively address 

problems. 

Reinstating any curtailed aspects of an 

operation would also be handled caseby-case. Given the variety of potential 

issues and their range of complexity, 

NHTSA anticipates working iteratively 

with participants and project 

stakeholders to develop tailored plans 

for resolving each issue. If mitigations or 

corrections are required, participants 

would need to develop proposed 

mitigations, prepare corrective action 

plans, and demonstrate their sufficiency 

to the agency. NHTSA would review the 

proposed mitigations and develop a 

return-to-service plan. Where possible 

and consistent with safety, participants 

would be afforded flexibility in how 

vehicles could be returned to service, 

such as by deciding whether to 

implement mitigations on a rolling basis 

or all at once. NHTSA has used a similar 

process for the reinstatement of 

suspended ADS operations with Section 

30114(a) exemptions and believes this 

approach would translate well to AV 

STEP. 

VI. Public Reporting Requirements 

(Regulatory Text Subpart G) 

NHTSA intends for AV STEP to boost 

transparency surrounding ADS 

technology and, through this increased 

access to information, lay the 

groundwork for greater public 

understanding of participating 

operations. To promote such 

transparency, NHTSA proposes to 

publish certain information about each 

application and participation.199 This 

information focuses on the topics most 

relevant to the public’s engagement with 

the vehicles. Given the importance of 

this information to the public, its 

availability via NHTSA’s intended 

public AV STEP reporting would be a 

condition of AV STEP application and 

participation.200 In addition to specific 

comment requests below, the agency 

seeks comment on any topics that are 

important to the public’s engagement 

with ADS operations that are not 

covered by the proposed public 

reporting elements. 

Upon receipt of an application, 

NHTSA proposes to publish a subset of 

information from the application, 

including much of the material in the 

Operational Baseline and Location 

Sheet sections of an application. 

Through this information, NHTSA 

intends for the public to understand the 

scope and nature of requested 

participation. In addition to publishing 

the date an application was received, 

NHTSA would publish the current 

application review phase to provide 

transparency regarding the status of 

each application. Published information 

about an application would identify the 

relevant stakeholders, describe the 

subject vehicles, and identify any use of 

fallback personnel, remote driving, or 

vehicle assistance. NHTSA also 

proposes to publish information about 

the operations requested under each 

Location Sheet of an application. This 

information would cover the location, 

vehicle numbers, maximum vehicle 

speed, speed limits, intended use of the 

vehicles, whether the applicant seeks to 

transport public passengers, and a 

summary of the ODD. 

In addition to these elements, NHTSA 

proposes to publish a list of each 

industry standard, best practice, or 

guidance with which the subject vehicle 

fully conforms according to the 

independent assessment submitted as 

part of the application. In proposing to 

publish this information, NHTSA 

recognizes that entities, including ADS 

developers, sometimes proactively 

publish claims of conformance to 

industry standards.201 Including this 

express disclosure provision in the rule 

enables entities to understand how the 

agency intends to publicly communicate 

about an application or participation 

and allows them to make informed 

decisions about whether to apply to this 

voluntary program. NHTSA specifically 

requests comment on its proposal to 

publish industry standards 

conformance. 

NHTSA proposes to publish each 

Final Determination Letter, including 

any Amended Final Determination 

Letter, that reflects a decision on an 

application. A letter granting admission 

to AV STEP would contain the full set 

of terms and conditions that govern 

participation.202 Thereafter, NHTSA 

would publish information about each 

participation’s operational status, 

including the dates of participation. 

Doing so would allow the public to 

understand whether an operation 

remains active, is inactive, is under a 

suspension, or has concluded.203 To 

help the public understand ongoing 

operations, NHTSA proposes to publish 

certain information from quarterly 

reports. This information would include 

the number of subject vehicles operated 

on public roads, a list of zip codes 

where such operations occurred, and 

the number and location of any vehicle 

recovery events.204

In general, the information proposed 

for publication focuses on public-facing 

information about an operation. 

However, in other contexts, 

stakeholders have expressed interest in 

NHTSA collecting and publicizing 

information about VMT for ADS 

operations. The periodic reporting to 

NHTSA proposed for AV STEP includes 

several categories of VMT, as well as an 

element entitled ‘‘Operational Context,’’ 

which would indicate how such VMT 

compares to analogous operations 

outside of AV STEP. NHTSA requests 

comment on whether any of this 

information should be published for AV 

STEP. 

In general, information would be 

published for AV STEP as it is 

submitted to the agency. While 

NHTSA’s publication of the information 

would not be an endorsement of its 

accuracy, as with any other reporting 

requirement, an entity is responsible for 

ensuring the accuracy of the information 

reported to NHTSA, and the agency 

would take appropriate action if it 

became aware of incorrect information. 

NHTSA is considering how best to 

present all of this information as well as 

exploring information technology 

solutions for doing so. In addition to the 

above-described information, the agency 

would consider periodically publishing 

broader insights gained through 

administering AV STEP. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
4160 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 9 / Wednesday, January 15, 2025 / Proposed Rules 

205Under § 597.303(f) of the proposed rule, 

vehicles imported into the United States under an 

AV STEP exemption could remain in the country 

after AV STEP participation ends, as long as they 

do not operate on public roads. 206See 49 U.S.C. 30115. 

207This question is used in the existing process 

for temporary import exemptions, including in the 

ADS-equipped Vehicle Exemption Process, which 

implements 49 CFR part 591. See NHTSA, ‘‘Form: 

Temporary Import Exemption Application for 

Vehicles, Section 2: Vehicles Interacting with the 

Public,’’ Question 2.2. 

208For instance, in 2022, NHTSA amended 

occupant protection standards to account for ADSequipped vehicles that lack traditional manual 

controls. 87 FR 18560 (March 30, 2022). 

209See 49 CFR part 586. 

210See 58 FR12905, 12906 (March 8, 1993) 

(explaining the legislative and regulatory history of 

the provision). 

211This rulemaking remains ongoing. See Office 

of Information and Regulatory Affairs, ‘‘Unified 

Agenda of Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions,’’ 

VII. Requirements for AV STEP 

Exemptions (Regulatory Text Subpart 

C) 

As described in Section II (Program 

Context), this proposal includes two 

types of exemptions: (1) an FMVSS 

Exemption under 49 U.S.C. 30114(a); 

and (2) a Make Inoperative Exemption 

under 49 U.S.C. 30122. For consistency, 

where possible, the same AV STEP 

requirements would apply to all 

vehicles regardless of whether an 

exemption is sought. However, several 

additional requirements are proposed 

only for vehicles seeking exemptions. 

Some requirements would apply to both 

types of AV STEP exemptions and 

others to only one of the two 

exemptions. A Final Determination 

Letter would set the full terms and 

conditions for an exemption. Vehicles 

exempted under AV STEP would retain 

their exempt status only while 

participating in AV STEP.205

A. Exemption Eligibility Requirements 

In addition to the general eligibility 

requirements, at least one applicant for 

each AV STEP FMVSS Exemption must 

satisfy an eligibility requirement 

specific to exemptions as specified in 

§ 597.103 of the proposed rule. If the 

vehicles for which exemptions are 

sought require importation into the 

United States, at least one applicant 

must be the importer of record for each 

vehicle. This requirement would ensure 

accountability for the importation 

process. For vehicles that do not require 

importation, at least one applicant must 

be the manufacturer of each subject 

vehicle. This requirement is necessary 

because, absent an exemption, the 

manufacturer is the only party eligible 

to participate in AV STEP that is 

responsible for compliance and 

certification of the vehicle with all 

applicable FMVSS.206

B. Exemption Application Requirements 

Each application would need to 

specify whether it includes a request for 

an FMVSS Exemption under Section 

30114(a) or Make Inoperative 

Exemption under Section 30122(c). 

Either exemption would require an 

additional application form. The 

application requirements for an AV 

STEP exemption are proposed in 

§ 597.202 of the proposed rule, and 

include the following: 

Vehicle Information: An application 

for an exemption would need to include 

identifying information about each 

vehicle for which an exemption is 

sought, as well as the total anticipated 

number of vehicles for which each 

exemption will be sought during AV 

STEP participation. Under the process 

described in the next subsection, this 

number would be used to cap the actual 

number of vehicles that could receive an 

exemption. In addition, an application 

would need to identify each proposed 

vehicle label to meet the exemption 

labeling requirements detailed in the 

next subsection. 

Insurance Disclosure: NHTSA 

proposes that an entity requesting either 

exemption confirm it will maintain 

insurance coverage from a regulated 

insurance company at all times in an 

amount sufficient to cover liability for 

damages, including for bodily injury or 

death, that may result from the 

operation of the vehicle in the manner 

and location(s) described in the 

application. This requirement resembles 

one currently used in NHTSA 

exemption programs under 49 U.S.C. 

30114(a).207 NHTSA has found this 

disclosure helpful in confirming that 

sufficient coverage exists while allowing 

state law to govern specifics about such 

coverage. 

Safety Comparisons and Mitigations: 

An applicant for an exemption would 

need to describe, in detail, each 

requirement of an FMVSS or bumper 

standard for which there is 

noncompliance or, in the case of a Make 

Inoperative Exemption, the device or 

element rendered inoperative. It would 

also need to describe any mitigations of 

associated safety impacts and how the 

vehicle’s safety compares to that of a 

compliant vehicle, including 

comparisons of the crash protection for 

vehicle occupants and the safety of 

vulnerable road users. An application 

for a Make Inoperative Exemption 

would also need to describe each 

modification at issue and the extent to 

which the vehicle’s original 

manufacturer was consulted regarding 

the modification. This disclosure would 

provide insight into how well the 

system-level effects of the modification 

are understood by the applicant. 

NHTSA would consider all of this 

information when assessing whether 

risks have been sufficiently addressed to 

justify the exemption sought. 

NHTSA proposes that any FMVSS or 

bumper standard may be the subject of 

an AV STEP exemption request, 

consistent with NHTSA’s other 

exemption programs. However, NHTSA 

requests comment on whether any 

standards should be ineligible for 

exemption under AV STEP.208

Eligibility of Domestic and Imported 

Vehicles: As proposed, both domestic 

and imported vehicles could apply for 

an FMVSS or Make Inoperative 

Exemption through AV STEP. NHTSA 

proposes to treat domestic and imported 

vehicles equally in the proposal, apart 

from unique requirements necessary for 

the importation process. 

For the proposed Make Inoperative 

Exemption, this approach is consistent 

with Section 30122, which does not 

make any distinction between imported 

and domestic vehicles. NHTSA’s 

regulations implementing other make 

inoperative exemptions likewise do not 

distinguish between imported and 

domestic vehicles. For the proposed 

FMVSS Exemption, this approach 

implements the express language of 

Section 30114(a), which contains no 

restrictions on a vehicle’s country of 

origin. In this respect, the language of 

Section 30114(a) is consistent with 

other provisions in Section 30114, 

which apply equally to domestic and 

imported vehicles. For instance, Section 

30114(b) authorizes an exemption for 

replica vehicles through similarly broad 

language that applies generally to any 

motor vehicles. NHTSA’s regulations 

implement Section 30114(b) through a 

replica vehicle exemption program that 

applies to vehicles built both in the 

United States and abroad.209

In the past, NHTSA has implemented 

Section 30114(a) only for imported 

vehicles. The original statutory language 

for Section 30114(a) first arose to refine 

exemptions that the agency was already 

issuing in the imports context in 

conjunction with the U.S. Customs 

Service.210 NHTSA implemented 

Section 30114(a) authority in the 

imports context through the regulatory 

framework codified in 49 CFR part 591. 

Because the text of Section 30114(a) is 

not by its terms limited to imported 

vehicles, however, NHTSA has since 

initiated a rulemaking to consider 

creating an equivalent to the part 591 

exemptions for domestic vehicles.211


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 9 / Wednesday, January 15, 2025 / Proposed Rules 4161 

RIN 2127–AM14: Expansion of Temporary 

Exemption Program to Domestic Manufacturers for 

Research, Demonstrations, and Other Purposes. 

212See Declaration HS–7, Importation of Motor 

Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment Subject to 

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety, Bumper and Theft 

Prevention Standards, available at https://

www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.gov/files/documents/ 

hs7_111920_v3_secured.pdf. 

213See 58 FR 12905, 12906 (March 8, 1993). 

214NHTSA has explained that ‘‘research’’ and 

‘‘investigations’’ often entail some sort of ‘‘test or 

experiment.’’ 58 FR 12905, 12906 (March 8, 1993). 

NHTSA has similarly stated that a demonstration of 

a motor vehicle has traditionally involved 

exhibiting its operation or use, both in the 

showroom and on the road. Id. Earlier versions of 

the statute also listed ‘‘studies’’ as an express 

statutory purpose. See 15 U.S.C. 1397(j). NHTSA 

has looked to ordinary use of the word ‘‘study’’ 

when construing this term, explaining that the 

primary meaning of the word ‘study’ is ‘the 

application of the mind to the acquisition of 

knowledge. 58 FR 12905, 12907 (March 8, 1993). 

NHTSA has historically considered vehicles of 

‘‘technological interest’’ as emblematic of vehicles 

contemplated by this purpose. Id. Although the 

term ‘‘studies’’ was dropped in the 1994 

recodification of the Safety Act, Congress made 

clear that this recodification was non-substantive. 

Compare 15 U.S.C. 1397(j), with Public Law 103– 

272, 108 Stat. 947 (1994). As such, and given the 

overlap in terminology in research, demonstration, 

investigations, and studies, the recodification 

maintained the prior scope under this more 

streamlined set of terms. 

215 58 FR 12905, 12907 (March 8, 1993) 

(expressing concern with a purpose, such as static 

display, that: can be undermined, however, by 

importations under subterfuge, where the hidden 

but real intent of the importer is to operate the 

vehicle on the public roads for his or her private 

enjoyment.). 

Separately implementing Section 

30114(a) exemptions for domestic 

vehicles in the AV STEP rulemaking 

would be consistent with this ongoing 

work to equalize the opportunities for 

domestic vehicles. 

Since AV STEP exemptions would 

span imported and domestic vehicles, 

an AV STEP exemption application 

would need to identify whether any 

vehicles require importation into the 

United States to ensure that 

requirements for importation were met. 

NHTSA proposes to amend the agency’s 

HS–7 declaration form to add a new box 

for vehicles imported under an AV 

STEP exemption. A new box is needed 

because none of the existing fields for 

the HS–7 form fit the AV STEP 

exemptions.212 All vehicles currently 

imported under a Section 30114(a) 

exemption use Box 7 of the form. 

However, Box 7 is limited to research 

and demonstration purposes under 

Section 30114(a) and is also specific to 

the importation restrictions in 49 CFR 

part 591. Thus, a new box is needed to 

declare that a vehicle does not conform 

to all applicable FMVSS and Bumper 

Standards but is being imported 

pursuant to an AV STEP exemption. 

NHTSA requests comment on whether 

the agency should amend 49 CFR 591.5 

to specify that AV STEP vehicles may be 

imported in this way. 

Proposed Section 30114(a) Purpose: 

An application for an FMVSS 

Exemption would need to identify 

which purpose in 49 U.S.C. 30114(a) is 

the basis for the exemption. The 

applicant would bear the burden of 

persuasion to demonstrate that a 

statutory purpose applies to the 

requested vehicles.213 While any 

purpose enumerated in Section 30114(a) 

could be claimed for an exemption, 

NHTSA’s experience administering 

AVEP suggests that most ADS 

exemption requests claim research, 

investigations, or demonstration 

purposes.214 Any of these statutory 

purposes claimed under Section 

30114(a) should be proportionate to the 

scope of a requested exemption, given 

the increased potential risk from 

exposure to larger numbers of 

noncompliant vehicles. For instance, if 

a request claimed a research purpose, 

the extent of the research interest 

should scale with the scope of the 

requested exemption. As a high-level 

example, the research purposes and 

scope of operations may be misaligned 

if a request claimed to research how 

ADS operations improve mobility 

options in rural communities but the 

operations in question occurred 

primarily in urban environments. To 

that end, § 597.202(b) of the proposed 

rule contains application requirements 

that allow the applicant to explain the 

rationale for a stated purpose, its 

relation to the exemption sought, and 

whether that purpose is expected to 

remain valid throughout the exemption. 

NHTSA proposes to allow vehicles 

exempted under AV STEP to engage in 

commercial activities. The statutory 

language of Section 30114(a) does not 

prohibit commercial activity, provided a 

statutory purpose is met. 

For Section 30114(a) exemptions 

administered under part 591, NHTSA 

has typically set terms that prohibit 

certain public-facing commercial 

activities, such as charging fares during 

passenger-carrying services or imposing 

fees in goods delivery services. This 

restriction is designed to limit situations 

in which the Section 30114(a) purposes 

are claimed as a pretense for other 

private interests.215 That approach 

reflects the practical difficulty of 

disentangling an entity’s stated research, 

demonstration, or other interest from 

the inherent commercial motivations 

that may accompany an operation that 

generates revenue. A commercial 

operation prohibition sets a bright line 

that prevents the comingling of these 

motivations and ensures the statutory 

purpose is the reason the exemption is 

sought. 

However, since AV STEP proposes to 

accommodate more complex 

exemptions than part 591, NHTSA 

considers a more nuanced approach to 

commercialization appropriate. The 

procedural safeguards proposed for AV 

STEP would provide NHTSA with 

information necessary to ensure an 

appropriate statutory purpose for the 

exemption even if an operation is 

commercialized. These safeguards 

would include a robust disclosure of 

any commercialization and a 

justification for how the statutory 

purposes are nevertheless met. In 

addition, NHTSA proposes to require 

any AV STEP exemption involving 

commercial activity to demonstrate that 

the claimed Section 30114(a) purpose 

furthers a public, rather than purely 

private, interest. It is difficult to weigh 

an applicant’s competing private 

interests, especially when one involves 

monetary gain. However, if an applicant 

can establish that a claimed Section 

30114(a) purpose furthers a public 

interest, the agency could consider 

whether it justifies the requested 

exemption, even if some 

commercialization were to occur. 

NHTSA does not propose to delineate 

appropriate public interests in advance. 

Given the wide range of potential 

societal benefits from ADS, NHTSA 

intends for an applicant to describe and 

substantiate the public interest instead. 

Examples of potential public interests 

could range from environmental, 

accessibility for people with disabilities, 

equity, or labor impacts to interests 

relating to the improvement of 

transportation efficiency. As NHTSA 

explained recently in another 

exemption context: ADS vehicles have 

the potential to benefit our 

transportation system significantly 

beyond the analysis required in the 

safety determination. As NHTSA 

considers the potentially transformative 

impact of ADS technology, it is also 

considering its role in encouraging the 

use of ADS vehicles in ways that 

maximize their benefit to society. 

Specifically, NHTSA is exploring its 

role and responsibility in considering 

environmental impacts, accessibility, 

and equity when an exemption is sought 

for an ADS equipped vehicle. Climate, 

accessibility, and equity, in addition to 

road safety, are important public 

interest goals of the Department and 

NHTSA. NHTSA will also continue to 

consider how exemptions affect the 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
4162 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 9 / Wednesday, January 15, 2025 / Proposed Rules 

216 87 FR 43602, 43607 (July 21, 2022). 

217See § 597.601(d)(3) of the proposed rule. 

218As proposed in § 597.105(g) of the proposed 

rule, the interior label would only be necessary for 

vehicle occupants. As such, if the design of a 

subject vehicle precluded passengers, no such 

interior label would be required. 

219As with other terms in a Final Determination 

Letter, an exemption-holder could request to amend 

this cap during participation. 

220Since the original promulgation of part 591, 

NHTSA has recognized that Section 30114(a) may 

support issuing exemptions to multiple vehicles at 

once See 57 FR 2043, 2046 (January 17, 1992) 

(noting that the exemption could apply to a fleet of 

test vehicles). 

221This usual approach to Section 30114(a) 

exemptions differs from how NHTSA currently 

administers exemptions under Section 30113 

through part 555. Specifically, 49 CFR 555.7 

provides: unless a later effective date is specified 

in the notice of the grant, a temporary exemption 

is effective upon publication of the notice in the 

Federal Register and exempts vehicles 

manufactured on and after the effective date. 49 

CFR 555.7(f) (Processing of applications). Some 

entities have expressed that part 555’s current 

limitation to vehicles manufactured on or after the 

date the exemption is granted presents difficulties. 

NHTSA has received a petition for rulemaking from 

an ADS developer to this effect. NHTSA is currently 

considering a proposed rule to change this 

provision to allow part 555 exemptions to be 

granted to vehicles manufactured prior to the 

issuance of the grant of petition, if they are identical 

to the vehicles for which the exemption was sought. 

See Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, 

‘‘Unified Agenda of Regulatory and Deregulatory 

Actions,’’ DOT, RIN 2127–AM57: Temporary 

Exemption From Motor Vehicle Safety and Bumper 

Standards. 

222See 49 CFR 553.21. 

223OCR is the process of converting an image of 

text, such as a scanned paper document or 

electronic fax file, into computer-editable text. 

development of advanced vehicle 

technologies.216

The information submitted through an 

application would enable NHTSA to 

review the claimed statutory purpose in 

light of any expected 

commercialization. 

C. Exemption Participation 

Requirements 

The proposed rule also includes 

several participation requirements 

specific to exempted vehicles. In 

general, an exemption would expire at 

the end of a vehicle’s AV STEP 

participation. However, imported 

vehicles that relied on the exemption to 

enter the United States could remain in 

the country as long as they did not 

operate on public roads or otherwise 

engage in interstate commerce. In 

addition to the operational control 

requirements for all AV STEP 

participants, an AV STEP exemption 

holder would need to maintain 

ownership and possession of each 

exempted vehicle and could not license 

it for use, unless otherwise permitted by 

NHTSA. This restriction ensures that 

tighter control is exercised over the 

vehicles to account for their 

nonconformance with safety standards. 

As with all participations, the terms of 

a Final Determination Letter could 

generally be amended under AV STEP’s 

proposed amendment process. However, 

NHTSA proposes to require a new 

application for several fundamental 

changes to an exemption.217

NHTSA also proposes to require 

vehicles receiving either exemption to 

display at least two labels—one on the 

vehicle’s exterior and one on the 

interior—stating that the vehicles might 

not conform with all applicable FMVSS. 

Exterior labels would inform 

surrounding road users or those entering 

the vehicle, whereas interior labels 

would inform vehicle occupants.218

NHTSA would review each label 

proposed by an applicant during the 

review of an application and set terms 

for the labels in the Final Determination 

Letter. 

The Final Determination Letter would 

also list the specific vehicles receiving 

an exemption at that time, as well as cap 

the maximum number of vehicles that 

may be exempted.219 As long as the list 

of exempted vehicles has not exceeded 

this cap, an exemption holder would be 

able to notify NHTSA of an intent to 

apply the exemption to additional 

vehicles. Unless NHTSA provides 

otherwise within 30 days of this notice, 

those additional vehicles would be 

exempt and subject to the same terms as 

previously exempted vehicles of the 

same type. The proposed rule would not 

set a limit on the number of vehicles 

that may receive an exemption in each 

participation, because NHTSA proposes 

the terms of a Final Determination 

Letter to govern vehicle numbers.220

However, NHTSA requests comment on 

whether the proposed rule should 

include such a limit. 

This procedure is proposed to remain 

consistent with NHTSA’s practice of 

issuing Section 30114(a) exemptions for 

existing vehicles rather than 

prospectively for vehicles that have not 

yet been built.221 It would also avoid the 

burden of restarting the application 

process for new vehicles. Moreover, 

NHTSA believes that the agency, 

applicants, and the public should 

understand the volume of exemptions 

expected over the course of a 

participation. This information would 

help NHTSA assess the full scope of the 

anticipated participation when 

reviewing an application, provide 

applicants with more regulatory 

certainty for their vehicle manufacturing 

plans, and better enable the public to 

understand the extent of expected ADSequipped vehicle activity. 

D. Exemption Public Reporting 

NHTSA proposes to publish 

additional information about AV STEP 

exempted vehicles beyond the 

information that NHTSA proposes to 

make public about all AV STEP 

participations. That additional 

information is set forth in § 597.701(a) 

of the proposed rule and includes the 

type of exemption requested or 

received, the exempted FMVSS or 

bumper standard requirements, a 

summary of risk mitigations, and the 

Section 30114(a) purpose for FMVSS 

Exemptions. 

VIII. Public Comments 

NHTSA requests comment on all 

aspects of this proposed rule. This 

section describes how you can 

participate in this process. 

How do I prepare and submit 

comments? 

Your comments must be written and 

in English.222 To ensure that your 

comments are correctly filed in the 

docket, please include the docket 

number NHTSA–2024–0100 in your 

comments. If you are submitting 

comments electronically as a PDF 

(Adobe) file, we ask that the documents 

submitted be scanned using the optical 

character recognition (OCR) process, 

thus allowing NHTSA to search and 

copy certain portions of your 

submissions.223 Please note that 

pursuant to the Data Quality Act, in 

order for the substantive data to be 

relied upon and used by NHTSA, it 

must meet the information quality 

standards set forth in the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) and 

DOT Data Quality Act guidelines. 

Accordingly, we encourage you to 

consult the guidelines in preparing your 

comments. OMB’s guidelines may be 

accessed at https://

www.whitehouse.gov/omb/informationregulatory-affairs/information-policy. 

DOT’s guidelines may be accessed at 

https://www.transportation.gov/dotinformation-dissemination-qualityguidelines. 

Tips for Preparing Your Comments 

When submitting comments, please 

remember to: 

• Identify the rulemaking by docket 

number and other identifying 

information (subject heading, Federal 

Register date and page number). 

• Explain why you agree or disagree, 

suggest alternatives and substitute 

language for your requested changes. 

• Describe any assumptions and 

provide any technical information and/ 

or data that you used. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 9 / Wednesday, January 15, 2025 / Proposed Rules 4163 

224See 49 CFR part 512. 

• If you estimate potential costs or 

burdens, explain how you arrived at 

your estimate in sufficient detail to 

allow for it to be reproduced. 

• Provide specific examples to 

illustrate your concerns and suggest 

alternatives. 

• Explain your views as clearly as 

possible, avoiding the use of profanity 

or personal threats. 

• Make sure to submit your 

comments by the comment period 

deadline identified in the DATES section 

above. 

How can I be sure that my comments 

were received? 

If you submit your comments by mail 

and wish Docket Management to notify 

you upon its receipt of your comments, 

enclose a self-addressed, stamped 

postcard in the envelope containing 

your comments. Upon receiving your 

comments, Docket Management will 

return the postcard by mail. 

How do I submit confidential business 

information? 

If you wish to submit any information 

under a claim of confidentiality, you 

should submit your complete 

submission, including the information 

you claim to be confidential business 

information (CBI), to the NHTSA Chief 

Counsel. When you send a comment 

containing CBI, you should include a 

cover letter setting forth the information 

specified in our CBI regulation.224 In 

addition, you should submit a copy 

from which you have deleted the 

claimed CBI to the Docket by one of the 

methods set forth above. 

NHTSA is treating electronic 

submission as an acceptable method for 

submitting CBI to the agency under 49 

CFR part 512. Any CBI submissions sent 

via email should be sent to an attorney 

in the Office of the Chief Counsel at the 

address given above under FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT. Likewise, for CBI 

submissions via a secure file transfer 

application, an attorney in the Office of 

Chief Counsel must be set to receive a 

notification when files are submitted 

and have access to retrieve the 

submitted files. At this time, regulated 

entities should not send a duplicate 

hardcopy of their electronic CBI 

submissions to DOT headquarters. 

If you have any questions about CBI 

or the procedures for claiming CBI, 

please consult the person identified in 

the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

section. 

Will NHTSA consider late comments? 

NHTSA will consider all comments 

received before the close of business on 

the comment closing date indicated 

above under DATES. To the extent 

practicable, we will also consider 

comments received after that date. If 

interested persons believe that any 

information that NHTSA places in the 

docket after the issuance of the NPRM 

affects their comments, they may submit 

comments after the closing date 

concerning how NHTSA should 

consider that information for the final 

rule. However, NHTSA’s ability to 

consider any such late comments in this 

rulemaking will be limited due to the 

time frame for issuing a final rule. 

If a comment is received too late for 

us to practicably consider in developing 

a final rule, we will consider that 

comment as an informal suggestion for 

future rulemaking action. 

How can I read the comments submitted 

by other people? 

You may read the materials placed in 

the docket for this document (e.g., the 

comments submitted in response to this 

document by other interested persons) 

at any time by going to http://

www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 

instructions for accessing the dockets. 

You may also read the materials at the 

NHTSA Docket Management Facility by 

going to the street addresses given above 

under ADDRESSES. 

IX. Regulatory Notices and Analyses 

A. Executive Orders 12866, 13563, 

14094 and DOT Regulatory Policies and 

Procedures 

NHTSA has considered the impact of 

this rulemaking action under Executive 

Order (E.O.) 12866, ‘‘Regulatory 

Planning and Review,’’ as supplemented 

by E.O. 13563, ‘‘Improving Regulation 

and Regulatory Review,’’ and amended 

by E.O. 14094, ‘‘Modernizing Regulatory 

Review,’’ as well as under DOT’s 

regulatory procedures. Although the 

rule does not meet the $200 million 

threshold for significance pursuant to 

section 3(f)(1) of E.O. 12866 as 

amended, this NPRM has been 

designated as significant and was 

reviewed by the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) under E.O. 12866. 

This section summarizes NHTSA’s 

assessment of potential benefits and 

costs relating to this proposal. 

NHTSA proposes AV STEP as a 

voluntary national program that would 

be available for two categories of 

vehicles. The first category consists of 

vehicles that can lawfully operate on 

public roads regardless of participation 

in AV STEP, as long as they comply 

with all other Federal, state, and local 

laws. These vehicles include those that 

are compliant with and certified to all 

applicable FMVSS, those that have 

received exemptions under other 

NHTSA programs, and those that may 

operate on public roads pursuant to the 

FAST Act, as provided for by 49 U.S.C. 

30112(b)(10). The second category 

consists of vehicles that would seek an 

exemption from NHTSA through AV 

STEP. Under this proposal, vehicles that 

do not comply with all applicable 

FMVSS or those that originally 

complied but are taken out of 

compliance by an ADS retrofit could 

seek exemptions through AV STEP. 

NHTSA has qualitatively assessed 

many of the costs and benefits of AV 

STEP because the agency does not 

currently have sufficient data to 

calculate all costs and benefits. Data is 

limited because the novel aspects of this 

proposal and ADS-equipped vehicles 

create significant uncertainties. NHTSA 

seeks comment and additional data 

regarding the potential impacts of this 

proposed program. 

1. Need for Regulation 

The AV STEP proposal was 

developed to address several 

complexities relating to the current 

nascent state of ADS technology. Those 

challenges, as well as the ways in which 

AV STEP proposes to address them, are 

explained in Section II (Program 

Context) of this NPRM. Specifically, that 

section explains how definitive, 

objective ADS safety assessment test 

methods are lacking, and that this 

proposal is designed to account for the 

current ADS technological landscape as 

well as complement NHTSA’s other 

activities pertaining to ADS. 

ADS technology is in a transitional 

period of development. The technology 

has reached a point at which ADS 

operations are increasingly occurring 

and expanding on public roads. 

However, the technology is still in a 

relative state of infancy. Most ADS 

operations focus on testing or 

demonstrating the ADS. The tools used 

to evaluate the safety of an ADS are 

likewise in early stages of development. 

Existing industry standards and best 

practices for ADS safety continue to 

evolve and are often used differently 

across the industry. As the performance 

capabilities of ADS continue to mature, 

the expectations about the performance 

of the technology will likewise evolve. 

As a result, more information and 

development are needed before ADS 

technology will be ready for minimum 

performance standards, such as FMVSS. 

However, safety must remain a 

priority, even though ADS technologies 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
4164 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 9 / Wednesday, January 15, 2025 / Proposed Rules 

225The SGO service list can be found at the end 

of the published Order. See NHTSA, ‘‘Second 

Amended Standing General Order 2021–01’’ (April 

2023), available at: https://www.nhtsa.gov/ 

document/sgo-crash-reporting-adas-ads. 

are in a nascent state of development. 

Many ADS-equipped vehicles are 

currently operating on public roads 

across the United States, in proximity to 

other road users. Some of those ADS 

operations are carrying public 

passengers. As such, the operation of 

ADS-equipped vehicles entails a safety 

responsibility to the public, even as the 

technology continues to develop. The 

Safety Act formalizes this responsibility 

by requiring vehicles and vehicle 

equipment, including ADS, to be free of 

safety defects. NHTSA oversees these 

Safety Act responsibilities, and the 

agency’s oversight relies on access to 

information about the vehicles and their 

ADS to monitor for safety-related 

defects. 

AV STEP would complement 

NHTSA’s existing oversight, 

transparency, rulemaking, and research 

efforts relating to ADS in a way that 

builds on the agency’s precedent for the 

technology and enhances the agency’s 

ability to carry out each of these 

statutory responsibilities when 

regulating ADS. The additional 

information that AV STEP would 

provide about ADS operations on public 

roads would improve NHTSA’s 

oversight of vehicles that participate in 

the program. Likewise, AV STEP would 

help to increase the amount of 

information that is publicly available 

about participating ADS-equipped 

vehicle operations. 

In addition, evolving approaches to 

assessing ADS safety merit a flexible 

safety assessment framework that is 

designed for the current transitional 

stage of ADS. Focusing on the 

engineering rigor and level of due 

diligence applied to an ADS’ 

development and operation would 

allow a review to probe the safety of an 

ADS even though proven performance 

standards do not currently exist. This 

approach to safety reviews would also 

allow the review framework to evolve as 

best practices and understanding of 

ADS safety evolve. This document 

proposes such a framework for AV STEP 

and would enable NHTSA to gain 

insight into how a company’s safety 

practices and metrics for assessing 

safety correspond to real world ADS 

performance. 

Finally, over the last several years, the 

number and complexity of FMVSS 

exemption requests involving ADSequipped vehicles has significantly 

increased. In addition, questions have 

arisen about how the make inoperative 

prohibition in 49 U.S.C. 30122 affects 

ADS equipment retrofits. Currently, 

NHTSA’s regulations lack a way for an 

entity to request a Make Inoperative 

Exemption in order to equip a 

compliant vehicle with an ADS in a way 

that would take the vehicle out of 

compliance with an FMVSS. AV STEP 

would address both of these situations 

by providing a framework through 

which NHTSA could consider FMVSS 

Exemptions under 49 U.S.C. 30114(a) or 

Make Inoperative Exemptions under 

Section 30122 for ADS-equipped 

vehicles. The agency designed AV STEP 

to review and oversee complex ADS 

operations, which would improve the 

agency’s ability to efficiently administer 

FMVSS Exemptions for ADS-equipped 

vehicles under Section 30114(a) and 

afford eligible entities an opportunity to 

request a Make Inoperative Exemption 

for an ADS retrofit. 

2. Uncertainties and Assumptions 

As part of the cost-benefit analysis for 

this rulemaking, NHTSA estimated the 

costs that would arise from compliance 

with the key aspects of the application 

and participation requirements that are 

proposed for AV STEP. This analysis is 

informed by the agency’s past regulatory 

activity pertaining to ADS, such as 

exemptions issued under Section 

30114(a) through the AVEP process, 

reporting under the SGO, and voluntary 

agency initiatives involving ADS, such 

as AV TEST and VSSAs. The agency’s 

experience administering those 

programs helped shape the proposed 

requirements for AV STEP, as well as 

informed the agency’s expectations 

about both the level of interest that ADS 

companies may have in participating in 

AV STEP and the burden that such 

participation would entail. 

Nevertheless, the specific type of 

national program proposed in this 

NPRM is new, as are many aspects of 

the ADS technology that it covers. As a 

result, inherent uncertainties exist 

regarding the projected impacts of this 

rule. 

First, uncertainty exists as to the 

number of entities that would apply to 

AV STEP. Since NHTSA proposes AV 

STEP as a voluntary program, the 

number of entities directly affected by 

this proposal would depend upon the 

level of interest in participation amongst 

eligible entities. 

As a starting point in estimating the 

number of entities interested in 

participating, NHTSA first estimated the 

number of entities that would be eligible 

to participate in AV STEP. The pool of 

eligible applicants is limited to entities 

that meet the proposed eligibility 

requirements in § 597.103 of the 

proposed rule. Eligible entities would be 

vehicle manufacturers, ADS developers, 

fleet operators, or system integrators of 

ADS-equipped vehicles. 

The SGO reporting provides a starting 

point for estimating the total number of 

eligible entities who may qualify to 

apply to AV STEP. The SGO contains a 

service list of entities that NHTSA has 

identified as potentially engaged in 

activities relating to ADS and SAE Level 

2 ADAS in the United States. NHTSA 

actively maintains this service list and 

has updated it in amended versions of 

the SGO, as the agency becomes aware 

of new entities or updates regarding 

previously served entities. The service 

list for the latest version of the SGO, 

which was issued in April 2023, 

contains 114 entities.225 Apart from a 

small number of component suppliers 

and several other miscellaneous entities 

that were project stakeholders in 

particular operations, most of the 

entities on the SGO’s service list are 

vehicle manufacturers, system 

developers, fleet operators, or system 

integrators of vehicles equipped with 

automation technologies. Thus, the 

entities on the SGO service list helps 

estimate the potential pool of eligible 

applicants for AV STEP. 

However, the SGO encompasses both 

Level 2 ADAS and ADS, whereas AV 

STEP is proposed to only encompass 

ADS. As such, the full service list for 

the SGO is broader than the pool of 

eligible applicants for AV STEP. 

Instead, a more analogous segment of 

the SGO data is the number of entities 

that have submitted ADS reports under 

the SGO. When submitting a crash 

report under the SGO, an entity must 

indicate whether the vehicle automation 

system that is the subject of the report 

is classified as an ADS or Level 2 ADAS. 

Thus far, 42 entities have submitted 

ADS crash reports under the SGO. 

This number would not account for 

any new ADS entities that may emerge 

during the course of AV STEP. Given 

the evolving state of ADS technology, 

companies engaged in ADS operations 

are in a constant state of change, with 

new startups frequently created and 

existing companies often winding 

down. This state of change adds 

uncertainty to any estimated number of 

eligible entities. In addition, the figure 

of 42 entities that have submitted an 

ADS crash report does not account for 

SGO entities involved in ADS who have 

not yet experienced a reportable crash. 

The level of participation interest from 

eligible entities that have not submitted 

an ADS report under the SGO is less 

certain because the absence of any 

reporting may suggest that the company 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 9 / Wednesday, January 15, 2025 / Proposed Rules 4165 

is not involved in extensive public road 

ADS operations. To estimate the 

potential interest of these entities in AV 

STEP, NHTSA analyzed entities’ 

engagement with other ADS regulatory 

activities, such as VSSA, other NHTSA 

exemption programs, and state and local 

ADS permitting programs. Through this, 

the agency identified additional entities 

that may have some future interest in 

participating in AV STEP. Given these 

considerations, NHTSA considers the 

figure of 50 entities a reasonable starting 

point for estimating the number of 

entities that are currently engaged in 

ADS operations on public roads in the 

United States at a level that may 

generate interest in participating in AV 

STEP. 

Additionally, given the potential 

growth of the ADS industry, NHTSA 

believes that it is reasonable to assume 

that the number of entities engaged in 

more extensive ADS operations will 

continue to grow over the coming years. 

Therefore, rather than exclusively 

relying on the number of entities that 

have already reported an ADS crash 

under the SGO, NHTSA considers an 

estimate of 60 eligible entities a more 

appropriate estimate for AV STEP. 

NHTSA seeks comment on this estimate 

of the eligible pool of participants. 

Since AV STEP is proposed as 

voluntary, NHTSA does not expect all 

eligible entities would decide to apply 

to the program. In addition, as 

proposed, AV STEP would permit joint 

applications from essential system-level 

stakeholders on a project. As a result, 

some of these eligible entities may 

jointly apply to AV STEP for operations 

that they work on together. This may 

further reduce the total number of 

unique applications compared to the 

total number of eligible entities. 

Finally, NHTSA considers many of 

the incentives to participate in AV STEP 

applicable to all eligible entities. 

However, an eligible entity’s particular 

level of interest in participating would 

likely be affected by the type of 

participation requested. This is 

particularly the case for FMVSS and 

Make Inoperative Exemptions requested 

through AV STEP because vehicles 

subject to those requests would not be 

permitted to operate on public roads in 

the United States without an exemption 

(attained through either existing 

exemption programs or through AV 

STEP). In contrast, vehicles that are 

compliant with all applicable NHTSA 

requirements could conduct operations 

without AV STEP. As a result, entities 

with ADS-equipped vehicles in need of 

an exemption because they do not 

comply with all applicable NHTSA 

requirements would be more likely to 

apply to AV STEP. Entities with 

compliant ADS-equipped vehicles may 

have less obvious interest in the 

program, as discussed further in Section 

III (Program Structure (Regulatory Text 

Subpart A)). 

These variables create uncertainty in 

the number of eligible entities that 

would apply to participate in AV STEP. 

Given these considerations, NHTSA 

estimates that one in 12 of the entities 

eligible to participate in AV STEP 

would apply to the program annually. 

Given that some eligible entities will 

likely take time to gain familiarity with 

the program and consider whether to 

participate, the agency expects 

participation to ramp up over the first 

3 to 5 years followed by a tapering-off 

of new applicants. For purposes of this 

analysis, NHTSA estimated an average 

of five applicants to AV STEP each year. 

For purposes of this analysis, NHTSA 

did not adjust the anticipated number of 

participants in AV STEP for any 

estimated denials of applications. In 

practice, as explained in this document, 

NHTSA may deny an application based 

on concerns that arise during the 

application review process or suspend 

or revoke permission to participate 

based on concerns that arise during 

participation. However, sufficient data 

does not currently exist to project the 

number of applications that would be 

denied or the number of participations 

that would be suspended or revoked. 

Moreover, AV STEP, as proposed, is 

structured to reduce the likelihood of 

deficient applications. The proposed 

requirements for AV STEP set forth 

clear expectations for an application, 

and the proposed application review 

process would afford applicants an 

opportunity to rectify issues prior to 

NHTSA’s final decision on an 

application. As proposed, NHTSA could 

also set terms and conditions in an AV 

STEP Final Determination Letter that 

restrict the requested operation, 

enabling NHTSA to address certain 

issues with a requested operation 

without resorting to a full denial. As a 

result of these considerations, NHTSA 

estimated that AV STEP participation 

will increase by the number of 

applicants every year. As explained 

above, the agency estimated that an 

average of five entities would apply 

annually during the first seven years of 

the program. 

The agency also expects that, over 

time, some entities will conclude 

operations that participated in AV 

STEP. For example, an entity could 

cease ADS operations entirely or choose 

to operate differently in a way that 

would require a new, distinct 

application. The continuing changes to 

the ADS industry landscape discussed 

above, with frequent acquisitions and 

market exits influenced by varied 

unpredictable factors, such as funding, 

make projections difficult. For the 

purposes of this analysis, NHTSA has 

estimated that by the seventh year after 

initiation of the program, a total of 35 

entities would have applied for and 

been accepted into AV STEP. At the 

same time, NHTSA expects that, starting 

in the fourth year after the initiation of 

AV STEP, some program participations 

would conclude (for a variety of 

reasons, as noted earlier) such that total 

participation in the program would 

reach 29 participants in the seventh year 

of the program. NHTSA seeks comment 

and data on these assumptions and 

estimates. 

A second notable uncertainty inherent 

to this proposal is the rate at which ADS 

technology will progress and the extent 

to which the technology will be adopted 

by the public. This proposal recognizes 

that the potential of ADS is still largely 

unproven. ADS technologies have the 

potential to improve safety as well as 

provide other societal benefits. The 

impacts of ADS, however, will 

ultimately be the cumulative result of 

numerous engineering, deployment, 

policy, and other choices. Likewise, the 

capabilities and expectations of ADS are 

likely to evolve significantly in the 

coming years. 

To account for this evolving 

technological landscape, certain 

proposed AV STEP requirements are 

crafted to evolve over time or allow for 

a customized approach that can account 

for the unique attributes of individual 

applications. For instance, NHTSA 

proposes for independent assessments 

to consider relevant industry standards, 

guidance, and best practices, which 

should evolve as the industry’s 

understanding of the technology 

improves. Likewise, as proposed, 

NHTSA would oversee operations that 

participate in AV STEP through terms 

and conditions set in a Final 

Determination Letter. Those terms 

would be tailored to the details of each 

operation, such as the types of subject 

vehicles, the ODDs in they would 

operate, and the use cases for such 

operations. As a result, those terms 

would depend on the types of 

applications that NHTSA receives and 

the capabilities of the ADS equipped on 

those vehicles. Thus, the specific 

impacts of this proposal would be 

largely contingent on the unknown 

future levels of ADS maturity. 

Another uncertainty in this 

rulemaking is the extent to which the 

independent assessment proposed for 

AV STEP would represent unique costs 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
4166 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 9 / Wednesday, January 15, 2025 / Proposed Rules 

for an applicant. As explained in 

Section IV.D (Independent Assessment), 

an application would need to contain a 

summary report of an independent 

assessment covering three focus areas 

regarding the subject vehicles’ ADS and 

operations: (a) their conformance with 

industry standards; (b) the applicant’s 

safety case; and (c) specific other 

policies and ADS capabilities. NHTSA 

developed these requirements based on 

the agency’s experience with 

independent assessments conducted for 

other sectors of the automotive industry, 

as well as the burgeoning practice of 

ADS companies voluntarily obtaining 

independent assessments for their own 

operations. 

Nevertheless, the assessment 

proposed for AV STEP is new, as are 

independent assessments for ADS. As 

ADS technologies mature and the 

independent assessment landscape 

grows, NHTSA expects that companies 

will more commonly undertake thirdparty assessments as part of their own 

development processes. Nevertheless, 

the extent to which companies would 

voluntarily conduct assessments in the 

future is still uncertain, as is the scope 

of those assessments. 

For purposes of this analysis, NHTSA 

estimates that half of AV STEP 

applicants will have already voluntarily 

obtained an independent assessment of 

their ADS operations before applying to 

AV STEP or would have done so even 

if they did not apply to AV STEP. This 

estimate is based on the agency’s 

understanding of the current frequency 

with which ADS companies initiate 

such assessments and the expectation 

that, given the history of other safetycritical industries with independent 

assessments, the voluntary usage of 

these assessments will grow as ADS 

practices and operations evolve. As a 

result, NHTSA has discounted the 

projected costs of an independent 

assessment for AV STEP to account for 

this estimate that applicants would have 

incurred similar costs from assessments 

in the absence of AV STEP. 

3. Costs 

NHTSA assessed, in 2023 dollars, 

multiple categories of costs for this 

proposal. First, the agency assessed 

costs for which NHTSA could estimate 

monetized impacts of the rule. These 

costs primarily relate to the costs that an 

entity would incur to apply to AV STEP 

and participate in the program if 

admitted, as well as the costs that 

NHTSA would incur to administer the 

program. NHTSA also assessed several 

types of costs as baseline costs that 

would be incurred even in the absence 

of AV STEP. Finally, NHTSA assessed 

several types of costs qualitatively 

because insufficient data currently exist 

to support any approach to estimating 

their monetized impact. 

Two characteristics of this proposal 

are overarching considerations in 

NHTSA’s assessment of costs. First, 

given that AV STEP is proposed as a 

voluntary program, any costs incurred 

by an entity would be voluntarily 

incurred because the entity has chosen 

to engage with the program. Moreover, 

entities that apply to AV STEP would 

have other regulatory options to legally 

operate their vehicles. This includes 

entities that request exemptions under 

AV STEP, who could decide instead to 

comply with NHTSA’s requirements so 

that no exemptions are needed. 

Likewise, certain entities requesting an 

FMVSS exemption through AV STEP 

could alternatively request an FMVSS 

exemption under two other NHTSA 

programs, set forth in 49 CFR parts 555 

and 591. An FMVSS exemption could 

also offset certain costs of complying 

with the FMVSS, such as designing a 

vehicle or equipment to meet a 

particular performance standard or 

conducting certification testing. As 

such, entities that elect to engage with 

AV STEP would presumably consider 

the benefits of this program to justify its 

costs. 

The Make Inoperative Exemption 

proposed for AV STEP would be new. 

No such exemption process for ADSequipped vehicles is currently available 

in NHTSA’s regulations. However, as 

explained in this document, this 

exemption would be largely proactive 

and would provide additional 

regulatory flexibility for entities to 

pursue ADS retrofits to compliant 

vehicles in ways that they could not 

otherwise consider. In addition, only a 

portion of ADS-equipped vehicles are 

equipped with ADS through aftermarket 

modifications. As a result, this 

exemption would be of interest to only 

a limited subset of ADS-equipped 

vehicles, which themselves currently 

represent only a very small percentage 

of all motor vehicles on public roads in 

the United States. 

Second, this document proposes a set 

of procedures to organize the 

information NHTSA would receive for 

its review of AV STEP applications and 

administration of AV STEP 

participation. This rulemaking would 

not exempt or admit any particular 

vehicles into AV STEP. Those decisions 

would be left to future NHTSA 

adjudication of applications. As 

explained throughout this document, 

while the information proposed for AV 

STEP would be helpful in informing 

NHTSA’s review, the agency would 

reserve discretion for its ultimate 

adjudications of AV STEP admission, 

including exemptions. Thus, many 

potential impacts associated with AV 

STEP would ultimately stem from 

NHTSA’s decisions on those 

applications rather than the procedures 

proposed in this document. Because 

there are requirements set forth in the 

rule that would accrue as a result of 

participation however, such as reporting 

to NHTSA, NHTSA considers the costs 

of those requirements for program 

participants in this analysis. 

(a) Baseline Costs 

NHTSA estimates that several notable 

requirements for AV STEP would not 

involve significant unique costs for an 

applicant or participant. This is because 

those costs are part of the baseline and 

would be incurred by the entity in the 

absence of AV STEP. As a result, 

NHTSA does not consider those costs 

attributable to AV STEP and has not 

included them in the estimated costs of 

this proposal. Subsection 2 

(Uncertainties and Assumptions) above 

explains one of them: the cost of an 

independent assessment for applicants 

that would have voluntarily conducted 

an assessment even apart from AV 

STEP. Other baseline costs pertain to 

data generation and storage, crash 

reporting, and information submitted as 

part of application or reporting 

requirements for FMVSS exemptions. 

NHTSA does not anticipate data 

generation and storage costs for AV 

STEP beyond those costs incurred by 

entities during operations in the 

baseline. The agency designed the 

program to largely use data that entities 

should already generate and store as 

part of responsible operations. The 

application and reporting requirements 

proposed for AV STEP focus on a 

company’s internal processes and 

assessment methods for its operations. 

This proposal expressly recognizes that 

those practices may vary between 

entities. To account for this variation, 

NHTSA proposes to tailor the most 

technology-dependent reporting 

elements to the data and metrics already 

used by a company, to the extent that 

these would further the goals of AV 

STEP. These are framed as 

‘‘customized’’ requirements in the 

proposed rule. For such requirements, 

applications would need to include 

proposals for specific metrics or 

thresholds that could be used for the 

terms of customized reporting. As a 

result, this reporting is expected to 

correspond to data that a company is 

already using, reducing the likelihood 

that these requirements would entail 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 9 / Wednesday, January 15, 2025 / Proposed Rules 4167 

226For NHTSA’s cost analysis of SGO reporting 

requirements, see 86 FR 74217 (December 2021). 

227The other difference between the proposed AV 

STEP crash reporting requirement and the SGO is 

that AV STEP proposes to require reports of all 

crashes whereas the SGO only requires reports of 

crashes that occur with the ADS engaged during or 

immediately preceding the crash event. This 

difference is covered under Section IX.A.3.c)(2) 

(Participation Costs). 

228NHTSA has previously analyzed costs of 

FMVSS exemption processes under Section 

30114(a) (the authority that the agency proposes to 

use for AV STEP) for the TIE program. As discussed 

in Section II.B.2 (NHTSA Exemptions), the TIE 

program is used for both non-ADS exemptions and 

ADS exemptions. Thus, ADS operations represent 

only a portion of the cost analysis for the TIE 

program. For this analysis, see 87 FR 41861 (July 

2022). 

new data generation or storage 

capabilities. 

Likewise, NHTSA does not anticipate 

crash reporting costs from AV STEP 

beyond those incurred in the baseline 

from other crash reporting requirements. 

As proposed, entities would be required 

to submit several types of reports about 

crashes involving a subject vehicle. The 

first type of required report would 

consist of reports of crashes that occur 

during or near a time that the vehicle’s 

ADS is engaged. Crash report under the 

SGO is expected to satisfy this ADS 

crash reporting requirement in AV 

STEP.226 As explained in Section V.A.2 

(Event-Triggered Reporting), the crash 

reporting requirements in AV STEP are 

largely designed to mirror the crash 

reporting requirements under the SGO. 

To avoid duplicate reporting, a timely 

crash report under the SGO would 

satisfy obligations to report that 

information for AV STEP. NHTSA 

expects participants in AV STEP to be 

reporting entities under the SGO. As 

such, NHTSA would not expect AV 

STEP participants to incur reporting 

requirements for ADS crashes beyond 

those incurred in the baseline. 

The second type of crash reporting 

proposed for AV STEP would require, 

participants to submit video footage of 

the most severe types of crashes that are 

reported. The SGO does not require 

crash reports to include video.227

However, NHTSA usually requests 

video for the most serious crashes 

reported under the SGO, as part of the 

agency’s follow-up on SGO reports. 

NHTSA also typically requires video 

submission for crashes involving ADSequipped vehicles exempted under 

other NHTSA programs. As such, 

baseline costs in the absence of AV 

STEP already include costs associated 

with the submission of video footage, 

and the video reporting requirement 

proposed in AV STEP would not 

expand on the amount of effort required 

of a reporting entity to process video 

footage and transmit it to NHTSA. 

Therefore, NHTSA considers the costs 

of submitting video footage in AV STEP 

to be costs that exist in the baseline and 

not costs attributable to this program. 

Finally, costs associated with an 

FMVSS exemption in AV STEP also 

exist in the baseline because they would 

be incurred if an entity sought an 

FMVSS exemption under a different 

NHTSA exemption program instead. As 

explained in Section III (Program 

Structure (Regulatory Text Subpart A)), 

apart from AV STEP, certain ADSequipped vehicles could request FMVSS 

exemptions under two other NHTSA 

regulations: (1) 49 CFR part 591, which 

implements Section 30114(a) 

exemptions; and (2) 49 CFR part 555, 

which implements Section 30113 

exemptions.228 The application and 

reporting requirements proposed for AV 

STEP are based on information that 

NHTSA receives when administering 

each of those exemptions, either directly 

as part of an application or through 

follow-up with an applicant. 

Specifically, the proposed application 

for an FMVSS Exemption under AV 

STEP focuses on each noncompliance 

and the ways in which an applicant 

mitigated any safety risks from each 

noncompliance. Entities that request 

FMVSS exemptions under AVEP or part 

555 must provide similar information 

about each noncompliance for which an 

exemption is requested. 

As such, even in the baseline, an 

entity that requested an FMVSS 

Exemption under one of NHTSA’s other 

exemption programs would incur the 

costs of providing this information. If 

AV STEP did not exist, NHTSA expects 

most, if not all, of the applicants for an 

FMVSS Exemption under AV STEP 

would request exemptions under either 

part 591 or part 555. As such, NHTSA 

considers costs from the requirements 

for an FMVSS Exemption in AV STEP 

to be baseline costs that would be 

incurred without this program. 

(b) Non-Quantified Costs 

Several types of potential costs of an 

AV STEP application or participation 

are dependent on currently unknown 

future variables. As such, NHTSA 

analyzed these qualitatively. The first 

such cost is the cost to applicants 

associated with the application review 

process. For AV STEP, NHTSA proposes 

a phased application review process 

that entails follow-up with an applicant 

on their application, as well as 

coordination on terms and conditions of 

participation. The amount of 

engagement necessary for this process 

will depend significantly on variables 

such as the thoroughness of an 

application, the complexity of the 

operations requested, and the 

responsiveness of an applicant. Those 

factors are largely within the control of 

the applicant and influenced by the 

capabilities of the ADS that is the 

subject of an application. 

Costs associated with the concern 

resolution process are also dependent 

on similar variables. The concern 

resolution process proposed for AV 

STEP would be initiated only if 

problems arose during a participation. 

NHTSA cannot currently predict the 

frequency or nature of such problems. 

Likewise, the agency also cannot 

currently predict the types of 

resolutions that may be necessary under 

this process, as these would turn on the 

specific mitigations for a problem and a 

participant’s willingness to cooperate 

when concerns arise. NHTSA also 

cannot predict the extent to which a 

participant may have mitigated those 

concerns on their own even in the 

absence of AV STEP. 

Finally, NHTSA did not quantify 

safety costs as part of this proposal. The 

overall objective of this proposal is to 

further public safety, and NHTSA 

expects AV STEP to have a net safety 

benefit. The variety of benefits to motor 

vehicle safety from this proposal are 

explained throughout this document. 

NHTSA does not expect safety costs to 

result from AV STEP, particularly since 

compliant vehicles that participate in 

AV STEP could conduct the same 

operations on public roads without this 

program. 

NHTSA likewise does not expect the 

FMVSS or Make Inoperative 

Exemptions in AV STEP to entail 

negative safety impacts. As explained in 

Section VII.B (Exemption Application 

Requirements), applications for FMVSS 

or Make Inoperative Exemptions would 

need to identify each requirement or 

modification for which an exemption is 

needed, explain all associated 

mitigations of safety impacts, and 

explain how the vehicle’s safety 

compares to that of a compliant vehicle. 

NHTSA would consider all of this 

information, in conjunction with the 

other information submitted in an 

application, when assessing whether 

risks have been sufficiently addressed to 

justify granting the exemption sought. 

Given these requirements, NHTSA does 

not expect FMVSS nonconformance to 

lead to negative safety impacts. 

(c) Quantified Costs 

NHTSA’s analysis of the quantified 

costs for AV STEP estimated the burden 

to applicants of preparing an 

application as well as the burden to 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
4168 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 9 / Wednesday, January 15, 2025 / Proposed Rules 

229See U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, ‘‘National 

Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates, 

United States’’ (May 2023), available at https://

www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_nat.htm#11-0000. 

230These labor costs include wages and fringe 

benefits, including paid leave, bonuses and 

overtime pay, health and other types of insurance, 

retirement plans, and legally required benefits 

(Social Security, Medicare, unemployment 

insurance, and workers’ compensation insurance). 

NHTSA estimated that the fringe benefits are 

approximately 42.2 percent of the average hourly 

wage. For the information that NHTSA used to 

derive this, see Bureau of Labor Statistics, 

‘‘Employer Costs for Employee Compensation’’ 

(September 2024), available at: https://www.bls.gov/ 

news.release/ecec.htm. 

231See, e.g., Commission for Energy Regulation, 

‘‘Safety Case Fees Structure and Methodology’’ 

(February 2016), available at: https://cruie-live96ca64acab2247eca8a850a7e54b-5b34f62.diviomedia.com/documents/CER16032-Safety-CaseFees-Version-2.pdf. 

participants from reporting or preparing 

amendment requests during 

participation. NHTSA’s general 

methodology for estimating these costs 

entailed projecting the annual burden 

that an applicant or participant would 

incur for each program requirement. 

Specifically, these costs were calculated 

by predicting the types of personnel that 

would be necessary to complete each 

requirement, the burden hours for each 

of those types of personnel, and the 

wage rates for such personnel. NHTSA 

used the National Occupational 

Employment and Wage Estimates of the 

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics in 

conducting this analysis.229 In general, 

most burden hours were assumed to be 

incurred by one or more of the following 

occupational categories: Administration 

Specialist ($34.04 per hour); Operations 

Specialist ($80.60 per hour); Engineer 

($84.74 per hour); Senior Manager 

($116.22); or Lawyer ($120.64 per 

hour).230 The labor rates for these 

occupational categories are based on 

average rates for multiple occupational 

titles/codes within a particular category 

(and as listed in the National 

Occupational Employment and Wage 

Estimates of the U.S. Bureau of Labor 

Statistics). For example, wage rates for 

the ‘‘Engineer’’ category are based on an 

average of the wage rates for: Electrical 

and Electronic Engineers (17–2070), 

Industrial Engineers (17–2112), 

Mechanical Engineers (17–2141), 

Computer Engineers (17–2061), 

Computer Systems Analysts (15–1211), 

Computer and Information Research 

Scientists (15–1221), and Software 

Developers (15–1252). NHTSA will 

publish spreadsheets in the docket for 

this rulemaking that reflect the 

estimates summarized below. 

These projections were informed by 

NHTSA’s engagement with regulated 

entities in NHTSA programs that 

contain certain requirements analogous 

to those proposed in AV STEP, such as 

the agency’s review of applications and 

oversight of exemptions under AVEP or 

follow-up with entities after a reported 

SGO crash. Through administering these 

programs, NHTSA has gained 

experience with the types of personnel 

that typically handle various types of 

responsibilities as well as the level of 

work that certain tasks typically entail. 

NHTSA seeks comment on these 

estimated costs and requests data that 

may further inform the agency’s 

projections. 

(1) Application Costs 

The first set of costs that NHTSA 

estimated are those that would be 

incurred by an applicant to prepare and 

submit an AV STEP application. These 

costs would arise from the four major 

areas of proposed application 

requirements, as discussed in Section IV 

(Application and Review (Regulatory 

Text Subparts B and D)): (1) application 

form information requirements; (2) 

required information regarding certain 

protocols for ADS operations; (3) 

required information regarding the 

applicant’s data governance plan; and 

(4) independent assessment 

requirements. 

When projecting the burden that 

filling out application forms would 

impose, NHTSA separately considered 

the costs of each requirement within the 

four proposed form sheets. One set of 

operational baseline sheet responses 

would need to be provided for each 

application, as would one set of 

responses to a second sheet regarding 

confirmation of ongoing reporting. 

Together, these would be expected to 

incur a total of 207 burden hours. 

NHTSA expects that these hours would 

be accrued by personnel with the 

occupational titles listed above and 

would impose a total cost of $17,501 per 

application. 

Similarly, responses to a single 

Location Sheet would be expected to 

incur a total of 145 burden hours, with 

a cost of $12,482. While at least one 

Location Sheet would be required for 

each application, multiple Location 

Sheets could be submitted for a single 

application. Accordingly, NHTSA 

projected that one in ten applicants 

would submit two Location Sheets, and 

that one in ten applicants would submit 

three Location Sheets. This accounts for 

NHTSA’s observation that once an ADS 

operation expands beyond its initial 

location, subsequent expansions occur 

more frequently. The agency translated 

this projection into an estimated average 

of 1.3 Location Sheets per application, 

which would result in a total Location 

Sheet average cost of $16,227 per 

application from 189 average burden 

hours. 

As proposed, the application form 

would require a separate sheet for 

information about any exemptions 

requested under AV STEP. NHTSA 

considers these costs part of the baseline 

costs for FMVSS Exemptions, as 

discussed in Section IX.A.3.a) (Baseline 

Costs). Thus, requests for Make 

Inoperative Exemptions would incur the 

only separate cost for this portion of an 

application. As explained in the 

introduction of this Costs section, 

NHTSA expects that Make Inoperative 

Exemptions will represent only a 

limited proportion of AV STEP interest. 

Accordingly, the agency projected that 

one in fifteen applications to AV STEP 

would include a request for a Make 

Inoperative Exemption. The agency 

estimated that preparing this sheet for 

each Make Inoperative Exemption 

request would entail 232 burden hours 

at a cost of $22,737. But using the 

projected one in fifteen multiplier, this 

would translate to an average of 15 

burden hours with an average cost of 

$1,516 per application. 

The second and third types of 

proposed requirements for an 

application would respectively require 

an applicant to provide information 

about certain protocols for the requested 

ADS operations and certain aspects of 

the data governance plan for those 

operations. Only one set of such 

information would need to be provided 

per application for each of these 

subjects. NHTSA estimated that 

detailing and submitting the protocols 

for ADS operations would entail 286 

burden hours, for a cost of $26,676 per 

application. The agency further 

estimated that detailing and submitting 

the data governance plan would entail 

210 burden hours, for a cost of $19,511 

per application. 

When projecting the burden of the 

proposed independent assessment 

requirements, NHTSA separately 

estimated the amount that an applicant 

would pay to an independent assessor 

and the burden that applicants would 

incur directly when engaging with and 

preparing certain required information 

about independent assessments for an 

application. As explained in Section 

IX.A.2 (Uncertainties and Assumptions), 

these costs are largely unknown. 

Nonetheless, NHTSA considered 

available data regarding similar 

assessments from other industries 231

and the agency’s experience in non-ADS 

contexts. 

NHTSA projected that paying for an 

independent assessment of the scope 

proposed for AV STEP would cost an 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 9 / Wednesday, January 15, 2025 / Proposed Rules 4169 

applicant $800,000 on average. 

However, as explained in Section IX.A.2 

(Uncertainties and Assumptions), 

NHTSA assumed that more than half of 

applicants will already have undertaken 

some form of an independent 

assessment or would have undertaken 

such an assessment even in the absence 

of AV STEP. As such, NHTSA believes 

that it is appropriate to offset this 

projected cost and has assumed an 

average cost of $400,000 per 

application. 

NHTSA projected additional burdens 

for an applicant’s engagement with an 

independent assessment, as well as an 

applicant’s preparation of information 

about the assessment for an application. 

NHTSA estimated that this additional 

burden would entail 304 burden hours, 

with a total cost of $25,301 per 

application. Together with the $400,000 

cost explained above, the agency 

estimated an average cost of $425,301 

per application for the proposed 

independent assessment requirements. 

Overall, these estimated application 

burdens sum to an average net cost of 

$506,732 per application, due (in part) 

to a net average of 1,211 burden hours. 

As noted in Section IX.A.2 

(Uncertainties and Assumptions), it is 

difficult to project how many eligible 

entities would apply to AV STEP. In 

general, NHTSA would expect to 

receive fewer applications in the years 

immediately following a Final Rule, due 

to the time that would be needed for 

interested entities to undertake 

independent assessments and prepare 

applications. The agency would expect 

to receive increasing numbers of 

applications in subsequent years, 

particularly as more entities reach the 

more mature state of ADS development 

for which AV STEP has been shaped. 

Although NHTSA expects such 

fluctuation, the agency believes that 

assuming an average of five applications 

annually over the first seven years of the 

program would be appropriate. 

Multiplying this with the estimated 

average net cost of an application, 

NHTSA estimated that the average 

annual cost to industry associated with 

the preparation and submission of AV 

STEP applications would be $2,533,660 

due (in part) to a net average of 6,055 

burden hours. 

(2) Participation Costs 

NHTSA estimated the costs of 

participation by projecting the costs of 

each of the reporting requirements in 

AV STEP, as well as the costs of 

preparing a request for an amendment 

during participation. Participation in 

AV STEP may entail other costs as well, 

such as those incurred through the 

concern resolution process if problems 

arise during an operation. However, as 

explained in Section IX.A.2 

(Uncertainties and Assumptions), those 

costs are unpredictable because they are 

contingent on variables that are 

currently unknown. The proposed AV 

STEP reporting requirements break 

down into three main categories: (1) 

periodic reporting; (2) event-triggered 

reporting; and (3) reportable changes to 

an operation. 

As proposed, AV STEP would include 

periodic reporting that occurs on a 

quarterly basis. To estimate periodic 

reporting costs, NHTSA projected the 

burden of several subsets of the 

quarterly reporting requirements. These 

estimates assume that administration 

and operations specialists would 

primarily prepare these responses, with 

support from engineers and senior 

managers. First, all entities in AV STEP 

would be required to report the ten 

elements of information that are set 

forth in § 597.500(c) of the proposed 

rule. NHTSA estimates that a 

participant’s responses to this 

information would require a total of 216 

burden hours, for a cost of $14,373. 

Given that four such reports would be 

required each year, this would translate 

to 864 burden hours, for a cost of 

$57,492 annually. Since the information 

reported under these elements largely 

entails standardized characteristics 

about an operation, such as VMT or 

performance metrics, some entities may 

find ways to reduce these estimated 

costs by automating the collection and 

organization of this information. 

The second proposed type of periodic 

reporting requirement is specific to the 

step at which an entity is participating. 

Step 1 participants would need to report 

customized metrics regarding fallback 

personnel performance and Step 2 

participants would need to report 

customized metrics for the ADS, as well 

as information about MRCs. NHTSA 

estimates that this requirement at Step 

1 would entail 46 burden hours, for a 

cost of $3,624 per report. At Step 2, 

NHTSA estimates that this requirement 

would entail 176 burden hours, for a 

cost of $14,447 per report. As these 

reports would also be required four 

times a year, these would translate to 

annual burdens of 184 burden hours, for 

a cost of $14,496, at Step 1 and 704 

burden hours, for a cost of $57,788 at 

Step 2. One of the benefits of NHTSA’s 

proposal to use customized reporting 

requirements is that entities may 

propose metrics and thresholds that 

they already use for other purposes. As 

such, some entities may be able to offset 

portions of these costs through 

customized reporting that mirrors 

metrics used apart from AV STEP. 

The third proposed type of periodic 

reporting requirement is only for 

vehicles that participate under an AV 

STEP exemption. For this requirement, 

an entity would need to report the VMT 

segmented by each exempted vehicle’s 

VIN. The first category of periodic 

reporting, discussed above, includes 

reports of several data elements 

pertaining to the VMT of subject 

vehicles. As a result, NHTSA’s estimates 

for the first category of periodic 

reporting already include the costs of 

reviewing and organizing VMT data for 

vehicles operating under AV STEP. That 

same data would support the VMT 

reporting requirement for AV STEP 

Exemptions. As such, NHTSA expects 

that the estimated costs for the first 

category of periodic reporting would 

already account for the costs of this 

reporting requirement. 

The next category of reporting during 

participation is event-triggered reporting 

of incidents within a specified 

timeframe after their occurrence. This 

requirement encompasses crash 

reporting, the submission of videos for 

particularly severe crashes, and the 

reporting of citable offenses. Most crash 

reporting under this requirement will 

likely entail ADS crash reports. As 

explained in subsection a) (Baseline 

Costs) above, NHTSA does not consider 

costs for ADS crash reporting to be 

attributable to AV STEP because all of 

these reporting costs exist in the 

baseline due to separate NHTSA 

requirements. 

In this document, NHTSA also 

proposes to require AV STEP 

participants to report crashes involving 

subject vehicles even if the ADS was not 

engaged during or near the time of the 

crash. NHTSA did not estimate separate 

costs for this reporting, however, 

because the agency’s experience with a 

similar requirement in other exemption 

programs indicates that such crashes are 

infrequent enough to result in de 

minimis reporting costs. The final 

proposed crash reporting requirement 

would require an entity to submit video 

footage for the most severe types of 

crashes. NHTSA also did not estimate 

unique costs for this reporting 

requirement, as explained in Section 

IX.A.3.a) (Baseline Costs) above, 

because video footage of such crashes is 

typically obtained through the SGO and 

other NHTSA exemption programs. 

For the last type of incident reporting, 

NHTSA estimated that annual reporting 

for citable offenses will require 336 

burden hours, for a cost of $30,050 per 

participant. ADS developers and 

operators already regularly collect and 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
4170 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 9 / Wednesday, January 15, 2025 / Proposed Rules 

232Office of Management and Budget, ‘‘Salaries 

and Wages’’ (January 2024), available at: https://

www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/pay-leave/ 

salaries-wages/. 

analyze such performance data as part 

of their normal product monitoring and 

improvement programs. However, 

NHTSA did not specifically offset these 

estimates for this work because those 

practices vary among entities. 

As explained in Section V.A.3 

(Update Reporting), for the third type of 

reporting proposed, AV STEP 

participants would also need to submit 

certain information about changes that 

occur during participation. The Final 

Determination Letter would set the 

parameters for when such reports are 

needed. Depending on the extent of a 

reported change, the required 

information may entail updated 

independent assessments. While the 

agency anticipates that AV STEP 

operations will continually evolve over 

the course of program participation, 

NHTSA expects that eligible entities 

would endeavor to minimize the need to 

submit these update reports. Applicants 

could do so by ensuring that the 

independent assessments submitted in 

an application are as comprehensive as 

possible, since the scope of an 

independent assessment would inform 

the parameters for this reporting. This 

would make it more likely that a greater 

proportion of updates would not require 

reports. Although the number of 

reportable changes under this 

requirement will likely vary for each 

participant, NHTSA estimates that, on 

average, each participant would submit 

one update report per year. The agency 

estimated that the cost of preparing and 

submitting the information required for 

an update report would entail 237 

burden hours, with a cost of $20,575. 

Whether a reportable update requires 

an updated independent assessment 

would depend on a number of variables 

that are dependent on the specific 

changes at issue. The agency assumed 

for the purposes of this analysis that 

half of these reportable updates would 

require an updated independent 

assessment. While the cost of these 

updated independent assessments is 

also likely to vary significantly 

according to the specific nature of the 

changes, NHTSA estimated that each 

such assessment would cost a 

participant, on average, one eighth of 

what a complete independent 

assessment would cost (as discussed in 

the preceding subsection), or $100,000. 

Using the projection that this would 

only be necessary for half of the 

assumed update reports, NHTSA 

annualized this cost to $50,000. 

Combining this with the burden of 

preparing and submitting the update 

report, NHTSA estimated that update 

reporting would incur an average 

annual cost of $70,575 per participant. 

As with this update reporting, given 

that NHTSA expects participating 

operations to continue to evolve, the 

agency expects that participants will 

also incur costs that result from the 

preparation and submission of 

amendment requests. Under this 

proposal, a participant that wished to 

change any of the terms or conditions 

contained in a Final Determination 

Letter could request to do so through the 

submission of such amendment 

requests. NHTSA proposes specific 

required information that an 

amendment request would need to 

include, as discussed in Section V.B.1 

(Amendment Process). The agency has 

estimated that preparing such 

information would entail 400 burden 

hours, with a cost of $35,757 per 

amendment request. NHTSA projects 

that each participant would request one 

amendment every two years. 

Accordingly, the agency estimated that 

the annual average burden of submitting 

amendment requests would entail 200 

burden hours, for a cost of $17,879 per 

participant. 

Combining all of these participation 

costs, NHTSA estimated that the 

proposed AV STEP participation 

requirements would impose an average 

annual burden of 2,081 burden hours, 

with a cost of $212,138 per participant. 

The agency further projected the average 

number of annual participants that 

would be expected during the first 

seven years of the program. Using the 

previously discussed average of five 

applicants per year over this time 

period, and assuming that, starting in 

the fourth year of the program, two 

participations would conclude each 

year, NHTSA estimated that there 

would be an average of 17 active 

participants annually. Multiplying this 

by the burden of each participation, the 

agency estimated that AV STEP 

participation would represent an annual 

burden for participants of 35,377 burden 

hours, with a cost of $3,606,346. 

(3) Costs of NHTSA’s Review and 

Oversight 

NHTSA will also incur costs, through 

its review of AV STEP applications and 

oversight of AV STEP participants. The 

agency will thoroughly review 

applications under the process proposed 

in Section IV.E (Application Review). 

NHTSA estimated that its review of an 

application would entail 953 burden 

hours across administrative and 

engineering staff in pay grades from GS– 

9 through GS–14, GS–15 and Senior 

Executive Service leadership positions, 

and legal staff. Using corresponding 

wages from the Office of Personnel 

Management 232 and assuming 

Washington, DC locality pay, NHTSA 

estimated that these burden hours 

would translate to a cost of $102,748 per 

application. 

Agency personnel would oversee AV 

STEP participants through monitoring 

of the reporting discussed in the 

preceding subsection, as well as through 

the concern resolution process 

discussed in Section V.B.2 (Concern 

Resolution Process). While NHTSA did 

not quantify the latter, as explained in 

Section IX.A.3.b) (Non-Quantified 

Costs), the agency estimated that 

monitoring and analyzing the 

information it would receive from AV 

STEP participants would entail an 

average of 329 burden hours annually 

per participant, across the same types of 

personnel identified in the previous 

paragraph. These burden hours would 

translate to an estimated annual cost of 

$35,237 per participant. 

NHTSA further used these values as 

well as the applicant and participant 

numbers the agency projected (as 

discussed in the two preceding 

subsections) to estimate its average 

annual burden across the first seven 

years of the program. For the projected 

average of 5 applicants per year, NHTSA 

estimated that reviewing AV STEP 

applications would require 4,700 

burden hours, with a cost of $513,740. 

For the projected average of 17 

participants over the first seven years of 

program, NHTSA estimated that 

overseeing AV STEP participants would 

require 5,593 burden hours, with a cost 

of $599,029. Combining these, NHTSA 

estimated that its average annual burden 

to administer AV STEP over the first 

seven years of the program would entail 

10,293 burden hours, with a cost of 

$1,112,769. 

(4) Total Program Costs 

Summing the burdens explained 

under subsections (1) and (2) above, 

NHTSA estimated that the average 

annual burden to all AV STEP 

applicants and participants, over the 

first seven years of the program, would 

amount to 41,432 burden hours, with a 

cost of $6,140,006. Combining this with 

the estimated burden AV STEP would 

entail for NHTSA, as explained in the 

preceding subsection, the agency 

estimated that the program would entail 

a net annual average burden of 51,725 

burden hours, with a cost of $7,252,775. 

Over this first seven years of the 

program, this would present a net 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 9 / Wednesday, January 15, 2025 / Proposed Rules 4171 

burden of 362,075 burden hours, with a 

cost of $50,769,425. 

4. Benefits 

As explained throughout this NPRM, 

including in subsection 1 (Need for 

Regulation) above, NHTSA intends for 

AV STEP to enhance the transparency 

and oversight of ADS-equipped 

vehicles, accelerate learning relating to 

ADS safety, and provide an efficient 

framework for reviewing ADS 

operations and exemptions. NHTSA has 

qualitatively assessed these benefits 

because the nature of how they may 

arise and uncertainties surrounding the 

progression of ADS technology preclude 

sufficient data to quantify them. 

Nevertheless, NHTSA considers each of 

these benefits significant. This section 

summarizes those benefits, which are 

also discussed throughout this proposal. 

AV STEP would further safety in 

several important ways. First, AV STEP 

would provide a new type of assessment 

framework tailored specifically for the 

nascent stage of ADS technology. This 

would enhance the agency’s ability to 

review and oversee the safety of 

participating ADS-equipped vehicles. 

Second, AV STEP would likely motivate 

some ADS companies to more 

thoroughly refine their own approaches 

to ADS development and operations if 

interested in participating in this 

program. AV STEP’s proposed clear, 

upfront application and participation 

requirements should allow prospective 

participants to understand the level of 

safety commitment needed for this 

program and to prepare for this 

commitment. AV STEP may also 

accelerate the pace at which ADS safety 

practices evolve, such as by creating a 

broader market for independent 

assessments, evaluating the use of 

industry standards, and probing the 

effectiveness of safety metrics. The 

insight gained through AV STEP would 

also help to inform NHTSA’s 

consideration of potential FMVSS for 

ADS. 

NHTSA expects that AV STEP would 

also provide an effective framework for 

administering exemptions to ADSequipped vehicles. In turn, this would 

enable the agency to effectively process 

and oversee complex exemptions 

involving ADS, including potential 

future requests to retrofit compliant 

vehicles with ADS. This would improve 

regulatory flexibility for innovative ADS 

technologies in a way that still 

prioritizes the safety of those vehicles. 

In addition, the information that 

NHTSA proposes to publish about AV 

STEP applications and participations 

would increase transparency 

surrounding ADS operations. The data 

NHTSA would make available would 

better inform the public about where 

participating operations are occurring, 

the nature and status of those 

operations, and opportunities to interact 

with those vehicles. In turn, this 

additional information would enable the 

public to make more informed decisions 

about how to engage with ADS 

technologies. 

ADS safety and transparency is a 

prerequisite to other societal benefits 

ADS technology may offer. ADS has the 

potential to positively impact many 

aspects of society, including the 

environment, accessibility for people 

with disabilities, and equity. The public 

safety benefits that NHTSA expects from 

AV STEP could improve the prospects 

for ADS technologies to achieve nonsafety benefits as well. 

AV STEP also offers an opportunity to 

improve regulatory harmonization for 

jurisdictions with overlapping 

engagement with ADS technologies. As 

explained in Section III (Program 

Structure (Regulatory Text Subpart A)), 

AV STEP would require that 

participants comply with all applicable 

Federal, state, and local laws. During 

the review of an AV STEP application, 

NHTSA would engage with applicants 

and other authorities, as appropriate, to 

explore opportunities to harmonize 

certain AV STEP requirements with 

those that other jurisdictions may 

impose. Those authorities may likewise 

consider harmonizing their own 

requirements with AV STEP. As a 

result, AV STEP would offer an 

opportunity to enhance regulatory 

collaboration and dialogue in a way that 

could benefit both regulatory authorities 

and regulated entities. 

Similarly, NHTSA anticipates that AV 

STEP may increase the opportunities for 

ADS companies with responsible safety 

practices to demonstrate their public 

commitment to safety in a more 

objective and transparent way. In turn, 

this may help those entities establish 

public trust and build potential 

relationships with other entities looking 

to engage with ADS business partners 

that prioritize safety. As such, this 

program offers the potential to 

encourage more responsible growth of 

ADS technology. 

5. Regulatory Approaches Considered 

This section presents three 

alternatives to the proposed rule that 

NHTSA considered when developing 

this proposal. None of these options 

were incorporated into the lead 

proposal as they would not address the 

complexities of regulating ADS 

technologies as well or otherwise 

appropriately balance encouraging AV 

STEP participation with the need for 

program participation to entail a 

meaningful commitment to safety. 

(a) Baseline (No Action) 

The no action alternative would 

maintain the status quo and not propose 

a national program for ADS-equipped 

vehicles. NHTSA does not prefer this 

alternative because, as described 

throughout this NPRM, NHTSA believes 

that AV STEP would address multiple 

unique challenges posed by the evolving 

state of ADS technology. Currently, 

detailed information about ADSequipped vehicles operating on public 

roads is often limited. More information 

about participating vehicles would 

enhance NHTSA’s oversight of those 

vehicles and increase the amount of 

public transparency. The information 

gleaned through this program could also 

inform and expedite NHTSA’s 

consideration of future standards for 

ADS by providing greater insight into 

the effectiveness of ADS safety 

assessment methods and metrics. As a 

result, keeping the status quo would 

maintain the challenges that the agency 

has identified throughout this 

document. 

(b) Less Stringent Program Alternative 

The second alternative considered by 

NHTSA when developing this rule 

entailed a less stringent version of the 

proposal that placed a greater priority 

on encouraging participation through 

reduced application and participation 

requirements. For example, the agency 

considered reducing the stringency by 

adding an entry level of program 

participation that would remove the 

substantive technical review of an 

application and focus exclusively on 

more limited participation reporting. In 

such a scenario, this entry level of 

participation would be available only 

for vehicles that do not need an 

exemption under AV STEP. Because 

those vehicles can operate currently 

without AV STEP, some entities with 

such vehicles may be more motivated to 

participate if participation burdens are 

reduced. 

NHTSA did not include such an 

entry-level of participation in the lead 

proposal because the agency believes 

that adding such a less stringent 

participation option, particularly at the 

outset of this program, would disrupt 

the appropriate balance between 

encouraging participation and ensuring 

participation is meaningful. 

Encouraging participation should not 

come at the expense of the robustness of 

the program. Participation should 

remain meaningful in terms of the types 

of information submitted to the agency 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
4172 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 9 / Wednesday, January 15, 2025 / Proposed Rules 

and the scrutiny of the agency’s 

oversight. At least some minimum 

requirements for participation should 

exist for the sake of consistency between 

entities and to ensure that Program 

participation translates to a commitment 

to responsible safety practices. 

The alternative of an entry-level 

option for compliant vehicles to 

participate in AV STEP would strike 

this balance differently than the primary 

proposal by prioritizing increased 

participation over meaningful 

participation. Although this alternative 

might boost FMVSS-certified vehicle 

participation, it would mean that some 

vehicles are admitted into AV STEP 

without a substantive review. Including 

both unreviewed operations (e.g., those 

entities requesting participation for 

FMVSS compliant vehicles) and 

operations that would be reviewed 

within AV STEP (e.g., those entities 

requesting participation for vehicles 

needing an exemption), could increase 

confusion for interested applicants and 

the public. Further, this alternative 

would stratify step eligibility 

requirements based on whether vehicles 

were seeking an exemption under AV 

STEP instead of based on the ADS’ use 

of fallback personnel during operations. 

Applicants may not necessarily 

understand the differences in these 

participation options, which could lead 

to confusion as to which step an entity 

should request for program admission. 

In addition, those differences may not 

be apparent to the public, which could 

lead to public perception that entrylevel participation is more meaningful 

than would actually be the case. These 

risks of confusion could undermine the 

transparency goals of AV STEP. 

Finally, NHTSA intends for AV STEP 

to require a participant’s meaningful 

commitment to responsible safety 

practices and due diligence in the 

design and development of an ADS and 

its operation. A key aspect of this 

meaningful commitment is providing 

NHTSA with critical safety information 

through an application. Providing a 

participation option that would not 

entail such a safety commitment may 

disincentivize certain companies from 

participating at higher levels with their 

compliant vehicles because they could 

forego such a commitment and still 

participate in AV STEP. 

Even without an entry-level 

participation step, NHTSA still believes 

that many entities will have strong 

incentives to participate in AV STEP 

with their compliant vehicles. Those 

incentives are discussed further in 

Section II (Program Context). As such, 

NHTSA does not currently consider this 

alternative to be an effective option for 

satisfying the goals of this rulemaking. 

(c) More Stringent Program Alternative 

The third alternative considered by 

NHTSA when developing this proposal 

was a more stringent version of the 

Program. One structural way to increase 

the stringency of AV STEP would be to 

omit Step 1, which would narrow the 

program to vehicles that would operate 

without fallback personnel during 

participating operations on public 

roads. 

This alternative would require all 

participants to meet the most stringent 

aspects of the program to participate in 

AV STEP. As explained in Section IV 

(Application and Review (Regulatory 

Text Subparts B and D)) and Section V 

(Participation (Regulatory Text Subparts 

E and F)), the requirements for AV STEP 

are designed to become more stringent 

as the responsibility of the ADS 

increases. For instance, under the lead 

proposal, an independent assessment at 

Step 2 would need to be more rigorous 

than at Step 1 because it would need to 

consider whether the ADS could be 

exclusively relied on during operations. 

In contrast, an independent assessment 

at Step 1 could consider fallback 

personnel’s ability to mitigate certain 

risks rather than fully reviewing the 

ADS’ ability to address those risks. 

NHTSA does not consider this more 

stringent alternative an optimal balance 

of participation and stringency. Whereas 

a less stringent alternative would favor 

participation numbers at the expense of 

meaningful participation, this more 

stringent alternative would move too far 

in the opposite direction. Excluding 

ADS operations that rely on fallback 

personnel would miss a valuable 

opportunity to improve transparency 

and insight surrounding the safety of a 

significant portion of current ADS 

operations. Fallback personnel play an 

important role in the safety of ADS 

development and are frequently used 

across industry. One of the primary 

goals of AV STEP is to provide a 

framework for assessing the safety of 

ADS while the technology remains in a 

state of development. Omitting 

operations that rely on fallback 

personnel at all times from this 

framework would limit the potential for 

AV STEP to accomplish this goal. 

Moreover, this more stringent 

alternative would likely take an 

oversimplified approach to the realities 

of the development cycle for ADS 

operations. In practice, most ADS 

operations continue to use fallback 

personnel under certain circumstances 

or for specific vehicles even once they 

begin some operations without fallback 

personnel. For example, a portion of a 

fleet could operate without fallback 

personnel while the remainder of the 

fleet continues to use fallback personnel 

to validate certain aspects of an 

operation, such as new software 

versions or new potential routes. 

Fallback personnel may also need to be 

temporarily reintroduced for safety 

reasons if concerns arise about the ADS’ 

performance. As such, NHTSA 

considers the option to participate in 

AV STEP with fallback personnel an 

important program characteristic that 

accounts for the reality of ADS 

operations and that avoids 

disincentivizing the use of fallback 

personnel for safety. 

B. National Environmental Policy Act 

NHTSA has analyzed this proposed 

rule for the purposes of the National 

Environmental Policy Act. NHTSA is 

aware of the November 12, 2024 

decision in Marin Audubon Society v. 

Federal Aviation Administration, No. 

23–1067 (D.C. Cir. Nov. 12, 2024). To 

the extent that a court may conclude 

that the Council on Environmental 

Quality (CEQ) regulations implementing 

NEPA are not judicially enforceable or 

binding on this agency action, NHTSA 

has nonetheless elected to follow those 

regulations at 40 CFR parts 1500–1508, 

in addition to DOT’s procedures/ 

regulations implementing NEPA at DOT 

NEPA Order 5610.1C, to meet the 

agency’s obligations under NEPA, 42 

U.S.C. 4321 et seq. 

In accordance with 49 CFR 1.81, 42 

U.S.C. 4336, and DOT NEPA Order 

5610.1C, NHTSA has determined that 

this rule is categorically excluded 

pursuant to 23 CFR 771.118(c)(4) 

(planning and administrative activities, 

such as promulgation of rules, that do 

not involve or lead directly to 

construction). This rulemaking is not 

anticipated to result in any 

environmental impacts, and there are no 

extraordinary circumstances present in 

connection with this rulemaking. 

The rulemaking proposes a 

procedural framework for organizing 

information that NHTSA receives to 

inform future adjudications of 

participation in AV STEP. NHTSA’s 

decisions on AV STEP participation and 

any actions taken while overseeing 

participants would constitute separate 

agency actions that are independent of 

this proposal. Similarly, the information 

required by the proposed rule should 

largely already exist or be planned for 

subject vehicles independent of this 

proposal. Finally, all vehicles that are 

eligible to participate in AV STEP under 

this proposal would either do so 

voluntarily or under an exemption that 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 9 / Wednesday, January 15, 2025 / Proposed Rules 4173 

233U.S. Small Business Administration, ‘‘Table of 

Small Business Size Standards’’ (March 2023), 

available at: https://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/ 

2023-06/Table%20of%20Size%20Standards_

Effective%20March%2017%2C%202023%20

%282%29.pdf. 

is analogous to exemptions already 

available under NHTSA’s regulations. 

As such, this proposal is not expected 

to significantly affect the quality of the 

human environment compared to the 

baseline regulatory framework for 

subject vehicles in the status quo. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., as amended by 

the Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 

1996), whenever an agency is required 

to publish a notice of proposed 

rulemaking or final rule, it must 

evaluate the potential effects of the rule 

on small entities (i.e., small businesses, 

small organizations, and small 

governmental jurisdictions). The Small 

Business Administration’s regulations at 

13 CFR part 121 define a small business, 

in part, as a business entity ‘‘which 

operates primarily within the United 

States.’’ (13 CFR 121.105(a)(1)). A 

regulatory flexibility analysis is not 

required if the head of an agency 

certifies the proposed or final rule will 

not have a significant economic impact 

on a substantial number of small 

entities. SBREFA amended the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act to require 

Federal agencies to provide a statement 

of the factual basis for certifying that a 

proposed or final rule will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

NHTSA has undertaken an initial 

regulatory flexibility analysis to 

understand the possible impacts of this 

rulemaking on small entities. NHTSA 

requests comment from small 

businesses that would be eligible for 

and interested in AV STEP regarding 

this analysis and the potential impacts 

of this proposal. Ultimately, given the 

analysis presented below and the 

burden estimates in Section IX.A 

(Executive Orders 12866, 13563, 14094 

and DOT Regulatory Policies and 

Procedures), NHTSA believes this 

proposal is unlikely to have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small businesses. As such, 

the agency seeks comment, in 

particular, on whether any significant 

impacts to small businesses would be 

expected to result from AV STEP. A 

description of the reasons why action by 

the agency is being considered and the 

objectives of and legal basis for the 

proposal rule are explained elsewhere 

in the preamble and not repeated here. 

Description and estimate of the 

number of small entities to which the 

proposal or final rule will apply: 

For the purposes of receiving Small 

Business Administration (SBA) 

assistance, the thresholds for 

considering entities to be small 

businesses vary for each North 

American Industry Classification 

System (NAICS) code.233 These criteria 

for determining small business size, as 

stated in 13 CFR 121.201, may be 

monetary or based on number of 

employees. As proposed in this NPRM, 

vehicle manufacturers, ADS developers, 

fleet operators, and system integrators 

would be eligible to participate in AV 

STEP. As such, a variety of business 

categories may be affected by this 

proposal and the applicable small 

business size thresholds under the 

SBA’s regulations may vary accordingly: 

• A vehicle manufacturer may qualify 

as a small Automobile and Light Duty 

Motor Vehicle Manufacturing business 

(NAICS 336110) or as a small Heavy 

Duty Truck Manufacturing business 

(NAICS 336120) if it has fewer than 

1,500 employees. 

• An ADS developer that is not a 

vehicle manufacturer or fleet operator 

may qualify as a small business under 

technology-specific NAICS codes, such 

as those for Software Developers 

(NAICS 513210, for which a 47 million 

dollar threshold is used) or Custom 

Computer Programming Services 

(NAICS 541511, for which a 34 million 

dollar threshold is used). 

• A fleet operator may similarly fall 

under a variety of NAICS codes, such as 

those beginning with ‘‘484’’ (Truck 

Transportation), ‘‘485’’ (Transit and 

Ground Passenger Transportation), or 

‘‘492’’ (Couriers and Messengers). The 

monetary thresholds for being 

considered a small business under these 

classifications range from 19 to 34 

million dollars. 

• A system integrator that does not 

qualify as any of the above may be 

considered under Motor Vehicle 

Electrical and Electronic Equipment 

Manufacturing (NAICS 336320) or Other 

Motor Vehicle Parts Manufacturing 

(NAICS 336390), among other possible 

classifications. For both of these, an 

entity must have fewer than 1,000 

employees to be considered a small 

business by the SBA. 

As this list illustrates, it is difficult to 

identify the NAICS codes and associated 

thresholds used by the SBA for all of the 

individual entities that may be eligible 

to apply to AV STEP under this 

proposal. For purposes of this analysis, 

NHTSA uses the 1,000-employee 

threshold to consider whether eligible 

entities may qualify as a small business. 

NHTSA expects this threshold to 

encompass any entities that may qualify 

as a small business under applicable 

monetary thresholds as well. The 

companies eligible to apply to AV STEP 

would predominantly consist of entities, 

such as ADS developers, that are 

relatively new and employ less than 

1,000 individuals and are unlikely to 

have annual receipts in excess of the 

applicable monetary thresholds. As 

such, it is unlikely that a monetary 

threshold would identify additional 

small entities not already accounted for 

by this employee threshold. NHTSA 

seeks comment on whether this 

employee threshold fully encompasses 

eligible small entities and, if not, data to 

identify other such entities based on 

monetary thresholds. 

To identify entities with less than 

1,000 employees, the agency analyzed 

entities that have reported under 

NHTSA’s SGO ADS requirements, 

submitted VSSAs to the agency, 

received exemptions under AVEP, or 

that NHTSA has other reason to believe 

would be potentially eligible for AV 

STEP. NHTSA estimates that 25 of these 

entities have fewer than 1,000 

employees and considers these entities 

to be small businesses for the purpose 

of this analysis. Given that AV STEP 

application and participation would be 

voluntary, the agency does not expect 

that all 25 of these entities would 

ultimately be affected by these 

proposals. 

Description of the projected reporting, 

record keeping and other compliance 

requirements for small entities: 

As proposed, AV STEP would be a 

voluntary program that would include 

both initial application requirements as 

well as ongoing participation 

requirements. Due to its voluntary 

nature, NHTSA expects that eligible 

small businesses would only apply if 

they deem it economically prudent to 

do so and if they would be able to 

comply with these requirements. AV 

STEP participation would not be a 

Federal requirement for entities with 

ADS-equipped vehicles that can already 

lawfully operate on public roads, 

because these entities could operate 

those vehicles even if they were not a 

part of this program. 

Moreover, since AV STEP is designed 

to complement other NHTSA programs, 

those other programs may provide 

preferable alternatives for certain small 

entities with smaller scale operations. 

As explained in Section II.B.2 (NHTSA 

Exemptions), AV STEP is especially 

designed for the review and oversight of 

ADS-equipped vehicle operations at 

scale. Many of the proposed 

requirements and objectives of AV STEP 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
4174 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 9 / Wednesday, January 15, 2025 / Proposed Rules 

reflect this goal, such as fleetwide 

reporting metrics or reviews of an 

organization’s safety management 

systems for conducting complex 

operations. NHTSA maintains other 

programs that entities with smaller scale 

operations may consider capable of 

providing analogous benefits to AV 

STEP in a less burdensome way. For 

instance, entities with smaller-scale 

operations that involve imported 

vehicles in need of an FMVSS 

exemption may prefer to use AVEP 

rather than AV STEP. Similarly, a small 

entity that sought to increase 

transparency for its operations but did 

not want to undergo the level of 

commitment needed for AV STEP could 

voluntarily submit information about its 

ADS or operations under a VSSA or 

NHTSA’s AV TEST initiative. 

NHTSA’s analysis of the burden that 

these AV STEP requirements would 

impose on applicants and participants 

includes cost ranges in several areas. 

This is because, while the requirements 

themselves are not differentiated by 

business size, this burden is expected to 

increase along with the scale and 

complexity of an operation. In general, 

NHTSA anticipates that small 

businesses that choose to apply and 

participate would incur costs closer to 

the lower end of these ranges. The costs 

to a small entity may even be below 

those estimated, because the agency’s 

analysis of some requirements assumed 

an average cost across the program or 

the cost anticipated for greater scale or 

complexity of operations than might be 

relevant for a small business. Section 

IX.A (Executive Orders 12866, 13563, 

14094 and DOT Regulatory Policies and 

Procedures) describes NHTSA’s cost 

analysis in more detail. 

The initial cost of applying to AV 

STEP is estimated to be, on average, 

$506,732. NHTSA expects that the 

proposed application requirements— 

discussed in Section IV (Application 

and Review (Regulatory Text Subparts B 

and D)—would impose a lower burden 

for small businesses, since those 

requirements generally scale with the 

size and complexity of the requested 

participation. In general, smaller 

operations involve reduced exposure 

and a narrower set of considerations for 

safety oversight. As a result, certain 

subjects in an application may not be 

applicable to a small operation or may 

entail less detailed information. 

Likewise, an independent assessment of 

a smaller operation could likely be 

completed more quickly and easily than 

an assessment of a larger, more complex 

operation. 

The annual cost of participating in AV 

STEP is estimated to be, on average, 

$212,138. Similar to the application 

requirements, NHTSA expects the 

participation requirements proposed in 

Section V.A (Reporting Requirements) 

to present a lower burden for small 

businesses. All participants would be 

required to provide standard 

information quarterly and additional 

information after certain incidents 

occur. Collecting and reporting the 

required quarterly information for 

smaller operations would entail less 

effort than would be necessary for larger 

operations. Likewise, given their lower 

exposure, smaller operations would be 

expected to have fewer incidents that 

would need to be separately reported. 

The customized nature of many 

reporting requirements (as described in 

Section IV.A.3 (Confirmation of 

Reporting During Participation)) could 

also help to reduce the burden for small 

businesses. 

Duplication with other Federal rules: 

This NPRM proposes to establish a 

voluntary review and oversight 

framework for ADS-equipped vehicles. 

No other existing Federal regulation 

provides such a program. While ADSequipped vehicles may be eligible to 

request FMVSS exemptions under 

existing exemption processes, AV STEP 

would provide a process specifically 

tailored for ADS-equipped vehicles. 

Section II.B (How NHTSA’s Authorities 

Shaped this NPRM) discusses how this 

proposal has been shaped to 

complement, rather than duplicate, 

NHTSA’s existing exemption processes. 

NHTSA also shaped certain reporting 

requirements for AV STEP participation 

to avoid duplication with overlapping 

requirements. Examples of this design 

include the event-triggered reporting 

requirements for AV STEP, which are 

proposed to avoid duplication with any 

other NHTSA reporting requirement 

that covers the same information (see 

Section V.A.2 (Event-Triggered 

Reporting)), and customized 

requirements that could be harmonized 

with requirements from other 

jurisdictions (see Section III.C (Terms 

and Conditions)). 

Description of any significant 

alternatives to the proposed rule: 

AV STEP is designed to enhance the 

transparency and oversight of ADSequipped vehicles in a way that affords 

enough flexibility to account for the 

evolving nature of ADS technology. 

When developing this program, the 

agency sought to strike an effective 

balance between encouraging 

participation and ensuring that 

participation was meaningful. 

Ultimately, NHTSA found that a 

comprehensive but voluntary program 

would best support the goals of this 

proposal, which are described further in 

Section II (Program Context). 

If NHTSA were to take no action, the 

agency would not be able to realize the 

advantages AV STEP would offer that 

are described throughout this NPRM. 

Critically, NHTSA would bypass the 

opportunity for AV STEP to help the 

agency proactively identify safety 

concerns with an ADS prior to the 

occurrence of negative safety outcomes. 

NHTSA developed AV STEP to meet the 

needs of this crucial transitional time in 

ADS development and to inform future 

NHTSA regulation and oversight. If the 

agency were to take no action, small 

businesses would not have the option to 

participate in such a national program 

for ADS-equipped vehicles or to request 

an exemption to take a previously 

compliant vehicle out of compliance 

with FMVSS when retrofitting it with an 

ADS. 

NHTSA has also considered the 

potential impacts of altering the burden 

associated with the proposed 

application and participation 

requirements for AV STEP. Section IX.A 

(Executive Orders 12866, 13563, 14094 

and DOT Regulatory Policies and 

Procedures) explains how NHTSA 

specifically considered changing 

program characteristics to alter this 

stringency, as well as the reasons that 

the agency did not feel such changes 

were effective options for AV STEP. 

While eliminating or reducing the 

stringency of specific requirements 

across the program could reduce the 

costs they would incur, this would 

undermine the intended safety benefits 

of the program. Reducing the stringency 

only for small businesses could reduce 

the value of AV STEP participation for 

these entities, such as by reducing the 

program’s potential to represent a 

meaningful safety commitment for these 

entities. A different level of stringency 

for small businesses would also increase 

the complexity of the program in a way 

that would make AV STEP more 

difficult for the public and eligible 

entities to understand. 

In addition, the agency considered 

increasing the stringency of 

participation in AV STEP. Although 

more stringent requirements could 

potentially provide more insight into 

the development and operation of 

participating ADS-equipped vehicles, 

heightened stringency would increase 

the burden to apply for AV STEP and 

participate if admitted, which could 

more significantly impact small entities 

seeking to apply. As a result, fewer 

entities may consider applying, and the 

program’s overall value could be 

comprised. NHTSA considers the 

proposed rule an appropriate balance of 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 9 / Wednesday, January 15, 2025 / Proposed Rules 4175 

234These requirements are described in Section 

IV (Application and Review (Regulatory Text 

Subparts B and D)). 

235See Section VII.B (Exemption Application 

Requirements). 

236These requirements are described in Section 

V.A (Reporting Requirements). 

these considerations, as discussed 

throughout this NPRM and particularly 

in the introduction to Section III 

(Program Structure (Regulatory Text 

Subpart A)). 

D. Paperwork Reduction Act 

In this proposed rule, the Department 

proposes new collections of information 

that require approval by the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) under 

the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

(Pub. L. 104–13, 49 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). 

Notwithstanding any other provisions of 

law, no person shall be subject to 

penalty for failing to comply with a 

collection of information if the 

collection of information does not 

display a currently valid OMB control 

number. An Information Collection 

Request (ICR) for the new information 

collection described in this subsection 

has been submitted to OMB for review 

and comment. The ICR describes the 

nature of the information collections 

and their expected burden. 

While AV STEP would be voluntary, 

this proposed rule would establish new 

collection of information requirements 

for eligible entities that choose to apply 

to participate in AV STEP. The 

information collected would be 

intended to inform NHTSA’s review of 

an application, adjudication of program 

admission, oversight of program 

participation, and, ultimately, the 

agency’s future research, rulemaking, 

and other actions related to ADS. Since 

AV STEP participation would be 

voluntary, this information collection 

requirement would apply only if a 

vehicle manufacturer, ADS developer, 

fleet operator, or system integrator 

decided to apply to participate in the 

Program. Entities that choose not to 

apply to AV STEP would not be subject 

to these proposed information collection 

requirements. 

Most of the information required for 

an application would be consistent 

across the program,234 but additional 

information would be required if the 

applicant sought one of two types of 

exemptions under AV STEP.235 In 

addition, this document proposes to 

establish ongoing information collection 

requirements for AV STEP participants, 

including both periodic and eventtriggered reporting requirements.236 In 

general, the information collected under 

these AV STEP requirements would be 

expected to help NHTSA identify 

potential safety issues with requested or 

participating ADS operations, gain 

insight into the performance of the ADS 

technology in those operations, and 

enhance the transparency of those 

operations on public roads in the United 

States. 

In compliance with the requirements 

of the PRA and OMB’s implementing 

regulations, NHTSA has prepared the 

following analysis relating to the 

proposed rule to establish AV STEP. 

NHTSA requests public comments on 

this collection of information. 

Title: 49 CFR part 597, ADS-equipped 

Vehicle Safety, Transparency, and 

Evaluation Program. 

Type of Request: New collection. 

Affected Public: Manufacturers of 

ADS-equipped vehicles, ADS 

developers, fleet operators, or system 

integrators of ADS-equipped vehicles 

who seek to participate in AV STEP. 

Requested Expiration Date of 

Approval: Three years from the date of 

approval. 

Summary of the Collection of 

Information: 

This proposed rule would establish a 

national program for ADS-equipped 

vehicles that operate on public roads in 

the United States. As proposed, four 

types of eligible entities could apply for 

AV STEP at one of two steps—Step 1 or 

Step 2. Entities admitted to the program 

would be subject to terms and 

conditions that would govern the 

subject vehicles during their 

participation. 

NHTSA proposes AV STEP as a 

voluntary program and would not 

require eligible entities to participate. 

Those entities in need of an exemption 

could receive the exemption through 

AV STEP, but could also use NHTSA’s 

existing exemption processes if they 

expect those processes to be better 

suited to their request. The information 

collection requirements proposed in this 

document would apply only to entities 

that chose to apply to AV STEP. As a 

result, all of the information collection 

requirements proposed in this 

document are voluntary in nature 

because entities may forego them by 

deciding not to apply to participate in 

AV STEP. 

To administer AV STEP, NHTSA 

proposes to impose information 

collection requirements on applicants 

and participants. The application 

requirements would generally entail 

information collections about the ADSequipped vehicles that are the subject of 

the request, the nature of the requested 

operations, and the safety processes 

used for ADS development and 

operations. This document also 

proposes to consider applications for 

two types of exemptions through AV 

STEP—FMVSS exemptions for 

particular purposes enumerated in 49 

U.S.C. 30114 and exemptions to the 

prohibition in 49 U.S.C. 30122 on 

making a safety device or element 

inoperative on a vehicle that is certified 

as compliant with all applicable 

FMVSS. AV STEP would entail 

additional information collection 

requirements for applicants requesting 

either of these exemptions. These 

requirements focus on information 

about the specific exemption requested, 

the manner in which an applicant 

would mitigate any safety risks 

stemming from the nonconformance 

that requires an exemption, and, for an 

FMVSS exemption, the purposes for 

which the exemption is requested. 

This NPRM also includes three types 

of proposed reporting requirements for 

participants that are admitted to AV 

STEP. The first type of reporting 

proposed is periodic reporting, under 

which quarterly reports of information 

about subject vehicle operations and 

performance would be required. The 

second type of reporting proposed is 

event-triggered reporting, under which 

information about certain safetyrelevant incidents, such as crashes, 

would be required within specified 

timeframes after their occurrence. The 

third type of proposed reporting focuses 

on information that would be required 

regarding updates to an operation, if a 

participant planned to pursue such 

updates during the course of 

participation. Overall, these reporting 

requirements would be more extensive 

for Step 2 participation compared to 

Step 1 participation. 

Last, NHTSA proposes information 

collection requirements for requests 

from participants to amend the specific 

terms and conditions governing a 

participation. This information would 

focus on the nature of requested changes 

and the participants’ reasons for seeking 

such changes. 

Description of the Need for the 

Information and Use of the Information: 

The information required for an 

application would inform NHTSA’s 

review and adjudication of applications 

to participate in AV STEP, including 

(for any agency decision to grant an 

application’s request to participate) the 

terms and conditions that would govern 

a specific operation. The information 

required for reporting would facilitate 

NHTSA’s oversight of participating 

operations. This oversight would 

include monitoring for potential safety 

issues and ensuring participants adhere 

to the terms and conditions that apply 

to subject vehicles. Collectively, the 

information received under these 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
4176 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 9 / Wednesday, January 15, 2025 / Proposed Rules 

237As described in Section IX.A (Executive 

Orders 12866, 13563, 14094 and DOT Regulatory 

Policies and Procedures), NHTSA expects that both 

of these numbers of entities would initially be 

lower—during the time period immediately 

following the publication of a Final Rule—but 

would increase over time. 

238Executive Order 13132, Federalism, sec. 1(a) 

(August 4, 1999). 

239 Id. at sec. 1(a). 

240 Id. at sec. 6(b), (c). 

requirements would also inform future 

NHTSA ADS activities outside of AV 

STEP, such as the agency’s 

consideration of potential safety 

standards for ADS. The information 

required for an amendment would 

enable NHTSA to review requests from 

participants to change the terms and 

conditions that govern the participation. 

Description of the Likely Respondents 

(Including Estimated Number, and 

Proposed Frequency of Response to the 

Collection of Information): 

Respondents would be limited to 

entities that meet the proposed 

eligibility requirements for AV STEP 

and who elect to apply to the program. 

As mentioned above, four types of 

entities would be eligible to apply and 

participate in the program: vehicle 

manufacturers, ADS developers, fleet 

operators, or system integrators of ADSequipped vehicles. Section IX.A 

(Executive Orders 12866, 13563, 14094 

and DOT Regulatory Policies and 

Procedures) of this NPRM explains the 

approach used by NHTSA to estimate 

the likely number of AV STEP 

applicants and participants that would 

be respondents to this collection of 

information. That section also discusses 

how NHTSA estimated the frequency of 

responses. 

NHTSA estimates that over the first 

seven years of the program an average 

of 5 entities would apply for AV STEP 

each year and that an average of 17 

entities would participate in AV STEP 

each year.237 For the proposed periodic 

reporting, each participant would be 

required to submit four quarterly reports 

each year. NHTSA further estimates that 

participation would entail, on average, 

reporting for 5 incidents, 1 update, and 

0.5 amendment requests per participant 

each year, under the corresponding 

requirements proposed for AV STEP. 

Estimated Total Annual Burden 

Hours: 

As with the description of likely 

respondents above, the methodology 

used by NHTSA to estimate the total 

annual burden hours is explained in 

Section IX.A (Executive Orders 12866, 

13563, 14094 and DOT Regulatory 

Policies and Procedures). NHTSA 

estimates that each application would 

require an average of 1,211 burden 

hours. Multiplying by 5, the estimated 

average number of annual applicants, 

this would yield 6,055 annual burden 

hours for applications. Assuming the 

frequency of reporting described above, 

NHTSA estimates that periodic 

reporting, event-triggered reporting, and 

amendment requests would require an 

average of 2,081 annual burden hours. 

Multiplying by 17, the estimated 

average number of annual participants, 

this would yield 35,377 annual burden 

hours for participations. Finally, 

NHTSA estimates that the agency’s 

review of applications and oversight of 

participants would require 10,293 

burden hours. Combining these 6,055 

annual application burden hours, 

35,377 annual participation burden 

hours, and 10,293 annual agency burden 

hours, NHTSA estimates a total of 

51,725 annual burden hours for this 

ICR. 

Estimate of the Total Annual 

Reporting and Recordkeeping Burden 

Resulting from the Collection of 

Information: 

Section IX.A (Executive Orders 12866, 

13563, 14094 and DOT Regulatory 

Policies and Procedures) also explains 

NHTSA’s approach to estimating the 

annual burden from this collection. 

Using the estimated burden hours 

described above as well as the other 

costs described in Section IX.A, NHTSA 

estimates the following annual burdens: 

for applicants, $2,533,660; for 

participants, $3,606,346; and for agency 

resources $1,112,769. Summing these, 

NHTSA estimates that the total annual 

burden of this ICR would be $6,252,775. 

Public Comments Invited: 

The public is asked to comment on 

any aspects of this information 

collection, including (a) whether the 

collection of information is necessary 

for the proper performance of the 

functions of the Department, including 

whether the information will have 

practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the 

Department’s estimate of the burden of 

the information collection; (c) ways to 

enhance the quality, utility and clarity 

of the information to be collected; and 

(d) ways to minimize the burden of the 

collection of information on 

respondents, including the use of 

automated collection techniques or 

other forms of information technology. 

Please submit any comments, 

identified by the docket number in the 

heading of this document, by the 

methods described in the ADDRESSES

section of this document to NHTSA and 

OMB. 

E. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism) 

Executive Order 13132 requires 

NHTSA to develop an accountable 

process to ensure ‘‘meaningful and 

timely input by State and local officials 

in the development of regulatory 

policies that have federalism 

implications.’’ 238 ‘‘Policies that have 

federalism implications’’ is defined in 

the Executive order to include 

regulations that have ‘‘substantial direct 

effects on the States, on the relationship 

between the national government and 

the States, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities among the 

various levels of government.’’ 239

Executive Order 13132 imposes 

additional consultation requirements on 

two types of regulations that have 

federalism implications: (1) A regulation 

that imposes substantial direct 

compliance costs on state and local 

governments, and that is not required by 

statute; and (2) a regulation that 

preempts state law.240

This proposed rule does not propose 

either type of regulation covered by 

Executive Order 13132’s consultation 

requirements. NHTSA does not propose 

for AV STEP to preempt any state or 

local approaches to regulating ADSequipped vehicles within their 

jurisdictions. To the contrary, this 

proposal recognizes that states and local 

governments are often best situated to 

understand the unique needs of their 

communities, including the value or 

concerns regarding ADS-equipped 

vehicle operations within their 

respective communities. 

Under this proposal, NHTSA would 

require vehicles participating in AV 

STEP to comply with all applicable state 

and local requirements, including 

adherence to any licensure or permitting 

requirements and traffic laws. NHTSA 

proposes to require an applicant to 

explain the subject vehicle’s law 

abidance protocols to ensure 

appropriate safeguards exist for 

identifying and adhering to applicable 

state and local requirements. 

As such, although NHTSA believes 

that AV STEP could provide a valuable 

tool for states and local governments, 

this rulemaking does not propose to 

override any state or local approaches to 

ADS-equipped vehicles or otherwise 

alter any existing distribution of power 

and responsibilities among the various 

levels of Federal, state, and local 

governments. Finally, NHTSA notes that 

although this rulemaking does not 

implicate the consultation conditions 

under Executive Order 13132, the 

agency engaged with state and local 

authorities as part of the broader 

stakeholder engagement that led up to 

this rulemaking. More information on 

this engagement can be found in a 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 9 / Wednesday, January 15, 2025 / Proposed Rules 4177 

memorandum available in the docket for 

this rulemaking. 

F. Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice 

Reform) 

When promulgating a regulation, 

Executive Order 12988, ‘‘Civil Justice 

Reform’’ (61 FR 4729; February 7, 1996), 

specifically requires that the agency 

must make every reasonable effort to 

ensure that the regulation, as 

appropriate: (1) Specifies in clear 

language the preemptive effect; (2) 

specifies in clear language the effect on 

existing Federal law or regulation, 

including all provisions repealed, 

circumscribed, displaced, impaired, or 

modified; (3) provides a clear legal 

standard for affected conduct rather 

than a general standard, while 

promoting simplification and burden 

reduction; (4) specifies in clear language 

the retroactive effect; (5) specifies 

whether administrative proceedings are 

to be required before parties may file 

suit in court; (6) explicitly or implicitly 

defines key terms; and (7) addresses 

other important issues affecting clarity 

and general draftsmanship of 

regulations. 

Pursuant to this Order, NHTSA notes 

as follows. The preemptive effect of this 

proposal is discussed above in 

connection with Executive Order 13132. 

NHTSA has also determined that this 

proposed rule would not have any 

retroactive effect. NHTSA notes further 

that there is no requirement that 

individuals submit a petition for 

reconsideration or pursue other 

administrative proceedings before they 

may file suit in court. 

G. Executive Order 13609: Promoting 

International Regulatory Cooperation 

Under Executive Order 13609 (77 FR 

26413, May 4, 2012), agencies must 

consider whether the impacts associated 

with significant variations between 

domestic and international regulatory 

approaches are unnecessary or may 

impair the ability of American business 

to export and compete internationally. 

In meeting shared challenges involving 

health, safety, labor, security, 

environmental, and other issues, 

international regulatory cooperation can 

identify approaches that are at least as 

protective as those that are or would be 

adopted in the absence of such 

cooperation. International regulatory 

cooperation can also reduce, eliminate, 

or prevent unnecessary differences in 

regulatory requirements. Sections 3 and 

4 of Executive Order 13609 direct an 

agency to conduct a regulatory analysis 

and ensure that a proposed rule does 

not cause unnecessary obstacles to 

foreign trade. This requirement applies 

if a rule constitutes a significant 

regulatory action, or if a regulatory 

evaluation must be prepared for the 

rule. 

NHTSA has analyzed this action 

under the policies and agency 

responsibilities of Executive Order 

13609 and has determined that this 

action would have no effect on 

international regulatory cooperation. 

This rulemaking proposes a set of 

procedures to govern NHTSA’s 

adjudication and administration of 

participation in a national program for 

ADS-equipped vehicles. This proposal 

does not impose any mandatory 

requirements on motor vehicles or 

regulated entities or otherwise alter the 

existing regulatory landscape that 

governs motor vehicles in the United 

States under the Safety Act. As such, 

this proposal does not affect any 

regulatory cooperation with respect to 

the harmonization of vehicle standards 

or establish any requirements for 

vehicles that may conflict with those in 

other countries. Likewise, this rule 

would also not impose any obstacles to 

foreign trade. The two exemption 

procedures proposed in this document 

may even provide regulatory flexibility 

for certain vehicles facing importation. 

Moreover, as described in the ensuing 

subsection on the National Technology 

Transfer and Advancement Act, this 

proposal incorporates existing global 

industry standards as part of the 

independent assessment required in 

applications. To the extent applicants 

use international standards or 

approaches not expressly referenced in 

the proposed disclosure requirements of 

an application, this proposal includes 

options for an applicant to identify and 

explain those alternative approaches. 

Ultimately, NHTSA believes that this 

proposed framework would afford 

sufficient flexibility for entities to 

explain the safety methodologies used 

for their vehicles, including those that 

incorporate international standards. 

Moreover, the disclosure requirements 

in this proposal should foster greater 

agency insight into the use of any such 

international standards, better 

equipping NHTSA to account for them 

in future agency actions regarding ADS. 

NHTSA requests public comment on 

whether any regulatory approaches 

taken by foreign governments 

concerning the subject matter of this 

rulemaking have any implications for 

this rulemaking. 

H. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

Under the National Technology 

Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 

(NTTAA) (Pub. L. 104–113), all Federal 

agencies and departments shall use 

technical standards that are developed 

or adopted by voluntary consensus 

standards bodies, using such technical 

standards to carry out policy objectives 

or activities determined by the agencies 

and departments, except when use of 

such a voluntary consensus standard 

would be inconsistent with the law or 

otherwise impractical. Voluntary 

consensus standards are technical 

standards (e.g., materials specifications, 

test methods, sampling procedures, and 

business practices) that are developed or 

adopted by voluntary consensus 

standards bodies, such as the 

International Organization for 

Standardization (ISO) and SAE 

International. The NTTAA directs 

NHTSA to provide Congress, through 

OMB, explanations when the agency 

decides not to use available and 

applicable voluntary consensus 

standards. 

This document explains at length the 

proposed approach to incorporating 

industry standards, best practices, and 

guidance into AV STEP’s requirements 

and procedures. NHTSA does not 

currently view any specific industry 

standards for ADS as mature enough to 

require conformance for AV STEP. 

Industry standards, best practices, and 

guidance regarding ADS remain in their 

infancy. Existing standards are, to a 

large extent, untested, continue to 

evolve, and are often used differently 

when applied to varied ADS 

technologies. As such, NHTSA believes 

that it is premature to require 

conformance with any particular 

industry standard for AV STEP. 

Nevertheless, the agency recognizes 

the value in understanding, at an 

aggregate level, how an entity 

approaches relevant industry standards 

when developing its ADS-equipped 

vehicles. Considering how an entity 

accounts for or deviates from industry 

standards would help the agency 

understand the overall safety 

approaches built into an ADS. This 

perspective would also provide valuable 

context for the other technical material 

that NHTSA proposes to require as part 

of an AV STEP application. 

Accordingly, although NHTSA does not 

propose to require conformance with 

any particular industry standards in AV 

STEP, the agency proposes instead to 

require an independent assessment of 

conformance with relevant industry 

standards. 

As proposed, these disclosure and 

assessment requirements would account 

for the relevant available industry 

standards for ADS as well as provide an 

applicant with enough flexibility to 

identify alternative approaches to those 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
4178 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 9 / Wednesday, January 15, 2025 / Proposed Rules 

standards or otherwise justify why those 

standards were not appropriate or 

sufficient for the safety design of its 

ADS. Moreover, NHTSA intends for this 

approach to enhance the agency’s 

understanding of industry standards 

applicable to ADS, to better assess 

whether any such standards would be 

appropriate to incorporate into future 

FMVSS for ADS in any capacity. This 

approach would ultimately further the 

NTTAA’s goals of promoting the use of 

technical standards that are developed 

or adopted by voluntary consensus 

standards bodies. 

Finally, by using existing standards to 

gain better insight into the ADS 

technologies under review, NHTSA 

aims to efficiently use agency resources 

by making use of the pertinent technical 

information and processes already 

incorporated into those standards. This 

effort to preserve resources is consistent 

with the NTTAA’s goal of reducing, 

when possible, the agency’s cost of 

developing its own standards. 

I. Privacy Act 

Please note that anyone is able to 

search the electronic form of all 

comments received into any of DOT’s 

dockets by the name of the individual 

submitting the comment (or signing the 

comment, if submitted on behalf of an 

association, business, labor union, etc.). 

For information on DOT’s compliance 

with the Privacy Act, please visit 

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

J. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 

1995 

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995, Public Law 104–4, requires 

agencies to prepare a written assessment 

of the cost, benefits and other effects of 

proposed or final rules that include a 

Federal mandate likely to result in the 

expenditure by state, local, or tribal 

governments, in the aggregate, or by the 

private sector, of more than $100 

million annually (adjusted annually for 

inflation with base year of 1995). The 

2024 inflationary adjustment for this 

threshold is $200 million. Because this 

rulemaking is not expected to include a 

Federal mandate or exceed an impact 

over this amount, no unfunded mandate 

assessment will be prepared. 

K. Regulation Identifier Number 

The Department of Transportation 

assigns a regulation identifier number 

(RIN) to each regulatory action listed in 

the Unified Agenda of Federal 

Regulations. The Regulatory Information 

Service Center publishes the Unified 

Agenda in April and October of each 

year. You may use the RIN contained in 

the heading at the beginning of this 

document (RIN 2127–AM60) to find this 

action in the Unified Agenda. 

L. Plain Language 

Executive Order 12866 requires each 

agency to write all rules in plain 

language. Application of the principles 

of plain language includes consideration 

of the following questions: 

• Have we organized the material to 

suit the public’s needs? 

• Are the requirements in the rule 

clearly stated? 

• Does the rule contain technical 

language or jargon that isn’t clear? 

• Would a different format (grouping 

and order of sections, use of headings, 

paragraphing) make the rule easier to 

understand? 

• Would more (but shorter) sections 

be better? 

• Could we improve clarity by adding 

tables, lists, or diagrams? 

• What else could we do? 

If you have any responses to these 

questions, please write to us with your 

views. 

M. Rule Summary 

This notice proposes a framework for 

the review and assessment of 

Automated Driving System (ADS)- 

equipped vehicles, to evaluate 

operations or requests for exemptions 

involving such technologies while also 

informing the agency’s approach to 

future rulemaking and oversight. 

As required by 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(4), a 

summary of this rule can be found in 

the rulemaking docket at 

www.regulations.gov and in the entry 

for RIN 2127–AM60 in the Department’s 

portion of the Unified Agenda of 

Regulatory And Deregulatory Affairs, 

available at https://www.reginfo.gov/ 

public/do/eAgendaViewRule?pubId=

202404&RIN=2127-AM60. 

List of Subjects 

49 CFR Part 595 

Exemptions, Labeling, Motor vehicles, 

Motor vehicle safety, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

49 CFR Part 597 

Exemptions, Imports, Labeling, Motor 

vehicles, Motor vehicle equipment, 

Motor vehicle safety, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

In consideration of the foregoing, 

NHTSA proposes to add 49 CFR part 

597 and amend 49 CFR part 595 as 

follows: 

PART 595—MAKE INOPERATIVE 

EXEMPTIONS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 595 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 

30117, 30122 and 30166; delegation of 

authority at 49 CFR 1.95. 

■ 2. Amend § 595.2 to read as follows: 

§ 595.2 Purpose. 

The purpose of this part is to provide 

exemptions from the ‘‘make 

inoperative’’ provision of 49 U.S.C. 

30122 for specific situations set forth in 

each exemption. 

■ 3. Amend § 595.3 to read as follows: 

§ 595.3 Applicability. 

The exemptions in this part apply, 

collectively, to manufacturers, 

distributors, dealers, motor vehicle 

repair businesses, and rental companies. 

Each exemption set forth in this part 

specifies the entities eligible for the 

exemption. 

■ 4. Add subpart E to read as follows: 

Subpart E—Vehicle Modifications for 

Automated Driving Systems 

§ 595.10 Vehicle Modifications for 

Automated Driving Systems. 

An applicant to the ADS-Equipped 

Vehicle Safety, Transparency, and 

Evaluation Program in part 597 of this 

chapter may request an exemption from 

the ‘‘make inoperative’’ provision in 49 

U.S.C. 30122(a) for modifications to 

ADS-equipped vehicles. Part 597 sets 

forth the conditions governing such 

exemptions. 

■ 5. Add part 597 to read as follows. 

PART 597—REQUIREMENTS AND 

PROCEDURES FOR ADS-EQUIPPED 

VEHICLE SAFETY, TRANSPARENCY, 

AND EVALUATION PROGRAM 

Sec. 

Subpart A—General 

597.100 Scope. 

597.101 Purpose. 

597.102 Definitions. 

597.103 Eligibility for participation. 

597.104 Program step eligibility. 

597.105 Terms and conditions of 

participation. 

597.106 Engagement with entities other 

than an applicant or participant. 

Subpart B—Application Requirements 

597.200 General application requirements. 

597.201 Operational baseline information. 

597.202 Vehicle exemption information. 

597.203 Location sheet information. 

597.204 Protocols for ADS operations. 

597.205 Independent Assessment. 

597.206 Customized terms. 

597.207 Data governance plan. 

597.208 Confirmation of reporting during 

participation. 

Subpart C—AV STEP Exemptions 

597.300 In general. 

597.301 AV STEP FMVSS exemption. 

597.302 AV STEP Make Inoperative 

exemption. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 9 / Wednesday, January 15, 2025 / Proposed Rules 4179 

597.303 Restrictions on exemptions. 

Subpart D—Application Review Process 

597.400 In general 

597.401 Review Phase 1: Initial Review. 

597.402 Review Phase 2: Follow-up 

Review. 

597.403 Review Phase 3: Preliminary 

Determination. 

597.404 Final determination. 

Subpart E—Reporting by Participants 

597.500 General reporting requirements. 

597.501 Event-triggered reporting 

requirements. 

597.502 Changes to an operation. 

Subpart F—Procedures During Participation 

597.600 Concern resolution process. 

597.601 Amendment process. 

Subpart G—Public Reporting Requirements 

597.700 In general. 

597.701 Information for publication. 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30112, 

30114, 30122, 30166, and 30182; delegation 

of authority at 49 CFR 1.95. 

Subpart A—General 

§ 597.100 Scope. 

This part specifies requirements and 

procedures for eligibility and 

participation in the ADS-equipped 

Vehicle Safety, Transparency, and 

Evaluation Program (AV STEP), 

including the conditions under which: 

(a) Certain ADS-equipped motor 

vehicles may receive special exemptions 

under 49 U.S.C. 30114 from compliance 

with one or more Federal motor vehicle 

safety standards (FMVSS) issued under 

part 571 of this chapter and bumper 

standards issued under part 581 of this 

chapter; 

(b) Persons may receive exemptions 

under 49 U.S.C. 30122 from the 

prohibition on making inoperative any 

part of a device or element of design 

installed on an ADS-equipped vehicle 

in compliance with an applicable 

FMVSS; and 

(c) Persons may participate in AV 

STEP with an ADS-equipped vehicle 

that separately complies with all 

applicable requirements of 49 CFR 

chapter V without an exemption under 

AV STEP. 

§ 597.101 Purpose. 

This part specifies eligibility 

requirements for entities to participate 

in AV STEP, identifies the information 

that must be submitted in an 

application, describes how NHTSA will 

review and respond to applications, sets 

forth the requirements for participating 

in AV STEP, and specifies the processes 

associated with the revocation or 

amendment of Program admission. 

§ 597.102 Definitions. 

ADS Developer means the entity 

principally responsible for the 

manufacture of the ADS at the system 

level, including but not limited to its 

design, development, and testing. 

Applicant means an entity seeking 

NHTSA approval for an ADS-equipped 

vehicle to participate in AV STEP. 

Automated Driving System (ADS) 

means the hardware and software that 

are collectively capable of performing 

the entire Dynamic Driving Task on a 

sustained basis, regardless of whether 

the system is limited to a specific 

operational design domain. 

AV STEP or Program means the ADSequipped Vehicle Safety, Transparency, 

and Evaluation Program. 

AV STEP Exemption means an AV 

STEP FMVSS Exemption or an AV STEP 

Make Inoperative Exemption. 

AV STEP FMVSS Exemption means 

an exemption, requested through AV 

STEP under 49 U.S.C. 30114(a), to one 

or more of the FMVSS issued under part 

571 of this chapter or the bumper 

standards issued under part 581 of this 

chapter. 

AV STEP Make Inoperative 

Exemption means an exemption, 

requested through AV STEP, to 49 

U.S.C. 30122(b). 

Contact event means any event in 

which a subject vehicle comes into 

physical contact with another vehicle, 

road user, individual, animal, or 

physical object. For the purposes of this 

part, a contact event does not include 

benign intentional contact, such as upon 

a vehicle passenger entering or exiting 

a stationary vehicle, or intentional tire 

contact with a curb below a speed of 5 

miles per hour. 

Customized term means a term or 

condition related to the operation, 

performance, and safety of a subject 

vehicle, including metric(s) and 

threshold(s), proposed by an applicant 

informed by the Independent 

Assessment, and set by the agency in 

the terms and conditions of an approval. 

Dynamic Driving Task (DDT) means 

all of the real-time operational and 

tactical functions required to operate a 

vehicle in on-road traffic, excluding the 

strategic functions such as trip 

scheduling and selection of destinations 

and waypoints, and including, without 

limitation, the following subtasks: 

(1) Lateral vehicle motion control, 

e.g., via steering. 

(2) Longitudinal vehicle motion 

control via acceleration and 

deceleration. 

(3) Monitoring the driving 

environment via object and event 

detection, recognition, classification, 

and response preparation. 

(4) Object and event response 

execution. 

(5) Maneuver planning. 

(6) Enhancing conspicuity, such as via 

lighting, sounding the horn, signaling, 

and gesturing. 

Dynamic Driving Task Fallback (DDT 

Fallback) means the response by an 

individual to either perform the DDT or 

achieve a minimal risk condition after 

occurrence of a DDT performancerelevant system failure(s) or upon 

operational design domain exit, or the 

response by an ADS to achieve a 

minimal risk condition, given the same 

circumstances. 

Dynamic Driving Task Takeover (DDT 

Takeover) means an individual’s 

planned or unplanned overriding of the 

operation of the ADS to manually 

perform the DDT, including to achieve 

a minimal risk condition. A DDT 

Takeover may occur as part of a DDT 

Fallback or in anticipation of possible 

future ADS behavior unwanted by the 

user. 

Essential system-level stakeholder 

means an entity with a significant role 

in the safety of an operation requested 

in an application to participate in AV 

STEP, including but not limited to, a 

manufacturer of the subject vehicle, an 

ADS developer for the subject vehicle, a 

fleet operator of the subject vehicle, and 

a system integrator. 

Fallback personnel means an 

individual specially trained and skilled 

in supervising the performance of 

prototype ADS-operated vehicles in onroad traffic, who continuously 

supervises the performance of an ADSoperated vehicle in real time and 

intervenes whenever necessary to 

prevent a hazardous event by exercising 

any means of vehicle control. This 

intervention may occur as part of a DDT 

Fallback or in anticipation of possible 

future ADS behavior that is unsafe or 

otherwise unwanted by the user. 

Fallback personnel may be physically 

present in the vehicle or remote. The 

fallback personnel role does not include 

Vehicle Assistance, as defined in this 

section. 

Fleet operator means the individual or 

entity that exercises all or part of the 

operational control over the ADS 

installed in a subject vehicle or group of 

subject vehicles. 

Manufacturer has the meaning given 

in 49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(6). 

Minimal risk condition means a 

stable, stopped condition to which a 

user, such as fallback personnel, or an 

ADS may bring a vehicle after 

performing the DDT Fallback, including 

after a DDT Takeover, to reduce the risk 

of a crash when a given trip cannot or 

should not be continued. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
4180 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 9 / Wednesday, January 15, 2025 / Proposed Rules 

Minimal risk maneuver means a 

driving maneuver intended to achieve a 

minimal risk condition. 

Operational control means control 

over functions of ADS-equipped 

vehicles that include, without 

limitation, ensuring operational 

readiness; authorizing each trip; 

dispatching ADS-equipped vehicles; 

providing fleet asset management 

services to vehicles while in-use; 

serving as the responsible agent vis-a`-vis 

law enforcement, emergency responders 

and other authorities for vehicles while 

in use; disengaging the ADS at the end 

of service; and performing vehicle repair 

and maintenance as needed. 

Operational Design Domain (ODD) 

means the operating conditions under 

which the ADS or feature thereof is 

specifically designed to function, 

including, but not limited to, 

environmental, geographical, and timeof-day restrictions, and/or the requisite 

presence or absence of defined traffic or 

roadway characteristics. 

Participant means an entity that has 

received NHTSA approval for an ADSequipped vehicle to participate in AV 

STEP, provided such approval has not 

expired. A participant may be involved 

in multiple Participations at a time. 

Participation means the entire 

operation or group of operations that is 

governed by a Final Determination 

Letter issued under § 597.404, including 

any Amended Final Determination 

Letter under § 597.601. 

Public ridership means transporting 

as a passenger any member of the public 

other than an employee or agent of an 

Essential system-level stakeholder or a 

public official acting in an official 

capacity, such as law enforcement or 

government personnel. 

Remote driving means the real-time 

performance of part or all of the DDT by 

an individual physically located outside 

of the vehicle. 

Safety case means a structured 

argument, consisting of claims 

supported by a body of evidence, that 

provides a complete, comprehensible, 

and valid case that a system is 

acceptably safe for a given use in a 

specified environment. 

Subject vehicle means a motor vehicle 

operating, or that an applicant intends 

to operate, under AV STEP. 

System integrator means an entity 

responsible for integration of an ADS at 

the vehicle level. 

Vehicle assistance means an 

individual providing information or 

instruction about a situation to an ADSequipped 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 ADSequipped vehicle rather than directly 

exercising vehicle control authority. 

Vehicle recovery event means any 

instance in which a vehicle needs to be 

recovered during roadway operations by 

personnel other than those already on 

board the subject vehicle, including, but 

not limited to, recovery after a minimal 

risk condition has been achieved. 

Vulnerable road user means any 

person who is not an occupant of a 

motor vehicle with more than three 

wheels, heavy equipment, or a railway 

vehicle. This definition includes, but is 

not limited to, pedestrians, persons 

traveling in wheelchairs, bicyclists, 

motorcyclists, and riders or occupants 

of other transport vehicles that are not 

motor vehicles, such as all-terrain 

vehicles and lawnmowers. 

§ 597.103 Eligibility for participation. 

(a) In general. An entity may apply for 

one or more ADS-equipped vehicles to 

participate in AV STEP only upon 

meeting the eligibility requirements of 

this subpart. 

(b) Vehicle eligibility. Subject vehicles 

must be equipped with an ADS that: 

(1) Is being used or developed for 

operation without an expectation of an 

attentive human driver (whether invehicle or remote) while engaged; and 

(2) Performs the entirety of the 

dynamic driving task for all or part of 

the operations for which participation is 

requested. 

(c) Applicant eligibility. (1) An 

application may be submitted by a 

single applicant or multiple coapplicants, all of whom must meet the 

eligibility requirements in this section. 

(2) Every applicant must qualify as at 

least one of the following: 

(i) The manufacturer of the subject 

vehicle(s); 

(ii) The ADS developer for the subject 

vehicle(s); 

(iii) The fleet operator for the subject 

vehicle(s); or 

(iv) The system integrator. 

(3) In addition to the requirements in 

paragraph (c)(1) of this section, every 

applicant (or at least one co-applicant in 

applications that have multiple coapplicants) requesting an AV STEP 

FMVSS Exemption must: 

(i) Be the manufacturer of all subject 

vehicles in an application that are not 

subject to importation; or 

(ii) Be the importer of record of all 

subject vehicles in an application that 

are subject to importation into the 

United States. 

(d) Operational eligibility. The 

operation of a subject vehicle during AV 

STEP participation must: 

(1) Take place, in part or entirely, on 

public streets, roads, and highways in 

the United States; and 

(2) Take place in a manner in which 

all operational control is exercised, at 

all times, by one or more of the 

following: 

(i) The manufacturer of the subject 

vehicle; 

(ii) The ADS developer for the subject 

vehicle; 

(iii) The fleet operator of the subject 

vehicle; or 

(iv) The system integrator for the 

subject vehicle. 

§ 597.104 Program step eligibility. 

(a) In general. Participation in AV 

STEP must occur at one of the two 

program steps defined in paragraph (b) 

of this section. 

(b) Eligibility criteria. The minimum 

eligibility requirements for the program 

steps are as follows: 

(1) Step 1: ADS operations with 

fallback personnel. An entity is eligible 

to apply for Step 1 participation for 

subject vehicle(s) that would operate 

only with continuous supervision from 

fallback personnel during all 

participating operations on public 

roads. 

(2) Step 2: ADS operations without 

fallback personnel. An entity is eligible 

to apply for Step 2 participation for 

subject vehicle(s) that would operate 

without fallback personnel during 

participating operations on public 

roads. 

§ 597.105 Terms and conditions of 

participation. 

(a) NHTSA may place terms and 

conditions as appropriate on 

participation in AV STEP. In addition to 

the terms and conditions specified in 

this section, NHTSA may prescribe 

other terms and conditions governing an 

operation in a Final Determination 

Letter issued under § 597.404. 

(b) At a minimum, the terms and 

conditions in a Final Determination 

Letter granting AV STEP participation 

will govern the following subjects: 

(1) The program step in which 

participation is permitted; 

(2) The maximum number of vehicles 

approved for participation; 

(3) The vehicles approved for 

participation; 

(4) The permitted use(s) of 

participating vehicles; 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 9 / Wednesday, January 15, 2025 / Proposed Rules 4181 

(5) The permitted duration of 

participation; 

(6) The permitted location(s) for 

participation; and 

(7) The Essential System-Level 

Stakeholders for the participation. 

(c) A subject vehicle may not operate 

with public ridership during operations 

involving fallback personnel. 

(d) All participants must report the 

information specified in subpart E of 

this part, and NHTSA may establish 

additional reporting requirements as a 

term or condition of participation. 

(e) All subject vehicles, including 

their operations, must comply with all 

Federal, state and local laws and 

requirements during participation. 

(f) All subject vehicles participating 

through an AV STEP Exemption must 

display vehicle labels advising that the 

vehicles may not conform with all 

applicable Federal motor vehicle safety 

standards. These labels must be 

formatted in a manner that can be easily 

read and consist of: 

(1) At least one label on the exterior 

of the vehicle that is readily visible to 

persons external to the vehicle; and 

(2) One or more labels on the interior 

of the vehicle such that at least one label 

is readily visible to vehicle occupants in 

all seating positions. 

(g) Unless NHTSA provides otherwise 

in a term or condition of a Final 

Determination Letter, a participant with 

an AV STEP Exemption must maintain 

ownership and possession of each 

subject vehicle. 

(h) A participant with an AV STEP 

exemption may not license the subject 

vehicle for use or operate it except as 

provided in a term or condition of a 

Final Determination Letter. 

(i) Unless otherwise provided by 

NHTSA in a term or condition of a Final 

Determination Letter, remote driving of 

a subject vehicle is prohibited during 

participation in AV STEP except as 

temporarily needed to briefly move a 

vehicle after the ADS initiates a 

minimal risk maneuver. 

§ 597.106 Engagement with entities other 

than an applicant or participant. 

(a) An applicant or participant is 

required to furnish sufficient 

information to NHTSA, directly or 

through other stakeholders, to enable 

NHTSA to assess the system-level 

performance of the subject vehicle in 

the requested operations. 

(b) NHTSA’s ability to fully 

communicate with any entity 

performing an independent assessment 

under § 597.205 regarding any aspect of 

an application or participation is a 

condition of this Program. 

Subpart B—Application Requirements 

§ 597.200 General application 

requirements. 

To be considered for participation in 

AV STEP, an applicant must: 

(a) Write the application in the 

English language; 

(b) Submit the application 

electronically using the NHTSA Product 

Information Catalog and Vehicle Listing 

(vPIC) platform (https://vpic.nhtsa.

dot.gov) or send to: Director, Office of 

Automation Safety, NRM–400, 1200 

New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 

20590; 

(c) Include the information described 

in this subpart; 

(d) During the pendency of an 

application, promptly notify NHTSA 

upon becoming aware of information in 

an application that is inaccurate or that 

has changed since the application was 

submitted. 

§ 597.201 Operational baseline 

information. 

An applicant seeking participation 

must, as part of the application: 

(a) Identify the program step under 

which participation is requested; 

(b) Identify each applicant; 

(c) Provide primary and secondary 

contact information for each applicant; 

(d) Identify each Essential SystemLevel Stakeholder; 

(e) Identify the vehicle platform for 

which participation is requested, 

including the following for the subject 

vehicle: 

(1) Make; 

(2) Model; 

(3) Model year; 

(4) Unloaded vehicle weight; 

(5) Gross Vehicle Weight Rating; 

(6) Claimed vehicle class; and 

(7) FMVSS certifying entity, if 

applicable. 

(f) For the ADS on a subject vehicle, 

identify: 

(1) The following information 

regarding each sensor contributing to 

the perception capabilities of the ADS: 

(i) The type of sensor; 

(ii) The make and model of the sensor; 

(iii) The use of the sensor in ADS 

operations; and 

(iv) The location of the sensor on the 

subject vehicle; 

(2) The crash detection capabilities of 

the subject vehicle’s ADS and, if 

applicable, any units towed by the 

subject vehicle, including any 

limitations or thresholds for detecting 

physical contact relating to a crash; 

(3) Any modifications to safety 

features installed as original equipment 

on the subject vehicle, other than 

modifications identified pursuant to 

§ 597.202; and 

(4) The designed data logging 

functionality of the subject vehicle, 

including: 

(i) Continuously recorded data; 

(ii) Event-triggered data; and 

(iii) For each type of data identified in 

response to paragraphs (f)(4)(i) and 

(f)(4)(ii) of this section: 

(A) The onboard or offboard storage 

protocols; and 

(B) The duration of retention. 

(g) Identify the seating position(s) of 

any onboard fallback personnel that 

may be present during a subject 

vehicle’s participating operation. 

(h) Identify whether any remote 

driving of the subject vehicle may occur 

during participating operations and, if 

so: 

(1) Whether any participating 

operations will rely on fallback 

personnel who possess remote driving 

control authority; 

(2) Any restrictions in place for the 

use of remote driving; and 

(3) Provide a public summary of the 

limitations in place on the use of remote 

driving for reporting purposes under 

§ 597.701(a)(2)(ix). 

(i) Identify whether any other remote 

or onboard vehicle assistance may occur 

during participating operations. 

(j) Identify whether any Federal, State, 

or local permits are required for the 

operations described in the application. 

If so, provide a copy of each such permit 

if it has been issued, and describe, for 

each required permit: 

(1) The regulatory entity requiring the 

permit; 

(2) The status of the permit; 

(3) The effective dates of any existing 

permits; and 

(4) Any conditions imposed by the 

permit. 

(k) Identify whether an AV STEP 

Exemption is sought for any subject 

vehicle in the application. 

(l) Identify whether the subject 

vehicle(s) contain any features or design 

modifications that are intended to 

promote the safe accommodation of 

passengers with disabilities and, if so, 

provide a public summary of the 

features or design modifications for 

reporting purposes under 

§ 597.701(a)(2)(xii). 

§ 597.202 Vehicle exemption information. 

(a) Any application seeking an AV 

STEP Exemption must identify the 

following information concerning each 

subject vehicle for which an exemption 

is requested. 

(1) Whether an AV STEP FMVSS 

Exemption or an AV STEP Make 

Inoperative Exemption is requested for 

the subject vehicle; 

(2) The total anticipated number of 

vehicles for which each AV STEP 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
4182 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 9 / Wednesday, January 15, 2025 / Proposed Rules 

Exemption will be sought during the 

course of participation; 

(3) Each subject vehicle for which an 

exemption is requested, including: 

(i) The vehicle make; 

(ii) The vehicle model; 

(iii) The vehicle model year or date of 

manufacture; and 

(iv) The vehicle identification number 

or unique identifier for the subject 

vehicle. 

(4) Whether sufficient insurance 

coverage for each subject vehicle for 

which an exemption is requested will be 

maintained at all times for the 

operations described in the application; 

(5) All labels proposed for the 

requirements of § 597.105(g); 

(6) Whether the subject vehicle 

requires importation into the United 

States; 

(7) How the safety performance of the 

subject vehicle compares to the safety 

performance required by the FMVSS 

standard(s) at issue in the requested 

FMVSS Exemption or Make Inoperative 

Exemption, including: 

(i) A comparison of the following: 

(A) Crash protection for vehicle 

occupants; 

(B) The safety of vulnerable road 

users; and 

(C) The overall safety of the subject 

vehicle during its expected operation. 

(ii) The process and evidence used to 

assess each element of § 597.202(a)(7)(i); 

(8) All mitigations of safety risks 

resulting from: 

(i) Each noncompliance identified in 

paragraph (b)(1) of this section; and 

(ii) Each modification identified in 

paragraph (c) of this section. 

(9) A public summary of the 

mitigations of safety risks for reporting 

purposes under § 597.701(a)(1). 

(b) For each subject vehicle for which 

an AV STEP FMVSS Exemption is 

requested, the applicant must: 

(1) Identify each applicable standard 

and subsection with which the vehicle 

may not comply and provide a 

description of each noncompliance; 

(2) List each purpose under 

§ 597.202(b) applicable to a requested 

exemption, and for each identified 

purpose: 

(i) Describe how the purpose is 

fulfilled; and 

(ii) Explain the timeframe for which 

the purpose applies. 

(3) Describe whether operations of the 

subject vehicle(s) will involve any 

commercialization. If so, the applicant 

must describe: 

(i) The type of commercialization; 

(ii) The extent of the 

commercialization; and 

(iii) Any public interest furthered 

through a purpose claimed under 

paragraph (b)(2) of this section. 

(c) For each subject vehicle for which 

an AV STEP Make Inoperative 

Exemption is requested, the applicant 

must identify each modification for 

which an exemption is requested and, 

for each modification: 

(1) The device(s) or element(s) 

rendered inoperative by the 

modification; 

(2) The FMVSS and subsection 

affected by the modification; 

(3) The extent of the applicant’s 

consultation with the original 

manufacturer of the subject vehicle or 

affected device regarding the 

modification, including: 

(i) Any information provided to the 

original manufacturer about the 

modification; 

(ii) Any safety effects of the 

modification identified by the original 

manufacturer; 

(iii) Any recommendations by the 

original manufacturer regarding 

mitigations of such potential safety 

effects; and 

(iv) Any mitigations undertaken by 

the applicant to address such potential 

safety effects. 

§ 597.203 Location sheet information. 

An application must include the 

following information concerning each 

geographical location in which 

participation is requested: 

(a) Location Name. Provide a unique 

reference name for the location; 

(b) Location Limitation. Define the 

geographical boundaries for the 

operation of the subject vehicle; 

(c) Maximum Number of Vehicles 

Proposed for Participation. Identify the 

maximum number of vehicles for which 

AV STEP participation is requested for 

the location; 

(d) Legal Speed Limits. Provide the 

following information regarding the 

speed limits for roadways on which 

operation is planned for the subject 

vehicle for the location: 

(1) Highest Speed. Identify the highest 

legal speed limit for the operation and 

the segment(s) of road in which this 

speed limit occurs; and 

(2) Maximum Speed Differential. For 

the road segment with the largest 

differential between the legal speed 

limit and the maximum allowed speed 

of the subject vehicle with the ADS 

engaged while operating on the road 

segment, identify: 

(i) The segment(s) of road in which 

the differential exists; 

(ii) The legal speed limit; and 

(iii) The maximum allowable speed of 

the ADS on the segment of the road. 

(e) Vehicle Speeds. Identify: 

(1) The highest speed currently 

allowed for the ADS while operating in 

the location; and 

(2) The highest speed for which 

participation is requested for the ADS 

while operating in the location. 

(f) Public Ridership. Identify whether 

the operation will involve any public 

ridership. 

(g) Intended Use. Describe the 

planned use case(s) for the subject 

vehicle(s) during operation. 

(h) Operational Design Domain. 

Describe the operational design domain 

for the subject vehicles, including the 

following: 

(1) A complete specification of all 

aspects of the operational design 

domain, which must identify 

operational design domain differences 

between Location Sheets, where 

applicable; and 

(2) A summary of the operational 

design domain for public reporting 

purposes under § 597.701(a)(3)(viii). 

(i) Vehicle Equipment. Identify the 

following equipment and characteristics 

for each subject vehicle operating under 

a Location Sheet as compared to the 

base model of the subject vehicle, when 

applicable, and if multiple Location 

Sheets are requested, any differences 

between Location Sheets: 

(1) Any trim level characteristics that 

affect safety; 

(2) Any optional technologies that 

affect safety; and 

(3) Any other distinguishing safety 

characteristics. 

§ 597.204 Protocols for ADS Operations. 

An application must include the 

following information concerning any 

applicable protocols for the 

development and operation of the 

subject vehicles and ADS: 

(a) An explanation of the subject 

vehicle’s adherence with Federal, State, 

and local laws, including: 

(1) A summary of how applicable 

traffic safety laws are identified; 

(2) A description of how an ADS’ 

compliance with traffic safety laws is 

monitored; 

(3) A description of any conditions 

under which the design of the ADS may 

allow the subject vehicle to not follow 

traffic laws; and 

(4) A summary of recognition, 

interaction, and response strategies for: 

(i) Emergency and law enforcement 

vehicles, personnel, and equipment; 

(ii) Construction vehicles, personnel, 

and equipment; and 

(iii) Crossing guards or other traffic 

control personnel. 

(b) A description of any system 

fallback or failure mitigation strategies, 

including: 

(1) A description of any minimal risk 

conditions the ADS may achieve, which 

must include: 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 9 / Wednesday, January 15, 2025 / Proposed Rules 4183 

(i) A description of each minimal risk 

condition and the engineering rationale 

for its use; 

(ii) The circumstances under which 

each minimal risk condition is triggered; 

(iii) A description of how the minimal 

risk maneuver is initiated and executed; 

and 

(iv) Any protocols for the ADS 

following the achievement of each 

minimal risk condition. 

(2) An overview of any protocols not 

identified under paragraph (b)(1) of this 

section that are associated with averting 

or achieving a minimal risk condition, 

which: 

(i) Includes any protocols for the 

following: 

(A) Providing input to the ADS or 

disengaging the ADS prior to or during 

a minimal risk maneuver; 

(B) Resuming ADS driving following 

the achievement of a minimal risk 

condition; and 

(C) Vehicle recovery events. 

(ii) Identifies the role and number of 

persons responsible for each protocol 

described in paragraph (b)(2)(i) of this 

section and describes each such 

person’s: 

(A) Responsibilities under the 

protocol; 

(B) Physical location when 

performing an identified responsibility; 

(C) Expected response time in 

performing an identified responsibility; 

(D) Potential control authority over 

the subject vehicle; 

(E) Means of exercising any control 

authority over the subject vehicle; and 

(F) Operational restrictions on the use 

of any control authority. 

(3) A description of any protocols for 

vehicle immobilizations that occur 

without the achievement of a minimal 

risk condition. 

(c) An overview of any design and 

process measures that are in place to 

facilitate safe and predictable 

interactions with members of the public, 

including: 

(1) Any communication strategies to 

convey information to individuals 

outside of a subject ADS-equipped 

vehicle; 

(2) Any measures to promote the 

predictability of the ADS’ behavior for 

other road users in the vicinity of the 

subject vehicle; 

(3) Any communication strategies for 

non-operator occupants of the subject 

ADS-equipped vehicle; and 

(4) Any features or design 

modifications that are intended to 

promote the safe accommodation of 

passengers with disabilities. 

§ 597.205 Independent assessment. 

(a) In general. An application requires 

an independent assessment that 

conforms to the requirements of this 

section. Information regarding this 

assessment must be conveyed to 

NHTSA through a summary report, as 

provided under subsection (d), prepared 

by an assessor that meets the 

independence and qualification 

requirements of this section. 

(b) Scope of Independent Assessment. 

An independent assessment must 

consider the full extent of operations 

requested for the subject vehicle(s) in an 

application. 

(c) Subjects of Independent 

Assessment. An independent 

assessment must include a review of the 

following: 

(1) The conformance of the subject 

vehicle’s ADS and its operations with 

relevant industry standards, best 

practices, and guidance. This 

conformity assessment must: 

(i) Determine non-, partial, or full 

conformance with each such industry 

standard, best practice, or guidance; 

(ii) Assess the justification and safety 

implications of any non- or partial 

compliance determined under 

paragraph (c)(1)(i) of this section; 

(iii) Assess whether, collectively, the 

degree of conformance with relevant 

industry standards, best practices, and 

guidance represents a responsible 

approach to developing and operating 

the subject vehicle; and 

(iv) Contain recommendations 

regarding: 

(A) The list of industry standards, best 

practices, and guidance with which 

conformance should, in full or in part, 

be achieved or maintained during 

operations; and 

(B) How to address any safety gaps in 

the design and operation of the subject 

vehicle that would not be covered by 

the conformance recommended under 

paragraph (c)(1)(iv)(A) of this section. 

(2) A safety case that details how the 

safety of the subject vehicle, including 

the safety of the subject vehicle’s 

occupants and surrounding road users, 

is assured for the operations requested 

in an application. The assessment of the 

safety case by the assessor: 

(i) May incorporate the assessment 

under paragraph (c)(1) of this section; 

(ii) Must include a review of the 

validity and soundness of the safety 

case, including whether: 

(A) The safety case arguments and 

claims support the operations of the 

subject vehicle; 

(B) The safety case claims are 

supported with sufficient evidence; and 

(C) Appropriate processes exist for 

maintaining the safety case throughout 

the operations. 

(iii) Must include a detailed analysis 

of the following aspects of the safety 

case: 

(A) Safety Risk Assessment. Whether 

the safety case comprehensively 

identifies and assesses safety risks, 

including potential vehicle and 

operational hazards and faults; 

(B) Safety Risk Management. Whether 

the safety case contains appropriate risk 

management, including mitigations, for 

the risks identified; 

(C) System Evolution. Whether the 

safety case contains appropriate 

processes for maintaining or improving 

safety over time; 

(D) Safety Performance Indicators. 

Whether the safety case relies on 

appropriate safety performance 

indicators and thresholds; 

(E) Conformance with Traffic Safety 

Law. Whether appropriate processes 

exist for identifying applicable traffic 

safety laws in an area of operation and 

overseeing their conformance during 

operations; 

(F) Vehicle Fallback and Assistance. 

Whether the safety case contains 

appropriate processes for ensuring the 

effectiveness of any expected fallback or 

vehicle assistance; 

(G) Human Factors. Whether the 

safety case appropriately accounts for 

human factors considerations that may 

affect safety, including, where 

applicable, those related to fallback 

personnel, vehicle assistance, vehicle 

occupants, or surrounding road users; 

(H) Crash Avoidance. Whether the 

safety case appropriately identifies and 

considers the variety of crash-imminent 

situations that could occur within the 

operations; and 

(I) Tool Qualification. Whether 

software tools used to evaluate expected 

ADS performance are representative and 

accurate. 

(iv) Must include a review of the 

safety management systems in place to 

oversee the safety of the subject vehicle 

for the operations requested in an 

application. This review must include 

an assessment of the following for the 

organizations responsible for the safety 

of the operations involving the subject 

vehicle: 

(A) Whether the leadership fosters a 

positive safety culture and demonstrates 

a safety commitment throughout the 

organization; 

(B) Whether those responsible for the 

implementation of the safety 

management systems possess 

appropriate resources, authorities, and 

accountability; 

(C) Whether there are appropriate 

policies and processes for encouraging 

reporting and timely investigation of 

safety-related concerns from internal 

staff and members of the public; 

(D) Whether appropriate capabilities 

and policies exist for monitoring the 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
4184 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 9 / Wednesday, January 15, 2025 / Proposed Rules 

location and state of each participating 

vehicle; 

(E) Whether appropriate processes 

exist to monitor safety performance 

indicators; 

(F) Whether sufficient capabilities and 

policies exist for timely responding to a 

vehicle incident or immobilization and, 

if necessary, to clear a disabled vehicle 

from the roadway. This review must 

estimate a range of time for an expected 

response; 

(G) Whether an appropriate plan 

exists for reaching timely decisions 

regarding future operations if an 

emergency arises; and 

(H) Whether there are appropriate 

processes in place for how Essential 

System-Level Stakeholders will engage 

with each other regarding ongoing 

operations, including for carrying out: 

(1) Software updates; 

(2) Operational updates; 

(3) Vehicle maintenance; and 

(4) The collection and reporting of 

safety data. 

(3) The following policies and 

capabilities: 

(i) Community Engagement. Whether 

the policies for engaging with State and 

local authorities, local communities, 

and other entities affected by the subject 

vehicle’s operation are sufficiently 

robust to identify the relevant 

stakeholders, provide them with 

appropriate information regarding 

operations, engage with them about 

concerns, and meaningfully address 

those concerns as needed; 

(ii) Training and Qualifications of 

Personnel. Whether the personnel who 

are responsible for developing and 

maintaining the safety case or executing 

safety critical processes possess 

appropriate qualifications and training; 

and 

(iii) Data Capture. Whether the data 

capture capabilities for the subject 

vehicle suffice to meet the data 

reporting requirements in subpart E of 

this part. 

(d) Independent Assessment 

Summary Report. An application must 

include a report prepared by the 

independent assessor that summarizes 

the independent assessment. This 

summary report must be submitted in 

an application in its original form, and 

must include the following: 

(1) An overview of any assessor 

processes in place to manage the 

assessment; 

(2) Any access restrictions that 

limited the assessment; 

(3) For the assessment requirements 

detailed in paragraph (c) of this section, 

an overview of: 

(i) The assessor’s findings and the 

basis for each finding; 

(ii) Materials reviewed during the 

assessment; 

(iii) The processes and format of 

reviews; 

(iv) The methods used to identify 

potential inconsistencies, gaps, logical 

fallacies, or other concerns with the 

information provided for a review; 

(v) Concerns identified during an 

assessment, including all 

recommendations made to the 

applicant(s) regarding identified 

concerns; and 

(vi) The parameters under which the 

assessment and its conclusions are 

valid. This overview should account for 

potential future changes to operations, 

system design, or processes for which 

the assessment would remain valid. 

(e) Context for the Assessment. An 

application must include the following 

information regarding an assessment 

conducted for an application: 

(1) Applicant Response to Assessor 

Recommendations. A summary report 

from an applicant that explains any 

measures taken in response to each 

assessor recommendation; and 

(2) Prior Assessments. A description 

of any other independent assessment 

initiated for the topics covered in 

paragraph (c) of this section, which 

includes: 

(i) The identity of the entity 

conducting the assessment; 

(ii) The purpose of the assessment; 

(iii) If the assessment was completed, 

the conclusions of the assessment; and 

(iv) If the assessment was not 

completed, the reasons for its 

termination. 

(f) Assessor Independence. (1) An 

assessment conducted under this 

section must not be performed by an 

entity with any of the following 

conflicts of interest: 

(i) The assessor, including any 

personnel and contractors used by the 

assessor for review, is owned, operated, 

or controlled, directly or indirectly, by 

a party with a financial interest in a 

particular disposition of the AV STEP 

application; 

(ii) The assessor, including any of its 

personnel and contractors used for a 

review, has any ownership or financial 

interest in an interested party to the AV 

STEP application; or 

(iii) The fee structure for the 

assessment is dependent in any way on 

the outcome of the assessment or the 

outcome of the AV STEP application. 

(2) An application must contain the 

following information regarding the 

independence of the assessor: 

(i) A disclosure of the existence of any 

of any other circumstance that may 

affect the objectivity of an assessor, 

including: 

(A) Whether the assessor, including 

any personnel and contractors used by 

the assessor for review, participated in 

the design, manufacture, or distribution 

of a product within the scope of the 

assessment; and 

(B) Whether the assessor, including 

any personnel and contractors used by 

the assessor for review, were separately 

engaged in the development of a project 

or operation within the scope of an 

application. 

(ii) For any circumstances disclosed 

pursuant to paragraph (f)(2)(i) of this 

section, a description of any measures 

put in place to uphold the 

independence of an assessment; and 

(iii) A certification from the assessor 

that: 

(A) The assessment represents the 

independent judgment of the assessor; 

and 

(B) No conflict of interest in 

paragraph (f)(1) of this section exists or 

existed at any time during the 

assessment. 

(g) Assessor Qualifications and 

Resources. (1) An assessment conducted 

under this section must be conducted by 

an entity with the following 

qualifications and capabilities: 

(i) The assessor and its personnel 

have suitable education, technical 

expertise, experience, and appropriate 

accreditations to be qualified to carry 

out the assessment; 

(ii) The assessor maintains 

appropriate policies and practices for 

conducting and organizing assessments; 

and 

(iii) The assessor maintains facilities 

and resources appropriate for the types 

of assessments conducted. 

(2) An application must contain 

supporting information regarding the 

assessor’s qualifications, policies, and 

protocols for personnel involved in the 

assessment, including: 

(i) Curriculum Vitae (CV) of key 

personnel that demonstrate their 

relevant education, training, and 

experience; 

(ii) Any relevant accreditations of the 

assessor or key personnel conducting 

the assessment; and 

(iii) A description of all policies or 

protocols that governed the conduct of 

assessor personnel during the 

assessment or the scope of the 

assessment. 

§ 597.206 Customized terms. 

(a) An applicant must propose 

customized terms for consideration by 

the agency in setting the terms and 

conditions of participation. 

(b) Each such proposed customized 

term shall include: 

(1) Proposed metric(s) and 

threshold(s) to assist in the agency’s 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 9 / Wednesday, January 15, 2025 / Proposed Rules 4185 

evaluation of operation, performance, 

and safety of the subject vehicles, 

including an explanation and any 

context necessary to interpret the 

metric(s) and threshold(s); and 

(2) A justification of the value and 

relevance of the proposed metric(s) and 

threshold(s). 

§ 597.207 Data governance plan. 

(a) In general. An application must 

contain a data governance plan that 

outlines the processes for the integrity, 

security, and management of data 

generated by the subject vehicle that are 

relevant to AV STEP. The plan must 

include: 

(1) A top-level accountability and 

management process for the data 

governance plan, including a 

description of the applicable positions 

and roles; 

(2) Access control mechanisms to 

maintain data security and privacy; 

(3) Processes for maintaining data 

quality and integrity; 

(4) Monitoring and enforcement 

mechanisms for adherence to the plan; 

(5) Procedures for identifying and 

responding to incidents that 

compromise data security or integrity; 

(6) Risk management strategies for 

mitigating internal and external datarelated risks, including cybersecurity; 

and 

(7) A list of any published industry 

standards, guidance, or best practices 

with which the plan conforms. 

(b) [Reserved] 

§ 597.208 Confirmation of Reporting 

During Participation. 

(a) As part of an application, the 

applicant must confirm that if a request 

for participation is granted by NHTSA, 

the applicant is capable of carrying out 

all of the AV STEP reporting 

requirements set forth in this part for 

the program step at which the 

application requests participation. 

(b) An application must contain the 

information detailed in § 597.206(b) for 

each reporting requirement in this part 

that is labeled as customized. 

Subpart C—AV STEP Exemptions 

§ 597.300 In general. 

(a) An applicant may request the 

following types of exemptions through 

AV STEP: 

(1) An AV STEP FMVSS Exemption; 

and 

(2) An AV STEP Make Inoperative 

Exemption. 

(b) A subject vehicle’s participation in 

AV STEP is a requirement for an AV 

STEP exemption of the subject vehicle 

to remain in effect. 

§ 597.301 AV STEP FMVSS exemption. 

(a) An applicant for AV STEP 

participation may request an exemption 

for a subject vehicle from one or more 

Federal motor vehicle safety standards 

issued under part 571 of this chapter or 

bumper standards issued under part 581 

of this chapter. 

(b) An exemption issued under this 

section must be for: 

(i) Research; 

(ii) Investigations; 

(iii) Demonstrations; 

(iv) Training; 

(v) Competitive racing events; or 

(vi) Show or Display. 

§ 597.302 AV STEP Make inoperative 

exemption. 

An applicant may request an 

exemption from the ‘‘make inoperative’’ 

provision in 49 U.S.C. 30122(a). 

§ 597.303 Restrictions on exemptions. 

(a) NHTSA may place such terms and 

conditions as it deems appropriate on 

AV STEP exemptions issued under this 

part. NHTSA will review the 

appropriateness of terms and conditions 

based on the information and review 

processes set forth in this part and issue 

a written Final Determination Letter 

under § 597.404 at the conclusion of the 

review. 

(b) When an AV STEP exemption is 

granted under this part, a Final 

Determination Letter issued under 

§ 597.404 will include the following 

terms regarding the number of subject 

vehicles receiving an exemption: 

(1) A list of each vehicle receiving an 

exemption at the time a Final 

Determination Letter is issued. This list 

will designate each vehicle by its 

vehicle identification number or other 

unique identifier; and 

(2) A maximum number of unique 

vehicles that may be exempted during 

the participation. 

(c) The number of vehicles receiving 

an AV STEP exemption under 

paragraph (b)(1) of this section may not 

exceed the maximum number of unique 

vehicles that may be exempted under 

paragraph (b)(2) of this section. 

(d) If the number of vehicles receiving 

an AV STEP exemption under 

paragraph (b)(1) of this section has not 

reached the maximum number of 

unique vehicles that may be exempted 

under paragraph (b)(2) of this section, 

the recipient of the AV STEP exemption 

may provide notice to NHTSA of an 

intent to apply the exemption to 

additional vehicles. Such notice shall: 

(1) Identify each new vehicle by its 

vehicle identification number or other 

unique identifier; 

(2) Specify the applicable Location 

Sheet(s) for the new vehicle(s); 

(3) Include a statement from the 

applicant that: 

(i) Compared to already exempted 

vehicles, the new vehicles are the same 

make and model, and all equipment is 

substantially similar; and 

(ii) Acknowledges that the new 

vehicles would be subject to all 

applicable terms and conditions as the 

already exempted vehicles participating 

under the same Location Sheet(s). 

(4) Unless NHTSA provides 

otherwise, vehicles properly identified 

in a notice that contains all of the 

required disclosures and statements in 

this subsection will automatically 

receive the applicable AV STEP 

exemption 30 calendar days after the 

submission of the notice. In such case, 

all terms and conditions applicable to 

already exempted vehicles participating 

under the same Location Sheet(s) will 

apply to vehicles that receive an 

exemption through a notice under this 

subsection. 

(e) Any violation of a term or 

condition on an exemption imposed 

under this part shall be considered a 

violation of 49 U.S.C. 30112(a) or 49 

U.S.C. 30122(b), as applicable, for 

which a civil penalty may be imposed. 

Such a violation may also act to void the 

authorization for the exemption under 

the AV STEP Concern Resolution 

process in § 597.600. 

(f) The expiration of a vehicle’s AV 

STEP exemption terminates any 

exemption to the restrictions in chapter 

301 of title 49 of the United States Code, 

including the general prohibitions in 49 

U.S.C. 30112(a), except to the extent 

that a vehicle: 

(1) Is the subject of other exemptions 

under 49 CFR chapter V, which remain 

in place; 

(2) Receives subsequent exemptions 

under 49 CFR chapter V; or 

(3) Was imported into the United 

States after receiving the AV STEP 

exemption, in which case all original 

restrictions on the vehicle in chapter 

301 of title 49 of the United States Code 

continue to apply, except that, unless 

NHTSA provides otherwise, the vehicle 

may remain in the United States as long 

as it does not operate on public streets, 

roads, and highways and is not 

otherwise introduced in interstate 

commerce. 

Subpart D—Application Review 

Process 

§ 597.400 In general. 

(a) NHTSA will conduct a case-bycase review of each application under 

the procedures in this subpart and based 

on the totality of the information 

available to NHTSA. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
4186 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 9 / Wednesday, January 15, 2025 / Proposed Rules 

(b) Notwithstanding any other 

procedure described in this subpart, 

NHTSA may request additional 

information from an applicant at any 

time during a review of an application. 

(c) An applicant may amend or 

withdraw an application at any time 

before a Final Determination is issued 

under § 597.404. The effect of an 

amendment on the phase of review will 

depend on the nature and extent of the 

amended material. 

§ 597.401 Review Phase 1: Initial Review. 

Phase 1 commences upon NHTSA’s 

receipt of an application. During Phase 

1, NHTSA will issue each applicant a 

notice of receipt, which confirms receipt 

of the application and identifies a 

NHTSA point of contact for the review, 

and will undertake an initial review of 

all application materials. As part of this 

review, NHTSA will review the 

proposed customized terms. 

§ 597.402 Review Phase 2: Follow-up 

Review. 

Phase 2 commences upon NHTSA’s 

issuance of a Follow Up Index to each 

applicant, which identifies items for 

which NHTSA requests additional 

information. NHTSA may subsequently 

request additional information as 

needed. 

§ 597.403 Review Phase 3: Preliminary 

Determination. 

(a) Phase 3 commences upon 

NHTSA’s issuance of a Preliminary 

Determination to each applicant, which 

contains NHTSA’s proposed decision on 

an application, including, if applicable, 

the full set of terms and conditions 

proposed to govern AV STEP 

participation. 

(b) NHTSA will determine terms and 

conditions, including those associated 

with proposed customized terms. In 

determining terms and conditions, 

NHTSA will: 

(1) With respect to proposed 

customized terms, evaluate the extent to 

which they fulfill the applicable 

requirement and their anticipated value 

for overseeing the subject vehicles; and 

(2) With respect to all terms and 

conditions, evaluate the extent to which 

any required reports may further 

NHTSA’s understanding of the subject 

vehicle’s performance, operations, or 

ADS; the feasibility of analyzing any 

reported information; and the extent to 

which the terms and conditions are 

consistent with motor vehicle safety and 

further the purposes of 49 U.S.C. 30101. 

(c) A Preliminary Determination is not 

a final decision on an application and 

does not confer approval to participate 

under its proposed terms. 

(d) On the tenth business day after 

issuing a Preliminary Determination, 

NHTSA will issue a Final Determination 

under § 597.404, which contains the 

same decision as proposed in the 

Preliminary Determination, including 

any terms and conditions, unless before 

a Final Determination is issued: 

(1) NHTSA revokes the Preliminary 

Determination; 

(2) An applicant requests, in writing, 

additional time or changes to the 

Preliminary Determination, pursuant to 

paragraphs (d) or (e) of this section; 

(3) All applicants confirm, in writing, 

acceptability of the Preliminary 

Determination, in which case NHTSA 

may issue a Final Determination as soon 

as practicable; or 

(4) The application is withdrawn or 

amended. 

(e) Any applicant may request, in 

writing, additional time before a 

Preliminary Determination becomes 

final, stating the reasons for the request. 

NHTSA shall promptly respond in 

writing, granting or denying the request, 

and provide the reason for its decision. 

(f) Any applicant may request, in 

writing, changes to the Preliminary 

Determination. Such a request must be 

submitted before a Preliminary 

Determination becomes final, identify 

each term or condition of the 

Preliminary Determination for which a 

change is requested, describe the nature 

of the requested change; and briefly 

explain the basis for each requested 

change. 

(g) If, under paragraphs (c)(1) or (c)(2) 

of this section, a Preliminary 

Determination does not become final, 

NHTSA will reissue a Preliminary 

Determination once any remaining 

issues are addressed. The procedures in 

this section apply to both an initial 

Preliminary Determination and any 

reissued Preliminary Determination. 

§ 597.404 Final Determination. 

(a) NHTSA may issue a Final 

Determination Letter at any point more 

than 60 days after issuance of a 

Preliminary Determination on the same 

application, unless an extension for 

longer than 60 days has been granted 

under § 597.403(d). 

(b) A written Final Determination 

Letter will convey NHTSA’s final 

decision to all applicants. The Final 

Determination Letter grants or denies a 

request to participate in AV STEP, 

including any request for an AV STEP 

Exemption. 

(c) A Final Determination Letter 

granting a request to participate 

contains the full set of terms and 

conditions governing participation, 

including any metrics or reporting 

thresholds associated with customized 

terms. These terms and conditions may 

impose additional participation 

requirements or limitations beyond 

those set forth in this part. 

Subpart E—Reporting by Participants 

§ 597.500 General reporting requirements. 

(a) In general. Participants must 

comply with the reporting requirements 

of this subpart and any reporting 

requirement in a term or condition of a 

Final Determination Letter issued under 

§ 597.404. Unless otherwise provided, a 

report under this subpart does not 

satisfy any other reporting requirement 

and compliance with a reporting 

requirement outside of this subpart does 

not satisfy a reporting requirement of 

this subpart. 

(b) Timing. All reports submitted 

under this section must be submitted on 

a quarterly basis, for the duration of 

participation. Each quarterly report is 

due on the final business day of the first 

month that follows the reporting period. 

(c) Reporting requirements for all 

participants. All AV STEP participants 

must report the following information 

for operations on public roads during 

each reporting period, segmented by 

Location Sheet and covering all subject 

vehicles participating under the 

Location Sheet during the reporting 

period: 

(1) The total number of subject 

vehicles that operated under the 

Location Sheet during the reporting 

period; 

(2) The vehicle identification number 

or other unique vehicle identifier of 

each vehicle reported under paragraph 

(c)(1) of this section; 

(3) Each zip code in which a subject 

vehicle reported under paragraph (c)(1) 

of this section operated with the ADS 

engaged on a public road; 

(4) Aggregate vehicle miles traveled 

with the ADS engaged, segmented by: 

(i) Each zip code reported under 

paragraph (c)(3) of this section; 

(ii) The hour of the day during which 

the vehicle miles were traveled; and 

(iii) The presence of onboard fallback 

personnel. 

(5) What percentage the participation 

numbers in paragraph (c)(4)(i) of this 

section comprise of each of the three 

categories of operations in paragraph 

(c)(4)(ii) of this section. 

(i) Participation numbers. (A) The 

number of subject vehicles participating 

under the Location Sheet, reported 

under paragraph (c)(1) of this section; 

and 

(B) The total number of vehicle miles 

traveled with the ADS engaged on 

public roads under the Location Sheet. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 9 / Wednesday, January 15, 2025 / Proposed Rules 4187 

(ii) Categories of Operations. Each of 

the following ADS operations, 

regardless of AV STEP participation 

status, if they involve the same 

combination of vehicle manufacturer, 

ADS developer, and fleet operator: 

(A) Operations on public roads in the 

United States; 

(B) Operations on public roads in an 

overlapping geographical area of the 

Location Sheet; and 

(C) Operations on public roads in the 

United States that involve the same 

vehicle model as the subject vehicle. 

(6) A description of each vehicle 

recovery event that occurred for a 

vehicle reported under paragraph (c)(1) 

of this section. This description must 

include: 

(i) The location of the event; 

(ii) The duration of the vehicle’s 

immobilization prior to its recovery; 

(iii) The reason a vehicle recovery was 

required; and 

(iv) A cross-reference to any other 

report under this section associated 

with the reported recovery. 

(7) A description of any contact event 

involving a subject vehicle that does not 

meet the reporting criteria under 

§ 597.501(b); 

(8) The total number of instances of 

rate of change in vehicle acceleration 

(including deceleration) exceeding a 

threshold associated with a customized 

term; 

(9) The total number of instances of 

vehicle acceleration or deceleration 

exceeding a threshold associated with a 

customized term; and 

(10) The total number of each of the 

following types of interruptions to the 

ADS, if unplanned: 

(i) Initiation of a maneuver to put the 

subject vehicle in a minimal risk 

condition by: 

(A) The ADS; 

(B) An occupant of the subject 

vehicle; or 

(C) Remote personnel. 

(ii) DDT takeovers, other than those 

reported under paragraph (c)(10)(i) of 

this section; 

(iii) Instances in which any direct 

control authority of the vehicle is 

exercised remotely, other than those 

reported under paragraphs (c)(10)(i) or 

(c)(10)(ii) of this section; 

(iv) Instances in which onboard 

vehicle assistance alters the ADS’ 

operation; 

(v) Instances in which remote vehicle 

assistance alters the ADS’ operation; 

and 

(vi) Any other occurrence that 

significantly alters the intended 

operation of the ADS. 

(d) Step 1 reporting requirements. In 

addition to the requirements in 

paragraph (c) of this section, 

participants at Step 1 must report for 

each reporting period, segmented by 

Location Sheet and covering all subject 

vehicles participating under the 

Location Sheet during the reporting 

period, safety metric(s) for customized 

terms, to gauge the performance of 

fallback personnel. 

(e) Step 2 reporting requirements. In 

addition to the requirements in 

paragraph (c) of this section, 

participants at Step 2 must report the 

following information for each reporting 

period, segmented by Location Sheet 

and covering all subject vehicles 

participating under the Location Sheet 

during the reporting period: 

(1) The duration, location, and cause 

of each minimal risk condition achieved 

on a public road, and the VIN of the 

vehicle involved; 

(2) Performance metrics for 

customized terms for the following: 

(i) The safety performance of the ADS, 

including: 

(A) Adherence to expected driving 

behavior; and 

(B) For scenarios in which there is an 

increased likelihood of a crash. 

(ii) The extent to which the systemlevel performance of the ADS adheres to 

design assumptions or expectations; and 

(iii) Adherence to internal safety 

processes during the subject vehicle’s 

development or operations. 

§ 597.501 Event-triggered reporting 

requirements. 

(a) In general. All AV STEP 

participants must report events to 

NHTSA pursuant to the requirements in 

this section. These reports must be 

submitted on a rolling basis, as 

determined based on the time of the 

event’s occurrence. 

(b) Crash reporting. Report each crash 

that occurs involving a subject vehicle. 

For this requirement, a crash is any 

physical impact between a subject 

vehicle and another road user (such as 

a vehicle, pedestrian, or cyclist) or 

property that results or allegedly results 

in any property damage, injury, or 

fatality. A subject vehicle is involved in 

a crash if it physically impacts another 

road user or if it contributes or is alleged 

to contribute (by steering, braking, 

acceleration, or other operational 

performance) to another vehicle’s 

physical impact with another road user 

or property involved in that crash. Each 

report must: 

(1) Contain the information for a crash 

report specified in a term of a Final 

Determination Letter; 

(2) Identify whether: 

(i) the ADS was active at any time 

during the 30 seconds immediately 

prior to the commencement of the crash 

through the conclusion of the crash 

event; or 

(ii) An attempt was made to engage 

the ADS or to transfer partial or full 

control to the ADS, even if the attempt 

is rejected, aborted, or underway during 

the 30 seconds immediately prior to the 

commencement of the crash through the 

conclusion of the crash event. 

(3) Be submitted to NHTSA within the 

following timeframes after any Essential 

System-Level Stakeholder receives 

notice of the crash: 

(i) One calendar day, if the crash 

results in a fatality or any individual 

being transported to a hospital for 

medical treatment, or involves a 

vulnerable road user; 

(ii) Five calendar days, if the crash 

results in a vehicle tow-away or an air 

bag deployment but does not result in 

a fatality or any individual being 

transported to a hospital for medical 

treatment and does not involve a 

vulnerable road user; or 

(iii) For each crash that is not 

reportable under subsections (b)(3)(i) or 

(b)(3)(ii) of this section, by the fifteenth 

calendar day of the month following the 

calendar month in which notice of the 

crash was received. 

(c) Crash video reporting. For any 

crash requiring a report within one 

calendar day under paragraph (b)(3)(i) of 

this section, an AV STEP participant 

must also submit all video footage in the 

possession of any Essential SystemLevel Stakeholder that depicts any 

aspect of the crash during the 30 

seconds immediately prior to the 

commencement of the crash through the 

conclusion of the crash event. Video 

footage must be submitted within two 

business days of the date the Essential 

System-Level Stakeholder obtains 

possession of the video. 

(d) Crash report updates. A 

participant must submit updates to a 

crash report within the following 

timeframes: 

(1) For any report required under 

paragraph (b)(3)(i) of this section, on the 

tenth calendar day following the initial 

report; 

(2) For any report required under 

paragraph (b) of this section, on the 

fifteenth calendar day of the month 

following any calendar month in which 

an Essential System-Level Stakeholder 

receives notice of any material new or 

materially different information about 

the crash; and 

(3) As otherwise requested by 

NHTSA. 

(e) Citable offense reporting. Report 

known citable offenses involving a 

subject vehicle. For this requirement, a 

citable offense includes any ticketed 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
4188 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 9 / Wednesday, January 15, 2025 / Proposed Rules 

traffic safety violation and non-ticketed 

traffic safety violations. Each report 

must be submitted to NHTSA within 5 

business days after any Essential 

System-Level Stakeholder’s notice of the 

incident and identify: 

(1) The date and location of the 

offense, and whether the offense was 

ticketed or non-ticketed; 

(2) The traffic safety violation in 

question; 

(3) The applicable Location Sheet; 

(4) Whether: 

(i) The ADS was active at any time 

during the 30 seconds immediately 

prior to the commencement of the 

maneuver that resulted in the citable 

offense; or 

(ii) An attempt was made to engage 

the ADS or to transfer partial or full 

control to the ADS, even the attempt is 

rejected, aborted, or underway during 

the 30 seconds immediately prior to the 

commencement of the maneuver that 

resulted in the citable offense. 

(5) In the case of a Step 2 participant, 

whether the operation of the subject 

vehicle involved fallback personnel at 

the time of the offense. 

(f) Avoiding duplicative reporting. A 

participant required to report an 

incident pursuant to any other NHTSA 

requirement outside of this part will be 

deemed to comply with the reporting 

requirement for the same incident under 

this section, provided: 

(1) The participant timely satisfies the 

other reporting requirement, including 

any requirements to update an initial 

report; 

(2) The other report covers all of the 

information required by this section; 

and 

(3) Within the timeframe in which an 

AV STEP crash report would otherwise 

be required, the participant submits to 

NHTSA through AV STEP a notice of 

the other report that: 

(i) Identifies the report number for the 

other report; and 

(ii) Identifies the AV STEP Location 

Sheet with which the incident is 

associated. 

(g) Reporting use of fallback 

personnel (Step 2). A Step 2 participant 

must report changes in the extent to 

which fallback personnel are used in its 

operations. This report must: 

(1) Identify the Location Sheet(s) to 

which the report applies; 

(2) Identify the updated percentage of 

subject vehicles using fallback 

personnel under the Location Sheet; and 

(3) Be submitted to NHTSA in writing 

by the time the change occurs. 

§ 597.502 Changes to an operation. 

(a) A participant must report to 

NHTSA any prospective change to its 

operations that exceeds existing 

thresholds for customized terms. In 

proposing new thresholds for such 

customized terms, an applicant must 

address the extent to which a 

prospective change may alter 

information submitted in an application 

or reviewed by an independent assessor 

under § 597.205. 

(b) A participant’s report of a 

prospective change must: 

(1) Identify the Location Sheet(s) to 

which the prospective change would 

apply; 

(2) Describe the prospective change; 

(3) Identify the date on which the 

change is proposed to occur; and 

(4) Contain an independent assessor’s 

position regarding whether the 

prospective change would materially 

affect a prior independent assessment of 

the safety case conducted under 

§ 597.205(c)(2). 

(c) Any proposed change considered 

material under paragraph (b)(4) of this 

section may occur only upon written 

approval from NHTSA. Before 

determining whether to approve the 

change, NHTSA may require an updated 

independent assessment of any aspect of 

the safety case reviewed in 

§ 597.205(c)(2) that would be materially 

affected by the proposed change. 

(d) Prospective changes considered 

immaterial under paragraph (b)(4) of 

this section must be reported to NHTSA 

at least seven calendar days before the 

change takes effect. 

(e) In addition to the requirements of 

this section, a participant must request 

and receive an amendment under 

§ 597.601 for any change that modifies 

a term or a condition of a Final 

Determination Letter. 

Subpart F—Procedures During 

Participation 

§ 597.600 Concern resolution process. 

(a) The procedures in this subpart 

govern the review of how concerns of 

potential issues, as defined in 

paragraphs (b)(3) and (b)(4) of this 

section, may affect a party’s 

participation in AV STEP. Nothing in 

this part is intended to limit or 

otherwise affect NHTSA’s authority 

under chapter 301 of title 49 of the 

United States Code, including but not 

limited to the authority to inspect, 

investigate, or otherwise take 

enforcement action, as appropriate. In 

addition, nothing in this subpart is 

intended to limit or otherwise affect a 

party’s obligations under chapter 301 of 

title 49 of the United States Code, 

including but not limited to the 

requirements for notification and 

remedy of defects related to motor 

vehicle safety and noncompliance set 

forth in subchapter II of chapter 301 of 

title 49 of the United States Code. 

(b) NHTSA may modify any term or 

condition of participation, including 

suspending or revoking permission to 

participate in AV STEP, in accordance 

with the following procedures: 

(1) NHTSA will undertake a 

preliminary review of concerns that 

arise during participation. NHTSA may 

engage with the participant during this 

review. 

(2) If a concern persists following a 

preliminary review, NHTSA will 

provide each applicant with a written 

notice of the concern that: 

(i) Identifies whether the concern is 

an Apparent Issue or a Severe Apparent 

Issue, as described in paragraphs (b)(3) 

and (b)(4) of this section; 

(ii) Describes the concern with 

reasonable particularity; and 

(iii) Identifies the date on which a 

change in terms or conditions, including 

a suspension or revocation, is scheduled 

to take effect. 

(3) An Apparent Issue consists of any 

circumstance that calls into question the 

safety of an operation, compliance with 

an AV STEP responsibility, or the 

reliability of information provided by a 

participant under AV STEP. The change 

in terms and conditions will take effect 

10 business days after issuance of notice 

of an Apparent Issue. 

(4) A Severe Apparent Issue consists 

of an Apparent Issue where the facts 

and circumstances signify an elevated 

concern that undermines confidence in 

the safety of continued operations or the 

participant’s ability to otherwise comply 

with AV STEP requirements. NHTSA 

will determine the appropriate timing 

for a change in terms or conditions due 

to a Severe Apparent Issue on a case-bycase basis, including the imposition of 

a suspension or revocation. If NHTSA 

deems it appropriate, a change in terms 

or conditions due to a Severe Apparent 

Issue may take effect as early as the time 

of issuance. 

(5) NHTSA may change terms and 

conditions imposed under paragraphs 

(b)(3) or (b)(4) of this section, as 

appropriate. 

(6) After a term or condition has been 

modified under this section, NHTSA 

will engage with each affected 

participant to determine the possibility 

and conditions of a reinstatement. 

Reinstatements will be considered on a 

case-by-case basis depending on the 

nature of the concern and the 

appropriateness and effectiveness of any 

mitigation of the concern. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 9 / Wednesday, January 15, 2025 / Proposed Rules 4189 

§ 597.601 Amendment process. 

(a) In general. Terms and condition in 

a Final Determination Letter may be 

changed only by issuance of an 

Amended Final Determination Letter. 

(b) Amendment of Final 

Determination Letter by NHTSA. 

NHTSA may modify any term or 

condition of a Final Determination 

Letter at any time upon the agreement 

of all participants or pursuant to the 

amendment or concern resolution 

processes set forth in this part. 

(c) Participant request to amend a 

Final Determination Letter. A 

participant may submit a written 

request to NHTSA to amend a Final 

Determination Letter, which must 

include: 

(1) A description of each requested 

amendment; 

(2) A description of each prospective 

change to system design, processes, or 

operations that relates to the requested 

amendment; 

(3) An updated response to each 

application requirement in subpart B of 

this part that would be affected by the 

prospective change(s), apart from 

§ 597.205; and 

(d) NHTSA will review each request 

from a participant to amend a Final 

Determination Letter on a case-by-case 

basis. 

(e) Changes requiring a new 

application. The following changes 

require a new application to participate 

in AV STEP, rather than an amendment 

request to an existing approval to 

participate: 

(1) Any change to program step; 

(2) The removal, replacement, or 

addition of an Essential System-Level 

Stakeholder; or 

(3) For participants with an AV STEP 

Exemption, a change to any of the 

following Vehicle Exemption 

Information required under § 597.202: 

(i) The type of exemption requested 

under § 597.202(a)(1); 

(ii) The subject vehicle for which an 

exemption is requested, other than as 

provided under § 597.303(d); 

(iii) For an AV STEP FMVSS 

Exemption, each requirement of an 

FMVSS or bumper standard for which 

an exemption is requested under 

§ 597.202(b)(1); 

(iv) For an AV STEP Make Inoperative 

Exemption, the device or element 

requested to be rendered inoperative 

under § 597.202(c))(1); or 

(v) For an AV STEP Make Inoperative 

Exemption, each requirement of an 

FMVSS affected by the requested 

modification under § 597.202(c)(2). 

(f) Changes not requiring an 

amendment. No amendment is needed 

for the following changes: 

(1) Changes to the primary and 

secondary contact information field of 

the Operational Baseline Definition 

required under § 597.201. A participant 

may change this information at any time 

by providing written notice to NHTSA; 

(2) Changes to an existing Location 

Sheet required under § 597.203, as long 

as the changes: 

(i) Are submitted to NHTSA through 

an updated Location Sheet before the 

change takes effect; and 

(ii) Are limited to the Location 

Limitation of § 597.203(b). 

(3) The addition of a new Location 

Sheet required under § 597.203, as long 

as: 

(i) The new Location Sheet is 

submitted to NHTSA before operations 

under the new Location Sheet 

commence; 

(ii) The new Location Sheet does not 

require a report under § 597.502; and 

(iii) All of the following fields under 

§ 597.203 for the new Location Sheet are 

the same as those in an existing 

Location Sheet for the participation: 

(A) Maximum number of vehicles 

requested; 

(B) Public ridership; 

(C) Intended use; 

(D) Operational design domain 

elements other than location; and 

(E) Vehicle equipment. 

Subpart G—Public Reporting 

Requirements 

§ 597.700 In general. 

(a) The public availability of the 

information described in this subpart is 

a condition of participation in AV STEP. 

NHTSA will publish the information 

described in this subpart for each 

application and participation and 

update it on an ongoing basis. 

(b) The information published 

pursuant to this subpart reflects the 

information as reported to NHTSA by an 

applicant or participant. 

§ 597.701 Information for Publication. 

(a) Application Information. NHTSA 

will publish: 

(1) The following information 

regarding each application: 

(i) The date an application was 

received; 

(ii) The status of the application, 

including the phase and history of the 

Application Review Process as 

described in subpart D of this part; 

(iii) Whether the application requests 

an AV STEP exemption and, if so: 

(A) The type of exemption requested; 

(B) Each requirement of an FMVSS or 

bumper standard affected by the 

exemption; 

(C) A summary of risk mitigations, as 

required under § 597.202(a)(9); and 

(D) For an FMVSS Exemption, the 

purpose requested for the exemption. 

(iv) After review of an application 

concludes, the Final Determination 

Letter. 

(2) The following information from 

the Operational Baseline section of an 

application, as required by § 597.201: 

(i) The name of each applicant; 

(ii) The name of each Essential 

System-Level Stakeholder; 

(iii) The subject vehicle make, model, 

and model year; 

(iv) Unloaded vehicle weight; 

(v) Gross Vehicle Weight Rating; 

(vi) Claimed vehicle class; 

(vii) FMVSS certifying entity, if 

applicable; 

(viii) Whether an application includes 

the use of onboard fallback personnel 

and the number of such personnel per 

subject vehicle; 

(ix) Whether an application includes 

the use of remote driving and, if so, a 

summary of limitations in place on the 

use of remote driving, as required under 

§ 597.201(h)(3); 

(x) Whether an application includes 

the use of any remote fallback personnel 

who will not utilize remote driving; and 

(xi) Whether an application includes 

use of any remote or onboard vehicle 

assistance. 

(xii) Whether the subject vehicle(s) 

contain any features or design 

modifications that are intended to 

promote the safe accommodation of 

passengers with disabilities and, if so, a 

summary of the features or design 

modifications. 

(3) The application’s response to each 

of the following fields in each Location 

Sheet section of an application, as 

required by § 597.203: 

(i) Location Name; 

(ii) Location Limitation; 

(iii) Maximum Number of Vehicles 

Requested; 

(iv) Legal Speed Limits; 

(v) Vehicle Speeds; 

(vi) Public Ridership; 

(vii) Intended Use; and 

(viii) A summary of the operational 

design domain requested in an 

application. 

(4) A list of each standard, best 

practice, or guidance with which an 

independent assessment has determined 

full conformance in response to the 

requirements in § 597.205. 

(b) Participation Information. NHTSA 

will publish: 

(1) The following information 

regarding the status of each 

participation: 

(i) The date participation commenced; 

(ii) The current status of each 

Location Sheet in the participation, 

indicating whether subject vehicle 

operations are: 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
4190 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 9 / Wednesday, January 15, 2025 / Proposed Rules 

(A) Active. This status applies if any 

vehicle miles traveled were reported 

during the preceding reporting period 

under § 597.500(c)(5) of this part; 

(B) Inactive. This status applies if no 

vehicle miles traveled were reported 

during the preceding reporting period 

under § 597.500(c)(5) of this part or if a 

participant has otherwise notified 

NHTSA of a temporary stoppage of 

operations; 

(C) Suspended. This status applies if 

any subject vehicles are subject to a 

suspension under § 597.600 of this part; 

or 

(D) Concluded. This status applies if 

the term limit for participation has 

expired or if all participants have 

otherwise notified NHTSA of the 

conclusion of the operations. 

(iii) The date participation is 

scheduled to conclude or concluded, as 

applicable; and 

(iv) Any Amended Final 

Determination Letter, if applicable. 

(2) The following information from 

responses to the reporting requirements 

in § 597.500: 

(i) The number of subject vehicles 

operated on public roads during the 

reporting period for each Location 

Sheet; 

(ii) A list of zip codes in which 

subject vehicles operated on public 

roads during the reporting period; and 

(iii) The number and location of 

vehicle recovery events reported during 

the reporting period. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on December 

19, 2024, under authority delegated in 49 

CFR 1.95 and part 501. 

Adam Raviv, 

Chief Counsel. 

[FR Doc. 2024–30854 Filed 1–14–25; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2