`[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 9 (Wednesday, January 15, 2025)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 4130-4190]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-30854]



[[Page 4129]]

Vol. 90

Wednesday,

No. 9

January 15, 2025

Part III





 Department of Transportation





-----------------------------------------------------------------------





 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration





-----------------------------------------------------------------------





49 CFR Parts 595 and 597





ADS-Equipped Vehicle Safety, Transparency, and Evaluation Program; 
Proposed Rule

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

[[Page 4130]]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Parts 595 and 597

[Docket No. NHTSA-2024-0100]
RIN 2127-AM60


ADS-Equipped Vehicle Safety, Transparency, and Evaluation Program

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), 
Department of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This document proposes a voluntary framework for the 
evaluation and oversight of motor vehicles equipped with automated 
driving systems (ADS). The ADS-equipped Vehicle Safety, Transparency, 
and Evaluation Program (AV STEP) would establish a national program for 
ADS-equipped vehicles that operate or may operate on public roads in 
the United States under NHTSA's oversight with the goal of improving 
public transparency related to the safety of certain ADS-equipped 
vehicles, while allowing for responsible development of this 
technology. This proposal includes procedures for application, 
participation, public reporting, and program administration. It 
identifies content requirements for applications, including independent 
assessments of ADS safety processes, such as the safety cases used and 
conformance to industry standards. These application requirements will 
inform NHTSA's decisions on terms and conditions for participation. The 
proposal also contains reporting requirements for participants, 
including periodic and event-triggered reporting.

DATES: Comments are requested on or before March 17, 2025. In 
compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, NHTSA is also seeking 
comment on a new information collection. For additional information, 
see subsection D (Paperwork Reduction Act) under Section IX (Regulatory 
Notices and Analyses). All comments relating to the information 
collection requirements should be submitted to NHTSA and to the Office 
of Management and Budget (OMB) at the address listed in the ADDRESSES 
section on or before March 17, 2025.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments to the docket number identified in 
the heading of this document by any of the following methods:
     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: 
[email protected], or phone: (202) 366-7396. For legal issues: 
Hunter B. Oliver, Office of the Chief Counsel by email: 
[email protected], phone: (202) 366-8875. The mailing address for 
these officials is: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Executive Summary
II. Program Context
    A. How the Current ADS Technology Landscape Shaped This NPRM
    B. How NHTSA's Authorities Shaped This NPRM
    1. NHTSA's Mission and ADS Activity
    2. NHTSA Exemptions
III. Program Structure (Regulatory Text Subpart A)
    A. Program Eligibility
    B. Program Steps
    C. Terms and Conditions
IV. Application and Review (Regulatory Text Subparts B and D)
    A. Application Form
    1. Operational Baseline
    2. Location Sheet
    3. Confirmation of Reporting During Participation
    B. Protocols for ADS Operations
    1. Law Abidance
    2. System Fallback Response
    3. User and Surrounding Road User Interactions
    C. Data Governance Plan
    D. Independent Assessment
    1. Focus of Independent Assessment
    2. Summary Report Requirements
    3. Assessment Context Requirements
    4. Reliability and Credibility Disclosures
    E. Application Review
V. Participation (Regulatory Text Subparts E and F)
    A. Reporting Requirements
    1. Periodic Reporting
    2. Event-Triggered Reporting
    3. Update Reporting
    B. Agency Protocols
    1. Amendment Process
    2. Concern Resolution Process
VI. Public Reporting Requirements (Regulatory Text Subpart G)
VII. Requirements for AV STEP Exemptions (Regulatory Text Subpart C)
    A. Exemption Eligibility Requirements
    B. Exemption Application Requirements
    C. Exemption Participation Requirements
    D. Exemption Public Reporting
VIII. Public Comments
IX. Regulatory Notices and Analyses
    A. Executive Orders 12866, 13563, 14094 and DOT Regulatory 
Policies and Procedures
    1. Need for Regulation
    2. Uncertainties and Assumptions
    3. Costs
    4. Benefits
    5. Regulatory Approaches Considered
    B. National Environmental Policy Act
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
    D. Paperwork Reduction Act
    E. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)
    F. Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform)
    G. Executive Order 13609: Promoting International Regulatory 
Cooperation
    H. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
    I. Privacy Act
    J. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
    K. Regulation Identifier Number
    L. Plain Language
    M. Rule Summary

[[Page 4131]]

I. Executive Summary

    Automated driving systems (ADS) \1\ are evolving rapidly, posing 
challenges to vehicle manufacturers and the agency alike regarding the 
safety of the traveling public. It is important that ADS technology be 
deployed in a manner that protects the public from unreasonable safety 
risk while at the same time allowing for responsible development of 
this technology, which has the potential to advance safety. Under 
NHTSA's existing regulatory framework, which implements the National 
Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act),\2\ motor vehicle 
manufacturers may already deploy ADS-equipped vehicles on public roads, 
as long as they comply with existing Federal Motor Vehicle Safety 
Standards (FMVSS) and state and local laws.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Automated driving systems are systems developed (or being 
developed) to fully perform the driving task without any expectation 
of an attentive human driver. ADS-equipped vehicles are sometimes 
referred to as self-driving cars or autonomous vehicles. In 
contrast, driver support features (sometimes referred to as Advanced 
Driver Assistance Systems or ADAS), such as highway or parking 
assist features, must be continuously supervised by a human driver.
    \2\ 49 U.S.C. Ch. 301.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Many ADS operations take this approach, and the FMVSS do not 
currently set performance standards specifically for ADS. Vehicles that 
are compliant with all applicable FMVSS can generally be equipped with 
ADS technology without NHTSA approval. Alternatively, if an ADS-
equipped vehicle does not comply with all applicable FMVSS, exemptions 
may be requested from NHTSA. Past exemption requests involving ADS have 
typically involved purpose-built vehicles (those designed specifically 
for ADS operations).\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See 85 FR 7826, 7842 (February 11, 2020) (granting an 
exemption ``to the requirements that an LSV be equipped with 
exterior and/or interior mirrors; have a windshield that complies 
with FMVSS No. 205, `Glazing materials'; and a backup camera system 
that meets the requirement in FMVSS No. 111, `Rear visibility,' 
limiting the length of time that a rearview image can remain 
displayed by the system after a vehicle's transmission has been 
shifted out of reverse gear.'') NHTSA also publishes notices of 
receipt of exemption requests under 49 CFR part 555, which provide 
examples of other standards for which exemptions have been requested 
for ADS-equipped vehicles. See 89 FR 88856 (November 8, 2024); 87 FR 
43602, 43607 (July 21, 2022); 87 FR 43595 (July 21, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To account for this current ADS landscape, this document proposes a 
national program, entitled the ADS-equipped Vehicle Safety, 
Transparency, and Evaluation Program (AV STEP), designed to complement 
and further NHTSA's ADS oversight, rulemaking, research, and 
transparency efforts as well as to support new proposed processes for 
exemptions involving ADS-equipped vehicles. This voluntary program 
would provide NHTSA with a framework for reviewing and overseeing ADS-
equipped vehicles at a time when ADS technology continues to rapidly 
evolve.
    In the future, as ADS technologies mature, NHTSA anticipates there 
may be a need to establish minimum standards for ADS safety 
performance, much as NHTSA's existing FMVSS govern the performance of 
conventional vehicle systems and attributes. However, the data, 
methods, and metrics to support such standards do not yet exist. Many 
of the elements included in this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) 
are intended to help NHTSA obtain insight and data that could, in turn, 
support the future development of such standards. Pending such future 
developments, AV STEP would serve as a national program built for the 
evolving state of the technology, offering an interim boost to 
regulatory oversight and a process for motor vehicle manufacturers and 
other participants to build public trust by demonstrating a commitment 
to responsible safety practices, accountability, and transparency.
    As a voluntary program, AV STEP would be available to vehicle 
manufacturers, ADS developers, fleet operators, and system integrators 
of ADS-equipped vehicles seeking to operate on public roadways in the 
United States. NHTSA proposes AV STEP for two categories of ADS-
equipped vehicles: ADS-equipped vehicles in need of exemptions and ADS-
equipped vehicles that can lawfully operate on public roads today. For 
vehicles needing an exemption, AV STEP would offer an exemption pathway 
that is tailored for ADS-equipped vehicles (see Section VII 
(Requirements for AV STEP Exemptions (Regulatory Text Subpart C)) for 
additional details on the proposed exemption process). For all entities 
seeking participation in AV STEP (whether needing an exemption or not), 
the program would offer participants an opportunity to demonstrate 
their operational safety and their commitment to transparency for their 
vehicles and operations by engaging in a national program with well-
defined participation and reporting criteria focused on advancing 
safety.
    Under the proposed program, an applicant would provide NHTSA with 
information and data related to the safety of the design, development, 
and operations of ADS-equipped vehicles for their intended deployment 
under the program. NHTSA would review this information, engage with the 
applicant as needed to clarify or ask for additional information, and 
establish terms and conditions for participating in the program. Once 
admitted into AV STEP, a participant would be required to submit both 
periodic and event-triggered reports to NHTSA. To improve public 
transparency, the agency also proposes to publish much of the 
application and reporting information that NHTSA would receive.
    Acceptance into the program would be based on the sufficiency of 
information supplied and after coordination with an applicant about 
terms and conditions for participation. Acceptance into the program 
would reflect a determination by NHTSA that the applicant has provided 
evidence showing it followed well-documented engineering processes and 
has the needed technical, operational, and management resources in 
place to mitigate safety concerns. Acceptance into the program would 
not be an assurance of safety, a validation of the ADS technology, or a 
guarantee that the applicant will execute its operational oversight 
functions as described. NHTSA would continue to exercise its existing 
defect and investigation authorities as ADS-equipped vehicles are 
deployed on public roadways.
    As proposed, the program would be structured around two levels of 
participation: Step 1 and Step 2. Generally, Step 1 would apply to 
vehicles that rely on fallback personnel \4\ and Step 2 would apply to 
vehicles that do not rely on fallback personnel. The proposed 
participation requirements differ between these steps, as the approach 
to managing risk is significantly different in these two cases. In ADS 
operations that rely on fallback personnel, a human is expected to 
intervene to compensate for any deficiency in the ADS, whereas in 
operations that do not rely on fallback personnel, the ADS must be able 
to safely respond to all driving scenarios without such intervention.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ As used within this proposal, fallback personnel are 
specially trained individuals that continuously supervise the 
performance of prototype ADS-operated vehicles and intervene 
whenever necessary to prevent a hazardous event by exercising any 
means of vehicle control. The full definition of ``fallback 
personnel'' appears in Sec.  597.102 of the proposed rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    AV STEP would enhance public transparency and Federal oversight of 
ADS technologies to better understand and address emerging risks 
associated with their deployment. The agency proposes to examine 
applications for AV STEP in part through the use of an applicant's 
safety case, which would

[[Page 4132]]

need to contain structured arguments, supported by evidence, intended 
to justify that a system is acceptably safe for a given use in a 
specified environment. The safety case concept is commonly used in 
safety-critical products and industries such as aviation, energy 
(including nuclear), medical devices, and other technology sectors. An 
application for AV STEP would require an assessment of an applicant's 
safety case by an independent entity with specialized experience and 
expertise. This independent assessment would consider the holistic 
safety of ADS-equipped vehicles, spanning technical, organizational, 
and operational challenges relevant to safety decision-making. While 
currently available testing and evaluation methods cannot conclusively 
determine an ADS' safety, this approach would facilitate NHTSA's review 
of the engineering rigor and due diligence applied to a system's 
development and operation. It would also provide a proactive 
opportunity to identify and resolve any safety concerns.
    It is the agency's expectation that, by promoting a safer, more 
transparent, and more responsible environment for developing and 
deploying ADS in the United States, AV STEP will help foster the 
technological innovation and public confidence needed to advance ADS 
and the potentially significant safety benefits of the technology.

II. Program Context

    AV STEP would build on NHTSA's other ADS transparency, oversight, 
and research activities. The first subsection below describes how the 
program would fit into the current ADS technology landscape. The second 
subsection describes the legal authorities for the AV STEP proposal and 
the agency's other ADS activity taken pursuant to these authorities.

A. How the Current ADS Technology Landscape Shaped This NPRM

    Vehicle automation technologies, which include both ADS and 
advanced driver assistance systems (ADAS), have significantly 
transformed the automotive landscape over the last decade. Currently, 
the automation systems available to the public in consumer-owned 
vehicles are almost all driver support or convenience ADAS features, 
such as partial driving automation systems.\5\ For these features, the 
human driver remains responsible for supervising the system and must 
stay engaged and attentive.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Partial driving automation systems are described by SAE 
International (SAE) as executing ``both the lateral and longitudinal 
vehicle motion control subtasks of the [dynamic driving task] with 
the expectation that the driver . . . supervises the driving 
automation system.'' SAE International, ``J3016 APR2021: Taxonomy 
and Definitions for Terms Related to Driving Automation Systems for 
On-Road Motor Vehicles,'' (Revised April 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In contrast, an ADS is responsible for performing the entire 
dynamic driving task (DDT) \6\ while operating within the system's 
operational design domain (ODD),\7\ without any expectation that a 
human driver will be attentive. However, a human may still be expected 
to take over the driving task when the ADS exits its ODD or, during an 
ADS' development, to perform a safety oversight role, such as 
preventing the ADS from handling a situation incorrectly.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ This NPRM defines DDT in part as ``all of the real-time 
operational and tactical functions required to operate a vehicle in 
on-road traffic, excluding the strategic functions such as trip 
scheduling and selection of destinations and waypoints . . .'' See 
Sec.  597.102 of the proposed rule. This definition is largely 
derived from SAE International's definition. See SAE International, 
``J3016 APR2021: Taxonomy and Definitions for Terms Related to 
Driving Automation Systems for On-Road Motor Vehicles,'' (Revised 
April 2021).
    \7\ This NPRM defines ODD as ``the operating conditions under 
which the Automated Driving System or feature thereof is 
specifically designed to function, including, but not limited to, 
environmental, geographical, and time-of-day restrictions, and/or 
the requisite presence or absence of defined traffic or roadway 
characteristics.'' This definition is largely derived from SAE 
International's definition. See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NHTSA proposes to limit AV STEP eligibility to ADS-equipped 
vehicles. This scope allows focus on the unique complexities of ADS 
while most ADS operations are within the control of the companies 
responsible for their testing. Currently, very few ADS-equipped 
vehicles are available for purchase by the general public.\8\ Instead, 
almost all such vehicles are owned and operated by vehicle 
manufacturers, ADS developers, or fleet operators. Most of these 
vehicles remain in the testing and development stage. If they operate 
on public roads at all, they do so only in limited environments. 
Limited numbers of ADS-equipped vehicles are engaged in commercial 
applications, such as goods delivery platforms or mobility on demand 
operations.\9\ However, even those commercial applications remain 
largely under development and operate in limited environments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See, e.g., California Department of Motor Vehicle's 
announcement regarding its acceptance of Mercedes' DRIVE PILOT 
System, available at https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/news-and-media/california-dmv-approves-mercedes-benz-automated-driving-system-for-certain-highways-and-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.''
    \9\ Mobility on demand is used to refer to vehicles that are 
often colloquially referred to as robotaxis, or, as discussed in SAE 
J3016, ``robotic taxis.'' See SAE International, ``J3016 APR2021: 
Taxonomy and Definitions for Terms Related to Driving Automation 
Systems for On-Road Motor Vehicles,'' (Revised April 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This proposal recognizes that the potential of ADS is still largely 
unproven. ADS technologies have the potential to improve safety, 
advance sustainability, provide accessible transportation for people 
with disabilities, increase mobility options for underserved 
communities, and enhance American competitiveness. However, positive 
outcomes are not inevitable.\10\ The impact ADS may have in these areas 
and others, such as on the workforce and on the environment, will 
ultimately be the result of future engineering, deployment, policy, and 
other choices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ ADS are defined by their functionality rather than safety: 
``the hardware and software that are collectively capable of 
performing the entire [dynamic driving task] DDT on a sustained 
basis, regardless of whether it [the system] is limited to a 
specific operational design domain (ODD).'' SAE International, 
``J3016 APR2021: Taxonomy and Definitions for Terms Related to 
Driving Automation Systems for On-Road Motor Vehicles,'' (Revised 
April 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The capabilities and expectations of ADS are likely to evolve 
significantly in the coming years. Currently, ADS can handle narrowly 
defined environments, but often struggle with driving tasks that humans 
consider relatively simple. Routine occurrences, such as adverse 
weather, overgrown foliage, or road construction, can exceed the 
capabilities of even the most advanced versions of existing ADS. To 
reach broader deployment, the roadway scenarios and ODDs that ADS can 
reliably navigate will have to substantially expand.
    The tools used to develop and evaluate ADS will also need to 
mature. Currently, many different approaches exist within the 
automotive industry for designing, testing, and overseeing ADS 
operation. Industry standards, guidance documents, and best practices 
for ADS have been proposed and published but remain, collectively, in 
an early stage of establishment and implementation. Published standards 
are frequently updated to reflect the evolving state of the art, and 
while generalized performance metrics are sometimes included in these 
standards, they do not define specific measurement and analysis methods 
or acceptable value ranges. Given their new and evolving state, little 
evidence exists to prove that existing methods of evaluating ADS

[[Page 4133]]

technology are capable of ensuring safety. Instead, these industry 
approaches often aim to provide safety guidance, such as by 
recommending minimal content for safety decision-making frameworks or 
by detailing high-level vehicle behavior expectations.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ This issue has been referred to as a long-tail problem. 
See, e.g., Phillip Koopman, ``How Safe is Safe Enough: Measuring and 
Predicting Autonomous Vehicle Safety'' (2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Given this uncertain landscape, too little transparency exists 
about ADS operations on public roads in the United States. There is 
sparse public information about basic facts, such as the number of ADS-
equipped vehicles operating on public roads, the areas where those 
vehicles are operating, and attributes or limitations of the ADS that 
may affect other road users who interact with those vehicles. Publicly 
available information is often filtered through the companies that are 
proponents of their own technologies. Greater availability of objective 
information about ADS capabilities, operations, and outcomes would 
promote safety and more responsible growth of ADS technology.
    AV STEP's proposed application, review, oversight, and reporting 
would create a holistic framework for evaluating and overseeing an ADS-
equipped vehicle. To account for the current limits of performance-
based ADS safety evaluations, the proposed evaluations would focus on 
the robustness of safety decision-making during all stages of an ADS 
operation--from development of the ADS to system operations on public 
roads. Reporting during participation would include data elements that 
are designed to oversee how this safety decision-making affects real-
world safety performance. Collectively, these approaches would consider 
how comprehensively a company has identified the limits of its system, 
has accounted for risks likely to arise during operation, and is 
prepared to respond responsibly to problems encountered.
    The agency proposes to examine this safety decision-making through 
a review of an applicant's safety case. The independent assessment of a 
safety case included with an AV STEP application and subsequent NHTSA 
review would consider the holistic safety of ADS-equipped vehicle 
operations. While currently available methods cannot definitively 
conclude that an ADS is safe, this approach would facilitate review of 
the robustness of the safety practices employed during a system's 
development and operation. It would also provide a proactive 
opportunity to identify and resolve any safety concerns.
    The requirements for participating in AV STEP must be flexible 
enough to evolve as ADS technology evolves. To that end, the proposed 
independent assessment would consider industry consensus standards and 
best practices that exist at the time of an assessment. Likewise, the 
proposed ongoing reporting requirements would facilitate NHTSA's 
continued oversight of vehicle operations, and the proposed procedures 
would allow for review and changes in operations during participation. 
In addition, NHTSA proposes to tailor many of the reporting 
requirements to the specific systems under review, to evaluate and 
account for the current diversity in approaches to ADS.
    AV STEP is also designed to increase the amount of publicly 
available information about ADS operations in the United States. This 
proposal includes two program steps based on the competency of an ADS. 
NHTSA proposes to publish regularly on the agency's website a list of 
applicants and participants in the program, along with details 
regarding the scope and status of each operation. This publication 
would increase the public's awareness and understanding of ADS 
operations on public roads.

B. How NHTSA's Authorities Shaped This NPRM

    NHTSA proposes AV STEP as a national program available for two 
categories of vehicles. The first category consists of vehicles that 
can lawfully operate on public roads regardless of participation in AV 
STEP, as long as they comply with all other Federal, state, and local 
laws. These vehicles include those that are compliant with and 
certified to all applicable FMVSS, those that have received exemptions 
under other NHTSA programs, and those that may operate on public roads 
under 49 U.S.C. 30112(b)(10).\12\ The second category consists of 
vehicles that seek an exemption from NHTSA through AV STEP. Under this 
proposal, vehicles that do not comply with all applicable FMVSS or 
those that originally complied but are taken out of compliance by an 
ADS retrofit could seek exemptions through AV STEP. This section 
discusses how NHTSA's authorities and other ADS work support both of 
these categories of participation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ This provision is described further later in this section.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. NHTSA's Mission and ADS Activity
    The establishment of a national program for ADS-equipped vehicles 
stems from NHTSA's authority under the Safety Act,\13\ in addition to 
other statutory authorities. Under 49 U.S.C 322(a), ``[t]he Secretary 
of Transportation may prescribe regulations to carry out the duties and 
powers of the Secretary.'' The Safety Act and other statutes provide 
NHTSA, by delegation, with authority relating to oversight, rulemaking, 
research, transparency, and exemptions. See, e.g., 49 U.S.C. 30101(b) 
(noting need ``to prescribe motor vehicle safety standards'' and 
``carry out . . . safety research and development''); Section 30111 
(authority to ``prescribe motor vehicle safety standards''); Section 
30112 (restricting the activities of vehicles that do not comply with 
applicable vehicle standards or that contain a defect); Section 30114 
(authority to issue FMVSS exemptions for particular purposes); Section 
30122 (authority to issue exemptions from the make inoperative 
prohibition); and Section 30182 (authority to ``conduct motor vehicle 
safety research, develop, and testing programs and activities, 
including activities related to new and emerging technologies that 
impact or may impact motor vehicle safety'').\14\ This authority forms 
the foundation for AV STEP. The remainder of this subsection explains 
how AV STEP carries out each of these authorities, as well as how AV 
STEP fits into NHTSA's broader regulatory activities pertaining to ADS 
technologies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ These duties are generally set forth in 49 U.S.C. chapter 
301.
    \14\ See also 49 CFR 1.95 (delegating to the National Highway 
Traffic Safety Administrator ``the authority vested in the Secretary 
under chapter[ ] 301 . . .''), and 49 CFR 1.81 (``each Administrator 
is authorized to . . . (3) Exercise the authority vested in the 
Secretary to prescribe regulations under 49 U.S.C. 322(a) with 
respect to statutory provisions for which authority is delegated by 
other sections in this part'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(a) Oversight and Transparency
    AV STEP would carry out NHTSA's authorities relating to oversight 
and transparency by increasing the amount of information available to 
NHTSA about ADS-equipped vehicles, including for those vehicles that 
are already operating on public roads. Under the regulatory framework 
established by the Safety Act, NHTSA's review and approval is not 
needed for most current ADS operations on public roads. The Safety Act 
generally requires vehicles to comply with (and be certified as 
complying with) all applicable FMVSS

[[Page 4134]]

and to be free of safety defects.\15\ Once a manufacturer self-
certifies that a vehicle meets all applicable FMVSS, it may sell the 
vehicle or operate it on public roads without further action from 
NHTSA. A manufacturer may also equip the vehicle with additional 
technologies not subject to an FMVSS, as long as the technologies do 
not pose an unreasonable risk to safety or take the vehicle out of 
compliance with an applicable FMVSS.\16\ The FMVSS do not currently set 
performance standards specifically for ADS, and compliant vehicles can 
generally be equipped with ADS technologies without NHTSA approval. 
Many ADS operations already occur on public roads in the United States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See, e.g., 49 U.S.C. 30112.
    \16\ See 49 U.S.C. 30118, 30122.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the 2015 Fixing America's Surface Transportation 
(FAST) Act added a provision to Section 30112 permitting certain 
entities to test or evaluate noncompliant vehicles on public roads, as 
long as they do not sell those vehicles or offer them for sale once the 
testing or evaluation concludes.\17\ Entities eligible to conduct these 
testing or evaluation operations are those that had manufactured and 
distributed certified vehicles in the United States (as well as 
satisfied other information requirements in NHTSA's regulations) by the 
date of the FAST Act's enactment, December 4, 2015. Some manufacturers 
have relied on this provision to test noncompliant ADS-equipped 
vehicles on public roads.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Because most ADS operations do not need NHTSA's upfront approval, 
the agency's oversight of the ADS in those vehicles primarily occurs 
once they are operating. Specifically, NHTSA enforces the general duty 
of vehicle and equipment manufacturers to recall and remedy vehicles 
and equipment--including ADS or ADS-equipped vehicles--if they contain 
a defect that poses an unreasonable risk to motor vehicle safety. To 
exercise this oversight on ADS and ADS-equipped vehicles, NHTSA relies 
on access to information about ADS and their operations.\18\ NHTSA uses 
this information to monitor for ADS defects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See 49 U.S.C. 30166.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To ensure that NHTSA has access to the information necessary to 
exercise its oversight authority, the Safety Act expressly includes 
information-gathering authorities.\19\ NHTSA's traditional information-
gathering tools apply to ADS in much the same way as any other item of 
motor vehicle equipment.\20\ In recent years, NHTSA has overseen 
recalls for ADS \21\ and undertaken defects and compliance 
investigations into ADS.\22\ NHTSA has also imposed standing reporting 
requirements for ADS crashes through a Standing General Order 
(SGO),\23\ which requires identified manufacturers and operators to 
report certain crashes involving vehicles equipped with ADS to the 
agency. SGO reporting has led to hundreds of crash reports involving 
ADS operations, with many of those prompting NHTSA follow-up review. AV 
STEP would supplement SGO information through additional reporting 
requirements for participation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See id.
    \20\ See 81 FR 65705, 65707 (September 23, 2016) (explaining 
that ADS is motor vehicle equipment).
    \21\ See Pony.ai, ``Part 573 Safety Recall Report, No. 22E-
016,'' (March 3, 2022), available at 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/RCLRPT-22E072-8020.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.
    \22\ See, e.g., NHTSA, ``ODI Resume: Preliminary Evaluation PE 
22-014'' (December 12, 2022); NHTSA, ``ODI Resume: Recall Query RQ 
22-001'' (Recall 22E-016) (April 10, 2022); and NHTSA, ``ODI Resume: 
Audit Query AQ 23-001'' (March 3, 2023), available at https://static.nhtsa.gov/odi/inv/2023/INOA-AQ23001-2603.PDF.
    \23\ NHTSA, ``In re: Second Amended Standing General Order 2021-
01: Incident Reporting for Automated Driving Systems (ADS) and Level 
2 Advanced Driver Assistance Systems (ADAS)'' (April 5, 2023), 
available at https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.gov/files/2023-04/Second-Amended-SGO-2021-01_2023-04-05_2.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    However, by their nature, crash reporting and follow-up 
investigations are principally reactive, as a problem has already 
caused a crash before any reporting occurs. AV STEP aims to complement 
these efforts by adding an earlier layer of agency oversight for 
participating ADS-equipped vehicles. AV STEP would help NHTSA 
proactively identify safety concerns by proposing upfront submission 
requirements on the design and capabilities of an ADS and ongoing 
performance reporting during operations.
    In addition, AV STEP also aims to increase the amount of 
information publicly available about ADS operations. In doing so, AV 
STEP would further NHTSA's longstanding goal to promote awareness of 
matters related to motor vehicle safety. NHTSA has a history of doing 
so through a variety of information programs, such as recall 
awareness,\24\ motor vehicle labeling requirements,\25\ and driver 
behavior education.\26\ This charge to increase public awareness of 
motor vehicle safety extends to advanced vehicle technologies as 
well,\27\ and NHTSA has undertaken initiatives to publicize information 
about vehicle automation, such as by publishing SGO crash reporting, 
developing an interactive online tool through the Automated Vehicle 
Transparency and Engagement for Safe Testing (AV TEST) Initiative,\28\ 
and publishing Voluntary Safety Self-Assessments (VSSAs) submitted by 
entities engaged in ADS operations.\29\ NHTSA has designed this NPRM to 
build on these efforts through proposals to publish information about 
AV STEP applications and participations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ See 49 U.S.C. 30118; 49 CFR part 577.
    \25\ See 49 U.S.C. chapter 323; 49 CFR part 575.
    \26\ See generally NHTSA, ``Research & Evaluation: Behavioral 
Research,'' available at https://www.nhtsa.gov/behavioral-research.
    \27\ See 49 U.S.C. 32302(e) (directing NHTSA to develop ``a 
means for providing to consumers information relating to advanced 
crash-avoidance technologies''). See also 87 FR 13452 (March 9, 
2022).
    \28\ AV TEST is an interactive tool that lets the public view 
voluntarily submitted information about automated vehicle 
operations. See NHTSA, ``Automated Vehicle Transparency and 
Engagement for Safe Testing (AV TEST) Initiative,'' available at 
https://www.nhtsa.gov/automated-vehicle-test-tracking-tool.
    \29\ NHTSA, ``Automated Driving Systems: Voluntary Safety Self-
Assessment,'' available at https://www.nhtsa.gov/automated-driving-systems/voluntary-safety-self-assessment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(b) Rulemaking and Research
    AV STEP also proposes to implement NHTSA's research and rulemaking 
authorities under the Safety Act. Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30111, NHTSA 
(as delegated from the Secretary of Transportation) ``shall prescribe 
motor vehicle safety standards.'' The Safety Act requires these FMVSS 
to be ``practicable, meet the need for motor vehicle safety, and be 
stated in objective terms.'' \30\ When developing an FMVSS, the agency 
must, among other things, ``consider relevant available motor vehicle 
safety information'' and ``consider whether a proposed standard is 
reasonable, practicable, and appropriate for the particular type of 
motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment for which it is prescribed.'' 
\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ 49 U.S.C. 30111(a).
    \31\ 49 U.S.C. 30111(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As a result, when developing an FMVSS, NHTSA builds on extensive 
research about the aspect of vehicle performance at issue, including 
the extent to which a standard would drive positive safety outcomes and 
present objective requirements for regulated entities. Accordingly, 
Congress established a policy directing the agency to ``conduct 
research, development, and testing on any area or aspect of motor

[[Page 4135]]

vehicle safety necessary to carry out [chapter 301]'' of Title 49.\32\ 
This charge extends to advanced vehicle technologies. In the Moving 
Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act,\33\ Congress instructed the 
Secretary to ``[c]onduct motor vehicle safety research, development, 
and testing programs and activities, including activities related to 
new and emerging technologies that impact or may impact motor vehicle 
safety'' \34\ and to ``[c]ollect and analyze all types of motor vehicle 
and highway safety data'' relating to motor vehicle performance and 
crashes.\35\ This authority to carry out research includes programs 
that entail engagement and collaboration with third parties.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ See 49 U.S.C. 30181. This chapter includes NHTSA's core 
authorities for prescribing motor vehicle safety standards (Section 
30111), adjudicating general and special exemptions to those 
standards (Sections 30113 and 30114), evaluating the existence of 
unreasonable risks to motor vehicle safety (Section 30116 et seq.), 
overseeing the importation of motor vehicles (Section 30141 et 
seq.), and securing enforcement of these authorities (Section 30161 
et seq.). Sec. 
    \33\ See Public Law 112-141 (2012).
    \34\ See 49 U.S.C. 30182(a). Subsection 30182(b) specifies 
activities NHTSA may undertake in carrying out subsection (a).
    \35\ NHTSA, 83 FR 50872, 50876 (October 10, 2018).
    \36\ See 49 U.S.C. 30182(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to other rulemaking activity regarding ADS, NHTSA has 
already begun the process of assessing how ADS may be affected by both 
existing and future FMVSS requirements.\37\ For example, in 2022, NHTSA 
published a final rule that amended certain occupant protection FMVSS 
to account for future vehicles that would not have traditional manual 
controls associated with a human driver because they are equipped with 
ADS. This rulemaking work is supported by NHTSA's research portfolio, 
which spans a range of ADS safety topics and is the outgrowth of 
widespread coordination within DOT and with stakeholders. The agency 
publishes an Annual Modal Research Plan (AMRP) that summarizes its 
research priorities.\38\ The agency also recently published a Report to 
Congress that provides a more detailed discussion of NHTSA's ADS 
research program.\39\ NHTSA's ADS research portfolio aims to advance 
the body of knowledge on ADS-equipped vehicles, including their real-
world performance, as well as explore the technical challenges 
associated with the safe testing and deployment of ADS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ Information about NHTSA's full array of regulatory actions, 
including those pertaining to vehicle automation technologies, can 
be found within the biannually released Unified Agenda. See Office 
of Information and Regulatory Affairs, ``Unified Agenda of 
Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions,'' available at https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/eAgendaMain.
    \38\ NHTSA, ``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.
    \39\ NHTSA, ``Report to Congress: Automated Vehicles'' (2023), 
available at https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.gov/files/2023-06/Automated-Vehicles-Report-to-Congress-06302023.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    AV STEP is designed to complement these research goals in support 
of future ADS rulemaking efforts. Given the nascent state of ADS 
technology, many of the metrics for evaluating ADS safety are new, 
limited, or under development. This AV STEP proposal would enable NHTSA 
to consider the effectiveness of such metrics for evaluating ADS safety 
by exploring their value to automotive safety, and in turn would help 
NHTSA identify data elements that could form effective oversight tools 
or be integrated into future FMVSS.\40\ To that end, the AV STEP 
proposal would provide NHTSA with in-depth access to information about 
the development and operations of ADS technology as it continues to 
evolve.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ 49 U.S.C. 30111.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. NHTSA Exemptions
    NHTSA proposes to use AV STEP to administer requests for exemptions 
of ADS-equipped vehicles under two statutory provisions: 49 U.S.C. 
30114(a) and 49 U.S.C. 30122(c). This proposal would not replace any of 
NHTSA's existing exemption processes, which would remain available for 
any eligible vehicles, including those equipped with ADS. Instead, AV 
STEP would establish a streamlined way to seek exemptions through a 
framework expressly designed for ADS-equipped vehicles. This proposal 
would establish a new framework for ADS-equipped vehicles to seek 
Section 30114(a) and Section 30122(c) exemptions.
(a) Section 30114(a) Exemptions
    With AV STEP, NHTSA proposes to carry out the agency's special 
exemption authority to administer FMVSS exemptions in 49 U.S.C. 
30114(a). This statutory authority permits NHTSA to grant special 
exemptions to ``vehicles used for particular purposes.'' Specifically, 
NHTSA ``may exempt a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment 
from Section 30112(a) of this title on terms [it] decides are necessary 
for research, investigations, demonstrations, training, competitive 
racing events, show, or display.'' This proposed exemption process 
would not replace NHTSA's existing two FMVSS exemption processes, as 
described below. However, in administering those two exemption 
processes, NHTSA has observed that both the frequency and complexity of 
ADS exemption requests continue to grow as the technology progresses.
    Those two exemption processes were designed to handle any type of 
FMVSS exemption that NHTSA receives, originally for traditional 
vehicles that do not utilize automation. ADS technologies entail an 
array of unique safety and oversight considerations compared to 
traditional automotive components. As a result, NHTSA believes that an 
exemption process designed from the ground up to account for these 
unique considerations could enhance the agency's administration of 
exemptions that involve ADS, such as through improved oversight and 
efficiency. As described below, NHTSA's two existing exemption 
processes would also remain available for ADS-equipped vehicles and may 
provide advantages for certain types of operations. However, NHTSA 
believes that the current ADS landscape warrants the availability of a 
dedicated exemption process for ADS-equipped vehicles, and the 
existence of this process would also better equip NHTSA for the 
potential growth of ADS technology in the future.
    By creating a pathway specifically designed for ADS-equipped 
vehicles, NHTSA proposes to use many of the principles that have proven 
effective under NHTSA's other exemption programs that implement Section 
30114(a). NHTSA currently administers Section 30114(a) through two 
programs: (1) exemptions for vehicles imported for purposes of show or 
display \41\ and (2) the Temporary Import Exemption (TIE) program, 
which administers Section 30114(a) exemptions for vehicles requesting 
importation for purposes of research, investigation, demonstrations, 
training, or competitive racing events.\42\ In 2016, the TIE program 
processed the first Section 30114(a) exemption for an ADS-equipped 
vehicle. In 2018, NHTSA

[[Page 4136]]

developed the ADS-equipped Vehicle Exemption Program (AVEP), within the 
TIE program, to process the increasing number of Section 30114(a) 
exemption requests for the importation of ADS-equipped vehicles. This 
number of requests has continued to grow since then, both in number and 
complexity. Since the first ADS exemption request in 2016 to the end of 
2023, NHTSA permitted 293 imported ADS-equipped vehicles to operate in 
249 projects across 25 states. The last several years have accounted 
for much of this activity: between 2020 to the end of 2023, NHTSA 
permitted 222 imported ADS-equipped vehicles to operate in 194 projects 
across 23 states.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ See generally, NHTSA, ``How to Import a Motor Vehicle for 
Show or Display'' (October 15, 2012), available at https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.gov/files/documents/how_to_import_show_display_10152012-tag.pdf.
    \42\ TIE is often colloquially known as NHTSA's Box 7 program, a 
reference to the numbered box associated with this exemption on the 
HS-7 Declaration form used during the importation process. See 
generally, NHTSA, ``Temporary Importation of a Motor Vehicle Under 
Box 7 on the HS-7 Form,'' available at https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.gov/files/documents/box7_form_111920_v3_secured.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Many of the requirements proposed for AV STEP build on AVEP 
processes or apply the agency's experience from that program. Like the 
proposed AV STEP process, AVEP uses an iterative review process that 
considers the safety of the ADS along with the overall safety of the 
vehicle and the purposes for which the exemption is requested. This 
process culminates in terms and conditions in an exemption letter, 
which govern the exempted vehicles' operation. This proposal does not 
intend to replace AVEP. However, just as NHTSA's Section 30114(a) 
review process evolved to establish AVEP shortly after ADS exemption 
requests began, the increasing complexity of ADS exemption requests 
merits the development of another framework. NHTSA proposes for AV STEP 
to meet this need through a more comprehensive application and 
participation framework designed specifically for larger and more 
complex ADS operations.
    In general, AVEP exemptions do not cover large numbers of vehicles, 
with many of those exemptions covering only a single vehicle. AVEP 
vehicles often operate on a fixed route expressly approved by NHTSA in 
a permission letter. As a result, NHTSA's review of an AVEP application 
often involves a detailed turn-by-turn review of the route. NHTSA 
receives much of the information about the vehicle's ADS in response to 
follow-up questions that arise during review of an application. 
Likewise, unique terms and reporting requirements are often developed 
for each operation. The AVEP review and participation process is 
iterative, and companies often need to request amendments for even 
minor changes to a permission, such as requesting to add a turn or stop 
to a route.
    The AVEP process has proven an effective way to oversee small 
numbers of vehicles. Because its processes are tailored to each 
exemption, AVEP also offers a flexible program that reduces the burden 
on companies who seek smaller-scale importation exemptions. If AV STEP 
is finalized, NHTSA expects many companies would still choose to use 
the AVEP process, especially for vehicles that are tested in small 
numbers, such as early prototypes.
    However, AVEP's detailed, iterative process is less efficient for 
larger operations. The AV STEP proposal accounts for this by adapting 
many of the safety lessons learned from AVEP into processes that are 
capable of administering and overseeing exemptions at scale. For 
instance, aspects of this proposal--such as the independent assessment, 
application review procedures, and reporting on updates to operations--
aim to make reviewing evolving operations with growing numbers of 
vehicles or routes more manageable. In turn, AV STEP should help NHTSA 
process and oversee complex ADS exemptions more efficiently.
    Apart from Section 30114(a), NHTSA also administers exemptions to 
ADS-equipped vehicles under 49 U.S.C. 30113. These exemptions are 
implemented in NHTSA's regulations in 49 CFR part 555. Compared to 
Section 30114(a), companies have not used Section 30113 exemptions as 
frequently for ADS-equipped vehicles. NHTSA has received fewer than 
five part 555 exemption requests for ADS-equipped vehicles, with only 
one of those to date receiving an exemption.\43\ The terms and 
conditions on the sole ADS exemption issued under part 555 were 
significantly influenced by terms that NHTSA developed for AVEP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Exemptions issued under Section 30113 are for more general purposes 
than exemptions issued under Section 30114(a). Vehicles receiving them 
do not need to meet one of the specific purposes enumerated in Section 
30114(a) and, absent restrictions placed by NHTSA, can be more broadly 
introduced into interstate commerce. In general, each vehicle 
manufactured under a Section 30113 exemption retains the exemption in 
perpetuity. Such a broader exemption is warranted because a vehicle 
that receives an exemption under Section 30113 must meet one of several 
express statutory standards, such as proving that the vehicle's 
``overall level of safety is at least equal to the overall safety level 
of the nonexempt vehicles.'' \44\ Thus, even if AV STEP exists, NHTSA 
expects that some manufacturers will elect to use Section 30113 for 
their ADS-equipped vehicles, especially if ADS technologies mature to 
the point that more entities consider equipping them on vehicles 
intended for sale.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    As a result, AV STEP would complement existing Section 30113 and 
Section 30114(a) exemption processes to create a comprehensive NHTSA 
FMVSS exemption portfolio, with each process offering advantages for 
certain types of ADS-equipped vehicle use cases. Entities requesting 
exemptions for imported vehicles in early development stages would 
likely request exemptions through AVEP, due to its flexibility and 
potential to reach quicker decisions for limited-scope projects.\45\ AV 
STEP would provide an exemption process designed for ADS-equipped 
vehicles--regardless of whether they are imported--that are in later or 
final stages of development but still within the control of essential 
stakeholders. Given their more developed state, vehicles in AV STEP 
could begin to engage in some types of commercial operations as long as 
that commercialization did not undermine the public purposes for which 
the exemption was issued. Finally, manufacturers in need of exemptions 
for their ADS-equipped vehicles that have reached a more mature 
development state may prefer part 555, especially if the vehicle is 
designed for sale. In this way, AV STEP would fill the need for an 
FMVSS exemption suited for the current interim stage of ADS technology 
development. NHTSA specifically requests comment on how the proposed AV 
STEP exemptions would likely be utilized in comparison to NHTSA's other 
exemption programs, as well as on how best to design AV STEP to 
complement those other exemptions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ Although this process is currently only for imported 
vehicles, NHTSA is undertaking a rulemaking to create an equivalent 
exemption option for vehicles manufactured in the United States. See 
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, ``Unified Agenda of 
Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions,'' RIN 2127-AM14: Expansion of 
Temporary Exemption Program to Domestic Manufacturers for Research, 
Demonstrations, and Other Purposes. This issue is discussed further 
in Section VII (Requirements for AV STEP Exemptions (Regulatory Text 
Subpart C)) of this NPRM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(b) Section 30122(c) Exemptions
    NHTSA proposes to allow exemptions under Section 30122, which 
generally prohibits activities that take a previously compliant vehicle 
out of compliance with the FMVSS.\46\ NHTSA

[[Page 4137]]

is authorized to prescribe regulations for Make Inoperative Exemptions 
as long as those exemptions are consistent with motor vehicle safety 
and with 49 U.S.C. 30101, which is the Safety Act's general purpose and 
policy statement.\47\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ See 49 U.S.C. 30122(b) (``A manufacturer, distributor, 
dealer, rental company, or motor vehicle repair business may not 
knowingly make inoperative any part of a device or element of design 
installed on or in a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment in 
compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard'').
    \47\ See 49 U.S.C. 30122(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NHTSA has carried out this authority through regulations that 
govern specific situations where making certain safety devices 
inoperable, such as airbags, is permissible.\48\ For instance, NHTSA's 
regulations create procedures for invoking the exemption to ``install 
retrofit air bag on-off switches and to otherwise modify motor vehicles 
to enable people with disabilities to operate or ride as a passenger in 
a motor vehicle.'' \49\ Part 595 was most recently updated in 2024 to 
allow law enforcement vehicles to be modified in a way that deactivates 
an automatic emergency braking system required by 49 CFR 571.127, 
S5.4.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \48\ 49 CFR part 595 (Make Inoperative Exemptions).
    \49\ 49 CFR 595.2; see also 87 FR 14406 (March 15, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed Make Inoperative Exemption in AV STEP would continue 
NHTSA's practice of exempting specific situations where the general 
make inoperative prohibition may not account for unique vehicle needs. 
Engagement with stakeholders on how ADS technology relates to NHTSA's 
authorities has repeatedly raised the possibility that equipping an 
FMVSS-certified vehicle with an ADS may implicate the make inoperative 
prohibition in Section 30122.
    NHTSA's 2022 Final Rule on Occupant Protection for Vehicles With 
Automated Driving Systems discussed comments that raised hypothetical 
situations where ADS modifications to a vehicle may relate to the make 
inoperative prohibition.\50\ Questions about how the make inoperative 
prohibition in Section 30122 affects ADS equipment will likely persist 
over the coming years, particularly as NHTSA promulgates new FMVSS that 
govern the performance of vehicle automation features.\51\ NHTSA has 
also explored the relationship between Section 30122 and ADS-equipped 
vehicles--including the use of exemptions under Section 30122(c)--in 
past regulatory notices.\52\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \50\ NHTSA, 87 FR 18560, 18571 n.36 (September 26, 2022).
    \51\ See, e.g., 89 FR 39686 (May 9, 2024).
    \52\ See NHTSA, 83 FR 50872, 50882 (October 10, 2018) 
(requesting comment on: what role could a pilot program play in 
determining when to grant an exemption from the make inoperative 
prohibition under Section 30122 for certain dual mode vehicles).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NHTSA takes no position in this rulemaking on the effect of the 
make inoperative prohibition in Section 30122 on ADS equipment or 
associated aftermarket modifications. The AV STEP framework would 
enable NHTSA to address this issue by providing a set of procedures to 
govern the review and oversight of make inoperative exemptions for ADS-
equipped vehicles.
    The AV STEP Make Inoperative Exemption is proposed pursuant to 
NHTSA's authority in Section 30122(c). The proposed AV STEP framework 
would further the purposes of the Safety Act in carrying out NHTSA's 
oversight, rulemaking, research, and transparency authorities, as 
explained previously in this section. The AV STEP framework is designed 
to help NHTSA identify potential safety issues with an ADS and to 
oversee its performance during the course of program participation. 
These review and oversight procedures would help NHTSA assess the 
statutory criteria for such an exemption.
    Exemptions to the make inoperative provision are codified in 49 CFR 
part 595. NHTSA proposes to add a new subsection in part 595 that 
incorporates the proposed procedures for AV STEP that would be codified 
in the new part 597. In addition, NHTSA proposes to amend the Purpose 
and Applicability subsections in part 595 so that they encompass all of 
the exemptions set forth in the part.
    The discussion in this preamble is generally organized around the 
sequence in which an entity would engage with AV STEP. The first 
section below (Section III) explains the threshold requirements for AV 
STEP, including eligibility and required terms and conditions for all 
participants. Sections IV through VI provide an overview of the 
application process, the participation stage, and the information that 
NHTSA proposes to make public regarding both applications and 
participations. These aspects of AV STEP would all apply across the 
entirety of the program, while Section VII outlines proposals specific 
to AV STEP exemptions. For reader convenience, NHTSA includes reference 
to the associated subparts of the proposed regulatory text in the 
headings for each of these sections.
    In past exercises of its authorities, NHTSA has often implemented 
standalone voluntary or exemption programs analogous to AV STEP's 
various components, and NHTSA intends that the components of the 
proposal be severable. AV STEP is proposed as a national framework that 
encompasses three independent structural components: (1) a voluntary 
program for compliant vehicles; (2) a process for administering FMVSS 
exemptions; and (3) a process for administering exemptions from the 
make inoperative prohibition. As explained in this proposal, each of 
these structural elements stems from independent NHTSA authorities 
under the Safety Act. Although NHTSA believes that AV STEP offers an 
opportunity to combine all three of these elements into a national 
framework, as the proposal explains, each of these structural elements 
has independent value.

III. Program Structure (Regulatory Text Subpart A)

    This section explains the threshold requirements for AV STEP, such 
as those relating to eligibility and the required terms and conditions 
for all participants. AV STEP would be available to vehicles that can 
lawfully operate on public roads without AV STEP, as well as those that 
would need one of the two types of exemptions proposed in this NPRM.
    In several places, this document proposes unique requirements for 
AV STEP exemptions to account for their particular attributes. However, 
in general, the proposed requirements for AV STEP are the same 
regardless of whether a subject vehicle needs an AV STEP exemption. 
Keeping these requirements consistent would further the continuity of 
the program, reduce confusion for potential applicants and the public 
about what participation entails, and simplify NHTSA's administration 
of the program. When developing these proposed requirements, NHTSA 
sought to make program application and participation requirements 
stringent enough to require meaningful commitments to safety while also 
making them feasible for participating entities. Participation in AV 
STEP, as proposed, would be valuable both for vehicles that need one of 
the AV STEP exemptions and for entities choosing voluntary 
participation.
    NHTSA's experience suggests that a variety of incentives may exist 
for entities to voluntarily participate in AV STEP. Voluntary programs 
have historically played an important role in advancing automotive 
safety, particularly for advanced vehicle technologies. Recent examples 
include voluntary industry commitments to equip vehicles with specific 
safety technologies,\53\ the submission of

[[Page 4138]]

VSSAs to NHTSA by entities engaged in ADS testing and deployment,\54\ 
the participation of entities engaged in ADS testing in NHTSA's AV TEST 
Initiative,\55\ and the participation of vehicle manufacturers in the 
Partnership for Analytics Research in Traffic Safety.\56\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \53\ NHTSA, ``NHTSA Announces Update to Historic AEB Commitment 
by 20 Automakers'' (December 17, 2019), available at https://www.nhtsa.gov/press-releases/nhtsa-announces-update-historic-aeb-commitment-20-automakers.
    \54\ NHTSA, ``Automated Driving Systems: Voluntary Safety Self-
Assessment,'' available at https://www.nhtsa.gov/automated-driving-systems/voluntary-safety-self-assessment.
    \55\ NHTSA, ``AV TEST Initiative: Automated Vehicle Transparency 
and Engagement for Safe Testing Initiative,'' available at https://www.nhtsa.gov/automated-vehicle-test-tracking-tool.
    \56\ NHTSA, ``PARTS: Partnership for Analytics Research in 
Traffic Safety,'' available at https://www.nhtsa.gov/parts-partnership-for-analytics-research-in-traffic-safety.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The extent and nature of the incentives for entities to participate 
in AV STEP may depend on the entity and the type of operation. NHTSA 
believes that companies that strive to develop and implement robust 
safety practices will understand that AV STEP participation entails a 
public commitment to safety, transparency, and the continuous 
refinement of their ADS operations. Public trust is often difficult to 
establish for ADS operations, particularly given that incidents 
involving ADS-equipped vehicles receive significant negative attention. 
Within this climate, some entities may see AV STEP as an opportunity to 
demonstrate their commitment to transparency and willingness to subject 
their safety decision-making to external scrutiny.
    Other entities that engage with ADS operations may find value in 
the review and oversight that would be conducted by NHTSA through AV 
STEP. Examples of these types of entities could include state or local 
authorities that regulate ADS, insurers of ADS-equipped vehicles, 
entities providing grants for ADS projects, or business partners, such 
as goods delivery services looking to partner with an ADS company. 
These third-party relationships could motivate companies to participate 
in AV STEP even if their vehicles could lawfully operate without the 
program.
    As participation in the program grows, competitive forces may 
motivate other companies to participate. Accounting for these potential 
incentives for voluntary participation, as well as the clear incentives 
that would exist for entities in need of exemptions, the proposed AV 
STEP requirements balance the value of encouraging participation with 
the need to ensure that participation requirements are meaningful. 
NHTSA requests comment on how this proposal strikes that balance.

A. Program Eligibility

    This proposal is designed to oversee ADS-equipped vehicles under 
the control of motor vehicle manufacturers, ADS developers (i.e., 
manufacturers of ADS, which is motor vehicle equipment), fleet 
operators, or system integrators that plan to engage in public road 
operations where the ADS will perform the driving task.\57\ Section 
597.103 of the proposed rule contains the following eligibility 
requirements:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \57\ For this NPRM's definition of these terms, see Sec.  
597.102 of the proposed rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Vehicle Eligibility. NHTSA proposes two eligibility requirements 
for vehicles participating in AV STEP. First, the vehicles must be 
equipped with an ADS being used or developed for operation without an 
expectation of an attentive human driver (whether in-vehicle or remote) 
while engaged. Second, the ADS equipped on such vehicles must perform 
the entirety of the DDT for all or part of the participating 
operations. These vehicle eligibility criteria focus on the ultimate 
design intent of the system.\58\ Although these eligibility criteria 
are not tied to any preexisting taxonomy for vehicle automation, for 
illustration purposes, under the current SAE International levels of 
driving automation, these eligibility criteria could apply to certain 
vehicles operating at SAE Levels 3, 4, or 5.\59\ The proposal does not 
extend AV STEP eligibility to partial driving automation systems, also 
known as SAE Level 2 ADAS. Excluding such systems optimizes AV STEP to 
address ADS' unique safety considerations and complexities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \58\ For instance, a vehicle would be considered to be equipped 
with an ADS even if the ADS remained in development and dependent, 
at times, on a human operator such as an onboard test driver.
    \59\ SAE International, ``J3016 APR2021: Taxonomy and 
Definitions for Terms Related to Driving Automation Systems for On-
Road Motor Vehicles,'' (Revised April 2021). A limited number of 
Level 3 systems have recently become available on consumer-owned 
vehicles. Those vehicles would not be eligible for participation 
because they do not meet the separate program requirement that a 
vehicle manufacturer, ADS developer, fleet operator, or system 
integrator retain operational control over a subject vehicle.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Beyond these ADS requirements, NHTSA proposes to consider the 
effect of other vehicle attributes on a case-by-case basis during the 
agency's review, especially insofar as they may impact safety. NHTSA 
does not propose to categorically restrict program participation to any 
particular vehicle classes or types of operations (e.g., public 
transit). However, NHTSA recognizes there may be unique considerations 
related to certain vehicle attributes or classes, such as those 
relating to accessibility for people with disabilities or impacts on 
labor and employment. NHTSA requests comment on incorporating such 
considerations into AV STEP, for example, through program limitations 
or specialized requirements.
    Applicant Eligibility. NHTSA proposes to limit AV STEP 
participation to motor vehicle manufacturers, ADS developers, fleet 
operators, and system integrators for the subject vehicle. Section 
597.102 of the proposed rule defines these entities as follows:
    ``ADS Developer'' means the entity that is principally responsible 
for the manufacture of the ADS at the system level, including but not 
limited to its design, development, and testing.
    ``Manufacturer'' has the meaning given in 49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(6). 
Under Section 30102, the term manufacturer includes a person (A) 
manufacturing or assembling motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment; 
or (B) importing motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for resale. 
Under Sec.  597.102 of the proposed rule, an entity qualifying as a 
manufacturer would need to be the manufacturer of the subject vehicle. 
Other than ADS developers, who are manufacturers of the ADS, which is 
motor vehicle equipment, NHTSA is not currently proposing to extend 
eligibility to manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment unless they can 
meet one of the other eligible classes of applicants. NHTSA does not 
believe that other manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment, such as 
suppliers of an individual component on a vehicle, are likely to have a 
broad enough understanding of the system-level performance of the 
vehicle to satisfy the considerations described in the following 
paragraphs.
    ``Fleet Operator'' means the individual or entity that exercises 
all or part of the operational control over the ADS installed in a 
subject vehicle or group of subject vehicles. The threshold for 
``operational control'' is described further in the next subsection.
    ``System Integrator'' means an entity responsible for integration 
of an ADS at the vehicle level. For example, an ADS that was developed 
for use across varied vehicle platforms could be integrated into a 
given vehicle and validated for that vehicle integration by an entity 
that does not qualify as any of the three preceding stakeholders.
    In many cases, the same entity may perform the role of multiple 
entities. For instance, some vehicle manufacturers

[[Page 4139]]

are responsible for the development and system integration of the 
vehicle's ADS and many ADS developers conduct fleet operations for 
their own vehicles. However, when one or more of these entities are 
separate, their collective contributions are critical to the system-
level operation of an ADS-equipped vehicle. Under the proposal, any of 
these four entities or any combination of these four entities could 
apply to participate in AV STEP.
    The agency believes that an application and a participation must 
include at least one of these entities to ensure successful program 
engagement. An entity other than these four stakeholders could not meet 
the application requirements without relying heavily on these 
stakeholders' representations. Likewise, it could not meet the 
participation requirements without relying on their commitments 
regarding the vehicle's operation or data collection. Limiting 
participation to these four entities would promote direct 
accountability. NHTSA may also engage with other entities throughout 
the application and participation stages. Other proposed provisions 
address such engagement.
    Operational Control. As a precondition for participation in AV 
STEP, NHTSA proposes to limit all operational control of the subject 
vehicles to the vehicle manufacturer, ADS developer, fleet operator, or 
system integrator. This limitation would ensure that vehicle operations 
remain within the direct reach of the entities with the technical 
knowledge of the vehicle systems and operations. This requirement would 
also maintain a direct relationship between NHTSA and the parties that 
exercise control over the subject vehicles. This ``operational 
control'' standard has provided an effective threshold for maintaining 
oversight in past NHTSA ADS exemptions.\60\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \60\ For instance, a 2020 exemption issued by NHTSA for an ADS-
equipped vehicle under 49 CFR part 555 (which implements 49 U.S.C. 
30113) imposed the condition that the vehicle manufacturer: must 
maintain ownership and operational control over the [exempted 
vehicles] that are built pursuant to this exemption for the life of 
the vehicles. 85 FR 7826, 7842 (February 11, 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For operations where only one of those four entities maintains full 
ownership and possession of the subject vehicles, this requirement 
would be straightforward. In contrast, certain fleet operations may 
involve more complicated arrangements, such as projects that involve 
multiple entities. For instance, some operations may involve an ADS 
developer responsible for the ADS software and a fleet operator 
responsible for the fallback personnel present during operations. Other 
types of projects may involve entities other than Essential System-
Level Stakeholders,\61\ such as a grocery store that takes possession 
of the vehicle while loading goods for delivery. In these situations, 
requiring the Essential System-Level Stakeholders to retain ownership 
or even possession of the subject vehicles may not always be feasible 
given the specific logistics of an operation.\62\ To account for this 
possibility, NHTSA proposes to require Essential System-Level 
Stakeholders to retain operational control of the subject vehicles. 
NHTSA proposes a scope of operational control similar to the scope of a 
dispatching entity that exercises control over fleet operations, as 
described in SAE J3016.\63\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \61\ As proposed in the AV STEP definitions, the list of 
Essential System-Level Stakeholders would include, at a minimum, the 
vehicle manufacturer, ADS developer, fleet operator, and system 
integrator. Additional entities may be listed as well depending on 
their role in the operation.
    \62\ Those receiving an exemption under AV STEP would, however, 
be subject to additional restrictions on possession or ownership. 
See Section VII (Requirements for AV STEP Exemptions (Regulatory 
Text Subpart C)).
    \63\ See generally SAE International, ``J3016 APR2021: Taxonomy 
and Definitions for Terms Related to Driving Automation Systems for 
On-Road Motor Vehicles,'' (Revised April 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Definition 3.3 of J3016 defines a ``dispatching entity'' as ``an 
entity that dispatches an ADS-equipped vehicle(s) in driverless 
operations.'' \64\ Definition 3.4 defines ``dispatch'' as ``[t]o place 
an ADS-equipped vehicle into service in driverless operation by 
engaging the ADS.'' \65\ Finally, definition 3.13 describes ``fleet 
operations'' or fleet functions as:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \64\ Id. at 3.3, p. 7 (``[Driverless Operation] Dispatching 
Entity'') (bracketed language in original).
    \65\ Id. at 3.4, p. 7 (``Dispatch [In Driverless Operation]'') 
(bracketed language in original). Note 1 of this definition 
clarifies that ``[t]he term `dispatch,' as used outside of the 
context of ADS-equipped vehicles, is generally understood to mean 
sending a particular vehicle to a particular pick-up or drop-off 
location for purposes of providing a transportation service. In the 
context of ADS-equipped vehicles, and as used herein, this term 
includes software-enabled dispatch of multiple ADS-equipped vehicles 
in driverless operation that may complete multiple trips involving 
pick-up and drop-off of passengers or goods throughout a day or 
other pre-defined period of service, and which may involve multiple 
agents performing various tasks related to the dispatch function. To 
highlight this specialized use of the term dispatch, the term is 
modified and conditioned by the stipulation that it refers 
exclusively to dispatching vehicles in driverless operation.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The activities that support the management of a fleet of ADS-
equipped vehicles in driverless operation, which may include, without 
limitation:
     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 vis-a-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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \66\ Id. at 3.13, p. 14 (``Fleet Operations [Functions]'') 
(bracketed language in original).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under this proposal, a vehicle manufacturer, ADS developer, fleet 
operator, or system integrator (or any combination thereof) could each 
exercise aspects of this control even if only one of them were an AV 
STEP participant. For instance, if the ADS developer were the sole 
participant, a fleet operator could exercise some measure of 
operational control. Likewise, this proposed requirement is not 
intended to prohibit vehicle passengers from having limited control 
authority over the vehicle, such as selecting a destination for a ride-
hailing operation.\67\ Given the complex relationships among different 
stakeholders in operations, NHTSA requests comment on the workability 
of the proposed operational control requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \67\ In such cases, the vehicle user would be acting within a 
set of parameters controlled by an ADS developer, such as by 
selecting a destination within a developer-established ODD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Location Eligibility. NHTSA proposes to require that AV STEP 
operations take place, in part or entirely, on public streets, roads, 
and highways in the United States. This eligibility requirement mirrors 
statutory language for the Safety Act's definition of ``motor vehicle'' 
in 49 U.S.C. 30102. Since the program framework for AV STEP is designed 
principally to oversee vehicles operating on public roads, this 
eligibility requirement ensures that each operation involves at least 
some public road usage. During participation, NHTSA expects that 
subject vehicles may also engage in operations on non-public roads, 
such as closed course testing. In general, the proposed application and 
reporting requirements

[[Page 4140]]

for AV STEP would not cover such private road operations.\68\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \68\ However, non-public road testing would likely be relevant 
to the validation evidence for the safety case assessment discussed 
in Section IV.D.1.b) (Independent Assessment, Safety Case).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Program Steps

    AV STEP would have two program participation categories. In 
general, Step 1 would apply to vehicles that rely on fallback 
personnel, and Step 2 would apply to vehicles that do not rely on 
fallback personnel. Given the increased responsibility of the ADS at 
Step 2, the level of system maturity is expected to be higher than at 
Step 1. As proposed, a vehicle could start participation at either step 
level. It would not be necessary to complete Step 1 before moving to 
Step 2. However, Step 1 participants could apply to participate at Step 
2 as their systems and operations mature. Likewise, under this 
proposal, if a company had multiple vehicle platforms or systems, some 
of which were more mature than others, the company could apply to 
participate in Step 1 for some operations and in Step 2 for others.
    The reliance on fallback personnel is used to delineate between 
Steps 1 and 2 because the approach to managing risk is significantly 
different in these two cases. In an operation that relies on fallback 
personnel, a human is expected to compensate for known limitations or 
unproven aspects of the ADS. In contrast, in an operation that does not 
rely on fallback personnel, the ADS must be capable of handling all 
scenarios within an ODD without the intervention of fallback personnel. 
AV STEP can more easily account for these unique safety considerations 
by dedicating a separate step to each type of operation.
    The ADS industry acknowledges the significance of these 
differences. For instance, when discussing its ADS, referred to as the 
Aurora Driver, Aurora Innovation Inc. (Aurora) explained in its 2022 
VSSA that:

as we continue to develop with the Aurora Driver, we currently have 
vehicle operators . . . monitoring the performance of the Aurora 
Driver at all times and ready to take over as necessary to ensure 
operational safety. Therefore, our tailored safety case for this use 
case includes claims focused on vehicle controllability and vehicle 
operator hiring, training, and operational procedures, among others. 
However, when we reach the point of removing the vehicle operators 
from cabs, these vehicle operator-centric claims will no longer be 
relevant.\69\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \69\ Aurora, ``Safety Report'' (2022), available at https://info.aurora.tech/hubfs/website%20Public%20Files/Q4_Safety_VSSA%202022_digital_r2.pdf.

    Similarly, Waymo LLC explained in a 2020 discussion of safety 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
readiness determinations that:

[d]eterminations to move from public road testing with trained 
vehicle operators to driverless operations, of course, are conducted 
at the greatest level of detail. Going completely driverless entails 
extremely rigorous analysis of expected behaviors and risks within 
the ODD, including unique risks presented by the absence of a human 
driver (e.g., responding to system failures through fallback 
maneuvers that do not rely on human intervention).\70\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \70\ Webb, N., Smith, D., Ludwick, C., Victor, T.W., Hommes, Q., 
Favar[ograve] F., Ivanov, G., and Daniel, T., ``Waymo's Safety 
Methodologies and Safety Readiness Determinations,'' (2020) 
available at https://arxiv.org/abs/2011.00054.

    Under the proposal, an entity would be eligible to apply for Step 1 
participation for vehicles that operate with fallback personnel during 
all participating operations on public roads.\71\ An entity would be 
eligible to apply for Step 2 participation for vehicles that operate, 
at any time during participation on public roads, without fallback 
personnel. NHTSA proposes to define ``Fallback Personnel'' as an 
individual specially trained and skilled in supervising the performance 
of prototype ADS-operated vehicles in on-road traffic, who continuously 
supervises the performance of an ADS-operated vehicle in real time and 
intervenes whenever necessary to prevent a hazardous event by 
exercising any means of vehicle control. This intervention may occur as 
part of a DDT Fallback \72\ or in anticipation of possible future ADS 
behavior that is unsafe or otherwise unwanted by the user. This 
definition of fallback personnel would not include vehicle assistance, 
which does not involve directly exercising vehicle control 
authority.\73\ An ADS that relied only on vehicle assistance during 
public road operations would fall under Step 2 rather than Step 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \71\ Stakeholders use a variety of terms to refer to the 
fallback personnel role, such as in-vehicle fallback test drivers, 
safety operators, or testing safety operators.
    \72\ Section 597.102 of the proposed rule defines DDT Fallback 
as: the response by an individual to either perform the DDT or 
achieve a minimal risk condition after occurrence of a DDT 
performance-relevant system failure(s) or upon operational design 
domain exit, or the response by an ADS to achieve a minimal risk 
condition, given the same circumstances.
    \73\ Section 597.102 of the proposed rule defines Vehicle 
Assistance as: an individual providing information or instruction 
about a situation to an ADS-equipped vehicle in driverless operation 
(instead of exercising direct control of the vehicle) to help the 
ADS continue a trip when encountering a situation that the ADS 
cannot manage. Vehicle assistance may be provided remotely, by an 
individual not physically present in the vehicle, or by an 
individual on board (physically present in) the vehicle. Unlike 
fallback personnel, as defined in this section, vehicle assistance 
personnel provide information or instruction to an ADS-equipped 
vehicle rather than directly exercising vehicle control authority.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As defined in this proposal, individuals who perform the fallback 
role could do so from within the vehicle or remotely. Remote fallback 
personnel would be considered remote drivers under the proposed 
definition of remote driving--the real-time performance of part or all 
of the DDT by an individual physically located outside of the 
vehicle.\74\ However, NHTSA proposes to narrowly limit remote driving 
in AV STEP, as described in Section III.C (Terms and Conditions).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \74\ Some vehicle designs do not facilitate any human occupancy. 
Remote fallback personnel would be the only option for such vehicles 
to rely on fallback personnel.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed eligibility requirements of Step 2 are not intended to 
disincentivize the limited use of fallback personnel when a participant 
deems it beneficial for safety. Therefore, once admitted into AV STEP, 
a vehicle participating under Step 2 could rely on fallback personnel 
on a limited basis during public road operations. For example, fallback 
personnel could be temporarily reintroduced during the validation of a 
software update. Such limited exceptions notwithstanding, Step 2 is 
intended to demarcate an ADS' readiness to operate without fallback 
personnel, and the agency does not intend participants in Step 2 to 
functionally operate as Step 1 participants through the widespread or 
sustained use of fallback personnel. To oversee this expectation, NHTSA 
proposes reporting requirements to monitor the extent to which Step 2 
operations use fallback personnel.\75\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \75\ These requirements are set forth in Sec.  597.501(f) of the 
proposed rule and described further in Section V.A (Reporting 
Requirements) of this document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For both steps, NHTSA proposes to prohibit vehicle operations that 
rely on fallback personnel from providing rides to public 
passengers.\76\ This would mean that no public ridership would be 
permitted under Step 1 or in any of the limited situations where 
fallback personnel could be used under Step 2. This prohibition is 
proposed in light of the lower level of ADS maturity that is expected 
of a system that must rely on a human as a fallback. The need for 
fallback personnel indicates that an ADS has known limitations or 
requires

[[Page 4141]]

further validation. The presence of fallback personnel also introduces 
training and human factor considerations into the safety of those 
vehicles, such as whether fallback personnel remain attentive while 
monitoring the ADS. Although the use of fallback personnel can be 
beneficial for safety during testing, NHTSA believes their role is 
better suited for operations engaged in significant development than 
those ready to carry public passengers. NHTSA requests comment 
generally on the conditions under which AV STEP should permit public 
ridership, including, more specifically, whether it should be permitted 
during operations that rely on fallback personnel.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \76\ This prohibition would apply to any passenger who is a 
member of the public other than an employee or agent of an entity 
designated as an Essential System-Level Stakeholder or a public 
official acting in an official capacity, such as law enforcement or 
government personnel. See Sec.  597.105(c) of the proposed rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Terms and Conditions

    Each AV STEP participation would be governed by a Final 
Determination Letter that establishes the full set of terms and 
conditions for the participation. NHTSA's proposed review process that 
would lead to the issuance of a Final Determination Letter is described 
in Section IV.E (Application Review). In general, the terms and 
conditions established by a letter would be tailored to the unique 
aspects of a participation and may cover subjects other than those 
expressly enumerated in Sec.  597.105(b) of the proposed rule. Section 
IV.E lists seven subjects that would, at a minimum, be addressed in a 
Final Determination Letter. These include whether the participation is 
permitted under Step 1 or 2, the vehicles approved for 
participation,\77\ the locations where participation is permitted, the 
duration of participation, and the stakeholders deemed essential for 
the participation. This letter would also govern the permitted uses of 
those vehicles, which could include commercial operations.\78\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \77\ Section VII (Requirements for AV STEP Exemptions 
(Regulatory Text Subpart C)) explains a unique set of procedures for 
vehicles receiving exemptions under AV STEP.
    \78\ Section VII (Requirements for AV STEP Exemptions 
(Regulatory Text Subpart C)) explains the requirements for FMVSS 
exemptions that involve commercial operations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A Final Determination Letter would also govern the maximum number 
of vehicles approved for participation.\79\ This number would be 
informed by NHTSA's review of the information submitted in the 
application. NHTSA proposes, when appropriate, to authorize increases 
in vehicle numbers over time if requested by the participant. 
Incrementally increasing participation would allow the scope of 
participation to mature along with a technology, enabling expansions to 
correspond to performance benchmarks or limiting initial operations 
until the agency gains further insight from overseeing the vehicles. 
Conversely, NHTSA could reduce the number of vehicles permitted to 
participate in AV STEP. For instance, this could occur during 
participation by lowering the cap on permitted vehicles through the 
concern resolution procedures proposed in this document or through a 
term in a Final Determination Letter that sets benchmarks for expanding 
or contracting vehicle participation numbers. NHTSA requests comment on 
whether the proposed rule should establish a cap on the number of 
vehicles allowed for each participant, including what such a cap should 
be and the grounds for setting it, as well as whether the cap should be 
able to be modified during program participation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \79\ Setting limits on participation numbers through the 
adjudication of each request rather than through a categorical cap 
that applies to all participants would align with the longstanding 
approaches of the other NHTSA programs that administer exemptions 
under Section 30114(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NHTSA also proposes for Final Determination Letters to contain 
terms governing the use of remote driving during participation. NHTSA 
proposes, in Sec.  597.105(j) of the proposed rule, to generally 
prohibit remote driving in AV STEP except as temporarily needed to 
briefly move a vehicle after the ADS initiates a minimal risk maneuver 
or during any situations expressly permitted in a Final Determination 
Letter.\80\ This proposal would limit remote driving to short 
distances, such as moving a vehicle to the side of the road after it 
has stopped in a travel lane or moving a vehicle in response to 
direction from emergency responders. Conditioning remote driving on the 
initiation of a minimal risk maneuver would, for example, allow this 
brief use of remote driving after the vehicle achieves a minimal risk 
condition or if remote personnel realize that a vehicle undertaking a 
minimal risk maneuver is taking inappropriate action. Minimal risk 
maneuvers and minimal risk conditions are discussed further in Section 
IV.B.2 (System Fallback Response).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \80\ Human factors issues, connection latency, and jitter can 
result in unavoidable challenges for remote driving operations, even 
in locations with optimal connectivity. Therefore, although the 
agency extends eligibility to prospective operations that would 
entail limited remote driving, NHTSA expects, through the review 
framework described in the ensuing sections, to significantly 
scrutinize such uses. For further discussion of latency, jitter, and 
other remote driving considerations, see, e.g., Y. Yu and S. Lee, 
``Remote Driving Control With Real-Time Video Streaming Over 
Wireless Networks: Design and Evaluation'' (June 2022), available at 
https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?arnumber=9797698.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As proposed, this general prohibition on remote driving also allows 
an exception for other situations expressly delineated in a Final 
Determination Letter. An application would need to describe any such 
situations for which permission is requested.\81\ NHTSA requests 
comment on the proposed approach to remote driving and, specifically: 
(1) whether to include operations that use remote fallback personnel 
within the scope of the program; (2) whether the proposed rule should 
include a limited allowance for remote driving after the ADS achieves a 
minimal risk condition or after the ADS initiates a minimal risk 
maneuver; and (3) whether the proposed rule should expressly include 
any other exceptions to the general prohibition on remote driving.\82\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \81\ The required information about remote driving in an 
application is discussed in Section IV.B (Protocols for ADS 
Operations).
    \82\ Other potential exceptions could include if remote driving 
is unexpectedly needed to respond to a hazardous circumstance or if 
remote driving could enable temporary navigation around a roadway 
change, such as a construction zone, for which the ADS has not yet 
been validated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule contains several terms to promote NHTSA's 
engagement with other regulatory authorities, such as states and local 
governments, during the review of an application and participation in 
the program. The proposed rule would require all vehicles, including 
their operations, to comply with all Federal, state, and local laws and 
requirements during participation.\83\ This provision would cover both 
generally applicable requirements, including local traffic laws, and 
those specific to ADS technologies. The proposed application and 
reporting requirements would provide NHTSA with information to consider 
whether an entity has a responsible process for identifying and 
following these laws. NHTSA intends to coordinate with Federal, state, 
and local governments, as appropriate, regarding these and other issues 
associated with ADS operations in their jurisdictions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \83\ This requirement would maintain NHTSA's practice of 
imposing a similar term in other exemptions issued under Section 
30114(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Federal, state, and local regulatory frameworks and programs 
that also cover ADS operations span a range of different regulatory 
approaches. At the Federal level, examples include grants for ADS 
projects funded by other parts of DOT \84\ and pilot projects to

[[Page 4142]]

explore the potential for ADS to further the mission of other 
agencies.\85\ Examples at the state and local levels include state 
permitting requirements for ADS-equipped vehicles \86\ and traffic laws 
that are specific to ADS-equipped vehicles.\87\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \84\ See, e.g., U.S. Department of Transportation, ``Automated 
Driving Systems Demonstration Grants Program,'' available at https://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.
    \85\ National 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-Evaluation-Summary.pdf.
    \86\ See, e.g., California Department of Motor Vehicles, 
``Autonomous Vehicles,'' available at https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/
vehicle-industry-services/autonomous-vehicles/
#:~:text=The%20DMV%20administers%20the%20Autonomous,and%20applying%20
for%20a%20permit.
    \87\ See, e.g., National Conference of State Legislatures, 
``Autonomous Vehicles Legislation Database,'' available at https://www.ncsl.org/transportation/autonomous-vehicles-legislation-database.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The goals of these initiatives are varied, given the diverse 
regulatory missions of the different jurisdictions. It is not feasible 
or appropriate to design AV STEP around all of the various approaches 
that other authorities may take concerning ADS. At the same time, AV 
STEP would not override any of those other authorities, such as by 
imposing Federal preemption of state requirements. Instead, NHTSA 
considers AV STEP best suited to exist in parallel with those other 
requirements. The proposed requirement that an AV STEP participant 
comply with all Federal, state, and local laws and requirements would 
ensure the requirements of those other authorities coexist with AV 
STEP. This requirement is consistent with how NHTSA has historically 
approached exemptions for ADS-equipped vehicles that are issued under 
Section 30114(a).
    During the review of an AV STEP application, NHTSA will engage with 
applicants and other authorities, as appropriate, to explore 
opportunities to harmonize certain AV STEP requirements with those of 
overlapping authorities. As a result of such engagement, if a reporting 
requirement of another authority is identified that is similar to a 
subject for which NHTSA proposes a customized requirement in AV STEP, a 
Final Determination Letter could scope AV STEP's customized reporting 
requirements in a way that harmonizes with another report. Other 
jurisdictions could likewise harmonize their own processes with AV STEP 
or otherwise find value in the enhanced Federal oversight and 
transparency of participating operations when considering whether to 
allow those vehicles to operate under their own authorities. As one 
example, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) has 
oversight authority for motor carrier use and operations of ADS 
technologies. Opportunities may exist to harmonize, as appropriate, 
certain requirements in AV STEP operations that involve commercial 
motor vehicles (CMVs) with any applicable FMCSA activities, in the 
interest of a consistent Departmental approach. For instance, FMCSA is 
engaged in rulemaking that would govern motor carrier operation of ADS-
equipped CMVs \88\ and other activities related to AV technologies. 
NHTSA specifically requests comment on other ways that AV STEP could 
help to harmonize regulatory requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \88\ See Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, ``Unified 
Agenda of Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions,'' Federal Motor 
Carrier Safety Administration, RIN 2126-AC17: Motor Carrier 
Operation of Automated Driving Systems (ADS)-Equipped Commercial 
Motor Vehicles, available at https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/eAgendaViewRule?pubId=202310&RIN=2126-AC17.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Application and Review (Regulatory Text Subparts B and D)

A. Application Form

    NHTSA proposes that all AV STEP applications contain a standard set 
of information, regardless of program step or whether an exemption is 
requested.\89\ This proposal would create a common foundation for the 
program through consistent, structured responses from all applicants. 
It would also ensure that NHTSA has a fundamental understanding of the 
systems and requested participation when making decisions on program 
admission and overseeing operations. NHTSA proposes that this 
information be furnished through an application form containing three 
parts: the Operational Baseline; Location Sheet(s); and a Reporting 
Confirmation Sheet.\90\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \89\ An exemption would require an additional application form 
specific to that purpose, as discussed later in Section VII.C 
(Exemption Participation Requirements).
    \90\ An example form, based on the proposed requirements, is 
available in the docket for this rulemaking under the title ``NPRM 
Example of AV STEP Application Form.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Operational Baseline
    The Operational Baseline portion of an application would focus on 
critical characteristics of an operation. Section 597.201 of the 
proposed rule requires 14 items of information, most of which NHTSA 
proposes to make public because they reflect basic facts about the 
entity's requested participation.\91\ These items are listed below, 
accompanied by a description of the expected level of detail:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \91\ See Section VI (Public Reporting Requirements (Regulatory 
Text Subpart G)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Participation Category. An applicant would indicate whether it 
requests participation under Step 1 or Step 2.
    Applicant(s). Each of the entities requesting to participate would 
need to be listed. An application could be submitted by a single 
applicant or multiple applicants (co-applicants). In either situation, 
every applicant would need to meet the eligibility requirements for 
participation set forth in Sec.  597.103 of the proposed rule. This 
field would also require primary and secondary points of contact for 
each applicant.
    Essential System-Level Stakeholders. Applicants would identify any 
entities that have a significant role in the safety of the operation 
covered by the application. At a minimum, these would include the 
vehicle manufacturer, the ADS developer, the fleet operator, and the 
system integrator. These entities would need to be listed regardless of 
whether they were applying for the program or would be participating in 
the proposed operation. This requirement is included because, whether 
active participants or not, the products or services they provide 
factor directly into the vehicle's system-level performance.
    Vehicle Platform. Applicants would identify a baseline vehicle 
platform being used. This information includes the vehicle make, model, 
model year, unloaded vehicle weight,\92\ Gross Vehicle Weight Rating 
(GVWR),\93\ and vehicle class.\94\ If the vehicle was certified as 
FMVSS compliant, the FMVSS certifying entity should also be listed in 
this field. Different vehicle models could not be considered a single 
vehicle platform for the purposes of this field,\95\ and would instead 
require separate program applications. As long as all vehicles in an 
application were the same vehicle model, a single application could be 
used for different versions of the model, such as differences in the 
model year, trim level, or GVWR. NHTSA would review any differences 
within the vehicle model to decide whether any of the vehicles

[[Page 4143]]

should participate separately. This approach would help to streamline 
individual applications and preserve the consistency of operations 
contained in a single application or participation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \92\ See 49 CFR 571.3.
    \93\ Id.
    \94\ See 49 CFR part 523.
    \95\ Even if the traditional use of the term ``vehicle 
platform'' often includes multiple vehicle models, NHTSA considers a 
narrower use of the term appropriate in this context. This narrower 
use is to account for any developers or manufacturers that do not 
characterize their purpose-built ADS vehicle platforms as vehicle 
models.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Sensing Suite. An applicant would identify any sensors, such as 
cameras, radar, lidar, and microphones, involved in the perception of 
the ADS.\96\ For any such sensors on the vehicle, a response to this 
field would need to identify the specific sensor (i.e., make and model 
information), the type of sensor, its location on the subject vehicle, 
and its use in ADS operations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \96\ ADS perception is defined in SAE International publication 
J3131 as ``an ADS' capability to sense and characterize the 
entities, events, and situations, in its environment.'' SAE 
International, ``J3131 MAR2022: Definitions for Terms Related to 
Automated Driving Systems Reference Architecture,'' Section 3.1.3, 
(Revised March 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Crash Detection Capabilities. Applicants would detail the subject 
vehicle's crash detection capabilities including, if applicable, any 
units towed by the subject vehicle. This response would need to 
identify any limitations or thresholds for detecting physical contact 
relating to a crash. For example, if only certain scenarios involving 
debris impacts are identified as crashes, a response to this element 
should explain how those crashes are identified.
    Certain Vehicle Modifications. An applicant would identify any 
modifications to safety features installed as original equipment on the 
subject vehicles, other than any modifications for which an AV STEP 
exemption is sought. Modifications associated with an exemption request 
would be identified in a response to the requirements detailed in 
Section VII.B (Exemption Application Requirements).
    Data Logging. Applicants would identify the designed data-logging 
functionality, including the continuously recorded data and event-
triggered data logged by a subject vehicle. For each type of data 
identified, an applicant would also need to describe the onboard or 
offboard storage protocols and the duration of data retention. For this 
element, NHTSA anticipates focusing on whether responses explain the 
scope of data logging for reporting required under AV STEP, such as the 
regular and event-triggered reporting in Sec. Sec.  597.500 and 597.501 
of the proposed rule.
    Onboard Fallback Personnel. A response to this field would identify 
the seating position(s) of any onboard fallback personnel who may be 
physically present in the subject vehicle(s) during requested 
operations. Even though Step 2 applications would largely not rely on 
the presence of fallback personnel during participating operations, 
those applications should still list the seating positions of any 
onboard fallback personnel that may be present on a limited basis.\97\ 
If the subject vehicles would never use fallback personnel, even on a 
limited basis, a response could indicate that this field is not 
applicable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \97\ The possibility of limited reliance on fallback personnel 
under Step 2 is discussed in Sections III.B (Program Steps) and 
V.A.2 (Event-Triggered Reporting).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Use of Remote Driving. A response to this field should indicate 
whether remote driving may be used to control a subject vehicle at any 
time during operation. Applicants would need to identify any 
restrictions in place for any planned use of remote driving, such as 
speed thresholds or limiting its use to locations with validated 
network strength. This response would inform whether NHTSA should 
permit narrow uses of remote driving in a Final Determination Letter 
beyond those allowed under Sec.  597.105(j) of the proposed rule.\98\ 
In addition, given the potential risks associated with remote 
driving,\99\ NHTSA believes that information about the extent of remote 
driving in a participation should be publicly available. Accordingly, 
an application that involves remote driving would need to also include 
a public summary of limitations on the use of remote driving. NHTSA 
would publish this summary along with other information from an 
application, as discussed in Section VI (Public Reporting Requirements 
(Regulatory Text Subpart G)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \98\ More detailed information regarding the technical 
parameters and safety of any remote driving included in a 
participation request would also need to be provided to NHTSA under 
the requirements proposed in Section IV.B (Protocols for ADS 
Operations).
    \99\ See supra n.80.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Use of Vehicle Assistance. A response to this field would need to 
indicate whether any remote or onboard vehicle assistance may be used 
to direct the subject vehicle at any time during a requested operation. 
The proposed rule defines vehicle assistance as an individual providing 
information or advice about a situation to an ADS-equipped vehicle in 
driverless operation (instead of performing the DDT for the vehicle) to 
help the ADS continue a trip when encountering a situation that the ADS 
cannot manage. Vehicle assistance may be provided remotely, by an 
individual not physically present in the vehicle,\100\ or by an 
individual on board (physically present in) the vehicle.\101\ Any 
applications indicating that vehicle assistance may occur would need to 
describe the specific capabilities that this assistance could 
entail.\102\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \100\ For additional discussion of ``remote assistance,'' see 
SAE International, ``J3016 APR2021: Taxonomy and Definitions for 
Terms Related to Driving Automation Systems for On-Road Motor 
Vehicles,'' Section 3.23: Remote Assistance, (Revised April 2021).
    \101\ Unlike Fallback Personnel, as defined in this proposal, 
vehicle assistance personnel provide information or instruction to 
an ADS-equipped vehicle rather than directly exercising vehicle 
control authority.
    \102\ As with the preceding remote driving field, more detailed 
information regarding any vehicle assistance included in a 
participation request would also need to be provided to NHTSA, as 
detailed in Section IV.B (Protocols for ADS Operations).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Operational Permits Required. An application would indicate whether 
any other Federal, state, or local permits are required for the 
operations requested in the application. If so, the application should 
list each such permit, the regulatory entity requiring a permit, and 
the status of each permit. For any permits that have already been 
issued at the time of application, an applicant would need to identify 
the effective dates of each permit, describe any conditions imposed by 
those permits, and provide a copy of each such permit.
    AV STEP Exemption. An application would indicate whether the 
request to participate in AV STEP includes a request for an AV STEP 
exemption. If so, an application would also need to include a separate 
exemption form that covers unique application requirements for the 
exemption.\103\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \103\ See Section VII.C (Exemption Application Requirements).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Accessibility. An application would summarize any features or 
design modifications of the vehicles that are the subject of an 
application that are intended to promote the safe accommodation of 
passengers with disabilities. This required disclosure would include 
any such features or modifications that are intended for passengers 
with physical, sensory, and cognitive disabilities--including 
passengers who use wheelchairs and other mobility equipment. NHTSA 
proposes to publish this summary to enable the public to understand the 
accessibility options offered in an operation.\104\ NHTSA also proposes 
to require an application to include more information and technical 
detail about any such features or designs in response to the separate 
application requirements detailed in Section IV.B.3 (Operator, User, 
and Surrounding Road User Interactions). NHTSA encourages entities to 
include accessibility features for passengers with disabilities in 
their

[[Page 4144]]

vehicle designs and believes that it is important for the public to 
understand the availability of such features.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \104\ See Section VI (Public Reporting Requirements (Regulatory 
Text Subpart G)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Location Sheet
    The second proposed portion of an application is a Location Sheet. 
Each application would be required to contain at least one Location 
Sheet. An application that requests participation in multiple distinct 
locations would need to include a Location Sheet for each location. 
Entities may combine operations in multiple locations in the same 
application or participation, as long as the Operational Baseline 
characteristics of the operations remain the same across the locations.
    AV STEP's use of Location Sheets would provide enough flexibility 
for an operation to evolve over the course of time, including by adding 
more Location Sheets during participation as operations expand to new 
areas.\105\ It would also reduce the administrative burden of 
applications and participations by enabling NHTSA to focus on the 
aspects of an operation unique to a particular location once the agency 
understands the baseline approach to an operation that would apply no 
matter where the operation occurs. The proposed rule would require 
applications to include the following information for each Location 
Sheet:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \105\ The process for adding new Location Sheets during 
participation is discussed in Section V.B.1 (Amendment Process).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Location Name. Applicants would assign a unique reference name to 
the operation proposed in the Location Sheet. The Location Name field 
in a Location Sheet would provide a unique identifier for each location 
that a participation includes. Much of the reporting described in 
Sections V.A (Reporting Requirements) and VI (Public Reporting 
Requirements (Regulatory Text Subpart G)) is segmented by Location 
Sheet.
    Location Limitation. Applicants would define the geographical 
boundaries for the operations in the Location Sheet, generally by using 
maps to define this boundary.\106\ This field could be changed during 
an active participation, as discussed in Section V.B.1 (Amendment 
Process). However, this response should cover the full breadth of 
operations that are anticipated at the time of an application.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \106\ For example, a .kmz/.kml file containing a varied map 
boundary could be provided. If operations would be constrained to 
specific route maps, this constraint should be reflected in a 
response to this field.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Maximum Number of Vehicles Proposed for Participation. An applicant 
would identify the maximum number of vehicles for which they seek to 
participate under the Location Sheet. This number could correspond to 
the actual number of vehicles that an applicant is ready to operate or 
reflect a projected number of vehicles.\107\ During participation, the 
actual number of vehicles operating would be reported to NHTSA under 
the proposed periodic reporting requirements described in Section V.A.1 
(Periodic Reporting).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \107\ If an application requests such a projected number of 
vehicles, the application information would still need to support 
the full scope of requested operations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Legal Speed Limits. This field would require information about the 
posted speed limits on roadways on which a vehicle plans to operate. An 
applicant would identify specific information for: (1) the road 
segments in an operation that have the highest legal speed limit; and 
(2) the road segments with the greatest speed differential between the 
legal speed limit and the maximum speed allowed for the ADS while 
operating on the road segment. NHTSA expects that the most efficient 
way to identify roadway segments will usually be pairs of GPS 
coordinates for the start and end points. However, an applicant could 
use other methods to identify the roadway segments, for example, if 
such segments represent a significant portion of an operation. NHTSA 
will use this information to understand the speeds of traffic around 
which a vehicle could operate and whether the vehicle could pose a risk 
by operating at different speeds from the surrounding traffic.
    Vehicle Speeds. An application would identify the highest speed 
allowed for the ADS upon commencing participation at the location, as 
well as the highest speed for which participation is requested for the 
ADS at the location. In many cases, these two speeds may be the same. 
However, the two answers could diverge, such as if an ADS initially 
operates at lower speeds to complete further validation before planned 
speed increases are pursued.\108\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \108\ As with any other proposed requirements, the application 
information would need to support the full scope of operations 
requested, even if it included projected future changes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Public Ridership. An application would indicate whether the subject 
vehicle would carry public passengers during the requested 
operations.\109\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \109\ The proposed rule refers to public passengers as ``public 
ridership.'' See Sec.  597.102.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Intended Use. An applicant would describe the planned use or uses 
of vehicles during operations, such as a shuttle or ride hailing 
service, goods delivery, or research and development.\110\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \110\ For an applicant seeking an exemption under 49 U.S.C. 
30114(a), additional information on use would be required by the 
exemption portion of the application.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Operational Design Domain. An applicant would provide a complete 
specification of all aspects of the ODD. This response should be a 
detailed answer that comprehensively explains the entire ODD, which the 
proposed rule defines as ``the operating conditions under which the 
automated driving system or feature thereof is specifically designed to 
function, including, but not limited to, environmental, geographical, 
and time-of-day restrictions, and/or the requisite presence or absence 
of defined traffic or roadway characteristics.'' \111\ If an 
application contains multiple Location Sheets, a response to this 
element should identify any ODD differences among the Location Sheets. 
Several industry documents provide guidance on the specification of an 
ODD.\112\ However, this general guidance may not necessarily address 
the full level of detail associated with an ADS developer's particular 
approach to defining its system's ODD. NHTSA seeks comment on 
incorporating any such guidance into the regulation or otherwise 
specifying the form in which minimum information about the proposed ODD 
should be described in an application. An applicant would also need to 
include a public summary of the ODD. NHTSA proposes to publish this 
summary along with other information about an application or 
participation. The public reporting section of this document describes 
those aspects of the proposal.\113\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \111\ See Sec.  597.102 of the proposed rule.
    \112\ See, e.g., International Organization for Standardization, 
``ISO 34503: Road Vehicles--Test scenarios for automated driving 
systems--Specification for operational design domain'' (2023); and 
Automated Vehicle Safety Consortium (AVSC), ``AVSC00002202004: Best 
Practice for Describing an Operational Design Domain: Conceptual 
Framework and Lexicon'' (2020).
    \113\ See Section VI (Public Reporting Requirements (Regulatory 
Text Subpart G)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Vehicle Equipment. An applicant would describe how several 
attributes of a vehicle covered by the Location Sheet compare to the 
base model of the vehicle. This information would help NHTSA gauge 
whether differences in the same vehicle model may need to be considered 
during the application review. This field should disclose how three 
categories of equipment or vehicle characteristics compare between the 
subject vehicle and the base model, if applicable: (1) any trim level 
characteristics that affect safety; (2) any

[[Page 4145]]

optional technologies that affect safety; and (3) any other 
distinguishing safety characteristics. If an application contains 
multiple Location Sheets, a response to this element should also 
identify any differences among the Location Sheets. For example, if 
sensor heating elements are used in one location but not necessary in 
another, that information should be provided in response to this field.
3. Confirmation of Reporting During Participation
    The third portion of the application form would focus on 
information necessary to carry out the reporting requirements discussed 
in Section V.A (Reporting Requirements) if an applicant is admitted for 
participation.
    First, an applicant would need to confirm its ability to carry out 
all of the AV STEP reporting requirements if approved for 
participation. Some reporting requirements may require coordination 
with third parties, such as Essential System-Level Stakeholders that 
are not participants, or may involve specific technical capabilities. 
This confirmation would ensure that an applicant understands these 
responsibilities up front. If an application has a single applicant, 
that applicant would be responsible for compliance with all of the 
reporting requirements. If an application has multiple co-applicants, 
they could collectively meet the reporting requirements. If reporting 
responsibilities are to be shared by co-applicants, a response to this 
element should explain which entity would be primarily responsible for 
meeting each reporting requirement that is set forth in Subpart E of 
the proposed rule.\114\ In addition to clarifying reporting 
responsibilities for co-applicants, this proposed requirement would 
ensure that data generation and processing capabilities support the AV 
STEP reporting elements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \114\ Even if reporting is shared among multiple participants, 
NHTSA proposes that it may suspend, revoke, or take other 
appropriate action to address a failure to fully comply with all 
reporting required under AV STEP by any participant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, this portion of the application would solicit proposals for 
``customized'' reporting terms. For reporting requirements designated 
as customized, NHTSA has proposed the subject matter for a required 
report but has not defined a specific metric or threshold for the 
reporting. Applications would need to propose specific metrics or 
thresholds to be used for the terms of the reporting. Each such 
proposal should be informed by the independent assessment submitted in 
an application (and described further in Section IV.D, Independent 
Assessment). In developing these proposals, applicants should consider 
the extent to which the proposed reporting would support an evaluation 
of the operation, performance, and safety of the subject vehicles. Each 
proposal should be accompanied by enough information to allow NHTSA to 
interpret the proposed metrics or thresholds, as well as explain their 
value and relevance to the applicable requirement. In Section V.A 
(Reporting Requirements), NHTSA provides high-level examples of 
potential terms for each of the proposed customized requirements.
    The current state of ADS technology necessitates flexibility in 
reporting certain subjects. Even so, these subjects represent important 
safety considerations for any ADS operation. Establishing customized 
terms would provide this necessary flexibility while ensuring 
meaningful reporting. The proposed approach to customized requirements 
would enable NHTSA to consider the value of these different types of 
reporting metrics and thresholds across various participants.

B. Protocols for ADS Operations

    Section 597.204 of the proposed rule would require applications to 
explain two types of protocols critical to the safety of subject 
vehicle operations. The first pertains to the ADS' compliance with 
traffic safety laws and the second covers situations where an ADS is 
unable to continue performing the driving task reliably. These 
protocols both relate to how an ADS will execute roadway 
responsibilities that may arise during an operation. Detailed 
information regarding each of these topics in an application would 
provide necessary context for the proposed reporting on these topics 
that would occur during participation.\115\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \115\ See Section V.A (Reporting Requirements).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Law Abidance
    Compliance with traffic safety laws and local requirements for 
operating is a critical aspect of safety for ADS-equipped vehicles on 
public roads. Section 597.204(a) of the proposed rule lists four 
elements of information required in an application that would enable 
NHTSA to consider an applicant's strategy for complying with Federal, 
state, and local laws that apply to the subject vehicles or their 
operations.
    A response to this element would, at minimum, summarize how 
applicable traffic safety laws are identified (including both initially 
and during operations), describe how an ADS' compliance with traffic 
safety laws is monitored,\116\ and describe any conditions under which 
the design of the ADS may allow the subject vehicle to violate traffic 
laws. A response would also need to summarize recognition, interaction, 
and response strategies for emergency, law enforcement, and 
construction vehicles, personnel, and equipment, as well as crossing 
guards and other traffic control personnel. The response should cover 
laws that explicitly address ADS-equipped vehicles as well as those 
that apply to road users more broadly.\117\ NHTSA recognizes that in 
some situations, temporary deviations from traffic safety laws may be 
necessary to safely react to roadway conditions. Many traffic safety 
laws specifically allow for such exigencies. The information provided 
in response to this element is intended to help NHTSA understand the 
ADS' approach to determining what behavior is appropriate in these 
situations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \116\ As noted elsewhere by NHTSA, vehicle automation features 
that contribute to behaviors that cause traffic violations can 
constitute a motor vehicle defect. This has been demonstrated by 
partial driving automation system recalls relating to such 
incidents. See Tesla, Inc., ``Part 573 Safety Recall Report, Recall 
No. 23V-085'' (February 15, 2023), available at https://static.nhtsa.gov/odi/rcl/2023/RCLRPT-23V085-3451.PDF.
    \117\ A response to this element would not need to include 
``unwritten rules of the road'' or ``implicit traffic rules,'' which 
are phrases used within the industry to refer to behaviors 
associated with good roadway citizenship that are not typically 
defined by traffic laws. However, these concepts would likely be 
relevant to other aspects of an application, such as certain claims 
and evidence in the safety case that would be reviewed by an 
independent assessment. For further discussion of these concepts, 
see, e.g., Mobileye Technologies Ltd., ``The Unwritten Rules of the 
Road, Codified in RSS'' (February 2023), available at https://www.mobileye.com/blog/responsibility-sensitive-safety-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-Automated-Driving.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    An applicant's response to this element should also describe a 
vehicle's response plans for emergency, law enforcement, and other 
traffic control interactions. In particular, this response would help 
the agency evaluate how ADS technologies interact with first 
responders. An ADS-equipped vehicle's behavior should be easily 
anticipated and understood by these personnel during such 
interactions.\118\ NHTSA would use this information to consider whether 
the ADS may negatively affect safety-critical functions performed by 
first responders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \118\ See AVSC, ``AVSC00005202012: Best Practice for First 
Responder Interactions with Fleet-Managed Automated Driving System-
Dedicated Vehicles (ADS-DVs)'' (December 2020).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 4146]]

2. System Fallback Response
    Section 597.204(b) of the proposed rule would require an 
application to explain protocols surrounding ADS failure scenarios. The 
response of an ADS-equipped vehicle to these situations is varyingly 
referred to as minimal risk maneuvers (MRMs), fallback strategy, 
failsafe response, or other similar terms. For simplicity, this 
proposal refers to the achievement of a minimal risk condition (MRC), 
which is defined in the proposed rule as ``a stable, stopped condition 
to which a user or an ADS may bring a vehicle after performing the DDT 
fallback, including after a DDT takeover, to reduce the risk of a crash 
when a given trip cannot or should not be continued.'' \119\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \119\ See Sec.  597.102 of the proposed rule. This proposed 
definition is derived from SAE International's definition of an MRC: 
``a stable, stopped condition to which a user or an ADS may bring a 
vehicle after performing the DDT fallback in order to reduce the 
risk of a crash when a given trip cannot or should not be 
continued.'' SAE International, ``J3016 APR2021: Taxonomy and 
Definitions for Terms Related to Driving Automation Systems for On-
Road Motor Vehicles,'' (Revised April 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NHTSA proposes to require an applicant to describe any system 
fallback strategies or designs, as well as any protocols for their 
execution or activation. A response to this element should describe any 
MRCs that might be undertaken by the subject ADS. This description 
should identify the circumstances under which each MRC would be 
triggered, detail how MRMs to achieve each MRC would be initiated and 
executed, and explain any protocols for the ADS following the 
achievement of each MRC. An applicant should also explain the 
engineering rationale for selecting each MRC and setting triggering 
conditions for them.\120\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \120\ For example, do the trigger conditions fully capture any 
feasible ODD exits, such as sudden weather changes?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, an applicant would need to provide an overview of any 
other protocols associated with averting or achieving a minimal risk 
condition. This response should focus on protocols that apply to 
individuals who may interact with the vehicle rather than protocols 
that are followed by the ADS. This would include any protocols for 
providing input to the ADS or disengaging the ADS prior to or during an 
MRM, resuming ADS driving following the achievement of an MRC, and 
vehicle recovery. This information would provide NHTSA additional 
context for the MRC strategies employed by an operation, such as the 
role of any vehicle assistance or onboard test drivers and potential 
impacts to traffic after an MRC is achieved.
    To further understand these issues, NHTSA proposes to require a 
response to this element to provide information about the personnel 
responsible for each such protocol. This response should include the 
role and number \121\ of responsible personnel and each such 
personnel's: (1) responsibilities under the protocol, (2) physical 
location when performing those responsibilities, (3) expected response 
time in performing those responsibilities, (4) potential control 
authority over the subject vehicle, (5) means of exercising that 
control authority, and (6) any operational restrictions on the use of 
that control authority. In addition to informing NHTSA's review of an 
application, this information would contribute to the agency's 
assessment, during operations that occur under an AV STEP 
participation, of whether an ADS-equipped vehicle responded 
appropriately after an incident occurred.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \121\ For example, a minimum number of personnel in a certain 
role who would be available to respond relative to a given number of 
subject vehicles operating on-road.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Lastly, NHTSA proposes to require that an application describe any 
protocols for vehicle immobilizations that occur without the 
achievement of an MRC. This description could include protocols for 
responding to a crash or a catastrophic vehicle failure that results in 
a vehicle immobilization that the ADS did not initiate. For example, a 
vehicle could coast to a stop after loss of all motive power.
3. User and Surrounding Road User Interactions
    This section of an application is intended to consider the safety 
of members of the public who may interact with the vehicles that are 
the subject of an application. Section 597.204(c) of the proposed rule 
would require that an application include an overview of any design and 
process measures that are in place to facilitate safe and predictable 
interactions with members of the public. This element does not include 
the inherent functionality of the ADS, such as the object and event 
detection and response (OEDR) involved in avoiding collisions. Although 
that ADS functionality is, of course, crucial to the safety of both 
occupants and surrounding road users, an application would need to 
cover it separately in response to the independent assessment 
requirements in Section IV.D (Independent Assessment).
    To focus the information provided in response to this element, the 
proposed rule contains four sub-elements of required information. The 
first three relate to communication and behavioral strategies for 
promoting safe and predictable interactions with the subject vehicle. 
NHTSA considers such predictability an important aspect of ADS safety. 
Through ADS crash reporting, NHTSA has observed incidents in which the 
unexpected behavior of an ADS-equipped vehicle may have contributed to 
a collision even when the ADS was operating as intended. The following 
are the sub-elements relating to communication and behavioral 
strategies:
     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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \122\ See, e.g., Fraade-Blanar, Laura, Marjory S. Blumenthal, 
James M. Anderson, and Nidhi Kalra, ``Measuring Automated Vehicle 
Safety: Forging a Framework. Santa Monica,'' CA: RAND Corporation 
(2018), available at https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR2662.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Any communication strategies for non-operator occupants of 
the subject ADS-equipped vehicle. This disclosure would be expected to 
encompass the communication of safety information or the availability 
of safety controls to occupants of the subject vehicles who are not 
operators. Examples of responses to this sub-element could include a 
system's logic for communicating with occupants about whether they are 
wearing a seat belt during a trip or ways in which a passenger could 
initiate an emergency stop.\123\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \123\ See AVSC, ``AVSC00003202006: Best Practice for Passenger-
Initiated Emergency Trip Interruption'' (June 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NHTSA also proposes a fourth sub-element, which would focus on the 
applicant's approach to ensuring safe and predictable interactions for 
passengers with disabilities. An application would need to include 
information in response to this fourth sub-element regarding the 
response to the Operational Baseline question about accessibility of 
subject vehicles containing features or design modifications that are 
intended to promote the safe accommodation of passengers with 
disabilities. NHTSA proposes for this sub-element to cover:
     Any features or design modifications that are intended to 
promote safe accommodation of passengers with disabilities. Information

[[Page 4147]]

provided in response to this sub-element should describe how, under 
this design, passengers with physical, sensory, and cognitive 
disabilities--including passengers who use wheelchairs and other 
mobility equipment--would safely locate and enter the vehicle, secure 
themselves and any mobility equipment, input information, interact with 
the ADS in routine and emergency situations, communicate with any 
support personnel in such situations, and exit the vehicle.
    Promoting the safety of passengers with disabilities is critical 
for ADS-equipped vehicles to reach their full potential for improving 
accessible options for mobility. The availability of ADS-equipped 
vehicles with effective accessibility features would enable greater 
choice, independence, and access to needed transportation for people 
with physical, sensory, and cognitive disabilities, as well as others 
whose current transportation options are limited, such as older adults. 
However, these benefits cannot be realized without intentional 
inclusive design choices that consider the needs of such individuals. 
NHTSA requests comment on this approach to considering the safety of 
accessible design choices, as well as whether any safety data specific 
to the experience of passengers with disabilities should be collected 
as part of AV STEP and how it could inform the program.

C. Data Governance Plan

    ADS-equipped vehicles depend on an array of sensors, computer 
systems, and electronic communications. These technologies introduce 
cyber risks. To promote good cybersecurity practices for modern 
vehicles, NHTSA has embraced a multi-faceted approach that leverages 
industry consensus standards \124\ and encourages industry to adopt 
practices that improve the cybersecurity posture of their vehicles. 
NHTSA has also issued voluntary guidance on cybersecurity best 
practices for all motor vehicles.\125\ The agency requests comment on 
how participants should validate to NHTSA that they have taken the 
proper precautions in evaluating and mitigating cyber risks associated 
with ADS operations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \124\ See Section IV.D.1.a) (Conformance with Industry 
Standards).
    \125\ NHTSA, ``Cybersecurity Best Practices for the Safety of 
Modern Vehicles'' (September 2022), available at https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.gov/files/2022-09/cybersecurity-best-practices-safety-modern-vehicles-2022-tag.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While NHTSA is not proposing that participations meet specific 
cybersecurity standards, this section proposes to require that an 
application contain a governance plan for data relevant to AV STEP. 
This plan would outline the applicant's processes for managing the data 
to ensure its integrity and security. Participants would need a 
continuous stream of reliable data to responsibly monitor the safety of 
their ADS operations and comply with the proposed reporting 
requirements for AV STEP.\126\ NHTSA requests comment on seven 
potential subjects for the data management plan, listed in Sec.  
597.207 of the proposed rule.\127\ In general, these subjects consider 
organizational processes, including any safeguards or shared 
responsibilities for operations in which data are available to multiple 
stakeholders or jointly managed. These seven subjects are listed below, 
accompanied by a description of the expected level of detail: \128\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \126\ Subpart E of the proposed rule outlines required data 
reporting during participation.
    \127\ These subjects would supplement the data logging 
information that would be required for an application under Sec.  
597.201(f) of the proposed rule, as discussed in Section IV.A.1 
(Operational Baseline).
    \128\ NHTSA expects that some applications may jointly respond 
to some of these subjects if information responsive to one is also 
responsive to others.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A top-level accountability and management process for the data 
governance plan, including a description of the applicable positions 
and roles. An explanation of the relevant processes for each 
stakeholder that generates or accesses the data,\129\ including the 
titles and responsibilities of key individuals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \129\ Such as an ADS developer and fleet operator for operations 
in which these are different entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Access control mechanisms to maintain data security and privacy. 
Training or procedures for granting data access, the means of 
authenticating such access, and anonymization processes--particularly 
to the extent they may impact the safety value of the data. This 
disclosure should include information regarding the protections in 
place for both onboard vehicle data logging and physical or wireless 
data transmission.
    Processes for maintaining data quality and integrity. Detection and 
correction of data corruption and data processing errors.
    Monitoring and enforcement mechanisms for adherence to the plan. 
How applicants would oversee the governance plan, such as through 
automated mechanisms or spot-checking, to ensure that the plan is 
followed.
    Procedures for identifying and responding to incidents that 
compromise data security or integrity. How the responsible parties 
would recognize that an incident has occurred \130\ and react to it, 
including monitoring for and responding to cybersecurity incidents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \130\ Including, for instance, if an applicant has a process for 
quantifying a level of confidence that an incident would be 
identified, a response to this element could describe those 
calculations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Risk management strategies for mitigating internal and external 
data-related risks, including cybersecurity risks. Risk management 
strategies not already addressed by other elements in this subsection, 
such as data backup protocols.
    A list of any published industry standards, guidance, or best 
practices with which the plan conforms. This element does not propose 
to prescribe standards to which a process must conform. However, if an 
applicant claims conformance with any standards, those standards would 
need to be identified in response to this element.\131\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \131\ While many potentially relevant standards exist, one 
example of such a standard is the International Organization for 
Standardization's road vehicle standard: ``Safety and Cybersecurity 
for Automated Driving Systems--Design, Verification and 
Validation.'' (2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Independent Assessment

    NHTSA proposes to require that AV STEP applications contain 
assessments conducted by an independent third party. The independent 
assessment requirements are proposed to enhance the efficiency and 
efficacy of NHTSA's review. An assessment from a third party with 
expertise in the subject technologies would provide value to this 
process. In rapidly evolving technology fields, such as ADS, 
independent assessments provide an opportunity for the oversight of 
such technologies to remain agile and adapt with the changing state of 
the art, while also more efficiently managing voluminous data.\132\ The 
ADS technologies in AV STEP applications would be complex, technically 
specialized, and accompanied by extensive documentation. An independent 
assessor's review would streamline NHTSA's review by pinpointing 
important aspects of a system and add a neutral perspective on

[[Page 4148]]

an applicant's claims. In addition, the proposed assessments would 
provide NHTSA with insight into the value of different third-party ADS 
review methodologies and subject matters.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \132\ Outside of the automotive industry, independent 
assessments have long existed as standard practice for sophisticated 
technologies, such as software systems. For instance, industry 
standards and best practices for third-party audits of software 
systems have been in place for decades and provide routine and 
pivotal support for many aspects of software development. See, e.g., 
Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, ``IEEE 1028-2008: 
IEEE Standard for Software Reviews and Audits'' (August 2008); 
International Organization for Standardization, ``ISO/IEC 
20246:2017: Software and systems engineering--Work product reviews'' 
(February 2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    These assessments would be informative but not determinative. A 
favorable assessment would not necessarily lead to admission into AV 
STEP. Instead, NHTSA would consider the perspective provided by an 
assessment along with the full context of the other application 
materials. This role resembles NHTSA's engagement with third parties in 
other oversight activities.\133\ Likewise, the automotive industry 
often uses third parties to assess vehicle design or corporate 
processes. The proposed assessment for AV STEP builds on these 
practices.\134\ NHTSA seeks comment on the proposed independent 
assessment, particularly regarding the scope, timing, and logistics of 
reviews and assessor qualification requirements and disclosures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \133\ Examples include third parties performing failure analyses 
in defects investigations, contractors adding specialized expertise 
in vehicle testing, and independent monitors promoting 
accountability in regulatory compliance oversight.
    \134\ See, e.g., Pete Bigelow, ``Self-driving tech companies 
take a hard look at their own blind spots, Automotive News,'' 
(October 14, 2024), available at https://www.autonews.com/mobility-report/autonomous-driving-companies-seek-independent-safety-reviews/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Focus of Independent Assessment
    AV STEP proposes a comprehensive independent assessment of the 
subject vehicles, which would encompass an applicant's holistic 
approach to vehicle safety. This assessment would consider the full 
extent of ADS operations requested in an application. The proposed rule 
organizes this assessment around three subjects: (a) conformance with 
relevant industry standards, best practices, and guidance; (b) a safety 
case, including safety management systems; and (c) specific policies 
and capabilities.
    NHTSA proposes to apply the same independent assessment 
requirements for applications requesting participation under Step 1 and 
Step 2. However, an independent assessment at Step 2 would need to be 
more rigorous because it would need to consider whether the ADS could 
be exclusively relied on during operations. In contrast, an independent 
assessment at Step 1 could consider the fallback personnel's ability to 
mitigate certain risks rather than fully reviewing the ADS' ability to 
address those risks. For instance, a review of a Step 1 safety case 
could consider safety claims to be satisfied by fallback personnel even 
if the evidence available for the ADS would not support those claims. 
In contrast, at Step 2, an ADS would be solely responsible for the DDT 
within its ODD, and the independent assessment would need to reflect 
these heightened expectations.
(a) Conformance With Industry Standards
    First, NHTSA proposes to require third-party review of the 
conformance of subject vehicles with relevant industry standards, best 
practices, and guidance pertaining to the design, development, or 
operation of the ADS.\135\ Industry standards are established through 
consensus processes in which a written standard is refined by the 
collective contributions of members of the standard-setting bodies, who 
possess substantial expertise. Industry standards conformance provides 
valuable insight into safety design and the extent to which applicants 
adopt state-of-the-art practices. Considering industry standards 
conformance also aligns with the goals of the National Technology 
Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA).\136\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \135\ While not all best practices or guidance may be considered 
``standards,'' for simplicity, they are collectively referred to as 
``standards'' or ``industry standards'' hereafter.
    \136\ See Public Law 104-113 (1996).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the conformance review, an independent assessment would need to 
consider which industry standards are relevant to the ADS under review. 
Because the relevant standards will likely differ based on the system 
in question and the standards used by a manufacturer during the 
development process, NHTSA is not currently proposing to prescribe 
particular standards with which conformity is required. This 
flexibility accounts for the current early stage of industry standards 
pertaining to ADS, which continue to evolve along with the 
technologies. A variety of standards currently exist, with the 
approaches of some standards overlapping or conflicting with others. 
Affording an assessor the flexibility to identify the most relevant 
standards in place at the time of the assessment would allow the 
assessment to adapt to the ADS safety community's prevailing views on 
safety approaches and best practices.
    For the standards identified as relevant, the independent 
assessment would need to determine full conformance, partial 
conformance, or nonconformance with each standard. If an entity had 
previously obtained an independent assessment for a standard (such as 
for an applicant's internal purposes), NHTSA anticipates that a third 
party conducting an assessment for AV STEP could consider this prior 
review instead of re-assessing to the standard. To do so, the third-
party assessor for AV STEP would need to verify the approach, results, 
and continued applicability of the prior assessment.
    For each standard with which partial conformance or nonconformance 
is determined, an assessor would also need to assess any justification 
provided by an applicant for not conforming with the standard or 
portion of the standard and consider any potential safety implications 
of the nonconformances. If a third-party reviewer's reasoning for not 
assessing conformance with a published industry standard relies upon an 
alternative standard,\137\ the reviewer should assess conformance with 
the alternative standard and explain how the two standards compare.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \137\ This alternative standard could include a standard used in 
the entity's development process, such as a company-specific 
standard, in lieu of a comparable published standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the independent assessment would need to evaluate 
whether, collectively, the degree of conformance with relevant 
standards represents a responsible approach to developing and operating 
the subject vehicles. Despite the evolving landscape of industry 
standards, understanding how an ADS conforms to industry standards in 
the aggregate would help NHTSA ascertain the level of due diligence 
applied to the system's development. Disregarding industry standards 
without carefully considering how the safety goals of those standards 
could be met may be indicative of whether the system was developed in a 
responsible way that reflects state-of-the-art safety practices for 
ADS.
    Finally, to inform how the assessed approach to industry standards 
should shape any further development of the system, an assessor would 
also need to provide recommendations regarding: (1) the list of 
industry standards with which conformance should, in full or in part, 
be achieved or maintained during operations; and (2) how to address any 
safety gaps that would not be covered even if this recommended 
conformance was met. Collectively, the recommendations regarding these 
two subjects would help NHTSA consider the practical impacts of the 
reviewed approach to industry standards.
(b) Safety Case
    The second subject for which NHTSA proposes to require an 
independent assessment is the safety case \138\

[[Page 4149]]

detailing how the safety of the subject vehicle, including the safety 
of the vehicle's occupants and surrounding road users, is assured for 
the operations requested in an application. Many diverse stakeholders 
have generally encouraged the agency to consider such safety cases for 
ADS. For example, in response to NHTSA's 2020 ``Framework for ADS 
Safety'' Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM),\139\ a wide 
variety of organizations--including consumer advocacy groups,\140\ ADS 
developers,\141\ and local authorities \142\--advocated for NHTSA to 
collect and review safety cases. Such comments informed the safety case 
review requirements that NHTSA proposes in this subsection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \138\ This proposal defines a safety case as ``a structured 
argument, consisting of claims supported by a body of evidence, that 
provides a complete, comprehensible, and valid case that a system is 
acceptably safe for a given use in a specified environment.'' See 
Sec.  597.102 of the proposed rule.
    \139\ 85 FR 78058 (December 3, 2020).
    \140\ Center for Automotive Safety, Docket No. NHTSA-2020-0106, 
Comment ID NHTSA-2020-0106-0763 (April 2, 2021), available at 
https://www.regulations.gov/comment/NHTSA-2020-0106-0763.
    \141\ Waymo, Docket No. NHTSA-2020-0106-0771 (April 28, 2021), 
available at https://www.regulations.gov/comment/NHTSA-2020-0106-0771.
    \142\ City of New York, Docket No. NHTSA-2020-0106-0764 (April 
2, 2021), available at https://www.regulations.gov/comment/NHTSA-2020-0106-0764.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In general, an independent assessment of an applicant's safety case 
would be required to review the validity and soundness of the safety 
case. This review would entail considering whether the safety case 
claims for the operations of the subject vehicle are supported by 
sufficient evidence, as well as whether appropriate processes exist for 
maintaining the safety case throughout the operations. Where a 
standardized safety case framework has been adopted,\143\ or where 
conformance with industry standards supports safety case claims, this 
safety case assessment could incorporate the industry standards 
assessment described in the prior subsection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \143\ Such as that published by the UL Standards and Engagement 
organization: American National Standards Institute (ANSI), ``UL 
Standard ANSI/UL4600: Standard for Evaluation of Autonomous 
Products:'' (March 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As with industry standards for ADS more generally, standardized 
safety case frameworks for ADS have not yet been universally adopted. A 
variety of approaches to arguing the safety of ADS design and 
operations are currently used across the ADS safety community. NHTSA 
currently prefers to encourage the evolution of these different 
approaches so that their maximum potential benefit can be realized. 
This proposal does not prescribe a specific format for safety cases. 
However, to mitigate the potential for variability in safety cases, 
NHTSA proposes to require assessment of a set of minimum considerations 
fundamental to operational safety.
    Specifically, the proposed rule would require detailed analysis for 
these nine aspects of a safety case:
    Safety Risk Assessment. Whether the safety case comprehensively 
identifies and assesses safety risks, including potential vehicle and 
operational hazards and faults.
    Safety Risk Management. Whether the safety case contains 
appropriate risk management, including mitigations, for the risks 
identified.
    System Evolution. Whether the safety case contains appropriate 
processes for maintaining or improving safety over time.
    Safety Performance Indicators. Whether the safety case relies on 
appropriate safety performance indicators and thresholds.
    Conformance with Traffic Safety Law. Whether appropriate processes 
exist for identifying applicable traffic safety laws in an area of 
operation and overseeing their conformance during operations.
    Vehicle Fallback and Assistance. Whether the safety case contains 
appropriate processes for ensuring the effectiveness of any expected 
fallback or vehicle assistance.
    Human Factors. Whether the safety case appropriately accounts for 
human factors considerations that may affect safety, including, where 
applicable, those related to fallback personnel, vehicle assistance, 
vehicle occupants, or surrounding road users.
    Crash Avoidance. Whether the safety case appropriately identifies 
and considers the variety of crash-imminent situations that could occur 
within the operations.\144\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \144\ This should cover the full extent of potential crash 
circumstances within the system's ODD, including the full range of 
environmental conditions, such as poor lighting or adverse weather 
conditions, as well as the full range of other road users that a 
subject vehicle could encounter, such as those using mobility aids 
or those with sensory impairments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Tool Qualification.\145\ Whether software tools used to evaluate 
expected ADS performance are representative and accurate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \145\ For further discussion of tool qualification, particularly 
with regards to summarizing the tool qualification approaches 
outlined by industry consensus standards, including ISO 26262, see, 
e.g., M. Conrad, G. Sandmann, and P. Munier, ``Software Tool 
Qualification According to ISO 26262'' (April 2011), available at 
https://www.mathworks.com/content/dam/mathworks/tag-team/Objects/s/68068-2011-01-1005-mathworks.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    These nine aspects of the safety case review would probe the 
robustness of the analytical framework used to develop and oversee the 
ADS. In addition, NHTSA proposes for an assessment of the safety case 
to further evaluate the safety processes that govern such development 
and oversight by also including a review of the safety management 
systems \146\ in place to oversee the safety of subject vehicles, 
including during development and operations. This review should focus 
on the organizations responsible for the safety of operations involving 
the subject vehicles, including any Essential System-Level Stakeholders 
that would remain engaged with an operation during AV STEP 
participation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \146\ See, e.g., AVSC, ``AVSC00007202107: Information Report for 
Adapting a Safety Management System (SMS) for Automated Driving 
System (ADS) SAE Level 4 and 5 Testing and Evaluation'' (July 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As with the prior elements, NHTSA is not prescribing a specific 
type of safety management system for this requirement but, instead, 
proposes eight elements for the required review:
     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-to-vehicle 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.

[[Page 4150]]

     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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \147\ This aspect of an assessment would focus on the data 
logging capabilities of the vehicle and their ability to support the 
requirements detailed in Subpart E of the proposed rule. It would 
not necessarily need to cover the data governance plan information 
described earlier in this section.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Summary Report Requirements
    NHTSA proposes to require that information regarding an assessment 
be submitted in an application in the form of a summary report prepared 
by the independent assessor. NHTSA is not proposing a particular 
format, as the specific subjects under assessment will likely impact 
the optimal format. However, for each subject an assessment is required 
to review, a summary report would need to provide an overview of the 
assessor's findings and the basis for each finding.
    A report would also be required to provide an overview of how these 
findings were made. To do so, a report would describe the materials 
reviewed during the assessment, such as by outlining the material and 
the means of review. A report would also describe the process and 
format of the review. For instance, this description could include 
information regarding the review approach (such as analysis methods and 
tools or in-person meetings and reviews) and the procedures used to 
structure the review (such as procedures for identifying relevant 
standards or reviewing the safety case). A report would further 
describe the methods used to identify potential inconsistencies, gaps, 
logical fallacies, or other concerns about the information provided for 
review. And to help understand how the assessment was overseen, a 
report would describe any processes in place to manage the assessment.
    The proposed rule lists two additional aspects of an assessment 
that would be addressed in a summary report to help NHTSA consider how 
the findings of the assessment translate to the agency's review of the 
operations requested in an application. First, the report would need to 
provide an overview of any concerns identified during an assessment, 
including all recommendations made to the applicant(s) regarding those 
concerns.\148\ Second, the report would define the parameters under 
which the assessment and its conclusions are valid. This overview 
should account for potential future changes to operations, system 
design, or processes for which the assessment would remain valid. The 
overview should also explain any limitations or qualifiers to the 
conclusions of the assessment. This information would help NHTSA to 
consider whether any changes to an operation during participation 
exceeded the scope of a prior assessment.\149\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \148\ This information would help NHTSA evaluate the extent to 
which an applicant sought to implement an assessor's feedback when 
reviewing an applicant's response to the information required under 
Sec.  597.205(e) of the proposed rule.
    \149\ Section V.A.3 (Update Reporting) and Sec.  597.502 of the 
proposed rule describe how changes to an operation would be 
overseen.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Lastly, a report would need to describe any access restrictions 
that limited the assessment.\150\ This information, along with the 
context information submitted by an applicant under the next 
subsection, would help NHTSA gauge whether any procedural

[[Page 4151]]

difficulties may have impacted the assessment's informative value.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \150\ For example, if an applicant refused to make certain 
documentation or data available to the assessor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Assessment Context Requirements
    NHTSA proposes to require an applicant to submit additional 
information about the broader context of the independent assessment. 
The proposed rule focuses on two topics for this context. First, an 
applicant would need to explain any measures taken in response to each 
of the recommendations listed in the independent assessment summary 
report. To explain these measures, an applicant would likely need to 
not only describe the changes made but also explain how they were 
responsive to the recommendations. In addition, this element would 
provide an applicant with an opportunity to explain the reasoning for 
not following any recommendations.
    Second, the applicant would need to describe any other independent 
assessments initiated for the subjects required of an AV STEP 
assessment.\151\ This information would inform whether an applicant 
engaged in forum shopping for a favorable assessment. For instance, 
this element would reveal if an assessment submitted in an application 
replaced a less favorable assessment or if an assessment was terminated 
early to avoid unfavorable findings. This information would help inform 
the credibility of the conclusions in an assessment submitted under AV 
STEP. For instance, if an assessment submitted under AV STEP was 
favorable to an applicant but the applicant prematurely terminated a 
prior assessment to avoid unfavorable findings, that context could 
raise questions about the credibility of the completed assessment. 
Nevertheless, NHTSA recognizes that there may be good faith reasons to 
terminate, replace, or update a prior assessment. To account for this 
possibility, NHTSA proposes to require the disclosure of information 
about the prior assessments but is not proposing to automatically 
disqualify assessments that were preceded by other assessments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \151\ Section 597.205(e) of the proposed rule explains the 
specific content that would be required for this description.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Reliability and Credibility Disclosures
    To help NHTSA consider the informative value of an assessment, an 
application would need to contain information about the reliability and 
credibility of the assessor. This information would focus on the 
assessor's independence, qualifications, and resources.
(a) Assessor Qualifications and Resources
    NHTSA proposes to require that an assessment be conducted by a 
qualified assessor with adequate resources. The proposed rule would 
require an assessment to be carried out by an assessor (including its 
personnel) with suitable education, technical expertise, experience, 
and accreditations. The relevant qualifications would depend on the 
technical fields implicated by the analyses undertaken in each 
assessment. In addition, an assessor would need to maintain appropriate 
policies and practices for conducting and organizing an assessment. 
This requirement would ensure that reviewers apply their expertise in a 
structured and consistent manner, such as through standard procedures 
for completing and supervising assessments. Finally, assessors would 
need to maintain appropriate facilities and resources for the 
assessments. These could include physical facilities and resources as 
well as software capabilities.
    An application would need to contain supporting information 
regarding these attributes. Specifically, the proposed rule would 
require the submission of the curriculum vitae of key personnel 
involved in the assessment, any accreditations relevant to the review, 
and a description of all policies or protocols that governed the 
assessment. NHTSA may ask for additional information about the assessor 
as part of the review process.
(b) Assessor Independence
    The informative value of an independent assessment depends upon the 
assessor retaining independence to objectively apply its expertise. To 
that end, Sec.  597.205(f) of the proposed rule would address two types 
of conflicts of interest: (1) disqualifying conflicts; and (2) 
potential conflicts for which disclosure is required. Even so, the 
conflict-of-interest situations expressly listed in the proposed rule 
may not be exhaustive.\152\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \152\ Other agencies have acknowledged this limitation when 
considering third-party reviews for their own programs. For example, 
the Food and Drug Administration has stated that: it is not feasible 
to identify or state categorically or inflexibly all of the criteria 
for judging that a third party is free of conflicts of interest. 61 
FR 14789, 14794 (April 3, 1996).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    When conducting a case-by-case review of the credibility of 
assessments under this program, NHTSA would consider any other 
indication of a conflict of interest that may appear. The proposed 
requirements would provide a foundation for this inquiry. As an 
additional safeguard, NHTSA proposes to require each application 
submitted for AV STEP to contain a certification from the assessor that 
the assessment represents the assessor's independent judgment and that 
none of the disqualifying conflicts of interest discussed in the next 
paragraph exist.
    NHTSA proposes to consider three situations as causing such a 
significant risk of bias that the assessment would not fulfill AV 
STEP's independent assessment requirements. The first such situation is 
if an assessor \153\ is owned, operated, or controlled (directly or 
indirectly) by a party with a financial interest in a particular 
disposition of the application. The most common example of this 
situation would likely be full or partial ownership by an Essential 
System-Level Stakeholder or one of its subsidiaries,\154\ but this 
situation could also arise through grants or other types of funding. 
The second disqualifying situation is if an assessor has any ownership 
or financial interest in an interested party to the application. An 
assessor that is an investor in an Essential-System Level Stakeholder 
would be one example of this second situation.\155\ The third situation 
is if the fee structure for an assessment depends in any way on the 
outcome of the assessment or application. This situation could include 
a fee structure contingent on admission into AV STEP or on the 
submission of an application that includes the proposed assessment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \153\ As proposed, the assessor in these situations would also 
include any personnel or contractors used by the assessor for the 
review.
    \154\ NHTSA understands that some companies have internal 
auditing organizations. This requirement would preclude those 
organizations from conducting an independent assessment for AV STEP. 
Nevertheless, NHTSA recognizes the value that internal auditing 
practices can add and expects those practices to reflect positively 
on the safety management systems under review in an assessment.
    \155\ This requirement is not meant to prohibit de minimis or 
sufficiently diversified interests. Cf. 28 U.S.C. 208; 5 CFR part 
2640.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Even if an assessor does not have one of these disqualifying 
conflicts, an assessment's objectivity could be compromised by an 
assessor's history with the subjects under review. The proposed rule 
expressly lists two such situations: (1) if an assessor participated in 
the design, manufacture, or distribution of a product; \156\ or (2) if 
an assessor was otherwise separately engaged in the development of a 
project within the scope of the assessment.\157\ \158\ In either of 
these two

[[Page 4152]]

types of situations, an assessor's judgment may be clouded by a direct 
stake in some of the decisions under review. However, given the nuances 
of these scenarios and the possibility that potential bias could be 
mitigated, NHTSA is not proposing to categorically disqualify an 
assessment where these circumstances exist. Instead, NHTSA proposes to 
require disclosure to allow the agency to consider how they affected 
the credibility of the assessment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \156\ An assessor that previously conducted internal reviews for 
a company during the ADS design process would be an example of this 
first situation.
    \157\ An example of this second situation could involve an 
entity that, before conducting an assessment, was engaged to help 
shape the project that is the subject of the request, such as by 
reviewing and recommending locations for operations.
    \158\ Neither of these scenarios is meant to cover situations 
where the recommendations of an assessor during an assessment for AV 
STEP leads to changes in the product or proposed operation. NHTSA 
specifically encourages such recommendations and requests 
information about them in an application. See Sec. Sec.  597.205(c) 
and 597.205(f) of the proposed rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

E. Application Review

    The proposed AV STEP application review is a three-phase process 
that considers the unique facts and circumstances of each request. 
NHTSA would consider the totality of the information available when 
issuing a Final Determination Letter governing the terms of 
participation.
    Individualized review is necessary to account for the intricacies 
of each ADS and the operations that may be requested. The safety of the 
ADS depends on the full context of an operation. The relevant safety 
considerations for ADS are often as varied as the driving tasks that an 
ADS seeks to perform. Nuances of an operation--such as the time a 
nearby school dismisses students or how a system accounts for seasonal 
changes in vegetation--can meaningfully affect the risk of an 
operation. For these reasons, NHTSA proposes a review process that 
allows the agency to consider the most relevant aspects of each 
operation.
    The proposed procedures are also intended to expedite review. 
Reviews of ADS are complex and data-intensive. Aspects of the proposal, 
including the independent assessment and other upfront submission 
requirements, are specifically designed to enable efficient and 
transparent review.\159\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \159\ As discussed in Section VI (Public Reporting Requirements 
(Regulatory Text Subpart G)), NHTSA proposes to publish the dates on 
which an application was received, progressed through each review 
phase, and reached a final decision. This will enable stakeholders 
and the public to observe the typical timing for an application 
review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NHTSA proposes three review phases: Initial Review (Phase 1); 
Follow-up Review (Phase 2); and Preliminary Determination (Phase 3). 
The first phase would immediately follow the submission of an 
application. NHTSA would provide each applicant with a notice of 
receipt of the application, which would identify an agency point of 
contact for the review and advise whether any required information 
appeared to be missing from the application. During Phase 1, NHTSA 
would likely schedule introductory meetings with the applicant(s) and 
any entities that performed an independent assessment.\160\ NHTSA would 
focus on understanding the request and identifying any follow-up items.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \160\ Section 597.106(b) of the proposed rule would establish, 
as a condition of the program, NHTSA's ability to communicate freely 
and without restriction with any entity that performed an 
independent assessment submitted as part of an application.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The second review phase would begin with NHTSA's issuance of a 
Follow-Up Index to an applicant, identifying items for which NHTSA 
requests additional information. Follow-up may involve either 
discussions or a written response and may be iterative. The extent of 
this engagement would depend on the breadth of follow-up required and 
the completeness and timeliness of an applicant's responses.
    After all follow-up has been addressed, NHTSA would initiate Phase 
3 of the review process by issuing a proposed decision (``Preliminary 
Determination'') to the applicant(s). This Preliminary Determination 
would contain the terms and conditions proposed to govern 
participation. Providing proposed conditions to applicants would 
facilitate resolving or mitigating any problems before a final decision 
is issued. For instance, an applicant might be able to eliminate the 
need for a condition by curing or clarifying an issue. Similarly, 
providing an applicant with the opportunity to review the conditions up 
front would encourage dialogue about refinements that could accomplish 
the agency's goals in a less burdensome or more technically feasible 
way.
    Section 597.403 of the proposed rule would establish a consistent 
set of considerations for NHTSA when selecting terms and conditions. 
Specifically, NHTSA would evaluate the extent to which any required 
reports may further NHTSA's understanding of a vehicle's performance, 
operations, or ADS; the feasibility of analyzing any reported 
information; and the extent to which the terms and conditions are 
consistent with motor vehicle safety and further the purposes of 49 
U.S.C. 30101.
    During the application review process, NHTSA would assess an 
applicant's proposed metrics and thresholds and develop terms for each 
customized requirement, as discussed above. NHTSA would consider the 
extent to which the proposed terms fulfill the required subject of 
reporting and their anticipated value for overseeing the subject 
vehicle. This consideration would balance the need for consistent 
reporting subjects with the reality that many safety topics for ADS 
currently lack established approaches to judging performance. Different 
entities currently use a variety of metrics to measure the safety of 
certain subjects, and the differences among stakeholders' systems and 
approaches may cause some metrics to be more informative for some 
systems than others.
    Under the proposed procedures, on the tenth business day after 
issuing a preliminary determination, NHTSA would generally issue a 
final decision that adopts the proposed terms.\161\ This timeline would 
be extended if any applicant requests, in writing, additional time or a 
change to a Preliminary Determination.\162\ Upon such a request, any 
necessary next steps for an application would be determined on a case-
by-case basis. To limit this process and enable timely determinations, 
unless NHTSA has granted a longer extension request, NHTSA may finalize 
any Preliminary Determination that has been pending for 60 days even if 
an applicant continues to request changes. The agency expects that it 
would likely consider extension requests for longer than 60 days for 
applicants seeking, in good faith, to resolve outstanding issues. 
However, this 60-day timeframe provides a backstop that would ensure 
efficient use of agency resources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \161\ The proposed procedures would allow NHTSA to withdraw a 
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.
    \162\ Similarly, 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

[[Page 4153]]

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 
ADS-equipped 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-
by-case basis, through terms and conditions in a Final Determination 
Letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \163\ See, 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-crash-reporting; 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.

           Table V-1--AV STEP Reporting Requirements Overview
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Periodic Reporting For Each    Extent of Operations:
 Location Sheet.                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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \164\ For 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (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

[[Page 4154]]

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \165\ This 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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, cross-reference 
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \166\ For example, when coming to a stop at low speeds to 
maximize passing space for other vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \167\ For 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).
    \168\ For 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Instances of Aggressive Vehicle Acceleration or Deceleration. 
Report the total number of instances of vehicle acceleration or 
deceleration exceeding a customized threshold.\169\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \169\ See the discussion for Instances of Aggressive Vehicle 
Jerk regarding potential approaches to establishing such thresholds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \170\ See Sec.  597.102 of the proposed rule for definition of 
DDT Takeover.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     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 ADS-equipped 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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     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

[[Page 4155]]

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \173\ See, e.g., Levi Sumagaysay, ``Self-driving companies: 
Don't measure us by `disengagements,' '' Protocol (February 26, 
2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 Sec.  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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \174\ Section IV.A.3 (Confirmation of Reporting During 
Participation) discusses NHTSA's proposed approach to using 
customized terms for certain reporting requirements.
    \175\ SAE International, ``J3018 DEC2020: Safety-Relevant 
Guidance for On-Road Testing of Prototype Automated Driving System 
(ADS)-Operated Vehicles,'' Section 6.3: IFTD State Monitoring, 
(Revised December 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \176\ Section IV.A.3 (Confirmation of Reporting During 
Participation) discusses NHTSA's proposed approach to using 
customized terms for certain reporting requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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.
    \178\ NHTSA 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-Vehicles-Report-to-Congress-06302023.pdf.
    \179\ AVSC, ``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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     The extent to which the system-level 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

[[Page 4156]]

(OEDR) reaction time,\181\ other system latency considerations, or 
metrics regarding the identification and reduction of system 
errors.\182\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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 scenario-based 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).
    \182\ Specific 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     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, Sec.  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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \183\ NHTSA, ``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.
    \184\ The current Incident Report Form is available as appendix 
C to the SGO. See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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, Sec.  
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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \185\ NHTSA 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \186\ A report would also need to indicate whether the ADS was 
engaged at any point during the time surrounding the crash.
    \187\ This 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the second category of event-triggered 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 non-ticketed 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \188\ As 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The last category of proposed event-triggered 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

[[Page 4157]]

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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \189\ See Section III.C (Terms and Conditions) for more 
explanation of this restriction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \190\ Section IV.A.3 (Confirmation of Reporting During 
Participation) discusses NHTSA's proposed approach to using 
customized terms for certain reporting requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \191\ See Sec.  597.205(d)(3)(vi) of the proposed rule.
    \192\ As proposed, this position could be provided by an 
assessor other than the one that conducted the original analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \193\ The 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 Sec.  597.601(e) of the

[[Page 4158]]

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \194\ This 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)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \195\ This 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \196\ Although 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \197\ This 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 4159]]

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \198\ As appropriate, NHTSA could also unilaterally revoke an 
operation from AV STEP or suspend it through the modifications 
described in this section.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Reinstating any curtailed aspects of an operation would also be 
handled case-by-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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \199\ See 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \201\ See, 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-ai-conforms-to-autonomous-
vehicle-testing-standards-according-to-leading-independent-auditor-
301447984.html#:~:text=The%20result%20of%20T%C3%9CV%20S%C3%9CD's,bein
g%20compliant%20with%20these%20applicable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \202\ To 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.
    \203\ For the proposed definitions of these statuses, see Sec.  
597.701(b)(1) of the proposed rule.
    \204\ NHTSA 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.

[[Page 4160]]

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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \205\ Under Sec.  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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 Sec.  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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \206\ See 49 U.S.C. 30115.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 Sec.  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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \207\ This 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \208\ For instance, in 2022, NHTSA amended occupant protection 
standards to account for ADS-equipped vehicles that lack traditional 
manual controls. 87 FR 18560 (March 30, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \209\ See 49 CFR part 586.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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\

[[Page 4161]]

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \210\ See 58 FR12905, 12906 (March 8, 1993) (explaining the 
legislative and regulatory history of the provision).
    \211\ This rulemaking remains ongoing. 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \212\ See 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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, Sec.  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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \213\ See 58 FR 12905, 12906 (March 8, 1993).
    \214\ NHTSA 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 4162]]

development of advanced vehicle technologies.\216\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \217\ See Sec.  597.601(d)(3) of the proposed rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \218\ As proposed in Sec.  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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \219\ As with other terms in a Final Determination Letter, an 
exemption-holder could request to amend this cap during 
participation.
    \220\ Since 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 ADS-
equipped vehicle activity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \221\ This 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 Sec.  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/information-regulatory-affairs/information-policy. DOT's guidelines may be accessed at https://www.transportation.gov/dot-information-dissemination-quality-guidelines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \222\ See 49 CFR 553.21.
    \223\ OCR is the process of converting an image of text, such as 
a scanned paper document or electronic fax file, into computer-
editable text.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.

[[Page 4163]]

     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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \224\ See 49 CFR part 512.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 4164]]

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 ADS-equipped 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 Sec.  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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \225\ The 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 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

[[Page 4166]]

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 third-party 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 safety-critical 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 ADS-equipped 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

[[Page 4167]]

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \226\ For NHTSA's cost analysis of SGO reporting requirements, 
see 86 FR 74217 (December 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 ADS-equipped 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \227\ The 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 ADS-equipped 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \228\ NHTSA 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 4168]]

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \229\ See 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.
    \230\ These 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \231\ See, e.g., Commission for Energy Regulation, ``Safety Case 
Fees Structure and Methodology'' (February 2016), available at: 
https://cruie-live-96ca64acab2247eca8a850a7e54b-5b34f62.divio-media.com/documents/CER16032-Safety-Case-Fees-Version-2.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NHTSA projected that paying for an independent assessment of the 
scope proposed for AV STEP would cost an

[[Page 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 Sec.  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

[[Page 4170]]

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \232\ Office of Management and Budget, ``Salaries and Wages'' 
(January 2024), available at: https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/pay-leave/salaries-wages/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 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 ADS-equipped 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 non-safety 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 ADS-equipped 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

[[Page 4172]]

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 entry-level 
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

[[Page 4173]]

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:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \233\ U.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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     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

[[Page 4174]]

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 ADS-equipped 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 
ADS-equipped 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

[[Page 4175]]

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 event-triggered 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \234\ These requirements are described in Section IV 
(Application and Review (Regulatory Text Subparts B and D)).
    \235\ See Section VII.B (Exemption Application Requirements).
    \236\ These requirements are described in Section V.A (Reporting 
Requirements).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 
ADS-equipped 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 safety-
relevant 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

[[Page 4176]]

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 ADS-equipped 
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \237\ As 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \238\ Executive Order 13132, Federalism, sec. 1(a) (August 4, 
1999).
    \239\ Id. at sec. 1(a).
    \240\ Id. at sec. 6(b), (c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 ADS-equipped 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

[[Page 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

[[Page 4178]]

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

0
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.

0
2. Amend Sec.  595.2 to read as follows:


Sec.  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.
0
3. Amend Sec.  595.3 to read as follows:


Sec.  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.
0
4. Add subpart E to read as follows:

Subpart E--Vehicle Modifications for Automated Driving Systems


Sec.  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.
0
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.

[[Page 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


Sec.  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.


Sec.  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.


Sec.  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 ADS-equipped 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 performance-relevant system 
failure(s) or upon operational design domain exit, or the response by 
an ADS to achieve a minimal risk condition, given the same 
circumstances.
    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 on-road traffic, who continuously supervises the 
performance of an ADS-operated vehicle in real time and intervenes 
whenever necessary to prevent a hazardous event by exercising any means 
of vehicle control. This intervention may occur as part of a DDT 
Fallback 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.

[[Page 4180]]

    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-[agrave]-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 time-of-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 
ADS-equipped 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 Sec.  
597.404, including any Amended Final Determination Letter under Sec.  
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 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.
    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.


Sec.  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 in-vehicle 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 co-applicants, 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 co-applicants) 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.


Sec.  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.


Sec.  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 Sec.  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;

[[Page 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.


Sec.  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 Sec.  597.205 regarding any aspect of 
an application or participation is a condition of this Program.

Subpart B--Application Requirements


Sec.  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.


Sec.  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 System-Level 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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  597.701(a)(2)(xii).


Sec.  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

[[Page 4182]]

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 Sec.  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 Sec.  
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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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.


Sec.  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 Sec.  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.


Sec.  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:

[[Page 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.


Sec.  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

[[Page 4184]]

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.


Sec.  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

[[Page 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).


Sec.  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 
data-related risks, including cybersecurity; and
    (7) A list of any published industry standards, guidance, or best 
practices with which the plan conforms.
    (b) [Reserved]


Sec.  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 Sec.  
597.206(b) for each reporting requirement in this part that is labeled 
as customized.

Subpart C--AV STEP Exemptions


Sec.  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.


Sec.  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.


Sec.  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).


Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  
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


Sec.  597.400  In general.

    (a) NHTSA will conduct a case-by-case review of each application 
under the procedures in this subpart and based on the totality of the 
information available to NHTSA.

[[Page 4186]]

    (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 Sec.  597.404. The effect 
of an amendment on the phase of review will depend on the nature and 
extent of the amended material.


Sec.  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.


Sec.  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.


Sec.  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 Sec.  
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.


Sec.  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 Sec.  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


Sec.  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 Sec.  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.

[[Page 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 Sec.  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 system-level 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.


Sec.  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 System-Level 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

[[Page 4188]]

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.


Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 
Sec.  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 Sec.  597.601 for any 
change that modifies a term or a condition of a Final Determination 
Letter.

Subpart F--Procedures During Participation


Sec.  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-by-case 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.

[[Page 4189]]

Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  
597.202:
    (i) The type of exemption requested under Sec.  597.202(a)(1);
    (ii) The subject vehicle for which an exemption is requested, other 
than as provided under Sec.  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 Sec.  
597.202(b)(1);
    (iv) For an AV STEP Make Inoperative Exemption, the device or 
element requested to be rendered inoperative under Sec.  
597.202(c))(1); or
    (v) For an AV STEP Make Inoperative Exemption, each requirement of 
an FMVSS affected by the requested modification under Sec.  
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 Sec.  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 Sec.  
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 Sec.  597.203(b).
    (3) The addition of a new Location Sheet required under Sec.  
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 Sec.  
597.502; and
    (iii) All of the following fields under Sec.  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


Sec.  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.


Sec.  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 Sec.  
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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  
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 Sec.  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:

[[Page 4190]]

    (A) Active. This status applies if any vehicle miles traveled were 
reported during the preceding reporting period under Sec.  
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 Sec.  
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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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`