[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 53 (Tuesday, March 19, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10182-10191]
[FR Doc No: 2019-05119]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2019-0016]

General Motors, LLC--Receipt of Petition for Temporary Exemption
From Various Requirements of the Safety Standards for an All-Electric
Vehicle With an Automated Driving System

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

ACTION: Notice of receipt of petition for temporary exemption; request
for public comment.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the procedures in the Temporary Exemption
from Motor Vehicle Safety and Bumper Standards, General Motors, LLC,
(GM) has applied for a temporary exemption for its driverless ``Zero-
Emission Autonomous Vehicle'' (ZEAV), an all-electric vehicle with an
Automated Driving System (ADS), from part of each of 16 Federal Motor
Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS). The ZEAVs would not be equipped with
a steering wheel, manually-operated gear selection mechanism, or foot
pedals for braking and accelerating. If the requested exemption were
granted, GM would use the ZEAVs to provide on-demand mobility services
in GM-controlled fleets.
    GM requests the exemption be granted on either or both of two
statutory bases: That it would facilitate the development or field
evaluation of a new motor vehicle safety feature providing a level of
safety at least equal to those of FMVSS from which exemption is
requested, or that it would facilitate the development or field
evaluation of a low-emission vehicle without unreasonably lowering the
safety performance of the vehicle.
    NHTSA seeks comment on the merits of and most appropriate statutory
basis for GM's exemption petition and whether the petition satisfies
the substantive requirements for an exemption.
    NHTSA will assess the merits of the petition after receiving and
considering the public comments on this notice, the petition, public
responses to the questions in this notice, and any additional
information that might be forthcoming from GM.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before May 20, 2019.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stephen Wood or Justine Casselle,
Office of the Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.
Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comments: NHTSA invites you to submit comments on the petition
described herein and the questions posed below. You may submit comments
identified by docket number in the heading of this notice by any of the
following methods:
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington,
DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building
Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays.
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
     Instructions: All submissions must include the agency name
and docket number. Note that all comments received will be posted
without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal
information provided. Please see the Privacy Act discussion below.
NHTSA will consider all comments received before the close of business
on the comment closing date indicated above. To the extent possible,
NHTSA will also consider comments filed after the closing date.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov at any time or to
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140,
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal Holidays. Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Privacy Act: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits
comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT
posts these comments, without edit, to www.regulations.gov, as
described in the system of records notice, DOT/ALL-14 FDMS, accessible
through www.dot.gov/privacy. In order to facilitate comment tracking
and response, we encourage commenters to provide their name, or the
name of their organization; however, submission of names is completely
optional. Whether or not commenters identify themselves, all timely
comments will be fully considered. If you wish to provide comments
containing proprietary or confidential information, please contact the
agency for alternate submission instructions.
    Confidential Business Information: If you wish to submit any
information under a claim of confidentiality, you should submit three
copies of your complete submission, including the information you claim
to be confidential business information, to the Chief Counsel, NHTSA,
at the address given under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. In
addition, you should submit two copies, from which you have deleted the
claimed confidential business information, to Docket Management at the
address given above. When you send a comment containing information
claimed to be confidential business information, you should include a
cover letter setting forth the information specified in our
confidential business information regulation (49 CFR part 512).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Background
II. Authority and Procedures for Temporary Exemptions
III. GM's Petition
    A. Zero Emission Automated Vehicle
    i. Parent Vehicle--Chevrolet Bolt
    ii. Comparison of Bolt and ZEAV
    iii. Planned Usage of the ZEAV
    B. Safety Showing
    i. FMVSS No. 101
    ii. FMVSS No. 102
    iii. FMVSS No. 108
    iv. FMVSS No. 111
    v. FMVSS No. 114
    vi. FMVSS No. 124
    vii. FMVSS No. 126
    viii. FMVSS No. 135
    ix. FMVSS No. 138
    x. FMVSS No. 141
    xi. FMVSS Nos. 203, 204 and 207
    xii. FMVSS No. 208
    xiii. FMVSS No. 214
    xiv. FMVSS No. 226
    C. Low-Emission Showing
    D. Public Interest Argument
    E. Appendices
    F. Clarification
IV. Agency's Review of GM's Petition
V. Potential Types of Terms
VI. Request for Comments and Information
VII. Comment Period

I. Background

    One of the key tasks of NHTSA, the agency responsible for issuing
and enforcing the existing FMVSS, in getting ready for ADS vehicles is
to ensure that those standards do not impose unnecessary obstacles to
those vehicles. Most existing FMVSS were drafted years ago, based on
the assumption that each vehicle would have a human driver who needs
controls for manually operating the vehicle, information about the
vehicle's operating condition, and a clear view in all directions of
the driving environment in all weather and lighting conditions. While
many of the existing FMVSS need to be updated so that they are
appropriate for vehicles with modern technologies, they do not pose
barriers to the manufacturing today of dual mode ADS vehicles, i.e.,
ADS vehicles designed to be driven either by an ADS or a human driver.
Some of them could, however, pose barriers to ADS vehicles designed to
be driven exclusively by an ADS.
    NHTSA can address the needs of exclusively ADS vehicles in
different ways, depending on the time frame. In the longer term, it can
conduct research on how to update the performance requirements and test
procedures and then initiate rulemaking proceedings to modernize the
FMVSS. In the near term, the agency can, if needed and merited, grant,
in whole or in part, petitions from vehicle manufacturers to exempt
limited numbers of their vehicles from select FMVSS so that the
manufacturers can gain additional on-road experience. While established
vehicle manufacturers can conduct on-road tests to evaluate their
vehicles without first obtaining an exemption, if they wish to mix such
testing with operations involving transporting the public, exemptions
may, to that extent, be necessary.
    In January 2018, GM submitted such a petition for the ZEAV, a
vehicle designed to be driven exclusively by an ADS. GM requested the
vehicle's temporary exemption from parts of each of 16 FMVSS.
    This notice accomplishes two things. First, it serves as a notice
of receipt of GM's petition. Second, it requests (a) comments on the
petition and the discussion in this notice and (b) responses to a
series of questions related to the petition.
    While the analysis of exemption petitions based on rationales other
than economic hardship generally involves comparing the relative safety
of exempted vehicles and nonexempted vehicles, this is the first
petition whose analysis by NHTSA will involve a comparison of (1) a
vehicle in which all driving decisions as to when and how it is
appropriate to use crash avoidance technologies and take actions to
implement those decisions would be made by an ADS to (2) a vehicle in
which almost all of those decisions are made and implemented by a human
driver. This difference could affect the amount of safety benefits
generated by Federally-mandated safety technologies.
    Because this is an important case of first impression and because
other petitions for the exemption of other vehicles with ADS are
expected in the coming years, NHTSA believes that inclusion of the list
of questions is necessary to inform the public about the novel and
important issues presented by this petition and to elicit public
feedback to aid the agency in determining how to address and resolve
those issues. The feedback will also aid the agency, if it partially or
fully grants an exemption, in determining how to promote, through the
setting of terms and monitoring GM's adherence to them, the safe
operation of GM's ZEAVs.

II. Authority and Procedures for Temporary Exemptions

    Chapter 301 of title 49, United States Code, authorizes the
Secretary of Transportation to exempt, on a temporary basis, under
specified circumstances, and on terms the Secretary deems appropriate,
motor vehicles from a FMVSS or bumper standard. This authority is set
forth at 49 U.S.C. 30113. The Secretary has delegated the authority for
implementing this section to NHTSA.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 49 CFR 1.94.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Safety Act authorizes the Secretary to grant, in whole or in
part, a temporary exemption to a vehicle manufacturer if the Secretary
makes specified findings. The Secretary must look comprehensively at
the request for exemption and find that the exemption is consistent
with the public interest and with the objectives of the Vehicle Safety
Act.\2\ In addition, the Secretary must make one of the following more
focused findings:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ 49 U.S.C. 30113(b)(3)(A).

    (i) compliance with the standard[s] [from which exemption is
sought] would cause substantial economic hardship to a manufacturer
that has tried to comply with the standard[s] in good faith;
    (ii) the exemption would make easier the development or field
evaluation of a new motor vehicle safety feature providing a safety
level at least equal to the safety level of the standard;
    (iii) the exemption would make the development or field
evaluation of a low-emission motor vehicle easier and would not
unreasonably lower the safety level of that vehicle; or
    (iv) compliance with the standard would prevent the manufacturer
from selling a motor vehicle with an overall safety level at least
equal to the overall safety level of nonexempt vehicles.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 49 U.S.C. 30113(b)(3)(B).

    The second and third of these additional findings are the bases for
GM's request for exemption. First, GM requests the Secretary to grant
its petition based on finding that an exemption is consistent with the
public interest and with the Safety Act, and that the exemption would
make easier the development or field evaluation of a new motor vehicle
safety feature providing a safety level at least equal to the safety
level of the standard.\4\ Second, GM requests the Secretary to grant
its petition on finding that the exemption is consistent with the
public interest and with the Safety Act, and that the exemption would
facilitate the development or field evaluation of a low-emission motor
vehicle and would not unreasonably reduce the safety of that
vehicle.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 49 U.S.C. 30113(b)(3)(B)(ii).
    \5\ 49 U.S.C. 30113(b)(3)(B)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NHTSA established 49 CFR part 555, Temporary Exemption from Motor
Vehicle Safety and Bumper Standards, to implement the statutory
provisions concerning temporary exemptions. The requirements in 49 CFR
555.5 state that the petitioner must set forth the basis of the
petition by providing the information required under 49 CFR 555.6, and
the reasons why the exemption would be in the public interest and
consistent with the objectives of the Safety Act.
    A petition justified on the basis that an exemption from a FMVSS
would facilitate the development or field evaluation of a new motor
vehicle safety feature providing a level of safety at least equal to
the level of safety required by the standard must include the following
information specified in 49 CFR 555.6(b):

    (1) A description of the safety features, and research,
development, and testing documentation establishing the innovational
nature of such features;
    (2) An analysis establishing that the level of safety of the
feature is equivalent to or exceeds the level of safety established
in the standard from which exemption is sought;
    (i) A detailed description of how a vehicle equipped with the
safety or impact protection feature differs from one that complies
with the standard;
    (ii) If applicant is presently manufacturing a vehicle
conforming to the standard, the results of tests conducted to
substantiate certification to the standard; and

    (iii) The results of tests conducted on the safety or impact
protection features that demonstrates performance which meets or
exceeds the requirements of the standard.
    (3) Substantiation that a temporary exemption would facilitate
the development or field evaluation of the vehicle;
    (4) A statement whether, at the end of the exemption period, the
manufacturer intends to conform to the standard, apply for a further
exemption, or petition for rulemaking to amend the standard to
incorporate the safety features; and
    (5) A statement that not more than 2,500 exempted vehicles will
be sold in the United States in any 12-month period for which an
exemption may be granted pursuant to this paragraph.

    A petition justified on the basis that an exemption would
facilitate the development or field evaluation of a low-emission motor
vehicle and would not unreasonably lower the safety level of that
vehicle must include the following information specified in 49 CFR
555.6(c):

    (1) Substantiation that the vehicle is a low-emission vehicle;
    (2) Research, development, and testing documentation
establishing that a temporary exemption would not unreasonably
degrade the safety or impact protection of the vehicle;
    (i) A detailed description of how the motor vehicle equipped
with the low-emission engine would, if exempted, differ from one
that complies with the standard;
    (ii) If the applicant is presently manufacturing a vehicle
conforming to the standard, the results of tests conducted to
substantiate certification to the standard;
    (iii) The results of any tests conducted on the vehicle that
demonstrate its failure to meet the standard, expressed as
comparative performance levels; and
    (iv) Reasons why the failure to meet the standard does not
unreasonably degrade the safety or impact protection of the vehicle.
    (3) Substantiation that a temporary exemption would facilitate
the development or field evaluation of the vehicle; and
    (4) A statement of whether the petitioner intends to conform to
the standard at the end of the exemption period; and
    (5) A statement that not more than 2,500 exempted vehicles will
be sold in the U.S. in any 12-month period for which an exemption
may be granted.

III. GM's Petition

    GM's petition seeks a two-year exemption from parts of each of 16
FMVSS for the production of 2500 or fewer ZEAVs per year.\6\ Citing a
report by Nidhi Kalra and David G. Groves,\7\ GM argues ``(e)very day
of delay in getting autonomous vehicles safely on American Roads is a
day in which we are losing lives that could be saved.'' GM states that,
during the exemption period, it would work with NHTSA and industry
stakeholders on rulemaking to address autonomous vehicle technology.\8\
GM states that if that rulemaking were not completed during the two-
year exemption period, it would likely request a renewal of the
exemption.\9\ It also states that (if its petition were granted) it
would operate any ZEAVs produced during the exemption period throughout
their normal service life \10\--i.e., well beyond the two-year
exemption period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ GM Petition at 3.
    \7\ The Enemy of Good, Estimating the Cost of Waiting for Nearly
Perfect Automated Vehicles, Rand Corp. (2017), available at https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR2150.html.
    \8\ GM Petition at 38.
    \9\ Id.
    \10\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    GM provides the following explanation of how it organized the
arguments in its petition:

    GM seeks an ``exemption'' under two separate statutory
provisions, 49 U.S.C. 30113(b)(3)(B)(ii) and (iii). As this Petition
makes clear, ``exemption'' is a term of art that is a misnomer in
this context because GM does not seek to be ``exempted'' from any
safety requirements. Rather, through this Petition, GM seeks
authorization to satisfy the safety purpose and intent of certain
FMVSS requirements and tests through different designs and systems.
Because the ZEAV satisfies the requirements of both provisions,
NHTSA may grant this Petition under either or both provisions.
    First, under 49 U.S.C. 30113(b)(3), NHTSA may issue an FMVSS
exemption ``on finding that--(A) an exemption is consistent with the
public interest and this chapter or chapter 325 of this title (as
applicable); and (B) . . . the exemption would make the development
or field evaluation of a low[hyphen]emission motor vehicle easier
and would not unreasonably lower the safety level of that vehicle.''
Thus, in order to justify an exemption, a petition under this
provision must support three primary showings: The public interest
showing; the low[hyphen]emission showing; and the safety showing, as
set forth in 49 U.S.C. 30113(b)(3)(B)(iii). These provisions of
30113(b)(3)(B)(iii) foster the same goals that GM pursues with this
application: the development and prompt availability of new
low[hyphen]emission vehicles that improve consumer mobility and meet
federal safety objectives embodied in the Safety Act. As
demonstrated below, granting this Petition would make easier the
development and field evaluation of GM's zero[hyphen]emission
autonomous vehicle, and GM's proposed deployment program fully
satisfies the three requirements of 30113(b)(3)(B)(iii).
    Second, this Petition also seeks an exemption on the independent
basis that it will ``make easier the development [and] field
evaluation of new motor vehicle safety features.'' Under 49 U.S.C.
30113(b)(3), NHTSA may also issue an exemption ``on finding that--
(A) an exemption is consistent with the public interest and this
chapter or chapter 325 of this title (as applicable); and (B) . . .
the exemption would make easier the development or field evaluation
of a new motor vehicle safety feature providing a safety level at
least equal to the safety level of the standard.'' Thus, under this
provision, the Petition must support three primary showings: the
public interest showing; the development and evaluation of a new
safety feature showing; and the FMVSS safety showing, as set forth
in 49 U.S.C. 30113(b)(3)(B)(ii).
    The discussion below supports findings that GM's proposed ZEAV
deployment fully satisfies the three criteria of both
30113(b)(3)(B)(ii) and (iii), and that NHTSA should therefore grant
the Petition.
    In furtherance of this Petition, the discussion below contains:

A description of GM's ZEAV program and the vehicle;
A discussion of how the Petition should be evaluated under the
Safety Act and NHTSA's regulations and procedures;
A Standard[hyphen]by[hyphen]Standard description of how GM's ZEAV
achieves the safety purposes of the affected human[hyphen]driver
based FMVSS requirements;
An explanation of how granting this Petition will facilitate the
development and field evaluation of a low-emission vehicle;
A discussion of how granting this Petition will benefit the public
interest; and
A discussion of GM's plans for compliance with applicable FMVSS
during and after the effective dates of the proposed exemption.

(Footnotes omitted.)

A. Zero Emission Automated Vehicle

i. Parent Vehicle--Chevrolet Bolt
    The ZEAV would be built from the architecture of the Chevrolet Bolt
EV.\11\ GM describes its Bolt EV as a zero-emission vehicle, with an
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) estimated all-electric range of
238 miles on a full charge.\12\ The company states it created the
original prototypes for the ZEAV by retrofitting Bolt EVs with
autonomous controls and equipment.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Id. at 7.
    \12\ Id. at 7 and FN 11.
    \13\ Id. at 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

ii. Comparison of Bolt and ZEAV
    The Bolt EV and the ZEAV are both all-electric vehicles. GM did not
indicate whether the motor and battery pack of the ZEAV would differ in
any significant way from those of the Bolt EV. GM notes that the ZEAV
would have electrification innovations incorporated from the Bolt EV,
but does not elaborate on the nature, extent or importance of those
innovations.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Id. at 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed later in this notice, GM notes that the ZEAV's high-
performance computer system and array of sensors would draw power from
the power supply for the zero-emission propulsion system, potentially
affecting the range of the ZEAV. GM states that the all-electric

range of the ZEAV has not yet been determined.
    There are significant differences between the Bolt EV and the ZEAV
with respect to how they are designed to be driven and how safety
systems would be activated. The Bolt EV is exclusively driven by a
human driver. In contrast, the ZEAV would be exclusively driven by an
ADS. More specifically, in relation to the SAE International Levels of
Automation 3-5--Automated Driving Systems (ADSs)--Conditional, High,
and Full Automation,\15\ the Bolt EV's highest driving automation
capability would be considered to be at automation Level 0 \16\ and the
ZEAV's capability at driving automation Level 4.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ SAE J3016_201806 Taxonomy and Definitions for Terms Related
to Driving Automation Systems for On-Road Motor Vehicles.
    \16\ No Automation of driving task: While the vehicle may
provide warnings (e.g., forward collision warning and blind-spot
warning), the human driver must in all conditions and at all times
perform all aspects of the driving task like monitoring the driving
environment, steering, braking and accelerating.
    \17\ Full Driving Automation: The vehicle can perform all
aspects of the driving task at all times and under all conditions.
While the human occupants need to set the trip destination and start
the ADS, they need never be involved in any aspects of the driving
task.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The ZEAV's ADS would be a combination of various hardware and
software components that function as a system to perform functions
traditionally performed by human drivers, i.e., perceive and interpret
the driving environment, the objects in that environment, and their
likely future movement, make decisions about accelerating, braking and
steering so as to select and navigate safe paths through that
environment and around those objects, and implement those decisions.
While the Bolt EV is equipped with a steering wheel and brake and
accelerator pedals, among other manual controls, the ZEAV would have
none of these components. To emphasize this point, GM notes: ``By
removing human input from the formula, these changes provide the safety
advantages of autonomous transportation while ensuring that passengers
cannot interfere, purposefully or inadvertently, with the safe
operation of the vehicle.'' \18\ These differences are further
described in Appendix II of the petition. GM suggests that these
differences might affect the range of the ZEAV.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ GM Petition at 12.
    \19\ Id.at 34.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

iii. Planned Usage of the ZEAV
    GM states that if it were granted an exemption, it would deploy the
ZEAVs in a GM-controlled rideshare program.\20\ This approach would, GM
says, allow it to ``closely monitor and address safety in every ZEAV
deployed.'' \21\ If an incident were to occur, GM states it ``could
promptly analyze the situation in depth and address it.'' \22\
According to GM, ``common factors such as human driver behavior,
consumer failure to maintain the vehicle, and consumer failure to
repair the vehicle or obtain recall repairs will not be factors for the
safety of GM[hyphen]maintained[hyphen]and[hyphen]operated ZEAV
fleets.'' \23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ Id.at 5.
    \21\ Id. at 21.
    \22\ Id.
    \23\ Id. at 22.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    GM says that the operations of the ZEAVs would be carefully
circumscribed, stating:

    GM's ZEAV fleet will operate only within defined geographic
boundaries, and limited to predefined speeds and weather conditions.
GM's limitations on the operation of its ZEAV fleet will enhance
safety--limited speeds eliminate events due to driving above the
speed limit, and weather restrictions reduce occurrences of safety
system activations due to weather-related road conditions. GM's
program parameters will reduce the number of miles that the ZEAVs
will be driven in higher-risk situations, so the ZEAV is not likely
to encounter many of the risk scenarios that other vehicles
encounter.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ Id. at 13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

and:

    The vehicles will drive only in pre-mapped areas for which GM
fully understands the infrastructure and conditions that the
vehicles will encounter.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ GM Petition, Appendix III at 19.

    GM notes, however, that while the ZEAVs would have
not[hyphen]to[hyphen]exceed speeds, GM expects to increase their
``not[hyphen]to[hyphen]exceed speeds'' during the requested two-year
exemption period.\26\ GM further notes that while GM's ZEAVs would be
weather restricted, GM expects to expand its operational design domain
(ODD) for rain, snow, and winter driving during the proposed exemption
period. GM does not address what additional changes, if any, it might
make after that period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ GM Petition at 21.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Safety Showing

    In support of both statutory bases cited in its petition for an
exemption, GM asserts that, for each of the 16 FMVSS from which it
seeks temporary exemption, in part or in full, the ZEAVs would
``effectively meet all FMVSS safety requirements'' and would provide a
safety level at least equal to the safety level of the affected
standard(s) as required by statute.\27\ In order to deploy the ZEAVs,
GM seeks a temporary exemption from the following FMVSS, either in
whole or in part: No. 101, Controls and Displays; No. 102, Transmission
Shift Position Sequence, Starter Interlock, and Transmission Braking
Effect; No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment;
No. 111, Rearview Mirrors; No. 114, Theft Protection and Rollaway
Prevention; No. 124, Accelerator Control Systems; No. 126, Electronic
Stability Control Systems; No. 135, Light Vehicle Brake Systems; No.
138, Tire Pressure Monitoring Systems; No. 141, Minimum Sound
Requirements for Hybrid and Electric Vehicles; No. 203, Impact
Protection for the Driver from the Steering Control System; No. 204,
Steering Control Rearward Displacement; No. 207, Seating Systems; No.
208, Occupant Crash Protection; No. 214, Side Impact Protection; and
No. 226, Ejection Mitigation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ Id. at 33.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The following paragraphs paraphrase how the GM petition discusses
each standard from which GM seeks exemption:
i. FMVSS No. 101
    The purpose of FMVSS No. 101 is ``to ensure the accessibility,
visibility and recognition of motor vehicle controls, telltales and
indicators, and to facilitate the proper selection of controls. . .''
in order to reduce safety hazards caused by the diversion of the
driver's attention from the driving task and mistakes by the driver in
selecting controls.\28\ Because the ZEAV would not be equipped with
human driver controls and would not have a human driver, GM states that
the requirements for certain controls, telltales and indicators should
not apply \29\ and requests an exemption from them. GM further states
that, instead, its vehicle would be equipped with functionally
equivalent ADS interfaces that provide the ADS with access to the
information and controls necessary to drive the vehicle and maintain
safety.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ 49 CFR 571.101, paragraph S2.
    \29\ GM Petition at 23-24.
    \30\ Id. at 24.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

ii. FMVSS No. 102
    FMVSS No. 102 specifies requirements for transmission shift
position sequence, starter interlock, and transmission braking effect.
The purpose of these requirements is to reduce the likelihood of
shifting errors, to prevent starter engagement by the driver when the
transmission is in a drive position, and to provide supplemental
braking at speeds below 25 mph. Paragraph S3.1.4 and its

subparagraphs require that identification of shift positions and shift
position sequence be displayed in view of the driver. GM states that
the ZEAV would not have a human driver, the information would be
provided electronically to its ADS. GM further states that its vehicle
would meet all other requirements of this standard.
iii. FMVSS No. 108
    FMVSS No. 108 was established to provide adequate illumination of
the roadway and to enhance the conspicuity of motor vehicles so that
their presence is perceived by other roadway users and signals
understood in daylight, darkness and reduced visibility.\31\ GM
explains that the ZEAV would use radar and lidar and would not rely on
visible light and, therefore, operation of headlamp switches as
required by the standard would be unnecessary.\32\ GM explains that the
vehicle would continue to use ordinary lower beams, but would not use
upper beams.\33\ GM further explains that the ZEAV would have
``interfaces that allow the ADS to receive, monitor, and analyze
information otherwise provided by the telltales and indicators related
to turn signals and headlamps, and to issue commands to control the
headlamps and turn signals.'' \34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ 49 CFR 571.108, paragraph S2.
    \32\ GM Petition at 25.
    \33\ Id.
    \34\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

iv. FMVSS No. 111
    FMVSS No. 111 pertains to rearview visibility and requires rearview
mirrors and images to provide a driver with a clear and reasonably
unobstructed view to the rear. GM states that the ZEAV would include
``rear-facing cameras, radar sensors, and lidars that continuously
provide full rear-field-of-view information to the ADS.'' \35\ GM
further states that its vehicle would have sensors that provide
overlapping coverage and environmental information to the ADS, allowing
it to perceive the vehicle's surroundings in ``significantly more
breadth and detail than interior and exterior rearview mirrors provide
to human drivers.'' \36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ Id. at 26.
    \36\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

v. FMVSS No. 114
    GM asserts although the ZEAV would comply with the performance
requirements of FMVSS No. 114, the test procedures in paragraph S6
should not apply and requests an exemption.\37\ GM explains that its
vehicle would not have conventional controls for the parking brake,
service brake or transmission gear selection.\38\ GM further explains
that the ZEAV would be designed to enable the ADS to determine and
control the brake system status electronically.\39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ Id. at 26.
    \38\ Id.
    \39\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

vi. FMVSS No. 124
    FMVSS No. 124 requires the return of the throttle to the idle
position when the driver removes actuating force from the accelerator
control (or if the accelerator control system is disconnected). GM
states that the ADS would be the driver in the ZEAV, and therefore, the
ADS would regulate vehicle propulsion.\40\ As a result, GM suggests
that FMVSS No. 124 should not apply and requests as exemption.\41\ GM
explains that its ADS would include two independent software controls
that establish vehicle propulsion and asserts that its system could
satisfy the time and temperature requirements of this standard.\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ Id. at 27.
    \41\ Id.
    \42\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

vii. FMVSS No. 126
    The purpose of FMVSS No. 126 is to prevent driver loss of
directional control, including loss of control resulting in vehicle
rollover.\43\ GM states that the ZEAV would have an Electronic
Stability Control (ESC) system functionally similar to that of the Bolt
EV.\44\ However, the ZEAV would not have a steering wheel, brake or
accelerator pedals, and could not be tested pursuant to paragraph S5.2
and paragraphs S7.6 through S7.9.\45\ The ADS would electronically
interface with the steering, braking and accelerator control
systems.\46\ Because there would be no human driver, GM also states
that it would not meet the telltale requirements or related test
protocols of paragraphs S5.3, S7.2, S7.3, S7.8 and S7.10.\47\ GM
asserts that it would ``run tests to ascertain the full functionality
of the ESC system'' before deployment.\48\ To do so, GM explains that
it would use test versions of ZEAVs that differ from the vehicles
described in this petition and that would be equipped with standard
human driving controls (including steering, accelerator and brake
controls).\49\ GM asserts that its vehicle would meet the safety intent
of this standard and states that it would certify compliance with the
performance requirements of this standard based on the above described
tests.\50\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ 49 CFR 571.126, paragraph S2.
    \44\ GM Petition at 27.
    \45\ Id.
    \46\ Id.
    \47\ Id.
    \48\ Id.
    \49\ GM Petition, Appendix II at 15.
    \50\ GM Petition at 27 and Appendix II at 15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

viii. FMVSS No. 135
    FMVSS No. 135 was established to ensure safe braking performance
under normal and emergency driving conditions.\51\ In GM's ZEAV, the
ADS would control braking through commands to the brake control module
as the vehicle would not be equipped with an accelerator pedal, a
service brake pedal, or manual parking brake controls.\52\ For that
reason, GM states that human control requirements of paragraph S5.3.1,
the telltale requirements of paragraphs S5.1.2, S5.5, S5.5.5, and the
tests in paragraph S7 are not applicable and requests an exemption.\53\
GM asserts that, because of the ADS, the vehicle would meet the
performance requirements of this standard and the vehicle's braking
system would satisfy the stopping distance and grade-holding
performance requirements of this standard.\54\ GM further asserts that
its vehicle would undergo brake testing to demonstrate it meets the
performance requirements before deployment.\55\ To do so, GM would use
test versions of ZEAVs that differ from the vehicles described in this
petition in that they would be equipped with standard human driving
controls (including steering, accelerator and brake controls).\56\ GM
states that it intends to certify compliance with the performance
requirements of this standard based on those tests.\57\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \51\ 49 CFR 571.135, paragraph S2.
    \52\ GM Petition at 28.
    \53\ Id.
    \54\ Id.
    \55\ Id.
    \56\ GM Petition, Appendix II at 15.
    \57\ GM Petition, Appendix II at 15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

ix. FMVSS No. 138
    FMVSS No. 138 specifies requirements for tire pressure monitoring
systems to warn drivers of underinflation of tires and the resulting
safety problems. Paragraphs S4.3 and S4.4 require telltales visible to
the driver. GM explains that the ZEAV would not have a driver seating
position and would not include tire pressure telltales visible to
vehicle occupants.\58\ Instead, the vehicle's ADS would monitor the
tire pressure electronically, detect low pressure, and recognize
malfunctions in the tire pressure monitoring system.\59\ To help in
controlling the maintenance and operation of vehicle fleets, the ADS

would communicate tire pressure status to GM.\60\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \58\ GM Petition at 29.
    \59\ Id.
    \60\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

x. FMVSS No. 141
    FMVSS No. 141 specifies minimum requirements for hybrid and
electric vehicles to reduce injuries resulting from collisions with
pedestrians by providing a sound with the loudness and characteristics
necessary for the vehicles to be detected and recognized as vehicles by
pedestrians. GM asserts that it would test and certify its vehicle to
meet this standard, but the ZEAV would not have a human-controlled gear
selector to demonstrate compliance with paragraph S5 of this standard
(which requires sounds to be produced when the gear selector is moved
to the ``drive'' position or other forward gear).\61\ GM explains that
the ZEAV's ADS would communicate with the gear selector control
actuators, and in response, trigger the sound emission performance
required by this standard.\62\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \61\ GM Petition at 29.
    \62\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

xi. FMVSS Nos. 203, 204 and 207
    FMVSS Nos. 203 and 204 relate to impact protection for the driver
from a vehicle's steering control system (steering wheel and steering
column) in the event of a crash. GM states that the ZEAV would not be
equipped with a steering wheel or steering column; therefore, there is
no risk of chest, neck or facial injury being caused by either.\63\ GM
asserts that computer simulation crash tests and subsequent physical
crash tests would validate occupant protection for all seating
positions.\64\ Additionally, GM asserts that these tests would verify
that ``the left front seating position safety protection provides
occupant protection comparable to that provided to the right front seat
passenger.'' \65\ For these same reasons, and because there would not
be a human driver, GM asserts that the FMVSS No. 207 requirement to
have a seat for the driver also should not apply and requests an
exemption.\66\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \63\ Id. at 29-30.
    \64\ Id. at 30.
    \65\ Id.
    \66\ Id. FMVSS No. 207 establishes requirements for seats,
attachment assemblies and their installation to minimize the
possibility of failure resulting from vehicle impact in a crash.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

xii. FMVSS No. 208
    GM makes the same assertion for certain paragraphs of FMVSS No.
208, which specifies test procedures and requirements for the driver's
seating position. The purpose of this standard is to reduce the number
of deaths and the severity of injuries by specifying vehicle
crashworthiness and equipment requirements. Some paragraphs within this
standard refer to positioning an anthropomorphic test device
(``dummy'') in the driver position.\67\ Because GM's ZEAV would not
have a steering control system or a human driver, GM states that it is
precluded from using the specified test procedures in this
standard.\68\ Instead, GM states that it would ``mirror the
dummy[hyphen]positioning provisions of the right front passenger
seating position in the left front seating position.'' \69\ Paragraph
S7.3 specifies requirements for an audible and visual warning system
for the driver seating position's seat belt assembly. Again, GM
explains that because its vehicle would not have a driver, the
vehicle's ADS would electronically receive the status of passengers'
seat belt utilization.\70\ GM stated that the vehicle's ADS would also
provide seat belt reminders and warnings to all vehicle occupants
before initiating a ride.\71\ Finally, paragraph S4.5.2 requires that
an air bag readiness indicator be visible from the driver's seating
position to alert the driver that the vehicle's air bags may not
function properly and may require service. GM states that this
information would be provided to the ADS, instead of a human
driver.\72\ Because GM would control the operation of its vehicles, the
company explains that it would receive diagnostics from the vehicles
and thus would be able to determine whether further evaluation or
repair is necessary.\73\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \67\ See, e.g., 49 CFR 571.208 at S10.3.1.
    \68\ GM Petition at 31.
    \69\ Id.
    \70\ Id.
    \71\ Id.
    \72\ Id.
    \73\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

xiii. FMVSS No. 214
    Paragraph S12 of FMVSS No. 214 also provides test procedures
involving a dummy positioned in the driver seating position. The
purpose of FMVSS No. 214 is to reduce the risk of injuries to vehicle
occupants in side impact crashes. GM again asserts that it would
``mirror the right front test dummy positioning in the left front
seating position'' and would utilize computer simulation crash tests
and subsequent physical crash tests to validate occupant
protection.\74\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \74\ Id. at 32.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

xiv. FMVSS No. 226
    FMVSS No. 226 relates to ejection mitigation in the event of a
rollover. The purpose of this standard is to reduce the likelihood of
ejections of vehicle occupants through side windows during rollovers or
side impact crashes. Paragraph S4.2.2 of that standard requires a
readiness indicator to be visible from the driver's seating position to
alert the driver that the vehicle's curtain air bags may not function
properly and may require service. Like the information provided by
other indicators, GM states that this information would be provided to
the ADS rather than a human driver.\75\ Because GM would control the
operation of its vehicles, the company again explains that it would
receive diagnostics from the vehicles and thus would be able to
determine whether further evaluation or repair is necessary.\76\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \75\ Id.
    \76\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Low-Emission Showing

    To be eligible for a temporary exemption on the grounds that the
exemption would make development or field evaluation of a low-emission
vehicle easier without unreasonably lowering the safety performance of
the vehicle, the applicant must substantiate that the vehicle is a low-
emission vehicle. To qualify as a low-emission vehicle under 49 U.S.C.
30113(a), the vehicle must meet the applicable standards for new motor
vehicles under the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7521, et seq. The EPA's
regulations issued pursuant to the Clean Air Act establish exhaust
emission thresholds for light-duty low-emission vehicles and zero-
emission vehicles. To qualify as a zero-emission vehicle, a vehicle
must meet the applicable standards specified at 40 CFR 88.104-94.
    GM asserts that its vehicle would be ``an all-electric, zero-
emission vehicle that does not utilize any form of combustion or emit
any of the pollutants covered by Section 202 of the Clean Air Act.''
\77\ According to GM, although this vehicle would share a platform with
the Bolt EV, the vehicle's zero-emission propulsion system would
perform differently because (1) the vehicle's computer system and
sensors would draw power from the power supply for the propulsion
system, and (2) the vehicle would be driven by the ADS.\78\ GM believes
that the real world field evaluation of this vehicle would ``generate
valuable data about advantages and disadvantages of incorporating the
sophisticated computer and sensors of an ADS in a

zero-emission platform.'' \79\ GM believes this data would allow it to
evaluate the impact of a fully autonomous on-demand service on the
performance of the zero-emission propulsion system.\80\ GM states that
granting this exemption would encourage the development and
introduction of zero-emission autonomous vehicles by GM and other
manufacturers.\81\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \77\ Id. at 34.
    \78\ Id.
    \79\ Id.
    \80\ Id.
    \81\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Public Interest Argument

    GM asserts that granting this exemption would be beneficial to the
public. GM states that the safety advances resulting from this
exemption would have the potential to save lives and reduce motor
vehicle crashes and injuries.\82\ According to GM, granting the
exemption would ``support thousands of jobs, increase urban mobility
options, foster public acceptance of both low-emission and autonomous
vehicles, generate important real-world data, and inform future NHTSA
action.'' \83\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \82\ Id. at 35.
    \83\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

E. Appendices

    In further support of its request for temporary exemption, GM's
petition includes three appendices.
    Appendix I provides additional information to support the petition
on the basis of facilitating the development or field evaluation of a
low-emission vehicle (49 CFR 555.6(c)).
    Appendix II provides supplemental technical information, including
an overview of the vehicle's ADS and external sensor system; how the
vehicle processes and translates information to control vehicle
movement; the vehicle's connectivity, redundancy and fail-safe
functionality; GM's approach to testing the vehicle's ESC and brake
systems; information on how the vehicle would interact with passengers
in a ride-share scheme; and some test data.\84\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \84\ GM Petition, Appendix II at 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Appendix III details GM's approach to demonstrating how its safety
assurance, comprehensive risk management and deep integration processes
for its vehicle and ADS meet the Safety Act requirements.\85\ Appendix
III also provides additional information on cybersecurity,\86\
passenger and other road-user interactions,\87\ and fleet
management.\88\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \85\ GM Petition, Appendix III at 1-2.
    \86\ Id. at 10.
    \87\ Id. at 18-19.
    \88\ Id. 19-21.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

F. Clarification

    In the section of its petition titled ``Evaluating Safety in a
Petition for Exemption Under the Safety Act,'' GM speaks of the
``approach to safety regulation crafted by Congress in the Safety Act''
and states ``(t)hroughout its history, NHTSA has never created a new
Standard (or a de facto Standard) before a new technology has entered
commerce.'' A reader might incorrectly conclude from this statement
that the agency could not and never has set requirements for or
mandated a major technology prior to its entry into commerce. It is
correct that NHTSA has chosen, as a matter of policy, not to do this in
the last several decades, preferring instead to allow new technology to
mature first. However, in November 1970, NHTSA issued a final rule
establishing performance requirements for passive restraints.\89\ The
first passive restraints did not appear in on-road test fleets until
1971, and the first ones in vehicles available to the public did not
arrive until 1973.\90\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \89\ 35 FR 16927, November 3, 1970. The full early history of
the notices issued on passive restraints is set out in Chrysler v.
Department of Transportation, 472 F2d 659, 664-666 (6th Cir. 1972).
    \90\ Automotive News, October 31, 2011. Available at http://www.autonews.com/article/20111031/CHEVY100/310319928/impalas-1973-experimental-airbags-held-up.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Agency's Review of GM's Petition

    The agency has not yet made any judgment on the merits of the
petition or on the adequacy of the information submitted. NHTSA will
assess the merits of GM's petition after receiving and considering the
public comments on this notice and the petition and responses to the
questions in this notice, and any additional information that may be
forthcoming from GM.
    We note that GM identifies several tests that would be performed to
demonstrate safety equivalence, which GM did not include in its
petition, and which we presume had not been performed as of the
submission of the petition. NHTSA is placing a non-confidential copy of
the petition in the docket in accordance with statutory and
administrative provisions. The agency will update the docket with any
additional information it receives from GM and will reopen or extend
the comment period for this petition as needed.

V. Potential Types of Terms

    Once a manufacturer receives an exemption from the prohibitions of
49 U.S.C. 30112(a)(1), NHTSA can affect the use of those vehicles
produced pursuant to the exemption only to the extent that NHTSA either
sets terms when partially or fully granting the exemption or exercises
its enforcement authority (e.g., its safety defect authority). The
agency's authority to set terms is broad. Since the terms would be the
primary means of monitoring and affecting the safe operation of the
exempted vehicles, the agency would consider carefully whether to
establish terms and what types of terms to establish if it were to
grant a petition. The manufacturer would need to agree to abide by the
terms set for that exemption in order to begin and continue producing
vehicles pursuant to that exemption.
    Nothing in either the statute or implementing regulations limits
the application of these terms to the period during which the exempted
vehicles are produced. NHTSA could set terms that continue to apply to
the vehicles throughout their normal service life if it deems that such
application is necessary to serve the interests of safety.
    Thus, if NHTSA were to grant an exemption, in whole or in part, it
could establish, for example, reporting terms to ensure a continuing
flow of information to the agency throughout the normal service life of
the exempted vehicles, not just during the two-year period of
exemption. Given the uniqueness of GM's vehicles, its petition, and
public safety concerns, and especially given GM's expectations that the
capabilities of the ZEAVs would evolve over their lifetime, extended
reporting may be appropriate. Since only a portion of the total mileage
that the vehicles, if exempted, could be expected to travel during
their normal service life would have been driven by the end of the
exemption period, the data would need to be reported over a longer
period of time to enable the agency to make sufficiently reliable
judgments. Such judgments might include those made in a retrospective
review of the agency's determination about the anticipated safety
effects of the exemption.
    NHTSA could also establish terms to specify what the consequences
would be if the flow of information were to cease or become inadequate
during or after the exemption period. Other potential terms could
include limitations on vehicle operations (based upon speed, weather,
identified ODDs, road types, ownership and management, etc.).
Conceivably, some conditions could be graduated, i.e., restrictions
could be progressively relaxed after a period of demonstrated driving
performance. Further, as with data-sharing, it may be necessary to
specify

that these terms would apply to the exempted vehicles beyond the two-
year exemption period.
    NHTSA notes that its regulations at 49 CFR part 555 provide that
the agency can revoke an exemption if a manufacturer fails to satisfy
the terms of the exemption. NHTSA could also seek injunctive
relief.\91\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \91\ 49 U.S.C. 30163(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VI. Request for Comments and Information

    As noted above, the ADS in GM's ZEAV seeks to replicate and replace
the complex perceiving and judging capabilities of a human driver. As
GM states,

    With the ADS as the driver, there is no need for features
designed to interface with a human driver, such as manual human
driver controls (e.g., steering wheel, brake pedal, and accelerator
pedal), human-driver-specific information systems (e.g., telltales
and indicator lamps), human-driver-oriented visibility features
(e.g., rearview mirrors), or human-driver-specific occupant
protection (e.g., steering-wheel-mounted airbag).\92\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \92\ Petition, page 12.

    NHTSA anticipates that the complexity of the technologies involved
in this petition will complicate its efforts to assess the safety
performance of the ZEAVs. Further complicating those efforts will be
the expected evolution of the capabilities of the ZEAVs throughout the
course of their normal service life. This expectation is based on GM's
statements in its petition that the ZEAVs would operate initially only
in highly constrained driving scenarios, e.g., at low speed, in
daylight and fair weather, on streets with one lane in each direction,
but later in progressively less constrained circumstances. As a result,
the safety record of the ZEAVs during the potential two-year period of
requested exemption might not be predictive of their safety record
during balance of their normal service life.
    An additional consideration raised by this petition is whether to
set terms and conditions on the exemption and, if so, what terms and
for what duration.\93\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \93\ Greenkraft Inc.; Grant of Application for a Temporary
Exemption from FMVSS No. 108, 80 FR 12057, 12060 (March 5, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Given the complexity of projecting the safety effects of granting
an exemption in this instance, it might be desirable to require
reporting to validate the agency's projections and monitor the safety
record of the ZEAVs. If the agency were to decide to require reporting,
it would take into consideration the possibility that reporting terms
sufficient for an early stage of the ZEAV's normal service life may not
be sufficient for a later stage. Because of the anticipated progressive
relaxation of operating scenarios, early data might not be predictive
of later data.
    Thus, for the above reasons, and because this is an important case
of first impression and petitions for other vehicles with similar ADS
are expected in the coming years, NHTSA has set forth below a list of
questions to elicit public feedback to aid the agency in determining
how to address and resolve the variety of novel and important issues
presented in the petition and how to promote, through the setting of
terms, the safe operation of such vehicles if the agency ultimately
decides to grant an exemption.
    Please note that answers supported by data and analysis will be
given greater weight. GM is also encouraged to submit any supplemental
information to the agency that the petitioner may deem persuasive.
Commenters are requested to provide specific references to all sources
for all studies, data, assumptions, scientific reasoning, and
methodology they cite or submit.

Statutory Bases for Exemption

    1. Which of the two bases for exemption (field evaluation of a new
motor vehicle safety feature (30113(b)(3)(B)(ii)) or field evaluation
of a low-emission vehicle (30113(b)(3)(B)(iii)) identified by GM in its
petition is more appropriate for the agency to use in analyzing and in
granting or denying the petition and why?
    2. If the agency determines that its authority to grant exemptions
to facilitate the development or field evaluation of a new motor
vehicle safety feature is the more appropriate basis under which to
evaluate GM's petition, does the petition provide sufficient
information to enable the agency to make the required statutory finding
as to whether the level of safety is equivalent to or exceeds the level
of safety established in the FMVSS from which exemption is sought? If
not, what additional information should the agency seek prior to
rendering its final determination and why?
    3. If the agency determines that its authority to grant exemptions
to facilitate the development or field evaluation of a low-emission
motor vehicle is the more appropriate basis under which to evaluate
GM's petition, does the petition provide sufficient information to
enable the agency to determine whether exempting the vehicle would
unreasonably degrade the safety of the vehicle? If not, what additional
information should the agency seek prior to rendering its final
determination and why?
    4. In lieu of either of the two bases relied upon by GM, would it
be more appropriate to consider GM's petition under 49 U.S.C.
30113(b)(3)(B)(iv) (authority to grant exemptions from FMVSS for
vehicles with an overall safety level at least equal to the overall
safety level of nonexempt vehicles low-emission vehicles)? If so, why?

Safety Analyses

    5. What studies, data, assumptions, scientific reasoning, and
methodologies are needed for the agency to evaluate and compare the
ZEAV and a FMVSS-compliant non-ADS vehicle? For example, should the
agency assess whether an ADS steers, brakes, and accelerates at least
as effectively and safely (e.g., as quickly) as the average human
driver? If so, what methodology should it use? Are there other
approaches to making the safety evaluation and comparison? Please
provide specific references to all sources of such tools or evaluation
approaches.
    6. Given that the ZEAV is expected to evolve over its full-service
life, how should the effects of that evolution be taken into
consideration in assessing the safety of the exempted vehicle relative
to the FMVSS-compliant vehicle?
    7. What studies, data, assumptions, scientific reasoning, and
methodologies should a petitioner submit to the agency to substantiate
its record of research, development, and testing establishing the
innovative nature of the safety feature?
    8. What studies, data, assumptions, validation test results,
scientific reasoning, methodologies, and analyses should a petitioner
submit to the agency to validate that its ADS provides safety at least
equal to the level of the standards for which an exemption is sought?
    9. What studies, data, assumptions, validation test results,
scientific reasoning, methodologies, and analyses should a petitioner
submit to the agency to validate that its ADS during its operation will
have sufficient reliability to accomplish its designed intent, e.g.,
timely and sufficiently applying the service brakes when braking is
needed for safety purposes?
    10. The test procedures of some FMVSS listed in the exemption
petition involve the use of human drivers and controls (e.g., light
vehicle braking). GM indicated that it plans to perform tests with a
human driver operating a version of the ZEAV modified to include human
controls. Would performance of tests with such a modified vehicle be
appropriate, or would programming the

ADS of the ZEAV to perform test maneuvers be a better means of
evaluating compliance with performance requirements?
    11. 49 CFR 555.6(b)(iii) requires the petitioner to submit
``results of tests conducted on the safety or impact protection
features that demonstrates performance which meets or exceeds the
requirements of the standard'' from which temporary exemption is
sought. In the case of a petition submitted for a vehicle that has not
yet been produced, and therefore, cannot be tested in order to compare
its performance to that of existing vehicles, how should the agency
evaluate the safety level of the vehicle? On what preliminary analyses,
assumptions, and methodologies should the agency rely to assess whether
such performance has been persuasively demonstrated? How would the
answers to those questions change if a petitioner could demonstrate
that the safety features and systems on the vehicle to be exempted are
comparable in performance to those in a non-exempted vehicle and that
the addition of the ADS to the vehicle to be exempted did not adversely
affect the performance of those safety features and systems?
    12. It could be argued that some FMVSS may either not be needed for
safety or at least less needed for safety in the case of a vehicle that
can be driven by only an ADS. Examples of potentially unnecessary
features include inside and outside mirrors as well as the display of
images from the rearview camera. Should test results or data be
required to justify such an argument? If yes, what would be the most
appropriate types of test results or data, and why?
    13. GM asserts that a FMVSS that requires telltales to provide
drivers with information is not applicable because the ADS would be
receiving that information. The agency requests comment on whether and
to what extent the telltales might serve a safety purpose for
passengers in the vehicle, regardless of whether the information would
be transmitted to the ZEAV's ADS and whether the ADS would act on that
information in a timely and appropriate way.\94\ What weight should the
agency give to the extent of the ADS' ability to respond in appropriate
ways to the information it receives?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \94\ See the discussion of ``response states'' on pages AII-11
through AII-13 of Appendix II of GM's petition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    14. For a FMVSS whose benefits depend, in part, on the
attentiveness, judgment, and responsiveness of a human driver (e.g.,
FMVSS No. 135, which requires that a foot control be provided to
activate service brakes), how should the agency, in considering a
petition for the exemption of a vehicle equipped with ADS and with no
human driver controls, evaluate the safety effects of substituting an
ADS for a human driver? What types of testing and data, and how much,
would the agency need to evaluate those effects?
    15. Would it be appropriate to use computer simulation as one of
the methods to determine equivalent safety? If yes, why and how? If
not, why not? Are there adequately validated simulation models that
could be used for this purpose?
    16. If the ADS is responsible for decision-making aspects of
driving that a human driver otherwise would control, is it appropriate
for the agency to evaluate the responsiveness and driving skills of the
ADS in relation to the component, system, test procedure, or
performance requirement from which an FMVSS exemption is sought? If so,
how should the agency evaluate the safety of the ADS in different
scenarios, e.g., negotiating a path through oncoming traffic when
making a left turn, stopping when a pedestrian crosses the vehicle's
path, and yielding to emergency vehicles? What kind of data would be
needed for the agency to evaluate the performance of the ADS in these
and other scenarios? How should the performance of the ADS be compared
to that of a human driver in a nonexempt vehicle?
    17. To what extent and how should GM's contemplated limited
deployment (e.g., in a petitioner-controlled rideshare program, with
established ODD constraints and the ability to pull vehicles off the
street to remedy, including through software updates, any potential
safety issues that might arise) be considered when evaluating safety
equivalence? Does GM's continuous control over the exempted vehicles
and the ability to make continual improvements in vehicle safety
performance through software updates argue for acceptance of a greater
degree of uncertainty about safety effects than in the case of a
petition for exemption of vehicles to be sold to the public?
    18. If some of the constraints of the ZEAV's initial deployment
would eventually be progressively relaxed by GM, what types of data
should the agency use in evaluating the safety of the ZEAV over its
lifetime and deciding whether to grant or deny the petition? If an
exemption is granted, should the agency monitor and periodically
validate these data throughout the ZEAV's service life?
    19. NHTSA requests comment on how NHTSA should evaluate whether
granting this exemption would be consistent with the ``public
interest'' and the Vehicle Safety Act. What elements of the public
interest and the Act would be most important in that evaluation?
    20. In the absence of real-world demonstration of quality of the
decision-making by the ZEAV's ADS, if the petition were to be granted,
what terms and conditions, if any, should the agency place on the
exemption, and any similar future requests, to protect public safety,
facilitate agency efforts to monitor the operations of exempted
vehicles, and maximize the learning opportunities presented by the on-
road experience of the exempted vehicles during the exemption period
and thereafter?
    21. Should NHTSA consider how the ZEAV would respond if it needed
to deal with an unusual situation, e.g., cross the yellow line to pass
a stopped vehicle blocking the way forward for a prolonged period of
time or obey a policeman giving instructions instead of obeying a
traffic light?

Terms and Conditions

    22. Please comment on the potential utility of NHTSA's placing
terms and conditions on an exemption requiring the submission of the
following categories of data:
    a. Statistics on use (e.g., for each functional class of roads, the
number of miles, speed, hours of operation, climate/weather and related
road surface conditions).
    b. Statistics and other information on performance (e.g., type,
number, and causes, and results of collisions or near misses,
disengagements, and transitions to fallback mechanisms, if
appropriate). How can the term ``near miss'' best be defined so that
there is uniform understanding of the term and consistent practices
across all manufacturers in the identifying and reporting of ``near
misses''?
    c. Metrics that the manufacturer is tracking to identify and
respond to progress toward higher levels of safety (e.g., miles without
a crash and software updates that increase the ODD).
    d. Information related to community, driver and pedestrian
awareness, behavior, concerns, and acceptance related to vehicles with
an ADS.
    e. Metrics or information concerning the durability of the ADS
equipment and calibration, and need for maintenance of the ADS. For
example, would the ADS work in all identified operating conditions or
would there be additional limitations? How would any limitations be
addressed and managed?

    f. Data and information on the initial and subsequent ODDs and
software updates.
    g. For all categories of information, how should any concerns about
confidential business information and privacy be addressed?
    23. If there would be other categories of data that should be
considered, please identify them and the purposes for which they would
be useful to the agency in carrying out its responsibilities under the
Safety Act.
    24. If the agency were to require the reporting of data, for what
period should the agency require it to be reported--the two-year
exemption period or the ZEAVs' entire normal service life?
    25. Given estimates that vehicles with high and full driving
automation would generate terabytes of data per vehicle per day, how
should the need for data be appropriately balanced with the burden on
manufacturers of providing and maintaining it and with the ability of
the agency to absorb and use it effectively?
    26. If supporting information (including analysis, methodology,
data, and computer simulation results involving proprietary systems or
specialized computer programs) is submitted by a petitioner under a
request for confidential treatment and relied upon by the agency in its
determination whether to grant or deny a petition, how can the public
be provided with an evaluation and a justification for the
determination that are transparent, readily understandable and
persuasive?
    27. Are there any mechanisms that may help further mitigate the
underlying safety risks, if any, presented by this petition? For
example, what additional safety and engineering redundancies, if any,
should NHTSA consider requiring as a condition to granting the
exemption?
    28. Over the history of the Agency, exemption petitions based on
some form of safety analysis, as opposed to the much more common type
of petition based on a claim of economic hardship, have averaged only
1-2 per year. Typically, these safety-based petitions have involved
technologies that affect only a single vehicle function or at least a
very narrow range of functions and that were well described and tested.
Such petitions were resolved by the Agency's either granting or denying
them after soliciting and considering public comments. In some cases,
the Agency sent requests to the applicant for additional test data. In
most cases, this second group of petitions were either granted or
denied, again after public comment. In a few instances, the petition
remained as ``pending.''
    In our current innovative environment, such an approach presents
challenges for technologies, e.g., automated driving systems for
vehicles without manual driving controls, that affect a broad range of
functions and that have not been developed sufficiently to incorporate
them in vehicles in order to generate the real-world test data that has
typically been required for granting petitions. The lack of real-world
test data could result in lengthy delays and even non-approval.
    To address this problem, NHTSA solicits public comment on
alternative approaches to analyzing and resolving petitions for
exemption from FMVSS in a timely and appropriate way, including but not
limited to:

--After public comment, exercising our discretion to rely upon other
forms of evidence in making the statutorily required findings quickly
for petitions related to technology with significant lifesaving
potential to allow for expedited approval for testing and development
of a very limited number of vehicles \95\ under well-defined, risk-
managed conditions;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \95\ E.g., a number significantly less than the 2,500 vehicles
per year authorized by 49 U.S.C. 30113.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

--Deny petitions if applicants are unable to respond adequately to
NHTSA requests for further information within a specified time period;
--For vehicles that would be deployed only within very limited
operating areas, go beyond seeking public comment by hosting public
meetings or otherwise providing for targeted and transparent public
engagement in the intended geographical operating area to allow for
full and transparent public discussion of novel safety issues and
concerns, emergency response considerations, or other issues of
interest to state and local stakeholders regarding the exemption
requested and relevant to NHTSA's review of the petition;
--Any other options to process petitions in a way that is timely,
transparent and supportive of the safety goals of the FMVSS from which
exemption is sought.

VII. Comment Period

    Because of the novelty and complexity of the petition, the agency
is providing a 60-day comment period. After considering public comments
and other available information, NHTSA will publish a notice of final
action on the petition in the Federal Register.
    Please note that even after the comment closing date, we will
continue to file relevant information in the docket as it becomes
available. Further, some people may submit late comments. Accordingly,
we recommend that you periodically check the Docket for new material.
You can arrange with the docket to be notified when others file
comments in the docket. See www.regulations.gov for more information.
We will reopen or extend the comment period for this petition, as
needed.

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30113 and 49 U.S.C. 30166; delegations of
authority at 49 CFR 1.95 and 49 CFR 501.8.

    Issued in Washington, DC under authority delegated pursuant to
49 CFR 1.95 and 49 CFR 501.8.
Heidi R. King,
Deputy Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2019-05119 Filed 3-18-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register: April 22, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 78)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 21523-21526]
[DOCID:fr22ap08-3]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2008-0031; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-313-AD;
Amendment 39-15484; AD 2008-09-04]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; McDonnell Douglas Model DC-8-31, DC-8-
32, DC-8-33, DC-8-41, DC-8-42, and DC-8-43 Airplanes; Model DC-8-50
Series Airplanes; Model DC-8F-54 and DC-8F-55 Airplanes; Model DC-8-60
Series Airplanes; Model DC-8-60F Series Airplanes; Model DC-8-70 Series
Airplanes; and Model DC-8-70F Series Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all
McDonnell Douglas airplanes identified above. This AD requires revising
the FAA-approved maintenance program to incorporate new airworthiness
limitations for fuel tank systems to satisfy Special Federal Aviation
Regulation No. 88 requirements. This AD results from a design review of
the fuel tank systems. We are issuing this AD to prevent the potential
for ignition sources inside fuel tanks caused by latent failures,
alterations, repairs, or maintenance actions, which, in combination
with flammable fuel vapors, could result in a fuel tank explosion and
consequent loss of the airplane.

DATES: This AD is effective May 27, 2008.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of May 27,
2008.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Long Beach Division, 3855 Lakewood
Boulevard, Long Beach, California 90846, Attention: Data and Service
Management, Dept. C1-L5A (D800-0024).

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://
www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Management Facility
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation,
any comments received, and other information. The address for the
Docket Office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is the Document Management
Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30,
West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140,

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Samuel Lee, Aerospace Engineer,
Propulsion Branch, ANM-140L, FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification
Office, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, California 90712-4137;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 to include an airworthiness directive (AD) that would apply to
all McDonnell Douglas Model DC-8-31, DC-8-32, DC-8-33, DC-8-41, DC-8-
42, and DC-8-43 airplanes; Model DC-8-50 series airplanes; Model DC-8F-
54 and DC-8F-55 airplanes; Model DC-8-60 series airplanes; Model DC-8-
60F series airplanes; Model DC-8-70 series airplanes; and Model DC-8-
70F series airplanes. That NPRM was published in the Federal Register
on January 18, 2008 (73 FR 3419). That NPRM proposed to require
revising the FAA-approved maintenance program to incorporate new
airworthiness limitations for fuel tank systems to satisfy Special
Federal Aviation Regulation No. 88 requirements.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. We considered the comments received from the one commenter,
Boeing.

Changes Made to This AD

    For standardization purposes, we have revised this AD in the
following ways:
     We have added a new paragraph (h) to this AD to specify
that no alternative inspections, inspection intervals, or critical
design configuration control limitations (CDCCLs) may be used unless
they are part of a later approved revision of the Boeing DC-8 Special
Compliance Item Report, MDC-02K9030, Revision A, dated August 8, 2006
(hereafter referred to as ``Report MDC-02K9030''), or unless they are
approved as an alternative method of compliance (AMOC). Inclusion of
this paragraph in the AD is intended to ensure that the AD-mandated
airworthiness limitations changes are treated the same as the
airworthiness limitations issued with the original type certificate. We
have renumbered the subsequent paragraphs accordingly.
     We have simplified the language in Note 1 of this AD to
clarify that an operator must request approval for an AMOC if the
operator cannot accomplish the required inspections because an airplane
has been previously modified, altered, or repaired in the areas
addressed by the required inspections.

Request To Revise Note 1

    Boeing requests that we revise Note 1 of the NPRM to clarify that
deviations from the AWLs specified in Report MDC-02K9030, should be
approved as an AMOC according to paragraph (h) of the NPRM. Boeing
states that Note 1 of the NPRM might be interpreted to mean that the
Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs) specified in Report MDC-02K9030 must
be revised to reflect modifications, alterations, or repairs that are
initiated by an operator and outside of Boeing's design cognizance and
responsibility. Boeing requests that we revise Note 1 as follows:
     Replace the words ``revision to'' with ``deviation from''
in the last sentence.
     Delete the words ``(f), or'' and ``as applicable'' from
the last sentence.
    As stated previously, we have simplified the language in Note 1 of
this AD for standardization with other similar ADs. The language the
commenter requests we change does not appear in the revised note;
therefore, no additional change to this AD is necessary in this regard.

Request To Clarify Approval of Component Maintenance Manual (CMM)
Changes

    Boeing requests that we revise the heading and certain wording for
the ``Changes to Component Maintenance Manuals (CMMs) Cited in Fuel
Tank System AWLs'' section of the NPRM. Boeing believes that section
was intended to address situations where an operator chooses to deviate
from the procedures in the CMM referenced in Report MDC-02K9030. Boeing
states that its proposed changes are intended to clarify that only
deviations proposed by an operator require approval of the Manager, Los
Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, FAA. Boeing further states that
wording in the NPRM could be interpreted to mean that approval of a CMM
in its entirety, including any future CMM revisions by Boeing, would
require direct approval of the Manager, Los Angeles, ACO, or governing
regulatory authority. Specifically, Boeing requests that we revise that
section as follows:
     Revise the heading to ``Deviations from Component
Maintenance Manuals (CMMs) Cited in Fuel Tank System AWLs.''
     Revise the third sentence to state that the Manager, Los
Angeles ACO, must approve ``any deviations from'' the CMMs ``as defined
in Report MDC-02K9030.''
     Replace the words ``revision of'' with ``deviation from''
in the fourth sentence.
     Revise the fourth sentence to state that those CMMs ``as
defined in Report MDC-02K9030'' will be handled like a change to the
AWL itself.
     Delete the entire last sentence.
    We agree that clarification is necessary. Our intent is that any
deviation from the CMMs as defined in Report MDC-02K9030 must be
approved by the Manager, Los Angeles ACO, or the governing regulatory
authority, before those deviations can be used. However, we have not
changed the AD as suggested by the commenter, since the ``Changes to
Component Maintenance Manuals (CMMs) Cited in Fuel Tank System AWLs''
section of the NPRM is not retained in this final rule.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received,
and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting
the AD as proposed with the changes described previously. We also
determined that these changes will not increase the economic burden on
any operator or increase the scope of the AD.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 125 airplanes of U.S. registry. We
also estimate that it takes about 1 work-hour per product to comply
with this AD. The average labor rate is $80 per work-hour. Based on
these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD to U.S. operators to be
$10,000, or $80 per product.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. ``Subtitle VII: Aviation
Programs,'' describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's
authority.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
``Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on

products identified in this rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order
13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect 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.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT Regulatory Policies and
Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979), and
    (3) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    You can find our regulatory evaluation and the estimated costs of
compliance in the AD Docket.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.

Adoption of the Amendment

0
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator,
the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

0
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new AD:

2008-09-04 McDonnell Douglas: Amendment 39-15484. Docket No. FAA-
2008-0031; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-313-AD.

Effective Date

    (a) This airworthiness directive (AD) is effective May 27, 2008.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to all McDonnell Douglas Model DC-8-31, DC-
8-32, DC-8-33, DC-8-41, DC-8-42, and DC-8-43 airplanes; Model DC-8-
51, DC-8-52, DC-8-53, and DC-8-55 airplanes; Model DC-8F-54 and DC-
8F-55 airplanes; Model DC-8-61, DC-8-62, and DC-8-63 airplanes;
Model DC-8-61F, DC-8-62F, and DC-8-63F airplanes; Model DC-8-71, DC-
8-72, and DC-8-73 airplanes; and Model DC-8-71F, DC-8-72F, and DC-8-
73F airplanes; certificated in any category.

    Note 1: This AD requires revisions to certain operator
maintenance documents to include new inspections. Compliance with
these inspections is required by 14 CFR 91.403(c). For airplanes
that have been previously modified, altered, or repaired in the
areas addressed by these inspections, the operator may not be able
to accomplish the inspections described in the revisions. In this
situation, to comply with 14 CFR 91.403(c), the operator must
request approval for an alternative method of compliance (AMOC) in
accordance with paragraph (i) of this AD. The request should include
a description of changes to the required inspections that will
ensure the continued operational safety of the airplane.

Unsafe Condition

    (d) This AD results from a design review of the fuel tank
systems. We are issuing this AD to prevent the potential for
ignition sources inside fuel tanks caused by latent failures,
alterations, repairs, or maintenance actions, which, in combination
with flammable fuel vapors, could result in a fuel tank explosion
and consequent loss of the airplane.

Compliance

    (e) Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified,
unless already done.

Revise the FAA-Approved Maintenance Program

    (f) Before December 16, 2008, revise the FAA-approved
maintenance program to incorporate the information specified in
Appendixes B, C, and D of the Boeing DC-8 Special Compliance Item
Report, MDC-02K9030, Revision A, dated August 8, 2006. Accomplishing
the revision in accordance with a later revision of the Boeing DC-8
Special Compliance Item Report, MDC-02K9030, is an acceptable method
of compliance if the revision is approved by the Manager, Los
Angeles Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA.

No Reporting Requirement

    (g) Although the Boeing DC-8 Special Compliance Item Report,
MDC-02K9030, Revision A, dated August 8, 2006, specifies to submit
certain information to the manufacturer, this AD does not require
that action.

No Alternative Inspections, Inspection Intervals, or Critical Design
Configuration Control Limitations (CDCCLs)

    (h) After accomplishing the applicable actions specified in
paragraph (f) of this AD, no alternative inspections, inspection
intervals, or CDCCLs may be used unless the inspections, intervals,
or CDCCLs are part of a later revision of Boeing DC-8 Special
Compliance Item Report, MDC-02K9030, Revision A, dated August 8,
2006, that is approved by the Manager, Los Angeles ACO; or unless
the inspections, intervals, or CDCCLs are approved as an AMOC in
accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (i) of this
AD.

AMOCs

    (i)(1) The Manager, Los Angeles ACO, FAA, ATTN: Samuel Lee,
Aerospace Engineer, Propulsion Branch, ANM-140L, 3960 Paramount
Boulevard, Lakewood, California 90712-4137; telephone (562) 627-
5262; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; has the authority to approve AMOCs for
this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
    (2) To request a different method of compliance or a different
compliance time for this AD, follow the procedures in 14 CFR 39.19.
Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC
applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector (PI) in the FAA
Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local
FSDO.

Material Incorporated by Reference

    (j) You must use Boeing DC-8 Special Compliance Item Report,
MDC-02K9030, Revision A, dated August 8, 2006, to do the actions
required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise. (The
revision date for this document is identified only on the title page
and in the ``Index of Page Changes'' section of the document.) This
document contains the following effective pages:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Pages                 Revision                Date
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Index of Page Changes Pages   A...............  August 8, 2006.
 i through iii.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference of this service information under 5
U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Long Beach Division, 3855 Lakewood
Boulevard, Long Beach, California 90846, Attention: Data and Service
Management, Dept. C1-L5A (D800-0024).
    (3) You may review copies of the service information
incorporated by reference at the FAA, Transport Airplane
Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or at the
National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information
on the availability of this material at NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or
go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_
regulations/ibr_locations.html.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on April 4, 2008.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. E8-8532 Filed 4-21-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P