[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 61 (Wednesday, March 30, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 18560-18600]
[FR Doc No: 2022-05426]

Vol. 87

Wednesday,

No. 61

March 30, 2022

Part IV

Department of Transportation

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

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

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

49 CFR Part 571

Occupant Protection for Vehicles With Automated Driving Systems; Final
Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 87 , No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2022 /
Rules and Regulations

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 571

[Docket No. NHTSA-2021-0003]
RIN 2127-AM06

Occupant Protection for Vehicles With Automated Driving Systems

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This final rule amends the occupant protection Federal motor
vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) to account for future vehicles that
do not have the traditional manual controls associated with a human
driver because they are equipped with Automated Driving Systems (ADS).
This final rule makes clear that, despite their innovative designs,
vehicles with ADS technology must continue to provide the same high
levels of occupant protection that current passenger vehicles provide.
The occupant protection standards are currently written for
traditionally designed vehicles and use terms such as ``driver's seat''
and ``steering wheel,'' that are not meaningful to vehicle designs
that, for example, lack a steering wheel or other driver controls. This
final rule updates the standards in a manner that clarifies existing
terminology while avoiding unnecessary terminology, and, in doing so,
resolves ambiguities in applying the standards to ADS-equipped vehicles
without traditional manual controls. In addition, this final rule
amends the standards in a manner that maintains the existing regulatory
text whenever possible, to make clear that this rule maintains the
level of crash protection currently provided occupants in more
traditionally designed vehicles. This final rule is limited to the
crashworthiness standards to provide a unified set of regulatory text
applicable to vehicles with and without ADS functionality.

DATES: Effective date: September 26, 2022. Optional early compliance
(i.e., prior to the effective date) is permitted. Petitions for
reconsideration must be received on or before May 16, 2022. The
incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the rule
was approved by the Director as of February 6, 2012.

ADDRESSES: If you wish to petition for reconsideration of this rule,
you should refer in your petition to the docket number of this document
and submit your petition to: Administrator, National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building,
Washington, DC 20590.
    Privacy Act. The petition will be placed in the docket. Anyone is
able to search the electronic form of all documents received into any
of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the document
(or signing the document, if submitted on behalf of an association,
business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act
Statement in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (Volume
65, Number 70; Pages 19477-78) or you may visit http://dms.dot.gov.
    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. To facilitate social distancing due to COVID-19,
NHTSA is treating electronic submission as an acceptable method for
submitting confidential business information (CBI) to the Agency under
49 CFR part 512. https://www.nhtsa.gov/coronavirus.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For non-legal issues, you may contact
Mr. Louis Molino, Office of Crashworthiness Standards, Telephone: 202-
366-1740, Facsimile:<PHONE_NUMBER>. For legal issues, you may contact
Ms. Sara R. Bennett, Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER> or Mr. Daniel Koblenz,
Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>, Office of Chief Counsel. Address: National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE,
Washington, DC 20590.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Executive Summary
II. NPRM
III. Introduction to This Final Rule
IV. Implications
    a. New and Current Terms and Definitions
    1. NPRM's Approach to Driver Definition
    2. Newly Defined, New, Modified, and Relocated Terms
    3. Driver's Designated Seating Position, Manually Operated
Driving Controls
    4. Passenger Seating Position
    5. Steering Wheel to Steering Control
    6. Outboard Designated Seating Position
    7. Row and Seat Outline
    8. Driver Air Bag and Driver Dummy
    b. Modifying Spatial References in Test Procedures and
Definitions That Rely on the Presence of a Driver's Seat and/or
Manual-Operated Driving Controls
    1. Driver's Seat
    2. Dummy Placement in Bench Seats
    3. Driver's Side and Passenger Side
    4. Steering Controls as a Spatial Reference
    c. Dual-Mode Certification
    d. Parking Brake and Transmission Position
V. Occupant-Less Vehicles
    a. General Observations
    b. FMVSS No. 205, Glazing Materials
    c. Vehicle Crash Compatibility
    d. FMVSS Nos. 212, Windshield Mounting and 219, Windshield Zone
Intrusion
VI. FMVSS No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection
    a. Advanced Air Bags
    b. Telltales
    c. Front Outboard Versus Center or Inboard Seating Position
    d. Suppression of Vehicle Motion When a Child Is Detected in the
Driver's Seat
    e. Belts in Buses
    f. Corrections to FMVSS No. 208 Regulatory Text
VII. Amendments to Various FMVSSs
VIII. Effective Date
IX. Cost and Benefit Impacts of This Final Rule
X. Regulatory Notices and Analyses

I. Executive Summary

    NHTSA has been evaluating its Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
Standards (FMVSSs) to identify where concepts or terminology used in
the standards do not account for the designs that the agency expects,
and industry confirms, could accompany certain vehicles equipped with
Automated Driving Systems (ADSs).\1\ NHTSA has detailed in previous
rulemaking notices the activities it has undertaken in its evaluation.
These activities include initial evaluation of the FMVSSs,\2\ issuing
Federal Register notices soliciting input from stakeholders,\3\
research on possible options available to

the agency to amend the FMVSSs,\4\ and public discussions with
stakeholders.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ An ADS is defined as the ``hardware and software that are
collectively capable of performing the entire [dynamic driving task]
on a sustained basis, regardless of whether it is limited to a
specific operational design domain (ODD); this term is used
specifically to describe a Level 3, 4, or 5 driving automation
system.'' SAE International J3016_201806 Taxonomy and Definitions
for Terms Related to Driving Automation Systems for On-Road Motor
Vehicles. While this notice uses the term ``ADS-equipped vehicle''
it focuses on SAE Level 4 and Level 5 vehicles that lack traditional
manual controls.
    \2\ https://rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/12260.
    \3\ Removing Regulatory Barriers for Vehicles with Automated
Driving Systems Request for Comment, 83 FR 6148 (Feb. 13, 2018);
Removing Regulatory Barriers for Vehicles with Automated Driving
Systems Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 84 FR 24433 (May 28,
2019).
    \4\ https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.dot.gov/files/documents/ads-dv_fmvss_vol1-042320-v8-tag.pdf.
    \5\ FMVSS Considerations for Automated Driving Systems
Stakeholder Meeting, information available at https://www.vtti.vt.edu/fmvss/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This prior work resulted in the agency's March 30, 2020, notice of
proposed rulemaking (NPRM) underlying this final rule.\6\ The NPRM
proposed to revise its current crashworthiness \7\ (200-Series) FMVSSs
to amend terms or other text to account for the unconventional interior
designs that are expected to be present in certain ADS-equipped
vehicles. An example of such an unconventional interior design would be
those that lack driving controls.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 85 FR 17624.
    \7\ Throughout this notice, NHTSA uses ``crashworthiness'' and
``occupant protection'' interchangeably because the agency considers
the 200-Series FMVSSs to be focused on both.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the proposal, NHTSA proposed to amend the existing FMVSSs in a
way that maintains the occupant protection performance currently
required by the 200-Series FMVSSs while amending the wording that has
or will become obsolete as applied to new designs, and to clarify for
manufacturers developing ADS-equipped vehicles the application of a
particular FMVSS to their vehicle. The NPRM also ensured these
revisions accounted for dual-mode ADS-equipped vehicles (ADS-equipped
vehicles that also have a conventional driving mode), as defined by SAE
International (SAE).\8\ NHTSA also sought to remove requirements for
which a safety need does not exist.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ An [ADS-Equipped] Dual-Mode Vehicle is defined as ``[a] type
of ADS-equipped vehicle designed for both driverless operation and
operation by a conventional driver for complete trips.'' SAE
J3016_201806 Taxonomy and Definitions for Terms Related to Driving
Automation Systems for On-Road Motor Vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NHTSA received 45 comments on the NPRM.\9\ The proposal garnered
comments from vehicle and equipment manufacturers, ADS developers,
industry associations, consumer advocates, advocates for persons with
disabilities, States, insurance organizations, a university, an oil
independence advocacy group, and members of the general public. Many
commenters supported the proposal and the use of definitional and
textual changes to achieve the goals of the NPRM, though numerous other
commenters argued that the agency's focus on this issue was premature.
Regardless of their general position on the rule, most commenters did
support NHTSA's suggestion that, to the extent any changes were
finalized, they should be done in way that minimized the complexity of
the changes to the FMVSSs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Docket No. NHTSA-2020-0014. NHTSA received an additional 5
comments that were determined to be completely unrelated to this
notice (#4, #5, #6, #18, #52), and 1 duplicate submission (#42).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The agency acknowledges that uncertainty continues to exist around
the development and potential deployment of ADS-equipped vehicles.
Nevertheless, NHTSA believes it is appropriate to finalize this action
at this time in anticipation of emerging ADS vehicle designs that NHTSA
has seen in prototype form. The current designs generally involve
forward-facing row seating \10\ and vehicles without manual driving
controls. NHTSA has designed this final rule to minimize the changes to
the FMVSSs and to maintain the level of occupant protection currently
provided in all FMVSS compliant vehicles. This final rule provides
regulatory certainty that, despite their innovative designs, vehicles
with ADS technology must continue to provide the same high levels of
occupant protection that current passenger vehicles provide. This final
rule adopts most of the provisions included in the NPRM, with some
exceptions summarized in the next section.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Applying the occupant protection standards to forward-
facing seating is straightforward since the standards are generally
designed with forward-facing seating in mind. In contrast, applying
the standards to side-facing, campfire or other seating
configurations is more complex and will involve more research, which
is currently underway, and standard development.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Differences Between the NPRM and Final Rule

    The differences between the NPRM and the final rule are generally
minor and are fully explained in the relevant sections in this
document. Some of the more substantive changes in this final rule are
as follows.
     NHTSA believes that children should not occupy the
``driver's'' position when the vehicle is operating in ADS mode and
steering controls are present, given that the driver's seating position
has not been designed to protect children in a crash. For example, the
required limit on the rearward displacement of the steering column and
forcefulness with which the air bag deploys have been optimized for
adults and could pose a safety risk to children. The NPRM proposed that
ADS vehicles must suppress vehicle motion when: (1) The vehicle
contains a driver's seat (i.e., manually operated driving controls are
available, but not necessarily functional during ADS operation); (2)
the occupant of the driver's seat is classified by the air bag system
as a child; and (3) the vehicle is in an operational state that does
not require a driver (i.e., where the ADS is in control of the driving
task). After review of the comments, for now, NHTSA has decided against
adopting a vehicle motion suppression requirement in these
circumstances. The agency would like to know more about the relative
risk of a child seated in the ``driver's'' position as compared to the
passenger position and whether there are other ways of addressing this
safety concern than a requirement to suppress vehicle motion
completely. The agency would also like to explore any necessary
refinements to occupant detection and low risk deployment requirements
and test procedures for the driver's seat.
     Proposed regulatory text would have changed the front row
seat compartmentalization occupant protection requirements for large
school buses (gross vehicle weight rating over 4,536 kg (10,000 lb.))
in ways not intended by NHTSA. Such text is not adopted by this final
rule.
     NHTSA has modified FMVSS No. 208, Occupant crash
protection, to be clearer in the protections that are required for
inboard seating positions in the front row of ADS-equipped vehicles.
     This final rule modifies the application section of FMVSS
Nos. 212, Windshield mounting, and 219, Windshield zone intrusion, to
make clear these standards exclude occupant-less vehicles, since these
standards meet no safety need when there are no occupants to protect.
     NHTSA has decided not to move forward at this time with
changing the FMVSS No. 226, Ejection mitigation, requirements for the
ejection mitigation countermeasure readiness indicator. The agency will
consider amendments to controls and displays in a separate rulemaking.
    Minor differences between the NPRM and this final rule are
discussed in the appropriate sections in this preamble. Some of these
differences include:
     Moving the definition of ``seat outline'' from FMVSS No.
226 to Sec.  571.3, Definitions (see Section IV.a.7 of this preamble);
     Slightly revising the term used to describe occupant-less
vehicles, to refer to at least ``one person'' rather than referring to
``a designated seating position,'' (see Section V.a of this preamble);
and
     In FMVSS No. 208, correcting a missed revision indicating
there can be multiple front seat passengers (S19.2.2(e)) (see Section
VI.f of this preamble), and adopting a wording change to clarify the
air bag suppression

test procedure (S20.2, S22.2, S24.2) (see Section VI.a of this
preamble).
    As was the case for the NPRM, to illustrate the precise changes
that are being made within the context of the full regulatory text, we
are providing in the docket for this rulemaking a document that
contains the full regulatory text of each modified standard included in
this final rule. The text is color coded in the following manner; blue
bold underline (text added by the NPRM), red strikeout (text deleted by
the NPRM), green bold underline (text added by the final rule), orange
strikeout (text deleted by the final rule). (The information is
provided for illustration purposes for the convenience of readers and
does not change the amendments provided in the amendatory text of this
final rule.)

Guiding Principles

    In the NPRM, NHTSA expressed certain ``guiding principles'' for
this rulemaking, which continue to be relevant in this final rule.
First, the amended FMVSS requirements in this final rule are intended
to maintain the level of crashworthiness performance in vehicles with
and without ADS functionality, including ADS-equipped vehicles that
also have a conventional driving mode (dual-mode ADS vehicles). The
level of performance required by the amended FMVSSs is just as
appropriate for ADS-vehicles as it is for non-ADS vehicles in
protecting the public against unreasonable risk of death or injury in a
crash.\11\ More specifically, NHTSA sought to maintain the level of
safety currently provided to occupants by applying the crash test
performance requirements for the right front outboard occupant to the
left front outboard occupant of ADS-vehicles, wherever possible.
Similarly, occupants seated behind driving controls in ADS-vehicles
(dual-mode ADS vehicles) will be protected just as drivers are today.
Second, NHTSA sought to amend its standards to account for new designs,
and to clarify for manufacturers developing ADS-equipped vehicles,
particularly those that lack manual controls, that the standards apply
to their vehicles. In short, NHTSA sought to clarify that a
manufacturer of ADS-equipped vehicles must continue to apply occupant
protection standards to its vehicles even if manual steering controls
are not installed in the vehicle. Finally, for the convenience of
readers and those familiar with the standards, NHTSA sought to amend
the requirements in a manner that minimized the changes to the
regulatory text of the standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(10) (from definition of ``motor vehicle
safety'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This final rule is purposefully limited in scope based on the
bounds listed below.
    1. This final rule only applies to ADS-equipped vehicles that have
seating configurations similar to non-ADS vehicles, i.e., forward-
facing front seating positions (conventional seating). Thus, NHTSA
focused on conventional seating in this rulemaking, noting that
additional research is necessary to understand and address different
safety risks posed by vehicles with unconventional seating arrangements
(e.g., rear-facing seats or campfire seating).
    2. This final rule addresses ADS-equipped vehicles designed
exclusively to carry property (``occupant-less vehicles'') by amending
the application of existing crashworthiness requirements for these
vehicles, as appropriate. This final rule does not address potential
vehicle-to-vehicle compatibility issues related to occupant-less
vehicles, as the existing standards do not test for this issue.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Vehicle-to-vehicle compatibility refers to how well two
vehicles match up in a two-vehicle crash. Vehicles that are heavier,
with higher ground clearance, and with stiffer front ends can pose a
higher injury risk to occupants in smaller cars. Currently NHTSA has
no evidence of compatibility issues with occupant-less vehicles, but
NHTSA is researching this area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    3. With one exception, this final rule refrains from amending
requirements relating to telltales and warnings, as that area has
implications beyond the 200-Series standards and is a subject of
continuing NHTSA research. The exception to this is the air bag
suppression telltale, which we believe is reasonable to address now.
This is described further in section VI.b of this preamble.

Tables of Costs and Benefits

    This rule will eliminate the need for ADS-equipped -vehicle
manufacturers to equip vehicles with redundant manual driving controls
in vehicles that do not have manual driving capabilities, to comply
with FMVSS. In turn, the cost impacts of this rule will be driven
predominantly by the per-vehicle costs savings to each vehicle that
would no longer need certain manual controls and the number of vehicles
produced each year that will be produced without those controls. The
Agency has reliable information on the former category, given that we
generally know the current costs of this equipment, but can only
estimate the broader effects. Thus, NHTSA calculated ranges of
estimates of cost impacts using a variety of logical assumptions. NHTSA
calculated the impact of the final rule on costs by analyzing
production cost savings arising from forgoing the installation of
manual steering controls. These cost savings are partially offset by
incremental costs associated with augmenting safety equipment in the
left front seating position to make that position equivalent to the
right front seating position.
    NHTSA estimates that this rule would save approximately $995 per
vehicle, as explained in greater detail in the RIA. NHTSA has conducted
an analysis that shows how these cost savings would look if these types
of vehicles entered the fleet to at least some degree. The results of
this estimate show the present value of the final rule's estimated
year-2050 savings to ADS-DV manufacturers and consumers, based on the
assumption that there will be approximately 5.8 million affected
vehicles, at a three-percent discount rate equal to $2.5 billion. At a
seven-percent discount rate, the estimated year-2050 savings has a
present value equal to approximately $0.9 billion, as presented in
Table 1:

         Table 1--Estimated Total Monetized Annual Cost Impacts
[ADS-DV cost impacts in 2050, billions of 2018 dollars, 31% ADS-DV sales
                                 share]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Mean
     Dual-mode sales share offset            Discount rate         cost
                                                                  impact
------------------------------------------------------------------------
0%...................................  3% (Discounted back to      -$2.5
                                        2022).
0%...................................  7% (Discounted back to       -0.9
                                        2022).
30%..................................  3% (Discounted back to       -1.7
                                        2022).
30%..................................  7% (Discounted back to       -0.6
                                        2022).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    These estimates represent an upper bound, in which ADS-DVs do not
compete with dual-mode ADS-equipped vehicles (i.e., 5.8 million ADS-DVs
are sold in 2050, with each including a measure of production cost
savings associated with forgoing manual steering controls). Under the
alternative EIA scenario in which one percent of new vehicle sales in
2050 are comprised of ADS-DVs, the corresponding estimates are: A
present value in 2022 of approximately $60 million at a three-percent
discount rate; and approximately $20 million at a seven-percent
discount rate.
    As a sensitivity analysis, NHTSA also considered an alternative
case, in which ADS-DV sales in 2050 are reduced by 30 percent relative
to the baseline, with the change in sales representing sales of

dual-mode ADS-equipped vehicles. This represents a case in which: (1)
ADS-DV sales are split between approximately one-sixth fleet sales and
five-sixths private ownership, per the EIA scenario; (2) one-seventh of
fleet ADS-DV purchases in the baseline analysis are allocated to dual-
mode vehicle sales (i.e., approximately 1/7 x 1/6 of all ADS-DV sales);
and (3) one-third of private ADS-DV purchases in the baseline analysis
are allocated to dual-mode vehicle sales (i.e., approximately 1/3 x 5/6
of all ADS-DV sales). Under this alternative scenario, savings to ADS-
DV manufacturers and consumers under the final rule would be
approximately $1.7 billion at a three-percent discount rate, and
approximately $0.6 billion at a seven-percent discount rate.
    There are no other quantified benefits associated with this final
rule. NHTSA acknowledges that this final rule may impact safety and
fuel consumption and would likely generate benefits associated with
incremental producer and consumer surplus beyond the production cost
savings quantified above. This final rule may also generate benefits
that could lead to increased safety, reductions in administrative
burden, and reductions in manufacturer uncertainty, though these
benefits are also unquantified.
    The final rule is assumed to have no effect on the per-mile risk of
travel in ADS-DVs, as it does not revise, remove, or establish anything
associated with their safety performance. That is, the removal of
manual steering controls is not assumed to offer any direct safety
benefit or detriment for travel in ADS-DVs. However, it is feasible
that changes in ADS-DV demand associated with the final rule (e.g., due
to changes in vehicle design or decreases in cost) could increase the
use of ADS-DVs. In turn, safety outcomes associated with the final rule
would be equal to the net effects of: (1) Changes in per-mile fatality
and injury risk for travel that is shifted from conventional vehicles
to ADS-DVs; and (2) incremental fatalities and injuries for travel in
ADS-DVs that would not have taken place in any vehicle otherwise. It is
difficult to project net safety impacts associated with the final rule
without information on: (1) Per-mile fatality and injury risk for ADS-
DVs and conventional vehicles over time; and (2) demand for travel in
ADS-DVs and conventional vehicles as a function of ADS-DV price and
design attributes. NHTSA continues to engage in various research,
regulatory, and enforcement efforts associated with the safety of the
automated driving system itself, but those activities are outside the
scope of this rulemaking.
    The final rule could affect per-vehicle fuel consumption by
changing the mass of ADS-DVs. NHTSA expects ADS-DV mass to either
decrease (due to the removal of currently required equipment) slightly
or remain essentially unchanged (due to the addition of automated
steering components that offset the mass savings of the removed
equipment) under the final rule. NHTSA acknowledges that, in principle,
ADS-DV mass could increase (if vehicle seating configurations and
amenities are changed sufficiently when exploiting the reduction in
design constraints when removing manual steering controls) under the
final rule. In any event, current corporate average fuel economy (CAFE)
requirements are based on a vehicle's ``footprint,'' and thus any
change in a vehicles mass will not affect a manufacturer's obligations
under that program. Finally, as stated in the NPRM, NHTSA has not
attempted to address the revisions that may be necessary to provide
regulatory certainty for manufacturers that wish to self-certify ADS-
equipped vehicles with unconventional seating arrangements.
    The final rule would lead to a reduction in the number of standards
from which manufacturers of ADS-DVs would have to seek exemptions. The
reduction in exemption requests would be associated with a reduction in
administrative costs for both manufacturers and NHTSA. NHTSA does not
have sufficient information to establish a specific estimate of
administrative cost savings. However, the cost savings would be
expected to be small relative to the production cost savings associated
with the rule.
    A less tangible, but still important, expected impact of the final
rule would be a reduction in uncertainty for manufacturers of ADS-
equipped vehicles. The final rule provides clarity to manufacturers on
constraints to developing FMVSS-compliant ADS-equipped vehicles. In
turn, developmental paths for ADS-equipped vehicles could be
implemented with greater precision and efficiency. The reduction in
uncertainty could reduce not only the costs associated with
manufacturing ADS-equipped vehicles, but also the time it would take to
bring these vehicles to the market. An accelerated development timeline
would be a benefit both to manufacturers and consumers.

II. NPRM

    On March 30, 2020, NHTSA issued an NPRM that proposed modifications
to certain terms and other regulatory text in the 200-Series FMVSSs to
account for ADS-equipped vehicles and certain interior designs that are
expected to be present in these vehicles, including the lack of driving
controls.\13\ The NPRM also included modifications to the regulatory
text to take into account some dual-mode ADS-equipped vehicles.\14\ The
NPRM sought to resolve whether occupant protection requirements ought
to apply to occupant-less vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 85 FR 17624. As discussed below, however, the NPRM assumed
the vehicles will have conventional forward-facing seating.
    \14\ An [ADS-Equipped] Dual-Mode Vehicle is defined as ``[a]
type of ADS-equipped vehicle designed for both driverless operation
and operation by a conventional driver for complete trips.'' SAE
J3016_201806 Taxonomy and Definitions for Terms Related to Driving
Automation Systems for On-Road Motor Vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NHTSA's proposal sought to account for certain vehicle designs
expected to accompany ADS-equipped vehicles in a manner that minimized
textual additions and modifications to the 200-Series FMVSSs. The
proposal discussed existing terms used in the standards that, through
their use, made uncertain how regulatory text applies to vehicle
designs that did not incorporate such terms. The proposal discussed
existing terms that, by virtue of new vehicle designs, could be
misunderstood, and defined them to clarify their meaning for ADS-
equipped vehicles. The NPRM proposed a few new terms and definitions
and proposed relocating other terms and definitions. The NPRM proposed
to modify regulatory text to address situations where there may be no
driver seat, but multiple outboard passenger seats. The agency proposed
to consider any left outboard seat that does not have immediate access
to traditional manual controls (``manually operated driving controls'')
as a ``passenger seat'' and mirror the test procedures and requirements
from the right side.
    FMVSS No. 208, Occupant crash protection, is a primary focus of
this rulemaking, as it is one of NHTSA's most complex standards, and
many of this standard's performance requirements and test procedures
were written with references to the ``driver's'' seating position. This
emphasis on the driver's position in the standard reflected the fact
that, with conventional (i.e., non-ADS) vehicles, the driver's seat
should always be occupied by an individual of legal driving age during
operation. For our discussions in this document we will typically refer
to these individuals as adults, although they may in some cases be
legally minors. The NPRM discussed the treatment of advanced air bags
and

advanced air bag suppression telltales \15\ in ADS-equipped vehicles
with two front outboard passenger seats. The NPRM proposed to require a
separate telltale for each front outboard passenger seat, which must be
visible from each front outboard seat. The NPRM addressed FMVSS No.
208's seat belt requirements for ``medium-sized'' buses (with a gross
vehicle weight rating (GVWR) between 4,536 kilograms (kg) (10,000
pounds (lb.)) and 11,793 kg (26,000 lb.)) and school buses (GVWR
greater than 4,536 kg (10,000 lb.)). For such buses equipped with ADS
without a driver's seat, NHTSA proposed that all front seats meet the
protection requirements that must currently be met by the driver's
seat.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ The term ``telltale'' is defined in FMVSS No. 101; Controls
and displays, as ``an optical signal that, when illuminated, shows
the actuation of a device, a correct or improper functioning or
condition, or a vehicle system's failure to function.'' The term is
used in many other FMVSSs and is used in FMVSS No. 208 for an
indicator of air bag operational status as a function of the
occupant detection system of the seat.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The NPRM proposed to streamline the 200-Series FMVSSs so that
requirements would not apply when the ADS-configured vehicle posed no
safety need for the requirement. For example, the proposal took the
position that, when there is not a steering wheel or steering column in
a motor vehicle, FMVSS Nos. 203, Impact protection for the driver from
the steering control system, and 204, Steering control rearward
displacement, would not apply. Similarly, the NPRM proposed not to
apply occupant protection standards to vehicles designed solely to
carry cargo, rather than occupants (``occupant-less'' vehicles).\16\
This was accomplished by proposing to alter the ``application'' section
of various FMVSSs to indicate that the standards only applied to a
``truck'' with at least one designated seating position (DSP).\17\ The
NPRM analysis concluded that this change was only required for FMVSS
Nos. 201, Occupant protection in interior impact, 205, Glazing
material, 206, Door locks and door retention components, 207, Seating
systems, 208, Occupant crash protection, 214, Side Impact protection,
216a, Roof crush resistance; Upgraded standard, and 226, Ejection
mitigation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ We note that a vehicle designed to carry standee passengers
(e.g., a transit shuttle) would fall under one of NHTSA's other
vehicle classifications.
    \17\ ``Designated seating position'' is defined in 49 CFR 571.3.
Generally described, a DSP is a seat location that has a seating
surface width of at least 330 millimeters (13 inches) as measured in
the manner described in the definition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

High-Level Summary of Comments on Overall Approach and Need for
Rulemaking

    In response to the NPRM, NHTSA received 45 comments from vehicle
and equipment manufacturers and ADS developers, industry associations,
consumer advocates, advocates for persons with disabilities, States,
insurance organizations, a university, an oil independence advocacy
group, and members of the general public. Generally, most commenters
supported the proposal, the revision of terms and use of definitional
and textual changes to achieve the goals of the NPRM, and the agency's
approach to minimize the complexity of the changes to the FMVSSs.\18\
However, various other commenters, particularly certain non-
governmental organizations, raised concerns about the agency's general
approach to ADS regulation and the prioritization of this and similar
rules, though many of these commenters had only minor comments
concerning specific proposed technical changes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ An additional 5 comments were received that were determined
to be completely unrelated to this notice (#4, #5, #6, #18, #52),
and 1 duplicate submission (#42).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Approximately 25 commenters across all commenter types agreed that
there is a need for the proposal, and, of these, approximately 17
commenters stated they agreed with the general approach. For example,
General Motors (GM) commented that it supports the approach used in the
NPRM and that ``when finalized into a final rule, [it] will provide
needed regulatory certainty for certification, reduce certification
costs and minimize (but not completely eliminate) the need for future
NHTSA interpretation or exemption requests related to ADS-equipped
vehicles.'' Waymo stated that the proposal would not reduce any
protections for automated vehicles without manual controls and strongly
supported the limitations in scope of the NPRM ``to crashworthiness
standards to conventional occupant seating arrangements.'' The Alliance
for Automotive Innovation (Alliance) stated that the rulemaking will
work towards ``maintaining motor vehicle safety'' and ``reduce the need
to rely on the administratively complex and time-consuming FMVSS
exemption process.''
    Several commenters, though, questioned the need for the rulemaking
action. The Center for Auto Safety (CAS) argued that a better
allocation of limited government resources would be to focus on the
``nearer-term technology improvements with immediate impact on the
safety of occupants of conventional vehicles, pedestrians, and other
vulnerable road users.'' CAS stated that such an approach was more
appropriate because ``fully autonomous driving system-equipped vehicles
[. . .] do not exist at this time.'' CAS also asserted that NHTSA
should not permit traditional manual controls to be removed from
vehicles ``until at least equivalent safety [of ADS-equipped vehicles]
is proven.'' CAS stated that such controls ``might be deployable only
as needed but are an absolute necessity for the many conceivable
foreseen and unforeseen safety-critical situations that ADS-equipped
vehicles will encounter.'' The National Safety Council (NSC) stated
that ``shifting focus from tried-and-true vehicle standards is the
wrong approach and evaluating the removal of those standards is
premature at this time. As most ADS vehicle designs that might benefit
from a revision of FMVSS standards are still on the drawing boards and
unforeseen issues are certain to arise, eliminating current standards
at this point is hasty.'' NSC argued that NHTSA should redirect
resources and prioritize requiring advanced driver assistance systems
(ADAS) and other technologies in vehicles. Consumer Reports (CR) also
``question[ed] the present focus of the agency on `removal of
regulatory barriers' rather than on developing and implementing
standards for proven safety technologies,'' though CR also stated that
it ``appreciate[s] the Agency's targeted approach on this topic'' and
that the narrow scope of the NPRM ``is appropriate.'' The Insurance
Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) expressed concern that ``the
current Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) creates a path for
deploying into the market ADS-controlled vehicles without regulations
that establish the ground rules for the safe behavior of ADS,'' Though
it also stated that ``modifications proposed by NHTSA likely will be
helpful to the entities developing automated driving systems (ADS) and
the vehicles that will be controlled by ADS'' and that the ``changes
answer some questions about how the occupants of ADS-controlled
vehicles should be protected in the event of a crash.''

Agency Response

    NHTSA is sensitive to concerns raised regarding prioritizing
rulemakings and other activities that emphasize other technologies,
such as advanced driver assistance systems (ADAS), instead of focusing
on vehicles that remain in development. However, in the case of this
rulemaking, the agency focused appropriate resources to address a
narrow question. Further, NHTSA has

determined it is appropriate to proceed with this final rule at this
time, as it will provide ADS manufacturers with certainty on how to
comply with these FMVSSs and reaffirm the application of occupant
protections standards to vehicles equipped with ADS. Thus, this final
rule will have the limited effect of providing clarity on the specific
issues addressed here, which will, at the very least, ensure that
vehicles with ADS technology provide the same high levels of occupant
protection that current passenger vehicles provide. Taking this action
now will make clear that the crashworthiness standards apply to
vehicles with ADS technologies.
    We also note that, in addition to this action, we have commenced
rulemaking and other action on ADAS technologies. In the Spring 2021
Unified Agenda of Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions, NHTSA announced
two rulemakings to require emergency braking performance for heavy and
light vehicles and to require pedestrian automatic emergency braking
performance in light vehicles.\19\ Furthermore, the agency is working
on updates to its New Car Assessment Program (NCAP 5-star safety
ratings program) to include additional modern vehicle safety
technologies that can address crashes and promote safer behaviors.
Thus, the agency is actively engaged in actions related to ADAS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ Heavy Vehicle Automatic Emergency Braking, http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/eAgendaViewRule?pubId=202104&RIN=2127-AM36
and Light Vehicle Automatic Emergency Braking (AEB) with Pedestrian
AEB, https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/eAgendaViewRule?pubId=202104&RIN=2127-AM37.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The purpose of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act
(Safety Act), which NHTSA, by delegation, is tasked with administering,
is to reduce traffic crashes and their resulting deaths and injuries,
through carrying out research and establishing FMVSS.\20\ In
establishing FMVSSs, NHTSA sets minimum performance standards that are
objective and practicable, and that protect the public against an
unreasonable risk of crashes occurring, and death or injury in the
event a crash does occur.\21\ This final rule is consistent with the
goals of the Safety Act by modifying the FMVSSs to account for vehicle
designs that NHTSA anticipates will arise with deployment of ADS-
equipped vehicles, in a manner that provides occupants with at least
the same protections afforded by existing standards that the agency has
already found meet the need for motor vehicle safety.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 49 U.S.C. 30101.
    \21\ 49 U.S.C. 30111.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although NHTSA understands concerns that this final rule is
premature given the current state of ADS-equipped vehicle development,
the agency has received many requests from industry for information to
assist them in determining how existing FMVSSs apply to ADS-equipped
vehicles developed without traditional manual controls (e.g., steering
wheels) and other unconventional vehicle designs. In response to these
requests, NHTSA conducted a preliminary analysis of the potential
unintended barriers to these vehicle designs,\22\ issued requests for
comment, held public meetings, and initiated rulemaking proceedings on
the topic--including this rulemaking--to gather as much information as
possible on how best to approach modernizing the FMVSS to account for
these vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ Kim, Perlman, Bogard, and Harrington (2016, March) Review
of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) for Automated
Vehicles, Preliminary Report. US DOT Volpe Center, Cambridge, MA.
Available at: https://rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/12260/dot_12260_DS1.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    There also continues to be progress toward development of ADS-
equipped vehicles. NHTSA knows of dozens of testing and development
activities taking place in more than 40 States and the District of
Columbia, many of which involve ADS-equipped vehicles that lack
manually operated driving controls.\23\ In addition, one manufacturer
of small, low speed, occupant-less ADS delivery vehicles received a
temporary exemption from NHTSA to deploy up to 2,500 vehicles per year
for two years.\24\ These activities, and the advancements toward
development of ADS-equipped vehicles, have created an opportunity for
new vehicle designs that warrants evaluation of current FMVSSs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ https://www.nhtsa.gov/automated-vehicles-safety/av-test-initiative-tracking-tool.
    \24\ 85 FR 7826 (Feb. 11, 2020). NHTSA has also received two
other petitions for exemption for ADS-equipped vehicles that would
lack manually operated driving controls. However, the agency has
only requested comment on one of these petitions, which was later
withdrawn. The agency is currently developing notices of receipt for
the two other petitions it received, including GM's updated
petition. See https://www.reuters.com/article/us-autonomous-cruise-nhtsa-idUSKBN2762SP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    When NHTSA promulgated most of the current FMVSSs, the agency did
not consider the sorts of vehicle designs that would be possible if a
vehicle could operate without human intervention. Today, an increasing
number of companies are developing technologies to make that idea a
reality. NHTSA is issuing this final rule to amend terminology,
definitions, and other nomenclature found in the relevant FMVSS that
inadvertently and unnecessarily impede the unconventional vehicle
designs described by manufacturers.
    NHTSA identified the narrow scope of the NPRM clearly and has
retained that scope for this final rule. Although the agency is
sympathetic to many of the suggestions from CAS, CR, NSC and IIHS that
NHTSA should focus on other vehicle safety issues and technologies, the
agency believes it remains appropriate to finalize today's action on
the narrow grounds identified in the NPRM, while continuing its other
research and ongoing rulemaking actions on the issues identified by
those commenters, including those related to ADS performance and ADAS
technologies. Issues related to agency allocation of resources are also
outside the scope of this final rule.
    NHTSA also disagrees with the IIHS assertion that this final rule
alone creates a path for ADS deployment. NHTSA's existing FMVSSs do not
prevent the deployment of ADS in vehicles configured like traditional
vehicles (i.e., equipped with manually operated driving controls), when
the vehicles meet all applicable FMVSSs. If the vehicle can be
certified as meeting the FMVSSs, it can be deployed with ADS regardless
of issuance of this final rule. This final rule simply makes targeted
changes to the FMVSSs to account for certain vehicle designs that NHTSA
has seen from some manufacturers or has otherwise been made aware. In
addition, this final rule only addresses the crashworthiness standards.
As the agency continues to assess how and whether to change other
relevant FMVSSs in response to these types of vehicles, at this stage,
an ADS-equipped vehicle may still be required to petition for and
receive an exemption from NHTSA to be manufactured for sale, sold,
offered for sale, introduced or delivered for introduction in
interstate commerce, or imported into the United States.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ 49 U.S.C. 30112(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This final rule is substantially similar to the NPRM, with some
alterations resulting from consideration of the comments. A summary of
the substantive differences between the NPRM and final rule was
provided in Section I of this preamble.

III. Introduction to This Final Rule

    This final rule preamble is organized by critical subject matter.
First, the rule addresses subjects that affect all 200-Series FMVSSs,
such as changes to the

terminology used in the standards. For example, the agency is defining
some terms already used in many of the 200-Series FMVSSs to account for
ADS-equipped vehicles (e.g., ``driver's designated seating position,''
``passenger seating position''), or is adopting new definitions as
appropriate (``manually operated driving controls,'' ``steering
control''). These changes to nomenclature provide clarity about how the
crashworthiness FMVSSs apply to ADS-equipped vehicles and seek to amend
the FMVSSs to include these new vehicle designs. Another issue that
affects all 200-Series FMVSSs is the way in which the standards use
features such as the ``driver's seat,'' ``passenger seat,'' and
``steering controls'' as spatial references to describe where things
are located within the vehicle. This final rule amends the terms so
that the spatial references make sense as applied to the interior
designs of ADS-equipped vehicles, which may, for example, lack a
driver's seat and have an additional passenger seat instead. Other
issues of general significance include clarifications regarding how the
200-Series FMVSSs apply to vehicles that can be operated by both ADS
and by a steering control (dual-mode vehicles), and how some test
procedures pertain to vehicles that do not have components referenced
therein (e.g., a manual parking brake mechanism).
    Second, this final rule achieves an objective of the agency with
regards to ``occupant-less vehicles,'' by tailoring the 200-Series
FMVSSs to exclude vehicles that are intended not to have human
occupants. Occupant-less vehicles are designed for the transportation
of property, not people, and have no DSPs. The agency has determined
that the original safety need of the 200-Series FMVSSs no longer exists
when there are no occupants to protect. A more fulsome discussion of
this topic is provided in section V of this preamble.
    Third, this final rule preamble discusses amendments to terminology
used in certain FMVSSs, and focuses on FMVSS No. 208 as a critical
subject, as many of the performance requirements of this standard were
written with reference to the driver's and passenger's seating
positions. This final rule discusses changes to substantive
requirements of the standard resulting from those revisions to
terminology, such as the treatment of advanced air bags and advanced
air bag suppression telltales in ADS-equipped vehicles, lockability
requirements, and changes to FMVSS No. 208's seat belt requirements for
medium-sized buses and large school buses following the removal of the
term ``driver.''
    Fourth, after the FMVSS No. 208 discussion, this final rule
discusses amendments to other FMVSSs.
    Lastly, the final rule discusses the effective date and cost
impacts of the rule.

IV. Implications

a. New and Current Terms and Definitions

1. NPRM's Approach to Driver Definition
    In the NPRM, NHTSA proposed to define, modify, or relocate existing
terms and proposed new terms both to clarify application of the 200-
Series FMVSSs to ADS-equipped vehicles and to facilitate the
implementation of other proposed regulatory changes. However, NHTSA did
not propose to amend the definition of ``driver'' in 49 CFR 571.3 to
include ADS, and it did so intentionally. NHTSA cited four primary
reasons for this decision. First, NHTSA believed it would not be
appropriate to consider changes to such a fundamental and ubiquitous
concept (``driver'') in a rulemaking that focused solely on the 200-
Series without completing the additional research necessary to address
implications for those other FMVSSs. Second, the regulatory changes
NHTSA proposed in the NPRM did not necessitate examination of the issue
of ``what is a driver.'' Third, NHTSA determined that revisiting the
definition of driver would best be done in a different context, perhaps
if the agency undertakes defining the ADS itself. Finally, keeping the
current definition of driver was consistent with the input NHTSA
received through the initial phase of a research project under which
the FMVSSs were reviewed to identify potential approaches for
addressing barriers.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ DOT HS 812 796, April 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Notwithstanding NHTSA's statements above, NHTSA received several
comments suggesting amendments to the driver definition.\27\ However,
none of these comments addressed NHTSA's four areas of concern.
Accordingly, NHTSA does not amend the definition of driver in this
final rule. However, the agency will consider the input received from
comments on this rulemaking in proposing future regulatory actions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ For example, some commenters suggested adding ``human'' or
``conventional'' in front of driver. As the agency noted in the
preamble to the NPRM, since the ``driver'' definition clearly
indicates an ``occupant,'' specifying ``human'' is superfluous.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Newly Defined, New, Modified, and Relocated Terms
    The agency proposed several changes to terms and definitions to
implement the goals of the rulemaking. These definitions were proposed
to be located or were already located in part 571.3, ``Definitions.''
Table 2, below, summarizes the NPRM's proposal for the reader.

           Table 2--Proposed Changes to Terms and Definitions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Proposed term or definition           Type            Justification
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Driver air bag means the air bag  New definition of   Clarify the
 installed for the protection of   existing term.      application of
 the occupant of the driver's                          occupant
 designated seating position.                          protection
                                                       requirements.
Driver dummy means the test       New definition of   Clarify the
 dummy positioned in the           existing term.      application of
 driver's designated seating                           occupant
 position.                                             protection
                                                       requirements.
Driver's designated seating       New definition of   Clarify the
 position means a designated       existing term.      application of
 seating position providing                            occupant
 immediate access to manually                          protection
 operated driving controls. As                         requirements.
 used in this part, the terms
 ``driver's seating position''
 and ``driver's seat'' shall
 have the same meaning as
 ``driver's designated seating
 position''.

Manually operated driving         New...............  Clarify the
 controls means a system of                            application of
 controls:.                                            occupant
(1) That are used by an occupant                       protection
 for real-time, sustained,                             requirements.
 manual manipulation of the
 motor vehicle's heading
 (steering) and/or speed
 (accelerator and brake); and.
(2) That are positioned such
 that they can be used by an
 occupant, regardless of whether
 the occupant is actively using
 the system to manipulate the
 vehicle's motion.
Outboard designated seating       Modification......  Clarify that the
 position means a designated                           undefined terms
 seating position where a                              ``outboard
 longitudinal vertical plane                           seating
 tangent to the outboard side of                       position'' and
 the seat cushion is less than                         ``outboard seat''
 12 inches from the innermost                          have the same
 point on the inside surface of                        meaning as
 the vehicle at a height between                       ``outboard
 the design H-point and the                            designated
 shoulder reference point (as                          seating
 shown in fig. 1 of Federal                            position.''
 Motor Vehicle Safety Standard
 No. 210) and longitudinally
 between the front and rear
 edges of the seat cushion. As
 used in this part, the terms
 ``outboard seating position''
 and ``outboard seat'' shall
 have the same meaning as
 ``outboard designated seating
 position''.
Passenger seating position means  New definition of   Clarify the
 any designated seating position   existing term.      application of
 other than the driver's                               occupant
 designated seating position,                          protection
 except as noted below. As used                        requirements.
 in this part, the term
 ``passenger seat'' shall have
 the same meaning as ``passenger
 seating position.'' As used in
 this part, ``passenger seating
 position'' means a driver's
 designated seating position
 with stowed manual controls.
Row means a set of one or more    Relocation........  Eliminate the
 seats whose seat outlines do                          necessity to
 not overlap with the seat                             cross-reference
 outline of any other seats,                           FMVSS No. 226.
 when all seats are adjusted to
 their rearmost normal riding or
 driving position, when viewed
 from the side.
Steering control system means     Relocation;         To incorporate new
 the manually operated driving     Modification.       definition for
 control(s) used to control the                        ``manually
 vehicle heading and its                               operated driving
 associated trim hardware,                             controls,'' and
 including any portion of a                            to clarify that
 steering column assembly that                         the definition
 provides energy absorption upon                       applies to the
 impact. As used in this part,                         undefined terms
 the term ``steering wheel'' and                       ``steering
 ``steering control'' shall have                       wheel'' and
 the same meaning as ``steering                        ``steering
 control system''.                                     control.''
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In proposing these definitions, NHTSA acknowledged that vehicle
designs are changing in response to technological innovation. Given
that the agency is already seeing ADS-equipped vehicles being designed
to operate in a ``driverless'' mode at all times,\28\ and understanding
that more vehicles may be designed as such in the future, the
underlying assumption behind many of the current FMVSSs that manually
operated driving controls will be present in all vehicles at all times
is no longer controlling. For vehicles designed to be solely operated
by an ADS, manually operated driving controls are logically
unnecessary.\29\ To account for this, the NPRM proposed a regulatory
scheme in which the affected standards would not assume that a vehicle
will always have a driver's seat, a steering wheel and accompanying
steering column, or just one front outboard passenger seating position.
The definition modifications proposed allows the regulatory text, to be
unambiguous related to, for example, which front seating positions are
driver or passenger designated seating positions (DSPs). Taking the
left front outboard seat as an example, this seating position may be a
passenger seating position (modified definition) because it is not a
driver's designation seating position (modified definition). It is not
a driver's (DSP) because by virtue of the definition of driver
(unmodified definition), it does not have access to a steering control
system (modified definition), which is a type of manually-operated
driving control (new definition).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ See, e.g., Nuro R2X, discussed further below.
    \29\ Note that other regulatory changes to the FMVSS not
impacted by this rulemaking (e.g., with regard to the 100-Series
FMVSSs) would likely be necessary to permit such a vehicle to be
manufactured for sale, even with the changes made by this rule
(absent an exemption to the FMVSS under 49 CFR part 555). Note also
that the Safety Act's defect provisions apply to an ADS and ADS-
equipped vehicle.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The NPRM proposed to accomplish this regulatory scheme by modifying
the text of the affected standards so that the front outboard passenger
seat performance requirements and test procedures would apply to all
front outboard seating positions for these vehicles. For most
standards, the NPRM proposed to accomplish this by slight textual
changes that would enable the performance requirements and test
procedures that currently apply to the right front passenger seat to be
``mirrored'' for the left side of the vehicle. If the ADS-equipped
vehicle retained a driver's seat, the NPRM proposed keeping performance
requirements and test procedures for the driver's seat, when it exists,
effectively unchanged. These proposed changes effectively turn occupant
protection requirements for the driver's seat into ``if-equipped''
requirement, meaning that when a vehicle does not have a driver's seat,
all front outboard seating positions must meet the current front
outboard passenger seat requirements. The standards to which NHTSA
proposed making this type of change were FMVSS Nos. 201, 208, 214, and
226.
    Commenters generally supported NHTSA's proposed changes to the
terms and definitions. Some commenters provided suggestions and minor
modifications to the proposals. This final rule maintains the proposed
definitions and changes to terminology,

except for ``passenger seating position.'' We address specific comments
below.
3. Driver's Designated Seating Position, Manually Operated Driving
Controls
    The NPRM proposed to define driver's designated seating position as
``a designated seating position providing immediate access to manually
operated driving controls. As used in this part [571], the terms
`driver's seating position' and `driver's seat' shall have the same
meaning as `driver's designated seating position.' ''
    This definition incorporated another proposed term, manually
operated driving controls, which was defined in the NPRM as ``a system
of controls: (1) That are used by an occupant for real-time, sustained,
manual manipulation of the motor vehicle's heading (steering) and/or
speed (accelerator and brake); and (2) That are positioned such that
they can be used by an occupant, regardless of whether the occupant is
actively using the system to manipulate the vehicle's motion. The
definition of steering control system was clarified to state that it is
a type of manually operated driving control.
Comments
    Many of the comments related to these definitions focused on
``unconventional'' driving controls. The Center for Auto Safety (CAS)
argued that the definition of ``driver's designated seating position''
should be written to exclude non-conventional controls such as
joysticks, computers, tablet computers or wireless remote controls, and
that reference should be made to controls that are ``permanently
attached to the vehicle in a fixed location.'' In contrast, Tesla
argued that the definition should consider situations where, for
example, ``the manual controls may be removable, or where they may
still be present, but are `locked' or rendered inoperative when the ADS
is in control of the driving task, or where the vehicle may be operated
remotely by portable steering controls within the vehicle (e.g., by
cell phones or tablets).'' Tesla stated that the definitions may not
fully consider the ``range of possibilities'' of types of controls,
such as ``buttons, joysticks, screens'' and ``should not necessarily be
determinative of whether the designated seating position should be
considered a driver's rather than a passenger's seat for purposes of
occupant protection.'' The Alliance and Toyota commented that there may
be a lack of clarity with respect to joystick type controls as to how
they would fit into the proposed definitional structure.
Agency Response
    NHTSA has considered the comments but is not revising the two
proposed definitions. The agency concludes that CAS's suggested changes
would add ambiguity to the definition of the driver designated seating
position. The commenter's suggestion to add ``conventional'' to the
definition raises a question about the meaning of this term. Similarly,
we believe that making the recommended change to refer to permanently
attached controls in a fixed location may cause confusion with respect
to stowable controls that may be installed in ``dual-mode'' vehicles.
    NHTSA does not agree with Tesla that it is necessary at this time
that the definition for manually operated driving controls account for
the use of tablets or cell phones to control the vehicle. The new
definition is meant to encompass traditional driving controls, not
future controls that have not yet been developed. We also note that
this rulemaking does not address joystick-type designs that are
intended to be the only manual driving control or driving controls that
have no fixed position at a particular seating location. Since this
issue raises crash avoidance and crashworthiness safety concerns that
are beyond the scope of this rulemaking action, we will not address the
matter in this final rule.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ GM focused on the plural nature of the proposed definition
to suggest that an unconventional control, such as a joystick, could
in fact be a single manually operated control (not a system of
controls) for use by a technician or for fleet management to move
the vehicle across a lot, for example. GM believed that this single
control would not be intended for use by a motorist for real-time,
sustained manual manipulation of steering or acceleration or
braking. Instead, GM envisioned this single control to be used for
the short-term, temporary activation of the vehicle for fleet
management purposes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Tesla argued that only one of the terms ``steering control system''
and ``manually operated driving controls'' may be necessary, not both.
NHTSA disagrees and believes having both terms allows for a more
consistent regulatory text and less disruption from the existing text
structure. Tesla claimed that the NPRM did not address the situation
where the driving controls may still be present but are ``locked'' or
``inoperative.'' The NPRM explicitly considered inoperative controls
that remain in position.\31\ Tesla sought clarity on whether remote
operation fell into the definition of ``manually operated driving
controls.'' In response, under the definition of ``manually operated
driving controls,'' it specifies that such controls are positioned such
that they can be ``used by an occupant'' (emphasis added). Accordingly,
the definition of ``manually operated driving controls'' excludes
remote operation controls.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ 85 FR at 17637, VI.a.vi.6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Alliance stated there is a lack of clarity with respect to
stowed manual controls. The commenter suggests the term ``stowed''
could mean a range of positions. The commenter points to the preamble
statement that research may be needed into the ``transition of
traditional manual controls in dual-mode ADS equipped vehicles.''
    To be clear, issues arising from the physical act of stowing manual
controls is beyond the scope of this rulemaking. We believe the
existing standards clearly provide for occupant protection when the
controls are stowed, creating a passenger DSP. As for the meaning of
the term ``stowed,'' it is the past tense of ``stow,'' which has the
plain language meaning of ``pack or store away.'' In the 200-Series
standards, it is a term that is already used in relation to air bags,
seat belts, and sun visors. We believe that a stowed manually operated
driving control will be self-evident. Stowed controls could have
multiple potential stowed positions and configurations, but not
positioned such that they can be used by the driver.
4. Passenger Seating Position
    The NPRM proposed to define ``passenger seating position'' as--any
designated seating position other than the driver's designated seating
position, except as noted below. As used in this part, the term
``passenger seat'' shall have the same meaning as ``passenger seating
position.'' As used in this part, ``passenger seating position'' means
a driver's designated seating position with stowed manual controls.
    GM suggested slightly revising the last sentence in a manner that
clarifies the provision about stowed controls. NHTSA agrees in part
with GM's suggestion, and has decided in this final rule to change the
last sentence to state:
    As used in this part, ``passenger seating position'' includes what
was a driver's designated seating position prior to stowing of the
manually operated driving controls.''
5. Steering Wheel to Steering Control
    The NPRM proposed to change the term ``steering wheel'' to
``steering control'' in consideration of steering controls that may not
be circular, such as those shaped more like an airplane yoke control.
At every occurrence of the term ``steering wheel,'' the NPRM
substituted the term ``steering control.'' These terms were meant to be
synonymous as is evident by the use of

the terms in the proposed definition of ``steering control system.''
Comments
    Comments were generally supportive, although some commenters raised
concerns about issues tangential to the proposal. The California State
Transportation Agency \32\ (State of California, or CalSTA) and
Securing American's Future Energy (SAFE) expressed support for the
proposal. Safe Ride News (SRN) expressed concerns related to potential
dangers for non-circular steering controls. Tesla did not comment on
the change from ``wheel'' to ``control,'' but rather was concerned that
the term ``steering control rim'' in FMVSS No. 208 implied a circular
control.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ Comments submitted in coordination with the California
Highway Patrol and the California Department of Motor Vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The final rule will adopt the proposed change. With respect to
SRN's concerns, the change in terminology does not newly enable
manufacturers to equip vehicles with non-circular steering controls,
since such controls were never prohibited. All of the standards that
address the impact protection of steering controls remain in place. We
also disagree with Tesla's contention that the use of the term ``rim''
limits the shape of the steering control to a round object. We believe
``rim'' can reasonably be interpreted as ``outer edge.'' Thus, various
shapes are possible. We decline to make any change to the term
``steering control rim'' in this final rule.
6. Outboard Designated Seating Position
    NHTSA proposed to clarify that the terms ``outboard seating
position'' and ``outboard seat'' have the same meaning as used in the
existing definition of ``outboard designated seating position.'' Our
analysis of the regulatory text of the crashworthiness FMVSSs,
determined these three terms have the same meaning. Therefore, to
clarify this point, we proposed added language specifying that
``outboard seating position'' and ``outboard seat'' have the same
meaning as ``outboard designated seating position.''
Comments
    There were no adverse comments made to this proposal and the final
rule will adopt the proposed change.
7. Row and Seat Outline
    The NPRM proposed to relocate the definition of ``row,'' which is
currently located in FMVSS No. 226, to Part 571.3. The term was
proposed to be used in multiple standards (FMVSS Nos. 201, 206 and
208). Moving it to part 571.3 would eliminate the need to insert a
reference to its current location.
Comments
    There were no adverse comments related to moving the definition of
``row.'' However, Alliance, Zoox and GM recommended that the definition
of ``outline'' similarly be moved to part 571.3 because the definition
of ``row'' uses this term. The final rule will make this change.
8. Driver Air Bag and Driver Dummy
    The NPRM proposed to define ``driver air bag,'' ``driver dummy.''
These are new definitions, but the terms already appear many times in
the FMVSSs. This is also the case for ``passenger seating position''
and ``driver's designate seating position,'' which we discussed
extensively above. However, there was previously no strong need to
define these terms. NHTSA proposed to define them now because they help
to clarify the application of the FMVSSs to ADS-equipped vehicles while
maintaining their application to traditional vehicles and minimizing
textual disruption.
Comments
    There were no adverse comments made to this proposal and the final
rule will adopt the proposed change.

b. Modifying Spatial References in Test Procedures and Definitions That
Rely on the Presence of a Driver's Seat and/or Manual-Operated Driving
Controls

    FMVSS Nos. 201, 206, 208, 214, 216a, 225 and 226 contain terms or
definitions that reference the driver's seat or steering controls to
provide a spatial reference for where equipment in the vehicle must be
installed, or test equipment (such as test dummies) placed in a
compliance test. The NPRM proposed various changes addressing the
situation where there is no driver's seat, a lone passenger seat, or no
steering control to provide a spatial reference frame. In some
instances, the agency proposed using the front row or the front
outboard seating position as a reference rather than the driver's seat.
In some cases, the ``left'' or ``right'' side of the vehicle was
proposed to be used rather than ``driver's side'' or ``passenger
side.''
1. Driver's Seat
    The NPRM proposed using the front row, or the seating reference
point of a seat in the front row, as a spatial reference rather than
the driver's seat. Such changes were proposed for FMVSS Nos. 201, 206,
208 and 225, for buses.\33\ Most commenters were supportive of the
proposed changes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ The Center for Auto Safety did not comment on the specifics
of the change, but as with other bus-related issues, stated that
``it is inappropriate to consider ADS for buses within the stated
NPRM scope.'' NHTSA has responded to this issue earlier in this
preamble.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FMVSS No. 225, ``Child restraint anchorage systems,'' currently
defines ``shuttle bus'' as ``a bus with only one row of forward-facing
seating positions rearward of the driver's seat'' (emphasis added). The
NPRM proposed modifying the definition to state that if the bus does
not have a driver's seat, it would meet the definition of a shuttle bus
if it has only one row of forward- facing seating positions rearward of
the front row. The NPRM made no alteration for non-ADS vehicles.
Comments
    The Alliance supported the change to the definition of ``shuttle
bus,'' but requested that this change be made for all vehicles, not
just vehicles without driving controls, using the same language. In
contrast, the State of California (CalSTA) commented that the
``proposed change may result in practical design and configuration
changes to shuttle buses. Further research into how these changes will
impact occupant safety on shuttle buses, if at all, is needed and
suggests that it may be premature to address at this time.'' The
Alliance further addressed provisions for rear-facing front row
seating.
    NHTSA is not implementing the Alliance's suggestion to apply the
definitional change to non-ADS-equipped vehicles and is not accounting
for rear-facing front row seating. This decision is in line with the
agency's intent to focus this rulemaking narrowly to address unique
designs that might be implicated by ADSs. This rulemaking is NHTSA's
first step toward modernizing the FMVSSs to account for these new
vehicle designs. No doubt there will be other steps, as the
technologies mature, and suggestions for further amendments will be
considered at those appropriate times.
    NHTSA disagrees with CalSTA since the changes will have no effect
on vehicles with driver's seats. Further, it is our expectation that
using a front row seat as a reference rather than a driver's seat will
have little to no effect on the reference point location.
    For the reasons above and explained in the NPRM, this final rule
adopts the changes that refer to the front row instead of to the
driver's seat.
2. Dummy Placement in Bench Seats
    Currently FMVSS Nos. 208 and 214 refer to the driver's DSP when

specifying where to place and position test dummies in bench seats of
vehicles in the respective compliance tests. The NPRM proposed to use
the seating reference point of outboard seats as the spatial reference
for the lateral placement of test dummies when there is no driver's
DSP.
Comments
    All comments were generally in favor of using the seating reference
point of outboard seats as the spatial reference for the lateral
placement of test dummies when there is no driver's DSP.
    The Center for Auto Safety (CAS) agreed with the proposed change to
FMVSS No. 208 on the use of the seating reference point as the spatial
reference for bench seats when there is no driver's seat. However, CAS
stated: ``[T]his proposal should not pertain to vehicles that include
fixed or deployable human-accessible primary or backup (potentially
deployable on demand or need) controls.'' NHTSA understands this
comment as conveying CAS's belief there should not be any reduction in
the safety of the driver as a result of this final rule--a belief with
which the agency agrees. The agency notes that the proposed regulatory
text was purposefully drafted in a manner that would not affect the
protection currently provided by vehicles with manually operated
driving controls, i.e., those with a driver's seat.
    IIHS stated that the proposed method to position passenger side
dummies in the absence of a ``driver's'' seat ``seems sensible.''
However, the commenter requested that the agency ``ensure that this
change will not result in unrealistic dummy positioning for all
relevant dummy sizes before making its proposed change.'' NHTSA has
assessed how this final rule would impact dummy placement during
compliance testing and concluded that the dummy positioning procedures
are feasible for all the test dummies used in the standards, and dummy
positioning would remain realistic for all tests. The Alliance
supported the proposed language and suggested that such a method should
be used with vehicles with unconventional steering controls. This
suggestion is beyond the scope of this rulemaking but will be
considered for future actions.
3. Driver's Side and Passenger Side
    FMVSS Nos. 206, 208, 216a and 226 refer to ``driver's side'' and
``passenger side'' in describing substantive requirements and
compliance test procedures. The NPRM proposed to substitute ``left
side'' for driver's side and ``right side'' for passenger side.
Comments
    Some commenters were in favor of the approach NHTSA took in the
NPRM. The Alliance supported the proposed language substituting ``left
side'' for ``driver's side.'' CAS indicated that this approach is
sufficient to provide for testing under FMVSS No. 208. CalSTA supported
the proposal, stating that this approach does not result in any ``loss
in meaning.'' The commenter also agreed with similar proposed changes
in FMVSS Nos. 206, 214 and 216a.
    A few commenters did not support this change. In contrast to its
comment about FMVSS No. 208, CAS stated that for FMVSS No. 214,
optional manual controls normally associated with the driver's position
could be located on the right side of the vehicle. CAS also contended
that, for FMVSS No. 226, the proposed changes to ``left front door
sill'' from ``driver's door sill'' could have implications for vehicles
that may only have doors or seating on the right side of the vehicle.
ZF stated that the question of whether this option would result in the
same performance outcome is one that needs additional study because it
is unclear to them that ``the occupant will be in the exact same
position.''
    The agency is adopting its proposal to change references to the
driver's and passenger side of the vehicle to the left and right side
of the vehicle. With respect to CAS's concern about FMVSS No. 214,
whether manual controls associated with a defined driver position are
on the left or right side of the vehicle has no bearing on the
application of the standard's requirements and test procedures to a
vehicle. The standard's side impact protection requirements currently
and will continue to apply equally to the left and right sides of the
vehicle. Further, the spatial reference changes proposed for FMVSS No.
214, S10.2 were nearly identical to the changes CAS supported in FMVSS
No. 208. Regarding FMVSS No. 226, the agency is not aware of any
vehicles under 10,000 lb. GVWR without a door on the left side of the
vehicle. Regardless, placement of doors and seating on the right side
of the vehicle does not affect the application of the requirements and
test procedures of FMVSS No. 226. Finally, in response to ZF, we
believe that it is reasonable to assume at this time that occupants
would remain in the same position as currently contemplated by the
standard, and thus, the same performance outcome could be expected by
modifying the current language to ``left side'' and ``right side.''
NHTSA does not believe that additional research is necessary at this
time since this rule only changes the term used to describe the seating
position (``driver's'' seat) and not the performance requirements or
placement of the seat itself. Finally, as mentioned previously, the
scope of this rule includes conventional seating, not unconventional
seating arrangements.
4. Steering Controls as a Spatial Reference
    FMVSS No. 201 S5.1.1(d) excludes from S5.1 ``areas outboard of any
point of tangency on the instrument panel of a 165 mm diameter head
form tangent to and inboard of a vertical longitudinal plane tangent to
the inboard edge of the steering wheel.'' The NPRM proposed to amend
S5.1.1(d) so that an area of the instrument panel excluded from S5.1
(the impact procedure) would no longer be excluded if the steering
control were not present, i.e., the exclusion only applies to
situations where the steering control is present.
    CAS argued that the standard should apply to ADS-equipped vehicles
that include optional manual controls that are either fixed or
deployable if they are associated with a defined position. The Alliance
believed additional clarity for S5.1.1(d) is needed for dual-mode
vehicles with stowed controls, suggesting that NHTSA add the phrase
``if the steering control is present or, in the case of dual-mode
vehicles, fully deployed in manual driving mode'' to the beginning of
S5.1.1(d).
    In response to CAS, the proposed amendment was intended to address
vehicles without ``steering wheels'' and where the steering control is
not present. The rule change was to ensure the protection provided by
the current passenger side of the instrument panel (right side) is
provided to the left side (former driver's side). The revised standard
will provide the same level of protection as the current standard when
a steering control system is present.
    Relatedly, NHTSA declines to make the Alliance's suggested
clarification because it is unnecessary. Steering controls are defined
as a type of ``manually operated driving control.'' Manually operated
driving controls are ``positioned such that they can be used by an
occupant.'' Thus, by definition, these controls are not stowed
controls. The suggestion also raises additional questions related to
how ``dual-mode vehicles,'' ``fully deployed,'' and ``manual driving
mode'' should be defined.

c. Dual-Mode Certification

    The NPRM stated that for dual-mode vehicles with the capability of
stowing driving controls, NHTSA would require

manufacturers to certify compliance with all applicable FMVSSs in both
modes (i.e., with the manually operated driving controls available and
with the controls stowed).\34\ When the manually operated driving
controls are available, the vehicle would be subject to the FMVSS
requirements at that DSP as applied to a driver's DSP. When they were
stowed, the vehicle would be subject to the FMVSS requirements at the
DSP as applied to a passenger seat.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ 85 FR at 17634.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comments
    Many commenters supported NHTSA's approach to dual-mode vehicles.
IIHS noted that the agency's statement in the preamble \35\ that
``NHTSA expects that manufacturers will need to certify compliance in
both states (e.g., manually operated driving controls available and
stowed)'' [emphasis added] was unclear and urged NHTSA to modify the
regulatory text to ensure its expectation is met. The Automotive Safety
Council (ASC), Securing America's Future Energy (SAFE), and Uber agreed
with NHTSA's proposal to require that manufacturers certify compliance
to, and conduct validation testing in, both modes. Tesla suggested that
NHTSA add ``even more clarity regarding the applicability of the FMVSS
to such [dual-mode] vehicles. Dual-mode vehicles are likely to be some
of the first ADS-equipped vehicles on the road.'' In addition, Tesla
believes it sees a conflict in the agency statements that a seating
position is not a driver's DSP, i.e., it is a passenger DSP, if that
position is not equipped with a manually operated driving control and
the statement that a DSP remains a driver's DSP when driving controls
are in place and the ADS is engaged.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Agency Response
    Among commenters addressing the issue of certification of dual-mode
vehicles, there was agreement on the need to certify in both modes. In
response to IIHS, we have reviewed the regulatory text to assure the
text is not worded in terms of ``expectations'' but is clear in terms
of requirements.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ Uber presented several hypothetical situations relating to
the Safety Act's ``make inoperative'' provision, 49 U.S.C. 30122,
which were beyond the scope of the NPRM. The Agency recommends
persons seeking a request for interpretation of NHTSA's standards or
regulations, or of the statutory provisions of the Safety Act,
submit a request for interpretation to NHTSA's Chief Counsel's
Office.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to the Tesla comment about seeing a conflict in the
agency statements that a seating position is not a driver's DSP, NHTSA
believes these statements are not in conflict and clearly proceed from
the terms used in the regulatory text (driver, steering control system,
manually operated driving controls, driver's DSP, and passenger seating
position). For example, the definition of ``manually operated driving
controls'' makes no statement about the state of any ADS system. It
simply states, among other things, that the controls are ``positioned
such that they can be used by an occupant.'' While the steering
controls might not be used, as would be the case of a dual-mode vehicle
with the ADS engaged, the seating position where they are located and
positioned for potential use, by definition, remains the driver's DSP.
    NHTSA believes that no additional regulatory text changes are
needed beyond that proposed in the NPRM to assure clarity with respect
to certification of dual-mode vehicles. NHTSA notes that if a left
front seat has both a driver configuration and a passenger
configuration, the agency may choose either configuration for
compliance testing, or test both configurations.

d. Parking Brake and Transmission Position

    Many of the 200-Series FMVSSs incorporate a full vehicle crash test
or other kind of dynamic vehicle test in the standard's compliance
test. For some of these dynamic tests, a test condition applies such
that the vehicle transmission is in neutral, and/or the parking brake
applied. For vehicles without driver-accessible transmission shift
selectors or parking brake mechanisms, NHTSA may not have readily
available means to set the vehicle in neutral, activate a parking
brake, or achieve other test conditions described in the compliance
test.
    NHTSA did not propose any regulatory text changes related to
interfacing with ADS-equipped vehicles on pre-test transmission and
brake status. The agency believed such changes were unnecessary for the
purposes of this notice, as the important factor for the 200-Series
FMVSSs was whether the transmission was in the proper gear and the pre-
test brake activated; the way that pre-test state was achieved was of
no consequence to performance of the crash test. It was envisioned that
manufacturers would provide the know-how for the agency to achieve the
necessary transmission and brake status when NHTSA conducts its
compliance tests. However, comments were requested on this issue.
Comments
    Commenters were generally in agreement with the agency's approach.
The Center for Auto Safety (CAS) supported the agency's views on this
matter. The Alliance agreed that manufacturers could and would work
with the agency to achieve the necessary transmission and parking brake
status. Waymo stated that it ``agree[s] with the line of thinking that
the important element is whether the transmission is in the proper gear
and whether the pre-test brake is activated--not the manner in which
that state is achieved.'' \37\ GM stated it would work with NHTSA and
the agency's test labs should the need for such consultation arise.
Alternatively, Tesla believed NHTSA should ``consider updates to the
parking brake status in compliance testing where it may not reflect
real-world scenarios.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ Waymo stated the Agency should remain flexible in
compliance testing in general: ``[t]o implement this principle,
NHTSA could adopt policies allowing manufacturers to provide the
tools and information necessary for the agency to conduct compliance
tests in a manner befitting each manufacturer's unique automated
vehicle designs.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Agency Response
    NHTSA's view of how compliance tests would be conducted on vehicles
without traditional transmission shift levers or parking brake
mechanisms was supported by the commenters. The agency envisions
compliance testing will be conducted with the above framework in mind.
Tesla may be raising a point that certain test conditions may not be
necessarily relevant or appropriate for some vehicles, if, for example,
the vehicle parking brake status is not appropriate. While NHTSA agrees
that FMVSS test conditions should be relevant and appropriate for the
vehicle and for the safety need addressed by the standard at issue, the
agency is not currently aware of a situation where the parking brake
status is an inappropriate test condition or would be inappropriate for
an ADS-equipped vehicle. Consistent with the NPRM, the final rule does
not change any regulatory text related to interfacing with ADS-equipped
vehicles on pre-test transmission and brake status.

V. Occupant-Less Vehicles

    Currently, the 200-Series ``vehicle'' standards apply to passenger
cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles (MPVs), trucks, buses, and school
buses. These vehicle types, as they are defined in 49 CFR 571.3, are
all, by definition, passenger-carrying vehicles, except for ``trucks.''
(A driver of a truck is considered an occupant but is not

considered a ``passenger.'') Occupant-less vehicles would not have
designated seating positions or any other vehicle features that aid in
the transportation of seated or standing occupants. These vehicles,
which would not even have a driver's DSP, are expected to be more
oriented to commercial movement of goods. Thus, by definition,
occupant-less vehicles cannot be categorized as a passenger car, MPV,
or bus of any kind. The definition of ``truck'' in Sec.  571.3 is the
only vehicle type definition that specifically covers vehicles designed
to carry property and not ``persons.''
    Because occupant-less vehicles qualify as trucks,\38\ and since the
200-Series standards apply to trucks, occupant-less vehicles are
currently subject to the 200-Series standards even though they do not
carry occupants. In the NPRM, NHTSA tentatively determined that a
safety need did not exist to apply the existing 200-Series standards to
occupant-less vehicles. In addition, the analysis concluded that for
some 200-Series standards, the application to occupant-less trucks
could create uncertainty about certification because the requirements
are seemingly linked to the existence of specified designated seating
positions. Accordingly, with respect to trucks, NHTSA proposed to amend
the application sections of FMVSS Nos. 201, 205, 206, 207, 208, 214,
216, and 226 to apply only to trucks with DSPs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ Under NHTSA's self-certification framework, manufacturers
must certify their vehicles as meeting all FMVSSs applicable to the
vehicle type, and, to do so, must classify their vehicles for
purposes of determining which FMVSSs apply. NHTSA may take issue
with that classification if the agency believes the manufacturer has
misclassified the vehicle and thus failed to certify the compliance
of the vehicle appropriately with applicable FMVSSs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    There are some standards that are applicable to trucks that the
NPRM did not propose to amend because they only apply if a DSP were
present. One such example is FMVSS No. 202a, Head restraints.
Similarly, the agency did not propose amending the applicability of
FMVSS No. 203, Impact protection for the driver from the steering
control system, and 204, Steering control rearward displacement, to
trucks. As discussed in the NPRM, this is because those standards only
apply to vehicles with steering controls, which an occupant-less
vehicle necessarily lacks. No change was proposed for FMVSS No. 209,
Seat belt assemblies, because the standard is an equipment standard,
and no change was proposed for FMVSS No. 210, Seat belt assembly
anchorages, because that standard's requirements only apply to DSPs.
That said, NHTSA requested comment on whether any ``additional changes
are necessary or appropriate'' to accomplish the goals of the NPRM.\39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ 85 FR at 17625.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comments
    Most commenters that addressed this issue were supportive of the
proposal, but a few had reservations about how the approach could
affect crash compatibility and other safety matters. A number of
commenters focused on the applicability of FMVSS Nos. 203 and 204,
FMVSS No. 205, Glazing materials, FMVSS Nos. 212, Windshield mounting,
and 219, Windshield zone intrusion.
    Most commenters believed that no safety need exists requiring
occupant protection standards for occupant-less vehicles, and that the
200-series standards were not relevant for such vehicles. The American
Trucking Associations (ATA) specifically supported changes to standards
that apply to trucks with a GVWR greater than 4,536 kg (10,000 lb.).
Uber argued that ``equipment that is designed to protect occupants in
traditional vehicles will do nothing but create unnecessary potential
safety hazards in the event of a crash or if that equipment
malfunctions.'' Nuro stated that applying occupant protection standards
to occupant-less vehicles could degrade safety by adding weight and
rigidity, which may increase ``the risk to occupants'' of other
vehicles. A number of other commenters suggested that NHTSA overlooked
several other 200-Series FMVSSs that should also be amended to exclude
occupant-less trucks from their applicability, namely FMVSS Nos. 212
and 219.
    Commenters expressing concern about the proposal included the State
of California (CalSTA) regarding possible degradation to the safety of
vulnerable road users, such as pedestrians and bicyclists, if occupant-
less vehicle were excluded from FMVSS No. 205. The Automotive Safety
Council (ASC) raised the potential for crash compatibility concerns
stemming from the potential loss of energy absorption in a crash
involving an occupant-less vehicle.
Agency Response
    While NHTSA believes the non-applicability of certain standards was
implicit in the proposal, the agency has considered the comments and is
adopting amendments to provide clarity. Several commenters (including
the Alliance, the Consumer Technology Association (CTA), Nuro, and,
Zoox) suggested that additional clarity is needed with respect to the
200-Series FMVSSs sections the NPRM did not propose to modify. As
discussed later below, NHTSA agrees to amend FMVSS Nos. 212 and 219 to
clarify non-applicability to occupant-less vehicles.

a. General Observations

    The Center for Auto Safety argued that a truck with an optional or
deployable control system should not be excluded from FMVSS Nos. 201,
205 and 206. NHTSA would like to be clear that this subject pertains to
occupant-less vehicles that are specifically designed not to contain
occupants. NHTSA's intent is to keep the safety of occupants, including
drivers, at the forefront of this rule.
    Nuro suggested three possible ways to limit the applicability of
the FMVSSs to occupant-less vehicles: (1) A blanket exclusion in
section 571.7; (2) a preamble statement; or (3) a change to all
application sections. First, a blanket change to section 571.7 or to
change ``all'' application sections would be overly broad and exceed
the scope of this notice, which focuses exclusively on the 200-series
standards. Second, a statement in the preamble would not provide
appropriate transparency and clarity. In other words, the applicability
of the standards to the vehicles in question would not be apparent from
the actual text of the standards. Thus, to assure a full and careful
consideration of the applicability of the FMVSSs to subject vehicles
and avoid unintended consequences, NHTSA has decided to evaluate each
standard and determine applicability on a standard-by-standard basis.
In some cases, no change was needed because the non-applicability of
the standard to occupant-less vehicles is indirect (e.g., by virtue of
reference to a seating position, such as for FMVSS No. 202a).
    In the NPRM, NHTSA proposed to exclude occupant-less trucks from
the FMVSS occupant protection requirements, tentatively concluding
that, ``the safety need that supports the crashworthiness requirement
of FMVSS No. 208 for the protection of vehicle occupants does not exist
for occupant-less trucks.'' While this final rule affirms this
conclusion, the agency notes that the language proposed to accomplish
this exclusion applies standards to ``trucks with at least one
designated seating position.'' Commenters such as the National
Disability Rights Network, in different contexts covered in Section
VI.f of this preamble, raised the prospect of vehicles with ADS that do
not include a DSP, but accommodate people with certain physical
disabilities (e.g., through wheelchair securement mechanisms). NHTSA
notes that the

definition of DSP only encompasses wheelchair securement devices for a
``vehicle sold or introduced into interstate commerce for purposes that
include carrying students to and from school or related events.''
Accordingly, the proposed applicability language (referring to trucks
with at least one designated seating position) may leave ambiguity as
to whether an occupant-less truck could be permissibly outfitted with a
wheelchair securement mechanism and avoid occupant protection
requirements. While the NPRM's preamble discussion tentatively
concluded that occupant-less trucks do not present a safety need for
occupant protection requirements, the language used to exclude such
trucks was imprecise and conflicted with the tentative conclusion,
which could lead to confusion. Accordingly, the agency has decided
that, rather than amending the application sections to include ``trucks
with at least one designated seating position,'' the final rule will
specify, ``trucks designed to carry at least one person,'' which would
include occupants in wheelchair securements. We believe this will
ameliorate the problems related to referencing the DSP definition, yet
will achieve the same purpose. We note that this change should not
result in any reduction in objectivity since the definitions of
passenger car, MPV, and bus all refer to being designed to carry a
certain number of persons.

b. FMVSS No. 205, Glazing Materials

    CalSTA posited that vulnerable road users, such as pedestrians and
bicyclists, might be placed at risk if occupant-less vehicles are
excluded from meeting FMVSS No. 205. The State suggested that ``[i]f
the glazing materials standard is removed, a standard providing a
commensurate level of safety for vulnerable road users should be
implemented.''
    Given that one of NHTSA's guiding principles for this rulemaking
was maintaining safety levels provided by existing FMVSS, the agency
carefully considered this issue. The agency first analyzed the intended
purpose of FMVSS No. 205. The focus of the Society of Automotive
Engineers (SAE) standard, SAE J673-Automotive Safety Glasses--on which
FMVSS No. 205 is based--was to benefit the occupants of motor vehicles.
The purpose of Standard No. 205 as promulgated, and as specified today,
references vehicle occupants and makes no mention to persons struck
outside the vehicle. Nonetheless, the commenter raises the possibility
that FMVSS No. 205 has had an unintended benefit for vulnerable road
users, and the agency sought to understand any unintended consequences
of this rulemaking. Accordingly, NHTSA undertook a thorough search, but
found no crash data or research studies that could verify unintended
benefits for pedestrians, cyclists or other persons resulting from
FMVSS No. 205 glazing.
    The effect of glazing in pedestrian and other road users'
collisions with motor vehicles is complex, as the crash may manifest
potential tradeoffs between various design aspects of glazing and
glazing retention. The center of the windshield, if it breaks on
impact, can be a relatively forgiving area with respect to the impact
forces/deceleration of the struck person. However, in contrast to the
middle of the windshield, the area of windshield attachment,
particularly at the A-pillars, may be relatively hazardous to a person
striking it as the pillars are stiff structural elements. For a
windshield to protect occupants, it must be adequately retained in a
crash. FMVSS No. 212 specifies windshield mounting requirements that
must be met, for the benefit of occupants, when subjected to a 48 km/h
(30 mph) barrier crash test. In order to retain the windshield, the
perimeter mounting must be sufficiently stiff. It is unclear whether or
to what extent the crashworthiness test requirements of FMVSS No. 205
contribute to, or are offset by, these forgiving yet stiff aspects of a
windshield. That is, even if the glazing is forgiving in the center
once it breaks, the windshield mounting must be stiff enough to meet
FMVSS No. 212. Any overall benefit to pedestrians and cyclists from
compliance with FMVSS No. 205 is uncertain.
    It bears noting that FMVSS No. 205 is an ``if equipped'' standard.
Accordingly, the standard only requires FMVSS No. 205 glazing if
vehicles have glazing. The extent to which occupant-less vehicles would
have glazing is unknown at this time.
    In its comment, Nuro argued that, if manufacturers of occupant-less
vehicles were not required to meet occupant protection requirements,
they could concentrate on protection of other road users.\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ Nuro made similar arguments specific to FMVSS No. 205 in
its petition for a temporary exemption from aspects of FMVSS No.
500, which the Agency granted on February 11, 2020. Docket NHTSA-
2019-0017-0002; 85 FR 7826. FMVSS No. 500 requires low speed
vehicles to have a windshield that meets FMVSS No. 205.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After consideration of the information above, NHTSA has decided
that information is not available to substantiate the view that there
would be lost safety benefits to pedestrians and other road users by
excluding occupant-less vehicles from FMVSS No. 205. However, NHTSA
will monitor this issue. In view of Nuro's statement above, NHTSA
believes that the amendment adopted by this final rule may open up
avenues for potential development of more pedestrian-friendly designs
for occupant-less vehicles, though the agency is not relying on this
belief in making the decision to exclude these vehicles, as these
vehicles would not be required to make these changes.
    As to more general matters, both NADA and Ford asserted that the
change to FMVSS No. 205 would not address the standard in its entirety,
and that transmissibility/visibility aspects of the standard would need
to be revisited in the future. In response, NHTSA notes that the NPRM
proposed, and this final rule adopts, revisions to FMVSS No. 205 that
apply the standard only to vehicles with occupants.
    In its comment to the NPRM, Nuro stated that, just as the NPRM
proposed changes to FMVSS No. 205, conforming changes should be made to
FMVSS No. 500, Low speed vehicles, and part 565, Vehicle identification
number (VIN) requirements. Nuro sought a change to FMVSS No. 500 to
make clear that a windshield is required only if the low speed vehicle
had at least one DSP. In response, NHTSA has decided no change to the
low speed vehicle standard is necessary because FMVSS No. 500
incorporates by reference various aspects of other FMVSS. This means,
in practice, that when NHTSA makes changes to FMVSS No. 205, those
changes will automatically be incorporated into FMVSS No. 500. While
the low speed vehicle standard refers to FMVSS No. 205, the change to
the application section of FMVSS No. 205 makes clear that it does not
apply to occupant-less vehicles. Also, other aspects of FMVSS No. 500
will still apply to occupant-less vehicles, so changing FMVSS No. 500
could be confusing.
    Nuro noted that part 565 requires that the VIN be visible through
``the vehicle glazing'' by an observer ``whose eye-point is located
outside the vehicle adjacent to the left windshield pillar.'' This
final rule does not amend part 565, as the matter is beyond the scope
of the NPRM. However, the agency understands the issue and will
consider addressing it in a future action.

c. Vehicle Crash Compatibility

    The Automotive Safety Council (ASC) supported limiting the crash
protection requirements of FMVSS No. 208 to

vehicles with at least one designated seating position but argued that
measures are still needed to ensure adequate crash compatibility with
the fleet. ASC referenced ADS 2.0 statements that ``unoccupied vehicles
equipped with ADSs should provide geometric and energy absorption crash
compatibility with existing vehicles on the road.'' ASC stated that
crash compatibility ``is currently controlled to some degree by the
crash requirements of FMVSS [No.] 208. Energy absorption in the crash
by the unoccupied vehicle structure is a necessary factor in helping to
protect the occupied vehicle passengers.''
    In its comment, Nuro mentioned that the preamble of the NPRM
indicated NHTSA is considering crash compatibility research and
possible rulemaking for occupant-less vehicles. Nuro stated that crash
compatibility should not be the agency's initial foray into drafting
standards for these vehicles. Nuro argued there is no reason to believe
that occupant-less vehicles should be less compatible than existing
vehicles, but that ``the opposite is true due to the lower mass and
smaller size that can be achieved for vehicles that will not carry, and
need not include protections for, humans.''
    The NPRM did not include provisions related to potential vehicle-
to-vehicle crash compatibility, and this final rule continues this
approach. As stated in the NPRM, this is a complex issue that has not
yet been adequately researched and we have no evidence that vehicle-to-
vehicle crash compatibility might cause adverse safety consequences at
this time, as occupant-less vehicles do not exist in the fleet in any
significant number. However, NHTSA is engaged in research on this
subject and will also monitor on-road deployments. In addition, NHTSA
does not agree with Nuro's assertion that all future occupant-less
vehicles will necessarily be small and light and thereby a safer
collision partner because NHTSA's decision in this final rule is not
limited by weight and thus will apply to any occupant-less vehicle.
NHTSA notes that the American Trucking Associations' comment on this
subject, as previously mentioned in the Comments subsection of section
V. of this preamble, was especially supportive of changes made to
standards applying to occupant-less trucks with a GVWR greater than
4,536 kg (10,000 lb.), thus indicating that there may be occupant-less
vehicles that are much larger and heavier than Nuro's vehicles.
Further, the fact that an occupant-less vehicle does not have to
protect its own occupant does not mean that they will necessarily be
designed to protect other road users more, as it is possible that
manufacturers of occupant-less vehicles might tolerate increased risks
to other road users in the interest of protecting their own cargo.
Potential crash compatibility implications relating to occupant-less
trucks is an area of interest for the agency and warrants further
examination.

d. FMVSS Nos. 212, Windshield Mounting and 219, Windshield Zone
Intrusion

    The NPRM requested comment on whether the agency had included all
relevant FMVSSs that might need changes similar to those identified in
the proposal. Many commenters suggested there was no safety need to
apply FMVSS Nos. 212 and 219 to occupant-less vehicles, as there would
be no occupants in the vehicles to protect with the countermeasures
installed to meet these Windshield mounting and Windshield zone
intrusion standards, respectively.
Agency Response
    NHTSA agrees that FMVSS No. 212 and 219 should also be amended to
exclude occupant-less vehicles. It was an oversight by NHTSA not to
have included those standards in the NPRM. The NPRM for this rulemaking
action was broad and intended to include all crashworthiness (200-
Series FMVSSs) standards. In the NPRM, NHTSA discussed whether there
was a need to apply FMVSSs that serve primarily to protect vehicle
occupants to occupant-less vehicles, and whether those FMVSSs had a
continuing safety purpose for occupant-less vehicles. NHTSA requested
comment on ``whether additional changes are necessary or appropriate''
to accomplish the goals of the NPRM.\41\ This request sought the very
input that NHTSA received from commenters on FMVSS Nos. 212 and 219,
and was included in the NPRM with the intent of soliciting input on
whether the agency had included all relevant FMVSSs that might need
changes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ 85 FR at 17625.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As requested, commenters provided additional input, and the
comments received on FMVSS Nos. 212 and 219, helped NHTSA assure the
final rule would address a more complete set of relevant standards.
Given that NHTSA proposed FMVSS No. 205, Glazing materials be amended
so as not to require a windshield in an occupant-less vehicle to meet
that standard due to an absence of a safety need for the glazing,
failing to make conforming changes to FMVSS Nos. 212 and 219 would be
inconsistent with both the Agency's intended outcome and with
commenters' requests. The modifications to FMVSS Nos. 212 and 219 are
the logical outgrowth of both the discussions related to occupant-less
vehicles and the proposed regulatory text for FMVSS No. 205. Given the
absence of a safety need to apply FMVSS No. 205 to occupant-less
vehicles, there is also no safety need for occupant-less vehicles to
retain a windshield to protect against injury from penetrating objects
or ejection (FMVSS No. 212), or from windshield intrusion (FMVSS No.
219).
    Accordingly, NHTSA is amending FMVSS Nos. 212 and 219 in this final
rule to exclude trucks that are not designed to carry at least one
person (occupant-less vehicles).

VI. FMVSS No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection

    Making appropriate amendments to FMVSS No. 208, Occupant crash
protection is one of the most important aspects of this rulemaking. Not
only is Standard No. 208 a significant 200-Series standard, but it
includes several terms that differentiate a ``driver's'' position from
a front ``passenger's'' seating position. Thus, translating the terms
of FMVSS No. 208 to account for vehicles that do not have manually
operated steering controls, or vehicles where the manually operated
steering controls could be stowed, is central to this final rule.
    The NPRM discussed proposals for: Applying FMVSS No. 208's advanced
air bag requirements to front outboard seats without manually operated
driving controls (including to seats that had been considered a
driver's seat); applying the standard's telltale requirements; applying
requirements for front outboard seats to seats that are no longer
``outboard''; and suppressing vehicle motion when a child restraint
system is sensed in a seating position with manually operated steering
controls. The NPRM also proposed amending FMVSS No. 208's bus
requirements to account for buses equipped with ADS and that lack
manually operated steering controls.
    FMVSS No. 208 currently establishes crash protection requirements
that are the same for the driver's designated seating position (DSP) as
for the right front outboard seating position (commonly referred to as
the front passenger seat). The vehicle's compliance with the
requirements is assessed in a frontal crash test using adult-sized
crash test dummies.

    To minimize air bag risks to children and small-statured adults,
however, FMVSS No. 208 also establishes ``advanced air bag''
requirements that, among other things, require the air bags at the
right front DSP to either turn off automatically in the presence of
detected young children, or deploy in a manner less likely to cause
serious or fatal injury to child occupants. Manufacturers may also
choose to combine these approaches. Vehicles that disable the passenger
air bag utilize weight sensors and/or other means of detecting the
presence of young children. To test detection capability, FMVSS No. 208
specifies that child dummies be placed in child restraint systems
(child seats) that are, in turn, placed on the passenger seat. It also
specifies ``out-of-position'' tests that are conducted with
unrestrained child dummies sitting, kneeling, standing, or lying on the
passenger seat. For manufacturers that design their passenger air bags
to deploy in a low risk manner, the standard specifies that unbelted
child dummies be placed against the instrument panel. The air bag is
then deployed. The ability of driver air bags to deploy in a low risk
manner is tested by placing the 5th percentile adult female dummy
against the steering wheel and then deploying the air bag.
    In the NPRM, NHTSA tentatively concluded that the most practical
way to maintain occupant protection in ADS-equipped vehicles with no
``manually operated driving controls'' (and thus, with no driver's
seat) would be to treat any seat that does not have immediate access to
such controls as a passenger seat under the standard. Thus, all front
outboard seats in such vehicles are front outboard passenger seats and
would be required to meet FMVSS No. 208's performance requirements that
currently apply to the right front outboard passenger seat. For a seat
located in the left front outboard position, this would be done by
mirroring the test procedures and requirements from the right side.
Among other things, to maintain the level of safety currently afforded
to right front outboard passengers under FMVSS No. 208, NHTSA proposed
requiring that all front outboard ``passenger seats'' meet advanced air
bag requirements.
Comments
    Commenters were generally supportive of the proposed changes to
FMVSS No. 208. Consumer Reports (CR) stated NHTSA should, ``maintain
the maximum protection under the standard in any modification. In the
case of vehicles without manual controls, this means treating each
front seat as a front outboard passenger seat and requiring all the
protections required by that designation.''
    Ford supported the proposal, but with a caveat that occupant
protection requirements should not apply to an ``occasional use seat''
which is clearly marked.
    Safe Ride News (SRN) supported the proposed changes but raised the
lockability requirements of S<IP_ADDRESS>a of FMVSS No. 208. These
requirements require vehicles to have a seat belt assembly with a
lockable lap belt at each seating position to facilitate the secure
attachment of child restraint systems. The standard currently excludes
the driver's seating position from lockability requirements, since, in
traditional vehicles, a child restraint would not be installed at the
driver's seat. SRN suggested NHTSA remove the exception from
lockability for seats without manually operated driving controls or
with stow-able controls in the left front seat.
Agency Response
    In response, NHTSA emphasizes that under this final rule, a left
front DSP without manually operated driving controls is a passenger
seat. Similarly, a left front DSP with stow-able controls will have a
mode that makes it a passenger seat. In either case, the DSP would be
required to have a lockable seat belt. In response to Ford, we would
make clear that the requirements would apply if the seat in question
meets the definition of a DSP. Part of the DSP definition allows the
labeling of certain seats as ``not designated for occupancy while the
vehicle is in motion.'' We believe this addresses Ford's concern, but
the agency is not further expanding this provision. In the situation of
a dual-mode vehicle whose controls are always in place, i.e., the
controls cannot be stowed so the seat is always a driver's seat, the
lockability requirements would not apply, since a child restraint is
unlikely to be used at this DSP.\42\ Issues relating to children seated
in a DSP with driving controls are discussed in more detail later in
this document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ Further, NHTSA discourages the use of child restraints in
this driver's designated seating position. A lockable belt at that
position might imply that the DSP is appropriate for a child
restraint, and it is not.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CalSTA requested that NHTSA ensure that any changes in nomenclature
relative to the terms ``passenger seat'' or ``driver's seat'' would not
degrade occupant safety and requested research to confirm there is no
unintended degradation of occupant safety.
    In response, NHTSA emphasizes that the left front outboard
passenger will be required to have the same protection as the right
front outboard passenger DSP, which for adults are the same
requirements that would apply to a driver's seat. The current occupant
protection requirements have been in place for almost 30 years. The
immense technical data and information NHTSA and the occupant safety
community have acquired over this period indicate there is no
difference in the FMVSS No. 208 protection afforded adult occupants by
the left or right front seating position. The data and other
information on advanced air bag safety protections also indicate there
are no technical reasons why the protections provided by a seat in the
right front outboard seating position could not be mirrored by a
passenger seat on the left side. Additional research is not necessary
to verify that protections afforded to one seating position would be
sufficient for the other seating position, as identical designs could
be applied to the opposite sides of a vehicle.
    This final rule adopts the proposal's provisions relating to the
left front seat when that DSP meets the definition of a passenger
seating position. The final rule makes minor clarifying changes to the
regulatory text in response to comments, which are discussed below.
This final rule adopts the provisions of the NPRM that relate to
advanced air bag requirements, telltale requirements (indicating air
bag suppression for the left front outboard seating position), and
other requirements, except as discussed below.

a. Advanced Air Bags

    As discussed in the proposal, applying advanced air bag
requirements to all front outboard seating positions maintains the
current levels of safety for ADS-equipped vehicles without manually
operated driving controls. Applying the requirements meets the need for
safety because an occupant will receive the same crash protection
whether they choose to sit in the left or right front outboard seat. In
addition, an important benefit of advanced air bags over conventional
air bags is the protection of out-of-position occupants, particularly
children. In a traditional vehicle, the occupant in the driver's seat
is typically an adult. In contrast, occupants of the left front
outboard passenger seats in an ADS-equipped vehicle without manually
operated driving controls could possibly be children, as there would be
no driving control mechanism at any position that may deter occupancy
of the seating position by a child. NHTSA tentatively

concluded in the NPRM that the most straightforward way to protect
children against air bag risks would be to require that any front
outboard seat that could potentially be occupied by a child (i.e., a
passenger seat) must meet the current advanced air bag requirements.
This final rule adopts the provisions of the NPRM that relate to the
protection of the left front seat occupant when that DSP meets this
final rule's definition of a passenger seating position.
    With regard to the static suppression requirement of FMVSS No. 208
S22.2 for the 3-year-old child dummy, GM and the Alliance asked that
the regulatory text ``clearly specify that suppression is tested only
for the seating position where the child dummy is placed.'' NHTSA
agrees the clarification is warranted and has added language to S22.1
to make clear that the relevant air bag that is to be suppressed is the
air bag associated with the designated seating position being assessed.
NHTSA has made similar clarifications to the text of FMVSS No. 208
regarding tests with the 12-month-old (S20.2) and 6-year-old (S24.2)
child dummies.
    NADA commented that air bag switch installation should apply, ``to
the extent applicable and appropriate.'' However, air bag on/off switch
requirements comprise a topic beyond the scope of this rulemaking.
Accordingly, NHTSA is not considering this suggestion in this
rulemaking.

b. Telltales

    FMVSS No. 208 currently requires that vehicles display a telltale,
visible to the front row occupants, which indicates whether the front
outboard passenger seat air bag is suppressed. Given that this
rulemaking may result in multiple front outboard passenger seats, NHTSA
proposed amending this requirement to specify that a separate telltale
would be required for each outboard front passenger seat based upon the
belief that doing so would maintain the current level of safety
provided by the standard. The NPRM proposed that the current telltale's
substantive performance criteria would remain the same to provide
occupants with the same level of information about the status of each
pertinent air bag as provided by the current standard. Because the left