[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 233 (Tuesday, December 4, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 62642]
[FR Doc No: 2018-26326]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Proposed Collection; Comment Request

Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of FOIA Services, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549-2736

Extension:
    Rule 17g-4, SEC File No. 270-566, OMB Control No. 3235-0627

    Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) (``PRA''), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') is soliciting comments on the existing
collection of information provided for in Rule 17g-4 (17 CFR 240.17g-4)
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78a et seq.)
(``Exchange Act''). The Commission plans to submit this existing
collection of information to the Office of Management and Budget
(``OMB'') for extension and approval.
    The Credit Rating Agency Reform Act of 2006 added a new section
15E, ``Registration of Nationally Recognized Statistical Rating
Organizations,'' \1\ to the Exchange Act. Pursuant to the authority
granted under section 15E of the Exchange Act, the Commission adopted
Rule 17g-4, which requires that a nationally recognized statistical
rating organization (``NRSRO'') establish, maintain, and enforce
written policies and procedures to prevent the misuse of material
nonpublic information, including policies and procedures reasonably
designed to prevent: (a) The inappropriate dissemination of material
nonpublic information obtained in connection with the performance of
credit rating services; (b) a person within the NRSRO from trading on
material nonpublic information; and (c) the inappropriate dissemination
of a pending credit rating action.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-7.
    \2\ See 17 CFR 240.17g-4; Release No. 34-55231 (Feb. 2, 2007),
72 FR 6378 (Feb. 9, 2007); Release No. 34-55857 (June 5, 2007), 72
FR 33564 (June 18, 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    There are 10 credit rating agencies registered with the Commission
as NRSROs under section 15E of the Exchange Act, which have already
established the policies and procedures required by Rule 17g-4. Based
on staff experience, an NRSRO is estimated to spend an average of
approximately 10 hours per year reviewing its policies and procedures
regarding material nonpublic information and updating them (if
necessary), resulting in an average industry-wide annual hour burden of
approximately 100 hours.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 10 currently registered NRSROs x 10 hours = 100 hours.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of
the functions of the Commission, including whether the information
shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's
estimates of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c)
ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information on
respondents; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of
information on respondents, including through the use of automated
collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted in
writing within 60 days of this publication.
    The Commission may not conduct or sponsor a collection of
information unless it displays a currently valid control number. No
person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a
collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a
valid OMB control number.
    Please direct your written comments to: Charles Riddle, Acting
Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o
Candace Kenner, 100 F St NE, Washington, DC 20549 or send an email to:
[email protected].

    Dated: November 28, 2018.
Eduardo Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-26326 Filed 12-3-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 99 (Wednesday, May 24, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 23804-23805]
[FR Doc No: 2017-10748]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0137; FRL-9961-70]

Pyridate; Receipt of Application for Emergency Exemption,
Solicitation of Public Comment

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: EPA has received a specific exemption request from the
Washington State Department of Agriculture to use the herbicide
pyridate (CAS No. 55512-33-9) to treat up to 13,850 acres of double-cut
mint to control terbacil-resistant redroot pigweed biotypes, common
lambquarters, Powell amaranth, cinquefoil, Russian thistle, marestail
and field violet in Washington. The applicant proposes a use of a
pesticide that was voluntarily canceled in 2004, and which is now
considered to be unregistered under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide,
and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). EPA is soliciting public comment before
making the decision whether or not to grant the exemption.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before June 8, 2017.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification
(ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0137, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit
electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statute.
     Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket
Center (EPA/DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC
20460-0001.
     Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand
delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the
instructions at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html.
    Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along
with more information about dockets generally, is available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael L. Goodis, Registration
Division (7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-
0001; main telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an
agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer.
The following list of North American Industrial Classification System
(NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them.
Potentially affected entities may include:
     Crop production (NAICS code 111).
     Animal production (NAICS code 112).
     Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
     Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).

B. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through
www.regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all of the
information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or
CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as
CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the
specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket.
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
    2. Tips for preparing your comments. When preparing and submitting
your comments, see the commenting tips at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/comments.html.
    3. Environmental justice. EPA seeks to achieve environmental
justice, the fair

treatment and meaningful involvement of any group, including minority
and/or low income populations, in the development, implementation, and
enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies. To help
address potential environmental justice issues, the Agency seeks
information on any groups or segments of the population who, as a
result of their location, cultural practices, or other factors, may
have atypical or disproportionately high and adverse human health
impacts or environmental effects from exposure to the pesticide
discussed in this document, compared to the general population.

II. What action is the Agency taking?

    Under section 18 of the FIFRA (7 U.S.C. 136p), at the discretion of
the EPA Administrator, a Federal or State agency may be exempted from
any provision of FIFRA if the EPA Administrator determines that
emergency conditions exist which require the exemption. The Washington
State Department of Agriculture has requested the EPA Administrator to
issue a specific exemption for the use of pyridate on double-cut mint
(peppermint and spearmint) to control terbacil-resistant redroot
pigweed biotypes, common lambquarters, Powell amaranth, cinquefoil,
Russian thistle, marestail and field violet. Information in accordance
with 40 CFR part 166 was submitted as part of this request.
    In this specific exemption, the Applicant asserts that there are
currently no available registered herbicides that can be applied at the
proper timing to provide effective control of various broadleaf weeds
without causing unacceptable injury in double-cut mint. In addition,
there are no economically or environmentally feasible alternative
practices, and that mint producers expect to experience yield loss
greater than 20% in double-cut spearmint and peppermint.
    The Applicant proposes to apply no more than a total of 2,597
gallons of the unregistered product, Tough EC, (approximately 12,985
pounds active ingredient of pyridate) per acre per year. Up to 13,850
acres of double-cut mint (8,800 acres spearmint; 5,050 acres
peppermint) in Washington may be treated. Additional information from
the Applicant's submission that details the need for the exemption and
the proposed use pattern can be found at http://www.regulations.gov in
the specific exemption application request from the Washington
Department of Agriculture for emergency use of pyridate in double-cut
peppermint and spearmint to control terbacil-resistant redroot pigweed
species.
    This notice does not constitute a decision by EPA on the
application itself. The regulations governing FIFRA section 18 require
publication of a notice of receipt of an application for a specific
exemption proposing use of a pesticide that was voluntarily canceled in
2004, and which is now considered to be unregistered under the FIFRA
Act. Accordingly, this notice provides an opportunity for public
comment on the application. The Agency will review and consider all
comments received during the comment period in determining whether to
issue the specific exemption requested by the Washington State
Department of Agriculture. Further, numerous states that have
previously requested a specific exemption for use of pyridate on mint
to control various broadleaf weeds species may submit similar specific
exemption requests.

    Authority: 7 U.S.C. 136 et seq.

    Dated: April 28, 2017.
Michael Goodis,
Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.
[FR Doc. 2017-10748 Filed 5-22-17; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 97 (Thursday, May 19, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 31643]
[FR Doc No: 2016-11846]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2016-N-0001]

Diabetes Outcome Measures Beyond Hemoglobin A1c: CDER Public
Workshop

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice of public workshop.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) Center for Drug
Evaluation and Research (CDER), is sponsoring a public workshop
entitled ``Diabetes Outcome Measures Beyond Hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c).''
The purpose of this public workshop is to have a forum for dialogue
with the public, patients, patient advocacy groups and industry to gain
greater appreciation on the extent to which the current regulatory
paradigm for antidiabetic drug therapies addresses the needs of
patients with diabetes and to identify additional outcomes, beyond
HbA1c, that are of direct relevance and importance to patients living
with the disease.

DATES: The public workshop will be held on August 29, 2016, from 9 a.m.
to 5 p.m.

ADDRESSES: The public workshop will be held at FDA's White Oak campus,
10903 New Hampshire Ave., Building 31 (The Great Room B, and C), Silver
Spring, MD 20993. Entrance for the public workshop participants (non-
FDA employees) is through Building 1 where routine security check
procedures will be performed. For parking and security information,
please refer to http://www.fda.gov/AboutFDA/WorkingatFDA/BuildingsandFacilities/WhiteOakCampusInformation/ucm241740.htm.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Francis Kalush, Center for Drug
Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New
Hampshire Ave., Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: FDA is announcing a public workshop entitled
``Diabetes Outcome Measures Beyond Hemoglobin A1c.'' This public
workshop is intended to gain greater appreciation on the extent to
which the current regulatory paradigm for drugs to treat diabetes
addresses the needs of patients with diabetes, to identify what the
most urgent unmet patient needs are and to identify measures beyond
HbA1c that would reliably capture outcomes important to the health or
quality of life of patients living with diabetes. The ultimate purpose
of identifying and qualifying these outcomes for regulatory purposes
would be to continue to support the development of novel therapies that
directly address the needs of patients living with the disease. There
will be an opportunity for questions and answers following each
presentation.
    Registration: There is no registration fee to attend the public
workshop. Early registration is recommended because seating is limited,
and registration will be on a first-come, first-served basis. There
will be no onsite registration. Persons interested in attending this
workshop must register online at http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/NewsEvents/ucm499281.htm by July 29, 2016. For those without Internet access,
please contact Francis Kalush (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT) to
register.
    If you need special accommodations due to a disability, please
contact Francis Kalush (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT) at least 7
days in advance.
    Transcripts: A transcript of the workshop will be available for
review at the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug
Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852, and
on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov approximately 30 days
after the workshop. Transcripts will also be available in either hard
copy or on CD-ROM, after submission of a Freedom of Information
request. The Freedom of Information office address is available on the
Agency's Web site at http://www.fda.gov.

    Dated: May 13, 2016.
Leslie Kux,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2016-11846 Filed 5-18-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 36 (Friday, February 22, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 12259-12260]
[FR Doc No: 2013-03897]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 91

[Docket No.: FAA-2013-0061]

Unmanned Aircraft System Test Site Program

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of availability; request for comments

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

SUMMARY: On February 14, 2012, Congress mandated that the FAA,
coordinating with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and
the Department of Defense, develop a test site program for the
integration of unmanned aircraft systems in to the National Airspace
System. The overall purpose of this test site program is to develop a
body of data and operational experiences to inform integration and the
safe operation of these aircraft in the National Airspace System. This
proposed rule announces the process by which the FAA will select the
test sites for the program and also solicits comments on the FAA's
proposed approach for addressing the privacy questions raised by the
public and Congress with regard to the operation of unmanned aircraft
systems within the test site program.

DATES: The FAA values the input of the public and requests comment
regarding the privacy approach discussed in this Notice. Please send
your comments on or before April 23, 2013.
    Once the public has had a chance to review the proposed privacy
policy requirements to be levied on the Unmanned Aircraft Systems Test
Site operators, but prior to the close of the comment period, the FAA
will participate in a webinar to solicit comments from the public and
interested stakeholders regarding the proposed privacy approach for the
unmanned aircraft systems test site program. The FAA will publish a
notice providing details (including the date and time) for the
engagement session sufficiently in advance of the meeting to facilitate
broad participation.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments identified by Docket No: FAA-2013-0061
using any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the online instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
     Mail: Send comments to Docket Operations, M-30; U.S.
Department of Transportation (DOT), 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room
W12-140, West Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: Take comments to Docket
Operations in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax: Fax comments to Docket Operations at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Privacy: The FAA will post all comments it receives, without
change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal
information the commenter provides. Using the search function of the
docket web site, anyone can find and read the electronic form of all
comments received into any FAA docket, including the name of the
individual sending the comment (or signing the comment for an
association, business, labor union, etc.). DOT's complete Privacy Act
Statement can be found in the Federal Register published on April 11,
2000 (65 FR 19477-19478), as well as at http://DocketsInfo.dot.gov.
    Docket: Background documents or comments received may be read at
http://www.regulations.gov at any time. Follow the online instructions
for accessing the docket or go to the Docket Operations in Room W12-140
of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical questions concerning the
test site program, contact Elizabeth Soltys, Unmanned Aircraft Systems
Integration Office, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence
Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    For questions concerning the FAA's proposed approach for addressing
potential UAS privacy concerns, as set out herein, contact Gregory C.
Carter, Office of the Chief Counsel, Federal Aviation Administration,
800 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20591; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Background

    On February 14, 2012, the President signed the FAA Modernization
and Reform Act, Public Law 112-95 (FMRA) into law. The statute contains
a number of provisions pertaining to integration of unmanned aircraft
systems (UAS) into the National Airspace System (NAS). To assist the
agency in integrating UAS, section 332(c) of FMRA directs the FAA, in
coordination with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration
(NASA) and the Department of Defense (DoD), to develop a UAS test site
program for purposes of gathering safety and technical information
relevant to the safe and efficient integration of UAS into the NAS.
Under the test site program, the FAA will select six test ranges,
taking into consideration factors such as geographic and climatic
diversity, as well as the location of necessary ground infrastructure
to support the sites, and research needs.
    The FAA has developed the UAS test site program with the input of
the public. The FAA began an outreach effort to gather input on the
criteria and processes the FAA should use to select the test sites. In
March 2012, the FAA posted a Request for Comments (RFC) in the Federal
Register [Docket No. FAA-2012-0252] and in April 2012, the FAA hosted
two public webinars to interact directly with the public. This outreach
effort informed the agency in developing its plan for designating the
sites.
    Based on the feedback received through this outreach effort, the
FAA is using its Acquisition Management System (AMS) to solicit
applications from entities interested in operating a

UAS test site. This system is the common process the FAA uses to obtain
information, evaluate interested parties, and select successful
providers for procurement matters. Although no federal funds will be
distributed to the selected test site operators for the operation of
these test sites (and selection of sites is not a procurement action),
the FAA has determined that using this well-established system and
process will ensure fair consideration of all applications and rigorous
oversight of the selection process.
    For individuals interested in submitting an application to operate
a UAS test site, the FAA has published a Screening Information Request
(SIR), which is also known as a Request for Proposals, or RFP, in other
federal agencies. The SIR (and amendments, if any) is available on the
FAA Contracting Opportunities Web site (http://faaco.faa.gov).
Additional information about this SIR process and criteria for
selecting the six test sites is contained within the SIR document
itself. In order to be considered for selection, completed responses
must be submitted via the FAA Contracting Opportunities Web site by the
dates set out in the SIR.
    Once the FAA has conducted and completed its consideration of the
submissions, and the Administrator has issued an Order designating each
successful applicant as a test site operator, each operator will be
required to enter into an Other Transaction Agreement (OTA) with the
FAA. Each OTA will set out the legally binding terms and conditions
under which the entity will operate the UAS Test Site. The draft OTA is
available for review via the FAA Contracting Opportunities Web site
listed above. Before OTA parameters and reporting requirements are
finalized, FAA will consider comments submitted as a result of this
Federal Register Notice.
    While the expanded use of UAS presents great opportunities, it also
presents significant challenges as UAS are inherently different from
manned aircraft. The UAS test site program will help the FAA gain a
better understanding of operational issues, such as training
requirements, operational specifications, and technology
considerations, which are primary areas of concern with regard to our
chief mission, which is ensuring the safety and efficiency of the
entire aviation system. The FAA also acknowledges that the integration
of UAS in domestic airspace raises privacy issues, which the FAA
intends to address through engagement and collaboration with the
public. To address privacy concerns relating to the operation of the
test site program, the FAA intends to include in each final OTA privacy
requirements applicable to all operations at a test site. This notice
is specifically requesting comments on those potential privacy
considerations, associated reporting requirements, and how the FAA can
help ensure privacy considerations are addressed through mechanisms put
in place as a result of the OTAs.
    The proposed privacy requirements set forth in Article three of the
DRAFT OTA are as follows:
    (1) The Site Operator must ensure that there are privacy policies
governing all activities conducted under the OTA, including the
operation and relevant activities of the UASs authorized by the Site
Operator. Such privacy policies must be available publically, and the
Site Operator must have a mechanism to receive and consider comments on
its privacy policies. In addition, these policies should be informed by
Fair Information Practice Principles. The privacy policies should be
updated as necessary to remain operationally current and effective. The
Site Operator must ensure the requirements of this paragraph are
applied to all operations conducted under the OTA.
    (2) The Site Operator and its team members are required to operate
in accordance with Federal, state, and other laws regarding the
protection of an individual's right to privacy. Should criminal or
civil charges be filed by the U.S. Department of Justice or a state's
law enforcement authority over a potential violation of such laws, the
FAA may take appropriate action, including suspending or modifying the
relevant operational authority (e.g., Certificate of Operation, or
OTA), until the proceedings are completed. If the proceedings
demonstrate the operation was in violation of the law, the FAA may
terminate the relevant operational authority.
    (3) If over the lifetime of this Agreement, any legislation or
regulation, which may have an impact on UAS or to the privacy interests
of entities affected by any operation of any UAS operating at the Test
Site, is enacted or otherwise effectuated, such legislation or
regulation will be applicable to the OTA and the FAA may update or
amend the OTA to reflect these changes.
    (4) Transmission of data from the Site Operator to the FAA or its
designee must only include those data listed in Appendix B to the OTA.
(Appendix B to the OTA is available as part of the SIR at http://faaco.faa.gov.)
    The FAA anticipates that test site operator privacy practices as
discussed in their privacy policies will help inform the dialogue among
policymakers, privacy advocates, and the industry regarding broader
questions concerning the use of UAS technologies. The privacy
requirements proposed here are specifically designed for the operation
of the UAS Test Sites. They are not intended to pre-determine the long-
term policy and regulatory framework under which commercial UASs would
operate. Rather, they aim to assure maximum transparency of privacy
policies associated with UAS test site operations in order to engage
all stakeholders in discussion about which privacy issues are raised by
UAS operations and how law, public policy, and the industry practices
should respond to those issues in the long run.

    Issued in Washington, DC on February 14, 2013.
Kathryn B. Thomson,
Chief Counsel, Federal Aviation Administration.
[FR Doc. 2013-03897 Filed 2-21-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 102 (Tuesday, May 28, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 24449-24459]
[FR Doc No: 2019-11038]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

49 CFR Chapter III, Subchapter B

[Docket No. FMCSA-2018-0037]
RIN 2126-AC17

Safe Integration of Automated Driving Systems-Equipped Commercial
Motor Vehicles

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

ACTION: Advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM).

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA requests public comment about Federal Motor Carrier
Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) that may need to be amended, revised, or
eliminated to facilitate the safe introduction of automated driving
systems (ADS) equipped commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) onto our
Nation's roadways. In approaching the task of adapting its regulations
to accommodate automated vehicle technologies, FMCSA is considering
changes to its rules to account for significant differences between
human operators and ADS.

DATES: Comments on this document must be received on or before August
26, 2019.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by Docket Number FMCSA-
2018-0037 using any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building, Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: West Building, Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC, between 9 a.m.
and 5 p.m. ET, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Submissions Containing Confidential Business Information
(CBI): Mr. Brian Dahlin, Chief, Regulatory Evaluation Division, 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.
    To avoid duplication, please use only one of these methods. See the
``Public Participation and Request for Comments'' portion of the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for instructions on submitting
comments, including collection of information comments for the Office
of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Huntley, Division Chief,
Vehicle and Roadside Operations, Office of Carrier, Driver, and Vehicle
Safety, MC-PSV, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001 by telephone at (202) 366-
9209 or by email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on
viewing or submitting material to the docket, contact Docket Services,
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Public Participation and Request for Comments

A. Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
ANPRM (Docket No. FMCSA-2018-0037), indicate the specific section of
this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for
each suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and
material online or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only
one of these means. FMCSA recommends that you include your name and a
mailing address, an email address, or a phone number in the body of
your document so that FMCSA can contact you if there are questions
regarding your submission.
    To submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov,
put the docket number, FMCSA-2018-0037, in the keyword box, and click
``Search.'' When the new screen appears, click on the ``Comment Now!''
button and type your comment into the text box on the following screen.
Choose whether you are submitting your comment as an individual or on
behalf of a third party and then submit.
    If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them
in an unbound format, no larger than 8\1/2\ by 11 inches, suitable for
copying and electronic filing. If you submit comments by mail and would
like to know that they reached the facility, please enclose a stamped,
self-addressed postcard or envelope.
    FMCSA will consider all comments and material received during the
comment period and may initiate a proposed rule based on your comments.
Confidential Business Information
    The Agency notes that 49 CFR 389.9 provides protection for
``confidential business information'' which includes trade secrets or
commercial or financial information that is privileged or confidential,
as described in 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4). Commercial or financial information
is considered confidential if it is voluntarily submitted to the Agency
and constitutes the type of information not customarily released to the
general public. Under the Freedom of Information Act, CBI is eligible
for protection from public disclosure. If you have CBI that is relevant
or responsive to this ANPRM, it is important that you clearly designate
the submitted comments as CBI. Accordingly, please mark each page of
your submission as ``confidential'' or ``CBI.'' Submissions designated
as CBI and meeting the definition noted above will not be placed in the
public docket of this ANPRM.
    Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Brian Dahlin, Chief,
Regulatory Evaluation Division, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington,
DC 20590. Any commentary that FMCSA receives which is not specifically
designated as CBI will be placed in the public docket for this
rulemaking.
    FMCSA will consider all comments and material received during the
comment period.

B. Viewing Comments and Documents

    To view comments, as well as any documents mentioned in this
preamble as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov. Insert the docket number, FMCSA-2018-0037, in the
keyword box, and click ``Search.'' Next, click the ``Open Docket
Folder'' button and choose the document to review. If you do not have
access to the internet, you may view the docket online by visiting the
Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the
DOT West

Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001, between
9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

C. Privacy Act

    In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the
public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts these
comments, without edit, including any personal information the
commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the system
of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at
www.dot.gov/privacy.

II. Abbreviations and Acronyms

ADS Automated Driving Systems
ANPRM Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
CBI Confidential Business Information
CDL Commercial Driver's License
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CMV Commercial Motor Vehicle
CMVSA Commercial Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1986
DDT Dynamic Driving Task
DOT U.S. Department of Transportation
E.O. Executive Order
FMCSA Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
FMCSRs Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations
FMVSSs Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards
FR Federal Register
HMRs Hazardous Materials Regulations
HOS Hours of Service
LCV Longer Combination Vehicle
MCA Motor Carrier Act of 1935
MCSA Motor Carrier Safety Act of 1984
MCSAC Motor Carrier Safety Advisory Committee
MCSAP Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program
NHTSA National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
NIST National Institute of Standards and Technology
ODD Operational Design Domain
OEDR Object and Event Detection and Response
OMB Office of Management and Budget
RFC Request for Comments
RIA Regulatory Impact Analysis
RIN Regulation Identifier Number
SBA Small Business Administration
SDLAs State Driver Licensing Agencies
Sec.  Section symbol
U.S.C. United States Code

III. Legal Basis for the Rulemaking

    This ANPRM is based on the general authority of the Motor Carrier
Act of 1935 (MCA or 1935 Act) [49 U.S.C. 31502], the Motor Carrier
Safety Act of 1984 (MCSA or 1984 Act) [49 U.S.C. 31136], and the
Commercial Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1986 (CMVSA or 1986 Act) [49
U.S.C. chapter 313], as all of those statutes have been amended.
    These statutes provide sufficient legal authority for the Secretary
to issue regulations on the operation of ADS-equipped CMVs. Further,
FMCSA's current regulations, promulgated pursuant to these statutes, do
not explicitly require human operators or drivers. Various provisions,
therefore, would either have no applicability or would need to be
adapted to take into account the differences between ADS-equipped CMVs
and more traditional vehicles.

IV. Background

    FMCSA is responsible for overseeing the safety of CMVs, their
drivers, and their operation in interstate commerce. The Agency works
with Federal, State, and local enforcement agencies, the motor carrier
industry, and interested stakeholders to reduce crashes, injuries, and
fatalities involving large trucks and buses.
    The FMCSRs provide rules to support the safe operation of CMVs, as
defined in the MCSA (49 CFR 390.5) and the CMVSA (49 CFR 383.5).
    On April 24, 2017, FMCSA held a public listening session to solicit
information on issues relating to the design, development, testing, and
integration of ADS-equipped CMVs (82 FR 18096, April 17, 2017). The
listening session provided interested parties an opportunity to share
their views and any data or analysis on this topic with Agency
representatives. The Agency also invited interested parties to submit
written comments by July 17, 2017. A full transcript of the listening
session and all written comments are available in public docket FMCSA-
2017-0114, at www.regulations.gov.
    In addition to the public listening session discussed above, FMCSA
commissioned the Department's Volpe National Transportation Systems
Center (Volpe) to conduct a preliminary review of the FMCSRs to
identify regulations that relate to the development and safe
introduction of ADS. Volpe's final report is titled ``Review of the
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations for Automated Commercial
Vehicles: Preliminary Assessment of Interpretation and Enforcement
Challenges, Questions, and Gaps,'' report number MCSA-RRT-17-013,
August 2017. A copy of the report is available in public docket, FMCSA-
2017-0114, at www.regulations.gov.
    On September 12, 2017, the Department, through the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), published ``Automated Driving
Systems 2.0: A Vision for Safety'' (A Vision for Safety 2.0), adopting
the SAE International (SAE) J3016 standard's definitions for Levels of
automation. The SAE definitions divide vehicles into Levels based on
``who does what, when.'' Generally:
     SAE Level 0, No Driving Automation: The performance by the
driver of the entire dynamic driving task (DDT), even when enhanced by
active safety systems.
     SAE Level 1, Driver Assistance: The sustained and
operational design domain (ODD) specific execution by a driving
automation system of either the lateral or the longitudinal vehicle
motion control subtask of the DDT (but not both simultaneously) with
the expectation that the driver performs the remainder of the DDT.
     SAE Level 2, Partial Driving Automation: The sustained and
ODD-specific execution by a driving automation system of both the
lateral and longitudinal vehicle motion control subtasks of the DDT
with the expectation that the driver completes the object and event
detection and response (OEDR) subtask and supervises the driving
automation system.
     SAE Level 3, Conditional Driving Automation: The sustained
and ODD-specific performance by an ADS of the entire DDT with the
expectation that the DDT fallback-ready user is receptive to ADS-issued
requests to intervene, as well as to DDT performance-relevant system
failures in other vehicle systems, and will respond accordingly.
     SAE Level 4, High Driving Automation: The sustained and
ODD-specific performance by an ADS of the entire DDT and DDT fallback
without any expectation that a user will respond to a request to
intervene.
     SAE Level 5, Full Driving Automation: The sustained and
unconditional (i.e., not ODD-specific) performance by an ADS of the
entire DDT and DDT fallback without any expectation that a user will
respond to a request to intervene.
    Using the SAE Levels described above, the Department generally
draws a distinction between Levels 0-2 and 3-5, based on whether the
human driver or the automated system is primarily responsible for
monitoring the driving environment. For the purposes of this ANPRM,
FMCSA's primary focus is SAE Levels 4-5 because it is only at those
levels where the ADS can control all aspects of the driving task,
without any intervention from a human driver.
    On March 26, 2018, FMCSA published ``Request for Comments [RFC]
Concerning Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) Which May
Be a Barrier to the Safe Testing and Deployment of Automated Driving
Systems-Equipped Commercial Motor Vehicles on Public Roads'' (83 FR
12933). The document solicited public

comments on existing FMCSRs that may need to be updated, modified, or
eliminated to facilitate the safe introduction of ADS-equipped CMVs
onto our Nation's roadways. Further, FMCSA requested comments on
certain FMCSRs likely to be affected as ADS-equipped CMVs appear on our
roadways, including regulations concerning hours of service (HOS) and
driver fatigue, the use of electronic devices, roadside inspection, and
Commercial Driver's License (CDL) requirements. The comment period
ended on May 10, 2018. Interested parties can view the comments the
Agency received at www.regulations.gov (docket number FMCSA-2018-0037).
    On June 19, July 12, and August 24, 2018, FMCSA conducted listening
sessions that provided members of the public with an opportunity to
share their perspectives on ADS. Transcripts of these listening
sessions may be found in the docket (FMCSA-2018-0037) for this
rulemaking.

V. U.S. DOT Role in Vehicle Automation

    As published on October 4, 2018, ``Preparing for the Future of
Transportation: Automated Vehicles 3.0,'' (AV 3.0) explains that the
Department's role in transportation automation is to ensure the safety
and mobility of the traveling public while fostering economic growth.
On October 9, 2018, the Department requested public comment on the
document (83 FR 50746). The comment period ended on December 3, 2018.
    The Federal government will play a significant role in ensuring
that automated vehicles can be safely and effectively integrated into
the existing transportation system, alongside conventional vehicles,
pedestrians, bicyclists, motorcyclists, and other road users.
    NHTSA has broad authority over the safety of ADS-equipped vehicles
and other automated vehicle technologies. NHTSA has authority to
establish Federal safety standards for new motor vehicles that are
introduced into interstate commerce in the United States, and to
address safety defects determined to exist in motor vehicles or motor
vehicle equipment used in the United States. The latter authority
focuses on the obligations that Federal law imposes on the
manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment to notify
NHTSA of safety defects in those vehicles or vehicle equipment and to
remedy the defects, subject to NHTSA's oversight and enforcement
authority.
    The Department, through FMCSA, regulates the safety of commercial
motor carriers operating in interstate commerce, the qualifications and
safety of CMV drivers, and the safe operation of commercial trucks and
motor coaches. FMCSA is broadly considering whether (and, if necessary,
how) to amend its existing regulations to accommodate the integration
of ADS into commercial vehicle operations. While some FMCSA regulatory
requirements for commercial drivers (such as drug and alcohol testing
requirements) have no application to ADS, many of the Agency's current
regulations can be readily applied in the context of ADS-equipped CMVs.
    In approaching the task of adapting its regulations to accommodate
automated vehicle technologies, FMCSA is considering amendments to its
rules to account for significant differences between human operators
and ADS. The Agency's preliminary approach is to avoid development of
an entirely separate set of rules for ADS-equipped CMVs and their
operation. The Agency would rely on NHTSA to establish Federal
standards, if necessary, applicable to ADS equipment manufacturers
(whether of original or aftermarket equipment), while FMCSA would focus
on those rules necessary to ensure that motor carriers operating ADS-
equipped CMVs have a uniform regulatory framework within which to
operate in interstate commerce.

VI. Motor Carrier Safety Advisory Committee (MCSAC)

    In 2017, FMCSA requested that its MCSAC \1\ provide recommendations
to the Agency to assist with policy issues concerning the integration
of ADS-equipped CMVs into the commercial fleet. During the MCSAC's June
12-13, 2017, meeting, the Agency requested (Task 17-1) that the group
provide recommendations concerning the issues FMCSA should consider in
ensuring that the Federal safety regulations provide appropriate
standards for the safe operation of ADS-equipped CMVs, from design and
development through testing and deployment. Specifically, the MCSAC was
asked to consider the application of the following regulatory
provisions in title 49, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), to ADS-
equipped CMV operations:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The Motor Carrier Safety Advisory Committee (MCSAC) provides
advice and recommendations to the Administrator of the Federal Motor
Carrier Safety Administration on motor carrier safety programs and
motor carrier safety regulations. The MCSAC is composed of up to 20
members appointed by the Administrator for two-year terms and
includes representatives of the truck and bus industries, safety
advocacy groups, State motor carrier safety enforcement agencies,
and labor communities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (1) Part 383, Commercial Driver's License Standards; Requirements
and Penalties;
    (2) Part 391, Qualifications of Drivers and Longer Combination
Vehicle (LCV) Driver Instructors;
    (3) Sections 392.80 and 392.82, Limiting the Use of Electronic
Devices;
    (4) Part 395, Hours of Service of Drivers; and
    (5) Part 396, Inspection, Repair, and Maintenance.
    The MCSAC completed its task during its July 30-31, 2018, meeting.
A copy of the MCSAC's final report can be found at: https://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/advisory-committees/mcsac/mcsac-task-17-1-final-report.

VII. FMCSA'S Safety Oversight Goals

    FMCSA has initiated this rulemaking to ensure that appropriate
performance-based safety requirements are in place to support the
integration of ADS-equipped CMVs into the U.S. fleets. The Agency
believes the private sector will continue to make significant progress
in the design, testing, and deployment of ADS technology and that the
integration of ADS-equipped vehicles may provide improvements in
transportation safety and the efficient movement of freight and
passengers.
    Generally, FMCSA does not believe there is a need to revise the
FMCSRs to accommodate the integration of Levels 1-3 equipment because a
licensed CMV operator must be present at the controls of the vehicle at
all times. FMCSA's driver-related rules would thus apply. The Agency
reminds interstate motor carriers of their responsibility for having
safety management controls in place to ensure the safe operation of
such ADS-equipped CMVs, in full compliance with the applicable safety
requirements. For example, for drivers of CMVs at Levels 1-3 (and
obviously at Level 0) the Agency's CDL, controlled substances and
alcohol testing, physical qualifications, driver distraction, and HOS
rules would be applicable. The Agency, though, may consider guidance
and other assistance that could identify best practices for safely
operating vehicles with these lower-level systems, as they may present
issues not present in more traditional vehicles.
    By contrast, revisions to some of the Agency's rules may be needed
to address situations in which the ADS technology may have complete
control of the CMV under certain circumstances (Level 4) or all
circumstances (Level 5). Where ADS technology is operating the vehicle
within its ODD, FMCSA expects that the ADS will be capable of safely

maintaining control of the CMV without the need for human intervention
and that in the event of a malfunction, the ADS would be designed and
equipped to revert to a fail-safe condition. This rulemaking considers
what performance-based boundaries are needed to ensure that interstate
motor carriers have appropriate safety management controls for the
operation of ADS-equipped CMVs.

Operational Design Domains--Vehicle Types and Configurations

    As noted in A Vision for Safety 2.0, entities, including operators
and developers of ADS-equipped CMVs, are encouraged to define and
document the ODD for each ADS available on their vehicle(s) tested or
deployed on public roadways, as well as to document the process and
procedure for assessment, testing, and validation of ADS functionality
within the prescribed ODD. The ODD should describe the specific
conditions under which a given ADS or feature is intended to function.
The ODD defines where (e.g., what roadway types and speeds) and when
(under what conditions, such as day/night, weather limits, etc.) an ADS
is designed to operate. At a minimum, the ODD would include the
following information:
     Roadway types (interstate, local, etc.) on which the ADS
is designed to operate safely;
     Geographic area (city, mountain, desert, etc.);
     Speed range;
     Environmental conditions in which the ADS will operate
(weather, daytime/nighttime, etc.); and
     Other domain constraints.
    FMCSA expects that motor carriers interested in integrating ADS-
equipped CMVs into their fleets would have in-depth discussions with
the technology vendors to fully understand the ODD limitations and only
utilize Level 4 or 5 capabilities for the conditions for which the
vehicle is intended. The Agency seeks to avoid discouraging innovation
and technology development and implementation.
    In addition, FMCSA requests comments on whether there are CMV
types/configurations or cargoes for which fully automated operations
should be restricted or prohibited (e.g., hazardous materials,
motorcoaches, multi-trailer or longer combination vehicles (LCVs),
etc.). If commenters believe the Agency should consider restrictions,
please explain why.

VIII. Discussion of Current Safety Rules and the Public Responses to
the March 26, 2018, RFC

    FMCSA received 98 responses to its March 2018 RFC. The majority of
commenters (68) were individuals. Four developers of ADS technology
(Embark, Uber, Tesla, and WAYMO) provided comments, along with two
insurance organizations (the Property Casualty Insurers Association of
America and The Travelers Companies, Inc.), and one trucking company
safety director. Other organizations and companies providing comments
include the Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance, Amazon, the National
Tank Truck Carriers, Inc., the Small Business in Transportation
Coalition, the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators,
the Ad-Hoc HAV Data Access Coalition, the National Motor Freight
Traffic Association, the Community Transportation Association of
America, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, the Insurance Institute
for Highway Safety--Highway Loss Data Institute, the National School
Transportation Association, the MITRE Corporation, the Truck and Engine
Manufacturers Association, the Motor and Equipment Manufacturers
Association, the Transportation Trades Department of the AFL-CIO, the
American Trucking Associations, Securing America's Future Energy, the
National Automobile Dealers Association, the Owner-Operator Independent
Drivers Association, the Commercial Vehicle Training Association, the
Trucking Alliance, Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety, and the Truck
Safety Coalition.
    Based on public comments received in response to the RFC and during
the recent public meetings noted above, FMCSA anticipates that, near-
term, Level 4 operations are likely to involve a human driver, either
present in the vehicle to facilitate the transition into and out of
full automation without stopping, or waiting at a designated location
prepared to operate the vehicle for such transitions. Based on FMCSA's
preliminary assessment of its safety requirements and the potential of
ADS-equipped vehicles, the Agency believes individuals responsible for
taking control of an ADS-equipped vehicle on a public road should be
subject to the current driver-related rules.
    FMCSA is considering a rulemaking regarding the introduction of
ADS-equipped CMVs on our Nation's roadways. Below are the major issues
commenters raised and FMCSA's responses, as well as other issues
applicable to operators of Level 4 ADS-equipped CMVs and how these
requirements could be adapted for such vehicles. To assist in
development of any regulatory revisions that may be deemed necessary,
the Agency requests responses to the following issues and questions.
Wherever possible, commenters should provide data in support of their
responses.

1. Do the FMCSRs require a human driver?

    A Vision for Safety 2.0, issued by NHTSA in September 2017 and
focusing on guidance to ADS developers and State governments, included
a brief statement from FMCSA which said that, at the time, FMCSA
believed that its regulations required that ``a trained commercial
driver must be behind the wheel at all times, regardless of any
automated driving technologies available on the CMV, unless a petition
for a waiver or exemption has been granted.'' However, in the March
2018 RFC, FMCSA stated that it was reconsidering its views on this
issue, noting, ``[t]he absence of specific regulatory text requiring a
driver be behind the wheel may afford the Agency the flexibility to
allow, under existing regulations, ADS to perform the driver's
functions in the operational design domain in which the system would be
relied upon, without the presence of a trained commercial driver in the
driver's seat.''
    Some technology companies are developing Level 4 ADS-equipped CMVs
to be operated on limited-access highways from exit-to-exit (or on-ramp
to off-ramp), with no human operator in the vehicle, and, then, if
necessary, operated by a human off these highways. Commenters explained
that some shipping companies have distribution centers/warehouses very
close to major highways, which makes this ADS operating scenario
desirable from a marketing and productivity perspective. Some
commenters also stated that a Level 4 ADS-equipped CMV would not
operate outside of that ODD without a driver. The technology companies
requested that FMCSA issue interpretive guidance or otherwise clarify
that the FMCSRs, as written, do not expressly require a human driver at
all times. Alternatively, technology companies noted the need for FMCSA
to reexamine the definition of ``driver'' in the FMCSRs, specifically
as it relates to ADS-equipped CMVs. Many other commenters were opposed
to driverless vehicles generally but did not specifically comment
regarding whether the current FMCSRs require a human driver at all
times.

    FMCSA Response: As announced in AV 3.0, the Department will
interpret and, consistent with all applicable notice and comment
requirements, adapt the definitions of ``driver'' and ``operator'' to
recognize that such terms do not refer exclusively to a human, but may
include an automated system. Because the regulations do not require the
presence of a human driver or operator, FMCSA will interpret its
regulations to no longer assume that the CMV driver is always a human
or that a human is present onboard a commercial vehicle during its
operation, provided that the vehicle is equipped with a Level 4 or
Level 5 ADS and is operating within its ODD (in the case of Level 4).
    This does not mean that ADS-equipped CMVs operate without FMCSA
oversight. Rather, FMCSA is required by statute to prescribe
regulations that ensure that CMVs are maintained, equipped, loaded, and
operated safely. The Agency, therefore, needs to consider promulgating
rules to account for ADS-equipped CMVs, including subjects such as
vehicle inspection, repair and maintenance, and other areas that may
emerge. In addition, until Level 5 ADS-equipped CMVs are available,
human drivers and operators will continue to play a crucial role in the
operation of Level 4 ADS-equipped CMVs, as those vehicles can operate
without a human only within their ODDs. As such, certain requirements
that apply to humans involved in the operation of these vehicles will
also need to be revised. Further, FMCSA emphasizes that both the
vehicles themselves and entities responsible for the operation of an
ADS-equipped CMV in interstate commerce (i.e., motor carriers) remain
subject to safety oversight by the Agency, whether a human operates the
vehicle or not, and FMCSA retains its authority to take enforcement
action if an ADS-equipped CMV is not operated in a safe manner.
    Questions: 1.1. How should FMCSA ensure that an ADS-equipped CMV
only operates consistent with the ODD for the ADS equipped on the
vehicle? 1.2. What are manufacturers' and motor carriers' plans for
when and how Levels 4 and 5 ADS-equipped CMVs will become commercially
available? 1.3. Should FMCSA consider amending or augmenting the
definition of ``driver'' and/or ``operator'' in 49 CFR 390.5 or define
a term such as ``ADS driver'' to reduce the potential for
misinterpretation of the requirements?

2. Commercial Driver's License (CDL) Endorsements

    The March 2018 RFC requested comments on whether FMCSA should
require a specific endorsement for human drivers and operators of ADS-
equipped CMVs to ensure they (1) understand the capabilities and
limitations of the advanced technologies, and (2) know when it is
appropriate to rely on automatic, rather than manual, operation.
Further, if such an endorsement is required, the Agency requested
comment on what types of test(s)--knowledge, skills, or both--should be
required to obtain the endorsement, and whether there should be
separate endorsements for different types of ADS-equipped CMVs.
    Many commenters noted that it is imperative that human drivers and
operators of ADS-equipped CMVs fully understand the capabilities and
limitations of the advanced technologies that are deployed on vehicles
they operate. Some commenters believe that in mixed-use scenarios in
which a human may have to take control of a CMV from the ADS, an ADS
endorsement should be required for the CDL holder. Given the wide range
of technologies and ODDs in which these technologies are able to
operate, some commenters expressed concern regarding whether a
standardized test could be developed for an ADS CDL endorsement.
    FMCSA Response: FMCSA is responsible for the establishment and
enforcement of CDL requirements applicable to every person who operates
a commercial motor vehicle, as defined in 49 CFR 383.5, in interstate,
foreign, or intrastate commerce; to all employers of such persons; and
to State Driver License Agencies (SDLAs) that issue CDLs. The Agency
believes that any individual who is expected to control the ADS-
equipped CMV at any time the vehicle is in operation on a public road
must be fully qualified to do so. However, given the way the CDL
program is administered by the Agency and the 51 SDLAs, it would be
difficult to distinguish between current knowledge and skills
requirements and those arguably sufficient for limited Level 4
operations.
    In Level 5, the ADS technology is, by definition, capable of
performing all driving functions under all conditions. In some
operational models, there may be an individual responsible for remotely
monitoring multiple CMVs, a scenario that is obviously not covered by
the existing CDL regulations. For Level 4, however, the technology
would be limited to certain ODDs, which may require the presence of a
human prepared to take control as the vehicle approaches the limits of
those domains. Preliminarily, the Agency is inclined to maintain the
CDL rules, essentially as written, but to clarify that these rules
apply to any person who may be relied upon to control any aspect of
operation of the ADS-equipped vehicle on a public road.
    Under the current rules, the basic CDL requires knowledge and
skills tests, with additional testing required to remove certain
restrictions or to obtain endorsements. The skills test, or road test,
must be given in a representative vehicle. However, ADS technology is
advancing rapidly, and there will continue to be a range of approaches
to automation. At this time, it would be very difficult to establish
uniform knowledge and/or skills tests to adequately assess a CDL
holder's understanding of the vehicle's ADS and the specific operating
scenarios under which human control may be needed, versus those
scenarios where relying solely on the ADS is appropriate. Therefore, it
is premature for the Agency to consider proposing rules in this regard.
Moreover, it is also difficult at this time to estimate the costs and
safety benefits of requiring an ADS endorsement for CDL holders.
However, FMCSA agrees that this is a critical issue and, to the extent
necessary, will work with stakeholders to provide guidance to ensure
that human operators are aware of the technological capabilities of
their vehicles.
    Questions: 2.1. Should a CDL endorsement be required of individuals
operating an ADS-equipped CMV? 2.2. If so, what should be covered in
the knowledge and/or skills test associated with an ADS endorsement?
2.3. What would be the impacts on SDLAs? 2.4. Should a driver be
required to have specialized training for ADS-equipped CMVs? 2.5. In an
operational model that has an individual remotely monitoring multiple
CMVs, should the Agency impose limitations on the number of vehicles a
remote driver monitors? 2.6. Is there any reason why a dedicated or
stand-by remote operator should not be subject to existing driver
qualifications?

3. Drivers' Hours of Service (HOS) Rules

    Given that the FMCSRs include limitations on the number of hours
that a driver may drive during a day and a week to reduce the risk of
driver fatigue and fatigue-related crashes, FMCSA requested comments on
how drivers' HOS should be recorded if the ADS is relied on to perform
some or all of the driving tasks otherwise performed by a human driver.

    Commenters stated that the HOS rules should not be applicable for
operating scenarios where the ADS technology controls the CMV and there
is no human present because there would be no limit on the number of
hours the ADS technology could operate the vehicle. However, for
scenarios in which a human is needed to operate the vehicle for a
portion of a given trip, commenters asked how the HOS rules would apply
to the human operator.
    FMCSA Response: The FMCSRs include limits on the amount of driving
time during a work shift and prohibit individuals from operating CMVs
after the individual has accumulated 15 hours of on-duty time (for
drivers of passenger-carrying CMVs), or after the 14th hour from the
beginning of the work day (for drivers of property-carrying CMVs).
Drivers of passenger-carrying vehicles are limited to 10 hours of
driving time during the work shift and drivers of property-carrying
vehicles to 11 hours of driving time during the work shift.
    Drivers of passenger-carrying vehicles must have at least 8, and
drivers of property-carrying vehicles at least 10, consecutive hours
off-duty at the end of the work shift. Drivers of CMVs are prohibited
from driving after accumulating 60 hours of on-duty time within 7
consecutive days (60-hour rule) or 70 hours of on-duty time within 8
consecutive days (70-hour rule). Drivers of property-carrying vehicles,
however, may restart weekly calculations at any time after taking 34
consecutive hours off-duty.
    The Agency believes, preliminarily, that the basic approach for
applying the HOS rules should continue to be used; that is, any time a
human is at the controls of an ADS-equipped CMV, either in the driver's
seat or operating it remotely, the time should be recorded as on-duty,
driving. Any time the human is working without having the
responsibility for taking control of the ADS-equipped vehicle (because
it is operating in a fully autonomous mode within its intended ODD)
should be considered on-duty, not driving. For scenarios in which the
human is in a sleeper-berth on a vehicle controlled by ADS technology,
the human may record his/her duty status in the same manner as a team
driver with hours off-duty in the passenger seat or sleeper-berth time.
The Agency welcomes comments on whether these preliminary regulatory
approaches are appropriate or whether other structures are preferable.
    Questions: 3.1. Should HOS rule changes be considered if ADS
technology performs all the driving tasks while a human is on-duty, not
driving; off-duty or in the sleeper berth; or physically remote from
the CMV? 3.2. Should the HOS requirements apply to both onboard and
remote operators? 3.3. If so, how should HOS be recorded when an
individual is not physically in control of the vehicle?

4. Medical Qualifications for Human Operators

    The FMCSRs include physical qualification standards for humans
driving CMVs to ensure that they are medically qualified to do so. In
the RFC, FMCSA requested comment on what medical conditions that
currently preclude medical qualification (1) could become inapplicable
as ADS technology develops, and (2) should not be considered
disqualifying for a human driver who is simply monitoring an ADS-
equipped CMV.
    Several commenters believe FMCSA's current medical requirements for
drivers/operators of CMVs should apply when individuals have the
responsibility for driving an ADS-equipped CMV. They indicated that for
the non-driving tasks (Levels 4-5), further study is needed before
considering potential changes to the associated medical requirements.
    FMCSA Response: FMCSA's regulations in 49 CFR part 391 include
physical qualifications standards for individuals operating CMVs, as
defined in 49 CFR 390.5. Such standards were originally established in
the late 1930s and have been modified significantly since that time.
The Agency also provides advisory criteria for use by healthcare
professionals in making the determination whether a driver with certain
medical conditions should be issued a medical certificate. Based on
FMCSA's preliminary assessment of its safety requirements and the
potential of ADS-equipped vehicles, the Agency presently believes
individuals responsible for taking control of an ADS-equipped vehicle
on a public road should be subject to the current physical
qualification standards.
    Questions: 4.1. Should some of the physical qualification rules be
eliminated or made less stringent for humans remotely monitoring or
potentially controlling ADS-equipped CMVs? 4.2. If so, which of the
requirements should be less restrictive for human operators who would
take control of an ADS-equipped CMV remotely? 4.3. Should the Agency
consider less restrictive rules for humans who have the benefit of ADS
technology to assist them in controlling the vehicle (e.g.,
technologies that would enable individuals with limb impairments to
operate at a level comparable to individuals without such impairments)?

5. Distracted Driving and Monitoring

    The FMCSRs prohibit individuals from texting and using hand-held
wireless phones while driving CMVs in interstate commerce. In the RFC,
FMCSA requested comment regarding what changes, if any, should be made
to the distracted driving regulations for human operators of ADS-
equipped CMVs operating in an automated mode.
    Some commenters believe changes to regulations would depend on the
SAE Level designation of the vehicle, its operational capabilities, and
the role of the driver in safe operation. Commenters also believe that
if a human is present and responsible for the safe operation of the
CMV, current restrictions against distraction should remain in effect.
    FMCSA Response: Sections 392.80 and 392.82 of the FMCSRs prohibit
individuals from texting and using handheld wireless phones,
respectively, while driving CMVs in interstate commerce. A CDL holder,
whether operating in interstate, foreign, or intrastate commerce, may
also be disqualified for violating State or local laws on texting and
use of handheld phones (49 CFR 383.51(c), Table 2, paragraph 10). The
regulations do not provide an exception for individuals who are in the
driver's seat but have chosen to rely on advanced technologies such as
lane departure warning systems, collision avoidance systems, etc. From
the above, the requirements related to distracted driving set forth in
the FMCSRs apply to human operators of ADS-equipped CMVs, and such
operators must remain focused on their duties. While FMCSA is inclined
to believe it will remain appropriate to require human operators to
comply with all existing regulations concerning distraction while
operating ADS-equipped CMVs, the Agency welcomes comments regarding
distraction and whether FMCSA should consider amending the rules
regarding distraction for cases where an onboard or remote human
operator is not actively controlling a Level 4 or 5 ADS-equipped CMV.
    Question: 5.1. How should the prohibition against distracted
driving (i.e., texting, hand-held cell phone) apply to onboard
operators responsible for taking control of the CMV under certain
situations, and to remote operators with similar responsibilities?

6. Safe Driving and Drug and Alcohol Testing

    FMCSA's controlled substances and alcohol testing requirements in
49 CFR part 382 are intended to prevent crashes and injuries resulting
from the misuse of alcohol or use of controlled substances by drivers
of CMVs. The rules include requirements for pre-employment drug
testing, random alcohol and drug tests, post-crash testing, reasonable
suspicion testing, and, for individuals that have tested positive for
the misuse of alcohol or use of controlled substances, return-to-duty
testing.
    Part 392 of the FMCSRs includes requirements for and prohibitions
against certain actions of CMV drivers. For example, the rules require
drivers to obey the laws, ordinances, and regulations of the
jurisdiction in which the CMV is operated and prohibit drivers from
operating a CMV while ill or fatigued. Drivers are also prohibited from
possessing or being under the influence of drugs or alcohol while on-
duty. The regulations also cover matters such as the inspection of
cargo and cargo securement devices and systems during trips and
procedures for travelling through railroad crossings.
    FMCSA did not specifically request comment on these issues in the
RFC. However, the Agency believes preliminarily that these rules should
continue to apply to any human who is expected to take control of the
operation of the ADS-equipped CMV while it is on a public road.
    Questions: 6.1. Should FMCSA consider revising its rules to ensure
that (1) any human exercising control of an ADS-equipped vehicle must
continue to comply with all the rules under Part 392, and (2) a CMV
under the control of a Level 4 or Level 5 ADS must satisfy the
operational rules? 6.2. For example, should FMCSA require that the ADS
be capable of identifying highway-rail grade crossings and stopping the
CMV prior to crossing railroad tracks to avoid collisions with trains,
or going onto a highway-rail grade crossing without having sufficient
space to travel completely through the crossing without stopping? 6.3.
For scenarios in which the control of the ADS-equipped CMV alternates,
or may alternate, between a human and the technology, should FMCSA
require that both the human operator and ADS comply with the applicable
operational rules?

7. Inspection, Repair, and Maintenance

    The FMCSRs require all CMVs to be systematically inspected,
repaired, and maintained, all parts to be in safe and proper operating
condition at all times, and each vehicle to pass an inspection at least
once every year. In the RFC, FMCSA requested comments regarding how
motor carriers will be able to ensure the proper functioning of ADS
prior to operating in automated mode, whether motor carrier personnel
responsible for maintaining ADS equipment should be required to have a
minimum level of training, and what types of malfunctions or damage on
an ADS-equipped CMV would be considered an imminent hazard.
    Commenters stated that safety rules should require that ADS include
self-diagnostic capabilities and reporting for critical subsystems as
well as for the full ADS itself. They also believe the Department
should establish minimum performance or equipment criteria, and test
procedures for self-certification and marking of ADS-equipped vehicles.
Commenters also stated that individuals responsible for maintaining the
ADS equipment should have minimum training and certification.
    FMCSA Response: The FMCSRs include requirements for motor carriers
to have systematic inspection, repair and maintenance programs for
their CMVs and to maintain certain records documenting the types of
maintenance performed. Drivers are required to prepare reports of any
defects or deficiencies discovered by or reported to them during the
work shift and the motor carrier is responsible for taking appropriate
actions after receiving such reports, but before the vehicle is
dispatched again.
    In addition, a comprehensive inspection of CMVs must be conducted
at least once every 12 months based on a checklist provided in Appendix
G to the FMCSRs and proof of the annual inspection must be maintained
on the CMV.
    FMCSA prescribes minimum qualifications for individuals conducting
the annual inspection if the inspection is not conducted in accordance
with a State inspection program that FMCSA considers comparable to the
Federal requirements. FMCSA also prescribes minimum qualifications for
motor carrier employees responsible for brake-related inspection,
repair and maintenance tasks.
    FMCSA believes that motor carriers must have appropriate
inspection, repair and maintenance programs to ensure that any ADS-
equipped CMVs they dispatch are capable of operating safely. This means
the CMV must be capable of performing within its ODD. Recognizing that
the advanced safety systems used in Level 4 and 5 ADS-equipped CMVs
will rely heavily on advanced software programs that will invariably be
subject to periodic updates and revision, it will be critical for motor
carriers to establish a system to ensure that all vehicles are using
the most up-to-date version of safety-critical software.
    FMCSA believes it is appropriate to consider amending part 396 to
provide clear guidance to motor carriers dispatching Level 4 and Level
5 ADS-equipped CMVs that would operate on a public road. At a minimum,
the Agency believes consideration should be given to require:
     Pre-trip inspections before dispatching ADS-equipped CMVs;
     A means for en route inspection for cargo securement
devices to ensure proper tension--currently the driver is required to
check the devices, but there may be alternative solutions based on
improved technology;
     Post-trip inspection requirements, which may vary
depending on the sensors and detectors, to identify mechanical/
electrical problems that may or may not be related to the ADS
technology;
     Periodic or annual inspection of ADS technology.
    Consistent with the current FMCSRs concerning qualifications of
individuals conducting the annual inspection of CMVs and brake-related
inspection, repair, and maintenance tasks on CMVs, the Agency is
considering the adoption of similar requirements for motor carrier
personnel responsible for ADS-related inspection, repair and
maintenance tasks.
    Questions: 7.1. What qualifications should be required of the
individual performing the pre-trip inspection? 7.2. What kind of
routine or scheduled inspections should be performed and what types of
ADS-related maintenance records should be required? 7.3. Should the
inspection period be more or less frequent than annual for an ADS-
equipped CMV? 7.4. Should inspections be mileage-based or time-based
(e.g., 1,000 miles, 3 months or 1,000 hours of operation)? 7.5. Should
FMCSA impose general requirements for motor carrier personnel
responsible for ADS-related inspection, repair, and maintenance tasks
similar to the Agency's brake inspector qualification requirements?
7.6. How could FMCSA ensure that motor carriers apply safety-critical
software updates?

8. Roadside Inspections

    FMCSA and its State partners conduct roadside inspections of CMVs
to identify and remove unsafe drivers and vehicles from service. In the
RFC, FMCSA requested comment regarding

how an enforcement official will be able to identify CMVs capable of
various levels of automated operation, i.e., should ADS-equipped CMVs
be visibly marked to indicate the level of automated operation they are
designed to achieve.
    Although commenters did not state that ADS-equipped CMVs should be
subject to a greater level of scrutiny than CMVs operated by humans
during roadside inspections, some believed ADS-equipped CMVs should be
marked in a manner visible to enforcement personnel, or have some form
of electronic vehicle identification to facilitate inspections. Some
commenters believe that ADS-equipped vehicles should have malfunction
indicators to identify problems in the event there is a roadside
inspection.
    FMCSA Response: The FMCSRs include requirements for truck and bus
parts and accessories necessary for safe operations on public roads.
The requirements are provided under 49 CFR part 393. To the extent
there are Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSSs) under 49 CFR
part 571 to cover the safety equipment or features, FMCSA cross-
references those NHTSA requirements applicable to the vehicle and
equipment manufacturers. Through the cross-reference, FMCSA imposes on
the motor carriers the responsibility for maintaining the safety
equipment and features that NHTSA required the vehicle manufacturers to
install.
    Currently, neither the FMVSSs nor the FMCSRs include technical
requirements specific to ADS technology. There are no ADS-specific
Federal performance standards that manufacturers must satisfy for
operation in a fully autonomous mode. However, the Agency expects that
ADS technology companies will generally follow the Department's
voluntary guidance and conduct thorough safety assessments.
    FMCSA believes that certain regulatory requirements should be
considered to ensure that motor carriers using ADS-equipped CMVs have
clear Federal direction for safe operations, irrespective of
manufacturers' voluntary safety assessments. FMCSA expects vehicle
manufacturers or ADS technology companies to provide motor carriers
with a form of self-certification of the capabilities of the ADS
technology, based on completion of the voluntary safety assessment. The
certification would enable the motor carrier to understand the ODD
limitations of the ADS technology. FMCSA also preliminarily anticipates
that Level 4 and 5 ADS-equipped vehicles would be marked to enable
identification by Federal and State personnel, if there are no other
visible indicators (e.g., the absence of a driver's seat and steering
wheel). While marking of vehicles to identify the ADS Level of
capability would enable Federal and State personnel, motor carriers and
drivers to know which vehicles can operate safely without a human at
the controls under certain ODDs (i.e., Level 4), or under any operating
conditions (i.e., Level 5), identification of the vehicle-specific ODD
would likely need to be conveyed separately, through the self-
certification based on the voluntary safety assessment.
    Roadside inspectors must be able to verify that ADS components are
functioning properly. This could be accomplished through a system
validation indicator that allows confirmation that the ADS systems are
working to full capacity, or through individual malfunction indicators
that would let enforcement officials know that a particular subsystem
has a fault or defect and that maintenance is needed. The faults or
defects might not be critical to safety but suggest that repairs should
be made before the vehicle is dispatched again. Malfunction indicators
are a routine requirement under both the FMVSSs and FMCSRs (e.g., the
antilock brake system malfunction indicator required under FMVSS Nos.
105 and 121 and section 393.55 of the FMCSRs). FMCSA believes
requirements for such indicators should be considered to alert motor
carrier maintenance personnel as well as Federal and State enforcement
officials whether the ADS is fully operational or in need of repair.
Motor carriers would then know whether a human must maintain full
control of the vehicle and drive it as if there were no ADS technology,
or whether the ADS may be relied on as the manufacturer intended it to
be used.
    Given the many scenarios an ADS-equipped vehicle may encounter on a
public road, FMCSA preliminarily believes it would be appropriate to
require that the ADS-equipped vehicle, like a human driver, have a
means of detecting emergency vehicles such as police, fire, and rescue,
and moving out of the path of first responders, as well as taking
appropriate action while driving through work-zones.
    In addition to basic safety requirements for ADS technology, the
Agency is considering enforcement tolerances that could be used by
Federal and State enforcement personnel to identify the levels of non-
compliance that would warrant placing an ADS-equipped CMV out of
service until the problem is corrected.
    FMCSA acknowledges that Federal and State enforcement officials may
need further training to identify problems with ADS-equipped CMVs, but
it is not the Agency's goal to have these officials be responsible for
conducting diagnostic tests of a CMV's ADS. FMCSA would discourage
inspectors from delaying the movement of ADS-equipped CMVs unless there
are clear indications of safety-critical CMV violations and/or ADS
faults or malfunctions. FMCSA would work with the private sector and
State safety agencies to develop enforcement tolerances for use in
determining whether certain faults or malfunctions warrant placing the
ADS-equipped CMV out of service.
    Questions: 8.1. Should motor carriers be required to notify FMCSA
that they are operating Level 4 or 5 ADS-equipped CMVs? 8.2. If so, how
should the carrier notify FMCSA? 8.3. Should FMCSA require markings
identifying the ADS Level of a vehicle? 8.4. Should the Agency require
motor carriers to utilize ADS-equipped CMVs that have a malfunction
indicator? 8.5. Should the Agency require that motor carriers deploying
ADS-equipped CMVs ensure the vehicle can pull over in response to
Federal and State officials or move out of the way of first-responders?
8.6. How might that be achieved, and at what cost? 8.7. How would
roadside enforcement personnel know that a vehicle can no longer
operate safely? 8.8. Absent an FMVSS, how could standard indications be
provided to enforcement personnel?

9. Cybersecurity

    Numerous commenters expressed concerns regarding cybersecurity and
hacking of ADS-equipped CMVs and recommended that vehicle data access
be protected against hacking through recognized principles of data
security by design.
    FMCSA Response: ADS technologies depend on an array of electronics,
sensors, and computer systems. In advancing these features and
exploring the safety benefits of these new vehicle technologies, FMCSA
and NHTSA are focused on strong cybersecurity to ensure these systems
work as intended and are built to mitigate safety and security risks.
To ensure a comprehensive cybersecurity environment, NHTSA has adopted
a multi-faceted research approach that leverages the National Institute
of Standards and Technology's (NIST) Cybersecurity Framework, and
encourages industry to adopt practices that improve the cybersecurity
posture

of their vehicles in the U.S.\2\ FMCSA will work with NHTSA and the
automotive industry to proactively address vehicle cybersecurity
challenges and to continuously seek methods to mitigate the associated
safety risks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ https://www.nhtsa.gov/technology-innovation/vehicle-cybersecurity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Questions: 9.1. What types of safety and cargo security risks may
be introduced with the integration of ADS-equipped CMVs? 9.2. What
types of rules should FMCSA consider to ensure that motor carriers'
safety management practices adequately address cybersecurity?

10. Confidentiality of Shared Information

    FMCSA acknowledges that companies may be reluctant to share certain
proprietary data or information with the Agency. While FMCSA notes that
49 CFR 389.9 provides certain protections for ``confidential business
information,'' which includes trade secrets or commercial or financial
information that is privileged or confidential, the RFC requested
comment regarding what measures original equipment manufacturers and
technology developers expect of FMCSA before sharing confidential
business information. Additionally, FMCSA requested comments on how the
Agency might obtain information sufficient to assess the safety
performance of ADS-equipped CMVs without collecting confidential
business information.
    Several commenters stated that they expect FMCSA to establish
standards/regulations concerning access to proprietary safety
information regarding certain components that directly relate to
safety-sensitive functions. They believe NHTSA, FMCSA, and other DOT
agencies should work with the private sector to obtain critical safety-
related information that may be proprietary. Commenters also believe
that these DOT agencies should seek confidentiality agreements to
ensure Federal and State enforcement agencies' access to safety data
associated with the performance of ADS systems, while protecting the
ADS developers' proprietary information.
    FMCSA Response: The Agency has established procedures to protect
confidential business information submitted as part of a rulemaking (49
CFR 389.9). Additionally, FMCSA will work with motor carriers,
manufacturers, and developers to ensure, to the greatest extent
practicable, the protection of sensitive data relating to the design,
testing, production, and marketing of ADS or proprietary information
submitted in response to an Agency request. Unless required by law,
FMCSA will not unilaterally or proactively release confidential
business information to the public.
    Questions: 10.1. As the development of ADS technology continues,
the Agency believes there is a need to learn about the performance
limitations of these systems. FMCSA draws a distinction between
information about performance limitations (e.g., how well does the ADS
keep the vehicle in its lane and under what environmental conditions,
etc.) and details about the system design (e.g., the specific types of
sensors, or the arrays of sensors and cameras used for input to the
central processing unit for the ADS). To what extent do ADS developers
believe performance data should be considered proprietary and withheld
from the public? 10.2. Are the Agency's current processes under 49 CFR
389.9 for submission and protection of confidential business
information in the context of a rulemaking sufficient to allow ADS
developers and motor carriers to communicate essential information to
the Agency regarding the operation of ADS? 10.3. If not, how should
those processes be modified?

IX. Voluntary Consensus Standards

    As noted above, FMCSA would like to build upon best practices from
the private sector in providing guidance to motor carriers on safe
practices for the integration of ADS-equipped CMVs. The Agency would
consider use of private sector standards to ensure cost-effective,
performance-based safety requirements.
    OMB's revised Circular A-119, ``Federal Participation in the
Development and Use of Voluntary Consensus Standards and in Conformity
Assessment Activities,'' (81 FR 4673), states that ``. . . the
effectiveness of the U.S. standards system in enabling innovation
depends on continued private sector leadership and engagement.''
Circular A-119 is intended to encourage Federal agencies to benefit
from the expertise of the private sector, promote Federal agency
participation in standards bodies to support the creation of standards
that are useable by Federal agencies, and minimize reliance on
government-unique standards or regulations where an existing standard
would meet the Federal government's objectives.
    One of the primary means that FMCSA uses to fulfill the intent of
Circular A-119 is to incorporate by reference certain voluntary
standards. For example, under 49 CFR 393.7, Matter incorporated by
reference, FMCSA adopted several private-sector standards concerning
vehicle safety equipment required on CMVs operated in interstate
commerce. Rather than crafting and imposing Federal standards or
requirements where voluntary consensus standards were followed by the
majority of parties, the Agency adopted the private-sector standards by
reference. As a result, the Agency can enforce the referenced standards
as part of the FMCSRs. Specific areas where such references are used
for regulatory requirements include lamps and reflectors for CMVs that
were not subject to NHTSA's FMVSS No. 108 (49 CFR 571.108) and
standards for cargo securement devices (e.g., chains, synthetic
webbing, wire rope, cordage, etc.). FMCSA thus allowed companies
following industry best practices to simply continue operating as
usual.
    Because of the advances in ADS technology, FMCSA's preferred
approach to adopting safety requirements at this time is to rely on the
development of consensus standards, whenever practicable. Voluntary
standards offer flexibility and responsiveness to the rapid pace of
innovation, can encourage investment and bring cost-effective
innovation to the market more quickly, and may be validated by private
sector conformity assessment and testing protocols. The Department
supports the development and continuing evolution of stakeholder-driven
voluntary standards, which in many cases can be an effective non-
regulatory means to support interoperable integration of technologies
into the transportation system. The Department, for example, has
already adopted SAE's terminology for automated vehicles, including the
levels of automation. The Agency requests public comment on the extent
to which the private sector has developed consensus standards that the
Agency could reference, if necessary, to ensure motor carriers have
appropriate guidance on the safety management practices they should
have in place to operate ADS-equipped vehicles safety.

X. Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Programs (MCSAP)

    FMCSA is responsible for the administration of the MCSAP, a Federal
grant program that provides financial assistance to States to reduce
the number and severity of CMV-related crashes and hazardous materials
incidents. The goal of the MCSAP is to improve CMV safety through
consistent, uniform, and effective CMV safety programs. The MCSAP
regulations (49 CFR part 350) include conditions for participation by
States and local

jurisdictions and promote the adoption and uniform enforcement of State
safety rules, regulations, and standards that are compatible with the
FMCSRs and the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMRs) issued by the
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, for both
interstate, foreign, and intrastate motor carriers and drivers.
    Section 350.331 requires participating States to conduct reviews of
their laws and regulations for compatibility with the Federal safety
rules and HMRs and to report the results of that review in their
Commercial Vehicle Safety Plans. The regulation also requires
participating States to amend their laws or regulations to make them
compatible with the FMCSRs and/or HMRs within three years of the
effective date of any newly enacted regulations.
    In the event FMCSA amends the FMCSRs to adopt rules concerning the
operation of ADS-equipped CMVs, FMCSA anticipates its State partners
would adopt compatible rules. Through this rulemaking, FMCSA
discourages States from adopting more stringent rules concerning ADS,
which could interfere with interstate commerce.

XI. Questions

1. Do the FMCSRs require a human driver?

    1.1. Should FMCSA establish a rule that would prohibit an ADS-
equipped CMV from operating outside its designated ODD?
    1.2. What are manufacturers' and motor carriers' plans for when and
in what way Level 4 and 5 ADS-equipped CMVs will become commercially
available?
    1.3. Should FMCSA consider amending or augmenting the definition of
``driver'' and/or ``operator'' provided in 49 CFR 390.5 or define a
term such as ``ADS driver'' to reduce the potential for
misinterpretation of the requirements?

2. Commercial Driver's License (CDL) Endorsements

    2.1. Should a CDL endorsement be required of individuals operating
an ADS-equipped CMV?
    2.2. If so, what should be covered in the knowledge and/or skills
test associated with an ADS endorsement?
    2.3. What would be the impacts on SDLAs?
    2.4. Should a driver be required to have specialized training for
ADS-equipped CMVs?
    2.5. In an operational model that has an individual remotely
monitoring multiple CMVs, should the Agency impose limitations on the
number of vehicles a remote driver monitors?
    2.6. Should a dedicated or stand-by remote operator be subject to
existing driver qualifications?

3. Drivers' Hours of Service (HOS) Rules

    3.1. Should HOS rule changes be considered if ADS technology
performs all the driving tasks while a human is off-duty or in the
sleeper berth, or physically remote from the CMV?
    3.2. Should the HOS requirements apply to both onboard and remote
operators?
    3.3. If so, how should HOS be recorded when an individual is not
physically in control of the vehicle?

4. Medical Qualifications for Human Operators

    4.1. Should some of the physical qualification rules be eliminated
or made less stringent for humans remotely monitoring or potentially
controlling ADS-equipped CMVs?
    4.2. If so, which of the requirements should be less restrictive
for human operators who would take control of an ADS-equipped CMV
remotely?
    4.3. Should the Agency consider less restrictive rules for humans
who have the benefit of ADS technology to assist them in controlling
the vehicle (e.g., technologies that would enable individuals with limb
impairments to operate at a level comparable to individuals without
such impairments)?

5. Distracted Driving and Monitoring

    5.1. How should the prohibition against distracted driving apply to
onboard operators responsible for taking control of the CMV under
certain situations, and to remote operators with similar
responsibilities?

6. Safe Driving

    6.1. Should FMCSA consider revising its rules to ensure that (1)
any human exercising control of an ADS-equipped vehicle must continue
to comply with all the rules under Part 392, and (2) a CMV under the
control of a Level 4 or Level 5 ADS must satisfy the operational rules?
    6.2. For example, should FMCSA require that the ADS be capable of
identifying highway-rail grade crossings and stopping the CMV prior to
crossing railroad tracks to avoid collisions with trains, or going onto
a highway-rail grade crossing without having sufficient space to travel
completely through the crossing without stopping?
    6.3. For scenarios in which the control of the ADS-equipped CMV
alternates, or may alternate, between a human and the technology,
should FMCSA require that both the human operator and ADS comply with
the applicable operational rules?

7. Inspection, Repair and Maintenance

    7.1. If so, what qualifications should be required of the
individual performing the inspection?
    7.2. What kind of routine or scheduled inspections should be
performed and what types of ADS-related maintenance records should be
required?
    7.3. Should the inspection period be more frequent than annual for
an ADS-equipped CMV?
    7.4. Should inspections be mileage-based or time-based (e.g., 1,000
miles, 3 months or 1,000 hours of operation)?
    7.5. Should FMCSA impose general requirements for motor carrier
personnel responsible for ADS-related inspection, repair, and
maintenance tasks similar to the Agency's brake inspector qualification
requirements?
    7.6. How could FMCSA ensure that motor carriers apply available
after-market software updates?

8. Roadside Inspections

    8.1. Should motor carriers be required to notify FMCSA that they
are operating Level 4 or 5 ADS-equipped CMVs?
    8.2. If so, how should the carrier notify FMCSA?
    8.3. Should FMCSA require markings identifying the ADS Level of a
vehicle?
    8.4. Should the Agency require motor carriers to utilize ADS-
equipped CMVs that have a malfunction indicator?
    8.5. Should the Agency require that motor carriers deploying ADS-
equipped CMVs ensure the vehicle can pull over in response to Federal
and State officials or move out of the way of first-responders?
    8.6. How might that be achieved, and at what cost?
    8.7. How would roadside enforcement personnel know that a vehicle
can no longer operate safely?
    8.8. Absent an FMVSS, how could standard indications be provided to
enforcement personnel?

9. Cybersecurity

    9.1. What types of safety and cargo security risks may be
introduced with the integration of ADS-equipped CMVs?
    9.2. What types of rules should FMCSA consider to ensure that motor
carriers safety management practices adequately address cybersecurity?

10. Confidentiality of Shared Information

    10.1. As the development of ADS technology continues, the Agency
believes there is a need to learn about

the performance limitations of these systems. FMCSA draws a distinction
between information about performance limitations (e.g., how well does
the ADS keep the vehicle in its lane and under what environmental
conditions, etc.) and details about the system design (e.g., the
specific types of sensors, or the arrays of sensors and cameras used
for input to the central processing unit for the ADS). To what extent
do ADS developers believe performance data should be considered
proprietary and withheld from the public?
    10.2. Are the Agency's current processes under 49 CFR 389.9 for
submission and protection of confidential business information in the
context of a rulemaking sufficient to allow ADS developers and motor
carriers to communicate essential information to the Agency regarding
the operation of ADS?
    10.3. If not, how should those processes be modified?

    Issued under authority delegated in 49 CFR 1.87.

    Dated: May 21, 2019.
Raymond P. Martinez,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2019-11038 Filed 5-23-19; 4:15 pm]
 BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P