[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 139 (Thursday, July 21, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 43602-43610]
[FR Doc No: 2022-15556]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2022-0066]

Ford Motor Company--Receipt of Petition for Temporary Exemption
From Various Requirements of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards
for an Automated Driving System-Equipped Vehicle

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

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

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

SUMMARY: Ford Motor Company (Ford) has petitioned NHTSA for a temporary
exemption from certain requirements in seven Federal Motor Vehicle
Safety Standards (FMVSS) for vehicles that will be equipped with
automated driving systems (ADS). Ford is seeking an exemption from
portions of FMVSS No. 101, Controls and Displays; No. 102, Transmission
Shift Position Sequence, Starter Interlock, and Transmission Braking
Effect; No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment;
No. 111, Rear Visibility; No. 126, Electronic Stability Control
Systems; No. 135, Light Vehicle Brake Systems; and No. 138, Tire
Pressure Monitoring Systems. NHTSA is publishing this document in
accordance with statutory and administrative provisions and seeks
comment on the merits of Ford's exemption petition and on potential
terms and conditions that should be applied to the temporary exemption
if granted. After receiving and considering public comments, and any
additional information provided by Ford, NHTSA will assess the merits
of the petition and will publish a notice in the Federal notice setting
forth NHTSA's reasoning for either granting or denying Ford's petition.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before August 22, 2022.

ADDRESSES: NHTSA invites you to submit comments on the petition
described herein and the questions posed below. You may submit comments
identified by docket number in the heading of this notice by any of the
following methods:
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington,
DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building
Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays.
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
    Instructions: All submissions must include the agency name and
docket number. Note that all comments received will be posted without
change to https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal
information provided. Please see the Privacy Act discussion below.
NHTSA will consider all comments received before the close of business
on the comment closing date indicated above. To the extent possible,
NHTSA will also consider comments filed after the closing date.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments received, go to https://www.regulations.gov at any time or to
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140,
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal Holidays. Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Privacy Act: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits
comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT
posts these comments, without edit, to www.regulations.gov, as
described in the system of records notice, DOT/ALL-14 FDMS, accessible
through www.dot.gov/privacy. In order to facilitate comment tracking
and response, we encourage commenters to

provide their name, or the name of their organization; however,
submission of names is completely optional. Whether or not commenters
identify themselves, all timely comments will be fully considered. If
you wish to provide comments containing proprietary or confidential
information, please contact the agency for alternate submission
instructions.
    Confidential Business Information: Confidential Business
Information: If you wish to submit any information under a claim of
confidentiality, you must submit your request directly to NHTSA's
Office of the Chief Counsel. Requests for confidentiality are governed
by part 512. NHTSA is currently treating electronic submission as an
acceptable method for submitting confidential business information to
the agency under part 512. If you would like to submit a request for
confidential treatment, you may email your submission to Dan Rabinovitz
in the Office of the Chief Counsel at [email protected] or you
may contact Dan for a secure file transfer link. At this time, you
should not send a duplicate hardcopy of your electronic CBI submissions
to DOT headquarters. If you claim that any of the information or
documents provided to the agency constitute confidential business
information within the meaning of 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4), or are protected
from disclosure pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1905, you must submit supporting
information together with the materials that are the subject of the
confidentiality request, in accordance with part 512, to the Office of
the Chief Counsel. Your request must include a cover letter setting
forth the information specified in our confidential business
information regulation (49 CFR 512.8) and a certificate, pursuant to
Sec.  512.4(b) and part 512, appendix A. In addition, you should submit
a copy, from which you have deleted the claimed confidential business
information, to the Docket at the address given above.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Callie Roach, Office of the Chief
Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590. Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; Fax:
202-366-3820.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Background
II. Authority and Procedures for Temporary Exemptions
III. Ford's Petition
    A. Safety Showing
    i. FMVSS No. 101
    ii. FMVSS No. 102
    iii. FMVSS No. 108
    iv. FMVSS No. 111
    v. FMVSS No. 126
    vi. FMVSS No. 135
    vii. FMVSS No. 138
    B. Public Interest Argument
    C. Meetings With Ford
IV. Agency's Review of Ford's Petition
V. Public Interest Considerations
VI. Potential Types of Terms
VII. Public Participation
    A. Request for Comments and Comment Period
    B. Instructions for Submitting Comments

I. Background

    NHTSA is responsible for promulgating and enforcing FMVSS designed
to improve motor vehicle safety. Generally, a manufacturer may not
manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, or introduce or deliver for
introduction into interstate commerce a vehicle that does not comply
with all applicable FMVSS. There are limited exceptions to this general
prohibition. One of these exceptions allows manufacturers to petition
NHTSA for a temporary exemption for noncompliant vehicles that have an
overall safety level at least equal to the overall safety level of
nonexempt vehicles.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 49 U.S.C. 30113(b)(3)(B)(iv).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In July 2021, Ford submitted an exemption petition under 49 CFR
part 555 for a vehicle equipped with a Society of Automotive Engineers
(SAE) International Level 4 ADS \2\ that can be operated in either a
human-driven mode (Manual Mode), or in an ADS-driven mode (AV Mode).\3\
Ford states that it is seeking an exemption from portions of seven
FMVSS to allow for the controlled deployment and usage of the vehicle
``on tested, proven roadways during appropriate weather conditions.''
\4\ Ford states that, given that human occupants are not intended to
participate in the driving task while the vehicle is being operated in
AV Mode, Ford believes having active driving controls and
communications would introduce an unacceptable risk to safety.\5\ Ford
further states that, if granted, it does not intend to sell the
vehicles to individual customers.\6\ Instead, Ford states that the
vehicles will be fleet owned and operated for their full service
life.\7\ Ford also states that no more than 2,500 exempted vehicles
will be produced and introduced into interstate commerce within a 12-
month period during the 2-year exemption.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ SAE International J3016_202104 Taxonomy and Definitions for
Terms Related to Driving Automation Systems for On-Road Motor
Vehicles.
    \3\ Ford Petition at page 1.
    \4\ Id. at page 3.
    \5\ Id. at pages 8 and 25.
    \6\ Id.
    \7\ Id.
    \8\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This notice accomplishes two things: (1) it serves as a notice of
receipt of Ford's petition and (2) it requests comments on the petition
and on conditions that could be applied if NHTSA decides to grant the
petition.

II. Authority and Procedures for Temporary Exemptions

    The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act),
codified at 49 U.S.C. chapter 301, authorizes the Secretary of
Transportation to exempt motor vehicles, on a temporary basis and under
specified circumstances, and on terms the Secretary considers
appropriate, from a FMVSS or bumper standard. This authority is set
forth at 49 U.S.C. 30113. The Secretary has delegated the authority for
implementing this section to NHTSA.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 49 CFR 1.94.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Safety Act authorizes the Secretary to grant, in whole or in
part, a temporary exemption to a vehicle manufacturer if the Secretary
makes one of four specified findings.\10\ The Secretary must also look
comprehensively at the request for exemption and find that the
exemption is consistent with the public interest and the objectives of
the Safety Act.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 49 U.S.C. 30113(b)(3).
    \11\ 49 U.S.C. 30113(b)(3)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One of the bases on which an exemption may be granted allows NHTSA
to grant an exemption if ``compliance with the standard would prevent
the manufacturer from selling a motor vehicle with an overall safety
level at least equal to the overall safety level of nonexempt
vehicles.'' \12\ This is the basis on which Ford is seeking its
exemption.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 49 U.S.C. 30113(b)(3)(B)(iv).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NHTSA established 49 CFR part 555, Temporary Exemption from Motor
Vehicle Safety and Bumper Standards, to implement the statutory
provisions concerning temporary exemptions. The requirements in 49 CFR
555.5 state that the petitioner must set forth the basis of the
petition by providing the information required under 49 CFR 555.6, and
the reasons why the exemption would be in the public interest and
consistent with the objectives of the Safety Act.
    Ford's petition was submitted under 49 CFR 555.6(d), on the basis
that Ford is otherwise unable to sell a vehicle whose overall level of
safety or impact

protection \13\ is at least equal to that of a nonexempt vehicle.
Petitions submitted under 49 CFR 555.6(d) must include the following
information:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Ford is not seeking exemptions from any standards providing
performance requirements for impact protection.

    (1) A detailed analysis of how the vehicle provides the overall
level of safety or impact protection at least equal to that of
nonexempt vehicles, including--
    (i) A detailed description of how the motor vehicle, if
exempted, differs from one that conforms to the standard;
    (ii) A detailed description of any safety or impact protection
features that the vehicle offers as standard equipment that are not
required by the Federal motor vehicle safety or bumper standards;
    (iii) The results of any tests conducted on the vehicle
demonstrating that it fails to meet the standard, expressed as
comparative performance levels;
    (iv) The results of any tests conducted on the vehicle
demonstrating that its overall level of safety or impact protection
exceeds that which is achieved by conformity to the standards.
    (v) Other arguments that the overall level of safety or impact
protection of the vehicle is at least equal to that of nonexempt
vehicles.
    (2) Substantiation that compliance would prevent the sale of the
vehicle.
    (3) A statement whether, at the end of the exemption period, the
manufacturer intends to comply with the standard.
    (4) A statement that not more than 2,500 exempted vehicles will
be sold in the United States in any 12-month period for which an
exemption may be granted pursuant to this paragraph. An application
for renewal of any exemption shall also include the total number of
exempted vehicles sold in the United States under the existing
exemption.

III. Ford's Petition

    Ford's petition seeks a two-year temporary exemption from parts of
each of seven FMVSS to produce 2,500 or fewer exempt vehicles per
year.\14\ Ford seeks a temporary exemption from portions of the
following FMVSS: No. 101, Controls and Displays; No. 102, Transmission
Shift Position Sequence, Starter Interlock, and Transmission Braking
Effect; No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment;
No. 111, Rear Visibility; No. 126, Electronic Stability Control
Systems; No. 135, Light Vehicle Brake Systems; and No. 138, Tire
Pressure Monitoring Systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Ford Petition at pages 3 and 25.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The exemption, if granted, would allow Ford to produce and deploy
vehicles that lack certain vehicle controls, telltales, and indicators.
Ford states that the subject vehicles would be fleet owned and operated
to allow for a controlled deployment and usage on tested, proven
roadways in appropriate weather.\15\ Ford states that this will allow
it to further develop and evaluate its SAE Level 4 ADS feature.\16\
When engaged, Ford states the ADS assumes the driving role and performs
the entire Dynamic Driving Task (DDT) as defined in SAE J3016.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Id. at page 3.
    \16\ Id.
    \17\ SAE International J3016_202104 Taxonomy and Definitions for
Terms Related to Driving Automation Systems for On-Road Motor
Vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because Ford has sought confidential treatment of some aspects of
its petition, a redacted version of Ford's petition is included in the
docket referenced at the beginning of this notice.

i. Overview of the Vehicles

    Ford states that the subject vehicles use a hybrid-electric vehicle
(HEV) platform that has been specifically designed and tailored to
support mobility services such as ride sharing, ride hailing and
package delivery.\18\ Ford states that each vehicle will be modified
with the components that make up the ADS and are responsible for the
core capabilities of motion, planning and execution, which, Ford
states, enable the vehicle to drive itself.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ Ford Petition at 5.
    \19\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Ford states that the vehicle will be designed to operate in both AV
Mode and human-driven mode Manual Mode.\20\ The vehicle will be
equipped with non-traditional driving controls that will only be
available in Manual Mode for use by trained operators.\21\ Ford states
that transitioning between AV Mode and Manual Mode can only be
performed by a trained operator while the vehicle is stationary.\22\
Ford also states that when the ADS is active, it performs the entire
DDT, and removes the need for a human driver.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ Id.
    \21\ Id. at page 8.
    \22\ Id. at page 5.
    \23\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Ford explains in its petition that the Operational Design Domain
(ODD) describes where, when, and under what conditions an ADS-equipped
vehicle will be operated.\24\ Ford states the vehicle's intended ODD
represents a convergence of the vehicle's expected capabilities and
projected business model, which includes ride-hailing and goods
delivery on urban streets.\25\ Ford also states that it expects the
vehicles to operate day and night, and from clear conditions up to
light rain.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ Id.
    \25\ Id.
    \26\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    According to Ford, the ADS consists of computing hardware,
software, sensors, and map data. Ford states that the vehicles use a
360-degree multi-modal sensing strategy, which includes:

 Near field and far field cameras--high-resolution video image
captures for detection, tracking, and classification of static and
dynamic objects
 Mid- and long-range radars--sensors that transmit radio waves
to detect objects and help determine their range and velocity
 Short- and long range lidars--high-precision sensors that
measure the distances to objects using pulses of laser light to
visualize the space around it with 360-degree coverage
 Inertial Measurement Unit (IMU) and wheel speed sensors--
sensors for determination of orientation and position of the vehicle
over time

Ford also states that the ADS uses a high-definition map of the road
network and surrounding environment.\27\ Ford states that this map,
when combined with real-time sensing, allows the vehicle to determine
its location within a lane, dynamically route to a destination, and
interpret local rules of the road, such as speed limits and traffic
controls.\28\ Ford states that software analyzes the sensor data to
locate vehicles, pedestrians, and other obstacles, predict their future
motion, and plan an appropriate vehicle path through the
environment.\29\ Once a path is determined, motion commands are
calculated and then communicated to the vehicle's actuators, such as
the engine, transmission, steering, braking, and exterior lighting.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ Id. at page 6.
    \28\ Id.
    \29\ Id.
    \30\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

ii. Planned Usage of the Subject Vehicles

    Ford states that if it is granted an exemption, it does not plan to
sell the vehicles to individual customers.\31\ Instead, Ford states
that the subject vehicles will be fleet owned and operated.\32\ Ford
states that this will allow for controlled deployment and usage on
tested, proven roadways in appropriate weather.\33\ At the end of daily
operation, the vehicles will be fueled, cleaned and serviced at a
central service depot, and this will also allow for any data downloads
or necessary software updates.\34\ This approach will, Ford says,
ensures the vehicles are adequately maintained and serviced.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ Id. at page 9.
    \32\ Id.
    \33\ Id. at page 8.
    \34\ Id. at page 9.
    \35\ Id.

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

iii. Fallback Measures

    Ford states that when the ADS detects a malfunction affecting the
system's ability to perform the DDT, it will perform a fallback
maneuver.\36\ These maneuvers are categorized by Ford into three
levels: Level 1, vehicle completes trip and is scheduled for service;
Level 2, vehicle finds a suitable parking location or pulls over to the
shoulder and activates hazard warning signal; and Level 3, vehicle
activates hazard signal and comes to a controlled stop in the path.\37\
Ford states that ADS subsystems conduct their own respective onboard
diagnostics, and that safety critical subsystems also monitor the
status of other subsystems with which they interface.\38\ Ford states
that, depending on the severity of a detected malfunction, the vehicle
will transition to an appropriate minimal risk condition and the
fallback level can be escalated if other faults occur, driving
conditions warrant it, or if time thresholds to complete the vehicle
response are not met.\39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ Id. at page 7.
    \37\ Id. at page 8.
    \38\ Id. at pages 7-8.
    \39\ Id. at page 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Safety Showing
    In support of the statutory basis cited in its petition for a
temporary exemption, Ford asserts that it believes that the
requirements from which it is seeking an exemption ``exist due to a
human driver's need to operate regulated controls and receive regulated
information.'' \40\ Ford further asserts that these requirements do not
support the safety purpose when the ADS is performing the DDT.\41\ This
exemption would allow Ford to deploy a vehicle in which most
traditional controls and information are not available during the
vehicle's AV mode, which Ford asserts, prevents occupants from
interfering with the driving task when being executed by the ADS.\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ Id. at page 10.
    \41\ Id.
    \42\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Ford seeks exemptions from the following requirements:

i. FMVSS No. 101, Controls and Displays: S5.1-S5.4, and S5.6 \43\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ Id. at pages 10-15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

ii. FMVSS No. 102, Transmission Shift Position Sequence, Starter
Interlock, and Transmission Braking Effect: S<IP_ADDRESS> \44\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ Id. at page 16.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

iii. FMVSS No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated
Equipment: S6.61, S6.6.2, S9.1.1, S9.3-S9.8 \45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ Id. at pages 17-18.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

iv. FMVSS No. 111, Rear Visibility: S6.2.3-S6.2.5 \46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ Id. at pages 18-20.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

v. FMVSS No. 126, Electronic Stability Controls: S5.3 \47\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ Id. at pages 20-21.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

vi. FMVSS No. 135, Light Vehicle Brake Systems: S5.5, S5.3.1 \48\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \48\ Id. at pages 21-22.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

vii. FMVSS No. 138, Tire Pressure Monitoring: S4.3, S4.4 \49\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \49\ Id. at pages 22-24.

    For each of the seven FMVSS from which Ford is seeking an
exemption, Ford first describes the purpose of the standard and the
safety need the requirements meet. Ford then discusses its approach to
meeting the safety need. A short description of the rationale Ford
provides in its petition to support its assertion that the subject
vehicles offer an equivalent level of safety to nonexempt vehicle
follows. In the Manual Mode, available to trained operators only, Ford
states that the vehicle will comply with all applicable FMVSS.
Therefore, the descriptions provided below focus on the description of
Ford's safety approach for when the vehicles are operated in AV Mode.
    Ford seeks an exemption from the requirements in FMVSS No. 101 that
specify the location, identification (symbol, words, etc.),
illumination, color, and evaluation conditions of regulated controls,
telltales, and indictors.\50\ In AV Mode, a few select telltales,
indicators, and controls will be presented to occupants, including
those related to restraints and occupant protection.\51\ Ford states
that modules within the vehicle communicate with each other and
broadcast the regulated information over the vehicle communication
network (e.g., controller area network buses, or CAN), the driver
display module receives the information and displays telltales and
indicators when triggered.\52\ Ford states that by utilizing the
vehicle communication network, the ADS directly receives the
information the regulated features were meant to communicate to human
drivers, and often in greater detail.\53\ Ford asserts that the ADS is
immediately capable of responding to that information, which may
include an appropriate fallback maneuver.\54\ Additionally, Ford states
that fault information may be communicated to the fleet management
system to schedule the vehicle for return to the AV terminal for
service or servicing on road.\55\ Ford provided a chart in its petition
that details Ford's approach for each of the required telltales,
indicators, and controls.\56\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \50\ Id.
    \51\ Id at page 11.
    \52\ Id. at pages 10-11.
    \53\ Id.
    \54\ Id.
    \55\ Id.
    \56\ Id. at pages 11-15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Ford's petition seeks an exemption from the requirement in FMVSS
No. 102 for identification of shift positions, including the positions
in relation to each other and the position selected to be displayed in
view of the driver.\57\ Ford asserts that the subject vehicle provides
an equivalent level of safety to a nonexempt vehicle, stating that in
AV Mode, the subject vehicle will be provided with the same information
about the transmission shift position as the driver in a nonexempted
vehicle.\58\ In AV Mode, Ford states that the ADS requests a gear shift
via redundant controller area network (CAN) messages to the powertrain
control module (PCM).\59\ Ford states that it also continually receives
two separate CAN messages from the PCM regarding gear state, from which
it can determine the actual gear position.\60\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \57\ Id. at page 16.
    \58\ Id.
    \59\ Id.
    \60\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Ford is seeking an exemption from requirements in FMVSS No. 108
because the subject vehicle does not comply with requirements for
certain lighting-related controls, indicators, and performance elements
when the vehicle is in AV Mode.\61\ Ford states that meeting these
requirements is not necessary to support the driving task in the
absence of a human driver.\62\ Further, Ford states that should
controls remain accessible to riders, the occupants may select a
lighting setting that could adversely affect the ADS's driving action,
causing confusion and reducing safety for other road users and/or the
ADS-equipped vehicle.\63\ Ford asserts that the vehicle provides an
equivalent level of safety to a nonexempt vehicle because the ADS
system design addresses the driver control and communication
requirements by allowing the vehicle's ADS to communicate
electronically over the vehicle communication network.\64\ Also,
according to Ford, the system design meets the regulatory purpose in
communicating important safety information to the ADS and it allows the
ADS to react immediately to provide safe lighting performance.\65\ In
addition, should any error or loss of communication be detected, Ford
states

that the appropriate actions are taken by the vehicle to minimize risks
to safety.\66\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \61\ Id. at page 17.
    \62\ Id.
    \63\ Id.
    \64\ Id.
    \65\ Id.
    \66\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Ford is seeking an exemption from the requirements in FMVSS No. 111
that provide response time, linger time, and deactivation requirements
for the rearview image performance.\67\ Ford states that the rearview
image will not be displayed to human occupants, as the ADS is solely
responsible for the DDT and the occupants have no responsibility to
perform any driving actions.\68\ Ford states that in lieu of a
traditional review image, while in AV Mode, the ADS utilizes a
collection of sensors that meet the intended visibility requirements in
FMVSS No. 111, and allow the vehicle to detect the environment during
operation at all times.\69\ Ford states that while human drivers can
potentially be distracted if a rearview `image' lingers beyond the
length of time it takes for a backing maneuver, the ADS will not be
distracted.\70\ Ford asserts that requiring the ADS to disable its rear
sensing outside of backing events would decrease its ability to sense
the environment around the vehicle.\71\ Ford further asserts that, as a
result, the safety intent of the response time and linger time
requirements and the deactivation requirement are no longer
necessary.\72\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \67\ Id. at page 19.
    \68\ Id.
    \69\ Id.
    \70\ Id.
    \71\ Id.
    \72\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Ford seeks an exemption from the requirement in FMVSS No. 126 that
requires an ESC malfunction telltale that must be in front of, and in
clear view of the driver.\73\ Ford asserts that its approach to use the
CAN bus to communicate regulated telltales and indicators and control
the applicable regulated features enables the ADS to recognize and
respond to information typically provided to a human driver, thereby
providing equivalent safety to that of a nonexempted vehicle.\74\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \73\ Id. at page 21.
    \74\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Ford seeks an exemption from the requirements in FMVSS No. 135 that
require a foot control for actuating the service brakes and a parking
brake that is actuated by either a hand or foot.\75\ Ford is also
requesting exemption from the requirement for a warning indicator that
must be in front of and in clear view of the driver.\76\ Ford states
that the brake system of the vehicle will continue to meet the braking
performance requirements of the standard.\77\ Ford further states that
its approach to use the CAN bus to communicate regulated telltales and
indicators and to control the applicable regulated features enables the
ADS to recognize and respond to information typically provided to a
human driver.\78\ Ford asserts that this approach provides a level of
safety equivalent to that of a nonexempted vehicle.\79\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \75\ Id.
    \76\ Id.
    \77\ Id. at page 22.
    \78\ Id.
    \79\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Ford is also seeking an exemption from the requirements in FMVSS
No. 138 which require telltales that are ``mounted inside the occupant
compartment in front of, and in clear view of, the driver.'' \80\ While
the ADS is operational, Ford states that the ADS performs the DDT and
receives TPMS information electronically through the vehicle
communication network.\81\ Ford states that it does not intend to
provide a telltale to warn vehicle occupants of low pressure or TPMS
malfunction because such a warning would not accomplish the stated
purpose of FMVSS 138, which is ``to warn drivers of significant under-
inflation of tires and the resulting safety problems.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \80\ Id. at pages 22-23.
    \81\ Id. at page 23.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Ford asserts that the TPMS functions the same in both modes, with
the only differences being that telltales are not displayed in AV
Mode.\82\ Ford asserts that its AV's TPMS design satisfies the purposes
of FMVSS 138 S4.3 and S4.4 by communicating the required information
directly to the ADS system.\83\ Ford further notes that the ADS has
additional capabilities to react to the information about tire pressure
to help prevent the vehicle from being driven for extended periods on
significantly under-inflated tires and describes the vehicle's response
to signals indicating that a tire is significantly under-inflated
(i.e., more than 25% below the placard pressure, as defined in S4.2(a))
or there is a fault in the TPMS system.\84\ Ford asserts that since the
ADS-equipped vehicle has the same information as the nonexempted
vehicle, and the response to low tire pressure is the same in both
vehicles, the level of safety of the two vehicles is equivalent.\85\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \82\ Id.
    \83\ Id.
    \84\ Id.
    \85\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Public Interest Argument

    Ford asserts that granting this petition will allow a progressive
deployment to realize the potential of self-driving technology.\86\
Ford cites self-driving vehicles as one of the solutions to help enable
a new mobility future and states that as they reach scale, self-driving
vehicles ``have the potential to transform society through enhanced
safety, improved congestion and improved mobility for everyone
(including underserved populations such as the elderly and people with
disabilities).'' \87\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \86\ Id. at page 4.
    \87\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Meetings With Ford

    After submitting its petition on July 28, 2021, Ford contacted
NHTSA to request a meeting to discuss its petition. NHTSA met with Ford
on August 26, September 15, and October 25, 2021. A redacted version of
Ford's presentation slides from those meetings is included in the
docket referenced at the beginning of this notice.

IV. Agency's Review of Ford's Petition

    The agency has not yet made any judgment on the merits of Ford's
petition nor on the adequacy of the information submitted. NHTSA will
assess the merits of Ford's petition after receiving and considering
the public comments to this notice, the petition, and any additional
information that the agency receives from Ford.

V. Public Interest Considerations

    Section 30113 authorizes NHTSA to grant exemptions that are
consistent with the public interest and the Safety Act and authorizes
NHTSA to apply appropriate terms to any such grant. Whether granting
the exemption is consistent with the public interest and the objectives
of the Safety Act are required findings that are no less critical than
a discussion of the particular statutory basis on which the exemption
is sought (e.g., whether the subject vehicle provides an equivalent
level of safety to a nonexempt vehicle). Although NHTSA's mission is
primarily a safety mission, NHTSA's authority under section 30113
requires the agency to extend its consideration to issues beyond
traffic safety.\88\ NHTSA is seeking comment on the agency's
consideration of specific matters of

public interest in both deciding whether granting the exemption is
consistent with the public interest and in developing terms and
conditions with which the petitioner must comply if its petition is
granted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \88\ NHTSA stated, in the February 11, 2020 Federal Register
notice granting an exemption for the first ADS-equipped vehicle to
Nuro, that the broad authority to determine whether the public
interest and general goals of the Vehicle Safety Act will be served
by granting the exemption allows the Secretary to consider many
diverse effects of the exemption, including: The overall safety of
the transportation system beyond the analysis required in the safety
determination; how an exemption will further technological
innovation; economic impacts, such as consumer benefits; and
environmental effects. (85 FR 7826, 7828).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As the expert agency in automotive safety and the interpretation of
its existing standards, NHTSA has significant discretion in making the
safety findings required under these provisions. Further, the broad
authority to determine whether the public interest and general goals of
the Safety Act will be served by granting the exemption allows the
agency to consider many diverse effects of the exemption, including:
the overall safety of the transportation system beyond the analysis
required in the safety determination; how an exemption will further
technological innovation; economic impacts, such as consumer benefits;
and environmental effects.
    ADS vehicles have the potential to benefit our transportation
system significantly beyond the analysis required in the safety
determination. As NHTSA considers the potentially transformative impact
of ADS technology, it is also considering its role in encouraging the
use of ADS vehicles in ways that maximize their benefit to society.
Specifically, NHTSA is exploring its role and responsibility in
considering environmental impacts, accessibility, and equity when an
exemption is sought for an ADS-equipped vehicle. Climate,
accessibility, and equity, in addition to road safety, are important
public interest goals of the Department and NHTSA. NHTSA will also
continue to consider how exemptions affect the development of advanced
vehicle technologies.
    With regard to environmental impacts, NHTSA seeks to learn about
the interplay between fuel efficiency and ADS technologies. NHTSA seeks
public comment on whether it should adopt reporting requirements when
granting part 555 petitions for vehicles with ADS that would allow the
agency to better understand the energy use of the vehicles throughout
their service life and, possibly, to better assess, and quantify, the
environmental impacts of ADS-equipped vehicles. NHTSA is also seeking
comment regarding the weight it should give to the environmental
impacts of internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles when deciding
whether to grant an exemption to an ICE vehicle moving forward.
Finally, NHTSA is seeking comment about whether to seek from entities
that receive a grant of a petition information about how, exactly,
their vehicles would promote environmental justice.
    NHTSA seeks comment on the extent to which accessibility and equity
might be considered in either determining whether an exemption is in
the public interest or applying appropriate conditions to an exemption
as it is granted. Proponents of ADS technology often claim that ADS-
equipped vehicles would help advance greater transportation
accessibility for persons with disabilities. Ford's petition discusses
this potential benefit and specifically references improved mobility
for underserved populations, such as elderly persons and persons with
disabilities.\89\ NHTSA appreciates this potential and appreciates that
manufacturers are considering the benefits to underserved populations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \89\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NHTSA is interested in learning more about specific actions that
manufacturers and operators of ADS-equipped exempted vehicles are
taking to ensure that accessibility and equity goals will be met. For
example, we are considering seeking information from entities that
receive a grant of a petition about how they ensure that their ride-
hailing services comply with any applicable Americans with Disabilities
Act (ADA) requirements. NHTSA is also considering seeking information
about how many vehicles under a part 555 exemption would be wheelchair
accessible. Additionally, NHTSA is interested in what, specifically,
the manufacturer would do to ensure access to people with vision
disabilities, or to ensure that persons with wheelchairs, walkers, or
other mobilities devices, can safely transition from the vehicle to the
sidewalk and vice versa. NHTSA seeks comment on these questions about
accessibility.
    NHTSA is also considering seeking information about how the
exempted vehicles would be used to improve accessibility and equity in
serving underserved communities. The agency seeks comments on whether
an entity that receives a grant of a petition should be required to
provide plans about how it intends to ensure that access to its
services is equitable in terms of neighborhood, income levels, race and
ethnicity, age (etc.), and/or should be required to provide reports of
how it achieved those objectives through use of the exempted vehicles.
Should the agency require manufacturers granted an exemption to report
to NHTSA about how the exempted vehicles will be used to improve
accessibility and equity in serving underserved communities? Data
reported on these elements would help DOT and NHTSA assess if
assumptions about the beneficial societal impacts of ADS-equipped
vehicles are bearing out, and if not, why not.
    NHTSA is also considering seeking information about the economic
impacts of granting a petition. Many advocates of ADS technology argue
that deploying ADS-equipped vehicles will increase U.S. jobs and
innovation. For example, should the agency seek information about
potential job creation and displacement of workers? Should NHTSA seek
other information about how the grant would impact investment in the
U.S. economy, such as through the generation of tax revenue or
development of intellectual property?
    Further, NHTSA seeks comments on whether the agency should consider
additional matters of public interest in developing terms and
conditions with which a part 555 petitioner must comply if its petition
were granted. To the extent that you believe other areas should be
considered, please tell us how we can best promote the public interest
through the exercise of our discretion in granting exemptions and
establishing terms and conditions to such exemptions.

VI. Statement on Terms

    Section 30113 authorizes the Secretary, NHTSA by delegation, to
condition the grant of a temporary exemption ``on terms [NHTSA]
considers appropriate.'' \90\ The agency's authority to set terms is
broad. It is not limited solely to terms and conditions relevant to its
specific determination. Instead, this provision allows the agency to
set terms that would allow NHTSA to collect information about the
exempted vehicles that would service the public interest, such as
information concerning the performance of the ADS.\91\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \90\ 49 U.S.C. 30113(b)(1) (delegation of authority at 49 CFR
1.95).
    \91\ 85 FR 7826, 7840 (February 11, 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Once a manufacturer receives a temporary exemption from the
prohibitions of 49 U.S.C. 30112(a)(1), NHTSA can affect the use of
those vehicles produced pursuant to the exemption through the terms in
partially or fully granting the exemption or as it exercises its
enforcement authority (e.g., its safety defect authority). The agency's
authority to set terms is broad. Since the terms would be the primary
means of monitoring and affecting the operation of the exempted
vehicles, the agency would carefully consider whether to establish
terms and what types of terms to establish if it were to grant a
petition. The manufacturer would need to agree to abide by the terms
set for that

exemption in order to begin and continue producing vehicles pursuant to
that exemption.
    Due to the novel nature of ADS technology and NHTSA's interest in
better understanding the safety and utility of ADS-equipped vehicles,
if the petition were granted in whole or in part, the agency
anticipates applying conditions to the grant.
    NHTSA exercised its ability to apply a variety of terms when it
granted Nuro's petition for the first ADS-equipped vehicle exempted
under part 555.\92\ The terms NHTSA chose were designed to enhance the
public interest and included post-crash reporting, periodic reporting,
terms concerning cybersecurity, and certain general requirements. NHTSA
seeks comment on whether the agency should apply the same type of
conditions, and others, to Ford if NHTSA decides to grant its petition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \92\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NHTSA will carefully consider whether to establish terms and what
types of terms to establish if it were to grant Ford's petition. If
Ford's petition were granted, Ford would need to agree to abide by the
terms set for that exemption in order to begin and continue producing
vehicles pursuant to that exemption. Nothing in either the statute or
implementing regulations limits the application of these terms to the
period during which the exempted vehicles are produced. NHTSA could set
terms that continue to apply to the vehicles throughout their normal
service life if it deems that such application is necessary to be
consistent with the Safety Act.
    Thus, if NHTSA were to grant an exemption, in whole or in part, it
could establish, for example, reporting terms to ensure a continuing
flow of information to the agency throughout the normal service life of
the exempted vehicles, not just during the two-year period of
exemption. When NHTSA granted Nuro's exemption, NHTSA stated that the
terms would apply throughout the useful life of the vehicles. Beyond
the two-year exemption period, Ford could be subject to civil penalties
for failure to comply with the terms established as a condition for
granting the part 555 exemption.
    Given the uniqueness of Ford's vehicles, its petition, and public
safety concerns, extended reporting may be appropriate. Since only a
portion of the total mileage that the vehicles, if exempted, could be
expected to travel during their normal service life would have been
driven by the end of the exemption period, the data would need to be
reported over a longer period of time to enable the agency to make
sufficiently reliable judgments. Such judgments might include those
made in a retrospective review of the agency's determination about the
anticipated safety effects of the exemption.
    NHTSA could also establish terms to specify what the consequences
would be if the flow of information were to cease or become inadequate
during or after the exemption period. Other potential terms could
include limitations on vehicle operations (based upon speed, weather,
identified Operational Design Domains, road types, ownership, and
management, etc.). Conceivably, some conditions could be graduated,
i.e., restrictions could be progressively relaxed after a period of
demonstrated driving performance. Further, as with data-sharing, it may
be necessary to specify that these terms would apply to the exempted
vehicles beyond the two-year exemption period.
    NHTSA notes that its regulations at 49 CFR part 555 provide that
the agency can revoke a part 555 exemption if a manufacturer fails to
satisfy the terms of the exemption. NHTSA could also seek injunctive
relief.\93\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \93\ 49 U.S.C. 30163(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NHTSA seeks comment on whether the agency should apply the same
types of conditions that it applied to Nuro's exemption for ADS-
equipped occupantless vehicles. NHTSA seeks comment on not only whether
these conditions are appropriate to apply to Ford's exemption request,
but also whether there are additional terms that NHTSA should apply.
Ford's exemption request differs significantly from Nuro's in that the
request is for a passenger vehicle and it is not limited to 25 mph, as
in the case of the Nuro vehicle. As such, there are likely to be
additional terms that would be appropriate to apply to Ford's
exemption, if granted.
    Please comment on whether NHTSA should apply the following terms
and conditions to a potential grant of Ford's exemption request:

    1. Reporting within 24 hours of an exempt vehicle being involved
in any crash, to include: \94\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \94\ Ford is currently required to submit reports to NHTSA for
crashes involving ADS pursuant to NHTSA Standing General Order
(2021-01). More information about the General Order is available on
NHTSA's website at https://www.nhtsa.gov/laws-regulations/standing-general-order-crash-reporting-levels-driving-automation-2-5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    a. The data elements specified in 49 CFR part 563, Event Data
Recorders.\95\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \95\ See Table I-Reported Data Elements and Table II-Reported
Data Element Format. 85 FR 78426, 7841 (February 11, 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    b. If the ADS was in control of the vehicle during the event, a
detailed timeline of the 30 seconds leading up to the crash,
including a detailed read-out and interpretation of all sensors in
operation during that time period, the ADS's object detection and
classification output, and the vehicle actions taken (i.e., commands
for braking, throttle, steering, etc.).
    c. If a human operator took over control of the vehicle prior to
the event, a detailed timeline of the 30 seconds leading up to the
human operator taking over control, including a detailed read-out
and interpretation of all ADS sensors in operation during that time
period, the ADS's object detection and classification output, and
the vehicle actions taken (i.e., commands for braking, throttle,
steering, etc.).
    d. If a human operator was in control of the vehicle at any
point during or up to 30 seconds before the event, a detailed
timeline of any actions the human operator took that affected the
crash event, as well as any technical problems that could have
contributed to the crash (signal latency, poor field of view, etc.).
    e. Any additional information about the event that NHTSA deems
pertinent for determining either crash or injury causation,
including additional information related to the ADS or remote
operator system.
    2. Beginning 90 days after the date of the exemption grant, and
at an interval of every 90 days thereafter, a report detailing the
operation of each exempted vehicle in operation during that time
period. This report may provide this information either in aggregate
or on a per-vehicle basis, but it must include the following:
    a. A calculation of the total miles the vehicle has traveled
using the ADS during the report period, and heat maps of the
geofenced area in which the vehicle operates to illustrate travel
density.
    b. Detailed descriptions of any material changes made to the
subject vehicle's Operational Design Domain (ODD) or ADS software
during the reporting period.
    c. Detailed descriptions of any incidents in which any exempted
vehicle violated any local or State traffic law, whether operating
using the ADS or under human control.
    d. Detailed descriptions of any incidents in which the exempt
vehicles experienced a sustained acceleration of at least 0.7g on
any axis for at least 150 ms, or of any incidents in which the
vehicle had an unexpected interaction with humans or other objects
(other than crashes that require immediate reporting).
    e. Detailed descriptions of all instances in which a public
safety official, including law enforcement, attempted to interact
with an exempted vehicle, such as to pull it over, or contacted Ford
regarding an attempted interaction with an exempted vehicle.
    f. Detailed descriptions of any ``minimal risk condition
fallback'' events that occurred, even if no crash has occurred. If
the event has occurred because the vehicle self-diagnosed a
malfunction of a vehicle system, the report must include a detailed
description of the cause and nature of the malfunction, and what
remedial steps were taken. If the event was caused by the vehicle
encountering a

complex or unexpected driving situation, the report must include a
detailed timeline of the ADS's decision-making process that led to
the event, including any difficulties the ADS had in detecting and
classifying objects.
    g. In addition, Ford must make necessary staff available to meet
with NHTSA staff quarterly to discuss the status of its deployment
program.
    3. Ford must have a documented cybersecurity incident response
plan that includes its risk mitigation strategies and the incident
notification requirements listed below.
    a. Ford must cease operations of all exempt vehicles immediately
upon becoming aware of any cybersecurity incident involving the
exempt vehicles and any systems connected to the exempt vehicles
that has the potential to impact the safety of the exempt vehicles.
    b. No later than 24 hours after being made aware of a
cybersecurity incident, Ford must inform NHTSA's Office of Defects
Investigations (ODI) of the incident. Ford must also respond to any
additional requests for information from NHTSA on the cybersecurity
incident.
    c. Prior to resuming its operation of any exempt vehicles
following the discovery of a cybersecurity incident, Ford must
inform NHTSA of the steps it has taken to patch the vulnerability
and mitigate the risks associated with the incident, and receive
NHTSA approval to resume operation.
    4. Ford must be capable of issuing a ``stop order'' that causes
all deployed exempted vehicles to, as quickly as possible, cease
operations in a safe manner, in the event that NHTSA or Ford
determines that the exempted vehicles present an unreasonable or
unforeseen risk to safety.
    5. Ford must coordinate any planned deployment of the exempted
vehicles or change to the ADS/ODD with State and local authorities
with jurisdiction over the operation of the vehicle as required by
the laws or regulations of that jurisdiction.
    6. The exempted vehicles must comply with all State and local
laws and requirements at all times while in operation. Each vehicle
must be duly permitted, if applicable, and authorized to operate
within all properties and upon all roadways traversed.
    7. Ford must maintain ownership and operational control over the
exempted vehicle that are built pursuant to this exemption for the
life of those vehicles.
    8. Ford must create and maintain a hotline or other method of
communication for the public and Ford employees to directly
communicate feedback or potential safety concerns about the exempted
vehicles to the company.
    9. If there are other categories of data that should be
considered, please identify them and the purposes for which they
would be useful to the agency in carrying out its responsibilities
under the Safety Act.
    10. If the agency were to require the reporting of data, for
what period should the agency require it to be reported--the two-
year exemption period or the vehicles' entire normal service life?
    11. Given estimates that vehicles with ADS would generate
terabytes of data per vehicle per day, how should the need for data
be appropriately balanced with the burden on manufacturers of
providing and maintaining it and the ability of the agency to absorb
and use it effectively?
    12. As explained in the section above, NHTSA has broad authority
to determine whether the public interest and general goals of the
Safety Act will be served by granting an exemption. NHTSA seeks to
understand the many diverse effects of the exemption, including: the
overall safety of the transportation system beyond the analysis
required in the safety determination; how an exemption will further
technological innovation; whether the exemption will address
transportation accessibility and equity; economic impacts, such as
consumer benefits; and environmental effects.
    13. With regard to environmental impacts, how should NHTSA use
the part 555 exemptions to learn about the interplay between fuel
efficiency and ADS technologies? Should the agency adopt reporting
requirements that would allow the agency to better understand the
energy use of the vehicles throughout their service life and
possibly better assess, and quantify, the environmental impacts of
ADS-equipped vehicles? Should NHTSA require an entity whose petition
has been granted to provide data about, for example, how often and
how far its vehicles are driving around unoccupied vs. occupied? Is
there other information related to the environmental consequences
and effects of the vehicles covered by the petition that NHTSA
should require from entities granted an exemption?
    14. Should NHTSA consider the environmental impacts of ICE
vehicles when deciding whether granting an exemption to an ICE
vehicle is in the public interest?
    15. How should NHTSA consider accessibility in applying
appropriate conditions to an exemption if it were granted? As noted
above, many proponents of ADS technology often claim that ADS-
equipped vehicles could help advance greater transportation
accessibility for persons with disabilities. Should NHTSA impose
conditions on grants of part 555 exemptions to learn more about
specific actions that manufacturers and operators of ADS-equipped
exempted vehicles are planning, or have taken, to further the
attainment of accessibility goals? Should NHTSA seek information
from manufacturers granted an exemption as to how they ensure that
their ride-hailing services comply with any applicable Americans
with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements, how many vehicles would be
wheelchair accessible, how they reach people with disabilities to
offer access to ride sharing services, or whether the exempt
vehicles provide other accommodations for individuals with
disabilities, such as communication and/or human-machine interface
(HMI) features designed for individuals with sensory disabilities
(such as sight or hearing) or cognitive disabilities? Should NHTSA
require grantees to report on efforts, such as research or community
outreach, that the manufacturer is planning, or has taken, to
increase the likelihood that accessibility goals will be met?
Comments are requested on whether there is other information related
to accessibility that NHTSA should require from an entity when
granting its petition.
    16. How should NHTSA consider equity in applying appropriate
conditions to an exemption if it were granted? For example, should
NHTSA require entities receiving a grant of their petition to report
how the exempted vehicles were used to improve accessibility and
equity in serving underserved communities? Should such an entity be
required to provide plans about how it intends to ensure that access
to its services is equitable in terms of neighborhood, income
levels, race and ethnicity, age (etc.), and/or provide reports of
how it achieved those objectives through use of the exempted
vehicles? Should entities receiving a petition grant be required to
report on barriers they encountered to deploying ADS-equipped
vehicles in underserved communities and how those barriers could be
overcome? Should such an entity be required to provide demographic
data about its services, or report on efforts, such as research or
community outreach, that the manufacturer is planning or has taken
to ensure better that equity goals will be met? Comments are
requested on whether there is other information related to equity
that NHTSA should require when granting a petition.
    17. How should NHTSA consider economic impacts when applying
appropriate conditions to an exemption if it were granted?

VII. Public Participation

A. Request for Comment and Comment Period

    The agency seeks comment from the public on the merits of Ford's
petition for a temporary exemption from portions of seven FMVSS. NHTSA
is also seeking comment on the potential types of terms the agency
should set if the agency decides to grant Ford's petition.
    NHTSA is providing a 30-day comment period. After considering
public comments and other available information, NHTSA will publish a
notice of final action on the petition in the Federal Register.

B. Instructions for Submitting Comments

How long do I have to submit comments?
    Please see DATES section at the beginning of this document.
How do I prepare and submit comments?
     Your comments must be written in English.
     To ensure that your comments are correctly filed in the
Docket, please include the Docket Number shown at the beginning of this
document in your comments.

     If you are submitting comments electronically as a PDF
(Adobe) File, NHTSA asks that the documents be submitted using the
Optical Character Recognition (OCR) process, thus allowing NHTSA to
search and copy certain portions of your submissions. Comments may be
submitted to the docket electronically by logging onto the Docket
Management System website at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
online instructions for submitting comments.
     You may also submit two copies of your comments, including
the attachments, to Docket Management at the address given above under
ADDRESSES.
    Please note that pursuant to the Data Quality Act, in order for
substantive data to be relied upon and used by the agency, it must meet
the information quality standards set forth in the OMB and DOT Data
Quality Act guidelines. Accordingly, we encourage you to consult the
guidelines in preparing your comments. OMB's guidelines may be accessed
at http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/fedreg/reproducible.html. DOT's
guidelines may be accessed at http://www.bts.gov/programs/statistical_policy_and_research/data_quality_guidelines.
How do I submit confidential business information?
    If you wish to submit any information under a claim of
confidentiality, you must submit your request directly to NHTSA's
Office of the Chief Counsel. Requests for confidentiality are governed
by part 512. NHTSA is currently treating electronic submission as an
acceptable method for submitting confidential business information to
the agency under part 512. If you would like to submit a request for
confidential treatment, you may email your submission to Dan Rabinovitz
in the Office of the Chief Counsel at [email protected] or you
may contact Dan for a secure file transfer link. At this time, you
should not send a duplicate hardcopy of your electronic CBI submissions
to DOT headquarters. If you claim that any of the information or
documents provided to the agency constitute confidential business
information within the meaning of 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4), or are protected
from disclosure pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1905, you must submit supporting
information together with the materials that are the subject of the
confidentiality request, in accordance with part 512, to the Office of
the Chief Counsel. Your request must include a cover letter setting
forth the information specified in our confidential business
information regulation (49 CFR 512.8) and a certificate, pursuant to
Sec.  512.4(b) and part 512, appendix A. In addition, you should submit
a copy, from which you have deleted the claimed confidential business
information, to the Docket at the address given above.
Will the Agency consider late comments?
    We will consider all comments that Docket Management receives
before the close of business on the comment closing date indicated
above under DATES. To the extent possible, we will also consider
comments that Docket Management receives after that date.
How can I read the comments submitted by other people?
    You may see the comments on the internet. To read the comments on
the internet, go to https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for accessing the dockets.
    Please note that, even after the comment closing date, we will
continue to file relevant information in the Docket as it becomes
available. Further, some people may submit late comments. Accordingly,
we recommend that you periodically check the Docket for new material.
    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30113 and 49 U.S.C. 30166; delegations of
authority at 49 CFR 1.95.

    Issued in Washington, DC, under authority delegated pursuant to
49 CFR 1.95.
Steven S. Cliff,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2022-15556 Filed 7-20-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 100 (Wednesday, May 23, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 30445-30448]
[FR Doc No: 2012-12459]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-2012-0368]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone, Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway; Wrightsville Beach,
NC

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to establish a temporary safety zone
on the waters of the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway at Wrightsville
Beach, North Carolina. The safety zone will temporarily restrict vessel
movement commencing Sept 1, 2012. The safety zone is necessary to
provide for the safety of mariners on navigable waters during
maintenance on the U.S. 74/76 Bascule Bridge crossing the Atlantic
Intracoastal Waterway, mile 283.1, at Wrightsville Beach, North
Carolina.

DATES: Comments and related material must be received by the Coast
Guard on or before June 22, 2012.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number using
any one of the following methods:
    (1) Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
    (2) Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (3) Mail or Delivery: Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S.
Department of Transportation, West

Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC 20590-0001. Deliveries accepted between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal holidays. The telephone
number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    See the ``Public Participation and Request for Comments'' portion
of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below for further instructions
on submitting comments. To avoid duplication, please use only one of
these three methods.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or email CWO3 Joseph M. Edge, U.S. Coast Guard Sector North
Carolina; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you
have questions on viewing or submitting material to the docket, call
Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone (202)
366-9826.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Acronyms

DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

A. Public Participation and Request for Comments

    We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting
comments and related materials. All comments received will be posted
without change to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any
personal information you have provided.

1. Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
rulemaking, 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 at
http://www.regulations.gov, or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but
please use only one of these means. If you submit a comment online, it
will be considered received by the Coast Guard when you successfully
transmit the comment. If you fax, hand deliver, or mail your comment,
it will be considered as having been received by the Coast Guard when
it is received at the Docket Management Facility. We recommend that you
include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a
telephone number in the body of your document so that we can contact
you if we have questions regarding your submission.
    To submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov,
type the docket number (USCG-2012-0368) in the ``SEARCH'' box and click
``SEARCH.'' Click on ``Submit a Comment'' on the line associated with
this rulemaking.
    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. We will consider all comments and
material received during the comment period and may change the rule
based on your comments.

2. Viewing Comments and Documents

    To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble
as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov,
type the docket number (USCG-2012-0368) in the ``SEARCH'' box and click
``SEARCH.'' Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with
this rulemaking. You may also visit the Docket Management Facility in
Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the Department of Transportation
West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590,
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays.

3. Privacy Act

    Anyone can search the electronic form of comments received into any
of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or
signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association,
business, labor union, etc.). You may review a Privacy Act notice
regarding our public dockets in the January 17, 2008, issue of the
Federal Register (73 FR 3316).

4. Public Meeting

    We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a
request for one, using one of the methods specified under ADDRESSES.
Please explain why you believe a public meeting would be beneficial. If
we determine that one would aid this rulemaking, we will hold one at a
time and place announced by a later notice in the Federal Register.

B. Basis and Purpose

    North Carolina Department of Transportation has awarded a contract
to American Bridge Company of Coraopolis, PA to perform bridge
maintenance on the U.S. 74/76 Bascule Bridge crossing the Atlantic
Intracoastal Waterway, mile 283.1, at Wrightsville Beach, North
Carolina. The contract provides for cleaning, painting, steel repair,
and grid floor replacement to commence on September 1, 2012 with a
completion date of May 1, 2013. The contractor will utilize a 40 foot
deck barge with a 40 foot beam as a work platform and for equipment
staging. This safety zone is needed to provide a safety buffer to
transiting vessels as bridge repairs present potential hazards to
mariners and property due to reduction horizontal clearance.

C. Discussion of Proposed Rule

    The Coast Guard is proposing a temporary safety zone that would
encompass the waters directly under the U.S. 74/76 Bascule Bridge
crossing the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway, mile 283.1, at
Wrightsville Beach, North Carolina (34[deg]13'07'' N, 077[deg]48'46''
W). All vessels transiting the this section of the waterway requiring a
horizontal clearance of greater than 50 feet will be required to make a
one hour advanced notification to the U.S. 74/76 Bascule Bridge tender
while the safety zone is in effect. This zone will be in effect from 8
a.m. September 1, 2012 through 8 p.m. May 1, 2013.

D. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes
and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our
analyses based on a number of these statutes or executive orders.

1. Regulatory Planning and Review

    This proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action under
section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review,
as supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and
Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential
costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Executive Order 12866 or
under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and
Budget has not reviewed it under those Orders. This rule would not
restrict traffic from transiting a portion of the Atlantic Intracoastal
Waterway, it imposes a one hour notification to ensure the waterway is
clear of impediment to allow passage to vessels requiring a horizontal
clearance of greater than 50 feet.

2. Impact on Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have
considered the impact of this proposed rule on small entities. The
Coast Guard certifies

under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
This proposed rule would affect the following entities, some of which
may be small entities: the owners or operators of commercial tug and
barge companies, recreational and commercial fishing vessels intending
to transit the specified portion of Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway from
8 a.m. September 1, 2012 through 8 p.m. May 1, 2013.
    This safety zone would not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities for the following reasons.
Although the safety zone will apply to this section of the Atlantic
Intracoastal Waterway, vessel traffic will be able to request passage
by providing a one hour advanced notification. Before the effective
period, the Coast Guard will issue maritime advisories widely available
to the users of the waterway. If you think that your business,
organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity
and that this rule would have a significant economic impact on it,
please submit a comment (see ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it
qualifies and how and to what degree this rule would economically
affect it.

3. Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this proposed rule. If the rule would affect
your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you
have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance,
please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT, above. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this proposed rule or any
policy or action of the Coast Guard.

4. Collection of Information

    This proposed rule will not call for a new collection of
information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-
3520.).

5. Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that Order and
determined that this rule does not have implications for federalism.

6. Protest Activities

    The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters.
Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the ``For Further
Information Contact'' section to coordinate protest activities so that
your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or
security of people, places or vessels.

7. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for
inflation) or more in any one year. Though this proposed rule would not
result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule
elsewhere in this preamble.

8. Taking of Private Property

    This proposed rule would not cause a taking of private property or
otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630,
Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected
Property Rights.

9. Civil Justice Reform

    This proposed rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and
3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize
litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

10. Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13045,
Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and would not
create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might
disproportionately affect children.

11. Indian Tribal Governments

    This proposed rule does not have tribal implications under
Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments, because it would not have a substantial direct effect on
one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

12. Energy Effects

    This proposed rule is not a ``significant energy action'' under
Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use because it is
not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866 and
is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply,
distribution, or use of energy. The Administrator of the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a
significant energy action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement
of Energy Effects under Executive Order 13211.

13. Technical Standards

    This proposed rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we
did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

14. Environment

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland
Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction
M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and
have made a preliminary determination that this action is one of a
category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a
significant effect on the human environment. This proposed rule
involves the establishment of a temporary safety zone. This rule is
categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(g) of
Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. A preliminary environmental
analysis checklist supporting this determination and a Categorical
Exclusion Determination are available in the docket where indicated
under ADDRESSES. We seek any comments or information that may lead to
the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this proposed
rule.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

    Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes
to amend 33 CFR part 165 as follows:

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

    1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as
follows:

    Authority:  33 U.S.C. 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701, 3306, 3703;
50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, 160.5; Pub. L.
107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation
No. 0170.1.

    2. Add Sec.  165.T05-0368 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T05-0368  Safety Zone; Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway,
Wrightsville Beach, NC.

    (a) Regulated Area. The following area is a safety zone: This zone
includes the waters directly under and 100 yards either side of the
U.S. 74/76 Bascule Bridge crossing the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway,
mile 283.1, at Wrightsville Beach, North Carolina (34[deg]13'07'' N
077[deg]48'46'' W).
    (b) Regulations. The general safety zone regulations found in 33
CFR 165.23 apply to the safety zone created by this temporary section,
Sec.  165.T05-0368. In addition the following regulations apply:
    (1) All vessels and persons are prohibited from entering this zone,
except as authorized by the Coast Guard Captain of the Port North
Carolina.
    (2) All vessels requiring greater than 50 feet horizontal clearance
to safely transit through the U.S. 74/76 Bascule Bridge crossing the
Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway, mile 283.1, at Wrightsville Beach,
North Carolina must contact the bridge tender on VHF-FM marine band
radio channels 13 and 16 one hour in advance of intended transit.
    (3) Persons or vessels requiring entry into or passage within the
zone must request authorization from the Captain of the Port North
Carolina or his designated representative by telephone at (910) 343-
3882 or on VHF-FM marine band radio channel 16.
    (4) All Coast Guard assets enforcing this safety zone can be
contacted on VHF-FM marine band radio channels 13 and 16.
    (5) The operator of any vessel within or in the immediate vicinity
of this safety zone shall: (i) Stop the vessel immediately upon being
directed to do so by any commissioned, warrant or petty officer on
board a vessel displaying a Coast Guard Ensign, and
    (ii) Proceed as directed by any commissioned, warrant or petty
officer on board a vessel displaying a Coast Guard Ensign.
    (c) Definitions. (1) Captain of the Port North Carolina means the
Commander, Coast Guard Sector North Carolina or any Coast Guard
commissioned, warrant or petty officer who has been authorized by the
Captain of the Port to act on his behalf.
    (2) Designated representative means any Coast Guard commissioned,
warrant, or petty officer who has been authorized by the Captain of the
Port North Carolina to assist in enforcing the safety zone described in
paragraph (a) of this section.
    (d) Enforcement. The U.S. Coast Guard may be assisted by Federal,
State and local agencies in the patrol and enforcement of the zone.
    (e) Enforcement period. This section will be enforced from 8 a.m.
September 1, 2012 through 8 p.m. May 1, 2013 unless cancelled earlier
by the Captain of the Port.

    Dated: May 10, 2012.
A. Popiel,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard Captain of the Port Sector North Carolina.
[FR Doc. 2012-12459 Filed 5-22-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register: August 18, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 159)]
[Notices]
[Page 51119-51120]
[DOCID:fr18au10-155]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of Investor Education and Advocacy, Washington, DC
20549-0213.

Extension:
    Regulation S-AM; SEC File No. 270-548; OMB Control No. 3235-
0609.

    Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget a
request for approval of extension of the previously approved collection
of information provided for in Regulation S-AM (17 CFR Part 248,
Subpart B), under the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act of 2003
(Pub. L. 108-159, Section 214, 117 Stat. 1952 (2003)) (``FACT Act''),
the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78a et seq.), the
Investment Company Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80a-1 et seq.), and the
Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80b-1 et seq.).
    Regulation S-AM implements the requirements of Section 214 of the
FACT Act as applied to brokers, dealers, and investment companies, as
well as investment advisers and transfer agents that are registered
with the Commission (collectively, ``Covered Persons''). As directed by
Section 214 of the FACT Act, before a receiving affiliate may make
marketing solicitations based on the communication of certain consumer
financial information from a Covered Person, the Covered Person must
provide a notice to each affected individual informing the individual
of his or her right to prohibit such marketing. The regulation
potentially applies to all of the approximately 22,106 Covered Persons
registered with the Commission, although only approximately 15,474 of
them have one or more corporate affiliates, and the regulation would
require only approximately 2,211 of them to provide consumers with
notice and an opt-out opportunity.

    The Commission staff estimates that there are approximately 12,021
Covered Persons having one or more affiliates, and that they would
require an average one-time burden of 1 hour to review affiliate
marketing practices, for a total of 12,021 hours, at a total staff cost
of approximately $2,524,410. The staff also estimates that
approximately 2,147 Covered Persons would be required to provide notice
and opt-out opportunities to consumers, and would incur an average
first-year burden of 18 hours in doing so, for a total estimated first-
year burden of 38,646 hours, at a total staff cost of approximately
$10,279,836. With regard to continuing notice burdens, the staff
estimates that each of the approximately 2,147 Covered Persons required
to provide notice and opt-out opportunities to consumers would incur a
burden of approximately 4 hours per year to create and deliver notices
to new consumers and record any opt outs that are received on an
ongoing basis, for a total of 8,588 hours, at a total staff cost of
approximately $489,516 per year.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid control number.
    Comments should be submitted (i) in writing to: Desk Officer for
the Securities and Exchange Commission, Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10102, New
Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503, or by an e-mail to:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>and (ii) in writing to: Charles Boucher
Director/Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission,
c/o Shirley Martinson, 6432 General Green Way, Alexandria, VA 22312, or
by e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Comments must be submitted to OMB
within 30 days of this notice.

    Dated: August 11, 2010.
Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-20374 Filed 8-17-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8010-01-P