[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 12 (Thursday, January 18, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 2607-2614]
[FR Doc No: 2018-00671]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 571

[Docket No. NHTSA-2018-0009]

Removing Regulatory Barriers for Vehicles With Automated Driving
Systems

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

ACTION: Request for comment (RFC).

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

SUMMARY: NHTSA seeks public comments to identify any regulatory
barriers in the existing Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS)
to the testing, compliance certification and compliance verification of
motor vehicles with Automated Driving Systems (ADSs) and certain
unconventional interior designs. NHTSA is focusing primarily, but not
exclusively, on vehicles with ADSs that lack controls for a human
driver; e.g., steering wheel, brake pedal or accelerator pedal. The
absence of manual driving controls, and thus of a human driver, poses
potential barriers to testing, compliance certification and compliance
verification. For example, many of the FMVSS refer to the ``driver'' or
``driver's seating position'' in specifying where various vehicle
features and systems need to be located so that they can be seen and/or
used by a person sitting in that position. Further, the compliance test
procedures of some FMVSS depend on the presence of such things as a
human test driver who can follow instructions on test driving maneuvers
or a steering wheel that can be used by an automated steering machine.
NHTSA also seeks comments on the research that would be needed to
determine how to amend the FMVSS in order to remove such barriers,
while retaining those existing safety requirements that will be needed
and appropriate for those vehicles. In all cases, the Agency's goal
would be to ensure the maintenance of currently required levels of
safety performance. These comments will aid the Agency in setting
research priorities as well as inform its subsequent actions to lay a
path for innovative vehicle designs and technologies that feature ADSs.

DATES: Comments are due no later than March 5, 2018.

ADDRESSES: Comments must refer to the docket number above and be
submitted by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility, M-30, U.S. Department of
Transportation, West Building, Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: U.S. Department of
Transportation, West Building, Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. Eastern
time, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Regardless of how you submit your comments, you must include the
docket number identified in the heading of this notice.
    Note that all comments received, including any personal information
provided, will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov.
Please see the ``Privacy Act'' heading below.
    You may call the Docket Management Facility at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov or the street
address listed above. We will continue to file relevant information in
the Docket as it becomes available.
    Privacy Act: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits
comments from the public to better inform its decision-making process.
DOT posts these comments, without edit, including any personal
information the commenter provides, to http://www.regulations.gov, as
described in the system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can
be reviewed at https://www.transportation.gov/privacy. Anyone can
search the electronic form of all 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.).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
    For research issues, John Harding, Intelligent Technologies
Research Division, Office of Vehicle Crash Avoidance and Electronic
Controls Research, telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>, email:
[email protected];
    For rulemaking issues, David Hines, Director, Office of Crash
Avoidance Standards, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email [email protected];
    For legal issues, Stephen Wood, Assistant Chief Counsel, Vehicle
Rulemaking and Harmonization, Office of Chief Counsel,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
email [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Overview
II. Automation Revolution
III. Changes in Vehicle Interior Designs and Their Effect on
Testing, Certification and Compliance Verification Under the Federal
Safety Standards
IV. Initial Agency Efforts To Identify Testing, Certification and
Compliance Verification Issues
V. Requests for Comment
A. Barriers to Testing, Certification and Compliance Verification
B. Research Needed To Address Those Barriers and NHTSA's Role in
Conducting it
VI. Public Participation
Appendix
    1. Executive Summary of the Volpe Report
    2. List of Standards Identified in the Volpe Report

I. Overview

    NHTSA wants to avoid impeding progress with unnecessary or
unintended regulatory barriers to motor vehicles that have Automated
Driving Systems (ADS) and unconventional designs, especially those with
unconventional interior designs. These barriers may complicate or may
even make impossible the testing and certification of motor vehicles.
At this stage, the Agency is primarily, but not exclusively, concerned
with vehicles with ADSs that do not have the means for human driving,
e.g., a steering wheel and brake and accelerator pedals. NHTSA is also
interested in the additional testing and certification problems for
vehicles with ADSs and with seating or other systems that have multiple
modes, such as front seats that rotate. Some FMVSS, therefore, may pose
barriers to the testing and certification of these vehicles.
    To enable vehicles with ADSs and with unconventional interiors
while maintaining those existing safety requirements that will be
needed and appropriate for those vehicles, NHTSA is developing plans
and proposals for removing or modifying existing regulatory barriers to
testing and compliance certification in those areas for which existing
data and knowledge are sufficient to support decision-making. In other
areas, plans and proposals cannot be developed until the completion of
near term research to determine how to revise the test procedures for
those vehicles. In all

cases, the Agency's goals would be to ensure that the safety
performance currently required by the FMVSS is as effective and needed
for safety in vehicles with unconventional interiors (or exteriors) as
in conventionally-designed vehicles.
    The Agency is mindful that, in some cases, the most appropriate
response to an existing requirement in a FMVSS that may complicate or
may even make impossible to test a motor vehicle to assess compliance
with that requirement may not be to ask how the requirement can be
adapted to apply to motor vehicles without manual driving controls.
Instead, a more appropriate response may be to ask whether the
requirement should be applied in any form to those motor vehicles.
These requirements may serve a safety purpose in vehicles with manual
driving controls, but may not in vehicles without such means of
control. For example, there may not be any need to require that the
telltales \1\ and other displays in a vehicle that does not have any
manual driving controls be visible either to the occupant of a
particular seating position or even to any occupant at all. In
addition, some requirements may serve a safety purpose in vehicles that
carry human occupants, but not in vehicles that will not carry any
occupants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ As defined in FMVSS No. 101, Control and Displays,
``telltale means an optical signal that, when illuminated, indicates
the actuation of a device, a correct or improper functioning or
condition, or a failure to function.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To these ends, NHTSA is soliciting public comments on (1) the
barriers identified thus far, (2) any as of yet unidentified, barriers,
(3) whether the requirements or test procedures creating those barriers
should be modified to eliminate the testing difficulties or should
simply be amended so that the requirements do not apply to vehicles
without means of manual control, (4) the research that needs to be done
to determine how to remove some of the barriers; (5) and how to
prioritize this research and any follow-on rulemaking proceedings.
    This input will help NHTSA to plan and undertake more comprehensive
and strategic efforts to remove barriers and to develop a stronger,
more collaborative research plan that will complement research by the
motor vehicle industry and other stakeholders. This will enable the
Agency to use its resources as efficiently as possible in moving toward
eliminating potential regulatory barriers to innovation.

II. Automation Revolution

    Automotive transportation is evolving faster today than it has at
any time since the introduction of the first motor vehicle. Artificial
intelligence, combined with rapid improvements in sensors, such as
cameras, lidar,\2\ and radar, is beginning to enable motor vehicles to
drive themselves.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Lidar (light detection and ranging) is a type of sensor that
continually fires beams of laser light, and then measures how long
it takes for the light to return to the sensor. The measurements are
used to create three-dimensional images of a vehicle's surroundings,
everything from cars to cyclists to pedestrians to fixed objects
like poles and trees, in a variety of environments and under a
variety of lighting conditions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The introduction of vehicles with ADSs into the fleet has the
potential to reduce injuries, the loss of life, and property damage,
reduce congestion, enhance mobility, and improve productivity.\3\ NHTSA
anticipates that automation can serve a vital safety role given that
human error or choice are estimated to be the critical reason in 94
percent \4\ of crashes. In the best of circumstances, people make
errors in judgment or action. In the best of circumstances, human
drivers make errors in judgment or action. Many people drive in less
favorable circumstances as a result of the choices they make. Despite
decades of efforts by NHTSA, States, local jurisdictions, safety
groups, and industry, many people continue to choose to drive when they
are fatigued, intoxicated, speeding, unbelted, or distracted. To the
extent that ADSs are able to support and perhaps eventually replace
human drivers, human error and unsafe choices would likely be reduced
as causes of crashes. As the Federal agency whose primary mission is to
reduce motor vehicle related deaths and injuries, NHTSA is excited
about these prospects and is working with industry and other
stakeholders to help make them a reality.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ U.S. Department of Transportation, Automated Driving
Systems--A Vision for Safety, 2017, p. i-11 (https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.dot.gov/files/documents/13069a-ads2.0_090617_v9a_tag.pdf; last accessed November 8, 2017).
    \4\ The National Motor Vehicle Crash Causation Survey (NMVCCS),
conducted from 2005 to 2007, was aimed at collecting on-scene
information about the events and associated factors leading up to
crashes involving light vehicles. Several facets of crash occurrence
were investigated during data collection, namely the pre-crash
movement, critical pre-crash event, critical reason, and the
associated factors. A weighted sample of 5,470 crashes was
investigated over a period of two and a half years, which represents
an estimated 2,189,000 crashes nationwide. About 4,031,000 vehicles,
3,945,000 drivers, and 1,982,000 passengers were estimated to have
been involved in these crashes. The critical reason, which is the
last event in the crash causal chain, was assigned to the driver in
94 percent (2.2%)[dagger] of the crashes. In about 2
percent (0.7%) of the crashes, the critical reason was
assigned to a vehicle component's failure or degradation, and in 2
percent (1.3%) of crashes, it was attributed to the
environment (slick roads, weather, etc.). Among an estimated
2,046,000 drivers who were assigned critical reasons, recognition
errors accounted for about 41 percent (2.1%), decision
errors 33 percent (3.7%), and performance errors 11
percent (2.7%) of the crashes.
    A fact sheet containing more detail can be found at https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/812115.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Changes in Vehicle Interior Designs and Their Effect on Testing,
Certification and Compliance Verification Under the Federal Safety
Standards

    Part of NHTSA's responsibility in carrying out its safety mission
is not only to develop and set new safety standards for new motor
vehicles and motor vehicle equipment, but also to modify existing
standards as necessary to respond to changing circumstances such as the
introduction of new technologies. Some old standards or portions of
standards may no longer be needed or at least need to be updated to
keep them relevant. Examples of previous technological transitions that
triggered the need to adapt and/or replace requirements in the FMVSS
include the replacing of analog dashboards by digital ones,\5\ the
replacing of mechanical control systems by electronic ones \6\ and then
by wireless ones, and the first production of electric vehicles in
appreciable numbers.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 70 FR 48295 (August 17, 2005).
    \6\ 60 FR 62061 (December 4, 1995).
    \7\ See, e.g., 59 FR 11004 (March 9, 1994) and 59 FR 49901
(September 30, 1994).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The existing FMVSS can be found in the Code of Federal Regulations
at 49 CFR part 571. NHTSA has over 60 FMVSS today.
    The FMVSS specify minimum performance requirements and test
procedures for brakes, accelerator controls, electronic stability
control, seat belts, airbags, exterior lighting and interior warning
telltales that illuminate to alert the driver when there is a vehicle
malfunction, and for other equipment. Manufacturers are prohibited from
selling vehicles and vehicle equipment unless they comply with all
applicable FMVSS and their compliance has been self-certified by their
manufacturer.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 49 U.S.C. 30112(a)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Almost all of NHTSA's FMVSS were developed and established well
before vehicles with ADSs became a practicable possibility. As a
result, the performance requirements and test procedures in many of the
FMVSS are based on the assumption that the driver

will be human, will sit in the vehicle's left front seat to drive (in
left-hand drive vehicles), and will need certain controls to be
accessible and telltales and other displays to be viewable in order to
do the driving. A further and even more basic assumption is that there
will be at least one occupant in each vehicle. In the case of ADS
delivery vehicles without manual driving controls, this assumption may
prove incorrect. If, instead, a vehicle is designed so that only an ADS
can drive it and vehicle designers modify the passenger compartment to
take advantage of the flexibility afforded them if a human driver is
not needed, then many of those assumptions will likely be invalid for
that vehicle, and some may be actually problematic from a testing
perspective.
    NHTSA has set out below some illustrative examples of potential
problems with the existing FMVSS. The Agency requests commenters to
identify other potential problems.
     If the FMVSS can no longer specify where controls and
displays are located by requiring them to be visible to or within the
reach of a person sitting in the driver's seat, then it is unclear for
which person or persons in which seating position or positions must
they be visible to or within the reach of or even if they are necessary
at all.
     After the barriers to determining compliance are removed
from the FMVSS, the Agency will turn to other closely related questions
such as whether there is a continued need for certain current
performance requirements in the FMVSS. For example, among the questions
that the agency would need to address are: Would occupants still need
warning telltales and other displays to be viewable if they did not
have any means of driving their vehicles? Could there be any risk of
adverse safety consequences if some or all of those warnings and
messages were not provided to the occupants of those vehicles either
before or during trips? If a vehicle, such as an ADS delivery vehicle
without manual driving controls, were unlikely to be occupied during
trips, would there be any safety need for warning telltales and other
displays to be viewable?
     If future vehicles with ADSs lack any means of human
control, it is unclear how the Agency and the manufacturers can conduct
compliance tests (such as those for stopping distance) that are
currently performed by human test drivers performing prescribed driving
maneuvers on test tracks.
     FMVSS No. 126, Electronic stability control systems for
light vehicles, specifies the use of an automated steering machine that
depends on a vehicle's steering wheel to steer vehicles when they are
tested for compliance. If a vehicle with ADS is not equipped with a
steering wheel because the ADS will do all of the driving, the agency
would need to determine how to amend the standard to enable the agency
to conduct stability control testing and maintain the current level of
effectiveness.
     Some vehicles with ADSs may have unique seating
configurations that may make it impossible for existing crash
protection requirements, test procedures and test devices (e.g.,
anthropomorphic dummies) to evaluate adequately the level of
crashworthiness protection provided.
     There may be other existing performance requirements and
test procedures that would fail to accommodate unconventional designs.
If there are, the Agency will need to identify them and determine how
the Agency should amend them in ways maintain the current level of
effectiveness.
     There may be some safety attributes or testing procedures
that will no longer have sufficient value in a vehicle whose usage is
anticipated to be predominantly automated, but still retains manual
driving controls.
    The Agency wishes to address these issues (and many others) in the
coming months and years. We anticipate doing so publicly, seeking all
available research and public input to help us adapt the FMVSS and
possibly adopt other measures that are well-calibrated to promote
innovation, respond to changing circumstances and address emerging
technologies while maintaining safety.
    We want to emphasize, in an attempt to ensure that there is not any
misunderstanding about the source and nature of the barriers or about
the vehicles affected by those barriers, that the FMVSS (or any other
kind of legally-binding standards) do not have any provisions designed
to address the self-driving capability of a motor vehicle. Further,
nothing in the existing FMVSS prohibit ADS. Likewise, nothing in those
standards poses testing or certification challenges for vehicles with
ADSs so long as the vehicles have means of manual control and
conventional seating.
    If, however, manufacturers design vehicles with ADSs not only lack
manual driving controls, but also have unconventional, flexible
seating, i.e., seats that slide and/or rotate, then under the Agency's
line of interpretations involving vehicle systems that have multiple
modes, there may be testing or even compliance difficulties.\9\ Similar
problems might be encountered by vehicles with ADSs equipped with
retractable manual driving controls.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See, e.g., May 6, 1986 letter to Paul Utans regarding a
Subaru with two adjustment positions for suspension--a high one and
a low one. In it, NHTSA stated that it reserves the right to
activate either mode in conducting compliance tests.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Thus, it is not the inclusion of an ADS in a new vehicle that
complicates testing and certifying the compliance of the vehicle to the
existing FMVSS. Testing and certifying compliance potentially becomes
complicated only if a manufacturer wishes to go a step further and
design a vehicle with ADS but without a steering wheel, brake pedal and
accelerator pedal or with novel configurations or orientations for
certain vehicle systems. As noted above, this problem arises because
the FMVSS, as currently written, are premised on the presence of means
of manual control and on conventional seating configurations and
orientations.
    Although the Agency may have a degree of flexibility in
interpreting some of its existing FMVSS to accommodate innovative
interior designs, in most instances, it will be necessary to amend the
FMVSS. The FMVSS and the rulemaking process through which they are
established and amended are subject to the Administrative Procedure
Act,\10\ the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Vehicle
Safety Act),\11\ other statutes, and various Executive Orders and
guidance documents from the Office of Management and Budget. Together,
they ensure the FMVSS meet the requirements and goals set by Congress
and are adopted only after sufficient opportunities for public
participation and careful consideration and analysis of available
information and public comments. Under the Vehicle Safety Act,
moreover, the FMVSS need to be ``objective, practicable, and meet the
need for safety'' when initially issued and must remain so after being
amended. If NHTSA revises a test procedure in an FMVSS to accommodate
an innovative new vehicle design, it must make sure that the FMVSS
continues to be objective and practicable and meet the need for safety.
Accomplishing this goal will, in a number of instances, require
research to develop revised test procedures and performance criteria.
Defining the needed research and establishing priorities in conducting
it is the subject of this RFC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 5 U.S.C. 551 et seq.
    \11\ 49 U.S.C. 30101 et seq.

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

IV. Initial Agency Efforts To Identify Testing, Certification and
Compliance Verification Issues

    NHTSA began the process of evaluating existing FMVSS for potential
barriers in 2015. In August of that year, NHTSA contracted with DOT's
Volpe Center to conduct a review of the FMVSS and issue a report
identifying the standards that pose potential barriers to the
introduction of vehicles with ADSs and with unconventional interior
designs.
    While that review was underway, Google submitted a letter, dated
November 12, 2015, requesting an interpretation regarding the
application of certain FMVSS to vehicles with ADSs. In describing its
ADS vehicle, Google indicated its intent to design the vehicle so that
it does not include conventional manual driving controls, including a
steering wheel, accelerator, or brake pedal. NHTSA responded to that
letter on February 4, 2016.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Available at https://isearch.nhtsa.gov/files/Google%20--%20-compiled%20response%20to%2012%20Nov%20%2015%20interp%20request%20--%204%20Feb%2016%20final.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In its letter, NHTSA took the position that a motor vehicle's
``self-driving system'' (SDS) could be regarded as the driver or that
the left front seating position could be regarded as the driver's
position in a variety of standards referencing the ``driver'' or
``driver's seating position.''
    The response then addressed the question of whether and how Google
could certify that the SDS meets a standard developed and designed to
apply to a vehicle with a human driver. NHTSA said that in order for it
to interpret a standard as allowing certification of compliance by a
vehicle manufacturer, NHTSA must first have a suitable test procedure
or other means of verifying such compliance. That is, NHTSA said that
if a FMVSS lacks a test procedure that is suitable for the Agency's use
in verifying a manufacturer's certification of the compliance of some
of its vehicles with a FMVSS, the manufacturer cannot validly certify
the compliance of those vehicles with the standard. As NHTSA further
explained in the letter,

    The critical point of NHTSA's responses for many of the
requested interpretations is that defining the driver as the SDS (or
the driver's position as the left front position) does not end the
inquiry or determine the result. Once the SDS is deemed to be the
driver for purposes of a particular standard or test, the next
question is whether and how Google could certify that the SDS meets
a standard developed and designed to apply to a vehicle with a human
driver. Related, in order for NHTSA to interpret a standard as
allowing certification of compliance by a vehicle manufacturer,
NHTSA must first have a test procedure or other means of verifying
such compliance.

    Volpe completed its review of the FMVSS before NHTSA sent its
February 4 letter to Google and thus did not consider that letter in
conducting its review. The report on the results of the review was
published one month later in March 2016.\13\ (To read the executive
summary of the report and a list of the FMVSS identified in the report,
please see the appendix at the end of this document.) In that report,
Volpe described the two reviews that it conducted of the FMVSS: A
driver reference scan to identify which standards include an explicit
or implicit reference to a human driver and a driving automation
concepts scan to identify which standards could pose a challenge for a
wide range of driving automation capabilities and concepts. The review
revealed that there are few barriers for a vehicle with ADS to comply
with the FMVSS, so long as the vehicle does not significantly diverge
from a conventional vehicle design. Two standards, FMVSS 114 for theft
protection and rollaway prevention and FMVSS 135 for light vehicle
brake systems, were identified as having potential issues for vehicles
with an ADS and with conventional designs.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Kim, Anita, David Perlman, Dan Bogard, and Ryan Harrington.
``Review of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) for
Automated Vehicles,'' Preliminary Report--March 2016. U.S. DOT Volpe
Center, Cambridge, MA. Available at https://rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/12260. For a specific listing of potential barriers, see
Appendix B of that report, pp. 26 et seq.
    \14\ Ibid, pp. 9-10. FMVSS 114 presents several issues. One is
whether, for the purposes of satisfying the requirement an automatic
transmission ``vehicle must be designed such that the transmission
or gear selection control cannot move from the ``park'' position,
unless the key is in the starting system,'' an electronic code
transmitted from a smartphone application to a vehicle can be
interpreted as being a key. The report notes that NHTSA has
historically interpreted the electronic code transmitted by a
wireless transponder directly to a vehicle as a key for the purposes
of FMVSS 114. Although the report notes the existence of a
technological difference in these two different methods of
transmitting an electronic code to a vehicle, it does not suggest
why that difference should lead to a different conclusion by the
Agency.
    FMVSS 135 requires that the service brakes ``shall be activated
by means of a foot control''.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, NHTSA subject matter experts have identified specific
requirements and test procedure limitations. NHTSA is initiating new
research on the assessment and evaluation of, and solutions to, the
preliminary challenges identified in the Volpe report to the testing,
compliance verification and self-certification of vehicles with ADSs.
Most of these challenges are precipitated by alternative vehicle
designs, such as ones lacking manual driving controls. NHTSA's initial
research focuses primarily on the FMVSS compliance test procedures, but
will also explore options for telltales, visual and auditory displays
and controls and other innovative new vehicle design challenges that
may not have been identified in the original Volpe report. NHTSA has
contracted with the Virginia Tech Transportation Institute to perform
this research. This is a multidisciplinary project to develop technical
translations to existing FMVSS and related testing procedure approaches
for emerging innovative and non-traditional vehicle designs. The
project is being conducted by a core team comprising FMVSS experts;
industry team members General Motors and Nissan; testing facilities
Dynamic Research, Inc., and MGA Research Corporation; and research
institutions Booz Allen Hamilton and the Southwest Research Institute
in concert with stakeholder and peer review groups. The research will
review and identify alternative new vehicle designs, develop candidate
alternative approaches, and establish an evaluation process as well as
associated tools in close collaboration with critical stakeholders.
This research project started at the beginning of FY2018 and is
expected to develop robust alternative approaches within the next 12
months to demonstrate compliance with many of the identified FMVSS
whose existing test procedures present challenges. The results of this
research will be made public after the completion of the project.

V. Requests for Comment

    To help guide NHTSA's research to address testing and self-
certification issues, we seek comments on the topics below. The Agency
urges that, where possible, comments be supported by data and analysis
to increase their usefulness. Please clearly indicate the source of
such data.

A. Barriers to Testing, Certification and Compliance Verification

    1. What are the different categories of barriers that the FMVSS
potentially create to the testing, certification and compliance
verification of a new ADS vehicle lacking manual driving controls?
Examples of barrier categories include the following:
    a. Test procedures that cannot be conducted for vehicles with ADSs
and with innovative interior designs; and
    b. performance requirements that may serve a reduced safety purpose
or even no safety purpose at all for a vehicle

with ADS and thus potentially impose more cost and more restrictions on
design than are warranted.
    As noted earlier in this document, the first of the above
categories is the primary focus of this document. However, the Agency
seeks comments on both categories of barriers. If you believe that
there are still other barrier categories, please identify them.
    2. NHTSA requests comments on the statement made in NHTSA's
February 2016 letter of interpretation to Google, that if a FMVSS lacks
a test procedure that is suitable for the Agency's use in verifying a
manufacturer's certification of compliance with a provision in that
FMVSS, the manufacturer cannot validly certify the compliance of its
vehicles with that provision. Do commenters agree that each of the
standards identified in the letter as needing to be amended before
manufacturers can certify compliance with it must be amended in order
to permit certification? Why or why not? If there are other solutions,
please describe them.
    3. Do you agree (or disagree) that the FMVSS provisions identified
in the Volpe report or Google letter as posing barriers to testing and
certification are, in fact, barriers? Please explain why.
    4. Do commenters think there are FMVSS provisions that pose
barriers to testing and certification of innovative new vehicle
designs, but were not covered in the Volpe report or Google letter? If
so, what are they, how do they pose barriers, and how do you believe
NHTSA should consider addressing them?
    5. Are there ways to solve the problems that may be posed by any of
these FMVSS provisions without conducting additional research? If so,
what are they and why do you believe that no further research is
necessary? For example, can some apparent problems be solved through
interpretation? If so, which ones?
    6. Similarly, are there ways to solve the problems that may be
posed by any of these FMVSS provisions without rulemaking? For example,
can some apparent problems be solved through interpretation without
either additional research or through rulemaking? If so, which ones?
    7. In contrast, if a commenter believes that legislation might be
necessary to enable NHTSA to remove a barrier identified by the
commenter, please explain why and please identify the specific existing
law that the commenter thinks should be changed and describe how it
should be changed. If there are associated regulations that the
commenter believes should be changed, please identify the specific CFR
citation and explain why they need to be changed.
    8. Many FMVSS contain test procedures that are based on the assumed
presence of a human driver, and will therefore likely need to be
amended to accommodate vehicles that cannot be driven by humans. Other
FMVSS test procedures may seem, based on a plain reading of their
language, to accommodate vehicles that cannot be driven by humans, but
it may nevertheless be unclear how NHTSA (or a manufacturer attempting
to self-certify to the test) would instruct the vehicle to perform the
test as written.
    a. Do commenters believe that these procedures should apply to a
vehicle that cannot be driven by a human? If so, why? If there are data
to support this positon, please provide it.
    b. If not, can NHTSA test in some other manner? Please identify the
alternative manner and explain why it would be appropriate.
    9. What research would be necessary to determine how to instruct a
vehicle with ADS but without manual means of control to follow a
driving test procedure? Is it possible to develop a single approach to
inputting these ``instructions'' in a manner applicable to all vehicle
designs and all FMVSS, or will the approach need to vary, and if so,
why and how? If commenters believe there is a risk of gaming,\15\ what
would that risk be and how could it be reduced or prevented?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ For example, if vehicles with ADSs were tested by
instructing them to follow a fixed path through a maze of streets
simulating a series of adjacent urban or suburban blocks and if,
along that path, the vehicles encountered surrogate vehicles,
cyclists and pedestrians at fixed time intervals and in fixed
locations, it might be possible for the vehicles to avoid any
collisions if the vehicles were programmed to stop in those
locations at the scheduled time intervals in lieu of the vehicles'
actually relying on their sensors to detect the surrogates and on
their algorithms to manage braking and steering in such a way as to
avoid any collisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    10. In lieu of the approaches suggested in questions 8 and 9, is
there an alternative means of demonstrating equivalent level of safety
that is reliable, objective and practicable?
    11. For FMVSS that include test procedures that assume a human
driver is seated in a certain seating position (for example, procedures
that assess whether a rearview mirror provides an image in the correct
location), should NHTSA simply amend the FMVSS to require, for
instance, that ``driver's seat'' requirements apply to any front
seating position? If so, please explain why. If not, what research
would need to be conducted to determine how NHTSA should amend those
requirements?
    12. A variety of FMVSS require safety-related dashboard telltales
and other displays, if provided, to be visible to a human driver and
controls to be within reach of that driver. Generally speaking, is
there a safety need for the telltales and other displays in Table 1 and
2 of FMVSS 101 to be visible to any of the occupants in vehicles
without manual driving controls? \16\ Commenters are requested to
provide their own list of the telltales and other displays they believe
are most relevant to meeting any potential safety need in those
vehicles. For each item on that list, please answer the following
questions:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ Examples of such displays are the malfunction displays for
systems like Antilock Braking System (ABS), Electronic Stability
Control (ESC), Tire Pressure Monitoring System (TPMS), air bags,
etc.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    a. Should the telltale or other display be required to be visible
to one or more vehicle occupants in vehicles without manual driving
controls?
    b. If there is a need for continued visibility, to the occupant(s)
of which seating position(s) should the telltale or other display be
visible?
    c. Does the answer to the question about the continued need for a
telltale or other display to be visible to the occupant of a vehicle
without manual driving controls change if a manufacturer equips the
vehicle with a device like an ``emergency stop button''? Why or why
not?
    d. Would the informational safety needs of the occupants of
vehicles with ADSs differ according to whether the vehicle has a full
set of manual driving controls, just an emergency stop button or no
controls whatsoever?
    e. Conversely, if a vehicle is designed such that it can be driven
only by an ADS, does the ADS need to be provided with some or all of
the same information currently required to be provided for a human
driver? For example, does the ADS need to know if the tires are
underinflated? Why or why not?
    f. If commenters believe that it would enhance safety if a
vehicle's ADS were required to receive information similar to some or
all of that currently required to be provided to human drivers by
telltales and other displays, what research needs to be conducted to
develop the kinds of objective and practicable performance requirements
or test procedures that would enable manufacturers and the Agency to
evaluate whether that information was provided to and understood by the
ADS?
    13. If NHTSA is going to conduct research to determine whether
there is any safety need for the occupants of fully-self-driving
vehicles to continue to

have any access to any of the nondriving controls (e.g., controls for
windshield washer/wiper system, turn signals and lights) in a vehicle
without manual driving controls, what should that research include and
how should NHTSA conduct it?
    a. If there is a safety need for the occupants of fully-self-
driving vehicles to have access to any of the existing vehicle non-
driving controls, please identify those controls and explain the safety
need.
    b. Do commenters believe that research should be conducted to
determine whether any additional controls (such as an emergency stop
button) might be necessary for safety or public acceptance if manual
driving controls are removed from fully-self-driving vehicles? Why or
why not, and what is the basis for your belief?
    c. If NHTSA is going to conduct research to determine whether there
is any safety need for the occupants of fully-self-driving vehicles to
continue to be able to control exterior lighting like turn signals and
headlamp beam switching devices, what should that research include and
how should NHTSA conduct it? Separately, if NHTSA is going to conduct
research on what exterior lighting continues to be needed for safety
when a human is not driving, what should that research include and how
should NHTSA conduct it?
    14. If NHTSA is going to conduct research to determine whether
there is a safety need for the occupants of vehicles with ADSs but
without manual driving controls to be able to see to the side and
behind those vehicles using mirrors or cameras, what should that
research include and how should NHTSA conduct it? Separately, if NHTSA
is going to conduct research to determine how NHTSA would test the
ability of a vehicle's ADS' to ``see'' around and behind the vehicle as
well as (or better than) a human driver would, what should that
research include and how should NHTSA conduct it?
    15. Do the FMVSS create testing and certification issues for
vehicles with ADSs other than those discussed above? If so, which FMVSS
do so and why do you believe they present such issues? For example,
FMVSS No. 108, ``Lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment,''
could potentially pose obstacles to certifying the compliance of a
vehicle that uses exterior lighting and messaging, through words or
symbols, to communicate to nearby pedestrians, cyclists and motorists,
such as at a 4-way stop intersection, the vehicle's awareness of their
presence and the vehicle's willingness to cede priority of movement to
any of those people. If research is needed to eliminate the barriers in
an appropriate way, please describe the research and explain why it is
needed. Are there other lighting issues that should be considered? For
example, what lighting will be needed to ensure the proper functioning
of the different types of vehicle sensors, especially cameras whose
functions include reading traffic control signs?
    16. If occupants of vehicles with ADSs, especially those without
manual driving controls, are less likely to sit in what is now called
the driver's seating position or are less likely to sit in seats that
are facing forward, how should these factors affect existing
requirements for crashworthiness safety features?
    17. If vehicles with ADSs have emergency controls that can be
accessed through unconventional means, such as a smart phone or multi-
purpose display and have unconventional interiors, how should the
Agency address those controls?
    18. Are there any specific regulatory barriers related to small
businesses that NHTSA should consider, specifically those that may help
facilitate small business participation in this emerging technology?

B. Research Needed To Address Those Barriers and NHTSA's Role in
Conducting it

    19. For issues about FMVSS barriers that NHTSA needs research to
resolve, do commenters believe that there are specific items that would
be better addressed through research by outside stakeholders, such as
industry or research organizations, instead of by NHTSA itself?
    a. Which issues is industry better equipped to undertake on its
own, and why? Which issues are research organizations or other
stakeholders better equipped to undertake on their own, and why?
    b. What research is needed to determine which types of safety
performance metrics \17\ should be used to evaluate a particular safety
capability and to develop a test procedure for evaluating how well a
vehicle performs in terms of those metrics?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ The purpose of formulating safety performance metrics for
motor vehicles is to facilitate the quantitative assessment of their
capabilities. An example of a crash avoidance performance metric is
the ability of a vehicle with ADS to sense and avoid colliding with
a surrogate pedestrian crossing a street on a test course.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    c. Which questions is NHTSA better equipped to undertake and why?
For example, would NHTSA, as the regulator, be the more appropriate
party to conduct research needed to determine what performance
threshold to require vehicles to meet with respect to that metric? Why
or why not?
    d. What research have industry, research organizations, and other
stakeholders done related to barriers to testing and certification?
What research are they planning to do? With respect to research
planned, but not yet completed, please identify the research and state
the starting and end dates for that research.
    e. How can NHTSA, industry, states, research organizations, and
other stakeholders work together to ensure that, if the research on
these issues were eventually to lead to rulemaking, it is done with the
rigor and thoroughness that NHTSA would need to meet its statutory
obligations, regardless of who performs it (e.g., done in a manner that
enables the Agency to ensure that the FMVSS continue to be objective
and practicable and continue to meet the need for safety)?
    20. For the issues identified above or by commenters, which merit
the most attention? How should the agency prioritize its research and
any follow-on rulemakings to remove the barriers to testing and
certification?
    21. Correcting barriers associated with the track testing of motor
vehicles will be particularly challenging. Examples of such barriers
follow:
    a. As noted above, FMVSS No. 126 specifies the use of an automated
steering machine that depends on a vehicle's steering wheel to steer
vehicles when they are tested for compliance. NHTSA will need to
determine how to amend the standard to enable the agency to conduct
stability control testing in vehicles that lack a steering wheel.
Further, if NHTSA is going to conduct research to consider how to
change the ``sine with dwell'' test procedure for FMVSS No. 126, so
that steering wheel angle need not be measured at the steering wheel in
determining compliance with the standard, what should that research
include and how should NHTSA conduct it?
    b. If NHTSA is going to conduct research to develop a performance
test to verify how a vehicle is activating its service brakes, what
should that research include and how should NHTSA conduct it? If NHTSA
is going to conduct research to determine whether there continues to be
a safety need to maintain a human-operable service brake, what should
that research include and how should NHTSA conduct it?

    22. Are there industry standards, existing or in development, that
may be suitable for incorporation by reference by NHTSA in accordance
with the standards provisions of the National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act of 1995 and Office of Management and Budget Circular A-
119, ``Federal Participation in the Development and Use of Voluntary
Consensus Standards and Conformity Assessment Activities?''

VI. Public Participation

How do I prepare and submit comments?

    Your comments must be written and in English. To ensure that your
comments are filed in the correct docket, please include the docket
number of this document in your comments.
    Your comments must not be more than 15 pages long (49 CFR 553.21).
NHTSA established this limit to encourage you to write your primary
comments in a concise fashion. However, you may attach necessary
additional documents to your comments. There is no limit on the length
of the attachments.
    Please submit one copy (two copies if submitting by mail or hand
delivery) of your comments, including the attachments, to the docket
following the instructions given above under ADDRESSES. Please note, if
you are submitting comments electronically as a PDF (Adobe) file, we
ask that the documents submitted be scanned using an Optical Character
Recognition (OCR) process, thus allowing NHTSA to search and copy
certain portions of your submissions.

How do I submit confidential business information?

    If you wish to submit any information under a claim of
confidentiality, you must submit three copies of your complete
submission, including the information you claim to be confidential
business information, to the Office of the Chief Counsel, NHTSA, at the
address given above under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
    In addition, you may submit a copy (two copies if submitting by
mail or hand delivery) from which you have deleted the claimed
confidential business information, to the docket by one of the methods
given above under ADDRESSES. When you send a comment containing
information claimed to be confidential business information, you should
include a cover letter setting forth the information specified in
NHTSA's confidential business information regulation (49 CFR part 512).

Will NHTSA consider late comments?

    NHTSA will consider all comments received before the close of
business on the comment closing date indicated above under DATES. To
the extent possible, NHTSA will also consider comments received after
that date.

How can I read the comments submitted by other people?

    You may read the comments received at the address given above under
ADDRESSES. The hours of the docket are indicated above in the same
location. You may also read the comments on the internet, identified by
the docket number at the heading of this notice, at http://www.regulations.gov.
    Please note that, even after the comment closing date, NHTSA will
continue to file relevant information in the docket as it becomes
available. Further, some people may submit late comments. Accordingly,
NHTSA recommends that you periodically check the docket for new
material.

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 30101 et seq., 49 U.S.C. 30182.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on January 10, 2018, under authority
delegated in 49 CFR part 1.95.
Heidi King,
Deputy Administrator.

Appendix

1. Executive Summary of the Volpe Report

Review of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) for Automated
Vehicles

Identifying Potential Barriers and Challenges for the Certification of
Automated Vehicles Using Existing FMVSS

Preliminary Report--March 2016

Anita Kim, David Perlman, Dan Bogard and Ryan Harrington Technology
Innovation and Policy Division

    `` Current Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards
(FMVSS) do not explicitly address automated vehicle technology and
often assume the presence of a human driver. As a result, existing
language may create certification challenges for manufacturers of
automated vehicles that choose to pursue certain vehicle concepts.
     The purpose of this work is to identify instances where
the existing FMVSS may pose challenges to the introduction of
automated vehicles. It identifies standards requiring further
review--both to ensure that existing regulations do not unduly
stifle innovation and to help ensure that automated vehicles perform
their functions safely.
     The review highlighted standards in the FMVSS that may
create certification challenges for automated vehicle concepts with
particular characteristics, including situations in which those
characteristics could introduce ambiguity into the interpretation of
existing standards. The review team's approach was meant to be as
inclusive as possible, with the intent to identify standards that
would require further review or discussion.
     This is a preliminary report summarizing the review of
FMVSS and includes a discussion on approach, findings, and analysis.
As a preliminary review, the contents of this report reflect the
results of an initial analysis and may be modified based on
stakeholder input and future discussion.
     The Volpe team conducted two reviews of the FMVSS: a
driver reference scan to identify which standards include an
explicit or implicit reference to a human driver and an automated
vehicle concepts scan to identify which standards could pose a
challenge for a wide range of automated vehicle capabilities and
concepts.
    [cir] The driver reference scan revealed references in numerous
standards to a driver (defined in Sec.  571.3 as ``. . . the
occupant of the motor vehicle seated immediately behind the steering
control system''), a driver's seating position, or controls and
displays that must be visible to or operable by a driver, or
actuated by a driver's hands or feet.
    [cir] In order to conduct the automated vehicle concepts scan,
the Volpe team developed 13 different automated vehicle concepts,
ranging from limited levels of automation (and near-term
applications) to highly-automated, driverless concepts with
innovative vehicle designs. The idea was to evaluate the FMVSS
against these different automated vehicle concepts.
     In summary, the review revealed that there are few
barriers for automated vehicles to comply with FMVSS, as long as the
vehicle does not significantly diverge from a conventional vehicle
design. Two standards: theft protection and rollaway prevention
(Sec.  571.114) and light vehicle brake systems (Sec.  571.135) were
identified as having potential issues for automated vehicles with
conventional designs.
     Automated vehicles that begin to push the boundaries of
conventional design (e.g., alternative cabin layouts, omission of
manual controls) would be constrained by the current FMVSS or may
conflict with policy objectives of the FMVSS. Many standards, as
currently written, are based on assumptions of conventional vehicle
designs and thus pose challenges for certain design concepts,
particularly for `driverless' concepts where occupants have no way
of driving the vehicle (e.g., Sec.  571.101, controls and displays,
Sec.  571.111, rear visibility, Sec.  571.208, occupant crash
protection represent a few examples).
     Subsequent to the Volpe Center's review of the FMVSS,
but prior to the publication of this report, NHTSA released
interpretations to BMW of North America and Google, Inc. in response
to questions regarding how to interpret certain FMVSS requirements
in the context of automated vehicles. As a result, the review does
not reflect this subsequent development. The full text of these
interpretations are available in NHTSA's repository of
interpretation files at the website: isearch.nhtsa.gov.''

2. List of Standards Identified in the Volpe Report

    In the report, the Volpe Center reported 32 of 63 FMVSS's that
may present certification challenges for certain types of automated
vehicles because they contain performance specifications, test
procedures, or equipment requirements that present potential
barriers to the certification of one or more AV concepts:
    1. Conventional Vehicles (with driver controls) with highly-
automated features (2 standards identified).
     key must be in position before moving out of park
position, and park position interlock with the service brake
(571.114),
     foot-actuated service brake control, brake system
warning indicator, and warning device for lining replacements
(571.135).
    2. Fully-self-driving vehicles (no driver controls or novel
design) (32 standards identified, some examples listed below).
     controls and displays visible to the driver (571.101),
     transmission shift position sequence and interlock
(571.102),
     windshield defrosting and defogging (571.103),
     windshield wipers (571.104),
     foot-actuated service brake control, brake system
warning indicator, and warning device for lining replacements
(571.105),
     turn signal, flasher, headlamp beam switch, and upper
beam indicator (571.108),
     tire/rim retention requirement for driver (571.110),
     requirements for rear visibility for the driver
(571.111),
     key must be in position before moving out of park
position, and park position interlock with the service brake
(571.114),
     powered windows and roof panels (571.118),
     foot-actuated service brake control, low-pressure brake
system warning indicator, and brake adjustment indicators (571.121),
     motorcycle brake systems (571.122),
     accelerator pedal must return to neutral when released
by the driver (571.124),
     a steering wheel (a requirement for completing tests)
and certain controls and displays (571.126),
     foot-actuated service brake control, brake system
warning indicator, and warning device for lining replacements
(571.135),
     TPMS telltale for low tire pressure to warn driver
(571.138),
     occupant protection in interior impact (571.201),
     door locks and door retention components (571.206),
     a designated seating position for the driver (571.207),
     occupant protection and warning system for non-buckled
seat belt (571.208),
     seat belt anchorages (571.210),
     side impact protection (571.214),
     windshield zone intrusion (571.219),
     child restraint anchorage systems (571.225),
     readiness monitor for ejection mitigation
countermeasures visible to the driver (571.226),
     flammability of interior materials (571.302),
     interior trunk release (571.401),
     other equipment may pose barriers to certification.

[FR Doc. 2018-00671 Filed 1-17-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register: March 21, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 54)]
[Notices]
[Page 13280-13281]
[DOCID:fr21mr07-52]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0040; FRL-8112-3]

Pesticides; Guidance for Pesticide Registrants on Disposal
Instructions on Non-Antimicrobial Residential/Household Use Pesticide
Product Labels

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of availability.

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

SUMMARY: The Agency is announcing the availability of a Pesticide
Registration Notice (PR Notice) entitled ``Disposal Instructions on
Non-Antimicrobial Residential/Household Use Pesticide Product Labels.''
PR Notices are issued by the Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) to
inform pesticide registrants and other interested persons about
important policies, procedures, and registration related decisions, and
serve to provide guidance to pesticide registrants and OPP personnel.
This particular PR Notice provides guidance to the registrant
concerning the updating and revision of PR Notice 2001-6 to clarify
that the use of a toll free number in the disposal instructions on non-
antimicrobial residential/household use pesticide product labels is
optional. If registrants choose to change or remove a toll free number
from the disposal instructions on their label, this notice provides
guidance on making such changes.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jim Downing, Biopesticides and
Pollution Prevention Division, (7511P), Office of Pesticide Programs,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this Action Apply to Me?

    This action is directed to the public in general; however this
action may be of particular interest to those persons who are
responsible for registration and reregistration of pesticide products.
Since other entities may also be

interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific
entities that may be affected by this action. If you have any questions
regarding the information in this notice, consult the person listed
under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

B. How Can I Get Copies of this Document and Other Related Information?

    1. Docket. EPA has established a docket for this action under
docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0040. Publicly
available docket materials are available either in the electronic
docket at http://www.regulations.gov, or, in hard copy, at the Office

of Pesticide Programs (OPP) Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S-4400, One
Potomac Yard (South Building), 2777 S. Crystal Drive Arlington, VA. The
hours of operation of this Docket Facility are from 8:30 a.m. to 4
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The Docket
telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    2. Electronic access. You may access this Federal Register document
electronically through the EPA Internet under the ``Federal Register''
listings at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr.

II. What Guidance Does this PR Notice Provide?

    This PR Notice provides guidance to the registrant updating and
revising PR Notice 2001-6 to clarify that the use of a toll free number
in the disposal instructions on non-antimicrobial residential/household
use pesticide product labels is optional. If registrants choose to
change or remove a toll free number from the disposal instructions on
their label, this notice provides guidance on making such changes. This
notice supersedes PR Notice 2001-6 in its entirety and PR Notices 83-3
and 84-1 in part.
    This notice provides guidance for the development of disposal
instructions for non-antimicrobial, residential/household use pesticide
product labels. EPA is providing instructions that direct consumers to
call their local authorities for specific disposal instructions in
order to provide state and local governments greater latitude in
carrying out their responsibilities for product disposal and waste
management programs.
    This notice is directed to registrants of non-antimicrobial,
residential/household use products. Registrants using the revised
disposal statements provided in this notice may add the disposal
statements to their labels by notification or they may make the changes
with non-notification, according to PR Notice 98-10. The Agency expects
that registrants of existing products will begin to revise their labels
accordingly. All affected product labels were expected to have disposal
statements according to issued guidance by October 1, 2003. The
statements in this notice are not intended for non-residential/non-
household use (e.g., agricultural, commercial, or industrial use)
pesticide products where users generally have access to established
recycling and/or disposal procedures and programs.

III. Do PR Notices Contain Binding Requirements?

    The PR Notice discussed in this notice is intended to provide
guidance to EPA personnel and decision makers and to pesticide
registrants. While the requirements in the statutes and Agency
regulations are binding on EPA and the applicants, this PR Notice is
not binding on either EPA or pesticide registrants, and EPA may depart
from the guidance where circumstances warrant and without prior notice.
Likewise, pesticide registrants may assert that the guidance is not
appropriate generally or not applicable to a specific pesticide or
situation.

List of Subjects

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests.

    Dated: March 2, 2007.
James Jones,
Director, Office of Pesticide Programs.

[FR Doc. 07-1291 Filed 3-20-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-S


[Federal Register: December 24, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 248)]
[Notices]
[Page 79096-79097]
[DOCID:fr24de08-73]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0037 FRL-8392-6]

Chitin/Chitosan, Farnesol/Nerolidol and Nosema locustae Final
Registration Review Decision; Notice of Availability

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces the availability of EPA's final
registration review decisions for the pesticides Chitin/Chitosan (case
6063), Farnesol/Nerolidol (case 6061) and Nosema locustae (case 4104).
Registration review is EPA's periodic review of pesticide registrations
to ensure that each pesticide continues to satisfy the statutory
standard for registration, that is, that the pesticide can perform its
intended function without unreasonable adverse effects on human health
or the environment. Through this program, EPA is ensuring that each
pesticide's registration is based on current scientific and other
knowledge, including its effects on human health and the environment.

ADDRESSES: All documents in the docket are listed in the docket index
available in regulations.gov. To access the electronic docket, go to
http://www.regulations.gov, select ``Advanced Search,'' then ``Docket
Search.'' Insert the docket ID number where indicated and select the
``Submit'' button. Follow the instructions on the regulations.gov
website to view the docket index or access available documents.
Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly
available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available
only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are
available either in the electronic docket at http://
www.regulations.gov, or, if only available in hard copy, at the OPP
Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.),
2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. The hours of operation of this
Docket Facility are from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding legal holidays. The Docket Facility telephone number is (703)
305-5805.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information about the
biopesticides included in this document, contact the specific
Regulatory contact, as identified in the Table in Unit II.A. for the
pesticide of interest. The mailing address and additional contact
information is Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division,
(7511P); Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    For general questions on the registration review program, contact,
Kevin Costello, Special Review and Reregistration Division (7508P),
Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:
(703) 305-5026; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this Action Apply to Me?

    This action is directed to the public in general, and may be of
interest to a wide range of stakeholders including environmental, human
health, farm worker, and agricultural advocates; the chemical industry;
pesticide users; and members of the public interested in the sale,
distribution, or use of pesticides. Since others also may be
interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific
entities that may be affected by this action. If you have any questions
regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity,
consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

II. Background

A. What Action is the Agency Taking?

    This notice announces the final registration decisions for Chitin/
Chitosan, Farnesol/Nerolidol and Nosema locustae cases as shown in the
following Table.

          Table - Registration Review Dockets - Final Decisions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Regulatory Contact
  Registration Review Case Name    Pesticide Docket       name, Phone
           and Number                  ID Number        Number, E-mail
                                                            Address
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chitin/Chitosan; Case 6063        EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-05  Chris Pfeifer
                                   66<PHONE_NUMBER>
                                                      pfeifer.chris@epa.
                                                       gov
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Farnesol/Nerolidol; Case 6061     EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-05  Russell Jones
                                   69<PHONE_NUMBER>
                                                      jones.russell@epa.
                                                       gov
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nosema locustae; Case 4104        EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-09  Jeannine Kausch
                                   97                 (703) 3477-8920
                                                      kausch.jeannine@ep
                                                       a.gov
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The dockets for registration review of these pesticide cases
include the final registration review decision documents as well as
other relevant documents related to the registration review of the
subject cases. Proposed registration review decisions were posted to
the docket and public comments were requested. During the respective 60
day comment periods, no public comments were received. Background on
the registration review program is provided at: http://www.epa.gov/
oppsrrd1/registration_review/. Quick links to earlier documents
related to the registration review of this pesticide are provided at:
http://www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/registration_review/reg_review_
status.htm.

B. What is the Agency's Authority for Taking this Action?

    FIFRA Section 3(g) and 40 CFR 155.58(c) provide authority for this
action. A registration review decision is the Agency's determination
whether a pesticide meets, or does not meet the standard for
registration in FIFRA. Proposed registration review decisions were
posted to the docket for the above cases and public comments were
requested. During the respective 60 day comment periods, no public
comments were received for the Chitin/Chitosan, Farnesol/Nerolidol or
Nosema locustae cases. The final decisions that are subject to this
notice continue to be supported by the rationales included in the
proposed registration review decisions for each case. The documents in
the subject registration review dockets describe the Agency's rationale
for issuing these final decisions for the Chitin/Chitosan, Farnesol/
Nerolidol or Nosema locustae cases. No risk mitigation measures are
required or specified in the final decisions for these registration
review cases and no labeling changes are required as a result of these
final decisions.

List of Subjects

    Environmental protection, registration review, pesticides, and
pests.

    Dated: December 12, 2008.
Janet L. Andersen,
Director, Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division, Office of
Pesticide Programs.
[FR Doc. E8-30496 Filed 12-23-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-S


[Federal Register: June 7, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 108)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 32119-32120]
[DOCID:fr07jn10-8]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2010-0187; Airspace Docket No. 09-AWP-10]
RIN 2120-AA66

Proposed Amendment of the Pacific High and Low Offshore Airspace
Areas; California

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes to amend the Pacific High and Low
Offshore Airspace Areas by providing additional airspace in which
domestic air traffic control procedures could be used to separate and
manage aircraft operations in the currently uncontrolled airspace off
the California coast. This proposed change would enhance the efficient
utilization of that airspace within the National Airspace System.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before July 22, 2010.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE.,
West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001;
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>. You must identify FAA Docket No. FAA-2010-
0187 and Airspace Docket No. 09-AWP-10 at the beginning of your
comments. You may also submit comments through the Internet at http://
www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ken McElroy, Airspace and Rules Group,
Office of System Operations Airspace and AIM, Federal Aviation
Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591;
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed
rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as
they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the
views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing
reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are
specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic,
environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.
    Communications should identify both docket numbers (FAA Docket No.
FAA-2010-0187 and Airspace Docket No. 09-AWP-10) and be submitted in
triplicate to the Docket Management Facility (see ``ADDRESSES'' section
for address and phone number). You may also submit comments through the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov.
    Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments
on this action must submit with those comments a self-addressed,
stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: ``Comments
to FAA Docket No. FAA-2010-0187 and Airspace Docket No. 09-AWP-10.''
The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.
    All communications received on or before the specified closing date
for comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed
rule. The proposal contained in this action may be changed in light of
comments received. All comments submitted will be available for
examination in the public docket both before and after the closing date
for comments. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with
FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the
docket.

Availability of NPRMs

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking
documents can also be accessed through the FAA's Web page at http://
www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.
    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any
comments received and any final disposition in person in the Dockets
Office (see ``ADDRESSES'' section for address and phone number) between
9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. An
informal docket may also be examined during normal business hours at
the office of the Western Service Center, Operations Support Group,
Federal Aviation Administration, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, WA
98055.
    Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future
NPRMs should contact the FAA's Office of Rulemaking,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
for a copy of Advisory Circular No. 11-2A, Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking Distribution System, which describes the application
procedure.

History

    In October, 2009, the Los Angeles Air Route Traffic Control Center
(ARTCC) personnel conducted a comprehensive review of the offshore
airspace in the ARTCC's area of responsibility. The review revealed
that many of the aircraft transiting in the offshore airspace are being
diverted around pockets of uncontrolled airspace. In order to
facilitate operations in the offshore areas, modification of the
Pacific High and Low Offshore Airspace Areas is needed. Currently,
International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) oceanic air traffic
control (ATC) procedures are used to separate and manage aircraft
operations that extend beyond the lateral boundary of the existing
Pacific High and Low Offshore Airspace Areas. Modifying the Pacific
Offshore Airspace Areas by extending the boundaries further south of
the current location to the Mexico Flight Information Region (FIR),
will allow the application of domestic ATC separation procedures over a
larger area. This proposal to modify the offshore airspace area would
enhance system capacity and allow for more efficient utilization of
that airspace. This action does not change the status of any warning
areas contained within the Pacific Offshore Airspace Areas or affect
Department of Defense (DOD) operations conducted therein. As with all
warning areas, a letter of agreement between the controlling and using
agencies is executed to define the conditions and procedures under
which the controlling agency may authorize nonparticipating aircraft to
transit the warning area.

The Proposal

    The FAA is proposing an amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal
Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 to modify the Pacific High and Low
Offshore Airspace Areas, by extending the present airspace boundaries
further southeast of the current location to the Mexico FIR capturing
pockets of uncontrolled airspace off the California coast. This
proposed modification would allow the application of domestic ATC
separation procedures in lieu of ICAO separation and enhance system
capacity and allow for more efficient utilization of that airspace.
    Offshore airspace areas are published in paragraph 2003 and 6007,
respectfully, of FAA Order 7400.9T signed August 27, 2009 and effective
September 15, 2009, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1.
The offshore airspace listed in this

document will be published subsequently in the Order.
    The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves
an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
Therefore, this proposed regulation: (1) Is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a
``significant rule'' under Department of Transportation (DOT)
Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979);
and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the
anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that
will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this proposed rule, when promulgated, will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106
describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII,
Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's
authority.
    This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the
FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of the
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority
as it modifies the high and low offshore airspace areas off the coast
of California.

ICAO Considerations

    As part of this proposal relates to navigable airspace outside the
United States, this notice is submitted in accordance with the ICAO
International Standards and Recommended Practices. The application of
International Standards and Recommended Practices by the FAA, Office of
System Operations Airspace and AIM, Airspace and Rules Group, in areas
outside the United States domestic airspace, is governed by the
Convention on International Civil Aviation. Specifically, the FAA is
governed by Article 12 and Annex 11, which pertain to the establishment
of necessary air navigational facilities and services to promote the
safe, orderly, and expeditious flow of civil air traffic. The purpose
of Article 12 and Annex 11 is to ensure that civil aircraft operations
on international air routes are performed under uniform conditions. The
International Standards and Recommended Practices in Annex 11 apply to
airspace under the jurisdiction of a contracting state, derived from
ICAO. Annex 11 provisions apply when air traffic services are provided
and a contracting state accepts the responsibility of providing air
traffic services over high seas or in airspace of undetermined
sovereignty. A contracting state accepting this responsibility may
apply the International Standards and Recommended Practices that are
consistent with standards and practices utilized in its domestic
jurisdiction. In accordance with Article 3 of the Convention, state-
owned aircraft are exempt from the Standards and Recommended Practices
of Annex 11. The United States is a contracting state to the
Convention. Article 3(d) of the Convention provides that participating
state aircraft will be operated in international airspace with due
regard for the safety of civil aircraft. Since this action involves, in
part, the designation of navigable airspace outside the United States,
the Administrator is consulting with the Secretary of State and the
Secretary of Defense in accordance with the provisions of Executive
Order 10854.

Environmental Review

    This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in
accordance with FAA Order 1050.1E, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies
and Procedures,'' prior to any FAA final regulatory action.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

The Proposed Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

PART 71--DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR
TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS

    1. The authority citation for part 71 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24
FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p.389.

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

    2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order
7400.9T, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, signed August 27,
2009 and effective September 15, 2009, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 2003 Offshore Airspace Areas.

* * * * *

Pacific High, CA [Amended]

    That airspace extending upward from 18,000 feet MSL to and
including FL 600 bounded on the north by the Vancouver FIR boundary,
on the east by a line 12 miles from and parallel to the U.S.
shoreline, and on south by the Mexico FIR boundary, and on the west
by the Oakland Oceanic CTA/FIR boundary, excluding active Warning
Area airspace.
* * * * *

Paragraph 6007 Offshore Airspace Areas.

* * * * *

Pacific Low, CA [Amended]

    That airspace extending upward from 5,500 feet MSL bounded on
the north by the Vancouver FIR boundary, on the east by a line 12
miles from and parallel to the U.S. shoreline, and on south by the
Mexico FIR boundary, and on the west by the Oakland Oceanic FIR
boundary, excluding active Warning Area airspace.

    Issued in Washington, DC, May 26, 2010.
Edith V. Parish,
Manager, Airspace and Rules Group.
[FR Doc. 2010-13603 Filed 6-4-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P