Nuro, Inc.; Grant of Temporary Exemption for a Low-Speed Vehicle With an Automated Driving System |
|---|
Topics: Nuro
|
James C. Owens
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
11 February 2020
[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 28 (Tuesday, February 11, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 7826-7842]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-02668]
[[Page 7826]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA-2019-0017]
Nuro, Inc.; Grant of Temporary Exemption for a Low-Speed Vehicle
With an Automated Driving System
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Notice of grant of a petition for a temporary exemption from
three provisions of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No.
500, ``Low-speed vehicles.''
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This notice grants the petition of Nuro, Inc. (Nuro) for a
temporary exemption from three requirements of FMVSS No. 500 under two
bases: (1) That an exemption would make the development or field
evaluation of a low-emission motor vehicle easier and would not
unreasonably lower the safety level of that vehicle; and (2) that
compliance with these requirements would prevent Nuro from selling a
motor vehicle with an overall safety level at least equal to the
overall safety level of a nonexempt vehicle. The vehicle that Nuro
intends to manufacture under this exemption--the ``R2X''--is a highly
automated, electric, low-speed vehicle (LSV) that lacks seating
positions and manual driving controls and is smaller, lower, and
narrower than conventional vehicles. The exemption applies to the
requirements that an LSV be equipped with exterior and/or interior
mirrors; have a windshield that complies with FMVSS No. 205, ``Glazing
materials''; and a backup camera system that meets the requirement in
FMVSS No. 111, ``Rear visibility,'' limiting the length of time that a
rearview image can remain displayed by the system after a vehicle's
transmission has been shifted out of reverse gear.
DATES: Nuro's petition is granted as of February 11, 2020.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Daniel Koblenz, Office of Chief
Counsel, Telephone: 202-366-2992, Facsimile: 202-366-3820. The mailing
address for this official is: National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Executive Summary
II. Background
a. Statutory Requirements for Temporary Exemption Petitions
b. Low Speed Vehicles (LSVs) and FMVSS No. 500
III. Nuro's Petition
IV. Notice of Receipt
V. Selection of Statutory Basis for Analyzing the Merits of the
Petition
VI. Safety Analysis
a. An Exemption From the Requirement That an LSV Be Equipped
With Exterior and/or Interior Mirrors Would Not Lower the Safety of
the R2X
b. An Exemption From the Requirement That an LSV Be Equipped
With FMVSS No. 205-Compliant Windshield Would Not Lower the Safety
of the R2X
c. An Exemption From the Requirement That an LSV's Backup Camera
Meet the ``Linger Time'' Requirement of FMVSS No. 111 Would Not
Lower the Safety of the R2X
d. An Exemption From Portions of the FMVSS No. 111 ``Field of
View and Image Size Test Procedure'' and ``Image Response Time Test
Procedure'' Would Not Lower the Safety of the R2X
VII. Nuro's Requests for Exemptions From the LSV Mirror, Windshield,
and Backup Camera ``Linger Time'' Requirements Are Granted Under
Both the ``Low-Emission Vehicle'' (LEV) and ``Equivalent Overall
Safety'' (EOS) Exemption Bases
a. Findings Specific to the LEV Basis
b. Findings Specific to the EOS Basis
c. Granting Nuro's Petition Is Consistent With the Public
Interest and the Vehicle Safety Act
VIII. Nuro's Request for an Exemption From the Backup Camera
``Deactivation'' Requirement Is Moot
IX. Other Issues Raised by Commenters
a. Relevance of the Driving Capability of the R2X's ADS
b. ADS-Related Data Reporting
c. Compliance With FMVSS Requirements Not Applicable to the R2X
d. Cybersecurity
e. Engagement With Local Authorities
X. Number of Vehicles
XI. Terms
XII. Conclusion
Appendix: Terms
I. Executive Summary
This document grants a petition submitted by Nuro Inc. (Nuro) for a
temporary exemption of a vehicle from three requirements of FMVSS No.
500, Low-speed vehicles. Nuro's vehicle, the R2X, is a highly automated
(SAE Level 4 or L4), low-speed (25 mph maximum), electric-powered
delivery vehicle.\1\ According to Nuro, the R2X is designed to carry
exclusively cargo and operate without a human driver. Accordingly, the
R2X does not have any occupant compartments, designated seating
positions, or manual controls for driving the vehicle.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See SAE International, J3016_201806: Taxonomy and
Definitions for Terms Related to Driving Automation Systems for On-
Road Motor Vehicles (Warrendale: SAE International, 15 June 2018),
https://www.sae.org/standards/content/j3016_201806/.
\2\ The R2X is equipped with a ``remote operation'' system
through which a remote operator can take over the driving functions
of the R2X. Although remote operators presumably input driving
commands to the R2X using some sort of manually operated set of
controls from an offsite location, NHTSA understands the remote
operator system to be a ``fallback'' safety feature and thus not a
primary means of controlling the vehicle.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nuro seeks exemptions from various FMVSS that are designed to
provide safety benefits for occupants. Since the R2X does not
accommodate any occupants, Nuro argues that these FMVSS do not serve
their intended functions in the R2X. Accordingly, Nuro has sought
exemptions from these requirements. NHTSA has analyzed the request for
exemption and is granting them in accordance with its exemption
authority under the Vehicle Safety Act and its implementing regulations
in part 555.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See 49 U.S.C. 30113; 49 CFR part 555.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pursuant to the Vehicle Safety Act, NHTSA may grant an exemption
from an FMVSS if NHTSA determines that such exemption is consistent
with the public interest and the Act, and meets at least one of four
additional bases for exemption, described further below.\4\ Nuro
applied for its exemption on the basis that it ``would make the
development or field evaluation of a low-emission motor vehicle easier
and would not unreasonably lower the safety level of that vehicle.''
\5\ NHTSA has determined to grant this petition under this basis. In
addition, NHTSA believes that the Vehicle Safety Act provision allowing
the agency to grant an exemption when ``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'' \6\ would also be an appropriate basis for
granting the exemption, based on the evidence provided in the
application and in public comments, and given NHTSA's institutional
expertise as the federal agency vested with the responsibility for
promoting motor vehicle safety.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ 49 U.S.C. 30113.
\5\ 49 U.S.C. 30113(b)(3)(B)(iii).
\6\ 49 U.S.C. 30113(b)(3)(B)(iv).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The three substantive requirements in FMVSS No. 500 from which the
agency is granting an exemption are the exterior and/or interior mirror
requirement (S5(b)(6)), the windshield requirement (S5(b)(8)), and the
backup camera ``Linger time'' requirement (S5(b)(11)).\7\
[[Page 7827]]
The agency is also granting Nuro an exemption from certain provisions
of the backup camera test procedures in FMVSS No. 111 that cannot be
performed due to the R2X's unique design.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ This provision requires that LSVs meet all of FMVSS No. 111,
S6.2, ``Rear visibility.'' While exempted R2X vehicles are not
required to comply with FMVSS No. 111, S6.2.4, ``Linger time,'' they
are still required to comply with the rest of S6.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NHTSA made its decision to grant Nuro's petition after making
several statutorily mandated agency findings, including its finding
that exempting the R2X from three of the requirements in FMVSS No. 500
would not lower the safety of the R2X as compared to a compliant
version of the vehicle--which, as described below, means that this
finding is sufficient for the safety determinations required under both
the ``Low Emission Vehicle'' (LEV) and the ``equivalent overall
safety'' (EOS) bases. To examine the effects of the requested
exemptions and make this finding, NHTSA compared two nearly identical
versions of the same vehicle: A compliant version of the R2X \8\ and an
exempt, noncompliant R2X. This approach enabled the agency to make the
statutorily required comparisons more concrete and understandable and
to simplify and focus its analysis on the requirements from which an
exemption is being sought and on the vehicle features that would be
directly affected by an exemption.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Nuro has already produced a vehicle that appears to be an
FMVSS compliant version of the R2X: Its model R1. As noted below,
this vehicle has already been deployed for certain delivery services
in Arizona. A discussion comparing the R1 and R2X, which includes a
side-by-side visual depiction of the two vehicles, is included later
in this document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The question of whether an exemption would lower the safety of an
exempt version of the R2X as compared to a compliant version of the
vehicle turns on the very limited differences between those two
versions of the R2X, which are only that the exempted R2X would not
comply with the certain requirements described in this notice.
Importantly, under the Vehicle Safety Act, manufacturers are permitted
include any design feature they want on a vehicle so long as the
vehicle conforms to the FMVSS, and the vehicle does not contain a
defect that poses an unreasonable risk to safety. As discussed in more
detail below, because NHTSA does not currently have in place FMVSS
requirements that regulate Automated Driving System (ADS) driving
capability, and NHTSA does not have any basis to believe that it poses
an unreasonable risk to safety, no barrier prevents including such a
system on a vehicle. Moreover, because LSVs (unlike most vehicle
classes) are not required to have human-operated driving and signaling
controls, nothing in the FMVSS prevents a manufacturer from producing
an LSV without manual controls that is operated exclusively by an ADS.
Given that both an exempted and compliant R2X would have no occupants
and would operate without a human driver, compliance with the three
requirements from which Nuro seeks an exemption would not provide a
safety benefit.
First, the requirement for internal and external mirrors is meant
to improve situational visibility for human drivers, who internalize
information about the driving environment through direct or reflected
line of sight. In a vehicle without manual controls that operates using
an ADS, mirrors do not serve a safety purpose because the ADS perceives
the driving environment using cameras and sensors that directly feed it
information about the vehicle's surroundings. Moreover, because
exterior mirrors protrude from the side of the vehicle, they may act as
a potential hazard to other road users in certain situations. Second,
the requirement for a windshield made of compliant glazing material is
meant to protect human occupants from intrusion, ejections, or
laceration while ensuring driver visibility. In an occupantless vehicle
that operates using an ADS, there are no human occupants for the
glazing to protect, and, as we have already noted, visibility through
the windshield is not a concern because the ADS obtains information
about the driving environment through the use of cameras and sensors.
Lastly, the requirement that a rearview camera image cease to be
illuminated (i.e., ``linger'') after shifting from reverse is meant to
avoid distraction of the human operator. Without a human driver, there
is no risk of distraction. Further, by permitting the backup camera
system to remain active in all driving situations, the ADS has more
consistent access to information about the area immediately behind the
vehicle, which may assist the ADS in performing the driving task.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ We note that Nuro also asked for an exemption from the
backup camera ``Deactivation'' requirement (FMVSS No. 111, S6.2.5),
and from certain portions of the FMVSS No. 111 test procedures for
the ``Field of View'' and ``Size'' requirements (FMVSS No. 111,
S6.2.1 and S6.2.2). NHTSA has deemed these requests moot for the
reasons explained later in the document, so they will not be
discussed extensively in the Executive Summary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on its engineering expertise and the information available to
it, NHTSA finds that exempting the R2X from these three requirements
would result in a vehicle that is at least as safe as a compliant
version of the R2X. NHTSA has also determined that an exemption would
be consistent with the public interest and the Safety Act because, by
allowing for the manufacture and commercial deployment of their desired
design vehicle, an exemption would further the development of
innovative technologies used in the R2X (most notably, its ADS), which
could lead to safety, environmental, and economic benefits to the
communities in which the R2X operates, and could eventually lead to
benefits for other communities where ADS vehicles are deployed in the
future. Moreover, an exemption would further the development and
implementation of innovative business models, like Nuro's delivery
service, for putting those technologies to use. This determination is
consistent not only with NHTSA's exercise of its longstanding safety
authority and expertise on motor vehicle issues, but also, with the
broad authority that Congress vested in the Secretary of Transportation
to grant exemptions in the public interest.
The R2X will be the first ADS vehicle exempted under NHTSA's
general exemption authority, and, according to Nuro, will be deployed
as part of a commercial operation that will involve frequent
interaction with the public. Accordingly, the agency has taken efforts
to ensure the vehicles operate in as safe a manner as a non-exempted
vehicle. Specifically, NHTSA has determined that it is in the public
interest to establish a number of reporting and other terms of
deployment of the vehicles that will apply throughout the useful life
of these vehicles--violation of which can result in the termination of
this exemption. The agency also notes that it retains the full suite of
its investigative and enforcement authorities with respect to Nuro's
vehicles and operations.
II. Relevant Legal Authority and Regulations
a. Statutory Requirements for Temporary Exemption Petitions
The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Vehicle Safety
Act), codified at Chapter 301 et seq., of title 49, United States Code,
provides the Secretary of Transportation with broad authority to exempt
motor vehicles from an FMVSS or bumper standard on a temporary basis,
under specified circumstances, and on terms the Secretary deems
appropriate. This authority is set forth at 49 U.S.C. 30113. The
Secretary has delegated the authority for implementing this section to
NHTSA.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ 49 CFR 1.95.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 7828]]
In exercising this authority, NHTSA must look comprehensively at
the request for exemption and find that an exemption would be
consistent with the public interest and with the objectives of the
Vehicle Safety Act.\11\ In addition, NHTSA must make at least one of
the following more-focused findings, which NHTSA commonly refers to as
the ``basis'' for the exemption:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ 49 U.S.C. 30113(b)(3)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(i) Compliance with the standard[s] [from which exemption is
sought] would cause substantial economic hardship to a manufacturer
that has tried to comply with the standard[s] in good faith;
(ii) the exemption would make easier the development or field
evaluation of a new motor vehicle safety feature providing a safety
level at least equal to the safety level of the standard;
(iii) the exemption would make the development or field evaluation
of a low-emission motor vehicle easier and would not unreasonably lower
the safety level of that vehicle; or
(iv) compliance with the standard would prevent the manufacturer
from selling a motor vehicle with an overall safety level at least
equal to the overall safety level of nonexempt vehicles.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ 49 U.S.C. 30113(b)(3)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NHTSA's procedural regulations implementing these statutory
requirements are codified at 49 CFR part 555, ``Temporary Exemption
from Motor Vehicle Safety and Bumper Standards.''
The statute and implementing regulations provide the Secretary and,
as delegated, NHTSA with significant discretion in making these
required determinations.\13\ 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 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Cf. Geier v. American Honda Motor Co., 529 U.S. 861, 883
(2000) (explaining that, in the context of interpreting the Vehicle
Safety Act's preemption provisions, ``Congress has delegated to DOT
authority to implement the statute; the subject matter is technical;
and the relevant history and background are complex and extensive,''
and, thus, ``[t]he agency is likely to have a thorough understanding
of its own regulation and its objectives and is `uniquely qualified'
to comprehend the likely impact of state requirements,'' concluding
that, ``[i]n these circumstances, the agency's own views should make
a difference.'') (internal citations omitted).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. Low Speed Vehicles (LSVs) and FMVSS No. 500
NHTSA defines a low-speed vehicle (LSV) as ``a motor vehicle, (1)
[t]hat is 4-wheeled; (2) [w]hose speed attainable in 1.6 km
[kilometers] (1 mile) is more than 32 kilometers per hour (20 miles per
hour) and not more than 40 kilometers per hour (25 miles per hour) on a
paved level surface, and (3) [w]hose GVWR [gross vehicle weight rating]
is less than 1,361 kilograms (3,000 pounds).'' \14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ 49 CFR 571.3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unlike other vehicle categories that must meet a wide array of
FMVSSs and other vehicle standards, LSVs are only required to meet a
single standard: FMVSS No. 500, ``Low-speed vehicles.'' Currently,
FMVSS No. 500 requires that LSVs be equipped with headlamps, stop
lamps, turn signal lamps, taillamps, reflex reflectors, parking brakes,
exterior and/or interior mirrors, a windshield constructed from FMVSS
No. 205-compliant glazing, seat belts, a vehicle identification number,
and a rear visibility system that complies with S6.2 of FMVSS No. 111
(i.e., a backup camera). In addition, all electric LSVs manufactured on
or after September 1, 2020 will be required to comply with FMVSS No.
141, ``Minimum Sound Requirements for Hybrid and Electric Vehicles.''
NHTSA created the LSV classification and established FMVSS No. 500
in June 1998 in response to safety concerns over the growing use of
golf cart-sized, 4-wheeled ``Neighborhood Electric Vehicles'' (NEVs) on
public roads.\15\ In developing FMVSS No. 500, NHTSA determined that,
given the speed and weight limitations of the LSV classification, and
the closed or controlled environments in which LSVs typically operate
(usually planned communities and golf courses), there was not a safety
need to apply the full range of FMVSS to these vehicles. Moreover, at
the time NHTSA was developing the LSV standard, some States had begun
to enact laws limiting where and when speed-limited vehicles like LSVs
could operate, and currently most States have enacted legal
restrictions on where LSVs can operate.\16\ Accordingly, the safety
equipment the that the agency determined should be required under FMVSS
No. 500 is far more limited than what is required for other vehicle
categories.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ 63 FR 33194 (June 17, 1998).
\16\ See ``Summary of State Speed Laws, Twelfth Edition,''
December 2013, DOT HS 811 769, available at https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.dot.gov/files/documents/summary_state_speed_laws_12th_edition_811769.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. Nuro's Petition
NHTSA received Nuro's petition for a temporary exemption on October
23, 2018, seeking an exemption from three of the requirements that
apply to LSVs: The exterior and/or interior mirror requirement (FMVSS
No. 500, S5(b)(6)), the windshield requirement (FMVSS No. 500,
S5(b)(8)), and the backup camera ``Linger time'' and ``Deactivation''
requirements (FMVSS No. 500, S5(b)(11); FMVSS No. 111, S6.2.4 &
S6.2.5). In addition, Nuro requested an exemption from portions of the
test procedures in FMVSS No. 111 that relate to the backup camera
``Field of view'' and ``Size'' requirements. Nuro submitted its
petition under the basis that an exemption would make easier the
development or field evaluation of a low-emission vehicle (LEV) and
that an exemption would not unreasonably lower the safety of that
vehicle. As described in Nuro's petition, the vehicle for which Nuro
requested an exemption, the ``R2X,'' would be an occupantless, electric
LSV that is designed to be operated almost exclusively by an ADS.
According to Nuro, the R2X would not be sold, but rather would be
operated by Nuro in partnerships with grocery stores and other
merchants to autonomously deliver goods to nearby customers.
Nuro argued in its petition that provisions of FMVSS No. 500 from
which it is seeking an exemption require the inclusion of safety
features that do not serve a safety purpose on the R2X, due to the fact
that the R2X is operated by an ADS and does not have any occupants.
Moreover, Nuro argued that including these required features would
reduce the safety of the R2X. Nuro's arguments for its three exemption
requests are summarized in the table below:
[[Page 7829]]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nuro's argument for why
Requirement from which an exemption Safety purpose of the Nuro's argument for why compliance would be
is requested requirement the safety purpose is detrimental to the
not relevant to the R2X safety of the R2X
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exterior Mirrors, FMVSS No. 500, To provide the driver The R2X's ADS does not Exterior mirrors
S5(b)(6). of the LSV with use mirrors to increase pedestrian
information about the perceive its strike risk, and
driving environments surroundings for interfere with the
to the rear. purposes of performing R2X's pedestrian
the driving task. safety features such
as rounded corners.
Windshield made from FMVSS No. 205- To prevent the ejection The R2X does not have FMVSS No. 205-compliant
compliant glazing material, FMVSS of vehicle occupants, occupants who need glazing is both heavy
No. 500 S5(b)(8). and to ensure forward protection, and the and rigid and must be
visibility for the ADS does not require a held in place by a
driver. transparent windshield rigid frame, and so it
to perceive the would interfere with
driving environment in plans to provide a
front of the vehicle. ``front-end safety
system, including
rounded contouring,
softer materials, and
a `crumple zone' '' on
exempted vehicles.
Backup Camera ``Linger time'' and Linger time: To prevent The R2X's ADS is not a Because R2X's ADS uses
``Deactivation'' requirements, FMVSS the driver from being human. It can process its rearview cameras
No. 500 S5(b)(11); FMVSS No. 111 distracted by the the information from during forward motion
S6.2.4 & S6.2.5 17. rearview image when all of its cameras to gain a
traveling in the simultaneously, comprehensive
forward direction. regardless of the understanding of its
Deactivation: To allow direction of their environment and avoid
deactivation of the aim, without collisions with
image either when the distraction. vehicles or objects
driver modifies the approaching from the
view, or the vehicle rear, deactivating the
direction selector is view to these cameras
removed from the while in forward
reverse position. motion would decrease
the vehicle's safety.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, while Nuro stated that the R2X would conform to the
backup camera ``Field of view'' (FOV), ``Size,'' and ``Response time''
requirements (FMVSS No. 111, S6.2.1, S6.2.2, S6.2.3), Nuro requested an
exemption from portions of the test procedures in FMVSS No. 111 related
to those requirements, because the design of the R2X precluded those
test procedure steps from being executed. Nuro provided an alternative
test procedure that it argued would enable NHTSA to verify the R2X's
compliance with the FOV and Size requirements through the use of the
vehicle's remote operator system. Nuro supported its arguments with the
analyses and documentation required under 49 CFR 555.6, which are
discussed in our safety analysis below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ As is explained later in this document, NHTSA has
determined that Nuro's exemption request from the ``Deactivation''
requirement (FMVSS No. 111, S6.2.5) is moot. Therefore, although
this request is discussed in this summary of Nuro's petition, it is
not discussed in the agency's safety analysis or findings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nuro stated in its petition that granting its exemption would be in
the public interest and consistent with the Vehicle Safety Act because
the R2X incorporates various design features that enable the ADS to
operate reliably, and minimize safety risks that may occur if the ADS
malfunctions or otherwise encounters a driving situation it cannot
handle. Nuro also argued that enabling it to field test its ADS would
lead to downstream environmental improvements and economic
productivity.
It is important to note that the most unusual characteristics of
the R2X--its lack of occupants and autonomous operation--do not require
an exemption to be included on the R2X, as there is nothing in the
FMVSSs that preclude Nuro from manufacturing a fully compliant version
of the R2X that includes these two novel design features.\18\ In fact,
within two months of submitting its petition, Nuro began testing on
public roads an occupantless, low-speed ADS vehicle that the company
states it has certified as FMVSS-compliant. Nuro deployed this vehicle,
the ``R1,'' in December 2018 as part of a grocery delivery testing
program in partnership with a Kroger location in Scottsdale, Arizona.
Based on Nuro's descriptions in its public comment, NHTSA understands
the R1 to have been an occupantless, low-speed ADS vehicle that has a
very similar design to the R2X, except that the R1 was equipped with
exterior mirrors, a windshield constructed out of FMVSS No. 205-
compliant glazing, and a backup camera that meets the ``Linger time''
requirement of FMVSS No. 111, S6.2.4. (See Figures 1 and 2 below for a
visual comparison of the R1 and R2X vehicles.) For purposes of NHTSA's
analysis of Nuro's petition, NHTSA assumes that a compliant version of
the R2X would also differ from an exempted R2X in that the compliant
R2X would be equipped with these features. This assumption is
reasonable because such equipment is required by law unless subject to
an exemption.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ The Vehicle Safety Act provides that, for aspects of
vehicle performance that are not covered by an FMVSS, the only
Federal restriction on the vehicle's performance is that the vehicle
cannot contain a defect that poses an unreasonable risk to safety.
Because ADS driving capability is not regulated under the FMVSS, and
LSVs are not required to have human-operated driving and signaling
controls, no regulatory barrier prevents Nuro from deploying the
R2X's ADS on a fully compliant version of the vehicle. Moreover,
given Nuro's track record with on-road testing of its ADS systems,
NHTSA does not have a basis to believe that the R2X's ADS poses an
unreasonable risk to safety.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 7830]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN11FE20.000
IV. Notice of Receipt
NHTSA published its Notice of Receipt of Nuro's exemption petition
in the Federal Register on March 19, 2019.\19\ In addition to
summarizing the petition, the Notice of Receipt posed 39 questions for
the public on a variety of topics, including the appropriateness of the
LEV exemption basis, the safety of the R2X, the performance of the
R2X's ADS, whether an exemption would be in the public interest, and
potential terms or conditions that NHTSA may impose should the agency
grant the petition. Given the novel issues raised by the fact that the
R2X is an occupantless ADS vehicle, NHTSA provided the public with a
60-day comment period, instead of the 30 days normally provided for an
exemption petition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ 84 FR 10172.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In response to the Notice of Receipt, NHTSA received 24 comments
from a variety of commenters, including trade associations, individual
manufacturers, advocacy groups, and individuals. The trade associations
that submitted comments were the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers
(the Alliance), the American Trucking Associations (ATA), the Consumer
Technology Association (CTA), the Association for Global Automakers
(Global), and the National Society of Professional Engineers (NSPE).
NHTSA also received comments from the individual vehicle manufacturer
Local Motors. The advocacy groups that submitted comments were the
American Automobile Association (AAA), the American Association of
Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA), Advocates for Highway Safety
(Advocates), Center for Auto Safety (CAS), DEVCO, and Securing
America's Future Energy (SAFE). In addition, NHTSA received comments
from Kroger, Inc., the Mercatus Center of George Mason University, the
Center for Autonomous Vehicles and Sensor Systems, Edge Case Research,
the Mayor of Scottsdale, Arizona, and the Scottsdale, Arizona Chief of
Police. In addition, NHTSA received a comment from the petitioner
itself. The major points raised by the commenters are briefly
summarized below, and are discussed in greater detail in later sections
of this document.
The principal comments made by commenters who were generally
critical of Nuro's petition were:
The LEV basis is an inappropriate basis under which to
consider Nuro's petition because the purpose of that exemption basis is
to encourage the development of low-emission propulsion technologies.
The petition did not include sufficient information about
the ability of the ADS to perform the driving task (especially as
compared to a human driver), the R2X's Operational Design Domain (ODD),
or the operational details of Nuro's remote operator system.
The petition did not include documentation demonstrating
the efficacy of some of the safety features Nuro describes in the
petition, such as pedestrian ``crumple zones.''
The petition does not sufficiently address the issue of
cybersecurity.
If NHTSA were to grant the petition, the agency should
impose extensive reporting requirements on Nuro that include providing
NHTSA and/or the public with information about ADS performance. These
reporting requirements should last for the life of the vehicle.
Nuro should be required to coordinate extensively with
local authorities in the communities in which the R2X will operate.
The principal comments made by commenters who were generally
favorable to Nuro's petition were:
The LEV basis is an appropriate exemption basis under
which to consider Nuro's petition because the R2X meets the
qualifications for being an LEV, and because one benefit of vehicles
like the R2X is lower overall emissions.
The ability of the ADS to perform the driving task should
not be considered as part of NHTSA's safety analysis of Nuro's
petition, because the compliant version of the R2X against which NHTSA
must compare an exempted R2X would also be equipped with an ADS.
The three requirements from which Nuro sought an exemption
do not serve a safety purpose on a vehicle that is operated exclusively
by an ADS.
If NHTSA were to deny the petition, this would effectively
require Nuro to equip the R2X with extraneous equipment (i.e., mirrors
and glazing material) that could decrease the safety of the vehicle.
[[Page 7831]]
If NHTSA imposes terms that include mandatory data
reporting, it should not be unreasonably broad, and should be limited
to the two-year exemption period.
NHTSA also received several comments that were either general
discussions of the role of exemptions in the regulation of ADS
vehicles, or previously published newspaper articles or academic papers
that discuss automated vehicle policy generally. While the policy
considerations and issues discussed in these comments are certainly
relevant to NHTSA's and the Department's Automated Vehicle policy
generally, they are not directly pertinent to the findings that NHTSA
must make regarding Nuro's specific petition, and thus are not
extensively discussed in this document. However, we note that the
agency shares some of the concerns some of the commenters raised about
ADS safety, and has conditioned this exemption grant on terms that the
agency believes will appropriately mitigate potential risk and ensure
the agency can maintain adequate oversight of deployed R2X vehicles.
Following the publication of the Notice of Receipt, at Nuro's
written request, NHTSA met with representatives of Nuro on April 11,
2019, at NHTSA headquarters.\20\ Nuro stated that it requested the
meeting to provide the agency with an opportunity to improve the
agency's understanding of the R2X's specifications and how it would be
used. Nuro offered to participate in a more technical follow-up call,
which took place on July 18, 2019. Both of these meetings clarified
various operational and technical details about the R2X (e.g., the
capacity of the vehicle's propulsion battery), as well as some details
about the operation of the vehicle's ADS. The agency did not learn any
new information relevant to its evaluation of Nuro's petition. Finally,
NHTSA held an additional call with Nuro on August 23, 2019, to request
clarification on how Nuro intended to certify that the R2X complies
with the portions of FMVSS No. 111 backup camera requirements from
which Nuro did not seek an exemption. As Nuro did not seek an exemption
for the performance requirements discussed in this call, the
information NHTSA learned in this call was not germane to the agency's
decision to grant or deny the petition. NHTSA's decision to grant
Nuro's petition is based entirely on public information and views
provided in the petition and public comments.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ NHTSA's regulations entitle any interested person to, upon
written request to the agency, appear informally before an
appropriate official to discuss an exemption petition or an action
taken in response to a petition. See 49 CFR 555.7(c).
\21\ These discussions are described in a memorandum that can be
found in the docket indicated in the header of this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
V. Selection of Statutory Basis for Analyzing the Merits of the
Petition
NHTSA has determined that it is appropriate to consider Nuro's
petition under both the ``Low-Emission Vehicle'' (LEV) and ``Equivalent
overall safety'' (EOS) exemption bases, and has decided to evaluate
Nuro's petition under both bases.
Nuro submitted its petition for an exemption from FMVSS No. 500
under the LEV exemption basis, which authorizes NHTSA to grant an
exemption if doing so ``would make the development or field evaluation
of a low-emission motor vehicle easier and would not unreasonably lower
the safety level of that vehicle.'' \22\ NHTSA also sought comment on
whether it would also be appropriate to consider Nuro's petition under
the ``new safety feature'' (``NSF'') \23\ or ``equivalent overall
safety'' (``EOS'') \24\ exemption bases.\25\ The key substantive
difference between the LEV basis and these other two bases is that LEV
basis would allow for the deployment of a vehicle that lowers safety,
so long as that lowering is not unreasonable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ 49 U.S.C. 30113(b)(3)(B)(iii)
\23\ 49 U.S.C. 30113(b)(3)(B)(ii)
\24\ 49 U.S.C. 30113(b)(3)(B)(iv)
\25\ See Notice of Receipt, Question 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NHTSA received comments on the appropriateness of the LEV exemption
basis from AAMVA, Advocates, Global, and SAFE. AAMVA and Advocates both
argued that the LEV exemption basis may not be appropriate despite the
R2X's LEV status because the specific requirements from which Nuro
requested an exemption are unrelated to the R2X's electric propulsion
system. According to AAMVA, the NSF basis would be preferable because
the design features that are the subject of the exemption relate to the
removal of the driver (although AAMVA does not explain why this makes
the NSF basis preferable over EOS).\26\ Advocates did not express a
view on what an appropriate basis would be, but did express concern
that the LEV basis would allow for lowering the level of safety of the
exempted vehicle, even if NHTSA did not find such a lowering to be
unreasonable.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ See NHTSA-2019-0017-0025.
\27\ See NHTSA-2019-0017-0026.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conversely, Global \28\ and SAFE \29\ argued that the LEV basis is
appropriate for Nuro because vehicles like the R2X could potentially
reduce emissions by reducing the number of trips made in conventional
(i.e., internal combustion engine) vehicles, and by performing the
driving task more efficiently. In addition, SAFE notes that NHTSA has
previously granted petitions on the LEV basis for exemptions that are
not directly related to the development of a new low-emission
propulsion system, and that the petitioners in those cases argued that
their primary purpose for seeking an exemption was either the
development of low-emission propulsion technologies \30\ or to allow a
vehicle with a new low-emission propulsion technology to be brought to
market more quickly or cheaply.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ See NHTSA-2019-0017-0022.
\29\ See NHTSA-2019-0017-0016.
\30\ E.g., Toyota Motor North America, Inc.; Grant of Petition
for Temporary Exemption from an Electrical Safety Requirement of
FMVSS No. 305, 80 FR 101.
\31\ E.g., Greenkraft Inc.; Grant of Application for a Temporary
Exemption from FMVSS No. 108, 80 FR 12057.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
First, NHTSA has determined that the LEV basis is appropriate for
Nuro's petition. Based upon its interpretation of both the Vehicle
Safety Act and part 555, and consistent with prior agency grants of
exemption petitions, NHTSA has determined to grant the petition under
the LEV basis. The Vehicle Safety Act requires that NHTSA find that the
exemption is in the public interest and consistent with the Vehicle
Safety Act and (1) that the vehicle is an LEV, (2) that an exemption
would make easier the development or field evaluation of the vehicle,
and (3) that an exemption would not unreasonably lower the safety of
the vehicle. It does not state that NHTSA must find a nexus between the
exemption and the LEV status of the exempted vehicle.\32\ Further, part
555 also does not explicitly require this nexus.\33\ The agency notes
that not
[[Page 7832]]
requiring a nexus actually incentivizes that more vehicles with
advanced technologies be designed with low emission technologies, even
off the shelf technologies, which furthers the overarching goal of
allowing more LEVs on the roads. Finally, granting an exemption under
this basis is consistent with the agency's past practice in its earlier
grants to both Toyota and Greenkraft, as cited by SAFE.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ We note, however, that it is within NHTSA's discretion to
determine what constitutes an ``unreasonable'' lowering of vehicle
safety. While NHTSA does not need to make this determination here
because we have found no decrease in safety, the innovativeness and
emission-reducing potential of the low emission technology in the
vehicle may be a factor in considering whether any lowering of
safety is reasonable or not, as a more innovative technology may
have greater environmental benefits than a more established
technology. On the other hand, established technologies that have
been mass produced for years and have widespread availability, such
as those underpinning battery electric vehicles, cannot reasonably
justify much, if any, lessening of safety.
\33\ The agency acknowledges that part 555.2 explains that the
purpose of the exemption process is to ``provide a means by which
manufacturers of motor vehicles may obtain temporary exemptions . .
. on the basis of . . . facilitation of the development of . . .
low-emission engine features,'' and that one of the required
submissions demonstrating safety under part 555.6(2)(i) is, ``[a]
detailed description of how the motor vehicle equipped with the low-
emission engine would, if exempted, differ from one that complies
with the standard.'' NHTSA, though, does not believe that either of
the provisions require a nexus, but simply reflect a general purpose
of the requirement and information that should be submitted if
relevant. In all events, the language of the governing statute
controls, as discussed above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We also agree with AAMVA and Advocates that, since innovation
related to safety and mobility is the central focus of Nuro's petition,
the agency may also consider the petition under the EOS or NSF ground.
Nuro, in its comments, expressed openness to being considered under the
EOS basis instead of the LEV, though Nuro did not amend its application
as part of these comments.\34\ For these reasons, we have considered
whether the petition should also be granted under the NSF or EOS bases.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ See NHTSA-2019-0017-0023. On page 3, Nuro states: ``We
believe the information in the petition, as supplemented in these
comments, supports a determination under 49 U.S.C.
30113(b)(3)(B)(iv) that R2X has an overall safety level at least
equal to the overall safety level of nonexempt vehicles, and would
not object if the Department chose to grant the petition on that
basis.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As between the NSF and EOS bases, NHTSA has determined that the EOS
basis is more appropriate than the NSF basis here. Although it is
possible that an exemption could make easier the development or field
testing of a new (i.e., innovative) safety feature, either the R2X's
ADS or one of the other features described in the application (e.g.,
the pedestrian crash protection systems), those technologies are not
intended to provide a level of safety equivalence compliance with FMVSS
No. 500, which does not contemplate ADS driving competence or
pedestrian safety. Rather, those features are intended to improve the
safety of aspects of performance that are not regulated under FMVSS No.
500. Because the NSF basis limits the scope of the agency's safety
analysis to how an exemption would impact safety solely in terms of
performance under an individual standard, whereas the EOS basis allows
NHTSA to consider aspects of a vehicle's safety performance, the EOS
basis would allow the agency to weigh broader considerations of safety
that may not be captured at the individual standard level.
For these reasons, NHTSA has decided to evaluate Nuro's petition
under both the LEV and EOS exemption bases.
VI. Safety Analysis
In order to make the statutorily required safety findings to grant
an exemption under either the LEV or EOS basis, NHTSA must first
determine whether the level of safety of an exempted vehicle would be
lower than that of a compliant vehicle. If, based on this analysis,
NHTSA finds that an exemption would not lower overall safety of the
vehicle, NHTSA is permitted to grant the petition under both exemption
bases. Thus, if NHTSA determines that an exemption would not lower the
safety of the vehicle (which would obviate the need under the LEV basis
to make the second finding of whether safety is unreasonably lowered),
the entire safety analysis under the EOS and LEV bases would be
identical. NHTSA's analysis would only diverge under the two bases if
NHTSA finds that safety would be lowered, in which case the agency must
deny the petition under the EOS basis, and may only grant the petition
under the LEV basis upon finding that an exemption would not
unreasonably lower the safety of the vehicle.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ We note that NHTSA has determined that the other two
findings NHTSA must make for both bases as part of its evaluation of
Nuro's petition--whether granting the exemption would be in the
public interest and consistent with the Vehicle Safety Act--are
identical regardless of the exemption basis. As these are not safety
findings, they are not discussed in this section.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because the mirror, windshield, and backup camera ``Linger time''
requirements are discrete aspects of vehicle performance, we discuss
them individually in separate subsections below. Note that, because
NHTSA has deemed moot Nuro's request for exemptions from the backup
camera ``Deactivation'' requirement, it is not included our safety
analysis. Rather, the reasons we deemed this request moot are explained
in a later section.
a. An Exemption From the Requirement That an LSV be Equipped With
Exterior and/or Interior Mirrors Would Not Lower the Safety of the R2X
NHTSA has determined that an exemption from the requirement that
LSVs be equipped with exterior and/or interior mirrors would not lower
the safety of the R2X, and in fact may incrementally increase the
safety of the R2X, because mirrors would not serve a safety-related
purpose on an occupantless LSV operated by an ADS, and the presence of
protruding exterior mirrors on such a vehicle may increase strike risk
for pedestrians and other vulnerable road users.
FMVSS No. 500, S5(b)(6) requires that LSVs be equipped with an
``exterior mirror mounted on the driver's side of the vehicle and
either an exterior mirror mounted on the passenger's side of the
vehicle or an interior mirror.'' Nuro argued in its petition and its
public comment that, because the safety purpose of these mirrors is to
enable a human driver to observe objects to the rear of the vehicle,
the mirror serves no safety function on the R2X. First, according to
Nuro, the ADS uses an array of sensors to detect objects behind the
vehicle. Moreover, Nuro states that mirrors serve no auxiliary safety
purpose for people outside of the vehicle, and their omission reduces
the risk of striking pedestrians and lowers the mass of the vehicle.
Commenters who discussed the mirror requirement agreed with Nuro
that exterior mirrors did not serve a safety function on the R2X. The
Alliance,\36\ Local Motors,\37\ and the Scottsdale, Arizona Chief of
Police \38\ all state that the three safety features for which Nuro has
requested an exemption do not serve a functional purpose on an ADS
vehicle like the R2X. CTA stated in its comment that if NHTSA were to
deny Nuro's exemption, the agency would effectively require Nuro to add
what CTA terms ``extraneous equipment'' that would likely raise the
risk and severity of a pedestrian strike.\39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ See NHTSA-2019-0017-0020.
\37\ See NHTSA-2019-0017-0017.
\38\ See NHTSA-2019-0017-0019.
\39\ See NHTSA-2019-0017-0015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NHTSA agrees with Nuro and the commenters that that mirrors do not
serve a safety function on a vehicle with no occupants that is operated
by an L4 ADS, since the ADS perceives the driving environment using a
suite of sensors that do not rely on the mirrors. Further, NHTSA has
concluded that the fact that the mirrors protrude from the vehicle
means that they could potentially increase the risk of injury to
pedestrians or cyclists, however incrementally and thus concurs with
Nuro's assertion in the petition about this potential benefit.\40\
Moreover, we note that ancillary benefits that mirrors provide, such as
providing a warning to
[[Page 7833]]
vehicle occupants about hazards (such as approaching cyclists) when
opening the vehicle door, are not a concern in a vehicle with no
occupants. Therefore, the removal of said mirrors would, at worst, have
no impact on the overall level of safety of the vehicle.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\40\ Although the mirrors on LSVs are not required to meet the
performance criteria in FMVSS No. 111, NHTSA implicitly acknowledges
through that standard that outside mirrors do present some level of
safety hazard to pedestrians, because the standard requires that
outside mirrors be free of ``sharp points or edges that could
contribute to pedestrian injury.'' FMVSS No. 111, S5.2.1. We see no
reason why outside mirrors on LSVs would not also present a
pedestrian strike risk.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. An Exemption From the Requirement That an LSV be Equipped With FMVSS
No. 205-Compliant Windshield Would Not Lower the Safety of the R2X
NHTSA has determined that an exemption from the requirement that
LSVs be equipped with a windshield constructed from FMVSS No. 205-
compliant glazing materials would not lower the safety of the R2X
because a compliant windshield would not serve a safety-related purpose
on an occupantless LSV operated by an ADS, due to the fact that a
windshield is not necessary to assure (human) driver visibility, nor is
it needed to protect occupants in a crash.
FMVSS No. 500, S5(b)(8) requires that LSVs be equipped with ``a
windshield that conforms to the Federal motor vehicle safety standard
on glazing materials (49 CFR 571.205).'' FMVSS No. 205, ``Glazing
materials,'' is an equipment standard for glazing materials (i.e.,
glass) used in vehicles to both ensure driver visibility and to
minimize the risk of occupants being ejected from the vehicle in a
crash. In its petition, Nuro argued that an FMVSS No. 205-compliant
windshield would not serve a safety need on the R2X because (1) the R2X
would not have occupants, so there is no risk that human occupants
could be injured by an impact with glazing or ejected from the R2X, and
(2) the R2X uses an ADS to perform the driving task, which does not
require a transparent windshield to observe the driving environment.
Nuro further argued that removing the windshield would, in fact,
improve the safety of the R2X because a windshield constructed out of
FMVSS No. 205-compliant glazing could injure pedestrians in a collision
due to its rigidity (if the glazing does not break), or due to the harm
that could result should the glazing shatter. Nuro also argues that
equipping the R2X with a compliant windshield would interfere with the
operation of the R2X's pedestrian ``crumple zones,'' which are designed
to reduce pedestrian injuries in a crash, because equipping the R2X
with a compliant windshield would necessitate a more rigid design. Nuro
notes that, while the R2X would not be equipped with a windshield, the
front of the vehicle will be equipped with a ``plate'' that resembles
the appearance of a windshield but is not constructed out of compliant
glazing, and which deforms to provide pedestrian/cyclist protection in
case of a crash. Nuro stated that this ``plate'' will serve the
windshield ancillary safety function of providing other road users with
a visual cue for the front of the vehicle (and thus, its direction of
movement).
Commenters generally did not dispute Nuro's argument that an FMVSS
No. 205-compliant windshield would not serve a safety purpose on a
vehicle without occupants. The Alliance \41\ and Local Motors \42\
explicitly agreed with Nuro's analysis that a windshield would not
serve a safety purpose, and CTA stated that, if NHTSA were to deny
Nuro's exemption, it would effectively require Nuro to add what CTA
terms ``extraneous equipment'' that would likely raise the risk and
severity of a pedestrian strike.\43\ While Advocates \44\ and AAMVA
\45\ did not dispute Nuro's argument that a windshield was not
necessary, they expressed concern that Nuro did not provide sufficient
information to assess the effectiveness of the R2X's pedestrian
``crumple zones'' and rounded edges for mitigating pedestrian injuries
(though it should be noted that FMVSS No. 500 does not contain
performance requirements for pedestrian injury mitigation).\46\ The
Alliance noted that front-end stiffness of LSVs is not regulated under
FMVSS No. 500.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\41\ See NHTSA-2019-0017-0020.
\42\ See NHTSA-2019-0017-0017.
\43\ See NHTSA-2019-0017-0015.
\44\ See NHTSA-2019-0017-0026.
\45\ See NHTSA-2019-0017-0025.
\46\ AAMVA also raised the concern that NHTSA should ensure that
the material used for the front end of the R2X would keep cargo from
being ejected in a crash at least as well as an FMVSS No. 205-
compliant windshield. However, NHTSA notes that the R2X does not
appear to be designed in such a way that a windshield would be the
only, or even the primary, barrier separating the cargo compartments
from the outside. See NHTSA-2019-0017-0023.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In its comment, Nuro explained further why it believes that not
equipping the R2X with an FMVSS No. 205-compliant windshield will
increase the safety of the R2X.\47\ According to Nuro, the R2X would
require very sturdy A-pillars to support the weight of an FMVSS No.
205-compliant windshield, which make it necessary that the front
outboard corners of the vehicle (which would support the windshield) be
rigid. Thus, an R2X that complies with the windshield requirement could
not incorporate the front-end pedestrian ``crumple zone'' crash
mitigation feature described in its petition. Nuro states that, if
exempted, the R2X's A-pillars would not need to support as much weight,
so they could be designed to be deformable in a crash, which would
allow the front end of the vehicle to absorb impact energy at the sides
as well as in the center. In addition, Nuro states that the R2X
voluntarily complies with both FMVSS No. 305, ``Electric-powered
vehicles: electrolyte spillage and electrical shock protection,'' (49
CFR 571.305) \48\ and the Bumper Standard (49 CFR part 581).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\47\ See NHTSA-2019-0017-0023.
\48\ FMVSS No. 305 requires that electric vehicles meet certain
requirements relating to electrical safety after multiple types of
barrier crashes that the standard requires to be conducted at speeds
that exceed 25 mph, the maximum speed for an LSV. See, e.g., FMVSS
No. 305, S6.1. However, these barrier crashes are typically
performed using a tow cable to propel the vehicle (as opposed to the
vehicle's own propulsion system), so it would be possible to run
these tests on an LSV like the R2X. We note that Nuro does not state
whether ``compliance'' with FMVSS No. 305 means that the R2X would
meet the standard's performance criteria after being crashed at the
R2X's maximum speed of 25 mph, or after being crashed at the higher
speeds articulated in the standard's test procedures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NHTSA has concluded that an exemption from the windshield
requirement would not lower the level of safety of the R2X because the
safety concerns that the windshield addresses--protecting occupants
from ejection and intrusion, and ensuring occupants (particularly a
human driver) can see the driving environment--are not present in the
R2X, due to its lack of occupants and its operation by an ADS that
relies on cameras and sensors instead of a human driver.\49\
Accordingly, not equipping the R2X with a compliant windshield would,
at a minimum, have no net safety impact on the R2X. We note that
NHTSA's determination that an exemption from the windshield requirement
would not lower the safety of the R2X does not rely on the
effectiveness of its pedestrian ``crumple zones'' or other safety
features because, as Advocates and others have noted, Nuro has not
provided documentation to support the effectiveness of these features.
While NHTSA encourages manufacturers to include additional safety
features that are not required under the FMVSS, the lack of data to
support the effectiveness of these features precludes the agency from
considering the safety impact of these features in its safety finding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\49\ We assume that Nuro has designed the R2X so that the
sensors used by the ADS are not obstructed by whatever material is
used to cover the front of the vehicle in place of FMVSS No. 205-
compliant glazing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 7834]]
c. An Exemption From the Requirement That an LSV's Backup Camera Meet
the ``Linger Time'' Requirement of FMVSS No. 111 Would Not Lower the
Safety of the R2X
NHTSA has determined that an exemption from backup camera ``Linger
time'' requirement (FMVSS No. 111, S6.2.4) would not lower the safety
of the R2X because the safety concern underlying the linger time
requirement--driver distraction--does not exist for an occupantless LSV
operated by an ADS.
FMVSS No. 500, S5(b)(11) states that LSVs ``shall comply with the
rear visibility requirements specified in paragraphs S6.2 of FMVSS No.
111.'' One of the requirements that falls under FMVSS No. 111, S6.2.4,
limits the duration of the system's ``Linger time,'' which is the
period in which a rearview image continues to be displayed by the
backup camera system after the vehicle's transmission has been shifted
out of reverse gear. Per S6.2.4, the rearview image produced by the
backup camera system ``shall not be displayed after the backing event
has ended.'' NHTSA explained in the final rule establishing the backup
camera requirement that the safety justification for the linger time
restriction was the possibility that a driver would be distracted by a
rearview image.\50\ FMVSS No. 111, S6.2.4 currently requires that the
``Linger time'' period end at the end of the ``backing event.'' \51\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\50\ 79 FR 19177, 19219.
\51\ FMVSS No. 111 defines the ``backing event'' as an amount of
time which starts when the vehicle's direction selector is placed in
reverse, and ends at the manufacturer's choosing, when the vehicle
forward motion reaches: (a) A speed of 10 mph, (b) a distance of 10
meters traveled, or (c) a continuous duration of 10 seconds,
whichever the manufacturer chooses. FMVSS No. 111, S4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In its petition, Nuro argued that the ``Linger time'' requirement
does not serve a safety purpose on the R2X because the safety risk it
is intended to mitigate against--the possibility that a human driver
would be distracted by the rear visibility image when traveling in the
forward direction--is not a concern for the R2X, since the R2X uses an
ADS that is not susceptible to distraction. Nuro further argues that an
exemption from the ``Linger time'' requirement would, in fact, improve
the safety of the R2X, as it would eliminate a condition in which the
R2X's rear-facing camera and sensors shut off, which Nuro says has the
effect of partially blinding the ADS.
NHTSA agrees with Nuro that distraction is unlikely to be a concern
for the R2X's ADS, which is not a human and thus would not be
susceptible to cognitive distraction.\52\ And we see no reason why
permitting the ADS to use an additional source of information about the
driving environment would reduce the safety of the R2X.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\52\ The specific distraction that we discussed in the backup
camera final rule--the prolonged illumination of the required image
at night--would not be an issue for the R2X, since the ADS does not
rely on an illuminated display to perceive the rearview image.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
d. An Exemption From Portions of the FMVSS No. 111 ``Field of View and
Image Size Test Procedure'' and ``Image Response Time Test Procedure''
Would Not Lower the Safety of the R2X
NHTSA has determined that an exemption from the provisions in the
FMVSS No. 111 ``Field of view and image size test procedure'' relating
to fuel tank loading (S14.1.2.2), driver's seating position
(S14.1.2.5), and steering wheel adjustment (S14.1.7); and an exemption
from the provisions of the FMVSS No. 111 ``Image response time test
procedure'' relating to the driver's door and activation of the
starting system (S14.2(a)-(c)); would not lower the safety of the R2X
because the R2X's backup camera would still be required to produce a
rearview image that meets the substantive performance requirements for
``Field of view'' (S6.2.1),''Size'' (S6.2.2), and ``Response time''
(S6.2.3).
While Nuro states in its petition that the R2X meets these
substantive requirements--and thus meets the minimum level of
performance established by the standard--Nuro requested an exemption
based on language in a 2016 Chief Counsel's interpretation letter
issued to Google in 2016.\53\ Nuro cited and quoted language from
NHTSA's letter to Google in making this request for an exemption. Nuro
stated: ``Previously, the Department has interpreted `driver' and
`operator' in FMVSS No. 111 as referring to the self-driving system in
cases of autonomous vehicles. However, in its letter to Google, the
Department noted the need for a testing procedure to satisfy itself
that the images provided to the self-driving system meet the
requirements for field of view, image size, timing, and durability.''
\54\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\53\ See Letter from P. Hemmersbaugh, NHTSA, to C. Urmson,
Google (Feb. 4, 2016), https://www.nhtsa.gov/interpretations/google-compiled-response-12-nov-15-interp-request-4-feb-16-final.
\54\ See NHTSA-2019-0017-0002, at 17 (footnote omitted).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In its discussion of FMVSS test procedures, NHTSA's letter to
Google explained: ``As self-driving technology moves beyond what was
envisioned at the time when standards were issued, NHTSA may not be
able to use the same kinds of test procedures for determining
compliance.'' \55\ The letter explained that ``since the [Vehicle]
Safety Act creates a self-certification system for compliance, NHTSA's
verification of a manufacturer's compliance . . . is based on our
established test procedures.'' \56\ Although the letter recognized that
test procedures are for NHTSA's use in compliance testing, the letter
also stated that ``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.'' \57\ To enable Google to certify its vehicles in the
absence of appropriate test procedures, the agency suggested that
Google may seek exemptions, as Nuro noted in its petition.\58\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\55\ Letter from P. Hemmersbaugh, NHTSA, to C. Urmson, Google
(Feb. 4, 2016), https://www.nhtsa.gov/interpretations/google-compiled-response-12-nov-15-interp-request-4-feb-16-final.
\56\ Id.
\57\ Id.
\58\ See NHTSA-2019-0017-0002, at 13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NHTSA notes that the 2016 interpretation letter to Google diverged,
without explanation, from NHTSA's longstanding position that
manufacturers are not required to certify compliance based on NHTSA's
FMVSS test procedures.\59\ While beyond the
[[Page 7835]]
scope of this notice, NHTSA intends to clarify the application of test
procedures in a subsequent notice.\60\ However, prior to revisiting
this issue, NHTSA is considering Nuro's request for an exemption from
provisions of the test procedures on its merits.\61\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\59\ NHTSA has expressed this concept in both rulemaking and
letters of interpretation going back several decades. See, e.g., 76
FR 15902, 15905 & 08 (Mar. 22, 2011) (explaining that
``manufacturers are not required to test their products in the
manner specified in the relevant safety standard, or even to test
the product at all, as their basis for certifying that the product
complies with all relevant standards. A manufacturer may evaluate
its products in various ways to determine whether the vehicle or
equipment will comply with the safety standards and to provide a
basis for its certification of compliance. Depending on the
circumstances, the manufacturer may be able to base its
certification on actual testing (according to the procedure
specified in the standard or some other procedure), computer
simulation, engineering analysis, technical judgment or other means
. . . manufacturers can use their judgment, including engineering or
technical judgment, to certify vehicles. Testing, as provided in the
FMVSS, is not required as a matter of law to certify a vehicle.
Instead, sound judgment may be used.'') (footnote omitted); 36 FR
5856 (Mar. 30, 1971) (``Manufacturers have the responsibility of
ensuring, by any methods that constitute due care, that their
products meet the requirements at the stated level. Normally this is
done by setting their own test conditions slightly on the `adverse
side' of the stated level.''); Letter from A. Cooke, NHTSA, to K.
Manke, Dakota Manufacturing (Apr. 15, 2008), https://isearch.nhtsa.gov/files/07-005971as%20underride%20guards.htm (``Keep
in mind that the test procedures in FMVSS No. 223 describe how NHTSA
will test guards for compliance with the standard's requirements,
and are not binding upon guard manufacturers. A manufacturer is not
required to use the standard's procedures when certifying compliance
with the standard.''); Letter from E. Jones, NHTSA, to D. Cole,
Nat'l Van Conversion Ass'n, Inc. (Nov. 1, 1988), https://isearch.nhtsa.gov/files/3140o.html (``I would like to point out that
manufacturers are not required by Standard No. 302 to test the
flammability of their vehicles in only the manner specified in the
standard. The standard only sets the procedure that the agency will
use in its compliance testing.'').
\60\ NHTSA believes that this issue is more appropriately
addressed in a separate Federal Register notice, rather than in this
notice addressing a specific petition from a specific manufacturer.
\61\ NHTSA notes that under its prior, longstanding position
that manufacturers are not required to certify compliance based on
NHTSA's FMVSS test procedures, Nuro's request for an exemption from
provisions of the test procedures would likely have been considered
moot.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nuro notes that the R2X is an electric vehicle and does not have a
gas tank that can be fully loaded with fuel--an express requirement of
the FMVSS No. 111 test procedures--and, pursuant to the Google
interpretation described above, is therefore incapable of being
certified as compliant with the standard.
Similarly, because of the R2X's occupantless design and exclusive
ADS operation, the vehicle is not equipped with a driver's seat or a
display screen, which means that NHTSA is not able to independently
verify this compliance using the test procedures in FMVSS No. 111.\62\
An exemption from the test procedure provisions that require manual
operation by a human driver to execute would not permit Nuro to equip
the R2X with a backup camera system that, if installed on a
conventional vehicle, would produce a rearview image that fails to
comply with FMVSS No. 111; rather, it permits Nuro to certify the R2X's
rearview image, which is transmitted directly to the R2X's ADS during
normal operation, would be able to meet the substantive requirements
for field of view, size, and response time if it were displayed on a
screen in a conventional vehicle. Put another way: An exemption from
the test procedures would not, in any way, permit Nuro to equip the R2X
with a subpar backup camera system; rather it enables Nuro to
demonstrate that the R2X's backup camera system transmits to the ADS
the visual information that would be needed to meet the minimum
performance criteria in FMVSS No. 111, even if the test procedures in
FMVSS No. 111 cannot be performed using the R2X.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\62\ Note that FMVSS No. 111 does not require that LSVs be
equipped with a display screen; it only requires that the LSV
produce a ``rearview image'' that meets the criteria of S6.2. While
most conventional vehicles with human drivers comply with this
requirement through the use of a screen on which the rearview image
is displayed, the R2X does not have such a screen because, since it
cannot be operated by a human driver, such a screen is unnecessary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As part of its exemption request, Nuro provided suggestions for how
NHTSA could modify the FMVSS No. 111 test procedures to accommodate the
R2X's unique design:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reason it cannot Nuro's suggested
Required test condition be performed modification
------------------------------------------------------------------------
S14.1.2.2, ``Fuel tank loading'' The R2X is an Conduct the test
electric vehicle with the battery
that runs on a at full charge
charge in a capacity.
battery, not on
fuel in a fuel
tank.
S14.1.2.5, ``Driver's seat The R2X has no Treat a remote
positioning''. driver's seat, or operator's seat
designated as the driver's
seating position seating position.
of any kind.
S14.7, ``Steering wheel The R2X has no Conduct the test
adjustment''. steering wheel. with the wheels
pointed in the
forward
direction, as
would be
consistent with
the test state in
the standard.
S14.2, ``Image response time The R2X has no Perform the test
test procedure''. driver's door to procedure using
open or close. the cargo
compartment
doors, which are
the primary
method for
accessing the
interior of the
R2X.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Given the design differences between the R2X and a typical LSV,
NHTSA has determined that Nuro's proposed modifications to the FMVSS
No. 111 test procedures are reasonable, since they would condition the
R2X in the same way as would the test procedures in the standards if
applied to a conventional vehicle. Most commenters did not discuss
whether NHTSA should grant Nuro's request for an exemption from the
FMVSS No. 111 test procedures, or their views on the adequacy of Nuro's
suggested modifications. The only comment on this subject was from
AAMVA, which stated that it was ``skeptical'' of what is meant by
treating the remote operator seat as a driver's seating position. We
think that Nuro's suggestion to use the remote operator as a stand-in
for the driver, for purposes of compliance certification, is
reasonable. The purpose of the FMVSS No. 111 ``Field-of-view,''
``Size,'' and ``Response time'' requirements are to ensure that the
image displayed communicates information about the area behind the
vehicle to the driver in a format that the driver is able to understand
from the start of the backing event. If the rearview image meets the
``Field of view,'' ``Size,'' and ``Response time'' criteria when viewed
by a remote operator who is located a similar distance from the
rearview image screen as would be a human driver in a conventional
vehicle, NHTSA believes this would be sufficient to demonstrate that
Nuro exercised reasonable care in certifying the R2X because it
indicates that the ADS is receiving the same information that a human
driver would receive from the backup camera system in a conventional
vehicle, and that this information is being transmitted at the start of
the backing event. Similarly, we believe that Nuro's suggestion that it
perform test procedures with a fully charged battery in lieu of a
fully-loaded gas tank, for purposes of compliance certification, is
reasonable.
Advocates claimed that the act of applying a vehicle's brakes to
prevent a back over crash is an integral part of the safety purpose of
the backup camera, and that NHTSA should therefore incorporate into its
analysis whether the R2X would appropriately brake in response to an
object in the backup camera zone. We do not agree with Advocates that
FMVSS No. 111 extends to how the vehicle must react in response to the
presence of an object behind the vehicle. Although Congress enacted the
K.T. Safety Act (the statute that mandated NHTSA to create the backup
camera requirement) to reduce back over crashes, FMVSS No. 111 requires
that the driver be provided with information that would enable the
driver to take action to avoid a back over
[[Page 7836]]
crash.\63\ Specifying appropriate performance requirements for ADS
brake activation would require significant research that is not
feasible for purposes of this exemption, applicable to a limited number
of vehicles. NHTSA notes, however, that Nuro, like all motor vehicle
manufacturers, must safeguard against safety-related defects.\64\ NHTSA
would not hesitate to exercise its defect authority should information
indicate that an ADS does not appropriately brake in response to the
presence of objects in its vicinity. NHTSA also mitigates any potential
risk through the limited number of vehicles that can be produced
pursuant to this exemption, and through the terms and conditions
described below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\63\ NHTSA considered this technology as part of the rulemaking
that established the backup camera requirement. In the Final Rule on
the subject, NHTSA acknowledged that ``it may be possible that
automatic braking or other future systems offer comparable or
greater protection to the public without the use of a rearview
image,'' but noted that the agency was ``not currently aware of any
established, objective, and practicable way of testing such systems
to ensure that they offer a minimum level of protection to the
public.'' 79 FR 19178, 19203 (Apr. 7, 2014). NHTSA has not yet taken
action to add an automatic braking element to the backup camera
requirements in FMVSS No. 111.
\64\ See 49 U.S.C. 30112(a)(3), 30118-20.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
VII. Nuro's Requests for Exemptions From the LSV Mirror, Windshield,
and Backup Camera ``Linger Time'' Requirements Are Granted Under Both
the ``Low-Emission Vehicle'' (LEV) and ``Equivalent Overall Safety''
(EOS) Exemption Bases
Based on the contents of Nuro's public petition and the comments
received in response to the Notice of Receipt, NHTSA has made the
findings required to grant Nuro's petition for an exemption from the
mirror, windshield, and backup camera ``Linger time'' requirements
under both the Low-Emission Vehicle basis and the Equivalent Overall
Safety basis.
a. Findings Specific to the LEV basis
i. The R2X Is a Low-Emission Vehicle
A vehicle is considered a low-emission vehicle for the purposes of
Sec. [thinsp]30113 of the Vehicle Safety Act if it emits air
pollutants significantly below the standards for new vehicles
applicable to the vehicle set under Sec. [thinsp]202 of the Clean Air
Act. Since the R2X is an electric vehicle and would not emit any such
pollutants, it is a low-emission vehicle under Sec. [thinsp]30113.
This issue was not contested in the public comments. Further, as
discussed above, there is no need for the agency to find a nexus
between the fact that the vehicle is an LEV and the reason the vehicle
is non-compliant.
ii. An Exemption From the Mirror, Windshield, Backup Camera ``Linger
Time'' Requirements, and Portions of the Backup Camera Test Procedures
Relating to Rearview Image FOV, Size, and Response Time, Would Not
Unreasonably Lower the Safety Level of the R2X
Given that an exemption from the mirror, windshield, and backup
camera ``Linger time'' requirements would not lower the level of safety
of the R2X, NHTSA finds that an exemption would not unreasonably lower
the safety of the R2X as compared to that of a compliant R2X. In
addition, NHTSA finds that, because an exemption from the FMVSS No. 111
test procedure provisions relating to fuel tank loading (S14.1.2.2),
driver's seating position (S14.1.2.5), steering wheel adjustment
(S14.1.7), and the opening of the driver's door and activation of the
starting system (S14.2(a)-(c)) would not affect whether the R2X's
backup camera system meets the substantive requirements for ``Field of
view'' (S6.2.1), ``Size'' (S6.2.2), and ``Response time'' (S6.2.3), an
R2X exempted from these test procedure provisions would not lower the
safety of the vehicle. Because NHTSA finds that safety would not be
lowered, NHTSA does not reach the question of whether safety would be
unreasonably lowered.
iii. An Exemption From the Mirror, Windshield, and Backup Camera
``Linger Time'' Requirements Would Make Easier the Development or Field
Evaluation of the R2X
An exemption from the mirror, windshield, and backup camera
``Linger time'' requirements would make easier the development or field
evaluation of the R2X because it will permit Nuro to deploy the R2X
without equipping the vehicle with extraneous safety features that, as
noted earlier, NHTSA has found to not serve a safety function on an
occupantless low-speed ADS vehicle.
Nuro argues in its petition that compliance with these requirements
potentially imposes costs on Nuro and make it more difficult to field
test the R2X because compliance ``increases pedestrian strike risk,
adds mass, and worsens the impact of collisions.'' NHTSA agrees that,
because compliance would require the R2X to be equipped with additional
equipment, compliance with the standard would increase the cost of
performing field evaluations of the R2X due to higher manufacturing
costs and design restrictions. NHTSA also agrees that increased weight
would make field evaluation of the vehicle harder by limiting the
utility of the R2X as a delivery vehicle, because extra equipment may
increase the curb weight of the vehicle, which could decrease the
amount of cargo it can carry. (LSVs are required to have a GVWR of
3,000 pounds or below, regardless of the curb weight of the vehicle.)
\65\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\65\ See 49 CFR 571.3
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While the exemption from the backup camera linger time requirement
would not impact the manufacturing cost or weight of the vehicle, NHTSA
finds that granting an exemption from that requirement would also make
easier the field evaluation of the R2X because it would allow the R2X's
ADS to operate continuously with full sensor input at all times, which
would aid with Nuro's evaluation of the ADS's performance.
b. Findings Specific to the EOS Basis
i. An R2X Exempt From the Mirror, Windshield, Backup Camera ``Linger
Time'' Requirements, and Portions of the Backup Camera Test Procedures
Relating to Rearview Image FOV, Size, and Response Time, Would Have an
Overall Level of Safety Equivalent to That of a Nonexempt Vehicle
Because an exemption from the mirror, windshield, and backup camera
``Linger time'' requirements would not lower the level of safety of the
R2X, NHTSA finds that an R2X exempted from these requirements would
have a level of safety at least equal to that of a compliant version of
their R2X. In addition, NHTSA finds that because an exemption from the
FMVSS No. 111 test procedures relating to fuel tank loading
(S14.1.2.2), driver's seating position (S14.1.2.5), steering wheel
adjustment (S14.1.7), and the opening of the driver's door and
activation of the starting system (S14.2(a)-(c)) would affect whether
the R2X's rearview image meets the substantive ``Field of view''
(S6.2.1), ``Size'' (S6.2.2), and ``Response time'' (S6.2.3)
requirements, an R2X exempted from these test procedure provisions
would provide a level of safety equivalent to a vehicle tested in
accordance with the FMVSS No. 111 test procedures.
ii. Compliance With FMVSS No. 500 Would Prevent Nuro From Selling the
R2X
Compliance with FMVSS No. 500 would prevent Nuro from commercially
deploying the R2X because it requires the R2X to be equipped with the
three additional features that are the subject of this exemption
(exterior and/or interior mirrors, a windshield
[[Page 7837]]
constructed from FMVSS No. 205-compliant glazing materials, and a
backup camera that meets the ``Linger time'' requirement of FMVSS No.
111).
We note that, while the statutory language for the EOS states that
NHTSA must find that compliance with the FMVSS would prevent Nuro from
``selling'' the R2X, this language does not limit the application of
the statutory basis to only vehicles that will be offered for sale
(which Nuro states the R2X will not). Rather, to grant an exemption
under the EOS basis, NHTSA must find that compliance with the standard
would prevent Nuro from selling the R2X regardless of whether Nuro
actually intends to sell the R2X. Section 30113 of the Vehicle Safety
Act does not require that a vehicle exempted under the EOS basis enter
into interstate commerce only through a sale, and NHTSA can think of no
reasonable safety-related policy justification for reading such a
requirement into the statute. Accordingly, we have determined that Nuro
may introduce the R2X into interstate commerce by means other than
selling, even if the vehicle is exempted under the EOS basis.
c. Granting Nuro's Petition Is Consistent With the Public Interest and
the Vehicle Safety Act
As discussed above, the Vehicle Safety Act and its implementing
regulations provide the Secretary and, by delegation, NHTSA with broad
authority and discretion in determining whether granting the petition
is consistent with the public interest and Vehicle Safety Act. Here,
NHTSA finds that granting Nuro's petition is consistent with the public
interest and 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 because an exemption would enable a
limited-risk deployment \66\ of an occupant-less ADS-equipped vehicle
that has been designed without any residual consideration of human
occupants that are not actually able to be inside the vehicle. Further,
granting the petition will provide the agency with valuable information
that can facilitate its knowledge of ADS functionality to advance
future policy and regulatory decisions. Given the agency's above
determination in the safety findings that the exemption will not lower
the safety of the R2X as compared to a compliant version of the
vehicle, and could instead provide incremental benefits to vehicle
safety due to certain design changes, the agency believes that these
reasons are more than sufficient to justify this finding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\66\ In terms of vehicle size, weight, and speed, as well as
limited operational design domain and fleet size.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
More specifically, allowing for the introduction of the R2X as it
has been designed by Nuro to optimize its performance as an occupant-
less vehicle could further the development of new and innovative
vehicle automation technologies, which may in turn lead to future
benefits for vehicle safety, the environment, and the economy. While
the extent of the anticipated benefits of ADS vehicles like the R2X are
uncertain, commenters Local Motors and SAFE suggested that these
vehicles could provide a variety of benefits, including increased
safety (because ADS vehicles may reduce the number of crashes caused by
human error), decreased emissions (because ADS vehicles could perform
the driving task more efficiently and, in the case of the R2X,
efficiently combine trips), and socioeconomic benefits (because ADS
vehicles could provide expanded goods delivery services to poor and/or
underserved communities).
While NHTSA cannot fully predict the extent to which these benefits
will materialize in the future and, more specifically, the effect that
granting this petition would have on those benefits, the agency
understands that development of the ADS technology necessary to make
these potential benefits possible requires the technology be used on
vehicles that are designed from the ground-up to be automated and in
real-world (non-simulated) environments, both to validate the safety of
the current ADS technologies and to expose those technologies to new
situations in which ``machine learning'' capabilities can be used to
improve performance.\67\ In all events, the exemption request must be
considered based upon the information available to the agency at this
time, and NHTSA may revisit the issues here in the future as
circumstances warrant. By virtue of filing this petition, Nuro believes
that this exemption would better facilitate their development of this
technology. Given that the R2X has a much lower top speed and lower
weight than a typical passenger motor vehicle, and that the R2X will
not have occupants, NHTSA believes that LSV-based ADS vehicles like the
R2X provide a low-risk platform for validating and improving ADS
technologies.\68\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\67\ We note that the FAST Act (Pub. L. 114-94, 129 Stat. 1312
(Dec. 4, 2015) amended the Vehicle Safety Act to permit vehicle
manufacturers that existed before December 2015 to operate
uncertified vehicles on public roads for purposes of testing and
evaluation. See 49 U.S.C. 30112(b)(10). As Nuro has only been a
manufacturer since 2018 (see https://vpic.nhtsa.dot.gov/mid/manufacturer/details/18808), Nuro does not qualify for this
exclusion and so must certify its vehicles as FMVSS-compliant, or
obtain a temporary exemption, before deploying them in any capacity
on public roads.
\68\ We note that our determination that the R2X is a lower-risk
platform for testing ADS technologies is, in part, premised on Nuro
taking its responsibility for the safety of its vehicles seriously,
which includes compliance with the terms set out at the end of this
notice. If NHTSA determines that Nuro has violated the terms laid
out at the end of this notice, NHTSA may determine at that time that
the exemption is no longer in the public interest, and may withdraw
the exemption. See 49 CFR 555.8(d)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, granting this exemption is in the public interest and
consistent with the Vehicle Safety Act because it would encourage the
development of new safety and automated technologies, like ADS, with an
eye toward future regulatory changes. To this end, NHTSA believes that
both the public interest and the goals of the Vehicle Safety Act would
be best served if NHTSA were able to maintain a dialogue with Nuro
about its experience operating the R2X, which may help inform the
agency's future policy decisions towards ADS technologies. Accordingly,
NHTSA has decided to condition the grant of an exemption on Nuro
providing the agency with specified periodic and incident-based
reporting of information about the R2X's ADS, notwithstanding that the
driving capability of the ADS is not relevant to the requisite safety
findings.
VIII. Nuro's Request for an Exemption From the Backup Camera
``Deactivation'' Requirement Is Moot
NHTSA has deemed moot Nuro's request for an exemption from the
backup camera ``Deactivation'' requirement (FMVSS No. 111, S6.2.5)
because the requirement does not mandate that the backup camera
deactivate when the vehicle shifts out of reverse, as Nuro assumed in
its petition. Accordingly, an exemption from the ``Deactivation
requirement'' is not necessary for Nuro to design the R2X to operate
with the backup camera activated at all times, which was Nuro's stated
purpose of requesting an exemption.
The deactivation requirement specifies the circumstances in which
the backup camera image may be deactivated, i.e., when ``the driver
modifies the view, or the vehicle direction selector is removed from
the reverse position.'' Contrary to Nuro's understanding, S6.2.5 does
not require the backup camera to deactivate; rather, the requirement
prohibits the backup camera from being deactivated prior to either of
the two specified conditions being met. That is, S6.2.5 requires that
[[Page 7838]]
the rearview image be displayed prior to either the driver manually
modifying the view or the gear selector being taken out of reverse. The
requirement does not mandate that the image shall cease to be visible
when one of these conditions is met. Thus, assuming the driver has not
manually modified the rearview image, S6.2.5 would permit the rearview
image to be displayed even after the gear selector had been taken out
of reverse; \69\ but, per S6.2.4, it may not be displayed after the end
of the backing event, as that term is defined in S4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\69\ The only restriction on when the rearview image must be
deactivated is the linger time requirement (S6.2.4), from which we
have decided to grant Nuro an exemption, as is explained in the
previous section.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since the deactivation requirement in S6.2.5 permits, but does not
require, deactivation of the rearview image when the vehicles is taken
out of reverse, Nuro's request for exemption from the requirement is
moot.
IX. Other Issues Raised by Commenters
a. Relevance of the Driving Capability of the R2X's ADS
Several commenters raised the issue of whether, and the extent to
which, the driving ability of the R2X's ADS was relevant to the safety
findings NHTSA must make to grant an exemption under Sec. 30113, under
any basis. Advocacy groups, including AAMVA,\70\ Advocates,\71\ and
NSPE,\72\ assumed, without providing a legal basis for their
assumption, that the ability of the R2X's ADS to perform the driving
task must be a major factor for NHTSA to consider in its evaluation of
Nuro's petition. These groups argued that Nuro's petition did not
include sufficient information about the ADS for NHTSA to grant an
exemption because Nuro did not include documentation of the various
testing it had done in developing its ADS, though these groups
generally did not specify in detail what data they believed Nuro should
have provided. However, one safety advocate, CAS, did include a
discussion of why it believed the driving ability of the R2X's ADS
should be an element of NHTSA's in its safety findings.\73\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\70\ See NHTSA-2019-0017-0025.
\71\ See NHTSA-2019-0017-0026.
\72\ See NHTSA-2019-0017-0011.
\73\ See NHTSA-2019-0017-0024.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to CAS, the driving ability of the R2X's ADS is relevant
because the FMVSS often have ``an implicit human operator bias.''
Accordingly, CAS argues that manufacturers of ADS vehicles must be
required to demonstrate that the manufactures ``have successfully
replicated in their automatic systems the human sensory capability,
responses, and judgement implicit in the specific FMVSS for which an
exemption is sought.'' Using the mirror requirement as an example, CAS
argues that, for Nuro to be exempted from the LSV mirror requirement,
its petition must demonstrate that the R2X's ADS will respond as a
human using mirrors would in a potential crash scenario. However, CAS
does not cite a legal basis for reading into the FMVSS a requirement
that the ADS must react in a certain way in these driving scenarios.
While other comments from advocacy groups were not as thorough as CAS
in their discussion of the relevance of the ADS, they all roundly
criticized Nuro's petition for a perceived lack of information about
the ADS and other related subjects (such as the ODD and remote operator
system) they claim are relevant to the safety findings NHTSA must make.
On the other side, SAFE, Local Motors, and the Alliance, argued in
their comments that the driving capability of the R2X's ADS is not
relevant to the safety findings NHTSA must make to grant an exemption.
According to SAFE, the R2X's ADS is not relevant to NHTSA's safety
findings because the exemption statute requires NHTSA to determine how
the safety level of the non-compliant R2X would differ from that of a
compliant vehicle, which in this case, would be a compliant
occupantless, low-speed ADS vehicle.\74\ Thus, based on SAFE's logic,
NHTSA's findings must focus on the safety implication of non-compliance
as it relates to the specific standards from which an exemption is
sought, not on how safe an exempted vehicle would be generally.\75\
Using similar logic, Local Motors argued that ``ADS performance
measurement is less meaningful to the specific features being
omitted,'' although Local Motors did encourage NHTSA to require some
information reporting to maintain oversight of the vehicles.\76\ The
Alliance argued for the same outcome--that the R2X's ADS should not be
considered in NHTSA's safety findings--but justified its argument on
the grounds that ADS competency should not be considered because it is
already ``addressed'' through the Voluntary Safety Self-Assessment
(VSSA) criteria and the Department's ADS 2.0 and AV 3.0 guidance.\77\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\74\ See NHTSA-2019-0017-0016.
\75\ We note that SAFE discusses only the LEV and NSF bases, but
its point could be applicable to the EOS basis as well.
\76\ See NHTSA-2019-0017-0017.
\77\ See NHTSA-2019-0017-0020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NHTSA agrees with SAFE and Local Motors that the ADS does not
factor into the comparative safety findings NHTSA must make to grant an
exemption under either the EOS or LEV bases in this instance. As we
briefly explained at the start of the ``Safety Analysis'' section,
neither the statute nor regulations call upon NHTSA to assess the
absolute level of safety of the exempted vehicle in question and find
whether the vehicle's safety exceeds some minimum threshold that exists
in the abstract. Instead, the agency is tasked with making a judgment
about relative safety, i.e., whether an exempted, noncompliant version
of a highly automated R2X would have a level of safety equivalent to
that of a nonexempt, compliant version of a highly automated R2X. As we
noted, Nuro has stated that an R2X that is exempted from the
requirements of FMVSS No. 500 would use the same ADS as an R2X that is
fully compliant, which would rely on the same sensors and would perform
the same classifying, decision making and executing functions. Thus,
because a compliant version of the R2X would also operate using an ADS,
there is no meaningful difference in the safety impact of the ADS
between a compliant and non-compliant R2X.\78\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\78\ As noted earlier, the Vehicle Safety Act permits
manufacturers to include any design feature they want on a vehicle
so long as the vehicle conforms to the FMVSS, and the vehicle does
not contain a defect that poses an unreasonable risk to safety.
Thus, the ADS would be subject to NHTSA's defects authority, and
some aspects of its competence may be appropriately considered in a
defect investigation of the R2X by NHTSA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While we agree with the Alliance that the driving performance of
the ADS is not germane to the safety findings NHTSA must make to grant
Nuro's petition, we do not agree with the Alliance that the VSSA
process is the appropriate framework NHTSA should use to exercise
oversight of ADS vehicles that are produced subject to an exemption.
First, as stated in NHTSA's ADS 2.0 guidance, and reemphasized in the
Department's AV 3.0 and other statements, VSSAs are completely
voluntary and the agency has no mechanism with which to compel their
submission. VSSAs are intended to be documents by which ADS developers
convey to the public information about how safety is factored into the
development of the ADS in several specific critical areas and, thus,
are not intended to be tools of regulatory oversight. Further, the
agency is not, in this notice, foreclosing the possibility that, in
considering whether to grant an ADS-related exemption petition for a
vehicle that is requesting exemption
[[Page 7839]]
from many more FMVSS requirements than Nuro, NHTSA would determine that
the competency of the ADS is relevant to making the requisite safety
finding. Rather, the agency has simply determined that such an analysis
is not necessary here.
It is important to note that, while the driving capability of the
R2X's ADS was not a factor in NHTSA's findings concerning whether the
agency should grant Nuro's petition, as described above, nothing in
this decision precludes NHTSA from seeking information about the ADS as
part of a defect investigation, just as the agency would be able to
seek information about the ADS in an investigation of a FMVSS compliant
ADS-equipped vehicle. Neither this decision nor the Vehicle Safety Act
prohibits NHTSA from mitigating ADS-related risks in determining the
number of vehicles to exempt or the terms that apply to the exemption.
Accordingly, NHTSA has conditioned this exemption grant on terms that
the agency believes will mitigate risk and ensure the agency can
maintain adequate oversight of deployed R2X vehicles. The agency has
included several terms that require Nuro to report both general and
incident-related information to NHTSA, including certain data about the
operation of the R2X and its ADS. As described above, NHTSA believes
granting this petition is in the public interest in part because this
data will assist the agency both with its oversight of the R2X, and
with developing regulatory changes to facilitate the safe introduction
of fully compliant ADS vehicles.
b. ADS-Related Data Reporting
Several commenters also raised the issue of whether, and to what
extent, NHTSA should require Nuro to report data about the operation of
the R2X to the agency. While most commenters agreed that some required
post-grant data reporting requirement would be appropriate, the
commenters disagreed on whether this reporting should include
information about the operation of the R2X using the ADS.
The commenters in favor of broad reporting requirements that cover
information about the operation of the R2X and/or its ADS included
advocacy groups like Advocates, CAS, and AAMVA, as well as the
manufacturer Local Motors. Advocates argued that NHTSA should use the
exemption process to increase the agency's understanding of ADS
technologies through ``required data sharing,'' though it did not
provide detail as to what data it believed would be useful for NHTSA to
collect, nor what exactly is meant by ``sharing.'' \79\ Both CAS \80\
and AAMVA \81\ suggest that NHTSA should ``monitor'' and require
periodic reporting from Nuro, though they do not specify details of the
scope or frequency of this monitoring and reporting. Local Motors
suggested that NHTSA could require reporting of information related to
route hazards, near misses, collision incidents, injuries, and
disengagements of the ADS.\82\ Regardless of what is reported, both
AAMVA and Advocates argue that, because the R2X could potentially
operate beyond the two-year exemption period, and could develop over
time through software changes, any reporting requirements should last
for the entirety of the R2Xs' useful life.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\79\ See NHTSA-2019-0017-0026.
\80\ See NHTSA-2019-0017-0024.
\81\ See NHTSA-2019-0017-0025.
\82\ See NHTSA-2019-0017-0017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commenters who argued against significant reporting requirements
included the Alliance and Nuro itself. The Alliance argued that data
reporting on the operation of the R2X and/or its ADS should not be
required, both because of what it refers to as the ``limited'' nature
of Nuro's exemption request, and because NHTSA has the VSSA process to
obtain this information.\83\ The Alliance argues that if NHTSA does
impose any reporting requirements, such requirements should be limited
to the specific exemptions from the FMVSS requirements at issue in the
petition, and that information about the ADS should be pursued in other
ways, such as through a pilot program. In addition, the Alliance argues
that, if there are any reporting requirements, they should not extend
beyond the two-year exemption period. While Nuro did not object to
reporting generally, it did suggest that NHTSA should only require
reporting of information relating to a small subset of potential crash
events, or narrowly tailored to the discrete aspects of vehicle
performance affected by individual exemptions (which would omit
reporting of any information about the operation of the R2X or its
ADS).\84\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\83\ See NHTSA-2019-0017-0020.
\84\ See NHTSA-2019-0017-0023.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NHTSA has determined that limiting reporting requirements in the
way suggested by the Alliance and Nuro would not be appropriate,
because it could harm the public interest both by hindering NHTSA's
oversight of the R2X and limiting NHTSA's ability to learn from
information from Nuro to potentially inform future activities.
Accordingly, NHTSA has decided to include terms that would require both
crash-related information that is sent to the agency very soon after
any crash, and periodic reporting of general information about the
operation of the R2X, and that this reporting should extend throughout
the useful life of the vehicles produced pursuant to the exemption.
c. Compliance With FMVSS Requirements Not Applicable to the R2X
AAMVA argues in its comment that Nuro should be required to apply
for an exemption from the requirement that LSVs come equipped with an
FMVSS No. 209-compliant seat belt, despite the vehicle's lack of
designated seating positions, because AAMVA is concerned that allowing
this would set a precedent that manufacturers could simply decide that
certain FMVSS requirements do not apply to their vehicles.\85\ NHTSA
does not agree with AAMVA's assertion that Nuro is free to choose which
FMVSS apply. FMVSS No. 500 is quite clear as to the seat belt
requirement. It is written as an ``if-equipped'' requirement; that is,
it requires that an LSV have an FMVSS No. 209-compliant seat belt at
each designated seating position (DSP). Since the R2X does not have any
DSPs, it is not required to have any seat belts. All LSVs with DSPs are
subject to the requirements of FMVSS No. 209.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\85\ See NHTSA-2019-0017-0025.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Similarly, CAS argues that NHTSA should require that the R2X be
equipped with an FMVSS No. 401-compliant trunk release in its cargo
compartments as a term of granting the petition.\86\ Although NHTSA
encourages Nuro to make its vehicles as safe as possible, and to
consider installing trunk releases, FMVSS No. 401 does not apply to
LSVs. Under section 30113 and Part 555, the question that Nuro's
petition puts before NHTSA is whether Nuro should be exempted from
three of the requirements to which its vehicle is subject under FMVSS
No. 500.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\86\ See NHTSA-2019-0017-0024.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The question of whether LSVs should be subject to additional
performance requirements is outside the scope of this proceeding, and
the agency does not have a legal basis to impose additional FMVSS
requirements on the R2X, either as a pre-condition of granting an
exemption, or as a term for maintaining an exemption grant. However,
the agency may consider whether to include a trunk release requirement
should we decide in the future to amend the FMVSS to specifically
regulate occupantless delivery vehicles, as described in the Notice of
Receipt for this petition.
[[Page 7840]]
d. Cybersecurity
Three commenters--CAS, NSPE, and Patrick Coyle--all raised
cybersecurity concerns as well. CAS states that ``end-to-end
encryption,'' which Nuro states the R2X's communications will have, is
insufficient to assure cybersecurity alone.\87\ CAS also commented that
safety-critical cybersecurity issues should be covered by Nuro's safety
plan and that there should be ongoing assessments of Nuro's compliance
with this plan. Similarly, NSPE states that the cybersecurity measures
Nuro describes in its petition are insufficient, given the dangers an
ADS vehicle could pose if hacked, and says that NHTSA should withhold
approval until Nuro submits a detailed cybersecurity plan.\88\ Mr.
Coyle, a private individual, also states that Nuro's petition does not
contain an adequate discussion of cybersecurity.\89\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\87\ See NHTSA-2019-0017-0024.
\88\ See NHTSA-2019-0017-0011.
\89\ See NHTSA-2019-0017-0004.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although the agency has no reason to believe that the cybersecurity
risk between the R2X and a hypothetical compliant version of the R2X
are any different, given the critical importance of cybersecurity, we
have decided it would be in the public interest to include terms
requiring Nuro to report any cybersecurity incidents and safety-
critical cybersecurity vulnerabilities, and cease operation of all R2X
vehicles if a cybersecurity incident that has an effect on safety
occurs until the incident has been remedied.
e. Engagement With Local Authorities
Both AAMVA and AAA argue in their comments that community
engagement would be important to ensuring the safe operation of the
exempted vehicles and to gaining consumer acceptance. AAMVA stated that
NHTSA should carefully consider how state and local authorities would
be affected by the presence of exempted vehicles, and suggested that
the acceptability of features like remote operation as a risk
mitigation strategy should be up to State and local authorities.\90\
AAA also stated that petitioners should describe outreach efforts in
their petition.\91\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\90\ See NHTSA-2019-0017-0025.
\91\ See NHTSA-2019-0017-0021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although the question of whether Nuro adequately engaged with the
local communities in which it is deploying the R2X is not a factor in
the safety findings NHTSA must make to grant Nuro's petition, NHTSA
agrees that community outreach and compliance with local regulation is
important for both the safe operation of the R2X within the community
(e.g., safely interacting with first responders in an emergency) and
social acceptance of the vehicles. For this reason, NHTSA has
determined it is in the public interest to include terms that require
Nuro to certify that it has engaged with and gained any legally
necessary approval of all State and local authorities in the
communities in which the R2X will be deployed.
X. Number of Vehicles
The Vehicle Safety Act provides that NHTSA may grant an exemption
under the LEV and EOS bases for the production of a maximum of 2,500
vehicles during any 12-month period.\92\ Nuro is permitted to produce
up to 2,500 exempted R2X vehicles during any 12-month period of the
exemption, or a maximum of 5,000 exempted vehicles over the full two-
year exemption period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\92\ 49 U.S.C. 30113(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
XI. Terms
The Vehicle Safety Act grants the Secretary, as delegated to NHTSA
significant discretion to condition the grant of an exemption ``on
terms [NHTSA] considers appropriate.'' 49 U.S.C. 30113(b)(1)
(delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.95). Pursuant to this authority,
NHTSA's grant of an exemption is subject to the terms set out in the
Appendix following the preamble. Although, as we have noted, the
performance of the R2X's ADS need not be addressed for this exemption,
the Vehicle Safety Act does not limit the agency's authority solely to
terms and conditions directly relevant to its specific determination.
This is particularly true in instances, such as here, where the agency
has considered the potential benefits of automation in its public
interest finding, and where the party seeking the exemption is using a
novel form of technology.
The exemption Nuro is receiving today is the first exemption NHTSA
has granted under section 30113 to permit the deployment of an ADS
vehicle that will be used for commercial purposes. As such, NHTSA
appreciates that there will likely be heightened public interest about
the vehicles allowed under this exemption petition, as evidenced by the
public comments, and, the agency has decided to include provisions
concerning the performance of the ADS in the terms for this exemption.
NHTSA notes that violation of these terms may lead NHTSA to determine
that the exemption is no longer in the public interest, which is a
ground for the agency to terminate the exemption under 49 CFR 555.8(d).
NHTSA may also take other appropriate enforcement action.
The terms NHTSA has chosen are designed to enhance the public
interest and include post-crash reporting, periodic reporting,
particular terms concerning cybersecurity, and certain general
requirements. The post-crash reporting requirements would provide NHTSA
with information necessary to understand the cause of the crash
(including any role the ADS may have played), so the agency can take
appropriate remedial action--up to and including requiring a recall, or
even terminating the exemption and include the type of information the
agency may request as a matter of course in any safety defect
investigation involving an ADS-equipped vehicle. The periodic reporting
requirements are intended to provide NHTSA with information about the
operation of the R2X on public roads to facilitate improved safety
oversight. NHTSA has also included restrictions on Nuro to ensure that
the company is in a position to learn of and quickly resolve
cybersecurity incidents related to safety. The general requirements are
intended to ensure that Nuro removes from operation any vehicle
determined not to be safe, Nuro comply with all relevant State and
local laws, retain ownership of the vehicles, and provide a hotline for
safety concerns.
We note that the terms we have included in this notice are similar
to terms NHTSA has previously imposed on the importation of
noncompliant ADS vehicles under 49 CFR part 591, though, consistent
with the differing requirements of part 591, Nuro's exemption will
allow for commercial deployment, rather than simply testing and
demonstration. Finally, though not included in the terms below, Nuro
must also comply, as a matter of law, with the requirements for a label
that must be affixed to its exempted vehicles under part 555.9.
XII. Conclusion
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 30113(b)(3)(B)(iii) and (iv), the
agency is granting Nuro NHTSA Temporary Exemption No. EX 20-01 from
paragraphs S5(b)(6) and S5(b)(8) of FMVSS No. 500; and paragraphs
S6.2.4, S14.1.2.2, S14.1.2.5, S14.1.7, and S14.2(a)-(c) of FMVSS No.
111; provided that Nuro complies with the terms and conditions
described in the Appendix to this document. The exemption shall be
effective from February 11, 2020 to February 10, 2022.
[[Page 7841]]
Appendix: Terms
1. Reporting Following a Crash
As soon as practicable, but no later than 24 hours after the R2X
is involved in any crash in which either (1) the R2X is in motion,
or (2) the R2X is struck by another motor vehicle, Nuro must inform
NHTSA's Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance (OVSC) that the crash
took place.
As soon as practicable, but no later than 7 calendar days after
Nuro informs OVSC of a crash, Nuro must report to NHTSA the data
elements specified in Table I.\93\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\93\ These data elements are based on the requirements in 49 CFR
part 563, Event Data Recorders, with data elements related to
occupant protection systems omitted. For purposes of reporting the
data elements in this table, ``End of Event Time'' means the moment
at which the vehicle's cumulative delta-V within a 20 ms time period
becomes 0.8 km/h (0.5 mph) or less.
Table I--Reported Data Elements
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recording interval/ Data sample rate
Data element time (relative to (samples per
time zero) second)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Delta-V, longitudinal......... 0 to 250 ms or 0 to 100.
End of Event Time
plus 30 ms,
whichever is shorter.
Maximum delta-V, longitudinal. 0-300 ms or 0 to End N/A.
of Event Time plus
30 ms, whichever is
shorter.
Time, maximum delta-V......... 0-300 ms or 0 to End N/A.
of Event Time plus
30 ms, whichever is
shorter.
Delta-V, lateral.............. 0-250 ms or 0 to End 100.
of Event Time plus
30 ms, whichever is
shorter.
Maximum delta-V, lateral...... 0-300 ms or 0 to End N/A.
of Event Time plus
30 ms, whichever is
shorter.
Time, maximum delta-V, lateral 0-300 ms or 0 to End N/A.
of Event Time plus
30 ms, whichever is
shorter.
Time, maximum delta-V, 0-300 ms or 0 to End N/A.
resultant. of Event Time plus
30 ms, whichever is
shorter.
Lateral acceleration.......... N/A.................. N/A.
Longitudinal acceleration..... N/A.................. N/A.
Normal acceleration........... N/A.................. N/A.
Speed, vehicle indicated...... -5.0 to 0 sec........ 2.
Engine throttle, % full....... -5.0 to 0 sec........ 2.
Service brake, on/off......... -5.0 to 0 sec........ 2.
Ignition cycle, crash......... -1.0 sec............. N/A.
Ignition cycle, download...... At time of download.. N/A.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The data elements specified in Table I must be reported in
accordance with the range, accuracy, and resolution specified in
Table II.
Table II--Reported Data Element Format
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Data element Minimum range Accuracy Resolution
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lateral, Longitudinal and normal At option of At option of At option of
acceleration. manufacturer. manufacturer. manufacturer.
Longitudinal, Longitudinal Maximum, -100 km/h to + 100 km/h 10%........ 1 km/h.
Lateral, Lateral Maximum delta-V.
Time, maximum delta-V, longitudinal 0-300 ms, or 0--End of 3 ms....... 2.5 ms.
and lateral. Event Time plus 30 ms,
whichever is shorter.
Time, maximum delta-V, resultant..... 0-300 ms, or 0--End of 3 ms....... 2.5 ms.
Event Time plus 30 ms,
whichever is shorter.
Speed, vehicle indicated............. 0 km/h to 200 km/h..... 1 km/h..... 1 km/h.
Engine throttle, percent full........ 0 to 100%.............. 5%......... 1%.
Ignition cycle, crash and download... 0 to 60,000............ 1 cycle.... 1 cycle.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, Nuro must provide NHTSA's OVSC with the following
information about the status of the ADS and/or remote operator
before and during the crash event:
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.).
If a remote operator took over control of the vehicle
prior to the event, a detailed timeline of the 30 seconds leading up
to the remote 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.).
If a remote operator was in control of the R2X at any
point during or up to 30 seconds before the event, Nuro must provide
a detailed timeline of any actions the remote 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.).
Finally, Nuro must provide NHTSA with 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. Periodic Reporting
Beginning 90 days after the date of the exemption grant, and at
an interval of every 90 days thereafter, Nuro must submit to NHTSA's
OVSC a report detailing the operation of each R2X 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 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. Nuro must provide the same information for miles
traveled using a remote operator.
Detailed descriptions of any material changes made to
the R2X's Operational Design Domain (ODD) or ADS software during the
reporting period.
Detailed descriptions of any incidents in which the R2X
has violated any local or state traffic law, whether operating using
the ADS or under remote operation.
Detailed descriptions of any incidents in which the R2X
has experienced a sustained
[[Page 7842]]
acceleration of at least 0.7g on any axis for at least 150 ms, or of
any incidents in which the vehicle has an unexpected interaction
with humans or other objects (other than crashes that require
immediate reporting).
Detailed descriptions of all instances in which a
public safety official, including law enforcement, has attempted to
interact with an R2X, such as to pull it over, or has contacted Nuro
regarding an attempted interaction with the R2X.
Detailed descriptions of any ``minimal risk condition
fallback'' \94\ or ``remote operator takeover'' \95\ events that
have 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. For any remote operator takeover event, Nuro
must provide information about any technical issues encountered,
such as signal latency.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\94\ The term ``minimal risk condition fallback'' refers to a
situation in which the ADS pulls over using a ``failsafe
trajectory,'' as described on page 21 of Nuro's VSSA, which Nuro
submitted as an attachment to its comment. See Docket No. NHTSA-
2019-0017-0023.
\95\ The term ``remote operator takeover'' refers to a situation
in which a remote operator takes control of a vehicle either because
the ADS recommends remote operation, or because the remote operator
deems it appropriate without being prompted by the ADS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, Nuro must make necessary staff available to meet
with NHTSA staff quarterly to discuss the status of its deployment
program.
3. Cybersecurity
Nuro must have a documented cybersecurity incident
response plan that includes its risk mitigation strategies and the
incident notification requirements listed below.
Nuro must cease operations of all R2X vehicles
immediately upon becoming aware of any cybersecurity incident \96\
involving the R2X and any systems connected to the R2X that has the
potential to impact the safety of the R2X.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\96\ As used in these terms, ``incident'' is defined as an
occurrence that jeopardizes the functionality, confidentiality,
integrity, or availability of a vehicle computing platform through
the potential use of an exploit. ``Exploit'' refers to an action
that takes advantage of a vulnerability to cause unintended or
unanticipated behavior to occur on computer software and/or
hardware.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
No later than 24 hours after being made aware of a
cybersecurity incident, Nuro must inform NHTSA's Office of Defects
Investigations (ODI) of the incident. Nuro must also respond to any
additional requests for information from NHTSA on the cybersecurity
incident.
Prior to resuming its operation of R2X vehicles
following the discovery of a cybersecurity incident, Nuro 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. Other Conditions
Nuro must be capable of issuing a ``stop order'' that
causes all deployed R2X vehicles to, as quickly as possible, cease
operations in a safe manner, in the event that NHTSA or Nuro
determines that the exempted vehicles present an unreasonable or
unforeseen risk to safety.
Nuro must coordinate any planned deployment of the R2X
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.
The R2X 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.
Nuro must maintain ownership and operational control
over the R2Xs that are built pursuant to this exemption for the life
of the vehicles.
Nuro must create and maintain a hotline or other method
of communication for the public and Nuro employees to directly
communicate feedback or potential safety concerns about the R2X to
the company.
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30113 and 49 U.S.C. 30166; delegations of
authority at 49 CFR 1.95 and 49 CFR 501.4.
Issued in Washington, DC, under authority delegated in 49 CFR
1.95 and 501.4.
James C. Owens,
Acting Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2020-02668 Filed 2-10-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P