Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards: Vehicle-to-Vehicle (V2V) Communications |
|---|
|
Daniel C. Smith
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
August 20, 2014
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 161 (Wednesday, August 20, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 49270-49278]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-19746]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
49 CFR Part 571
[Docket No. NHTSA-2014-0022]
RIN 2127-AL55
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards: Vehicle-to-Vehicle (V2V)
Communications
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM); notice of
availability of technical report.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document initiates rulemaking that would propose to
create a new Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS), FMVSS No.
150, to require vehicle-to-vehicle (V2V) communication capability for
light vehicles (passenger cars and light truck vehicles (LTVs)) and to
create minimum performance requirements for V2V devices and messages.
The agency believes that requiring V2V communication capability in new
light vehicles would facilitate the development and introduction of a
number of advanced vehicle safety applications. Some crash warning V2V
applications, like Intersection Movement Assist (IMA) and Left Turn
Assist (LTA), rely on V2V-based messages to obtain information to
detect and then warn drivers of possible safety risks in situations
where other technologies have less capability. Both of those
applications address intersection crashes, which are among the most
deadly crashes that U.S. drivers currently face. NHTSA believes that
V2V capability will not develop absent regulation, because there would
not be any immediate safety benefits for consumers who are early
adopters of V2V. V2V begins to provide safety benefits only if a
significant number of vehicles in the fleet are equipped with it and if
there is a means to ensure secure and reliable communication between
vehicles. NHTSA believes that no single manufacturer would have the
incentive to build vehicles able to ``talk'' to other vehicles, if
there are no other vehicles to talk to--leading to likely market
failure without the creation of a mandate to induce collective action.
Through this ANPRM, and through the accompanying technical report,
``Vehicle-to-Vehicle Communications: Readiness of V2V Technology for
Application,'' NHTSA presents the results of its initial research
efforts. In this report, NHTSA has done a very preliminary estimate of
the costs of V2V and the benefits for two V2V-based safety
applications, IMA and LTA, for addressing intersection crashes and
left-turning crashes, respectively. The report also explores technical,
legal, security, and privacy issues related to the implementation of
V2V. NHTSA seeks comment on the research report, and solicits
additional information, data, and analysis that will aid the agency in
developing an effective proposal to require new light vehicles to be
V2V-capable. By mandating V2V technology in all new vehicles, but not
requiring specific safety applications, it is NHTSA's belief that such
capability will in turn facilitate market-driven development and
introduction of a variety of safety applications, as well as mobility
and environment-related applications that can potentially save drivers
both time and fuel.
DATES: Comments must be received no later than October 20, 2014.
ADDRESSES: Report: The research report is available on the internet for
viewing in PDF format at http://www.safercar.gov/v2v, and at http://www.regulations.gov, Docket No. NHTSA-2014-0022. On regulations.gov,
input this docket number into the search box on the home page and
follow the link provided to find the report.
Comments: You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. NHTSA-
2014-0022, by any of the following methods:
Internet: To submit comments electronically, go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the online instructions for submitting
comments. Alternatively, go to http://www.safercar.gov/v2v/resources
and click the yellow button labeled ``Submit comments on the 2014 V2V
Light Vehicle Technical Report here'' to go directly to the docket in
regulations.gov.
Facsimile: Written comments may be faxed to 1-202-493-2251.
Mail: Send comments to Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department
of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building Ground
Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590.
Hand Delivery: If you plan to submit written comments by hand or by
courier, please do so at U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140,
Washington, DC between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. Eastern Standard Time, Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays. You may call the Docket
Management Facility at 1-800-647-5527.
Instructions: For detailed instructions on submitting comments and
additional information see the Public Participation heading of the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this notice. Please note that all
comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided.
Please see the Privacy Act heading under the Public Participation
heading below for more information.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical issues: Gregory Powell,
Office of Rulemaking, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration,
at 202-366-5206. For legal issues: Rebecca Yoon, Office of the Chief
Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, at 202-366-
2992.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Contents
I. Executive Summary
II. Questions on which NHTSA Requests Further Information From the
Public
III. Public Participation
IV. Rulemaking Notices and Analyses
I. Executive Summary
In early 2014, NHTSA announced its decision to move forward with
the regulatory process for light duty V2V communication systems. This
ANPRM announces the availability of the NHTSA research report,
``Vehicle-to-Vehicle Communications: Readiness of V2V Technology for
Application'' which includes analysis of the Department's research
findings in several key areas including technical feasibility, privacy
and security, and preliminary estimates on costs and safety benefits
and seeks comments on how NHTSA can best evaluate the need
[[Page 49271]]
for and likely effects of any mandate for V2V. NHTSA will use the
responses to this ANPRM and the research report as part of our work to
develop a regulatory proposal that would require V2V devices in new
vehicles in a future year, consistent with applicable legal
requirements, Executive Orders, and guidance.
NHTSA will also issue a Request for Information (RFI) in the near
future to seek comments on whether any private entities may have an
interest in exploring the possibility of constituting and operating a
V2V Security Credential Management System (SCMS), get feedback on
certain questions regarding the establishment of an SCMS, and obtain
any other comments or information from the public on the issue of an
SCMS. The RFI, when it is issued, will be available in Docket No.
NHTSA-2014-0023.
II. Questions on Which NHTSA Requests Further Information From the
Public
NHTSA invites comment on all aspects of the research report, in
order to inform the agency as it works toward making the rulemaking
proposal, but also has specific questions in each of the following
areas evaluated as part of the research report. As a general matter,
the agency requests that commenters provide as much research, evidence,
or data as possible to support their comments, as that information will
be of great assistance to the agency as it moves forward in the
development of a proposed rule.
a. Safety Need
Section III of the research report discusses an analysis conducted
to determine the potential Safety Need associated with V2V technology:
1. NHTSA intends to use additional V2V data collected from real-
world test beds already being executed by DOT to continue to supplement
our understanding of which crash scenarios are most likely to be
addressed by V2V technology. (Note: this question is different from
that of possible benefits, discussed below, which goes to the likely
effectiveness of the technology--the degree to which a crash risk will
be reduced--in a given scenario.) In the future, these same test beds
will likely serve as early deployment sites for V2V and V2I. How might
we use data from these test beds to inform our estimates of the likely
target population for V2V in the real world? How might we use data from
these test beds (or from our earlier 3000-car study) to inform our
estimates of the likely benefits and costs of requiring V2V?
Additionally, outside of using test beds or additional field
operational trials, how can we better ensure that our evaluation
accurately reflects, or permits valid conclusions about, the population
of drivers, vehicles, and environments where V2V will be used if it is
mandated on a nationwide basis?
2. We will also work with the General Services Administration (GSA)
to determine which vehicles in the government fleet can be equipped
with V2V devices for testing purposes, and to facilitate the early
penetration of V2V technology into the on-road fleet. Who else is
interested in outfitting a public or private fleet with V2V technology?
How might we choose fleets for additional testing purposes to best
reflect the demographics and characteristics of the driving public and
the conditions under which they drive?
3. Do commenters believe that the agency correctly conducted its
preliminary analysis of which types of crashes could potentially be
addressed by V2V-based safety applications, as discussed in Section III
of the report? If not, how would commenters suggest the agency change
the analysis? Did the agency choose appropriate target crashes and pre-
crash scenarios, or should it have excluded some or included others,
and if so, which ones and why? Did the agency appropriately account for
societal costs (fatalities, injuries, property damage) associated with
that target population, and if not, how else should the agency have
evaluated those potential costs? Did the agency appropriately assess,
for purposes of determining an appropriate target population, which
crash scenarios can be addressed by V2V as opposed to some other crash
avoidance technology, or should the agency have considered this issue
differently? That is, in delineating which crash scenarios may be
better addressed by V2V technology than by a vehicle-resident
technology, was the report over- or under-inclusive?
4. Do commenters believe that V2V-enabled safety applications may
evolve over time to address more and different pre-crash scenarios than
the agency has accounted for in the preliminary analysis? If so, how
would commenters suggest the agency attempt to evaluate the potential
safety improvements associated with this evolution? If not, please
provide evidence about why the agency's view concerning the evolution
of this technology is mistaken.
5. Do commenters believe that the agency's preliminary analysis of
the potential for V2V to address vehicle crashes, as summarized in
Section III.B, seems accurate? If not, how would commenters suggest the
agency change this analysis to more accurately estimate the likely
safety improvements resulting from a nationwide requirement of V2V
technology?
6. One concern when governments intervene in network goods markets
is that they may choose the wrong technology or standard.\1\ Is there a
concern that by mandating V2V NHTSA may ``crowd out'' other promising
technologies? How can NHTSA be sure that V2V is the most cost effective
technology available?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Oz Shy, The Economics of Network Industries, 2001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. NHTSA's Exercise of Its Legal Authority To Require V2V
7. In the report, NHTSA discusses how its current legal authority
would apply to various technologies involved in the V2V system,
including: integrated original equipment manufacturer (OEM) V2V
technologies (including safety applications), integrated aftermarket
equipment, non-integrated aftermarket equipment, software related to
V2V, and certain roadside infrastructure. As discussed in the report,
the agency is confident that its existing legal authority would cover
all of the above categories to the extent necessary to ensure the
success of the V2V system. Nevertheless, with regard to non-integrated
aftermarket equipment and software related to V2V, the agency is
interested in the public's view regarding whether the agency has struck
the correct balance in limiting its authority to only those devices or
programs where a substantial portion of its suspected use is in
conjunction with motor vehicles. Likewise, regarding roadside
infrastructure, has the agency struck the correct balance if it were to
limit its authority to items that are used concurrently with only one
vehicle, rather than items that could be used by many vehicles at once?
8. The agency also discusses how its existing authority would apply
in establishing an FMVSS mandating that new light vehicles be equipped
with a dedicated short-range communications (DSRC) device, including a
preliminary discussion of potential performance standards. The agency
is interested in commenter's views on this discussion.
9. Likewise, the agency briefly discusses how a potential FMVSS for
a safety application would generally be structured. Although less
detailed than the discussion for a DSRC FMVSS, the agency is interested
in commenter's views on this preliminary discussion.
[[Page 49272]]
c. What's Necessary for DSRC To Work
Throughout Section V of the research report, NHTSA identifies
aspects of V2V technology that the agency describes as needing further
research and development in order to transition to wide-scale V2V
deployment.
10. Can V2V safety applications only be addressed through the use
of DSRC devices, or is there some other method of communication that
could be used?
11. Of the research needs identified in the report, do commenters
believe that any of the descriptions should be modified to better
support wide-scale implementation of V2V technology? If so, how should
they be modified? Additionally, are there research needs that are not
identified or addressed? If so, please identify those needs and suggest
how the agency may address them.
12. Do commenters agree with the agency's preliminary conclusions
about what should be included as part of the Basic Safety Message
(BSM)? Are there any additional elements that should be included?
13. NHTSA currently does not plan to propose to require specific
V2V-based safety applications. Rather, we plan to propose to require
that new vehicles be equipped with DSRC devices, which will enable a
variety of applications that may provide various safety-critical
warnings to drivers. Should vehicle manufacturers be allowed to choose
what form of warning should be provided to drivers? Should drivers be
able to modify or turn off any warnings that they receive?
14. NHTSA is considering including in its proposed rule technical
standards for V2V communications, drawing heavily on standards under
development by the auto industry. This may be necessary to ensure
compatibility of all V2V devices, whether installed in new vehicles or
made available in the aftermarket. How can NHTSA choose the correct
standard(s) for V2V? Executive Order 12866 directs agencies to use
performance-based standards whenever possible. Should NHTSA mandate a
particular standard or only mandate V2V, but allow market participants
to choose a standard? If you believe a standard should be chosen, how
specific should the standard be? Should the standard mandate a
particular form of communication? Should cellphones be an option for
the communication or must V2V be a component of the vehicle? Does
cellular technology have the low latency and security necessary for
safety-critical communications?
15. Do commenters believe that the current standards for
interoperability are mature enough to support the more wide-scale
deployment of V2V devices, given that interoperability was achieved in
the context of the Safety Pilot Model Deployment in Ann Arbor,
Michigan? \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Please see Section V of the research report for NHTSA's
findings thus far with regard to interoperability.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Section V of the research report discusses additional work on
interoperability that the agency expects will be performed by voluntary
standards organizations such as Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE),
Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), International
Standards Organization (ISO), etc., along with additional research
underway by the agency itself. Do commenters believe that this research
will be sufficient to facilitate interoperability for wide-scale V2V
deployment, or do commenters believe that additional research is
needed? If so, what additional research could be beneficial, and why?
17. Do commenters believe that the agency's preliminary assessment
that V2V devices would require two DSRC radios, one for safety
communications and the other for security-related communications, is
accurate? If not, why not, and how do commenters suggest safety
messages maintain priority?
18. The Federal Communication Commission (FCC) has proposed the
possibility of sharing the DSRC frequency of 5.9 GHz with other
unlicensed devices. What are the possible ramifications of this sharing
on current safety applications and future applications that may be
developed? If commenters believe that spectrum sharing in the 5.9 GHz
frequency is feasible and will not interfere with V2V communications,
can commenters provide research to support that belief? Please also
share any research and evidence that there will be interference. If
sharing is not possible, how might NHTSA evaluate opportunity cost
associated with those forgone alternative uses of the spectrum? Because
the sharing decision will not be made by NHTSA, need the agency
evaluate that opportunity cost as part of its rulemaking?
19. How could spectrum sharing affect business interests and
possible business approaches in relation to the deployment of the V2V
technology? That is, if the FCC concludes that some spectrum sharing
will not result in interference, will that decision discourage some
investment in V2V and V2I technology implementation and delay the
realization of certain benefits? If so, what kinds of business
development would be deterred or delayed?
20. Can message congestion be managed, or might some kind of active
mitigation be needed in a V2V system? Any information that commenters
can provide about past or current research on this issue, including
research content and methodology, would be helpful to the agency. If
commenters have conducted such research, how close are you to a
production-ready implementation that ensures effective V2V operation in
high-congestion environment? What statistics and measurements have you
collected that illustrate effective, production-ready congestion
mitigation strategies?
21. The agency requests comment on whether DSRC systems should be
expected to last the life of the vehicle, and if not, how one might
ensure that DSRC systems in individual vehicles remain operable after
the consumer has purchased the vehicle.
22. Although NHTSA does not have the authority to require drivers
to retrofit existing passenger vehicles with V2V devices, do commenters
believe that the agency's decision to propose mandating V2V devices for
new vehicles will spur development and application of aftermarket V2V
devices? Can commenters provide research or evidence to support this
view?
23. Are aftermarket V2V devices more likely to be simple Vehicle
Awareness Devices (VADs), or are they more likely to be integrated into
vehicles as retrofits, more similar to OEM devices? What can the agency
do, consistent with its authority, to help ensure that aftermarket
devices can be and are installed properly?
24. Do commenters believe that the agency's technical observations
for DSRC devices and safety applications would also apply for vehicles
over 10,000 pounds GVWR? If not, why not?
25. How should NHTSA work to harmonize its actions on V2V with
those being taken globally?
d. Safety Applications That V2V Could Facilitate
Potential V2V Safety Applications are discussed in Section VI of
the research report.
26. Do commenters believe that the agency's preliminary findings
and conclusions for each of the safety applications discussed in the
report are accurate? Why or why not? Please provide any available
evidence or research to support your view.
[[Page 49273]]
27. The agency would appreciate if commenters, specifically
entities currently developing production-intent V2V applications, could
provide information regarding V2V applications they anticipate
implementing once V2V technology becomes available in the fleet. More
specifically, what applications and what safety warning and/or
convenience functionality would be available to consumers of their
products upon V2V entry to the marketplace?
e. Public Acceptance
Section VII of the research report discusses public acceptance.
28. Do commenters believe that the agency's preliminary assessment
of the public acceptance issues associated with V2V is accurate? Why or
why not? Please provide any available evidence or research to support
your view.
29. Do commenters foresee any issues regarding public or industry
acceptance not discussed in the report that the agency should consider
in developing its proposal? How do commenters recommend the agency
address those issues, if any?
30. What suggestions do commenters have regarding how the agency
should go about educating the public about security and privacy aspects
of the V2V technology?
f. Privacy Considerations
31. As noted in Section VIII of the research report, concurrent
with its issuance of a regulatory proposal that would require V2V
devices in new vehicles in a future year, the agency intends to publish
a draft Privacy Impact Assessment (PIA) analyzing the potential privacy
implications of its regulatory proposal. Although NHTSA welcomes
privacy-related comments in response to the research report and ANPRM
now being issued, the agency expects that its draft PIA will provide
the public with a more detailed basis on which to evaluate potential
privacy risks and proposed mitigation controls associated with V2V
technology, and will seek public comment on its PIA at that time.
g. V2V Communications Security
NHTSA and DOT intend to conduct a thorough review of the security
of the contemplated V2V system to ensure that all credible threats are
identified and a solid course for addressing those threats has been
developed. We will draw on the knowledge of security experts inside and
outside of government in devising that review. We invite knowledgeable
commenters to address the questions below to help ensure we are drawing
on the full range of expertise in dealing with these issues.
32. The current design for the security system for V2V
communications, as discussed in Section IX of the report, is based on
Public-Key Infrastructure (PKI), which is currently used to secure the
passing of data on public networks (such as the internet). V2V
envisions a machine-to-machine PKI system. Do commenters believe that
using machine-to-machine PKI for V2V is feasible, and that a security
system based on PKI provides the level of security needed to support
wide-scale V2V deployment? If not, what other security approach would
be a better alternative, and why?
33. Do commenters believe that the current security system design
(as shown in Figure IX-3 of the research report) is a reasonable and
sufficient approach for implementing a secure and trusted operating
environment? If so, why? If not, why not, and what improvements are
suggested?
34. The current security system design includes regular
distribution of the Certificate Revocation List (CRL) to identify
devices that are not functioning properly, as discussed in Section IX.
Do commenters believe the CRL is necessary? If so, why? Is there an
alternative approach to using CRLs to take V2V devices ``off-line?'' If
so, please describe. If commenters believe that CRLs are necessary, are
there alternative methods to CRL distribution beyond what the agency
described in the research report? If so, what are they?
35. Do commenters believe a V2V system would create new potential
``threat vectors'' (i.e., ``ways into'' a vehicle's electronic control
unit) that could somehow control a vehicle or manipulate its responses
beyond those existing in today's vehicles? If so, please describe the
extent to which they might arise in the context of the security
approach described in Section IX of the research report.
36. Do commenters believe that V2V could introduce the threat of
remote code execution, i.e., that, among possible threat vectors,
malicious code could be introduced remotely into a vehicle through the
DSRC device and could create a threat to affected vehicles? If so, do
commenters have or plan to develop information (research or data) on
this potential risk in the context of V2V, especially the current PKI-
based approach to V2V security, as discussed in Section IX in the
report?
37. Do commenters have suggestions on how NHTSA could mitigate
these potential threats with standardized security practices and how
NHTSA could implement a self-certification or third-party audit or
testing program to guard against such threats? What research is needed
to accomplish these tasks?
38. The currently contemplated security architecture does not
involve encryption of the basic safety message (BSM), as explained in
the report. In light of the fact that the system does involve
asymmetric encryption of the security certificates that are a
prerequisite to acceptance of a vehicle's BSM, does the absence of
encryption of the BSM itself create any security threat, e.g., reverse
engineering of a V2V system? If so, how might that threat be assessed
and addressed?
39. If OEM DSRC devices were kept up-to-date through the current
methods of upgrading that existing consumer electronics use today,
would the use of this updating process introduce a new attack vector?
What are the security ramifications of this vector and what are the
possible mitigations of the threat?
40. Is there a possibility of cyber-attacks across the entire
vehicle fleet and, if so, how should they be analyzed and addressed?
41. Are there any other specific security issues that have not been
mentioned here, but that should be addressed in the V2V security
review? If so, please identify them and discuss how they should be
addressed.
h. Liability
42. Section X discusses issues concerning legal liability
associated with a V2V program, especially concerns that have been
raised by industry and NHTSA's assessment of those concerns. The agency
requests comment on these issues. Do commenters believe that NHTSA's
assessment of liability is accurate? Are there any other issues
associated with liability that the agency should consider, and how do
commenters recommend the agency address them?
i. Preliminary Cost Estimates
43. Section XI of the research report identifies preliminary cost
estimates associated with V2V devices, with the communications network,
and with the security systems. Do commenters believe that these costs
are reasonably representative for the timeframes identified in the
research report? If not, can commenters provide data to support
alternative cost estimates?
44. Do commenters believe and have supporting information or
references that indicate that per-unit costs for V2V devices could be
different from the estimates used by the agency in the research report?
45. At this time, NHTSA does not intend to propose to require OEMs
to
[[Page 49274]]
include specific applications in new vehicles equipped with DSRC
technology. Apart from equipment costs, what would the costs be to
develop these applications? What would the unit cost be for an
application in light of the fact that it would be used in every new
vehicle produced by that OEM?
j. Preliminary Benefits Estimates
As described in the research report, NHTSA conducted laboratory
simulator studies to test the potential effectiveness of certain safety
applications of V2V technology with drivers. The simulations were
derived from real-world crash data, including some event recorder data
and previous detailed studies of driver behavior prior to crashes.
NHTSA recognizes that this type of testing, which is based on
conditions in a laboratory setting and does not fully mimic real world
conditions, affects the agency's ability to make benefit estimates.
NHTSA also conducted real-world testing of those safety
applications.\3\ Data from this testing were used in validating the
simulator studies. For example, the Model Deployment data were used to
validate values for certain parameters (particularly driver response
times and braking force applied in certain situations) and to discern
relationships between parameters (e.g., how braking force varies with
the driver's response time) to help ensure that the simulator reflected
real-world driving performance. However, it may be feasible for NHTSA
to conduct additional real-world testing of V2V technology to determine
long-term driver behavior and the impact of a V2V mandate. The agency's
laboratory conditions did not test whether driver use of V2V technology
differs with routine distractions such as cell phones, talking to
passengers, tuning radio, etc., and the agency may be able to explore
these issues through additional testing. Existing studies of driver
distraction and its effects on driver response to various types of
safety warnings may be very helpful in this regard. In addition, NHTSA
could also determine how drivers will react over time to warnings and
the consequences for safety if warning systems fail or warn drivers
unnecessarily. Human factors research underway concerning safety
warning systems may be applicable to warnings regardless of whether
their information source is V2V or vehicle-resident technologies. The
laboratory conditions also involved relatively simple traffic
scenario(s) and ideal weather conditions. NHTSA recognizes the
limitations of applying results from its laboratory simulator testing.
The application of the results for benefits estimates in this document
provides an idea of what the benefits could be under specified
conditions. In addition to further simulation data the agency expects
to obtain, NHTSA will use available real-world testing data to estimate
benefits for the NPRM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See Section VI of the research report for discussion of real
world testing of V2V-enabled safety applications.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recognizing that our use of the simulation technique for developing
the preliminary estimates found in the research report may need to be
replaced or supplemented by additional data sources at the NPRM stage,
we would appreciate commenters focusing on what additional
methodologies may be helpful in estimating benefits.
46. How could our simulation be improved?
47. NHTSA is statutorily directed by Congress to issue standards to
address safety need identified by the agency. In developing those
standards, the agency is required to consider ``available'' motor
vehicle safety information. To a degree, the agency can increase the
amount of information available to it. Indeed, the agency is directed
to conduct ``motor vehicle safety research, development, and testing
programs and activities, including activities related to new and
emerging technologies that impact or may impact motor vehicle safety.''
However the type and amount of information that the agency can develop
and the scientific means it can use to develop that information with
respect to particular technologies varies as a function of factors such
as resources, the type of technology involved and whether the
technology is commonplace in the vehicle fleet, available only recently
as an option in a limited number of high-end models or still in the
research stage. In some circumstances, it may be possible to generate
simulation data, but not real-world testing data. If commenters do not
agree that it is possible to generate simulation data that can
reasonably approximate potential real-world results, how would it be
possible for NHTSA to fulfill its duty to carry out its safety mission?
How could the agency develop sufficiently reliable data to support
benefits estimates for technologies that do not yet exist in the on-
road fleet? In those specific circumstances, what form could additional
real-world testing take? To assist commenters in considering this
issue, we refer them to the data already contained in the research
report. In addition, NHTSA will continue to post any additional
information about the Model Deployment in our public docket as it
becomes available.
48. What ways, if any, do commenters suggest are possible for
conducting real-world testing of V2V safety applications in the on-road
fleet in the absence of a regulatory mandate for V2V technology?
49. What suggestions, if any, do commenters have to validate a
simulation approach so as to verify or improve its real-world
applicability?
50. In seeking to estimate the costs and benefits of a possible
nationwide mandate for V2V how should NHTSA weigh results from its
laboratory setting versus data that may come from the real-world test
beds?
51. Should NHTSA consider the potential benefits of any additional
V2V-enabled safety applications? If so, which applications? How should
those be tested?
52. The agency has not estimated preliminary benefits associated
with other potential implementations of V2V technology, including
environmental or mobility benefits. Do commenters believe that there
will be such additional benefits? If so, please provide evidence or
research suggesting environmental, mobility, or other potential
benefits of V2V.
53. The safety benefits of V2V are likely to be very different when
there are few vehicles on the road using the technology from when most
vehicles are using the technology. If NHTSA mandates V2V technology for
new vehicles only, it will likely take about 15 to 20 years before the
vast majority of all vehicles on the road have the technology
installed. How might NHTSA take account of this in real world testing?
54. Once most, but not all, vehicles on the road have the V2V
technology installed, it is possible that drivers may over-rely on the
technology and may tend to not notice vehicles without the technology.
Is this a realistic possibility? If so, is it unique to V2V or common
to all technologies that rely on a driver's responsiveness to a
warning? How can NHTSA examine this concern in a real-world test
setting?
55. Safety technologies are rapidly evolving. How can we take
account of new safety technologies, like collision avoidance
technologies, when we are attempting to measure the potential
incremental benefits of V2V? Which of these technologies are
substitutes for V2V? Which are complements to V2V? Which of these
technologies will be enhanced in their effectiveness by incorporating
the additional safety data available through V2V technology (e.g., V2V
will clearly identify other objects
[[Page 49275]]
as vehicles and provide vital safety information not necessarily
ascertainable only by sensors or cameras)? In addition, there are
safety technologies that are still in the developmental stage. How
could future testing (simulation or real-world) better assess the
comparative effectiveness of V2V and other technologies?
56. Self-driving vehicles have the potential to dramatically reduce
motor vehicle collisions. Even though these vehicles do not exist for
sale to the public, how should we take account of this in evaluating
the potential safety benefits of V2V? Is V2V an essential input into
developing a viable self-driving car, an alternative technology that
might compete with or discourage development of self-driving vehicles,
or a complementary technology that can enable self-driving vehicles
over time? Please explain why or why not.
57. It is NHTSA's view that, if V2V were not mandated by the
government, it would fail to develop or would develop slowly. Because
the value of V2V to one driver depends upon other drivers' adoption of
the technology, V2V falls into the class of goods that economists call
``network goods.'' \4\ Economic analysis and experience with network
goods indicates that in some markets network goods and the common
standards to make these goods interact sometimes develop slowly, and in
other cases may develop quickly when market forces are left to work on
their own. Additionally, because the value of V2V to one driver depends
upon other drivers' adoption of the technology, it seems unlikely to
NHTSA that a manufacturer would volunteer to ``go first'' with adding
DSRC to its new vehicles, because those units would provide little
benefit to their drivers until some critical mass of V2V-equipped
vehicles is achieved, and that manufacturer could not know whether
other manufacturers would soon follow suit. Moreover, an underlying
security system to ensure the validity of basic safety messages
exchanged between vehicles is an essential element of V2V. NHTSA
believes it is not likely that an entity would step forward to provide
such a system absent a predictable, industry-wide demand that only a
government mandate is likely to provide. Is it your view that V2V would
develop without NHTSA's requirement of the technology? If so, how long
would this take? How do you think this would come about? The
implementation of the technology would to some degree depend not only
on vehicles being equipped but also on their using compatible technical
communication standards. Would adoption of the technology come from a
single manufacturer or would a consortium of manufacturers come
together and develop a single standard as they often do in computer
markets?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Nicholas Economides, ``The Economics of Networks,''
International Journal of Industrial Organization, vol. 14, no. 2,
March 1996, pp. 673-699, available at http://www.stern.nyu.edu/networks/94-24.pdf (last accessed Jul. 21, 2014). The classic
example of a network good is the telephone system--telephones have
no value to consumers unless there are other consumers using the
network and the value to consumers increases as others join the
network.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In considering these questions, commenters should also consider the
agency's need to be able to gather data and make judgments in a way
that preserves its ability to carry out effectively the lifesaving
mandate of the Vehicle Safety Act, 49 U.S.C. 30101 et seq.
III. Public Participation
a. How can I influence NHTSA's thinking on this subject?
NHTSA welcomes public review of this ANPRM and the accompanying
research report. NHTSA will consider the comments and information
received in developing its eventual proposal for how to proceed on
mandating and regulating V2V technology.
b. How do I prepare and submit comments?
Your comments must be written and in English. To ensure that your
comments are filed correctly in the Docket, please include the docket
number of this document (NHTSA-2014-0022) in your comments.
Your primary comments should not be more than 15 pages long.\5\
However, you may attach additional documents to your primary comments.
There is no limit on the length of the attachments. Please submit one
copy of your comments, including the attachments, to the docket via one
of the methods identified under ADDRESSES above. Submitting multiple
copies of the same comment will clog the docket and impair the agency's
ability to review information received.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ 49 CFR 553.21.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please note that pursuant to the Data Quality Act, in order for
substantive data to be relied upon and used by the agency, it must meet
the information quality standards set forth in the OMB and DOT Data
Quality Act guidelines. Accordingly, we encourage you to consult the
guidelines in preparing your comments. OMB's guidelines may be accessed
at http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/fedreg_reproducible; DOT's guidelines
may be accessed at http://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/sites/rita.dot.gov.bts/files/subject_areas/statistical_policy_and_research/data_quality_guidelines/html/guidelines.html.
Privacy Act: Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all
comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf
of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's
complete Privacy Act statement published in the Federal Register on
April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78) or you may visit http://www.dot.gov/privacy.html.
c. How can I be sure that my comments were received?
If you submit comments by hard copy and wish Docket Management to
notify you upon its receipt of your comments, enclose a self-addressed,
stamped postcard in the envelope containing your comments. Upon
receiving your comments, Docket Management will return the postcard by
mail. If you submit comments electronically, your comments should
appear automatically in Docket No. NHTSA-2014-0022 on http://www.regulations.gov. If they do not appear within two weeks of posting,
we suggest that you call the Docket Management Facility at 1-800-647-
5527.
d. How do I submit confidential business information?
If you wish to submit any information under a claim of
confidentiality, you should submit three copies of your complete
submission, including the information that you claim to be confidential
business information, to the Chief Counsel, NHTSA, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. In
addition, you should submit a copy from which you have deleted the
claimed confidential business information to Docket Management, either
in hard copy at the address given above under ADDRESSES, or
electronically through regulations.gov. When you send a comment
containing information claimed to be confidential business information,
you should include a cover letter setting forth the information
specified in 49 CFR Part 512.
e. Will the agency consider late comments?
We will consider all comments received to the docket before the
close of business on the comment closing date indicated above under
DATES. As new
[[Page 49276]]
information becomes available after the comment closing date, or if
commenters wish to respond to other comments, we encourage interested
persons to supplement their original comments. We will consider these
additional comments to the extent possible, but we caution that we may
not be able to fully address those comments prior to the agency's
proposal.
f. How can I read the comments submitted by other people?
You may read the comments received by Docket Management in hard
copy at the address given above under ADDRESSES. The hours of the
Docket Management office are indicated above in the same location.
You may also read the comments on the Internet by doing the
following:
(1) Go to http://www.regulations.gov.
(2) Regulations.gov provides two basic methods of searching to
retrieve dockets and docket materials that are available in the system:
a. the search box on the home page which conducts a simple full-
text search of the Web site, into which you can type ``NHTSA-2014-
0022,'' and
b. ``Advanced Search,'' which is linked on the regulations.gov home
page, and which displays various indexed fields such as the docket
name, docket identification number, phase of the action, initiating
office, date of issuance, document title, document identification
number, type of document, Federal Register reference, CFR citation,
etc. Each data field in the advanced search function may be searched
independently or in combination with other fields, as desired. Each
search yields a simultaneous display of all available information found
in regulations.gov that is relevant to the requested subject or topic.
(3) Once you locate Docket No. NHTSA-2014-0022 at http://www.regulations.gov, you can download the comments you wish to read. We
note that since comments are often imaged documents rather than word
processing documents (e.g., PDF rather than Microsoft Word), some
comments may not be word-searchable.
Please note that, even after the comment closing date, we will
continue to file relevant information in the Docket as it becomes
available. Further, some people may submit late comments. Accordingly,
we recommend that you periodically check the Docket for new material.
IV. Rulemaking Notices and Analyses
a. Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 and DOT Regulatory Policies and
Procedures
Executive Order 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and Review'' (58 FR
51735, October 4, 1993), provides for making determinations whether a
regulatory action is ``significant'' and therefore subject to OMB
review and to the requirements of the Executive Order. The Order
defines a ``significant regulatory action'' as one that is likely to
result in a rule that may:
(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public
health or safety, or State, local, or Tribal governments or
communities;
(2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an
action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants,
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients
thereof; or
(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in
the Executive Order.
We have considered the potential impact of this ANPRM under
Executive Order 12866 and the Department of Transportation's regulatory
policies and procedures. As discussed above, there are a number of
considerations that remain to be explored with respect to V2V
technology and the agency lacks the necessary information to develop a
proposal at this time. Based on the information we do have, we
developed this notice and the accompanying research report, which
contains very preliminary discussions of costs and benefits, in order
to facilitate public input. Preliminary estimates indicate a future
proposed rule would be economically significant under Executive Order
12866. This rulemaking action has also been determined to be
``significant'' under the Department of Transportation's Regulatory
Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979) and has been
reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.
b. Regulatory Flexibility Act
Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.,
no analysis is required for an ANPRM. However, vehicle manufacturers
and equipment manufacturers are encouraged to comment if they identify
any aspects of the potential rulemaking that may apply to them.
c. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)
NHTSA has examined today's ANPRM pursuant to Executive Order 13132
(64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) and concluded that no additional
consultation with States, local governments or their representatives is
mandated beyond the rulemaking process at this time. The agency has
concluded that the document at issue does not have federalism
implications because it does not have ``substantial direct effects on
the States, on the relationship between the national government and the
States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government.''
NHTSA's safety standards can have preemptive effect in at least two
ways. First, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act contains
an express preemption provision: ``When a motor vehicle safety standard
is in effect under this chapter, a State or a political subdivision of
a State may prescribe or continue in effect a standard applicable to
the same aspect of performance of a motor vehicle or motor vehicle
equipment only if the standard is identical to the standard prescribed
under this chapter.'' 49 U.S.C. 30103(b)(1). It is this statutory
command that would unavoidably preempt State legislative and
administrative law, not today's ANPRM, so consultation would be
unnecessary.
We are aware that, depending on the nature of the proposal
ultimately adopted, federalism implications could arise. Currently,
there is no Federal requirement regarding V2V communications. As a
result, any State laws or regulations that seek to regulate V2V
communications would not currently be preempted by Federal law.
However, if NHTSA issues a standard on the same aspect of V2V
communication performance, those State laws and regulations would be
preempted if they differed from the Federal requirements. Thus, the
possibility of statutory preemption of State laws and regulations does
exist. At this time, we do not know of any State laws or regulations
that currently exist that are potentially at risk of being preempted,
but in this document do request comment on any existing or planned laws
or regulations that would fall into this category.
Second, the Supreme Court has recognized the possibility of implied
preemption: State requirements imposed on motor vehicle manufacturers,
including sanctions imposed by State tort law, can stand as an obstacle
to the accomplishment and
[[Page 49277]]
execution of a NHTSA safety standard. When such a conflict is
discerned, the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution makes the State
requirements unenforceable. See Geier v. American Honda Motor Co., 529
U.S. 861 (2000). NHTSA has considered today's ANPRM and does not
currently foresee any potential State requirements that might conflict
with it. Without any conflict, there could not be any implied
preemption.
d. Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform)
With respect to the review of the promulgation of a new regulation,
section 3(b) of Executive Order 12988, ``Civil Justice Reform'' (61 FR
4729, February 7, 1996) requires that Executive agencies make every
reasonable effort to ensure that the regulation: (1) Clearly specifies
the preemptive effect; (2) clearly specifies the effect on existing
Federal law or regulation; (3) provides a clear legal standard for
affected conduct, while promoting simplification and burden reduction;
(4) clearly specifies the retroactive effect, if any; (5) adequately
defines key terms; and (6) addresses other important issues affecting
clarity and general draftsmanship under any guidelines issued by the
Attorney General. This document is consistent with that requirement.
e. Paperwork Reduction Act
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), a person is not
required to respond to a collection of information by a Federal agency
unless the collection displays a valid OMB control number. There is no
information collection requirement associated with this ANPRM.
f. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, (15 U.S.C. 272) directs the
agency to evaluate and use voluntary consensus standards in its
regulatory activities unless doing so would be inconsistent with
applicable law or is otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus
standards are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test
methods, sampling procedures, and business practices) that are
developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies, such as
the Society of Automotive Engineers. The NTTAA directs us to provide
Congress (through OMB) with explanations when we decide not to use
available and applicable voluntary consensus standards. While NHTSA is
considering the relevance of a number of voluntary consensus standards
to potential V2V-related FMVSSs, as discussed in Section V of the
research report, it has not yet developed specific regulatory
requirements, and thus the NTTAA does not apply for purposes of this
ANPRM.
g. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 requires agencies to
prepare a written assessment of the costs, benefits, and other effects
of proposed or final rules that include a Federal mandate likely to
result in the expenditure by State, local or tribal governments, in the
aggregate, or by the private sector, of more than $100 million annually
(adjusted for inflation with base year of 1995). This ANPRM would not
result in expenditures by State, local or tribal governments, in the
aggregate, in excess of $100 million annually. However, given the cost
estimates of requiring V2V technology, as discussed in Section XI of
the research report, it is very possible that the total cost of a
proposed rule on the private sector could exceed $100 million. Given
that, the agency has prepared a preliminary assessment of some of the
possible costs of V2V technology, contained in Section XI of the
research report, and we refer readers there for more information.
h. National Environmental Policy Act
NHTSA has analyzed this rulemaking action for the purposes of the
National Environmental Policy Act. The agency has preliminarily
determined that installation of V2V technology alone would not have any
significant impact on the quality of the human environment. Any
environmental effects that could accrue as a result of mandating V2V
technology for new light vehicles would depend upon applications
voluntarily undertaken in the marketplace by vehicle manufacturers.
While the agency believes that any such applications would result in
positive environmental impacts, these impacts are too remote and
speculative at this time to quantify or analyze. See, e.g., City of
Dallas, Tex. v. Hall, 562 F.3d 712, 719-20 (5th Cir. 2009); Louisiana
Crawfish Producers Ass'n-West v. Rowan, 463 F.3d 352, 358 (5th Cir.
2006); Sierra Club v. Marsh, 976 F.2d 763, 767 (1st Cir. 1992).
Applying the ``rule of reason,'' NHTSA has determined that the
usefulness to the decision-making process of such a speculative
environmental analysis is minimal, especially in light of the lack of a
significantly close relationship between mandating V2V technology and
such applications. See Dept. of Transp. v. Public Citizen, 541 U.S.
752, 767-8 (2004); City of Dallas, 562 F.3d at 719-20. NHTSA seeks
comment on whether and how to consider potential indirect environmental
benefits of V2V technology as it moves forward.
i. Executive Order 13211
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 18, 2001) applies to any
rulemaking that: (1) Is determined to be economically significant as
defined under E.O. 12866, and is likely to have a significantly adverse
effect on the supply of, distribution of, or use of energy; or (2) that
is designated by the Administrator of the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs as a significant energy action. This rulemaking is
not subject to E.O. 13211.
j. Plain Language
The Plain Writing Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-274) requires Federal
agencies to write documents in a clear, concise, and well-organized
manner. NHTSA has written this ANPRM to be consistent with the Plain
Writing Act as well as the Presidential Memorandum, ``Plain Language in
Government Writing,'' published June 10, 1998 (63 FR 31883). NHTSA
requests comment on this ANPRM with respect to the clarity and
effectiveness of the language used.
k. Regulatory Identifier Number (RIN)
The Department of Transportation assigns a regulation identifier
number (RIN) to each regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of
Federal Regulations. The Regulatory Information Service Center
publishes the Unified Agenda in April and October of each year. You may
use the RIN contained in the heading at the beginning of this document
to find this action in the Unified Agenda.
l. Privacy Act
Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments
received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf
of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's
complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on
April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78) or you may visit http://www.dot.gov/individuals/privacy/privacy-policy (last accessed June 20, 2014).
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30111, 30181-83; delegation of authority at
49 CFR 1.95 and 501.8.
[[Page 49278]]
Issued in Washington, DC, under authority delegated in 49 CFR
part 1.95.
Daniel C. Smith,
Senior Associate Administrator for Vehicle Safety.
[FR Doc. 2014-19746 Filed 8-18-14; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P