Nuro, Inc.; Receipt of Petition for Temporary Exemption for an Electric Vehicle With an Automated Driving System

Nuro, Inc.; Receipt of Petition for Temporary Exemption for an Electric Vehicle With an Automated Driving System

Topics: Nuro

Nuro, Inc.; Receipt of Petition for Temporary Exemption for an Electric Vehicle With an Automated Driving System

Heidi Renate King
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
19 March 2019

[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 53 (Tuesday, March 19, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10172-10182]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-05121]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2019-0017]

Nuro, Inc.; Receipt of Petition for Temporary Exemption for an
Electric Vehicle With an Automated Driving System

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

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

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

SUMMARY: Nuro, Inc. (Nuro) has petitioned NHTSA for a temporary
exemption from certain requirements in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
Standard (FMVSS) No. 500, which establishes standards for ``Low-speed
vehicles,'' on the basis that an exemption would make the development
or field evaluation of a low-emission vehicle easier without
unreasonably lowering the safety of that vehicle. The vehicle for which
Nuro requests an exemption is a low-speed, highly automated delivery
vehicle intended to be operated without any human occupants and thus
designed without any seating. Specifically, Nuro requests exemptions
from the requirements in FMVSS No. 500 that its vehicle be equipped
with rearview mirrors, a windshield that complies with FMVSS No. 205,
and a rear visibility (backup camera) system that complies with FMVSS
No. 111. Nuro states that the absence of human occupants, combined with
the vehicle's various safety design features, including the vehicle's
Automated Driving System (ADS), make compliance with these provisions
of FMVSS No. 500 either unnecessary for, or detrimental to, the safety
of pedestrians and cyclists.
NHTSA is publishing this document in accordance with statutory and
administrative provisions, and requests comments on this document and
the petition submitted by Nuro. NHTSA will assess the merits of the
petition and decide whether to grant or deny it after receiving and
considering the public comments on this notice, the petition, public
responses to the questions in this notice and such additional
information as Nuro may provide.

DATES: Comments on this petition must be submitted by May 20, 2019.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stephen Wood or Daniel Koblenz, Office
of Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590. Telephone: 202-366-2992;
Fax: 202-366-3820.
Comments: NHTSA invites you to submit comments on the petition
described herein and the questions posed below. You may submit comments
identified by docket number in the heading of this notice by any of the
following methods:
Fax: 202-493-2251.
Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington,
DC 20590.
Hand Delivery: 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building
Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays.
Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
Instructions: All submissions must include the agency name and
docket number. Note that all comments received will be posted without
change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal
information provided. Please see the Privacy Act discussion below.
NHTSA will consider all comments received before the close of business
on the comment closing date indicated above. To the extent possible,
NHTSA will also consider comments filed after the closing date.
Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov at any time or to
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140,
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal Holidays. Telephone: 202-366-9826.
Privacy Act: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits
comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT
posts these comments, without edit, to www.regulations.gov, as
described in the system of records notice, DOT/ALL-14 FDMS, accessible
through www.dot.gov/privacy. In order to facilitate comment tracking
and response, we encourage commenters to provide their name, or the
name of their organization; however, submission of names is completely
optional. Whether or not commenters identify themselves, all timely
comments will be fully considered. If you wish to provide comments
containing proprietary or confidential information, please contact the
agency for alternate submission instructions.

[[Page 10173]]

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 you claim
to be confidential business information, to the Chief Counsel, NHTSA,
at the address given under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. In
addition, you should submit two copies, from which you have deleted the
claimed confidential business information, to Docket Management at the
address given above. 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 our
confidential business information regulation (49 CFR part 512).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Introduction
II. Background
a. Statutory Authority and Regulatory Requirements for Temporary
Exemption Petitions
b. Low-Speed Vehicles and FMVSS No. 500
III. Nuro's Petition
a. Overview of the ``R2X'' Low-Speed Automated Delivery Robot
b. Why Nuro Believes That Granting Its Petition Would Facilitate
the Development or Field Evaluation of a Low-Emission Motor Vehicle
c. Why Nuro Believes That Granting Its Petition Would Not
Unreasonably Degrade Safety
i. Exterior Mirror Requirement
ii. Windshield Requirement
iii. Rear Visibility (Backup Camera) Requirement
d. Why Nuro Believes That Its Vehicle Is a Low Emission Vehicle
e. Why Nuro Believes That Granting Its Petition Would Be in the
Public Interest
i. ADS Safety
ii. Downstream Environmental and Economic Benefits
IV. Agency Review
V. Terms
VI. Request for Comments and Information
VII. Comment Period

I. Introduction

This document notifies the public that NHTSA has received from Nuro
Inc. (``Nuro'') a petition for a temporary exemption from three
requirements of FMVSS No. 500, which establishes standards for ``Low-
speed vehicles.'' Nuro submits its request on the basis that an
exemption would make the development or field evaluation of a low-
emission vehicle easier without unreasonably lowering the safety of
that vehicle.\1\ The vehicle that is the subject of the petition is the
``R2X,'' which Nuro describes as a highly automated (SAE Level 4 or
simply L4),\2\ low-speed (25 mph maximum), electric-powered delivery
robot. According to Nuro, the R2X would be designed to carry cargo
exclusively, and accordingly would not have any passenger compartment
or designated seating positions. The provisions of FMVSS No. 500 from
which Nuro requests an exemption are the requirements that low speed
vehicles (LSVs) be equipped with (1) rearview mirrors, (2) an FMVSS No.
205-compliant windshield, and (3) an FMVSS No. 111-compliant rear
visibility (backup camera) system. Because this vehicle would not have
any designated seating positions, Nuro states that the vehicle should
not be required to have any seatbelts, and, thus, does not need an
exemption from that requirement. Nuro requests a two-year exemption,
during which it seeks to be allowed to introduce fewer than 2,500
exempted vehicles into interstate commerce for each 12-month period
covered by the exemption.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1\ In the balance of this document, we will refer to this as
the ``low-emission vehicle exemption basis.'' For more information,
see 49 U.S.C. 30113(b)(3)
\2\ The SAE International automation levels are commonly used to
describe the degree to which a motor vehicle can operate
autonomously. The levels of automation range from Level 0 (no
automation) to Level 5 (complete automation with no limitations). A
Level 4 (L4) vehicle such as the R2X is considered to have ``high
driving automation'' which means that the vehicle can perform 100
percent of the driving task within the vehicle's operational design
domain.
\3\ Nuro has requested that the agency withhold as confidential
business information the precise number of vehicles it expects to
deploy if an exemption is granted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

This notice solicits comments from the public to inform NHTSA's
analysis of the merits of Nuro's petition under the low-emission
vehicle exemption basis in 49 U.S.C. 30113. To this end, this notice
includes requests for comments and poses specific questions regarding
issues that NHTSA believes could be relevant in deciding whether to
grant the petition. If commenters believe that there are other
potentially relevant issues, NHTSA invites them to identify those
issues and explain their potential relevance.

II. Background

a. Statutory Authority and Regulatory Requirements for Temporary
Exemption Petitions

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act),
codified at Chapter 301 et seq., of title 49, United States Code,
authorizes the Secretary of Transportation to exempt, on a temporary
basis, under specified circumstances, and on terms the Secretary deems
appropriate, motor vehicles from a FMVSS or bumper standard. This
authority is set forth at 49 U.S.C. 30113. The Secretary has delegated
the authority for implementing this section to NHTSA.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\4\ 49 CFR 1.95.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Safety Act authorizes the Secretary (by delegation, NHTSA) to
grant, in whole or in part, a temporary exemption to a vehicle
manufacturer if certain specified findings are made. The Secretary must
look comprehensively at the request for exemption and find that the
exemption is consistent with the public interest and with the
objectives of the Vehicle Safety Act.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\5\ 49 U.S.C. 30113(b)(3)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In addition, the Secretary must make one of the following more-
focused findings:
(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.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\6\ 49 U.S.C. 30113(b)(3)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The third of these additional findings is the basis for Nuro's
request for exemption. Nuro requests the Secretary to grant its
petition based on a finding that the exemption is consistent with the
public interest and with the Safety Act, and that the exemption would
facilitate the development or field evaluation of a low-emission motor
vehicle and would not unreasonably reduce the safety level of that
vehicle.\7\ The statute further states that, for exemptions under this
subsection, ``a record of the research, development, and testing
establishing that the motor vehicle is a low-emission motor vehicle and
that the safety level of the vehicle is not lowered unreasonably by
exemption from the standard'' must also be included in the application.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\7\ 49 U.S.C. 30113(b)(3)(B)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

NHTSA established 49 CFR part 555, ``Temporary Exemption from Motor

[[Page 10174]]

Vehicle Safety and Bumper Standards,'' to implement the statutory
provisions concerning temporary exemptions. The requirements in 49 CFR
555.5 state that the petitioner must set forth the basis of the
petition by providing the information required under 49 CFR 555.6, and
the reasons why the exemption would be in the public interest and
consistent with the objectives of the Safety Act.
A petition justified on the low-emission vehicle exemption basis
must include the following information specified in 49 CFR 555.6(c):
(1) Substantiation that the vehicle is a low-emission vehicle;
(2) Research, development, and testing documentation establishing
that a temporary exemption would not unreasonably degrade the safety or
impact protection of the vehicle;
(i) 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;
(ii) If the petitioner is presently manufacturing a vehicle
conforming to the standard, the results of tests conducted to
substantiate certification to the standard;
(iii) The results of any tests conducted on the vehicle that
demonstrate its failure to meet the standard, expressed as comparative
performance levels; and
(iv) Reasons why the failure to meet the standard does not
unreasonably degrade the safety or impact protection of the vehicle.
(3) Substantiation that a temporary exemption would facilitate the
development or field evaluation of the vehicle; and
(4) A statement of whether the petitioner intends to conform to the
standard at the end of the exemption period; and
(5) A statement that not more than 2,500 exempted vehicles will be
sold in the U.S. in any 12-month period for which an exemption may be
granted.

b. Low-Speed Vehicles and FMVSS No. 500

Nuro states that the R2X would be a LSV. NHTSA defines an LSV as a
motor vehicle: (1) That is 4-wheeled; (2) Whose speed attainable in 1.6
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) whose gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR)
is less than 1,361 kilograms (3,000 pounds).\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\8\ 49 CFR 571.3
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Unlike other vehicle categories that must meet a wide array of
FMVSSs and other standards, LSVs are only required to meet a single
standard: FMVSS No. 500.\9\ Currently, FMVSS No. 500 requires that LSVs
be equipped with headlamps, stop lamps, turn signal lamps, taillamps,
reflex reflectors, parking brakes, rearview mirrors, windshields, seat
belts for all designated seating positions, a vehicle identification
number and a rear visibility (backup camera) system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\9\ FMVSS No. 141, ``Minimum sound requirements for hybrid and
electric vehicles,'' will apply to LSVs once it is phased in on
September 1, 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

NHTSA created the LSV classification and FMVSS No. 500 in June 1998
in response to safety concerns over the growing use of golf carts and
other similar-sized, 4-wheeled ``Neighborhood Electric Vehicles''
(NEVs) on public roads.\10\ 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 them. Thus,
the safety equipment required under FMVSS No. 500 is far more limited
than what is required for other vehicle categories. Examples of FMVSS
that are not applicable to LSVs include but are not limited to
requirements related to antitheft, structural integrity, and
flammability.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\10\ 63 FR 33194 (June 17, 1998).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Of the eleven requirements in FMVSS No. 500, Nuro states that it
intends to meet seven requirements, believes that the requirement
related to seat belts is inapplicable as the vehicle lacks any
designated seating positions, and petitions for exemption from the
remaining three requirements. First is S5(b)(6), which requires that
LSVs be equipped with an exterior (rearview) mirror mounted on the
driver's side, and either an exterior mirror mounted on the passenger's
side of the vehicle or an interior mirror.\11\ Second is S5(b)(8),
which requires that LSVs be equipped with a windshield that conforms to
FMVSS No. 205. Third is S5(b)(11), which requires that LSVs be equipped
with a rear visibility (backup camera) system that conforms to the
requirements of S6.2 of FMVSS No. 111.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\11\ These rearview mirrors are not required to conform to FMVSS
No. 111.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Nuro's Petition

The following discussion provides: An overview of the R2X based on
information submitted in Nuro's petition; Nuro's explanation of why it
believes exemption is justified under the low-emission vehicle
exemption basis; and the information that Nuro provided regarding the
safety of its vehicle.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\12\ NHTSA notes that the statements in the description of
Nuro's petition are attributable to Nuro. NHTSA will review and
assess those statements in deciding whether to grant the petition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

a. Overview of the ``R2X'' Low-Speed Automated Delivery Robot

Nuro contends that the R2X would be fundamentally different from
any other vehicle with motive power currently regulated by NHTSA.
Intended to provide retailers with local ``last-mile'' delivery
services, the R2X would be designed without an occupant compartment
(and thus, without any designated seating positions), nor is there any
clear way for a human to enter the interior of the vehicle to use it
for transportation. Instead, the R2X would be equipped with storage
compartments in which goods, such as groceries, home goods, and
hardware, may be placed for delivery to customers in urban or suburban
``neighborhood'' environments. See Figure 1 below showing the R2X with
its gull wing cargo hatch covers open. To enable the operation of a
vehicle lacking any occupant compartment, the R2X would be driven
entirely by an L4 Automated Driving System (ADS), described in more
detail below.

[[Page 10175]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN19MR19.003

Nuro states that the R2X's propulsion system would be electric, and
states it would be a low-emission vehicle as defined under Section 202
of the Clean Air Act because it would be a zero-emission vehicle that
emits regulated air pollutants at levels ``significantly below'' what
is permitted for new motor vehicles. Nuro also avers that the R2X would
meet the elements of the LSV definition as follows:
(1) An LSV must be 4-wheeled--Nuro states that the R2X would have 4
wheels;
(2) An LSV must be capable of attaining a maximum speed of between
32 kilometers per hour and 40 kilometers per hour (20 miles per hour
and 25 miles per hour) within 1.6 kilometers (1 mile) on a paved level
surface--Nuro states that the R2X would be able to achieve a maximum
speed of not more than 40 kilometers per hour (25 miles per hour); \13\
and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\13\ We note that Nuro does not state whether the R2X is
physically incapable of going faster, or whether its speed is
limited by something that can be readily modified, such as software.
As NHTSA has noted in prior interpretation letters, some
modifications to vehicles are so fundamental that the agency would
consider the act of modifying the vehicle to be the manufacture of a
new vehicle. See letter to Susan Gabel (Feb. 16, 2005), available at
https://isearch.nhtsa.gov/files/GF009529.html. Modifying a vehicle
in such a way as to change its vehicle classification category
arguably arises to that level of importance. In NHTSA's view,
because the safety features of an LSV are so fundamentally tied to
its low speed and weight, changing its maximum speed or its weight
to exceed the limits in the definition could be regarded as
tantamount to the manufacture of a new vehicle of another
classification.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(3) An LSV must have a GVWR less than 1,361 kilograms (3,000
pounds). 49 CFR 571.3. Nuro also states that the vehicle would have an
``unladen'' weight (i.e., curb weight) of 1,134 kilograms (2,500
pounds), and that the vehicle's GVWR would be less than the 1,361-
kilogram (3,000-pound) limitation in the LSV definition. (A vehicle's
``curb weight'' is its unloaded weight, whereas a vehicle's GVWR is its
loaded weight rating as specified by the manufacturer.) We note that
Nuro does not provide the precise GVWR of the R2X, which is needed to
determine whether the R2X would properly be classified as an LSV.
Nuro also describes the aspects of the R2X that would permit
automated driving, namely the L4 ADS and the suite of cameras, LIDAR
\14\ and radar sensors which provide the ADS information about the
driving environment. As noted above, one of the key features that would
make the R2X unique is that the driving task would be automated through
the use of an L4 ADS. Nuro indicates throughout its petition that it
has designed the R2X's ADS to operate the vehicle on low-speed surface
roads in ``neighborhood'' environments.\15\ According to Nuro, the R2X
would be equipped with 12 high definition cameras, radar sensors, and a
top-mounted LIDAR that together provide the ADS with a 360[deg] view of
the vehicle's surroundings. Nuro states that these cameras would be
waterproof, rated to International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC)
standard IP69K,\16\ and able to operate in temperatures between -40
[deg]Celcius (C) and 85 [deg]C. However, Nuro does not provide
information on the operational capabilities of the radar and LIDAR
systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\14\ A LIDAR system, or a Light Detection And Ranging system,
measures distance to objects by sending out pulses of light and
measuring the time it takes for pulses to be reflected off objects
back to the LIDAR system.
\15\ Nuro petition at 2, 3, 4, 8, 10, & 18.
\16\ Conformity to IEC IP69K indicates resistance to dust,
steam, and high-pressure water.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Regarding the ADS itself, Nuro states that its software would rely
on ``advanced machine learning'' to improve its driving
capabilities.\17\ Nuro explains this to mean that the driving
performance of the ADS would improve as the system is exposed to new or
unfamiliar driving situations, which Nuro has thus far done using on-
road testing and simulations. Nuro states it has conducted two on-road
testing programs to develop the ADS used in the R2X.\18\ For the first
program, Nuro retrofitted FMVSS-certified passenger vehicles with its
ADS, and states that it has ``continuously operated'' these retrofitted
vehicles (with a safety driver backup) on public roads for the past
year. For the second program, Nuro operated a prototype of the R2X on
the company's private testing facility, which Nuro says is intended to
simulate driving conditions in urban and suburban neighborhood
settings. Nuro's petition did not include additional information
concerning either of these programs, including how many miles were
driven and in what conditions. In addition, Nuro says that it has
supplemented these real-world testing programs with testing in a wide
variety of simulated environments. Nuro states that these testing
programs have led to continuous safety improvements to the ADS,
although Nuro does not provide the metrics by which the company
measures the safety of the ADS, nor does Nuro provide specific
information about how the ADS's decision-making process works beyond
general statements that the ADS would avoid collisions with obstacles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\17\ Nuro petition, at 5.
\18\ Nuro petition, at 18-19.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nuro states that the R2X is intended to make ``short neighborhood
trips'' to provide last-mile delivery services for retailers in urban
or suburban neighborhood settings. Nuro states that the R2X would have
``built-in'' operational limits that are consistent with this intended
use, such as a maximum speed of 25 mph, and being restricted to marked
surface streets that

[[Page 10176]]

Nuro has extensively pre-mapped.\19\ (Nuro specifically notes that it
does not intend to relax these operational restrictions to permit Level
5 automation for the R2X.) Nuro states that, to ensure the safety and
reliability of exempted vehicles, it does not intend to lease or sell
them.\20\ Instead, Nuro intends to own and centrally operate the entire
fleet of R2Xs through partnerships with local businesses such as
retailers. The petition, though, does not provide further information
about what Nuro means by ``short neighborhood trips'' or the
operational limits Nuro would place on the R2X vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\19\ Nuro petition, at 8.
\20\ Nuro petition, at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

For additional background information on Nuro's vehicle, see Nuro's
report ``Delivering Safety: Nuro's Approach'' at https://static1.squarespace.com/static/57bcb0e02994ca36c2ee746c/t/5b9a00848a922d8eaecf65a2/1536819358607/delivering_safety_nuros_approach.pdf.

b. Why Nuro Believes That Granting Its Petition Would Facilitate the
Development or Field Evaluation of a Low-Emission Motor Vehicle

Nuro requests an exemption on the basis that an exemption is
necessary to facilitate the development and field evaluation of a low-
emission vehicle \21\ (its R2X vehicle) and would not unreasonably
lower the safety of that vehicle as compared to a vehicle that complies
with the standard. Nuro claims that the exemption would facilitate the
development the R2X's ADS, which is necessary for developing and
evaluating its low-emission R2X.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\21\ The legislative history of the low-emission vehicle
exemption basis indicates the purpose of the basis was to encourage
the development of new vehicle propulsion technologies. First,
according to the Congressional Record, Congress enacted the
predecessor to the low-emission vehicle basis (which temporarily
authorized NHTSA to grant an exemption if it ``would facilitate the
development of vehicles utilizing a propulsion system other than or
supplementing an internal combustion engine'') as part of the 1968
Amendment to the Safety Act, Public Law 90-283 (April 10, 1968), to
encourage the development of new propulsion technologies to address
problem of urban air pollution. See 114 Cong. Rec. 7285 (1968)
(Statement of Rep. Murphy). In 1972, Congress replaced this
temporary exemption authority with permanent authority, and revised
the language to what is currently found in 49 U.S.C.
30113(b)(3)(B)(iii), Public Law 92-548 (October 25, 1972), so as
``not to stifle the development and evaluation of low-emission
vehicles.'' 118 Cong. Rec. 34209 (1972) (Statement of Sen. Hartke).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nuro states that because the R2X's ADS relies on advanced machine
learning to improve its level of safety, the R2X must be exposed to new
driving scenarios. Nuro's existing testing programs have consisted of
operating its FMVSS-compliant vehicle on public roads autonomously, and
operating the R2X in its private test track. Nuro argues that this
testing has led to consistent improvements in the ADS's driving
performance, but that it has ``nearly exhausted the safety gains'' it
can accrue from its existing research and testing programs.
Accordingly, Nuro argues that an exemption is needed to enable Nuro to
perform a greater volume of real-world testing on public roads, which
the company says would ``expose the R2X to a greater variety of real-
world situations than can be achieved in simulation or through the use
of other FMVSS-compliant hardware platforms.'' \22\ In addition, Nuro
states that testing with ADS-equipped traditional passenger vehicles
does not provide Nuro with information on how other road users would
react to the R2X's unique design, which is a critical element of the
vehicle's safety.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\22\ Nuro petition, at 19.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

c. Why Nuro Believes That Granting Its Petition Would Not Unreasonably
Degrade Safety

For each of the three FMVSS No. 500 requirements from which Nuro
requests an exemption, Nuro provides an analysis explaining why
granting an exemption would not unreasonably degrade the safety of the
R2X. Nuro's safety analyses focus on the specific safety purposes that
underlie the three individual requirements from which an exemption is
sought, and discuss whether there is a safety need for each requirement
on a vehicle that is controlled by an ADS. Using this framework, Nuro
argues that an exemption from the three requirements in the petition
would either not affect vehicle safety, or would improve vehicle
safety. Nuro's analyses of the safety impacts of granting its three
requested exemptions are summarized below.
i. Exterior Mirror Requirement
Per FMVSS No. 500, S5(b)(6), all LSVs must 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 states the R2X would differ from a compliant
LSV because it would not be equipped with either exterior or interior
mirrors for rear visibility. Nuro explains that the R2X would instead
use a sensor-based system to detect obstacles and other objects in the
surrounding environment.
Nuro argues that an exemption from the mirror requirement would not
unreasonably lower the safety of the R2X because the ADS does not use
mirrors to perceive its surroundings for purposes of operating the
vehicle.\23\ Rather, the R2X's ADS perceives its surroundings using a
suite of sensors that provide a continually-updated, complete 360-
degree view of the area around the vehicle. Thus, Nuro argues that
mirrors would not serve any safety purpose on the R2X, and that
removing them would not lower safety.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\23\ Nuro petition, at 8-10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Beyond not serving any safety function on the R2X, Nuro further
argues that the presence of exterior mirrors may actually present a
safety risk to pedestrians, and that removing them would improve the
safety of the R2X. First, Nuro explains that because the R2X is
designed to operate in pedestrian-heavy environments (neighborhood
streets), it would contain various features that are intended to
protect pedestrians in a crash. These features would include design
elements such as rounded edges that avoid direct strikes, and
pedestrian ``crumple zones'' to reduce the severity of impacts. Nuro
states that equipping the R2X with the required mirrors would interfere
with these features. Nuro also states that mirrors might increase the
likelihood of pedestrian impacts because they would widen the R2X's
profile, which may increase the risk of a collision in certain
situations, such as when other road users pass the R2X too closely.
ii. Windshield Requirement
Per FMVSS No. 500, S5(b)(8), all LSVs are required to be equipped
with ``a windshield that conforms to the Federal motor vehicle safety
standard on glazing materials (49 CFR 571.205).'' Nuro states that the
R2X would differ from a compliant LSV because it would not be equipped
with a windshield of any kind. Instead, the front face of the R2X would
be equipped with the various pedestrian safety features described in
the previous section.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\24\ Nuro petition, at 10-12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nuro argues that exempting the R2X from the windshield requirement
would not unreasonably lower the safety of the R2X principally for two
reasons.\24\ First, Nuro argues that the absence of human occupants in
the R2X would make the windshield unnecessary for occupant protection
because there would not be any risk that human occupants would could be
injured by an impact with glazing or ejected from the R2X. Second, Nuro
argues that there is not any need for a windshield to ensure driver

[[Page 10177]]

visibility because the driving task would be performed by the ADS,
which would not require a transparent windshield to observe the driving
environment.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\25\ We note that NHTSA stated in the final rule establishing
FMVSS No. 500 that the agency had decided to require LSVs to use
passenger vehicle glazing (as opposed to other materials that may be
more durable) due to concerns that the visibility provided by other
materials might degrade over time. 63 FR at 33211.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nuro further states that meeting the windshield requirement could
lower the safety of the R2X because the presence of a windshield made
from 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 if the glazing shatters. As noted in the
previous section, Nuro argues that one of the primary pedestrian
protection features of the R2X is that its design incorporates energy-
absorbing pedestrian ``crumple zones'' that reduce collision impact
severity. Nuro states that equipping the R2X with an FMVSS No. 205-
compliant windshield would reduce the effectiveness of these pedestrian
impact mitigation features.
Finally, Nuro notes that, while the R2X would not be equipped with
a windshield, the front of the vehicle would be equipped with a
``plate'' that resembles the appearance of a windshield. Nuro states
that this design is intended to indicate to other road users the front
of the vehicle, which would provide visual cues as to the R2X's
potential driving behavior, reducing confusion.
iii. Rear Visibility (Backup Camera) Requirement
FMVSS No. 500, S5(b)(11), requires that all LSVs ``comply with the
rear visibility requirements specified in paragraph S6.2 of FMVSS No.
111 [Rear visibility].'' This requirement states that vehicles to which
it applies must be equipped with a rear visibility (i.e., backup
camera) system that produces an image of the area immediately behind
the vehicle under specified test conditions. The standard includes a
number of provisions that are designed to minimize the risk of backover
crashes, such as requirements for minimum image size and quality.\26\
Nuro states that the R2X meets the ``field of view'' and ``image size''
requirements for rear visibility systems (FMVSS No. 111, S6.2.1-2),\27\
but requests an exemption from the ``linger time'' and ``deactivation''
requirements (FMVSS No. 111, S6.2.4-5), which require that the rear
visibility image be deactivated under certain specified conditions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\26\ 79 FR 19177.
\27\ Nuro's basis for stating that the R2X meets the Field of
View and Image Size requirements is that the vehicle's extensive
array of cameras and sensors ``display'' a constant live image of
the entire area surrounding the vehicle to the ADS, including the
area behind the vehicle that must be displayed by the rear
visibility system. Nuro provides an illustration of the area
observed by the R2X's rear-facing camera, which includes the area
that must be displayed per FMVSS No. 111.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nuro argues that exemption the R2X from the ``linger time'' and
``deactivation'' requirements would not unreasonably lower the safety
of the vehicle because those requirements are intended to address a
safety need that would not exist for the R2X. According to Nuro, the
aspect of the ``linger time'' and ``deactivation'' requirements that is
relevant to its request is that they both specify that the rear
visibility image not be displayed when certain conditions are met.
According to Nuro, the purpose of these requirements is to protect
against the possibility that a driver would be distracted by the rear
visibility image when travelling in the forward direction. Nuro states
that this risk would not exist for the R2X because the R2X's ADS is not
susceptible to distraction. Moreover, Nuro states that compliance with
these requirements would be detrimental to the safety of the R2X,
because compliance would require the R2X's rear-facing camera and
sensors to be deactivated under certain conditions, effectively
partially blinding the ADS.
In addition, while Nuro states that the R2X would meet the ``field
of view'' and ``image size'' requirements, Nuro requests an exemption
from four of the conditions in the test procedures that are used to
verify compliance with those requirements because, according to Nuro,
the R2X's various unconventional design features would make the test
conditions impossible to perform. These four test conditions are ``fuel
tank loading'' (S14.1.2.2), ``driver's seat positioning'' (S14.1.2.5),
``steering wheel adjustment'' (S14.1.7), and a portion of the ``image
response time test procedure'' (S14.2). Although Nuro requests
exemptions from these conditions, Nuro also suggests ways in which each
of these four test conditions could be modified so that compliance
could be verified using the R2X's remote operation capability. The
following table summarizes Nuro's explanations for why these four
required test conditions cannot be achieved with the R2X, and describes
Nuro's suggestions for modifying the test conditions for the purpose of
compliance verification:

[[Page 10178]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN19MR19.004

d. Why Nuro Believes That Its Vehicle Is a Low Emission Vehicle

In order to petition successfully under the low-emission vehicle
exemption basis, the vehicle for which exemption is sought must meet
the definition of ``low-emission motor vehicle'' at 49 U.S.C. 30113(a),
meaning that it must be ``a motor vehicle meeting the standards for new
motor vehicles applicable to the vehicle under section 202 of the Clean
Air Act when the vehicle is manufactured and emitting an air pollutant
in an amount significantly below one of those standards.'' \28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\28\ ``Motor vehicle,'' for Clean Air Act purposes, means ``any
self-propelled vehicle designed for transporting persons or property
on a street or highway,'' so it appears that the R2X would qualify.
42 U.S.C. 7550.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nuro argues that its vehicle would meet that definition:

The R2X is a zero-emission vehicle. It will emit no
hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide, oxides of nitrogen, or particulate
matter, which are four of the air pollutants regulated under the
Clean Air Act. Its emissions are therefore significantly below the
Clean Air Act standards.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\29\ Nuro Petition, at 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

e. Why Nuro Believes That Granting Its Petition Would Be in the Public
Interest

Nuro argues that an exemption would be in the public interest
because it states that the R2X would incorporate several design
features to enable the ADS to operate reliably, and to minimize safety
risks that may occur if the ADS malfunctions or otherwise encounters a
driving situation it cannot handle. Further, according to Nuro, by
allowing the company to develop a safer ADS, an exemption would lead to
downstream environmental improvements and economic productivity.
i. ADS Safety
Throughout its petition, Nuro describes several design features or
characteristics that it says illustrate the high level of safety that
the R2X's ADS would provide. First would be the ADS's maneuvering
capability. Nuro argues that the R2X's low GVWR, combined with the
absence of human passengers, would make the R2X capable of stopping or
performing emergency maneuvers that are not possible for heavier
vehicles with passengers. Moreover, Nuro states that the fact that the
R2X would not have any human occupants means that it ``has the unique
opportunity to prioritize the safety of humans, other road users, and
occupied vehicles over its own contents and chassis.'' \30\ We note,
however, that the petition does not provide information regarding the
quality of the ADS's decision-making process when performing the
driving task.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\30\ Nuro petition, at 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nuro also states that the R2X would continuously perform self-
diagnostics of vehicle systems. Nuro further states that safety-
critical vehicle systems, including computing, steering, braking, and
sensing systems would include redundancies for reliability, so that if
a system or critical piece of equipment failed, the vehicle (including
the ADS) would be able to continue operation. In the event that the R2X
experienced a malfunction, the ADS' programming would enable it to
identify and pull over to a safe location nearby. Nuro states that the
ADS would continuously map the area surrounding the R2X to track pull
over locations, and that, should the R2X's sensors fail, the ADS would
pull the vehicle over using a trajectory calculated with data collected
before the failure.
In addition to these on-board features, Nuro states that the R2X
would at all times be monitored by ``experienced human operators who
are extensively trained in the vehicle's systems,'' and would be able
to take over driving control from the ADS if needed.\31\ According to
Nuro, these remote

[[Page 10179]]

operators would play a similar backup safety role as safety drivers
utilized in other ADS vehicle testing programs. Nuro states that
situations in which a human operator might take over include the
detection of a sensor malfunction, a ``pullover event,'' or the
alerting by the ADS of the remote operator that it has encountered a
situation for which human operator control is recommended. Nuro states
that the remote operation system would ensure connection reliability by
using ``several redundant, independent cellular connections with end-
to-end encryption.'' Moreover, Nuro states that the R2X would avoid
areas known to have weak cellular service by relying on Nuro's custom-
built maps.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\31\ Training program described in the VSSA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nuro also identifies additional design features that it states
would further support the safe operation of the ADS. For example, Nuro
states that a number of vehicle components, including the braking
system, would perform at the same level as full-speed passenger cars.
In addition, Nuro states that the R2X would be equipped with a sound
generator to alert other road users to the vehicle's presence and
intent. These sounds are designed to mimic an internal combustion
engine, and modulate based on the driving actions the R2X would take to
indicate when the vehicle is accelerating and/or slowing down.
ii. Environmental and Economic Benefits
Nuro provides two additional non-safety based arguments for why
granting its petition would be in the public interest. First, Nuro
argues that the R2X would provide environmental benefits by reducing
pollution. According to Nuro, the electricity that would power the R2X
can come from a wide-variety of sources, including alternative fuels,
and because the deliveries it would displace are trips that would
otherwise likely be made in gasoline-powered privately-owned passenger
vehicles. Nuro believes that the R2X could also decrease the number of
total trips by efficiently combining trips. Nuro, however, does not
provide further information about the capabilities of the R2X's
propulsion system, such as its battery life, range, or efficiency.
Second, Nuro argues that the R2X would increase economic productivity
by, among other things, providing businesses with an additional option
for delivering goods to local customers. These justifications are
discussed in further detail in Nuro's petition.

IV. Agency Review

NHTSA has not yet made any judgment on the merits of Nuro's
petition nor on the adequacy of the information submitted. NHTSA will
assess the merits of the petition after receiving and considering the
public comments on this notice and the petition and responses to the
questions in this notice, as well as any additional information that
the agency receives from Nuro. NHTSA is placing a non-confidential copy
of the petition in the docket in accordance with statutory and
administrative provisions. The agency will update the docket with any
additional information it receives from Nuro and will extend or reopen
the comment period for this petition as needed.

V. Terms

Once a manufacturer receives an exemption from the prohibitions of
49 U.S.C. 30112(a)(1), NHTSA can affect the use of those vehicles
produced pursuant to the exemption only to the extent that NHTSA either
has set terms in partially or fully granting the exemption or exercises
its enforcement authority (e.g., its safety defect authority). The
agency's authority to set terms is broad. Since the terms would be the
primary means of monitoring and affecting the safe operation of the
exempted vehicles, the agency would consider carefully whether to
establish terms and what types of terms to establish if it were to
grant a petition. The manufacturer would need to agree to abide by the
terms set for that exemption in order to begin and continue producing
vehicles pursuant to that exemption.
Nothing in either the statute or implementing regulations limits
the application of these terms to the period during which the exempted
vehicles are produced. NHTSA could set terms that continue to apply to
the vehicles throughout their normal service life if it deems that such
application is necessary to serve the interests of safety.
Thus, if NHTSA were to grant an exemption, in whole or in part, it
could establish, for example, reporting terms to ensure a continuing
flow of information to the agency throughout the normal service life of
the exempted vehicles, not just during the two-year period of
exemption. Given the uniqueness of Nuro's vehicle, its petition, the
myriad of public safety concerns surrounding an occupant-less vehicle
operating on public roads, and the fact only a small portion of the
total mileage that the vehicles (if exempted) could be expected to
travel during their normal service life would have been driven by the
end of the exemption period, NHTSA could require data to be reported
over a longer period of time to enable the agency to make sufficiently
reliable judgments. Such judgments might include those made in a
retrospective review of the agency's determination about the
anticipated safety effects of the exemption.
NHTSA could also establish terms to specify what the consequences
would be if the flow of information were to cease or become inadequate
during or after the exemption period. Other potential terms could
include limitations on vehicle operations (based upon ownership and
management, identified aspects of the operational design domains (ODD)
such as speed, weather, road types, etc.). Conceivably, some terms
could be graduated, i.e., restrictions could be progressively relaxed
after a period of demonstrated safe driving performance. Further, as
with data-sharing, it may be necessary to specify that these terms
would apply to the exempted vehicles beyond the two-year exemption
period.
NHTSA notes that its regulations at 49 CFR part 555, ``Temporary
exemption from motor vehicle safety and bumper standards,'' provides
that the agency can revoke an exemption if a manufacturer fails to
satisfy the terms of the exemption. NHTSA could also seek injunctive
relief.

VI. Request for Comments and Information

NHTSA has set forth below a list of questions to elicit public
feedback to aid the agency in determining how to address and resolve
the variety of novel and important issues presented in the petition and
how to promote, through the setting of terms, the safe operation of
such vehicles if the agency ultimately decides to grant an exemption.
Please note that answers supported by data and analysis will be given
greater weight.
Nuro is also encouraged to submit any supplemental information to
the agency that the petitioner may deem persuasive. Commenters are
requested to provide specific references to all sources for all
studies, data, assumptions, scientific reasoning, and methodology they
cite or submit.

Statutory Basis for Exemption

The choice of the basis for an exemption petition can significantly
affect the scope and depth of the safety analysis and finding that
NHTSA must make in order to grant an exemption. In view of this, the
agency asks the following questions:

[[Page 10180]]

1. To what extent and in what ways does the choice of the basis
affect the scope, depth and appropriateness of the safety analysis and
finding?
2. Is the basis for exemption (field evaluation of a low-emission
vehicle (30113(b)(3)(B)(iii)) chosen by Nuro in its petition
appropriate for the agency to use in determining whether to grant or
deny an exemption for Nuro's vehicle? If not, what basis would be
appropriate, and why?
3. In lieu of the low-emission basis, would it be more appropriate
to consider Nuro's petition under 49 U.S.C. 30113(b)(3)(B)(ii) (field
evaluation of a new motor vehicle safety feature) or 30113(b)(3)(B)(iv)
(authority to grant exemptions from FMVSS for vehicles with an overall
safety level at least equal to the overall safety level of nonexempt
vehicles)? If so, why?
4. Independent of the agency's disposition of this petition, NHTSA
seeks comment on whether, and if so how, the agency should also
consider creating a new vehicle classification category for light and/
or low-speed passengerless ADS vehicles like the R2X to which a subset
of FMVSS requirements would apply.

The Development of a Low-Emission Vehicle

5. Nuro contends that an exemption is necessary facilitate the
development of and LEV because it has ``exhausted the safety gains that
can accrue'' from its current testing. Does the petition provide
sufficient information to enable the agency to determine whether
exempting the vehicle would make the development or field evaluation of
a low-emission motor vehicle easier? If not, what additional
information should the agency seek prior to rendering its final
determination and why?
6. Does Nuro ADS's reliance on ``advanced machine learning'' to
improve driving performance justify public on-road testing to obtain
additional ADS safety gains? Are there diminishing returns to continued
testing with passenger cars retrofitted with ADS functionality? If AI
machine learning is being used to continuously change its ADS software,
how should the safety of the ADS be monitored and evaluated?

Safety--General Questions

7. In determining whether to grant the petition, how should NHTSA
consider whether an exemption would ``unreasonably lower the safety
level''? Should this consideration be solely limited to safety level
provided by the exempted standards or the safety of the vehicle more
generally?
8. Is it appropriate for the agency to give any consideration to
the quality of the performance of Nuro's ADS as part of its assessment
whether granting Nuro's petition is in the public interest and
consistent with the Safety Act?
9. How should safety considerations, including the performance of
the ADS, be included in the ``terms'' of a granted exemption?
10. Does the petition provide sufficient information to enable the
agency to determine whether exempting the vehicle would unreasonably
degrade the safety of the vehicle? If not, what additional information
should the agency seek prior to rendering its final determination and
why?

Safety--Exempted Standards

11. Is Nuro correct in its conclusion that the safety purposes of
the three requirements from which it is requesting an exemption are not
relevant to the R2X because it would not have any occupants? Do these
requirements serve any safety purposes beyond those discussed in the
petition?
12. Regarding the rear visibility requirement, how would the agency
assess whether the R2X actually would meet the ``field of view'' and
``image size'' requirements?

Safety--Performance of the ADS

13. To what degree could the R2X's capabilities or ODD be changed
through post-deployment software updates over the lifetime of the R2Xs
for which Nuro is seeking an exemption? While Nuro states that it does
not intend to ``upgrade'' the R2X's ADS to L5, are there ODD or other
changes Nuro should be able to make to the R2X over the lifetime of the
vehicles? How should NHTSA address the possibility of such changes in
conducting its safety analysis?
14. Did Nuro provide sufficient information about how the R2X would
interact with human-controlled vehicles on the road? Should the agency
be concerned about the front-end stiffness of the R2X and its impact on
collision partners?
15. Did Nuro provide enough information about its design features
to enable the ADS to operate reliably and to minimize safety risks that
may occur if the ADS malfunctions or otherwise encounters a driving
situation it cannot handle? If not, what should the agency ask to see?
16. Did Nuro provide enough information on development and testing
to support the safety performance of the vehicle? Should more
specificity on the types of sensors and their limitations be provided?
17. Did Nuro provide enough information about pedestrian detection
and mitigation strategies? Would the R2X be able to sense and respond
appropriately around school buses, emergency vehicles, neighborhood
construction, etc.? Would the R2X be able to understand traffic laws?
18. What communication protocols should the R2X follow when faced
with unexpected human interactions, such as being pulled over by a
police officer or being directed through a construction zone by a road
worker?
19. How should the R2X's ADS ``prioritize'' the safety of other
road users?
20. What importance should NHTSA place on Nuro's statement that
some safety-critical components in the R2X perform at the levels
required under the FMVSS, even though those requirements are not
applicable to LSVs?
21. Would the pedestrian safety features described in the petition
(rounded edges, pedestrian ``crumple zones'') be effective in the
environment in which the R2X would be used? Can the effectiveness of
these measures be validated? If so, should NHTSA require Nuro to
provide testing data to demonstrate the effectiveness of these
measures?
22. Did Nuro's petition provide enough information regarding what
types of ``trigger'' events would require the remote operator to take
over? What sorts of events should ``trigger'' the remote operator to
take over? Should these be specifically articulated as a term if the
petition is granted? If so, did the petition provide sufficient
information for the agency to establish such terms?
23. What additional situations and risk events (e.g., weather)
should NHTSA consider when assessing the safe operation of the vehicle?
24. Would the various fail-safe protocols described in the petition
provide a sufficient level of safety? What criteria/methodology should
be used to assess their sufficiency? If the protocols are believed to
be sufficient, explain why. If the protocols are not believed to be
sufficient, explain why and discuss how the fail-safe protocols could
be improved to deal with both expected and unexpected situations and
events, so that they would provide a sufficient level of safety?
25. Did Nuro provide sufficient information concerning the training
of the remote operators? What should be the level of training of remote
operators? How should they be trained? How should be they evaluated?

[[Page 10181]]

26. How should remote operators ``monitor'' the R2X's operation to
detect reductions in or complete losses of its ADS' functionality
(i.e., could they observe the R2X's sensor readings in real time, or
would they simply wait for the ADS to send an alert)? How much
discretion should the remote operator have in deciding whether to take
control or decommission the vehicle? For the range of circumstances in
which the remote operator is free to exercise discretion, what guidance
should Nuro provide regarding whether it would be appropriate to take
control?
27. Nuro states, if it receives the exemptions, it ``would take a
highly incremental and controlled approach to deployment'' which would
include extensive evaluation and mapping of any area where the vehicles
would be deployed, and that ``any early on-road tests would occur with
human-manned professional safety drivers with override abilities
supervising the vehicle for any anomalies in behavior.'' \32\ Over what
portion of the R2X's life would this level of supervision be provided?
What would be the circumstances under which Nuro would reduce or
eliminate its supervision? Once this initial testing period is over,
what is the expected ratio of remote operators to R2Xs, and would this
ratio change over time? What would be the human oversight protocol for
the R2X once it is past the initial testing stage?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\32\ Nuro petition, at 19.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

28. How frequently should Nuro update its maps for accuracy,
especially with regard to the reliability of cellular data? What other
information is mapped?
29. How should Nuro address the issue of the potential effects of
cyber threats on safety? In particular, is Nuro's assurance of ``end-
to-end encryption'' sufficient for the agency to grant an exemption? If
not, what additional assurances should Nuro provide?
30. Are there any additional safety considerations that the agency
should analyze in deciding whether to grant Nuro's petition?

Other Public Interest Considerations

31. We seek comment on whether the potential environmental and
economic benefits described by Nuro in its petition are sufficient (or
sufficiently likely to occur) to enable NHTSA to make a finding that an
exemption is in the public interest and is consistent with the Safety
Act, per 49 U.S.C. 30113(b)(3)(A).
32. In particular, we seek comment on whether a petitioner under
the low-emission vehicle exemption basis must cite benefits that are
directly related to the original purpose of 30113(b)(3)(B)(iii), which
was to encourage the development of vehicles with low-emission
propulsion technologies.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\33\ See footnote 21.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Terms

33. If NHTSA were to grant Nuro's petition, what would be the
potential utility of NHTSA's placing terms requiring the submission of
the following categories of data?
a. Statistics on use (e.g., for each functional class of roads,
provide the number of miles, speed and hours of operation, climate/
weather and related road surface conditions).
b. Statistics and other information on performance (e.g., type,
number, and causes, and results of collisions or near misses,
disengagements, and transitions to fallback mechanisms, if
appropriate). How can the term ``near miss'' best be defined so that
there is uniform understanding of the term and consistent practices
across manufacturers in the identifying and reporting of ``near
misses''?
c. Metrics that the manufacturer is tracking to identify and
respond to progress toward higher levels of safety (e.g., miles without
a crash and software updates that increase the ODD).
d. Information related to measures to be taken by Nuro to address
community, driver and pedestrian awareness, behavior, concerns, and
acceptance related to vehicles with an ADS.
e. Metrics or information concerning the durability of the ADS
equipment and calibration, and need for maintenance of the ADS. For
example, does the ADS work in all identified operating conditions or
are there additional limitations? How are any limitations addressed and
managed?
f. Data on the initial and subsequent ODDs and software updates.
g. For all categories of information, how should any concerns about
confidential business information and privacy be addressed?
34. If there are other categories of data that should be
considered, please identify them and the purposes for which they would
be useful to the agency in carrying out its responsibilities under the
Safety Act.
35. If the agency were to require the reporting of data, for what
period should the agency require it to be reported--the two-year
exemption period, the R2X's entire normal service life, or a time
period in between?
36. Given estimates that vehicles with high and full driving
automation would generate terabytes of data per vehicle per day, how
should the need for data be appropriately balanced with the burden on
manufacturers of providing and maintaining it and the ability of the
agency to absorb and use it effectively?
37. If supporting information (including analysis, methodology,
data, and computer simulation results involving proprietary systems or
specialized computer programs) were submitted by Nuro under a request
for confidential treatment and relied upon by the agency in its
determination whether to grant or deny a petition, how can the public
be provided with an evaluation and a justification for the
determination that are transparent, readily understandable and
persuasive?
38. Are there any mechanisms that may help further mitigate the
underlying safety risks, if any, that might result from granting this
petition? For example, what additional safety redundancies, if any,
should NHTSA consider requiring as a condition to granting the
exemption?
39. In the absence of information demonstrating the safe real-world
operation of the Nuro vehicle, would it be prudent for NHTSA to place
terms on the exemption to protect public safety? If so, what terms
would be appropriate? In addition, what terms, if any, should the
agency consider placing on an exemption to facilitate agency efforts to
monitor the operations of exempted vehicles, and maximize the learning
opportunities presented by the on-road experience of the exempted
vehicles during the exemption period and thereafter?

VII. Comment Period

The agency seeks comment from the public on the merits of Nuro's
petition for a temporary exemption from three requirements in FMVSS No.
500, ``Low-speed vehicles.'' We are providing a 60-day comment period.
After considering public comments and other available information, we
will publish a notice of final action on the petition in the Federal
Register.
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.
You can arrange with the docket to be notified when others file
comments in the docket. See www.regulations.gov for more information.
We will reopen or extend the comment period for this petition, as
needed.

[[Page 10182]]

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30113 and 49 U.S.C. 30166; delegations of
authority at 49 CFR 1.95 and 49 CFR 501.8.

Issued in Washington, DC, under authority delegated in 49 CFR
1.95 and 501.8.
Heidi Renate King,
Deputy Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2019-05121 Filed 3-18-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P