
[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


