81 FR 65705 - NHTSA Enforcement Guidance Bulletin 2016-02: Safety-Related Defects and Automated Safety Technologies
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Federal Register Volume 81, Issue 185 (September 23, 2016)
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Federal Register Volume 81, Issue 185 (September 23, 2016)
| Page Range | 65705-65709 | |
| FR Document | 2016-23010 |
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 185 (Friday, September 23, 2016)] [Notices] [Pages 65705-65709] From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org] [FR Doc No: 2016-23010] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION National Highway Traffic Safety Administration [Docket No. NHTSA-2016-0040] NHTSA Enforcement Guidance Bulletin 2016-02: Safety-Related Defects and Automated Safety Technologies AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation. ACTION: Final notice. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: Automotive technology is at a moment of rapid change and may evolve farther in the next decade than in the previous 45-plus year history of the Agency. As the automobile industry moves toward fully automated (self-driving) vehicles and other innovative mobility solutions, NHTSA seeks to facilitate the advance of automated technologies that currently present safety improvements and that, in the future, are likely to improve safety and decrease the number of crashes, traffic fatalities, and serious injuries on U.S. roadways. NHTSA is commanded by Congress to protect the safety of the driving public against unreasonable risks of harm that may occur because of [[Page 65706]] the design, construction, or performance of a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment, and to mitigate risks of harm, including risks that may be emerging or contingent. As NHTSA has always done when evaluating new vehicle technologies, the Agency will be guided by its statutory mission, the laws it is obligated to enforce, and the benefits of the emerging automated safety technologies appearing on U.S. roadways. NHTSA has broad enforcement authority under existing statutes and regulations to address existing and emerging automated safety technologies. This Enforcement Guidance Bulletin sets forth NHTSA's current views on its enforcement authority--including its view that when vulnerabilities in automated safety technology or equipment pose an unreasonable risk to safety, those vulnerabilities constitute a safety-related defect--and suggests guiding principles and best practices for motor vehicle and equipment manufacturers in this context. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Justine Casselle or Elizabeth Mykytiuk, Office of the Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, at (202) 366-2992. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Executive Summary II. Legal and Policy Background A. NHTSA's Enforcement Authority Under the Safety Act B. Determining the Existence of a Defect C. Determining an Unreasonable Risk to Safety III. Guidance and Recommended Best Practices: Safety-Related Defects, Unreasonable Risk, and Automated Safety Technologies I. Executive Summary Recent and continuing advances in automotive technology have great potential to generate significant safety benefits. Today's motor vehicles are increasingly equipped with electronics, sensors, and computing power that enable automated safety technologies, including technologies such as forward-collision warning, automatic-emergency braking, and lane-keeping assist, which have the potential to dramatically enhance safety. New technologies may not only prevent drivers from crashing, but may even do some or all of the driving for them. The potential safety implications of such technologies are vast. Importantly, as these technologies become more widespread, manufacturers must ensure their safe development and implementation. On April 1, 2016, NHTSA published a proposed Enforcement Guidance Bulletin setting forth an overview of the Agency's enforcement authority under the Safety Act and its present views on certain enforcement subjects and issues. See Docket No. NHTSA-2016-0040. Recognizing the public interest in this topic and the safety concerns associated with automated safety technologies, the Agency solicited public comment before issuing a final Enforcement Guidance Bulletin. In response to the request for comment, the Agency received thirty-five (35) public submissions. Although some comments were submitted after the stated closing date of May 2, 2016, all comments submitted to the docket were considered in formulating this final Guidance. In response to various comments suggesting that NHTSA give additional review to issues associated with certain software and cybersecurity, the Agency has decided to focus this Guidance solely on how its enforcement authority relates to automated safety technologies, including fully automated (self-driving) vehicles. Thus, comments related to cybersecurity will be addressed in future interpretations and guidance. However, this does not mean that cybersecurity is outside of NHTSA's authority. Manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment must continue to follow the requirements of the Safety Act, including those related to cybersecurity. The Agency received twenty-eight (28) comments that specifically addressed automated safety technologies from a wide variety of stakeholders and members of the public. Many commenters supported the proposed Enforcement Guidance Bulletin, noting that it adequately explained NHTSA's existing authority and how that authority extends to automated safety technologies. Some commenters opined that guidance should not be viewed as a substitute for traditional rulemaking or the establishment of performance standards. One commenter suggested that manufacturers be required to engage in constant monitoring and reporting, due to the possibility of certain systems showing no outward sign of a defect and the increased possibility of defects resulting from two systems failing to correctly interact. Another suggested replacement of NHTSA's existing enforcement model with a more flexible approach after implementing new standards. None of the alternative approaches described in this paragraph are foreclosed by this Guidance. NHTSA remains open to consideration of those and other options. Traditionally, only after new technology is developed and proven does the Agency establish new safety standards. This approach has yielded enormous safety benefits, but one limitation of this approach is that it takes time. Strong safety regulations and standards are a vital piece of NHTSA's safety mission and the Agency will engage in rulemaking related to automated safety technologies in the future. This Guidance serves in part as a reminder that even before such rulemaking occurs, NHTSA currently has enforcement authority to address safety risks as they arise. A number of commenters urged the Agency, when developing guidance and regulations, to not provide immunity to manufacturers for the consequences of failures of automated safety technologies simply because a manufacturer introduces them to the U.S. public. This Guidance is limited to setting forth an overview of NHTSA's enforcement authority over automated safety technologies and, therefore, is not intended to provide such legal immunity. Other commenters suggested that while automated safety technologies may facilitate increased safety, manufacturers should ensure that over the lifespan of the vehicle such technologies themselves do not create unreasonable risks to safety due to predictable abuse or impractical recalibration requirements. The Agency agrees. Unreasonable risks due to predictable abuse or impractical recalibration requirements may constitute safety-related defects. See United States v. Gen. Motors Corp., 518 F.2d 420, 427 (D.C. Cir. 1975) (``Wheels''). Manufacturers have a continuing obligation to proactively identify and mitigate such safety risks. This includes safety risks discovered after the vehicle and/or equipment has been in safe operation. Finally, some commenters suggested that the Agency had misinterpreted its authority over certain motor vehicle equipment. Some further questioned whether software and certain devices constitute motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA's authority over motor vehicle equipment, in its many forms, is expressed unequivocally in the Safety Act. Because some non- traditional motor vehicle equipment manufacturers may not fully recognize their responsibilities under the Safety Act, this Guidance aims to increase awareness of NHTSA's enforcement authority over motor vehicle equipment in all of its various forms.\1\ This [[Page 65707]] Guidance is not an attempt to alter the relationship between motor vehicle and equipment manufacturers and their suppliers, or their respective responsibilities under the Safety Act. However, manufacturers and suppliers at all levels should be aware of their respective Safety Act obligations. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ The Agency anticipates publishing additional guidance at a later date, further clarifying the criteria the Agency considers when determining whether certain devices constitute motor vehicle equipment. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- NHTSA acknowledges the complexity of this evolving landscape. Nonetheless, NHTSA has been charged by Congress to protect the safety of the driving public against unreasonable risks of harm that may arise because of the design, construction, or performance of a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment. To fulfill that responsibility and accomplish its mission, the Agency must take steps to mitigate risks of harm, including risks that may result from automated safety technologies. This Guidance lays out a high-level overview of NHTSA's enforcement authority to evaluate and address safety risks of motor vehicle technologies. To the extent the Agency may need additional expertise to adequately evaluate such safety risks, NHTSA will take the necessary steps (as it has in the past) to meet those needs. Based on the Agency's consideration of all comments submitted in this proceeding; to aid in the successful development and deployment of automated safety technologies; to protect the public from potential defects associated with automated safety technologies that pose an unreasonable risk to safety; and as informed by the Agency's judgment and expertise, NHTSA now publishes this Enforcement Guidance Bulletin setting forth the Agency's current view of its enforcement authority and principles guiding its exercise of that authority. This includes guiding principles and best practices for use by motor vehicle and equipment manufacturers. NHTSA is not here establishing a binding set of rules, nor is the Agency suggesting that one particular set of practices applies in all situations. The Agency recognizes that best practices may vary depending on circumstances, and manufacturers remain free to choose the solution that best fits their needs while satisfying the demands of automotive safety. II. Legal and Policy Background A. NHTSA's Enforcement Authority Under the Safety Act The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, as amended (``Safety Act''), 49 U.S.C. 30101 et seq., provides the basis and framework for NHTSA's enforcement authority over motor vehicle and motor vehicle equipment defects and noncompliances with federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS). This authority includes investigations, administrative proceedings, civil penalties, and other civil enforcement actions. While fully automated (self-driving) vehicles and other automated safety technologies may modify motor vehicle and equipment design, NHTSA's statutory enforcement authority is sufficiently general and flexible to keep pace with such innovation. The Agency has the authority to respond to a safety problem posed by new technologies in the same manner it is able to respond to safety problems posed by more established automotive technology and equipment, such as carburetors, the powertrain, vehicle control systems, and forward collision warning systems--by determining the existence of a defect that poses an unreasonable risk to motor vehicle safety and ordering the manufacturer to conduct a recall. See 49 U.S.C. 30118(b). This enforcement authority applies notwithstanding the presence or absence of an FMVSS for any particular type of advanced equipment or technology. See, e.g., United States v. Chrysler Corp., 158 F.3d 1350, 1351 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (NHTSA ``may seek the recall of a motor vehicle either when a vehicle has `a defect related to motor vehicle safety' or when a vehicle `does not comply with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard.' '').\2\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \2\ A manufacturer's obligation to recall motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment determined to have a safety-related defect is separate and distinct from its obligation to recall motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment that fail to comply with an applicable FMVSS. See 49 U.S.C. 30120. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Under the Safety Act, NHTSA has authority over motor vehicles, equipment included in or on a motor vehicle at the time of delivery to the first purchaser (i.e., original equipment), and motor vehicle replacement equipment. See 49 U.S.C. 30102(a)-(b). Motor vehicle equipment is broadly defined to include ``any system, part, or component of a motor vehicle as originally manufactured'' and ``any similar part or component manufactured or sold for replacement or improvement of a system, part, or component.'' 49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(7)(A)-(B). The Safety Act also gives NHTSA jurisdiction over after-market improvements, accessories, or additions to motor vehicles. See 49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(7)(B). All devices ``manufactured, sold, delivered, or offered to be sold for use on public streets, roads, and highways with the apparent purpose of safeguarding users of motor vehicles against risk of accident, injury, or death'' are similarly subject to NHTSA's enforcement authority. 49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(7)(C). With respect to current and emerging automated motor vehicle safety technologies, NHTSA considers such technologies (including systems and equipment) to be motor vehicle equipment, whether they are offered to the public as part of a new motor vehicle (as original equipment) or as an after-market replacement(s) of or improvement(s) to original equipment. NHTSA also considers software (including, but not necessarily limited to, the programs, instructions, code, and data used to operate computers and related devices), and after-market software updates, to be motor vehicle equipment within the meaning of the Safety Act. Software that enables devices not located in or on the motor vehicle to connect to the motor vehicle or its systems could, in some circumstances, also be considered motor vehicle equipment. Accordingly, a manufacturer of current and emerging automated safety technologies, whether it is the supplier of the equipment or the manufacturer of a motor vehicle on which the equipment is installed, has an obligation to notify NHTSA of any and all safety-related defects. See 49 CFR part 573. Any manufacturer or supplier that fails to do so may be subject to civil penalties. See 49 U.S.C. 30165(a). NHTSA is charged with reducing deaths, injuries, and economic losses resulting from motor vehicle crashes. See 49 U.S.C. 30101. Part of that mandate includes ensuring that motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment, including automated safety technologies, perform in ways that ``protect[] the public against unreasonable risk of accidents occurring because of the design, construction, or performance of a motor vehicle, and against unreasonable risk of death or injury in an accident.'' 49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(8). This responsibility also includes the nonoperational safety of a motor vehicle. Id. In pursuit of these safety objectives, and in the absence of adequate action by the manufacturer, NHTSA is authorized to determine that a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment is defective and that the defect poses an unreasonable risk to safety. See 49 U.S.C. 30118(b) and (c)(1). B. Determining the Existence of a Defect Under the Safety Act, a ``defect'' includes ``any defect in performance, construction, a component, or material of a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment.'' 49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(2). This includes a defect in design. See Wheels, 518 F.2d at 436. A defect in an item of motor vehicle equipment (including [[Page 65708]] hardware, software, and other electronic systems) may be considered a defect of the motor vehicle itself. See 49 U.S.C. 30102(b)(1)(F). Congress intended the Safety Act to represent a ``commonsense'' approach to safety and courts have followed that approach in determining what constitutes a ``defect.'' See, e.g., Wheels, 518 F.2d at 436. For this reason, a defect determination does not require an engineering explanation or root cause, but instead ``may be based exclusively on the performance record of the component.'' Wheels, 518 F.2d at 432 (``[A] determination of a `defect' does not require any predicate of a finding identifying engineering, metallurgical, or manufacturing failures.''). Thus, a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment contains a defect ``if it is subject to a significant number of failures in normal operation, including failures either occurring during specified use or resulting from owner abuse (including inadequate maintenance) that is reasonably foreseeable (ordinary abuse).'' \3\ Wheels, 518 F.2d at 427. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \3\ ``The protection afforded by the [Safety] Act was not limited to careful drivers who fastidiously observed speed limits and conscientiously complied with manufacturer's instructions on vehicle maintenance and operation. . . . [the statute provides] an added area of safety to an owner who is lackadaisical, who neglects regular maintenance . . .'' Wheels, 518 F.2d at 434. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- A ``significant number of failures'' is merely a ``non-de minimus'' quantity; it need not be a ``substantial percentage of the total.'' Wheels, 518 F.2d at 438 n.84. Whether there have been a ``significant number of failures'' is a fact-specific inquiry that includes considerations such as: the failure rate of the component in question; the failure rates of comparable components; the importance of the component to the safe operation of the vehicle; and the severity of harm to the vehicle and/or occupant caused by the failure. Id. at 427. In addition, where appropriate, the determination of the existence of a defect may depend upon the failure rate in the affected class of vehicles compared to that of other peer vehicles. See United States v. Gen. Motors Corp., 841 F.2d 400, 412 (D.C. Cir. 1988) (``X-Cars''). The Agency relies on the performance record of a vehicle or component in making a defect determination where the engineering or root cause of a failure is unknown. See Wheels, 518 F.2d at 432. Where, however, the engineering or root cause is known, the Agency need not proceed with analyzing the performance record. See id.; see also United States v. Gen. Motors Corp., 565 F.2d 754, 758 (D.C. Cir. 1977) (``Carburetors'') (finding a defect to be safety-related if it ``results in hazards as potentially dangerous as sudden engine fire, and where there is no dispute that at least some such hazards . . . can definitely be expected to occur in the future.''). For software or other electronic systems, for example, when the engineering or root cause of the hazard is known, a defect exists regardless of whether there have been any actual performance failures. C. Determining an Unreasonable Risk to Safety In order to support a recall, a defect must be related to motor vehicle safety. United States v. General Motors Corp., 561 F.2d 923, 928-29 (D.C. Cir. 1977) (``Pitman Arms''). In the context of the Safety Act, ``motor vehicle safety'' refers to an ``unreasonable risk of accidents'' and an ``unreasonable risk of death or injury in an accident.'' 49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(8). Thus, while the defect analysis has generally entailed a retrospective look at how many failures have occurred (see, e.g., Wheels and Pitman Arms), the safety-relatedness question is forward-looking, and concerns hazards that may arise in the future. See, e.g., Carburetors, 565 F.2d at 758. In general, for a defect to present an ``unreasonable risk,'' there must be a likelihood that it will cause or be associated with a ``non- negligible'' number of crashes, injuries, or deaths in the future. See, e.g., Carburetors, 565 F.2d at 759. This prediction of future hazards is called a ``risk analysis.'' See, e.g., Pitman Arms, 561 F.2d at 924 (Leventhal, J., dissenting) (``GM presented a `risk analysis' which predicts the likely number of future injuries or deaths to be expected in the remaining service life of the affected models''). A forward- looking risk analysis is compelled by the purpose of the Safety Act, which ``is not to protect individuals from the risks associated with defective vehicles only after serious injuries have already occurred; it is to prevent serious injuries stemming from established defects before they occur.'' Carburetors, 565 F.2d at 759 (emphasis added). However, in some circumstances, a crash, injury, or death need not occur for a defect to be considered to pose an unreasonable risk. If the hazard is sufficiently serious, and at least some harm, however small, is expected to occur in the future, the risk may be deemed unreasonable. Carburetors, 565 F.2d at 759 (``In the context of this case . . . even an `exceedingly small' number of injuries from this admittedly defective and clearly dangerous carburetor appears to us `unreasonably large.'''). In other words, where a defect presents a ``clearly'' or ``potentially dangerous'' hazard, and where ``at least some such hazards''--even an ``exceedingly small'' number--will occur in the future, that defect is necessarily safety-related. See id. at 754. This is so regardless of whether any injuries have already occurred, or whether the projected number of failures/injuries in the future is trending down. See id. at 759. Moreover, a defect may be considered ``per se'' safety-related if it causes the failure of a critical component; causes a vehicle fire; causes a loss of vehicle control; or suddenly moves the driver away from steering, accelerator, and brake controls--regardless of how many injuries or accidents are likely to occur in the future. See Carburetors, 565 F.2d 754 (engine fires); Pitman Arms, 561 F.2d 923 (loss of control); United States v. Ford Motor Co., 453 F. Supp. 1240 (D.D.C. 1978) (``Wipers'') (loss of visibility); United States v. Ford Motor Co., 421 F. Supp. 1239, 1243- 1244 (D.D.C. 1976) (``Seatbacks'') (loss of control). Similarly, where a defect ``is systematic and is prevalent in a particular class [of motor vehicles or equipment], . . . this is prima facie an unreasonable risk.'' Pitman Arms, 561 F.2d at 929. III. Guidance and Recommended Best Practices: Safety-Related Defects, Unreasonable Risk, and Automated Safety Technologies Consistent with the foregoing background, NHTSA's enforcement authority concerning safety-related defects in motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment extends and applies equally to current and emerging automated safety technologies. This includes fully automated (self- driving) vehicles. Where a fully automated (self-driving) vehicle or other automated safety technology causes crashes or injuries, or poses other safety risks, the Agency will evaluate such technology through its investigative authority to determine whether the technology presents an unreasonable risk to safety. Similarly, should the Agency determine that a fully automated (self-driving) vehicle or other automated safety technology has manifested a safety-related defect, and a manufacturer fails to act, NHTSA will exercise its enforcement authority to the fullest extent. To avoid violating Safety Act requirements and standards, manufacturers of current and emerging automated safety technologies are [[Page 65709]] strongly encouraged to take steps to proactively identify and resolve safety concerns before their products are available for use on U.S. roadways, and to discuss such actions with NHTSA. The Agency recognizes that most automated safety technologies heavily involve electronic systems (such as hardware, software, sensors, global positioning systems (GPS) and vehicle-to-vehicle (V2V) safety communications systems). The Agency acknowledges that the increased use of electronic systems in motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment may raise new and different safety concerns. However, the complexities of these systems do not diminish manufacturers' duties under the Safety Act. Both motor vehicle manufacturers and motor vehicle equipment manufacturers remain responsible for ensuring that their vehicles and equipment are free of safety-related defects and noncompliances, and do not otherwise pose an unreasonable risk to safety. Manufacturers are also reminded that they remain responsible for promptly reporting to NHTSA any safety-related defects or noncompliances, as well as timely notifying owners and dealers of the same. In assessing whether a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment poses an unreasonable risk to safety, NHTSA considers the vehicle component or system involved, the likelihood of the occurrence of a hazard, the potential frequency of a hazard, the severity of hazard to the vehicle and occupant, known engineering or root cause, and other relevant factors. Where a threatened hazard is substantial (e.g., fire or stalling), low potential frequency may not carry as much weight in NHTSA's analysis. NHTSA may weigh the above factors, and other relevant factors, differently depending on the circumstances of the particular underlying matter at issue. Software installed in or on a motor vehicle--which is motor vehicle equipment--presents its own unique safety risks. Because software often interacts with a motor vehicle's critical systems (i.e., systems encompassing critical control functions such as braking, steering, or acceleration), the operation of those systems can be substantially altered by after-market software updates. Software located outside the motor vehicle could also be used to affect and control a motor vehicle's critical systems.\4\ Under either circumstance, if software (whether or not it purports to have a safety-related purpose) creates or introduces an unreasonable safety risk to motor vehicle systems, then that safety risk constitutes a defect compelling a recall. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \4\ NHTSA intends to publish an interpretation clarifying in further detail the Agency's criteria for determining whether a portable device or portable application is an ``accessory'' to a motor vehicle at a later date. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- While the Agency acknowledges that manufacturers are not required to design motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment that ``never fail,'' manufacturers should consider developing systems such that should an electrical, electronic, mechanical, or software failure occur, the vehicle or equipment can still be operated in a manner to mitigate the risks from such failures. Furthermore, with the increased introduction of current and emerging automated safety technologies, manufacturers should take steps necessary to ensure that any such technology introduced to U.S. roadways accounts for the driver's ease of use and any foreseeable misuse that may occur, particularly in circumstances that require driver interaction while a vehicle is in operation. A system design or configuration that fails to take into account and safeguard against the consequences of reasonably foreseeable driver distraction or error may present an unreasonable risk to safety. For example, an unconventional electronic gearshift assembly that lacks detents or other tactile cues that provide gear selection feedback makes it more likely that a driver may attempt to exit a vehicle with the mistaken belief that the vehicle is in park. If the vehicle's design does not guard against this foreseeable driver error by providing an effective warning or (for instance) immobilizing the vehicle when the driver's door is opened, the design may present an unreasonable risk to safety. Similarly, a semi-autonomous driving system that allows a driver to relinquish control of the vehicle while it is in operation but fails to adequately account for reasonably foreseeable situations where a distracted or inattentive driver- occupant must retake control of the vehicle at any point may also be an unreasonable risk to safety. Additionally, where a software system is expected to last the life of the vehicle, manufacturers should take care to provide secure updates as needed to keep the system functioning. Conversely, if a manufacturer fails to provide secure updates to a software system and that failure results in a safety risk, NHTSA may consider such a safety risk to be a safety-related defect compelling a recall. Motor vehicle and motor vehicle equipment manufacturers have a continuing obligation to proactively identify safety concerns and mitigate the risks of harm. If a manufacturer discovers or is otherwise made aware of any safety-related defects, noncompliances, or other safety risks after the vehicle and/or equipment (including automated safety technology) has been in safe operation, then it should promptly contact the appropriate NHTSA personnel to determine the necessary next steps. Where a manufacturer fails to adequately address a safety concern, NHTSA, when appropriate, will address that failure through its enforcement authority. Applicability/Legal Statement: This Enforcement Guidance Bulletin sets forth NHTSA's current views on its enforcement authority and the topic of automated safety technology, and suggests guiding principles and best practices to be utilized by motor vehicle and equipment manufacturers in this context. This Bulletin is not a final agency action and is intended as guidance only. This Bulletin does not have the force or effect of law. This Bulletin is not intended, nor can it be relied upon, to create any rights enforceable by any party against NHTSA, the U.S. Department of Transportation, or the United States. These recommended practices do not establish any defense to any violations of the Safety Act, or regulations thereunder, or violation of any statutes or regulations that NHTSA administers. This Bulletin may be revised without notice to reflect changes in the Agency's views and analysis, or to clarify and update text. Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30101-30103, 30116-30121, 30166; delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.95 and 49 CFR 501.8. Issued: September 20, 2016. Paul A. Hemmersbaugh, Chief Counsel. [FR Doc. 2016-23010 Filed 9-22-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
![Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 185 / Friday, September 23, 2016 / Notices 65705
complexity and novelty of these document regularly to reflect such comments received after that date.
innovations, will challenge the Agency’s experience, innovation, and public Given that we intend for the policy
conventional regulatory processes and input. document to be a living document and
capabilities. This challenge requires to be developed in an iterative fashion,
Public Participation
NHTSA to examine whether the ways in subsequent opportunities to comment
which NHTSA has addressed safety for How do I prepare and submit will also be provided periodically.
the last several decades should be comments? How can I read the comments submitted
expanded to realize the safety potential
Your comments must be written and by other people?
of HAVs over the decades to come.
Therefore, Section IV of the HAV in English. To ensure that your You may read the comments received
Policy identifies potential new tools, comments are filed correctly in the at the address given above under
authorities, and regulatory approaches docket, please include the docket COMMENTS. The hours of the docket
that could aid the safe deployment of number of this document in your are indicated above in the same
new technologies by enabling the comments. location. You may also see the
Agency to be more nimble and flexible. Your comments must not be more comments on the Internet, identified by
There will always be an important role than 15 pages long (49 CFR 553.21). the docket number at the heading of this
for standards and testing protocols NHTSA established this limit to notice, at http://www.regulations.gov.
based on careful scientific research and encourage you to write your primary Please note that, even after the
developed through the give-and-take of comments in a concise fashion. comment closing date, NHTSA will
an open public process. However, it is However, you may attach necessary continue to file relevant information in
likely that additional regulatory tools additional documents to your the docket as it becomes available.
along with new expertise and research comments. There is no limit on the Further, some people may submit late
also will be needed to allow the Agency length of the attachments. comments. Accordingly, the agency
to more quickly address safety Please submit one copy (two copies if recommends that you periodically
challenges and speed the deployment of submitting by mail or hand delivery) of check the docket for new material.
lifesaving technology. your comments, including the Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30101.
attachments, to the docket following the
Public Comment instructions given above under Issued in Washington, DC, on September
20, 2016 under authority delegated in 49 CFR
Although most of this policy is ADDRESSES. Please note, if you are
part 1.95.
effective immediately upon publication, submitting comments electronically as a
Nathaniel Beuse,
NHTSA is seeking public comment on PDF (Adobe) file, we ask that the
documents submitted be scanned using Associate Administrator for Vehicle Safety
the entire document. While the Agency
Research.
sought input from various stakeholders an Optical Character Recognition (OCR)
[FR Doc. 2016–22993 Filed 9–22–16; 8:45 am]
during the development of the process, thus allowing the agency to
document, it recognizes that not all search and copy certain portions of your BILLING CODE 4910–59–P
interested persons had a full submissions.
opportunity to provide such input.
How do I submit confidential business DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Formal comments will allow for that
information?
opportunity. National Highway Traffic Safety
Similarly, some of the items in the If you wish to submit any information Administration
vehicle performance guidance are under a claim of confidentiality, you
subject to the requirements of the should submit three copies of your [Docket No. NHTSA–2016–0040]
Paperwork Reduction Act, which complete submission, including the
requires that the Agency provide information you claim to be confidential NHTSA Enforcement Guidance Bulletin
separate notice and comment. The business information, to the Office of 2016–02: Safety-Related Defects and
notice for those items will be published the Chief Counsel, NHTSA, at the Automated Safety Technologies
shortly at http://www.regulations.gov address given above under FOR FURTHER AGENCY: National Highway Traffic
(search Docket No. NHTSA–2016–0091). INFORMATION CONTACT. In addition, you Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Finally, NHTSA expects to hold public may submit a copy (two copies if Department of Transportation.
meetings and workshops associated submitting by mail or hand delivery), ACTION: Final notice.
with specific items in this Policy. Once from which you have deleted the
the timing of those meetings has been claimed confidential business SUMMARY: Automotive technology is at a
finalized, Federal Register notices for information, to the docket by one of the moment of rapid change and may evolve
those meetings will also be published. methods given above under ADDRESSES. farther in the next decade than in the
While the Policy is intended as a When you send a comment containing previous 45-plus year history of the
starting point that provides needed information claimed to be confidential Agency. As the automobile industry
initial guidance to industry, business information, you should moves toward fully automated (self-
government, and consumers, it will include a cover letter setting forth the driving) vehicles and other innovative
necessarily evolve over time to meet the information specified in NHTSA’s mobility solutions, NHTSA seeks to
changing needs and demands of confidential business information facilitate the advance of automated
improved safety and technology. regulation (49 CFR part 512). technologies that currently present
Accordingly, NHTSA expects and safety improvements and that, in the
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
intends the policy document and its Will the agency consider late future, are likely to improve safety and
guidance to be iterative, changing based comments? decrease the number of crashes, traffic
on public comment; the experience of NHTSA will consider all comments fatalities, and serious injuries on U.S.
the agency, manufacturers, suppliers, received before the close of business on roadways. NHTSA is commanded by
consumers, and others; and further the comment closing date indicated Congress to protect the safety of the
technological innovation. NHTSA above under DATES. To the extent driving public against unreasonable
intends to revise and refine the possible, the agency will also consider risks of harm that may occur because of
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:22 Sep 22, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00084 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\23SEN1.SGM 23SEN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/81_FR_65890/page/1.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 185 / Friday, September 23, 2016 / Notices 65707
Guidance is not an attempt to alter the federal motor vehicle safety standards subject to NHTSA’s enforcement
relationship between motor vehicle and (FMVSS). This authority includes authority. 49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(7)(C).
equipment manufacturers and their investigations, administrative With respect to current and emerging
suppliers, or their respective proceedings, civil penalties, and other automated motor vehicle safety
responsibilities under the Safety Act. civil enforcement actions. While fully technologies, NHTSA considers such
However, manufacturers and suppliers automated (self-driving) vehicles and technologies (including systems and
at all levels should be aware of their other automated safety technologies equipment) to be motor vehicle
respective Safety Act obligations. may modify motor vehicle and equipment, whether they are offered to
NHTSA acknowledges the complexity equipment design, NHTSA’s statutory the public as part of a new motor
of this evolving landscape. Nonetheless, enforcement authority is sufficiently vehicle (as original equipment) or as an
NHTSA has been charged by Congress general and flexible to keep pace with after-market replacement(s) of or
to protect the safety of the driving such innovation. The Agency has the improvement(s) to original equipment.
public against unreasonable risks of authority to respond to a safety problem NHTSA also considers software
harm that may arise because of the posed by new technologies in the same (including, but not necessarily limited
design, construction, or performance of manner it is able to respond to safety to, the programs, instructions, code, and
a motor vehicle or motor vehicle problems posed by more established data used to operate computers and
equipment. To fulfill that responsibility automotive technology and equipment, related devices), and after-market
and accomplish its mission, the Agency such as carburetors, the powertrain, software updates, to be motor vehicle
must take steps to mitigate risks of vehicle control systems, and forward equipment within the meaning of the
harm, including risks that may result collision warning systems—by Safety Act. Software that enables
from automated safety technologies. determining the existence of a defect devices not located in or on the motor
This Guidance lays out a high-level that poses an unreasonable risk to motor vehicle to connect to the motor vehicle
overview of NHTSA’s enforcement vehicle safety and ordering the or its systems could, in some
authority to evaluate and address safety manufacturer to conduct a recall. See 49 circumstances, also be considered motor
risks of motor vehicle technologies. To U.S.C. 30118(b). This enforcement vehicle equipment. Accordingly, a
the extent the Agency may need authority applies notwithstanding the manufacturer of current and emerging
additional expertise to adequately presence or absence of an FMVSS for automated safety technologies, whether
evaluate such safety risks, NHTSA will any particular type of advanced it is the supplier of the equipment or the
take the necessary steps (as it has in the equipment or technology. See, e.g., manufacturer of a motor vehicle on
past) to meet those needs. United States v. Chrysler Corp., 158 which the equipment is installed, has an
Based on the Agency’s consideration F.3d 1350, 1351 (D.C. Cir. 1998) obligation to notify NHTSA of any and
of all comments submitted in this (NHTSA ‘‘may seek the recall of a motor all safety-related defects. See 49 CFR
proceeding; to aid in the successful vehicle either when a vehicle has ‘a part 573. Any manufacturer or supplier
development and deployment of defect related to motor vehicle safety’ or that fails to do so may be subject to civil
automated safety technologies; to when a vehicle ‘does not comply with penalties. See 49 U.S.C. 30165(a).
protect the public from potential defects NHTSA is charged with reducing
an applicable motor vehicle safety
associated with automated safety deaths, injuries, and economic losses
standard.’ ’’).2
technologies that pose an unreasonable resulting from motor vehicle crashes.
Under the Safety Act, NHTSA has See 49 U.S.C. 30101. Part of that
risk to safety; and as informed by the authority over motor vehicles,
Agency’s judgment and expertise, mandate includes ensuring that motor
equipment included in or on a motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment,
NHTSA now publishes this vehicle at the time of delivery to the
Enforcement Guidance Bulletin setting including automated safety
first purchaser (i.e., original equipment), technologies, perform in ways that
forth the Agency’s current view of its and motor vehicle replacement
enforcement authority and principles ‘‘protect[] the public against
equipment. See 49 U.S.C. 30102(a)–(b). unreasonable risk of accidents occurring
guiding its exercise of that authority. Motor vehicle equipment is broadly
This includes guiding principles and because of the design, construction, or
defined to include ‘‘any system, part, or performance of a motor vehicle, and
best practices for use by motor vehicle component of a motor vehicle as against unreasonable risk of death or
and equipment manufacturers. NHTSA originally manufactured’’ and ‘‘any injury in an accident.’’ 49 U.S.C.
is not here establishing a binding set of similar part or component manufactured 30102(a)(8). This responsibility also
rules, nor is the Agency suggesting that or sold for replacement or improvement includes the nonoperational safety of a
one particular set of practices applies in of a system, part, or component.’’ 49 motor vehicle. Id. In pursuit of these
all situations. The Agency recognizes U.S.C. 30102(a)(7)(A)–(B). The Safety safety objectives, and in the absence of
that best practices may vary depending Act also gives NHTSA jurisdiction over adequate action by the manufacturer,
on circumstances, and manufacturers after-market improvements, accessories, NHTSA is authorized to determine that
remain free to choose the solution that or additions to motor vehicles. See 49 a motor vehicle or motor vehicle
best fits their needs while satisfying the U.S.C. 30102(a)(7)(B). All devices equipment is defective and that the
demands of automotive safety. ‘‘manufactured, sold, delivered, or defect poses an unreasonable risk to
II. Legal and Policy Background offered to be sold for use on public safety. See 49 U.S.C. 30118(b) and (c)(1).
streets, roads, and highways with the
A. NHTSA’s Enforcement Authority apparent purpose of safeguarding users B. Determining the Existence of a Defect
Under the Safety Act of motor vehicles against risk of Under the Safety Act, a ‘‘defect’’
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
The National Traffic and Motor accident, injury, or death’’ are similarly includes ‘‘any defect in performance,
Vehicle Safety Act, as amended (‘‘Safety construction, a component, or material
Act’’), 49 U.S.C. 30101 et seq., provides 2 A manufacturer’s obligation to recall motor of a motor vehicle or motor vehicle
the basis and framework for NHTSA’s vehicles and motor vehicle equipment determined equipment.’’ 49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(2). This
to have a safety-related defect is separate and
enforcement authority over motor distinct from its obligation to recall motor vehicles
includes a defect in design. See Wheels,
vehicle and motor vehicle equipment and motor vehicle equipment that fail to comply 518 F.2d at 436. A defect in an item of
defects and noncompliances with with an applicable FMVSS. See 49 U.S.C. 30120. motor vehicle equipment (including
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:22 Sep 22, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00086 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\23SEN1.SGM 23SEN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/81_FR_65890/page/3.svg)
![65708 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 185 / Friday, September 23, 2016 / Notices
hardware, software, and other electronic F.2d 754, 758 (D.C. Cir. 1977) defective and clearly dangerous
systems) may be considered a defect of (‘‘Carburetors’’) (finding a defect to be carburetor appears to us ‘unreasonably
the motor vehicle itself. See 49 U.S.C. safety-related if it ‘‘results in hazards as large.’’’). In other words, where a defect
30102(b)(1)(F). potentially dangerous as sudden engine presents a ‘‘clearly’’ or ‘‘potentially
Congress intended the Safety Act to fire, and where there is no dispute that dangerous’’ hazard, and where ‘‘at least
represent a ‘‘commonsense’’ approach to at least some such hazards . . . can some such hazards’’—even an
safety and courts have followed that definitely be expected to occur in the ‘‘exceedingly small’’ number—will
approach in determining what future.’’). For software or other occur in the future, that defect is
constitutes a ‘‘defect.’’ See, e.g., Wheels, electronic systems, for example, when necessarily safety-related. See id. at 754.
518 F.2d at 436. For this reason, a defect the engineering or root cause of the This is so regardless of whether any
determination does not require an hazard is known, a defect exists injuries have already occurred, or
engineering explanation or root cause, regardless of whether there have been whether the projected number of
but instead ‘‘may be based exclusively any actual performance failures. failures/injuries in the future is trending
on the performance record of the down. See id. at 759. Moreover, a defect
C. Determining an Unreasonable Risk to
component.’’ Wheels, 518 F.2d at 432 may be considered ‘‘per se’’ safety-
Safety
(‘‘[A] determination of a ‘defect’ does related if it causes the failure of a
not require any predicate of a finding In order to support a recall, a defect critical component; causes a vehicle
identifying engineering, metallurgical, must be related to motor vehicle safety. fire; causes a loss of vehicle control; or
or manufacturing failures.’’). Thus, a United States v. General Motors Corp., suddenly moves the driver away from
motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle 561 F.2d 923, 928–29 (D.C. Cir. 1977) steering, accelerator, and brake
equipment contains a defect ‘‘if it is (‘‘Pitman Arms’’). In the context of the controls—regardless of how many
subject to a significant number of Safety Act, ‘‘motor vehicle safety’’ refers injuries or accidents are likely to occur
failures in normal operation, including to an ‘‘unreasonable risk of accidents’’ in the future. See Carburetors, 565 F.2d
failures either occurring during and an ‘‘unreasonable risk of death or 754 (engine fires); Pitman Arms, 561
specified use or resulting from owner injury in an accident.’’ 49 U.S.C. F.2d 923 (loss of control); United States
abuse (including inadequate 30102(a)(8). Thus, while the defect v. Ford Motor Co., 453 F. Supp. 1240
maintenance) that is reasonably analysis has generally entailed a (D.D.C. 1978) (‘‘Wipers’’) (loss of
foreseeable (ordinary abuse).’’ 3 Wheels, retrospective look at how many failures visibility); United States v. Ford Motor
518 F.2d at 427. have occurred (see, e.g., Wheels and Co., 421 F. Supp. 1239, 1243–1244
A ‘‘significant number of failures’’ is Pitman Arms), the safety-relatedness (D.D.C. 1976) (‘‘Seatbacks’’) (loss of
merely a ‘‘non-de minimus’’ quantity; it question is forward-looking, and control). Similarly, where a defect ‘‘is
need not be a ‘‘substantial percentage of concerns hazards that may arise in the systematic and is prevalent in a
the total.’’ Wheels, 518 F.2d at 438 n.84. future. See, e.g., Carburetors, 565 F.2d at particular class [of motor vehicles or
Whether there have been a ‘‘significant 758. equipment], . . . this is prima facie an
number of failures’’ is a fact-specific In general, for a defect to present an unreasonable risk.’’ Pitman Arms, 561
inquiry that includes considerations ‘‘unreasonable risk,’’ there must be a F.2d at 929.
such as: the failure rate of the likelihood that it will cause or be
associated with a ‘‘non-negligible’’ III. Guidance and Recommended Best
component in question; the failure rates Practices: Safety-Related Defects,
of comparable components; the number of crashes, injuries, or deaths in
the future. See, e.g., Carburetors, 565 Unreasonable Risk, and Automated
importance of the component to the safe Safety Technologies
operation of the vehicle; and the F.2d at 759. This prediction of future
severity of harm to the vehicle and/or hazards is called a ‘‘risk analysis.’’ See, Consistent with the foregoing
occupant caused by the failure. Id. at e.g., Pitman Arms, 561 F.2d at 924 background, NHTSA’s enforcement
427. In addition, where appropriate, the (Leventhal, J., dissenting) (‘‘GM authority concerning safety-related
determination of the existence of a presented a ‘risk analysis’ which defects in motor vehicles and motor
defect may depend upon the failure rate predicts the likely number of future vehicle equipment extends and applies
in the affected class of vehicles injuries or deaths to be expected in the equally to current and emerging
compared to that of other peer vehicles. remaining service life of the affected automated safety technologies. This
models’’). A forward-looking risk includes fully automated (self-driving)
See United States v. Gen. Motors Corp.,
analysis is compelled by the purpose of vehicles. Where a fully automated (self-
841 F.2d 400, 412 (D.C. Cir. 1988)
the Safety Act, which ‘‘is not to protect driving) vehicle or other automated
(‘‘X-Cars’’).
The Agency relies on the performance individuals from the risks associated safety technology causes crashes or
record of a vehicle or component in with defective vehicles only after injuries, or poses other safety risks, the
making a defect determination where serious injuries have already occurred; Agency will evaluate such technology
the engineering or root cause of a failure it is to prevent serious injuries through its investigative authority to
is unknown. See Wheels, 518 F.2d at stemming from established defects determine whether the technology
432. Where, however, the engineering or before they occur.’’ Carburetors, 565 presents an unreasonable risk to safety.
root cause is known, the Agency need F.2d at 759 (emphasis added). Similarly, should the Agency determine
However, in some circumstances, a that a fully automated (self-driving)
not proceed with analyzing the
crash, injury, or death need not occur vehicle or other automated safety
performance record. See id.; see also
for a defect to be considered to pose an technology has manifested a safety-
United States v. Gen. Motors Corp., 565
unreasonable risk. If the hazard is
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
related defect, and a manufacturer fails
3 ‘‘The protection afforded by the [Safety] Act was sufficiently serious, and at least some to act, NHTSA will exercise its
not limited to careful drivers who fastidiously harm, however small, is expected to enforcement authority to the fullest
observed speed limits and conscientiously occur in the future, the risk may be extent.
complied with manufacturer’s instructions on deemed unreasonable. Carburetors, 565 To avoid violating Safety Act
vehicle maintenance and operation. . . . [the statute
provides] an added area of safety to an owner who
F.2d at 759 (‘‘In the context of this case requirements and standards,
is lackadaisical, who neglects regular maintenance . . . even an ‘exceedingly small’ number manufacturers of current and emerging
. . .’’ Wheels, 518 F.2d at 434. of injuries from this admittedly automated safety technologies are
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:22 Sep 22, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00087 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\23SEN1.SGM 23SEN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/81_FR_65890/page/4.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 185 / Friday, September 23, 2016 / Notices 65709
strongly encouraged to take steps to circumstance, if software (whether or risks of harm. If a manufacturer
proactively identify and resolve safety not it purports to have a safety-related discovers or is otherwise made aware of
concerns before their products are purpose) creates or introduces an any safety-related defects,
available for use on U.S. roadways, and unreasonable safety risk to motor noncompliances, or other safety risks
to discuss such actions with NHTSA. vehicle systems, then that safety risk after the vehicle and/or equipment
The Agency recognizes that most constitutes a defect compelling a recall. (including automated safety technology)
automated safety technologies heavily While the Agency acknowledges that has been in safe operation, then it
involve electronic systems (such as manufacturers are not required to design should promptly contact the appropriate
hardware, software, sensors, global motor vehicles or motor vehicle NHTSA personnel to determine the
positioning systems (GPS) and vehicle- equipment that ‘‘never fail,’’ necessary next steps. Where a
to-vehicle (V2V) safety communications manufacturers should consider manufacturer fails to adequately address
systems). The Agency acknowledges developing systems such that should an a safety concern, NHTSA, when
that the increased use of electronic electrical, electronic, mechanical, or appropriate, will address that failure
systems in motor vehicles and motor software failure occur, the vehicle or through its enforcement authority.
vehicle equipment may raise new and equipment can still be operated in a Applicability/Legal Statement: This
different safety concerns. However, the manner to mitigate the risks from such Enforcement Guidance Bulletin sets
complexities of these systems do not failures. Furthermore, with the forth NHTSA’s current views on its
diminish manufacturers’ duties under increased introduction of current and enforcement authority and the topic of
the Safety Act. Both motor vehicle emerging automated safety technologies, automated safety technology, and
manufacturers and motor vehicle manufacturers should take steps suggests guiding principles and best
equipment manufacturers remain necessary to ensure that any such practices to be utilized by motor vehicle
responsible for ensuring that their technology introduced to U.S. roadways and equipment manufacturers in this
vehicles and equipment are free of accounts for the driver’s ease of use and context. This Bulletin is not a final
safety-related defects and any foreseeable misuse that may occur, agency action and is intended as
noncompliances, and do not otherwise particularly in circumstances that guidance only. This Bulletin does not
pose an unreasonable risk to safety. require driver interaction while a have the force or effect of law. This
Manufacturers are also reminded that vehicle is in operation. A system design Bulletin is not intended, nor can it be
they remain responsible for promptly or configuration that fails to take into relied upon, to create any rights
reporting to NHTSA any safety-related account and safeguard against the enforceable by any party against
defects or noncompliances, as well as consequences of reasonably foreseeable NHTSA, the U.S. Department of
timely notifying owners and dealers of driver distraction or error may present Transportation, or the United States.
the same. an unreasonable risk to safety. These recommended practices do not
In assessing whether a motor vehicle For example, an unconventional
establish any defense to any violations
or item of motor vehicle equipment electronic gearshift assembly that lacks
of the Safety Act, or regulations
poses an unreasonable risk to safety, detents or other tactile cues that provide
thereunder, or violation of any statutes
NHTSA considers the vehicle gear selection feedback makes it more
or regulations that NHTSA administers.
component or system involved, the likely that a driver may attempt to exit
This Bulletin may be revised without
likelihood of the occurrence of a hazard, a vehicle with the mistaken belief that
notice to reflect changes in the Agency’s
the potential frequency of a hazard, the the vehicle is in park. If the vehicle’s
views and analysis, or to clarify and
severity of hazard to the vehicle and design does not guard against this
update text.
occupant, known engineering or root foreseeable driver error by providing an
cause, and other relevant factors. Where effective warning or (for instance) Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30101–30103, 30116–
a threatened hazard is substantial (e.g., immobilizing the vehicle when the 30121, 30166; delegation of authority at 49
fire or stalling), low potential frequency driver’s door is opened, the design may CFR 1.95 and 49 CFR 501.8.
may not carry as much weight in present an unreasonable risk to safety. Issued: September 20, 2016.
NHTSA’s analysis. NHTSA may weigh Similarly, a semi-autonomous driving Paul A. Hemmersbaugh,
the above factors, and other relevant system that allows a driver to relinquish Chief Counsel.
factors, differently depending on the control of the vehicle while it is in [FR Doc. 2016–23010 Filed 9–22–16; 8:45 am]
circumstances of the particular operation but fails to adequately BILLING CODE 4910–59–P
underlying matter at issue. account for reasonably foreseeable
Software installed in or on a motor situations where a distracted or
vehicle—which is motor vehicle inattentive driver-occupant must retake DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
equipment—presents its own unique control of the vehicle at any point may
safety risks. Because software often also be an unreasonable risk to safety. National Highway Traffic Safety
interacts with a motor vehicle’s critical Additionally, where a software system Administration
systems (i.e., systems encompassing is expected to last the life of the vehicle,
[Docket No. NHTSA–2016–0091]
critical control functions such as manufacturers should take care to
braking, steering, or acceleration), the provide secure updates as needed to Reports, Forms, and Record Keeping
operation of those systems can be keep the system functioning. Requirements
substantially altered by after-market Conversely, if a manufacturer fails to
software updates. Software located provide secure updates to a software AGENCY: National Highway Traffic
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
outside the motor vehicle could also be system and that failure results in a Safety Administration (NHTSA),
used to affect and control a motor safety risk, NHTSA may consider such Department of Transportation (DOT).
vehicle’s critical systems.4 Under either a safety risk to be a safety-related defect ACTION: Request for public comment on
compelling a recall. proposed collection of information.
4 NHTSA intends to publish an interpretation
Motor vehicle and motor vehicle
clarifying in further detail the Agency’s criteria for equipment manufacturers have a
determining whether a portable device or portable
SUMMARY: Before a Federal agency may
application is an ‘‘accessory’’ to a motor vehicle at continuing obligation to proactively collect certain information from the
a later date. identify safety concerns and mitigate the public, it must receive approval from
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:22 Sep 22, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00088 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\23SEN1.SGM 23SEN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/81_FR_65890/page/5.svg)
Document Created: 2016-09-23 01:43:40
Document Modified: 2016-09-23 01:43:40
| Category | Regulatory Information | |
| Collection | Federal Register | |
| sudoc Class | AE 2.7: GS 4.107: AE 2.106: | |
| Publisher | Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration | |
| Section | Notices | |
| Action | Final notice. | |
| Contact | Justine Casselle or Elizabeth Mykytiuk, Office of the Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, at (202) 366-2992. | |
| FR Citation | 81 FR 65705 |
2025 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR