81 FR 65709 - Reports, Forms, and Record Keeping Requirements
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 | 65709-65716 | |
| FR Document | 2016-23013 |
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 185 (Friday, September 23, 2016)] [Notices] [Pages 65709-65716] From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org] [FR Doc No: 2016-23013] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION National Highway Traffic Safety Administration [Docket No. NHTSA-2016-0091] Reports, Forms, and Record Keeping Requirements AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Request for public comment on proposed collection of information. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: Before a Federal agency may collect certain information from the public, it must receive approval from [[Page 65710]] the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Under procedures established by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, before seeking OMB approval, Federal agencies must solicit public comment on proposed collections of information, including extensions and reinstatements of previously approved collections. This document describes a collection of information for which NHTSA intends to seek OMB approval. DATES: Comments must be received on or before November 22, 2016. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments using any of the following methods: Electronic submissions: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Mail: Docket Management Facility, M-30, U.S. Department of Transportation, West Building, Ground Floor, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE., Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590. Hand Delivery: West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Fax: (202) 493-2251. Instructions: Each submission must include the Agency name and the Docket number for this proposed collection of information. Note that all comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided. 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/privacy.html. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Yvonne Clarke, NHTSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590; Telephone (202) 366-1845; Facsimile: (202) 366-2106; email address: [email protected]. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, before an agency submits a proposed collection of information to OMB for approval, it must first publish a document in the Federal Register providing a 60-day comment period and otherwise consult with members of the public and affected agencies concerning each proposed collection of information. OMB has promulgated regulations describing what must be included in such a document. Under OMB's regulation (at 5 CFR 1320.8(d)), an agency must request public comment on the following: (i) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (ii) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (iii) how to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; (iv) how to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g. permitting electronic submission of responses. In compliance with these requirements, NHTSA asks for public comments on the following proposed collection of information: Title: Vehicle Performance Guidance. Type of Request: New collection. OMB Clearance Number: None. Form Number: NHTSA Form 1157. Requested Expiration Date of Approval: Three years from date of approval. Summary of the Collection of Information: On September 20, 2016, the Department of Transportation published the policy \1\ document titled Federal Automated Vehicles Policy. Recognizing the potential that highly automated vehicles (HAVs) have to enhance safety and mobility, this document sets out an approach to enable the safe deployment of L2 and HAV systems. An HAV system is defined as one that corresponds to Conditional (Level 3), High (Level 4), and Full (Level 5) Automation, as defined in SAE J3016. \2\ HAV systems rely on the automation system (not on a human driver) to monitor the driving environment for at least certain aspects of the driving task. An L2 system, also described in SAE J3016, is different because the human driver is never relieved of the responsibility to monitor the driving environment. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ Conformance to the guidance in Federal Automated Vehicles Policy is voluntary. See Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act, Public Law 114-94, 24406 (2015) (``No guidelines issued by the Secretary with respect to motor vehicle safety shall confer any rights on any person, State, or locality, nor shall operate to bind the Secretary or any person to the approach recommended in such guidelines''). \2\ For more information about SAE J3016, see http://www.sae.org/misc/pdfs/automated_driving.pdf. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Although there is a clear technical distinction between HAV systems and lower levels of automation (L2 and below) based on whether the automated system relies on the human driver when engaged and in operation, the Guidance suggests that L2 and HAV manufacturers apply elements of this Guidance during product development, testing, and deployment. With a few exceptions detailed in the tables below, Federal Automated Vehicles Policy applies equally to HAV and L2 systems. NHTSA seeks comment on its burden estimates regarding HAV and L2 systems and how those burdens might differ. The speed with which increasingly complex L2 and HAV systems are evolving challenges DOT and NHTSA to take approaches that ensure these technologies are safely introduced, provide safety benefits today, and achieve their full safety potential in the future. Consistent with its statutory purpose to reduce traffic accidents and deaths and injuries resulting from traffic accidents,\3\ NHTSA seeks to collect from, and recommend the recordkeeping and disclosure of information by vehicle manufacturers and other entities as described in Federal Automated Vehicles Policy. Specifically, NHTSA's recommendations in the policy section titled ``Vehicle Performance Guidance for Automated Vehicles'' (hereafter referred to as ``Guidance'') are the subject of this voluntary information collection request. This Guidance outlines recommended best practices, many of which should be commonplace in the industry, for the safe pre- deployment design, development, and testing of HAV and L2 systems prior to commercial sale or operation on public roads. Further, the Guidance identifies key areas to be addressed by manufacturers and other entities prior to testing or deploying HAV or L2 systems on public roadways. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \3\ 49 U.S.C.Sec. 30101. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- To assist NHTSA and the public in evaluating how safety is being addressed by manufacturers and other entities developing and testing HAV and L2 systems, NHTSA is recommending the following documentation, recordkeeping, and disclosures that aid in that mission. The burden estimates contained in this notice are based on the Agency's present understanding of the HAV and L2 systems market. NHTSA seeks comment on the burden estimates in this notice in whole or in part. [[Page 65711]] (1) HAV and L2 Safety Assessments NHTSA will request that HAV and L2 manufacturers and other entities voluntarily submit ``Safety Assessments'' to NHTSA's Office of the Chief Counsel for each HAV system and each SAE J3016 L2 system deployed on a vehicle. NHTSA anticipates that the majority of manufacturers and other entities will submit these Assessments digitally, but seeks comment on whether some manufacturers would prefer to mail in hard copies. These Assessments are the only collections in this notice that NHTSA anticipates manufacturers will submit to the Agency regularly.\4\ As explained in more detail below, NHTSA has calculated this burden to be about 760 hours per Assessment based on existing industry practices and similar information collection requests. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \4\ The other collections of information discussed in this notice are recordkeeping and/or disclosure recommendations that NHTSA might request, however, NHTSA plans on requesting information pertaining to those collections on a case-by-case basis. Examples include when information in the Safety Assessment is not clear, when testing by the Agency or other suggests conflicting information than what is contained in the Safety Assessment, etc. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Safety Assessment would summarize how the manufacturer or other entity has addressed the provisions of this Guidance at the time they intend their product to be ready for operational testing and prior to deployment. The Safety Assessment would assist NHTSA, and the public, in evaluating how safety is being addressed by manufacturers and other entities developing and testing L2 and HAV systems. The Safety Assessment would cover the following areas:Data Recording and Sharing Privacy System Safety Vehicle Cybersecurity Human Machine Interface Crashworthiness Consumer Education and Training Registration and Certification Post-Crash Behavior Federal, State and Local Laws Ethical Considerations Operational Design Domain Object and Event Detection and Response Fall Back (Minimal Risk Condition) Validation Methods These areas are fully described in the Guidance section (section I) of Federal Automated Vehicles Policy. For each area, the Safety Assessment should include an acknowledgement that indicates one of three options: Meets this guidance area ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Does not meet this guidance area ----------------------------------------------------------------------- This guidance area is not applicable ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Next to the checked line item, respondents would include the name, title, and signature of an authorized company official and the date the acknowledgement was made. Respondents would repeat this for each area covered in the Safety Assessment. Once this collection is approved, for L2 and HAV systems already being tested and deployed, NHTSA would expect that manufacturers and other entities will provide a Safety Assessment, understanding that manufacturers and entities may wish to supplement their submissions over time. For future L2 or HAV systems, NHTSA would expect manufacturers and other entities to provide the relevant Assessment(s) to NHTSA at least four months before active public road testing begins on a new L2 or HAV system. As explained in greater detail in Federal Automated Vehicles Policy, ``a new L2 or HAV system'' is intended to include the introduction of a new capability or function, but not an incremental software and/or hardware update. For example, a vehicle might have the capability to function with no driver input in congested traffic conditions below 30 mph. If the manufacturer updates the software (or hardware) in the vehicle expanding that automated functionality to higher speed highways, the Guidance would consider that upgrade to constitute a new L2 or HAV system. (2) Data Recording As part of the Guidance, NHTSA suggests that manufacturers and other entities will have a documented process for testing, validation, and collection of event, incident, and crash data, for the purposes of recording the occurrence of malfunctions, degradations, or failures in a way that can be used to establish the cause of any such issues. NHTSA recommends in its Guidance that manufacturers collect data both for testing and for operational (including for event reconstruction) purposes. The Agency suggests that manufacturers and other entities retain this information for a period of five years. For crash reconstruction purposes (including during testing), NHTSA recommends this data be stored, maintained, and readily available for retrieval by the entity itself and, if requested, by NHTSA. The Guidance recommends that manufacturers and other entities collect data associated with events involving: (1) Fatalities and personal injuries; or (2) damage to the extent that any motor vehicle involved cannot be driven under its own power in the customary manner, without further damage or hazard to itself, other traffic elements, or the roadway, and therefore requires towing. Vehicles should record, at a minimum, all information relevant to the event and the performance of the system, so that the circumstances of the event can be reconstructed. This data should also contain information relating to the status of the L2 or HAV system and whether the HAV system or the human driver was in control of the vehicle at the time. Manufacturers or other entities should have the technical and legal capability to share the relevant recorded information. In addition, to assist industry and NHTSA to develop new safety metrics, the Guidance recommends that manufacturers and other entities should collect, store, and analyze data regarding positive outcomes, in addition to the type of reporting conditions listed above (event, incident, and crash data). Positive outcomes are events in which the L2 or HAV system correctly detects a safety-relevant situation, and the system successfully avoids an incident (e.g., ``near misses'' and edge cases). Such data includes safety-related events such as near-misses between HAVs and other vehicles or road users (e.g., pedestrians and bicyclists). There is value in collecting data (and making it available during full operational use) that captures events in which the automated function correctly detects and identifies an unsafe maneuver initiated by another road user (e.g., another motor vehicle or pedestrian), and executes an appropriate response that successfully avoids an event, incident, or crash. (3) Data Sharing L2 and HAV systems have the potential to use data sharing to increase safety benefits. Thus, the Guidance recommends that each manufacturer or other entity should develop a plan for sharing its event reconstruction and other relevant data with other manufacturers and other entities. Sharing such data could help to accelerate knowledge and understanding of L2 and HAV system performance, and could be used to enhance the safety of L2 or HAV systems and to establish consumer confidence in L2 and HAV technologies. Generally, data shared with third parties should be de-identified (i.e., stripped of elements that make the data directly or reasonably linkable to a specific L2 or HAV system owner or user). Manufacturers and other entities should take steps to ensure that any data shared [[Page 65712]] is done in accordance with privacy and security agreements and notices applicable to the vehicle (which typically permit sharing of de- identified data) or with owner/user consent. (4) Consumer Education and Training To ensure that drivers of vehicles equipped with L2 or HAV systems can safely use them as part of the day-to-day driving experience, proper education and training is imperative to ensure safe deployment and operation of automated vehicles. Therefore, the Guidance recommends that manufacturers and other entities develop, document, and maintain employee, dealer, distributor, and consumer education and training programs to address the anticipated differences in the use and operation of L2-equipped vehicles and HAVs from those of the conventional vehicles. Such programs should be designed to provide the target users with the necessary level of understanding to use these complex technologies properly, efficiently, and in the safest manner possible. Consumer education should describe and explain topics such as an L2 or HAV system's intended use, operational parameters, system capabilities and limitations, and engagement/disengagement methods to transfer control between the driver and the L2 or HAV system. Further, consumer education should describe and explain what is meant by any displays and messaging presented by the L2 or HAV system's human- machine interface (HMI), emergency fallback scenarios in cases where the HAV system unexpectedly disengages, operational boundary responsibilities of the human driver, and potential mechanisms that could change an L2 or HAV system's behavior in service. As part of their education and training programs, the Guidance recommends that L2 or HAV manufacturers, dealers, and distributers should consider including an on-road or on-track hands-on experience demonstrating L2 or HAV system operations and HMI functions prior to release to consumers. Other innovative approaches (e.g., virtual reality) should be considered, tested, and employed as well. These programs should be continually evaluated for their effectiveness and updated on a routine basis, incorporating feedback from dealers, customers, and other data sources. NHTSA may request information on a manufacturer or other entities' consumer education to review training materials prepared by manufacturers and other entities for the purpose of evaluating effectiveness. NHTSA suggests that manufacturers and other entities retain this information for a period of five years. (5) Certification NHTSA anticipates that the capabilities of L2 or HAV systems on a vehicle may change such that the corresponding level of automation may change over the vehicle's lifecycle as a result of software updates. As more L2-equipped vehicles and HAVs are tested and sold commercially to be used on public roadways, older vehicles also may be modified to provide similar functionality to new vehicles. As new L2 and HAV systems are introduced to the market, manufacturers may choose to modify a vehicle's current level of automation to more advanced levels, even if the hardware was produced years previously. The Guidance recommends that manufacturers provide on-vehicle means to readily communicate concise information regarding the key capabilities of their L2 or HAV system(s) to vehicle occupants (e.g. semi-permanent labeling to the vehicle, in the operator's manual, or through the driver-vehicle interface). (6) Systems Safety Practices For the purpose of facilitating the design of L2 and HAV systems that are free of unreasonable safety risks, the Guidance recommends that manufacturers and other entities follow a robust design and validation process based on a systems-engineering approach and be fully documented. This process should encompass designing HAV systems such that the vehicle will be placed in a safe state even when there are electrical, electronic, or mechanical malfunctions or software errors. The overall process should adopt and follow industry standards, such as those provided by the International Standards Organization (ISO) and SAE International, and collectively cover the entire design domain of the vehicle. Manufacturers and other entities should also follow guidance, best practices, and design principles available from other industries such as aviation, space, and the military (e.g., the U.S. Department of Defense standard practice on system safety), to the extent they are relevant and applicable. The process should include a hazard analysis and safety risk assessment step for the L2 or HAV system, the overall vehicle design into which it is being integrated, and when applicable, the broader transportation ecosystem. The process should describe design redundancies and safety strategies for handling cases of L2 or HAV system malfunctions. All design decisions should be tested, validated, and verified as individual subsystems and as part of the entire vehicle architecture. The entire process should be fully documented and all actions, changes, design choices, analyses, associated testing and data should be fully traceable. Documentation of the system safety practices is intended primarily to assist manufacturers and other entities involved in designing L2 or HAV systems in managing this complex aspect of L2 or HAV safety engineering. NHTSA may request this information in the future as well, to review system safety practices for the purpose of evaluating the robustness of manufacturers' and other entities' overall approach to designing functionally safe (fail safe) HAV systems. NHTSA suggests that manufacturers and other entities retain this information for a period of five years. (7) Additional Data Collection Request Topics In addition to the individually defined collection areas described above, the Guidance suggests that NHTSA may request more detailed information for matters that manufacturers and other entities already gather. Therefore, the Guidance encourages manufacturers and other entities to ensure that they retain data pertaining to these topics. They include data regarding: Vehicle cybersecurity; HMI; crashworthiness (occupant protection and compatibility); post-crash behavior; Federal, State, and local laws, operational design domain; object event detection and response; and fall back (minimal risk condition). These additional areas are important from the standpoint of ensuring L2 and HAV systems that are free from unreasonable safety risks. In the future, this data could be used to evaluate processes for testing and validating. For these additional areas, NHTSA expects that there would be minimal additional burden placed on manufacturers and other entities because these are all areas that the Agency expects would normally be part of the design, testing, and validation process of a new L2 or HAV system. NHTSA suggests that manufacturers and other entities retain this information for a period of five years. More detailed descriptions of all of these areas can be found in Federal Automated Vehicles Policy. Estimated Burden for this Collection: We estimate the following collection burden on the public. The numbers below are based on estimates that NHTSA has generated, and the agency [[Page 65713]] seeks comment on the burden calculations below. HAV and L2 Safety Assessments There are currently 15 manufacturers that have registered with the State of California as licensed entities capable of testing automated systems. NHTSA expects that this number will increase after the publication of Federal Automated Vehicles Policy, potentially doubling to 30 manufacturers and other entities within six months. As automated vehicle systems continue to develop, NHTSA expects either new manufacturers or entities to enter the market, or existing manufacturers or entities to progress to a point where they are introducing HAV systems. For purposes of estimating the burden of this collection, NHTSA estimates there will be a total of 45 respondents by the end of the three years covered by this information collection request. Likewise, NHTSA estimates that a similar number of manufacturers and other entities will submit L2 Safety Assessments, although the agency notes that the 45 respondents for each assessment may not be identical, since some companies may be developing L3/L4 vehicles but not L2 vehicles, and vice versa. The Agency expects much of the burden of submitting these Assessments to be a part of conducting good and safe engineering practices. It therefore believes that manufacturers and other entities will have access to all of the information needed to craft these Assessments already documented, and that the overall conformance burden will be the time needed to collate and review answers sourced from pre- existing documentation. The summary table below highlights the estimated burden in hours for entities seeking to submit Safety Assessments by category: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Area Hours HAV L2 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- General Overall Summary....................................... 80 [check] [check] Data Recording and Sharing.................................... 80 [check] [check] Privacy....................................................... 40 [check] [check] System Safety................................................. 20 [check] [check] Vehicle Cybersecurity......................................... 20 [check] [check] Human Machine Interface....................................... 20 [check] [check] Crashworthiness............................................... 20 [check] [check] Consumer Education and Training............................... 40 [check] [check] Registration and Certification................................ 40 [check] [check] Post-Crash Behavior........................................... 20 [check] [check] Federal, State and Local Laws................................. 80 [check] [check] Ethical Consideration......................................... 80 [check] [check] Operational Design Domain..................................... 20 [check] Object and Event Detection and Response....................... 40 [check] Fall Back (Minimal Risk Condition)............................ 80 [check] Validation methods............................................ 80 [check] [check] ------------------------------------------------- Total..................................................... .............. 760 620 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Industry Burden ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Safety assessments HAV L2 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Number of Respondents................... 45 45 Time per Response (hours)............... 760 620 Frequency of Collection (for each new 1 1 HAV/L2 system)......................... Total Estimated Annual Burden (hours)... 34,200 27,900 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ In addition to the industry burden, because NHTSA will be collecting these Assessments, there is a government burden that will be incurred by the Agency. NHTSA expects that it will take three employees an hour each to fully process, catalogue, store each submission for a total of three burden hours. It will take an hour for a single employee to craft an acknowledgement of receipt to both the submitter and the public. The Agency also expects that 5 engineers will review these Assessments for technical completeness, spending four hours each, for a total of 20 hrs. This is expected to occur every time a Safety Assessment is received. Government Cost Burden ------------------------------------------------------------------------ HAV and L2 Safety assessments Estimate ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Number of Safety Assessments............................ 90 Time per Response (hours)............................... 24 Frequency of Collection (for each new HAV/L2 system).... 1 Total Estimated Annual Burden (hours)................... 2,160 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Data Sharing and Recording In conforming to this Guidance, manufacturers and other entities may see an increased burden to document their procedures. The Agency anticipates that the 45 manufacturers and other entities will have to spend an increased amount of time documenting their crash recorders, positive outcomes, event triggers/schema, data management, their data sharing plan, and data privacy. If these entities have already responded to the Safety Assessment discussed previously, the [[Page 65714]] core of the information likely will already be documented. Below are estimates of the additional hourly burden NHTSA expects. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Area Hours HAV L2 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Crash Recorder................................................ 40 [check] [check] Positive Outcomes............................................. 40 [check] [check] Event Triggers, Schema........................................ 40 [check] [check] Data Privacy.................................................. 40 [check] [check] Data Management............................................... 40 [check] [check] Data Sharing Plan............................................. 40 [check] [check] ------------------------------------------------- Total..................................................... 240 240 240 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Data Recording and Sharing for Purposes of Crash Reconstruction and General Knowledge Sharing ------------------------------------------------------------------------ HAV L2 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Estimated Number of Respondents......... 45 45 Estimated increased documentation burden 240 240 (hours)................................ Frequency of Collection (for each new 1 1 system)................................ Total Estimated Annual Burden (hours)... 10,800 10,800 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Systems Safety Practices As with the prior discussions, manufacturers and other entities may choose to document their system safety practices in response to the Guidance. It is anticipated that up to 45 companies may choose to document their efforts in response to the NHTSA Guidance and that they will incur corresponding costs for each new L2 or HAV system in the field. NHTSA estimates this will happen about once per year. If manufacturers and other entities have already responded to a Safety Assessment, NHTSA anticipates that the core of the information will already be documented. The following table documents the additional estimated burden. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Area Hours HAV L2 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Industry Standards Followed................................... 10 [check] [check] Best Practices, Design, and Guidance Followed................. 10 [check] Hazard Analysis............................................... 40 [check] [check] Safety Risk Assessment........................................ 40 [check] [check] Redundancies.................................................. 20 [check] [check] Software Development, Verification, and Validation............ 40 [check] [check] System Testing and Traceability............................... 40 [check] [check] ------------------------------------------------- Total..................................................... .............. 200 200 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Company Documentation for Recommended System Safety Practices ------------------------------------------------------------------------ HAV L2 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Number of Respondents................... 45 45 Estimated increased documentation burden 200 200 (hours)................................ Frequency of Collection................. 1 1 Total Estimated Annual Burden........... 9,000 9,000 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Consumer Education and Training As previously stated, NHTSA expects that manufacturers will develop documentation to support a claim or assertion that they are following the Guidance. NHTSA may request a subset of this documentation in some instances. However, the burden estimated here reflects additional time the manufacturers and other entities may take, outside of normal business practices, to document and store information specifically pertaining to their efforts to educate and train their customers and users. NHTSA anticipates that up to 45 companies may choose to document their efforts as part of the NHTSA Guidance. In the table below are estimates for the burden, in hours, for the task of documenting consumer education and training efforts, over and above normal business practices. This is currently estimated to occur about once per year. If manufacturers and other entities have already responded in a Safety Assessment, NHTSA anticipates that the core of the information will already be documented, reducing the relative burden. It is also expected that some of the entities may not directly interact with consumers, in which case their burden will be lower. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Area Hours HAV L2 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- System Intent................................................. 5 [check] [check] Operational Parameters........................................ 10 [check] [check] [[Page 65715]] System Capabilities........................................... 10 [check] [check] Engagement/Disengagement...................................... 20 [check] [check] HMI........................................................... 20 [check] [check] Fallback...................................................... 20 [check] Driver Responsibilities....................................... 10 [check] [check] Changes in system performance in Service...................... 10 [check] [check] On-Road Hands On Training..................................... 5 [check] [check] On-Track Hands On Training.................................... 5 [check] [check] ------------------------------------------------- Total..................................................... .............. 115 95 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Consumer Education and Training ------------------------------------------------------------------------ HAV L2 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Number of expected companies............ 45 45 Estimated increased documentation burden 115 95 (hours)................................ Frequency of Collection................. 1 1 Total Estimated Annual Burden (hours)... 5,175 4,275 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Additional Areas NHTSA anticipates that up to 45 companies may choose to document their efforts as part of the NHTSA Guidance. In the table below are estimates for the burden, in hours, for the task of documenting consumer education and training efforts, over and above normal business practices. This is currently estimated to occur about once per year. If manufacturers and other entities have already responded in a Safety Assessment, NHTSA anticipates that the core of the information will already be documented, reducing the relative burden. It is also expected that some of the entities may not directly interact with consumers, in which case their burden will be lower. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Area Hours HAV L2 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Vehicle Cybersecurity......................................... 60 [check] [check] Human Machine Interface....................................... 80 [check] [check] Crashworthiness............................................... 20 [check] [check] Post-crash Behavior........................................... 40 [check] [check] Federal, State, and Local Laws................................ 20 [check] [check] Operational Design Domain..................................... 20 [check] Object Event Detection and Response........................... 20 [check] Fall Back..................................................... 60 [check] ------------------------------------------------- Total..................................................... .............. 320 220 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Additional Areas [Cybersecurity, HMI, crashworthiness, post-crash, Fed/State/local laws, ODD, OEDR, fallback] ------------------------------------------------------------------------ HAV L2 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Number of Respondents................... 45 45 Estimated increased documentation burden 320 220 (hours)................................ Frequency of Collection................. 1 1 Total Estimated Annual Burden (hours)... 14,400 9,900 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Certification Manufacturers and other entities that produce vehicles may choose to conform to the Guidance's recommendation regarding certification, and thus may incur an additional documentation burden over and above normal documentation retention practices. Secondarily, some entities may choose to implement a physical label, thereby incurring additional costs. Not all of the companies that respond to the Safety Assessment may produce, alter, or modify vehicles in such a way that they would need extra labeling (e.g. tier 1 suppliers that do not offer aftermarket upgrades), Therefore it is expected that only 30 companies could choose to implement registration and certification procedures for new L2 or HAV systems in the field. The estimated burden is expected to occur once a year. The table below documents the additional estimated burden in terms of hours ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Area Hours ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Identifying Information................................. 10 Description of L2 or HAV System......................... 10 --------------- [[Page 65716]] Total............................................... 20 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Certification ------------------------------------------------------------------------ HAV L2 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Estimated Number of Respondents......... 30 N/A Estimated increased documentation burden 20 N/A (hours)................................ Frequency of Collection................. 1 N/A Total Estimated Annual Burden (hours)... 600 N/A ------------------------------------------------------------------------ As discussed above, some entities may choose to implement a physical label. From previous documentation for Part 567 labels,\5\ the cost of the physical label to approximately $1 per label. This takes into account 3 minutes to install the label along with the actual cost of the label. For the smaller fleets of HAVs, it is expected that this number will be more expensive per vehicle. NHTSA estimates that fleets will not exceed approximately 300 vehicles during the lifespan of the current ICR, and that the cost of labeling, including cost to design, print, and affix labels to be approximately $10 per vehicle. For 30 fleets of 300 cars each, this represents a cost burden of $90,000. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \5\ See the supporting statement titled 2127- 00510_Supporting_Statement_2014_CSv2.doc located at http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAViewDocument?ref_nbr=201501-2127-001 (retrieved September 7, 2016) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- HAV L2 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Overall Estimated Burden Hours per Year....................................... 74,175 61,875 --------------------------------- Total Estimated Burden Hours per Year......................................... 136,050 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Authority: 44 U.S.C. Section 3506(c)(2)(A). Issued on: September 20, 2016. Nathaniel Beuse Associate Administrator for Vehicle Safety Research. [FR Doc. 2016-23013 Filed 9-22-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
![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_65894/page/1.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 185 / Friday, September 23, 2016 / Notices 65715
Area Hours HAV L2
System Capabilities ..................................................................................................................... 10 ✓ ✓
Engagement/Disengagement ...................................................................................................... 20 ✓ ✓
HMI .............................................................................................................................................. 20 ✓ ✓
Fallback ........................................................................................................................................ 20 ✓
Driver Responsibilities ................................................................................................................. 10 ✓ ✓
Changes in system performance in Service ............................................................................... 10 ✓ ✓
On-Road Hands On Training ....................................................................................................... 5 ✓ ✓
On-Track Hands On Training ...................................................................................................... 5 ✓ ✓
Total ...................................................................................................................................... ........................ 115 95
CONSUMER EDUCATION AND TRAINING
HAV L2
Number of expected companies .............................................................................................................................. 45 45
Estimated increased documentation burden (hours) .............................................................................................. 115 95
Frequency of Collection ........................................................................................................................................... 1 1
Total Estimated Annual Burden (hours) .................................................................................................................. 5,175 4,275
Additional Areas the task of documenting consumer that the core of the information will
education and training efforts, over and already be documented, reducing the
NHTSA anticipates that up to 45 above normal business practices. This is relative burden. It is also expected that
companies may choose to document currently estimated to occur about once some of the entities may not directly
their efforts as part of the NHTSA per year. If manufacturers and other interact with consumers, in which case
Guidance. In the table below are entities have already responded in a their burden will be lower.
estimates for the burden, in hours, for Safety Assessment, NHTSA anticipates
Area Hours HAV L2
Vehicle Cybersecurity .................................................................................................................. 60 ✓ ✓
Human Machine Interface ........................................................................................................... 80 ✓ ✓
Crashworthiness .......................................................................................................................... 20 ✓ ✓
Post-crash Behavior .................................................................................................................... 40 ✓ ✓
Federal, State, and Local Laws ................................................................................................... 20 ✓ ✓
Operational Design Domain ........................................................................................................ 20 ✓
Object Event Detection and Response ....................................................................................... 20 ✓
Fall Back ...................................................................................................................................... 60 ✓
Total ...................................................................................................................................... ........................ 320 220
ADDITIONAL AREAS
[Cybersecurity, HMI, crashworthiness, post-crash, Fed/State/local laws, ODD, OEDR, fallback]
HAV L2
Number of Respondents .......................................................................................................................................... 45 45
Estimated increased documentation burden (hours) .............................................................................................. 320 220
Frequency of Collection ........................................................................................................................................... 1 1
Total Estimated Annual Burden (hours) .................................................................................................................. 14,400 9,900
Certification practices. Secondarily, some entities expected that only 30 companies could
may choose to implement a physical choose to implement registration and
Manufacturers and other entities that label, thereby incurring additional costs. certification procedures for new L2 or
produce vehicles may choose to Not all of the companies that respond HAV systems in the field. The estimated
conform to the Guidance’s to the Safety Assessment may produce, burden is expected to occur once a year.
recommendation regarding certification, alter, or modify vehicles in such a way The table below documents the
and thus may incur an additional that they would need extra labeling (e.g. additional estimated burden in terms of
documentation burden over and above tier 1 suppliers that do not offer
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
hours
normal documentation retention aftermarket upgrades), Therefore it is
Area Hours
Identifying Information ......................................................................................................................................................................... 10
Description of L2 or HAV System ....................................................................................................................................................... 10
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:22 Sep 22, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00094 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\23SEN1.SGM 23SEN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/81_FR_65894/page/7.svg)
![65716 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 185 / Friday, September 23, 2016 / Notices
Area Hours
Total .............................................................................................................................................................................................. 20
CERTIFICATION
HAV L2
Estimated Number of Respondents ........................................................................................................................ 30 N/A
Estimated increased documentation burden (hours) .............................................................................................. 20 N/A
Frequency of Collection ........................................................................................................................................... 1 N/A
Total Estimated Annual Burden (hours) .................................................................................................................. 600 N/A
As discussed above, some entities the label along with the actual cost of lifespan of the current ICR, and that the
may choose to implement a physical the label. For the smaller fleets of HAVs, cost of labeling, including cost to
label. From previous documentation for it is expected that this number will be design, print, and affix labels to be
Part 567 labels,5 the cost of the physical more expensive per vehicle. NHTSA approximately $10 per vehicle. For 30
label to approximately $1 per label. This estimates that fleets will not exceed fleets of 300 cars each, this represents a
takes into account 3 minutes to install approximately 300 vehicles during the cost burden of $90,000.
HAV L2
Overall Estimated Burden Hours per Year .............................................................................................................. 74,175 61,875
Total Estimated Burden Hours per Year ................................................................................................................. 136,050
Authority: 44 U.S.C. Section 3506(c)(2)(A). Currency, 400 7th Street SW., p.m. EDT on Tuesday, October 11, 2016,
Issued on: September 20, 2016. Washington, DC 20219. to inform the OCC of their desire to
Nathaniel Beuse FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: attend the meeting and to provide
Associate Administrator for Vehicle Safety Beverly Cole, Designated Federal Officer information that will be required to
Research. and Deputy Comptroller for Compliance facilitate entry into the meeting.
[FR Doc. 2016–23013 Filed 9–22–16; 8:45 am] Supervision, (202) 649–5688, Office of Members of the public may contact the
the Comptroller of the Currency, OCC via email at MDIAC@OCC.treas.gov
BILLING CODE 4910–59–P
Washington, DC 20219. or by telephone at (202) 649–5688.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: By this Attendees should provide their full
notice, the OCC is announcing that the name, email address, and organization,
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY MDIAC will convene a meeting at 8:30 if any. For security reasons, attendees
a.m. EDT on Tuesday, October 18, 2016, will be subject to security screening
Office of the Comptroller of the at the Office of the Comptroller of the procedures and must present a valid
Currency Currency, 400 7th Street SW., government-issued identification to
Washington, DC 20219. Agenda items enter the building. Members of the
[Docket ID OCC–2016–0026] will include current topics of interest to public who are deaf or hard of hearing
the industry. The purpose of the should call (202) 649–5597 (TTY) no
Minority Depository Institutions meeting is for the MDIAC to advise the later than 5:00 p.m. EDT on Tuesday,
Advisory Committee OCC on steps the agency may be able to October 11, 2016, to arrange auxiliary
AGENCY: Office of the Comptroller of the take to ensure the continued health and aids such as sign language interpretation
Currency, Department of the Treasury. viability of minority depository for this meeting.
ACTION: Notice.
institutions and other issues of concern Dated: September 19, 2016.
to minority depository institutions. Thomas J. Curry,
SUMMARY: The Office of the Comptroller Members of the public may submit Comptroller of the Currency.
of the Currency (OCC) announces a written statements to the MDIAC by any [FR Doc. 2016–22926 Filed 9–22–16; 8:45 am]
meeting of the Minority Depository one of the following methods:
Institutions Advisory Committee • Email to: MDIAC@OCC.treas.gov BILLING CODE 4810–33–P
(MDIAC). • Mail to: Beverly Cole, Designated
Federal Officer, Office of the
DATES: The OCC MDIAC will hold a DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Comptroller of the Currency, 400 7th
public meeting on Tuesday, October 18, Street SW., Washington, DC 20219. Submission for OMB Review;
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
2016, beginning at 8:30 a.m. Eastern The OCC must receive written
Daylight Time (EDT). Comment Request
statements no later than 5:00 p.m. EDT
ADDRESSES: The OCC will hold the on Tuesday, October 11, 2016. Members September 20, 2016.
October 18, 2016 meeting of the MDIAC of the public who plan to attend the The Department of the Treasury will
at the Office of the Comptroller of the meeting should contact the OCC by 5:00 submit the following information
5 See the supporting statement titled 2127–00510_ http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/ PRAViewDocument?ref_nbr=201501-2127-001
Supporting_Statement_2014_CSv2.doc located at (retrieved September 7, 2016)
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:22 Sep 22, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00095 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\23SEN1.SGM 23SEN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/81_FR_65894/page/8.svg)
Document Created: 2016-09-23 01:43:09
Document Modified: 2016-09-23 01:43:09
| 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 | Request for public comment on proposed collection of information. | |
| Dates | Comments must be received on or before November 22, 2016. | |
| Contact | Ms. Yvonne Clarke, NHTSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590; Telephone (202) 366-1845; | |
| FR Citation | 81 FR 65709 |
2025 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR