Reports, Forms, and Record Keeping Requirements, 65709-65716 [2016-23013]

Download as PDF sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 185 / Friday, September 23, 2016 / Notices 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 vehicleto-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 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. VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:22 Sep 22, 2016 Jkt 238001 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. 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 PO 00000 Frm 00088 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 65709 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 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION National Highway Traffic Safety Administration [Docket No. NHTSA–2016–0091] Reports, Forms, and Record Keeping Requirements National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Request for public comment on proposed collection of information. AGENCY: Before a Federal agency may collect certain information from the public, it must receive approval from SUMMARY: E:\FR\FM\23SEN1.SGM 23SEN1 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES 65710 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 185 / Friday, September 23, 2016 / Notices 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: Yvonne.e.clarke@dot.gov. 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 VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:22 Sep 22, 2016 Jkt 238001 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 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. PO 00000 Frm 00089 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 relieved of the responsibility to monitor the driving environment. 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 predeployment 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. 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. 3 49 E:\FR\FM\23SEN1.SGM U.S.C.§ 30101. 23SEN1 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 185 / Friday, September 23, 2016 / Notices (1) HAV and L2 Safety Assessments sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES 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. 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 llllllllllllllllll l • Does not meet this guidance area 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. VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:22 Sep 22, 2016 Jkt 238001 llllllllllllllllll l • This guidance area is not applicable llllllllllllllllll l 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 PO 00000 Frm 00090 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 65711 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 E:\FR\FM\23SEN1.SGM 23SEN1 65712 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 185 / Friday, September 23, 2016 / Notices 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. sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES (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 handson 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 VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:22 Sep 22, 2016 Jkt 238001 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 L2equipped 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. PO 00000 Frm 00091 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 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); postcrash 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 E:\FR\FM\23SEN1.SGM 23SEN1 65713 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 185 / Friday, September 23, 2016 / Notices 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. 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 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 preexisting documentation. The summary table below highlights the estimated burden in hours for entities seeking to submit Safety Assessments by category: Area Hours HAV 80 80 40 20 20 20 20 40 40 20 80 80 20 40 80 80 Total ...................................................................................................................................... ........................ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ 760 620 HAV General Overall Summary ........................................................................................................... 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 Consideration ................................................................................................................... Operational Design Domain ........................................................................................................ Object and Event Detection and Response ................................................................................ Fall Back (Minimal Risk Condition) ............................................................................................. Validation methods ...................................................................................................................... L2 L2 ✓ INDUSTRY BURDEN Safety assessments Number of Respondents .......................................................................................................................................... Time per Response (hours) ..................................................................................................................................... Frequency of Collection (for each new HAV/L2 system) ........................................................................................ Total Estimated Annual Burden (hours) .................................................................................................................. 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 45 760 1 34,200 45 620 1 27,900 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 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES HAV and L2 Safety assessments Estimate Number of Safety Assessments .......................................................................................................................................................... Time per Response (hours) ................................................................................................................................................................. Frequency of Collection (for each new HAV/L2 system) .................................................................................................................... Total Estimated Annual Burden (hours) .............................................................................................................................................. Data Sharing and Recording In conforming to this Guidance, manufacturers and other entities may see an increased burden to document VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:22 Sep 22, 2016 Jkt 238001 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, PO 00000 Frm 00092 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 90 24 1 2,160 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 E:\FR\FM\23SEN1.SGM 23SEN1 65714 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 185 / Friday, September 23, 2016 / Notices 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 ........................................................................................................................... Positive Outcomes ....................................................................................................................... Event Triggers, Schema .............................................................................................................. Data Privacy ................................................................................................................................ Data Management ....................................................................................................................... Data Sharing Plan ....................................................................................................................... 40 40 40 40 40 40 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Total ...................................................................................................................................... 240 240 240 DATA RECORDING AND SHARING FOR PURPOSES OF CRASH RECONSTRUCTION AND GENERAL KNOWLEDGE SHARING HAV Estimated Number of Respondents ........................................................................................................................ Estimated increased documentation burden (hours) .............................................................................................. Frequency of Collection (for each new system) ...................................................................................................... Total Estimated Annual Burden (hours) .................................................................................................................. 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 Area 45 240 1 10,800 L2 45 240 1 10,800 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. Hours HAV ✓ 200 200 L2 10 10 40 40 20 40 40 Total ...................................................................................................................................... ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ HAV Industry Standards Followed ....................................................................................................... Best Practices, Design, and Guidance Followed ........................................................................ Hazard Analysis ........................................................................................................................... Safety Risk Assessment .............................................................................................................. Redundancies .............................................................................................................................. Software Development, Verification, and Validation ................................................................... System Testing and Traceability ................................................................................................. L2 ........................ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ COMPANY DOCUMENTATION FOR RECOMMENDED SYSTEM SAFETY PRACTICES sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES Number of Respondents .......................................................................................................................................... Estimated increased documentation burden (hours) .............................................................................................. Frequency of Collection ........................................................................................................................................... Total Estimated Annual Burden ............................................................................................................................... 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 Area 18:22 Sep 22, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Hours Frm 00093 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 45 200 1 9,000 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. System Intent ............................................................................................................................... Operational Parameters ............................................................................................................... VerDate Sep<11>2014 45 200 1 9,000 E:\FR\FM\23SEN1.SGM HAV 5 10 23SEN1 L2 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ 65715 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 185 / Friday, September 23, 2016 / Notices Area Hours HAV ........................ ✓ ✓ ✓ 115 95 L2 10 20 20 20 10 10 5 5 Total ...................................................................................................................................... ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ HAV System Capabilities ..................................................................................................................... Engagement/Disengagement ...................................................................................................... HMI .............................................................................................................................................. Fallback ........................................................................................................................................ Driver Responsibilities ................................................................................................................. Changes in system performance in Service ............................................................................... On-Road Hands On Training ....................................................................................................... On-Track Hands On Training ...................................................................................................... L2 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ CONSUMER EDUCATION AND TRAINING Number of expected companies .............................................................................................................................. Estimated increased documentation burden (hours) .............................................................................................. Frequency of Collection ........................................................................................................................................... Total Estimated Annual Burden (hours) .................................................................................................................. Additional Areas 45 95 1 4,275 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. 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 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 45 115 1 5,175 Area Hours HAV Vehicle Cybersecurity .................................................................................................................. Human Machine Interface ........................................................................................................... Crashworthiness .......................................................................................................................... Post-crash Behavior .................................................................................................................... Federal, State, and Local Laws ................................................................................................... Operational Design Domain ........................................................................................................ Object Event Detection and Response ....................................................................................... Fall Back ...................................................................................................................................... ........................ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ 320 220 60 80 20 40 20 20 20 60 Total ...................................................................................................................................... L2 ADDITIONAL AREAS [Cybersecurity, HMI, crashworthiness, post-crash, Fed/State/local laws, ODD, OEDR, fallback] HAV Number of Respondents .......................................................................................................................................... Estimated increased documentation burden (hours) .............................................................................................. Frequency of Collection ........................................................................................................................................... Total Estimated Annual Burden (hours) .................................................................................................................. sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES 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 45 320 1 14,400 Hours Identifying Information ......................................................................................................................................................................... Description of L2 or HAV System ....................................................................................................................................................... 18:22 Sep 22, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00094 Fmt 4703 45 220 1 9,900 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 VerDate Sep<11>2014 L2 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\23SEN1.SGM 23SEN1 10 10 65716 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 185 / Friday, September 23, 2016 / Notices Area Hours Total .............................................................................................................................................................................................. 20 CERTIFICATION HAV Estimated Number of Respondents ........................................................................................................................ Estimated increased documentation burden (hours) .............................................................................................. Frequency of Collection ........................................................................................................................................... Total Estimated Annual Burden (hours) .................................................................................................................. 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 L2 30 20 1 600 N/A N/A N/A N/A 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. HAV Overall Estimated Burden Hours per Year .............................................................................................................. L2 74,175 61,875 Total Estimated Burden Hours per Year ................................................................................................................. Authority: 44 U.S.C. Section 3506(c)(2)(A). Issued on: September 20, 2016. Nathaniel Beuse Associate Administrator for Vehicle Safety Research. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: [FR Doc. 2016–23013 Filed 9–22–16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910–59–P DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Office of the Comptroller of the Currency [Docket ID OCC–2016–0026] Minority Depository Institutions Advisory Committee Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Department of the Treasury. ACTION: Notice. AGENCY: The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) announces a meeting of the Minority Depository Institutions Advisory Committee (MDIAC). SUMMARY: The OCC MDIAC will hold a public meeting on Tuesday, October 18, 2016, beginning at 8:30 a.m. Eastern Daylight Time (EDT). ADDRESSES: The OCC will hold the October 18, 2016 meeting of the MDIAC at the Office of the Comptroller of the sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES DATES: 5 See the supporting statement titled 2127–00510_ Supporting_Statement_2014_CSv2.doc located at VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:22 Sep 22, 2016 Jkt 238001 Currency, 400 7th Street SW., Washington, DC 20219. Beverly Cole, Designated Federal Officer and Deputy Comptroller for Compliance Supervision, (202) 649–5688, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Washington, DC 20219. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: By this notice, the OCC is announcing that the MDIAC will convene a meeting at 8:30 a.m. EDT on Tuesday, October 18, 2016, at the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, 400 7th Street SW., Washington, DC 20219. Agenda items will include current topics of interest to the industry. The purpose of the meeting is for the MDIAC to advise the OCC on steps the agency may be able to take to ensure the continued health and viability of minority depository institutions and other issues of concern to minority depository institutions. Members of the public may submit written statements to the MDIAC by any one of the following methods: • Email to: MDIAC@OCC.treas.gov • Mail to: Beverly Cole, Designated Federal Officer, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, 400 7th Street SW., Washington, DC 20219. The OCC must receive written statements no later than 5:00 p.m. EDT on Tuesday, October 11, 2016. Members of the public who plan to attend the meeting should contact the OCC by 5:00 http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/ PO 00000 Frm 00095 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 136,050 p.m. EDT on Tuesday, October 11, 2016, to inform the OCC of their desire to attend the meeting and to provide information that will be required to facilitate entry into the meeting. Members of the public may contact the OCC via email at MDIAC@OCC.treas.gov or by telephone at (202) 649–5688. Attendees should provide their full name, email address, and organization, if any. For security reasons, attendees will be subject to security screening procedures and must present a valid government-issued identification to enter the building. Members of the public who are deaf or hard of hearing should call (202) 649–5597 (TTY) no later than 5:00 p.m. EDT on Tuesday, October 11, 2016, to arrange auxiliary aids such as sign language interpretation for this meeting. Dated: September 19, 2016. Thomas J. Curry, Comptroller of the Currency. [FR Doc. 2016–22926 Filed 9–22–16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4810–33–P DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request September 20, 2016. The Department of the Treasury will submit the following information PRAViewDocument?ref_nbr=201501-2127-001 (retrieved September 7, 2016) E:\FR\FM\23SEN1.SGM 23SEN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 185 (Friday, September 23, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 65709-65716]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[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: Yvonne.e.clarke@dot.gov.

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