Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Incident Reporting for Automated Driving Systems (ADS) and Level 2 Advanced Driver Assistance Systems (ADAS), 74217-74231 [2021-28311]

Agencies

• National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
• DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 247 (Wednesday, December 29, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 74217-74231]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-28311]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2021-0070]


Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the 
Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Incident 
Reporting for Automated Driving Systems (ADS) and Level 2 Advanced 
Driver Assistance Systems (ADAS)

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

ACTION: Notice and request for comments on a request for extension of a 
currently approved information collection.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), 
this notice announces that the Information Collection Request (ICR) 
summarized below will be submitted to the Office of Management and 
Budget (OMB) for review and approval. This ICR describes NHTSA's 
information collection for incident reporting requirements for 
Automated Driving Systems (ADS) and Level 2 Advanced Driver Assistance 
Systems (ADAS) and its expected burden. NHTSA recently requested 
emergency review of its request for approval of this information 
collection and received a six-month approval. To start the normal 
clearance procedures and request OMB's approval for a three-year 
extension of this currently approved information collection, NHTSA 
published a Federal Register notice with a 60-day comment period 
soliciting comments on the information collection on September 30, 
2021. NHTSA received 14 comments on the notice, as well as four letters 
regarding the information collection that were submitted directly to 
NHTSA.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before January 28, 2022.

ADDRESSES: Written comments and recommendations for the proposed 
information collection, including suggestions for reducing burden, 
should be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget at 
www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. To find this particular information 
collection, select ``Currently under Review--Open for Public Comment'' 
or use the search function.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For additional information or access 
to background documents, contact Jeff Eyres, Office of Chief Counsel, 
telephone (202) 913-4307, or email at [email protected], U.S. 
Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 
20590.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), a 
Federal agency must receive approval from the Office of Management and 
Budget (OMB) before it collects certain information from the public, 
and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information 
by a Federal agency unless the collection displays a valid OMB control 
number. In compliance with these requirements, this notice announces 
that the following information collection request will be submitted to 
OMB.
    Title: Incident Reporting for Automated Driving Systems (ADS) and 
Level 2 Advanced Driver Assistance Systems (ADAS).
    OMB Control Number: 2127-0754.
    Form Number(s): Form 1612.
    Type of Request: Approval of an extension with modification of a 
currently approved collection of information.
    Type of Review Requested: Regular.
    Requested Expiration Date of Approval: 3 years from date of 
approval.
    Summary of the Collection of Information:
    NHTSA requested and received emergency review and approval of this 
information collection. NHTSA submitted the request on June 29, 2021. 
On June 30, 2021, OMB granted NHTSA a six-month approval for this 
information collection and assigned the collection the OMB control 
number 2127-0754. NHTSA is publishing this document to seek an 
extension of this information collection.
    NHTSA is seeking approval to extend its currently approved 
information collection requiring certain manufacturers of motor 
vehicles and equipment and operators of motor vehicles to submit 
incident reports for certain crashes involving Automated Driving 
Systems (ADS) and Level 2 Advanced Driver Assistance Systems (ADAS). 
These crash reporting obligations are set forth in NHTSA's Standing 
General Order 2021-01 (General Order) (as amended on August 5, 2021), 
which requires those manufacturers and operators named in and served 
with the General Order to report crashes that meet specified criteria 
to NHTSA.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ A copy of the General Order is available on NHTSA's website 
at https://www.nhtsa.gov/laws-regulations/standing-general-order-crash-reporting-levels-driving-automation-2-5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Specifically, the General Order requires the named manufacturers 
and operators (the reporting entities) to submit reports if they 
receive notice of certain crashes involving an ADS or Level 2 ADAS 
equipped vehicle that occur on publicly accessible roads in the United 
States. To be reportable, the vehicle, the ADS, or the Level 2 ADAS 
must have been manufactured by the reporting entity or the vehicle must 
have been operated by a reporting entity at the time of the crash, and 
the ADS or Level 2 ADAS must have been engaged at the time of or 
immediately before (<=30 seconds) the crash. In the event that a 
reporting entity receives notice of a reportable crash, the General 
Order requires the reporting entity to submit an incident report 
electronically to NHTSA. The required report includes basic information 
sufficient for NHTSA to identify those crashes that warrant follow-up. 
The reporting obligations are limited to those entities named in and 
served with the General Order. The General Order imposes no reporting 
obligations on any other companies and likewise imposes no reporting 
obligations on any individual consumers.
    The agency has received incident reports for the past five months 
under its 6-month emergency clearance. Based on the agency's experience 
in reviewing these reports, and on the public comments received in 
response to the notice it published in the Federal Register, NHTSA has 
decided to amend the General Order. These changes, as well as a more 
detailed explanation of the information collection, is provided below 
in the section discussing the 60-day notice.

Description of the Need for the Information and Proposed Use of the 
Information

    Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, as amended 
(the Safety Act), 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, NHTSA is charged with 
authority ``to reduce traffic accidents and deaths and injuries 
resulting from traffic accidents.'' To carry out this statutory 
mandate, NHTSA has broad information gathering authority, including 
authority to obtain information on vehicle crashes, potential defects 
related to motor vehicle safety, and compliance with legal requirements 
to timely identify and conduct recalls for safety

[[Page 74218]]

defects. 49 U.S.C. 30166(e), (g), 30118-30120; 49 CFR Part 510.
    NHTSA's statutory mandate includes the exercise of its authority to 
proactively ensure that motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment, 
including those with novel technologies, perform in ways that protect 
the public against unreasonable risk of accidents occurring because of 
the design, construction, or performance of a motor vehicle, and 
against unreasonable risk of death or injury in an accident. 49 U.S.C. 
30102. Both ADS and ADAS are ``motor vehicle equipment'' subject to the 
requirements of the Safety Act. Given the rapid evolution of these 
technologies and increasing testing of new technologies and features on 
publicly accessible roads, it is critical for NHTSA to exercise its 
oversight over potential safety defects in vehicles operating with ADS 
and Level 2 ADAS. The Safety Act is preventive, and the identification 
of safety defects does not and should not wait for injuries or deaths 
to occur.
    ADS and Level 2 ADAS are new technologies that fundamentally alter 
the task of driving a motor vehicle. Crashes involving vehicles 
equipped with these technologies have resulted in multiple fatalities 
and serious injuries, and NHTSA anticipates that the number of these 
crashes will continue to grow in the near future given the increased 
number of these vehicles on the road and the increased number of 
vehicle and equipment manufacturers in the market. The General Order 
provides the agency with critical and timely crash data, which assists 
the agency in identifying potential safety issues resulting from the 
operation of advanced technologies on public roads. Access to this 
crash data may show whether there are common patterns in vehicle 
crashes or systematic problems with specific vehicles or systems, any 
of which may reflect a potential safety defect.
    NHTSA intends to evaluate whether specific manufacturers (including 
manufacturers of prototype vehicles and equipment) are meeting their 
statutory obligations to ensure that their vehicles and equipment are 
free of defects that pose an unreasonable risk to motor vehicle safety, 
or are recalled if such a safety defect is identified. NHTSA's 
oversight of potential safety defects in vehicles operating on publicly 
accessible roads using ADS or Level 2 ADAS requires that NHTSA have 
timely information on incidents involving those vehicles. In carrying 
out the Safety Act, NHTSA may ``require, by general or special order, 
any person to file reports or answers to specific questions.'' 49 
U.S.C. 30166(g)(1)(A).

60-Day Notice

    A Federal Register notice with a 60-day comment period soliciting 
public comments on the following information collection was published 
on September 30, 2021 (86 FR 54287). The agency received fourteen 
comments from business, insurance, and industry associations, safety 
and consumer advocates, manufacturers and developers, and an interested 
individual. The agency also docketed four letters regarding the General 
Order that were received prior to publication of the 60-day notice.
    NHTSA received comments that both supported NHTSA's intention to 
seek approval for a three-year approval from OMB and comments that were 
not supportive of the information collection or expressed concerns 
about the current requirements. In general, comments from safety and 
consumer advocate groups were more supportive and comments from the 
industry and industry groups expressed more criticism of the 
information collection. Specifically, NHTSA received comments regarding 
the definitions of ``notice'' and ``crash,'' the reporting requirements 
under Request No. 1, the reporting requirements under Request No. 2, 
the reporting requirements under Request No. 3, the reporting 
Requirements under Request No. 4, the Incident Report Form, the 
requirement that each reporting entity with notice of a reportable 
crash file a separate report, the burden placed by the General Order on 
``vehicle suppliers,'' the requirements for submitting confidential 
business information (CBI), and the hourly burden estimates and 
associated labor cost estimates. A summary of the major comments and 
NHTSA's responses is provided below.

Comments on the Definition of ``Notice''

    A reporting entity's duty to submit an incident report under the 
General Order is triggered by notice of facts meeting the criteria for 
different types of reports. It is the reporting entity's receipt of 
notice of these facts, and not the existence of a crash, that triggers 
the duty to report.
    The General Order includes the following definition of the term 
``Notice'':

    ``Notice'' is defined more broadly than in 49 CFR Sec.  579.4 
and means information you have received from any internal or 
external source and in any form (whether electronic, written, 
verbal, or otherwise) about an incident that occurred or is alleged 
to have occurred; including, but not limited to vehicle reports, 
test reports, crash reports, media reports, consumer or customer 
reports, claims, demands, and lawsuits. A manufacturer or operator 
has notice of a crash or a specified reporting criterion (i.e., a 
resulting hospital-treated injury, fatality, vehicle tow-away, air 
bag deployment, or the involvement of a vulnerable road user) when 
it has notice of facts or alleged facts sufficient to meet the 
definition of a crash or a specified reporting criterion, regardless 
of whether the manufacturer has verified those facts.

The General Order's definition of notice is intentionally broad and 
provides that a reporting entity that receives information from any 
source and in any form, written or unwritten, verified or unverified, 
constitutes notice of the facts included in that information.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Although nothing in the General Order requires a reporting 
entity to affirmatively seek out facts about which it does not 
otherwise have notice, the agency expects that manufacturers and 
operators, as part of their ongoing defect identification and safety 
procedures, will investigate safety-related incidents with 
reasonable diligence. The agency likewise notes that a manufacturer 
is required to notify NHTSA if it ``learns the vehicle or equipment 
contains a defect and decides in good faith that the defect is 
related to motor vehicle safety.'' 49 U.S.C. Sec.  30118(c)(1). The 
manufacturer must notify NHTSA after it ``first decides that a 
safety-related defect'' exists, 49 U.S.C. Sec.  30119(c)(2), and 
must also submit a defect report under Part 573, ``not more than 5 
working days after a defect in a vehicle or item of equipment has 
been determined to be safety related.'' 49 CFR Sec.  573.6. The 
``good faith'' requirement in Section 30118(c)(1) means that a 
manufacturer must notify NHTSA within five working days of when it 
actually identifies or, in the exercise of reasonable diligence, 
should have identified, a safety defect or noncompliance. See United 
States v. Gen. Motors Corp., 656 F. Supp. 1555, 1559 n.5 (D.D.C. 
1987), aff'd on other grounds, 841 F.2d 400 (D.C. Cir. 1988).

    Multiple commenters submitted comments stating that this definition 
is overly broad and creates an unnecessary burden on the reporting 
entities. The agency received comments on this issue from the U.S. 
Chamber of Commerce-Technology Engagement Center (``C_TEC''), the 
Consumer Technology Association (``CTA''), the Self-Driving Coalition 
for Safer Streets (``the Self-Driving Coalition''), the Alliance for 
Automotive Innovation (``Auto Innovators''), the Motor and Equipment 
Manufacturers Association (``MEMA''), and Aurora Operations, Inc. 
(``Aurora'').
    Many of these comments focus on the fact that notice can come in 
the form of any information from any source. These commenters suggest 
that this definition should be narrowed to information intentionally 
directed to the reporting entity, information directed to a specified 
group of individuals, information in the form of a written claim or 
notice, or to exclude media reports.
    The agency disagrees with these comments. The agency has found, 
through its own experience, that media reports are a valuable source of 
initial

[[Page 74219]]

information regarding crashes of interest and does not believe that 
notice should come only in the form of written claims or notices. The 
agency understands that many of the reporting entities have processes 
already in place to review media stories regarding their vehicles and 
crashes regarding those vehicles. The agency also sees no reason to 
limit the term notice to written claims or notices directed to the 
reporting entity as information regarding reportable crashes can come 
from a variety of other sources. The agency therefore declines to limit 
this definition as suggested.
    Other comments focused on the fact that the definition of notice 
includes any information received by the reporting entity and is not 
limited to specific individuals or employees within a specific 
department, employees of a certain seniority level, or employees with 
responsibilities relating to the review of and response to safety-
related information. These comments suggest that the definition of 
notice should be limited to information received by those persons who 
normally receive information regarding crash reports and potential 
safety issues. Several comments include hypotheticals in which a 
production line employee or other employee with no specific 
responsibility for safety is told or reads about a crash (perhaps even 
while the employee is not working) that triggers a reporting 
requirement.
    The agency disagrees with these comments, which appear to be 
largely based on theoretical hypotheticals rather than actual 
experience. As explained, the definition of notice is intentionally 
broad to ensure that the agency receives timely notice of all crashes 
that meet the reporting criteria. The list of reporting entities 
includes companies of different sizes and structures, which makes it 
difficult to identify a limited group of persons for purposes of this 
definition. The agency also notes that, despite the theoretical 
hypotheticals, none of the comments includes a real word example of 
actual situations that resulted in confusion or excessive burden. The 
agency is likewise unaware of any reports that have been submitted 
based on notice received in a manner similar to those suggested by 
these hypotheticals.
    The agency need not, for the purposes of responding to these 
comments, engage in a legal analysis of whether information received, 
for example, by a production line worker, janitorial staff, or a 
marketing intern constitutes information received by the company. The 
agency expects that each reporting entity already has or will put into 
place internal reporting processes and implement training that reflect 
the size, nature, and business of that entity. Nonetheless, the agency 
also states that, if faced with a potential enforcement issue 
involving, as the hypotheticals suggest, an employee far removed from 
any responsibility for receiving, reporting, or analyzing potential 
safety-related information, the agency will consider any appropriate 
enforcement discretion warranted by the circumstances.
    Other comments focus on that portion of the definition providing 
that a company has notice of facts when those facts are alleged, 
regardless of whether the reporting entity has verified those facts. 
These comments argue that including facts that have not yet been 
verified by the reporting entity substantially decreases the value of 
the reported information and increases the burden on the reporting 
entities.
    The agency disagrees with these comments. The purpose of the 
General Order is to provide the agency with timely notice of crashes 
and circumstances that may reflect a safety-related defect with ADS or 
Level 2 ADAS equipped subject vehicles. The agency needs notice of 
these crashes and allegations before a reporting entity takes some 
indeterminate amount of time to investigate and try to verify the 
allegations, and the agency needs notice of these allegations 
regardless of whether they are disputed or have been verified by the 
reporting entities. The agency's own experience likewise counsels 
against limiting the scope of the reporting obligation to those facts 
that the reporting entity has verified or does not dispute. To the 
extent a reporting entity disputes the alleged facts, considers the 
alleged facts implausible, or even simply has not had time to 
investigate, it is able to provide that information and context in the 
narrative section of the incident report.
    Other comments attempt to draw analogies with reporting 
requirements that apply to manufacturers under the agency's EWR (also 
referred to as TREAD) regulations. See 49 U.S.C. 30166; 49 CFR Part 
579. These comments argue that the scope of the reporting obligations 
under the General Order should be narrowed to make them more similar in 
scope and burden to the reporting obligations under the EWR 
regulations. The agency disagrees with these comments and notes once 
again (as it did in its application for emergency authorization and in 
the 60-day notice) that one of the primary reasons the agency issued 
the General Order is that its existing information gathering 
regulations are different in scope (they apply only to manufacturers), 
in the information required to be submitted (they require no specific 
information about ADS or Level 2 ADAS), and in the timeliness with 
which the information is required to be submitted (which is frequently 
many months after an incident occurred).

Comments on Definition of ``Crash''

    A reporting entity's reporting obligation under the General Order 
is limited to ``crashes'' that meet the specified criteria. The General 
Order includes the following definition of the term ``Crash'':

    ``Crash'' means any physical impact between a vehicle and 
another road user (vehicle, pedestrian, cyclist, etc.) or property 
that results or allegedly results in any property damage, injury, or 
fatality. For clarity, a subject vehicle is involved in a crash if 
it physically impacts another road user or if it contributes or is 
alleged to contribute (by steering, braking, acceleration, or other 
operational performance) to another vehicle's physical impact with 
another road user or property involved in that crash.

Under this definition, a crash occurs any time a motor vehicle impacts 
another road user or property and the impact results in property 
damage, injury, or fatality. Likewise, a subject vehicle is involved in 
a crash (which may trigger a reporting obligation), even if it is not 
involved in the resulting impact, if it nonetheless contributes or is 
alleged to contribute to the resulting impact.

    MEMA, Aurora, Auto Innovators, the Self-Driving Coalition, and 
C_TEC each submitted comments stating that the definition of ``crash'' 
is overly-broad and creates unnecessary burden because it includes 
those impacts that result in ``any property damage.'' As the comments 
note, ``any property damage'' could include a slight paint scratch from 
a minor impact or other damage that might otherwise be considered de 
minimus. These comments state that requiring reporting entities to 
submit incident reports on these crashes provides the agency with no 
useful information while creating substantial burden on the reporting 
entities. These comments further suggest, as a proposed solution, that 
the definition of ``crash'' should be amended to include a threshold 
amount of damage such as $250 or $1,000 or limited to damage other than 
the subject vehicle itself.
    The agency disagrees with these comments. The agency notes first 
that notice of an incident that meets the definition of a crash, by 
itself, does not trigger the obligation to submit an incident report. 
To be reportable, the crash must also meet the criteria

[[Page 74220]]

specified in Request No. 1 or Request No. 2.
    To be reportable under Request No. 1, which applies to both Level 2 
ADAS and ADS equipped vehicles, the crash must also involve, among 
other criteria, a fatality, a hospital treated injury, an air bag 
deployment, a vehicle tow-away, or a vulnerable road user (VRU). The 
agency is unaware of any crash involving one of these criteria that 
resulted in only a minor paint scratch or other de minimus damage and 
believes that any such crash is extremely unlikely to occur.
    In contrast, under Request No. 2, which applies to ADS equipped 
vehicles, minor damage could result in a reporting obligation under 
Request No. 2, if the ADS system was engaged 30 seconds or less prior 
to the start of the crash. The concern expressed by these comments is 
therefore limited to a small subset of crashes involving ADS-equipped 
vehicles rather than the reporting obligations under the General Order 
as a whole.
    At this time, there are no ADS equipped vehicles available for 
consumer purchase or use. Instead, these vehicles are typically 
operated as test vehicles or for limited commercial purposes such as 
taxi or delivery services under special use permits from State or local 
authorities and often under exemptions granted by and/or conditions 
imposed by the agency. As NHTSA noted in the General Order, ``ADS 
present new and unique risks to motor vehicle safety because they 
fundamentally alter the nature of motor vehicles and their operation.'' 
The General Order therefore requires that reporting entities submit 
incident reports for all crashes involving ADS equipped vehicles that 
meet the reporting criteria under Request No. 2, regardless of the 
extent or cost to repair any resulting damage. The agency believes that 
this reporting requirement is necessary and appropriate and that it 
does not create unnecessary or excessive burden for operators and 
manufacturers of ADS equipped vehicles and equipment.
    The agency also disagrees that a reporting threshold based on the 
cost to repair any resulting property damage would have any material 
effect on the burden imposed on the reporting entities. To determine 
whether the cost to repair resulting damage exceeds a specific dollar 
value, the reporting entity would have to engage in an entirely 
different analysis that could involve repair estimates and differing 
cost structures depending on whether the repair was performed 
internally or by a third-party or whether parts were valued at 
wholesale or retail cost. A crash involving a vehicle owned by a large 
vehicle manufacturer with internal repair facilities might therefore 
not be reportable, while the same crash with the same damage might be 
reportable to a small developer that uses a third-party repair 
facility. Enforcement issues could likewise turn on whether the repair 
cost of the damage was $75.00 or $1,025.00 rather than the simpler 
question of whether there was any property damage. The agency therefore 
declines to amend the definition of crash to include a threshold amount 
of damage.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ For the avoidance of doubt, the agency also confirms that 
the property damage referenced in the definition of crash includes 
damage to the subject vehicle itself and declines to amend the 
definition of crash to exclude damage to the subject vehicle itself.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Several comments also focus the clarifying statement in the 
definition stating that a vehicle is involved in a crash if it 
contributes or is alleged to contribute to the crash and argue that 
this statement makes the definition ambiguous with respect to when a 
vehicle is involved in a crash. The agency disagrees with these 
comments. The verb ``contribute,'' when used in its intransitive form 
(as it is in the definition of crash), has a commonly understood 
meaning--``to play a significant part in making something happen.'' \4\ 
A vehicle therefore is involved in a crash if it physically impacts 
another road user or if it plays or is alleged to play a significant 
part (by steering, braking, acceleration, or other operational 
performance) in causing another vehicle's physical impact with another 
road user or property involved in that crash. The agency does not 
believe this statement is ambiguous or otherwise in need of 
clarification.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/contribute.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comments on Request No. 1

    Under Request No. 1 of the General Order, a reporting entity must 
report any crash involving an ADS or Level 2 ADAS equipped vehicle that 
occurs on publicly accessible roads in the United States, where the ADS 
or Level 2 ADAS was engaged at any time during the period 30 seconds 
prior to the crash through the end of the crash, and the crash results 
in any individual being transported to a hospital for medical 
treatment, a fatality, a vehicle tow-away, or an air bag deployment or 
involves a vulnerable road user. Under these circumstances, the 
reporting entity must submit a report within one calendar day after the 
reporting entity receives notice of the crash, and an updated report is 
due 10 calendar days after receiving notice.
    The 10-day report utilizes the same form and requests the same 
information as the one-day report. The 10-day report is a required 
follow up to the one-day report because it is anticipated that, for 
some (if not many) of these reportable crashes, the reporting entity 
will have minimal information one calendar day after it first receives 
notice. The General Order therefore requires both the one-day report, 
to give the agency prompt notice of a crash that may justify immediate 
follow up, and the 10-day report, to provide the agency with additional 
information regarding the crash about which the reporting entity may 
later receive notice. Reporting entities use the same incident report 
form for 1-day and 10-day crashes, and no different or incremental 
information is required for the 10-day report.
    Multiple commenters, including C_TEC, Auto Innovators, CTA, Tesla, 
Inc. (``Tesla''), the Self-Driving Coalition, and MEMA, submitted 
comments stating that the requirement in Request No. 1 that an initial 
report be submitted within one calendar day is unnecessarily 
burdensome, provides no meaningful benefit to the agency, and increases 
the likelihood of inaccurate information being submitted to the agency. 
These comments focus on both the 1-day deadline for submitting the 
incident report, which requires reporting entities to report quickly 
following the receipt of notice, and the fact that the 1-day deadline 
is one calendar day rather than one business day, which requires 
reporting entities to monitor information and, if the criteria are met, 
to submit incident reports on weekends and holidays when the deadline 
falls on these days. These comments contend that the 1-day deadline 
creates unnecessary burden because a reporting entity has limited time 
to evaluate the notice it receives, determine whether a reporting 
obligation exists, and to prepare and submit an incident report if the 
crash is determined to be reportable. Because notice of a crash may 
come on a Friday afternoon or on a weekend and because the reports may 
need to be submitted on a weekend or holiday (or during a 
manufacturer's shut-down period), there is burden resulting from the 
need to have employees working or at least ``on-call'' to review 
information and file any required reports during these periods.
    Many of these same comments suggest that the requirement of a 10-
day updated incident report under Request No. 1 creates unnecessary 
burden and provides minimal information of value to the agency. These 
same comments

[[Page 74221]]

suggest that this burden could be substantially reduced through a 
variety of different changes, including changing the deadlines from 
calendar days to business days, eliminating the 1-day report (i.e., 
requiring only a 10-day report), combining the 1-day and 10-day reports 
into a single 5-day report, and permitting a reporting entity to 
designate an initial report as ``final'' to indicate that its 
investigation is complete.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Several comments noted that the deadline for reporting 
incidents in the agency's Standing General Order regarding Takata 
and ARC air bags is 5 business days. See In re EA15-001 (Takata) Air 
Bag Inflator Rupture and PE15-027 (ARC) Air Bag Inflator Rupture, 
Standing General Order 2015-01A Directed to Motor Vehicle 
Manufacturers (Aug. 17, 2015). The agency notes significant 
differences between the two general orders, including that the 
General Order 2015-01A required reporting entities to inquire with 
their foreign offices regarding air bag inflator ruptures that 
occurred outside the United States and to file reports regarding any 
such foreign incidents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The agency understands the burden imposed by the 1-day and 10-day 
reporting requirements under Request No. 1. The agency also explained 
in its 60-day notice that the 1-day deadline is necessary to ensure 
that the agency has timely notice of those crashes reportable under 
Request No. 1 and the ability to timely respond to and investigate 
crashes reportable under Request No. 1. A later deadline could impede 
the agency's ability to respond or investigate, for example, by 
deploying a Special Crash Investigation (SCI) team to inspect the 
accident scene or vehicle, and a later deadline also could result in 
the loss of valuable information that is not properly preserved. The 
agency's experience since it issued the General Order has confirmed the 
importance of timely notice. The agency also has seen that prompt 
notice is most valuable for a subset of more serious crashes, 
specifically those for which the agency is most likely to send a team 
to investigate. In order to maintain timely notice with respect to 
these more serious incidents and, at the same time, reduce the 
resulting burden on respondents, NHTSA has decided to amend Request No. 
1 of the General Order to create a new 5-day reporting category for 
some of these crashes.
    Request No. 1 will be amended in a manner that keeps the 1-day and 
10-day reporting sequence for any crash that involves a fatality, a 
hospital treated injury, or a vulnerable road user. For those crashes 
reportable under Request No. 1 that do not involve any of those 
criteria but involve an air bag deployment or a vehicle tow-away, the 
reporting requirement will be amended to a single incident report that 
must be submitted no later than 5 calendar days after the reporting 
entity receives notice. If the fifth calendar day falls on a weekend or 
holiday, the reporting entity may file this 5-day report early (i.e., 
before the fifth calendar day) to avoid the burden of having to file 
such a report on a weekend or holiday. For the avoidance of confusion, 
the agency makes clear that this change will not take effect until the 
General Order is formally amended to reflect this change.
    Based on its experience with 5 months of reporting since the 
General Order was issued, the agency estimates that only 8% of the 
reports required under Request No. 1 will involve a fatality, a 
hospital treated injury, or a vulnerable road user and therefore need 
to be submitted under the 1-day and 10-day sequence. The remaining 
reports, those not involving any of those three criteria but involving 
an air bag deployment or vehicle tow-away, which NHTSA estimates to be 
92% of the reports required under Request No. 1, will require a single 
report within 5 calendar days of receiving notice. The burden estimates 
set forth below have been adjusted to reflect this forthcoming 
amendment to the General Order.
    Aurora also submitted comments suggesting that Request No. 1 should 
be amended to reduce the starting point for the period during which the 
ADS or Level 2 ADAS system must have been engaged from 30 seconds prior 
to the initiation of a crash to 5 seconds prior to the initiation of a 
crash. The agency declines to amend Request No. 1 in this manner 
because it believes the proposed amendment could prevent the agency 
from receiving information relating to a potential safety defect and 
because the proposed amendment would not result in any meaningful 
reduction in burden.

Comments on Request No. 2

    Under Request No. 2 of the General Order, a reporting entity must 
report any crash involving an ADS equipped vehicle that is not 
reportable under Request No. 1, but nonetheless occurs on a publicly 
accessible road in the United States while the ADS system was engaged 
at any time during the period 30 seconds prior to the crash through the 
conclusion of the crash. As a practical matter, therefore, the 
differences between Request No. 1 and Request No. 2 are that Request 
No. 2 is limited to ADS equipped vehicles (and does not include Level 2 
ADAS equipped vehicles) and that crashes reportable under Request No. 2 
do not involve a fatality, hospital treated injury, an air bag 
deployment, a vehicle tow-away, or a vulnerable road user. Upon receipt 
of notice of a crash reportable under Request No. 2, a reporting entity 
must submit a report regarding the crash on the fifteenth day of the 
month after the reporting entity receives notice.
    CTA and the Self-Driving Coalition submitted comments suggesting 
that Request No. 2 should be eliminated from the General Order because 
the reported incidents, which do not involve any of the criteria 
included in Request 1.C, involve less serious crashes that are unlikely 
to include any meaningful data. These same commenters suggested that, 
if Request No. 2 is not removed from the General Order, it should be 
modified to include a minimum amount of crash damage as a reporting 
threshold.
    NHTSA disagrees with these comments. For the same reasons discussed 
above with respect to comments regarding the definition of ``crash,'' 
the agency declines to amend Request No. 2.
    The Self-Driving Coalition's comments also suggested that Request 
No. 2, which is limited to crashes involving subject vehicles equipped 
with ADS (and does not include subject vehicles equipped with Level 2 
ADAS), places a disproportionate burden on ADS manufacturers and 
operators. The agency disagrees with these comments. Given the unique 
nature of ADS and the lack of ADS equipped vehicles for consumer use 
and purchase, the agency believes that the reporting requirements in 
Request No. 2 are appropriate and are not unduly burdensome.

Comments on Request No. 3

    Request No. 3 requires reporting entities to submit a supplemental 
report on a previously reported incident the month after it receives 
notice of any material new or materially different information about 
the incident. This reporting obligation continues throughout the 
duration of the General Order.
    Auto Innovators submitted comments stating that the reporting 
obligations under Request No. 3 are overly burdensome, especially due 
to the continuing nature of this obligation. These comments state that, 
pursuant to this obligation, reporting entities are required to 
separately review every incident for which a report was previously 
filed in each subsequent month to determine whether a supplemental 
report is due. For reports filed during the early months of the General 
Order, this obligation will continue throughout the three-year 
requested extension, and, with the passage of time, the number of prior 
incidents that need to be reviewed each

[[Page 74222]]

month will necessarily increase significantly.
    The agency disagrees with these comments and believes they 
overstate the burden resulting from Request No. 3. The General Order 
does not require each reporting entity to review each prior report each 
month throughout the duration of the General Order. Instead, it 
requires a reporting entity that receives material new or materially 
different information regarding a crash for which it previously filed a 
report to file a supplemental report on the fifteenth day of the month 
after it receives notice of that information. The agency expects that, 
in the months immediately following the filing of an initial incident 
report, the reporting entity may need to carefully review whether it 
has received notice of information that triggers the obligation to 
submit a supplemental report under Request No. 3. With the passage of 
time, however, the agency believes that the burden resulting from 
Request No. 3 will diminish significantly. Nonetheless, the agency will 
continue to review reports submitted under Request No. 3 and evaluate 
the benefit of this information compared to the resulting burden. If 
the agency determines that this information is of little use and that 
an amendment is appropriate, it will have the benefit of the comments 
submitted and the solutions proposed.

Comments on Request No. 4

    Request No. 4 of the General Order requires any reporting entity 
that has not submitted a monthly incident report under Request No. 2 or 
a monthly supplemental report under Request No. 3 to submit a report 
under Request No. 4 confirming that lack of reportable information 
under Requests Nos. 2 and 3.\6\ To submit such a report, a reporting 
entity need only log onto the internet portal, select the appropriate 
type of report on the drop-down menu, and then fill in the month and 
year for which the report is submitted.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Although the text of the General Order is clear, the agency 
notes, to avoid any confusion or misunderstanding, that a report 
under Request No. 4 is due in ``the absence of any new or updated 
Incident Reports due under Request No. 2 and Request No. 3.'' 
Request Nos. 2, 3, and 4 each involve monthly reports, and the 
General Order is structured to require at least one monthly report 
from each reporting entity each month. Request No. 1 is not a 
monthly report. Therefore, a reporting entity that files a 1-day 
and/or 10-day report under Request No. 1 during the prior month but 
not a monthly report under Request Nos. 2 or 3 is still required to 
file a monthly report under Request No. 4.
    \7\ The month and year included in the report should be the 
month and year for which the report is confirming the lack of 
reportable information under Request Nos. 2 and 3. A report filed on 
the fifteenth day of a month should therefore include the month and 
year for the prior month, which is the period for which the report 
is confirming the lack of reportable information. A reporting 
entity, when required to submit a report under Request No. 4, need 
only file a single report under Request No. 4 in any given month. It 
is not required to file a report under Request No. 4 for each 
previously reported crash.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems International 
(``AUVSI''), MEMA, and the Self-Driving Coalition submitted comments 
expressing the view that these reports, which contain no substantive 
crash information, are unnecessary, serve no useful function, and are 
therefore unnecessarily burdensome. The agency disagrees with these 
comments. The General Order is drafted in a manner to require that each 
reporting entity submit at least one monthly report (i.e., a report 
under Request No. 2, Request No. 3, or Request No. 4.) per month.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Because reports submitted under Request No. 1 are not 
monthly reports, a reporting entity that has submitted a report 
under Request No. 1 but not a monthly report under Request No. 2 or 
Request No. 3 is still required to submit a monthly report under 
Request No. 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This requirement assists the agency in determining whether all the 
reporting entities are complying with their reporting requirements. 
Absent the reports required under Request No. 4, the agency would not 
know, for example, whether a reporting agency had nothing to report or 
was simply ignoring its reporting obligations. The agency also believes 
that, for some reporting entities, the obligation to file a monthly 
report in the absence of any reportable information under Request Nos. 
2 and 3 provides an important reminder of the continuing obligation to 
report crashes that meet the specified criteria.
    The burden associated with the reports required under Request No. 4 
is minimal. A reporting entity should know, at the end of each calendar 
month, whether it is required to submit a report under Request No. 2 or 
Request No. 3. If a reporting entity has determined that is required to 
file such a report, there is no additional burden in determining that 
no report is required under Request No. 4. If the reporting entity has 
determined that it need not submit a report under Request No. 2 or 
Request No. 3, then the reporting entity need only fill in the month 
and the year for which the report is submitted under Request No. 4, 
which the agency estimates should not take more than 15 minutes per 
month. The agency therefore declines to amend the reporting 
requirements set forth in Request No. 4.

Comments Regarding the Incident Report Form

    The General Order requires that reporting entities submit incident 
reports using a standard Incident Report Form, an image of which is 
attached to the General Order as Appendix C. Pursuant to an August 5, 
2021 amendment to the General Order, the Incident Report Form was 
converted into an interactive web-based form, and all incident reports 
are now required to be submitted through a dedicated portal. Reporting 
entities use the same 1-page Incident Report Form for filing reports 
required to be submitted under Request Nos 1, 2, 3, and 4. To minimize 
the burden associated with this 1-page form, much of the information is 
entered through drop down menus, and the interactive form eliminates 
the need to submit information that is unnecessary or not applicable 
due to the nature of the report or a prior answer. A ``narrative'' 
section requires a free text description of the accident and also 
permits the reporting entity to enter any additional information it 
believes is important for context.
    Several comments were submitted that suggested changes to the form. 
The agency likewise has made minor clarifying changes to the form, none 
of which is expected to impact the burden associated with completing 
the form.
    The current version of the form includes a question about whether 
the subject vehicle was, at the time of the incident, operating within 
its operating design domain (ODD) and the highest level of automation 
(SAE Levels 2, 3, 4, or 5) with which the vehicle was equipped. To 
avoid any confusion, this question will be divided into three separate 
questions: (1) Whether the vehicle was operating within its ODD at the 
time of the crash; (2) whether the vehicle was equipped with ADS; and 
(3) whether the ADS was engaged at the time of or immediately prior to 
the crash. Each reporting entity will be required to answer each of 
these questions via a drop-down menu. Reporting entities will have the 
option of designating their response to the first question as 
confidential business information, but they will not be able to 
designate their response to the second or third questions as 
confidential business information.\9\ The agency does

[[Page 74223]]

not believe this change adds any burden associated with filling out the 
incident report form.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ NHTSA has determined that the information required by the 
second and third questions does not include any potential CBI exempt 
from public disclosure under either the Safety Act (49 U.S.C. 
30167(a)) or the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4)). 
The nature of the vehicle information required by these questions 
(whether the vehicle was equipped with ADS and whether the ADS was 
engaged at the time of or immediately prior to the crash) is 
generally made public by commercial entities, law enforcement 
agencies, and NHTSA. NHTSA, therefore, will not keep this 
information confidential, intends to make it publicly available, and 
is providing no assurance to reporting entities to the contrary. See 
Food Marketing Inst. v. Argus Leader Media, 139 S. Ct. 2356, 2363 
(2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Self-Driving Coalition submitted comments suggesting that the 
incident report form should be modified to change the question 
regarding ``Highest Injury Severity'' to ``Highest Injury Severity 
Alleged'' to reflect the unverified nature of this information. The 
agency agrees with this comment and intends to modify the form to 
incorporate this change.
    AUVSI submitted comments suggesting that the incident report form 
should be amended to permit reporting entities to designate reportable 
crashes as preventable or not-preventable and that data from crashes 
designated as not-preventable should not be included in any aggregate 
data that is publicly released by the agency. The agency disagrees with 
this suggested change, which is contrary to the nature and purpose of 
the General Order.

Comments Regarding Crashes for Which Multiple Reporting Entities are 
Required To Submit Reports

    The General Order requires each reporting entity with notice of a 
crash meeting the specified criteria to submit an incident report. 
Because the General Order includes vehicle manufacturers, vehicle 
operators, and ADS and Level 2 ADAS developers (equipment 
manufacturers), the agency expects that, for certain crashes, multiple 
entities may be required to submit incident reports. For example, both 
a third-party operator and an ADS developer are likely to have notice 
of a crash involving a vehicle from the developer's test fleet that is 
being operated by the operator. Likewise, in other circumstances, both 
an ADS developer and a vehicle manufacturer are likely to receive 
notice of a crash due to commercial relationships. The agency 
established these reporting requirements intentionally, both because 
there is value in collecting information from different entities with 
different perspectives relating to a crash and because, under some 
circumstances, one entity might receive notice of a crash before the 
other entity.
    Multiple commenters, including the Self-Driving Coalition, MEMA, 
CTA, Auto Innovators, and C_TEC were submitted suggesting that these 
``duplicate'' reports are unnecessary and unduly burdensome. These 
comments state that there is no incremental value to collecting the 
same information from multiple sources and that coordinating the filing 
of these reports among multiple entities is unnecessarily burdensome. 
These comments further state that this burden could be lessened by 
permitting multiple entities to designate a ``primary'' report filer or 
by permitting one entity to ``tag'' others in its report to eliminate 
the need for these other reporting entities to file separate reports.
    The agency does not believe, as some of these comments assert, that 
the General Order's current reporting requirements are ``unnecessarily 
duplicative of information otherwise reasonably accessible to the 
agency.'' 5 CFR 1320.9(b). Instead, these reporting requirements 
reflect the reality that one reporting entity may have different 
information than another reporting entity or receive notice of that 
information at a different time than another reporting entity. The fact 
that some or even all this information may be the same for multiple 
entities with respect to a given crash does not make the reporting 
requirements unnecessarily duplicative.
    The agency is concerned that any modification of these reporting 
requirements that allows one reporting entity to tag others or allows 
multiple reporting entities to designate a primary reporting entity 
would, for the reasons explained above, frustrate the objectives of 
these reporting requirements. Any such modification could also create 
significant enforcement issues if, for example, the agency learned that 
crash information about which one reporting entity had notice was not 
included in the incident report filed by another reporting entity that 
tagged the others or had been designated by others as primary.
    The agency also believes that the burden concerns expressed in the 
comments on this issue are over-stated and that the proposed 
modifications would not materially reduce the resulting burden. If, as 
these comments suggest, multiple reporting entities are coordinating 
the review, analysis, and reporting of crash information about which 
they receive notice prior to filing their respective reports, all of 
this activity would still be necessary even if one of these reporting 
entities tagged others or was designated as primary by others. Under 
these circumstances, the only reduction in burden would be that the 
tagged or non-primary reporting entities would no longer have to 
complete the administrative task of filling out and submitting the 1-
page incident report form. The current reporting structure is likewise 
appropriate for the reporting entities that are not coordinating their 
efforts to ensure the agency receives timely and complete information. 
Nonetheless, the agency will continue to review this issue and consider 
ways to reduce resulting burdens as appropriate. The agency has the 
benefit of these comments if it determines that any changes to the 
existing reporting requirements are appropriate.

Comments Regarding Unique Burdens for Vehicle Suppliers

    The list of responsible parties included with the General Order 
includes several ``vehicle suppliers,'' companies that supply various 
components that are then integrated into completed vehicles, ADS, or 
Level 2 ADAS, by other vehicle or equipment manufacturers. Comments 
submitted by MEMA and Auto Innovators suggested that the General Order 
places unique and excessive burdens on these companies because, 
according to these comments, they are required to conduct an ongoing 
search for reportable crashes involving vehicles, ADS, or Level 2 ADAS 
that might involve a component or system they supplied and then 
investigate at length to determine whether they have a reporting 
obligation. These comments suggest that this alleged disproportionate 
burden on these vehicle suppliers can and should be reduced by limiting 
their reporting obligations to vehicles in their own test fleet, by 
amending the definition of ``vehicle equipment'' to eliminate any 
reference to software or components, and by clarifying the definition 
of ``Level 2 ADAS.''
    The agency first notes that it did not include any of these 
companies in the General Order because they supply components that are 
incorporated into completed vehicles, ADS, or Level 2 ADAS. Instead, 
the agency included these companies in the General Order because the 
agency understands that each of them is already or shortly will be 
actively involved in the development of ADS and/or Level 2 ADAS, 
including testing that involves vehicles equipped with these systems 
being driven on publicly-accessible roads in the United States.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ If the agency's understanding is not correct with respect 
to any specific reporting entity, it encourages that company to 
contact NHTSA (the General Order includes appropriate contact 
information) to discuss whether it should remain in the General 
Order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The agency also disagrees with these comments, which appear to be 
based on

[[Page 74224]]

a misunderstanding of the reporting requirements in the General Order 
and overstate the resulting burden. As previously noted, the reporting 
obligations under the General Order are triggered by notice of facts 
sufficient to meet each of the reporting criteria. For mass-produced 
consumer vehicles equipped with Level 2 ADAS (which appears to be the 
focus of these comments and the source of this alleged burden), a 
reporting entity has an obligation to report a crash only if it 
receives notice of information that satisfied each of the following 
criteria: (1) An ADS or Level 2 ADAS equipped vehicle for which it 
supplied components that were incorporated into the motor was involved 
in a crash; (2) the ADS or Level 2 ADAS was engaged during the period 
thirty seconds prior to and through the end of the crash; and (3) the 
crash involved a fatality, hospital treated injury, air bag deployment, 
vehicle tow-away, or vulnerable road user. The agency is unaware of any 
such report being filed by any vehicle supplier during the five months 
since the General Order was first issued.
    There is no general or specific requirement that a reporting entity 
that is a manufacturer or supplier of brake pads, wiring harnesses, or 
lidar sensors actively search outside the company for potentially 
reportable crashes. Likewise, there is no requirement that any such 
reporting entity that learns of a crash involving a vehicle that 
includes a component it supplied actively investigate the crash to 
determine whether the other criteria have been met. Instead, a vehicle 
supplier (like every other reporting entity) that receives notice of 
information meeting each of the criteria must file a report. The agency 
expects that it would be extremely rare for any vehicle supplier to 
receive such notice unless it was significantly involved in developing, 
testing, or supplying an ADS or Level 2 ADAS, in which case the agency 
believes that the reporting requirement is appropriate.
    The agency also notes that Level 2 ADAS (and perhaps, in the 
future, ADS) currently enter the consumer market in different forms, 
including after-market software and hardware components, which are then 
integrated with other existing vehicle components. Changing the 
definition of motor vehicle equipment as the comments suggests would, 
contrary to the agency's intent, eliminate these after-market systems 
from the scope of the General Order. For all these reasons, the agency 
therefore declines to modify the reporting requirements as suggested by 
these comments.

Comments on Confidential Business Information Designations

    Under the terms of the General Order, a reporting entity that 
claims information it is submitting to the agency in an incident report 
form constitutes confidential business information is required to 
follow the agency's standard procedures for making such a claim. See 49 
CFR Part 512. The Self-Driving Coalition and Auto Innovators submitted 
comments suggesting that the burden associated with making a separate 
submission for each incident report is excessive. These comments 
suggest that the agency either make a ``class determination'' that 
certain information is protected CBI or permit aggregated CBI 
submissions on a weekly or monthly basis to lessen this burden. These 
comments also suggest that the burden associated with CBI designations 
could be lessened if a reporting entity was able to file its CBI 
designations via the same portal established for filing incident report 
forms under the General Order.
    The procedures for filing CBI designations are established by the 
agency's regulations rather than the General Order. See 49 CFR Part 
512. Although these regulations include various ``class 
determinations'' (see, e.g., 49 CFR 512 Appendix C), the agency does 
not believe such a determination is appropriate with respect to 
information required to be submitted under the General Order. The five 
months of reporting history demonstrates that there is no consensus 
approach to whether reporting entities request CBI treatment for this 
information.
    With respect to the comments regarding aggregated CBI requests or 
utilizing the portal to submit CBI requests, the agency is continually 
reviewing various procedures under the General Order to determine 
whether the resulting burden can be reduced. The agency will have the 
benefit of these comments as it considers whether any such changes are 
appropriate with respect to CBI requests.

Other Comments

    Multiple commenters submitted comments stating that the agency 
should expand the General Order to also require reporting of incidents 
other than the specified crashes (e.g., traffic violations), suggesting 
different development approaches (e.g., the use of DoD/aerospace 
simulation and modeling technology) for advanced driving technologies, 
or offering ``guiding principles'' for the development and/or 
regulation of advanced driving technologies. The agency also received 
numerous comments expressing concern or offering suggestions regarding 
the way information submitted by reporting entities under the General 
Order will be made public and whether appropriate context will be 
provided with that information. The agency appreciates these comments 
and has reviewed them with interest, but it declines to address them in 
the context of this request for an extension of the existing approval 
of this information collection because they are not burden related.

Agency Estimates Regarding the Annual Number of Reports

    In the 60-day Notice, NHTSA made various estimates regarding the 
number of incidents about which the reporting entities would be 
required to submit reports on an annual basis. Although those estimates 
were made based on the best information available to the agency at the 
time, the agency now has over five months of reporting data and history 
and is therefore able to substantially refine those estimates.
Level 2 ADAS 1-Day Incident Reports Under Request No. 1
    In its 60-day Notice, NHTSA estimated that ``it will receive 
responses from 20 respondents reporting Level 2 ADAS crashes each 
year,'' ``that each respondent will submit, on average, 170 incident 
reports per year,'' and that it ``will receive, on average 3,400 Level 
2 ADAS incident reports each year.'' The agency explained that this was 
``a high-end estimate'' that would later be refined.
    Although the agency received no comments directly addressing the 
estimate of 3,400 incident reports per year, several commenters used 
this estimate (without providing any alternative estimate) in support 
of arguments that the burden associated with these reports is 
excessive. With the benefit of actual reporting history and data, the 
agency is now able to substantially revise this estimate to 1,000 
reports per year under Request No. 1 for Level 2 ADAS incidents.
    As explained in more detail above, the agency also has decided to 
amend the reporting requirements in Request No. 1 to require that a 
report be filed within 1 calendar day only with respect to those 
crashes involving a fatality, a hospital-treated injury, or a 
vulnerable road user. Based on data of reported incidents through 
December 1, 2021, the agency estimates that only 8% of the reports 
required under Request No. 1 will meet one of these criteria. 
Accordingly, NHTSA now estimates it will receive 80 1-day Level 2 ADAS

[[Page 74225]]

incident reports per year. Reporting entities will be required to 
submit the remainder of the reports (estimated to be 92% of the total) 
within 5 calendar days after notice of the crash.
Level 2 ADAS 5-Day Incident Reports Under Request No. 1
    As discussed above, NHTSA is now allowing some of the reports that 
were previously required to be submitted within one calendar day to 
instead be submitted within 5 calendar days. The agency estimates that 
92% of all Level 2 ADAS crashes will be submitted in 5-day incident 
reports. Accordingly, the agency now estimates that of the 1,000 Level 
2 ADAS incident reports submitted each year, approximately 920 will be 
5-day Level 2 ADAS incident reports.
Level 2 ADAS 10-Day Incident Reports Under Request No. 1
    Under the current terms of the General Order, a reporting entity 
submitting an initial report within 1 calendar day under Request No. 1 
is also required to submit an updated report on the tenth calendar day 
after notice of the crash. In its 60-day Notice, NHTSA therefore 
estimated the number of 10-day updated reports to be equal to the 
number of 1-day reports. As explained above, the agency has decided to 
amend Request No. 1 of the General Order to limit the 1-day and 10-day 
reporting sequence to crashes involving a fatality, a hospital treated 
injury, or a vulnerable road user. The agency estimates that 8% of the 
reports required under Request No. 1 will meet one of these criteria. 
No 10-day updated report therefore will be required for the remaining 
reports required under Request No. 1, an estimated 92% of those 
reports.
    Based on its revised volume estimates and the forthcoming amendment 
to Request No. 1, the agency revises its estimate of the number of 10-
day reports to 80 reports each year.
ADS 1-Day Incident Reports Under Request No. 1
    In its 60-day Notice, NHTSA estimated that it would receive 200 
incident reports per year involving ADS equipped vehicles. The agency 
further estimated that half of these reports (100) would be filed 
pursuant to the 1-day and 10-day sequence under Request No. 1 and that 
the remaining half of these ADS incident reports (100) would be 
submitted under Request No. 2 as monthly incident reports. With the 
benefit of five months of reporting experience and data, the agency is 
able to refine these estimates. NHTSA estimates that it will receive 
150 ADS incident reports annually under Request No. 1. However, as a 
result of the amendment discussed above, not all of those reports will 
be required to be submitted within one calendar day. Based on the 
discussed criteria and the incident reports the agency has received 
thus far, NHTSA estimates that 20% of the reports will be required to 
be submitted within one calendar day. Accordingly, the agency now 
estimates that it will receive 30 1-day reports each year. Reporting 
entities would be required to submit the remainder of the reports 
within five calendar days of receiving notice.
ADS 5-Day Reports Under Request No. 1
    As discussed above, NHTSA estimates that it will receive 150 ADS 
crash reports under Request No. 1 each year and that 20% of the reports 
will need to be submitted within one day and 80% will be required to be 
submitted within five calendar days. Accordingly, the agency estimates 
that it will receive 120 5-day ADS incident reports each year.
ADS 10-Day Update Reports Under Request No. 1
    In its 60-day Notice, NHTSA estimated that the annual volume of 10-
day updated ADS reports would be the same as the volume of 1-day ADS 
Reports because the General Order requires a 10-day updated report for 
each 1-day report. Based on the revised estimates and amendment 
discussed above, the agency revises its estimate of annual 10-day 
reports to 30 (the same number as the estimated annual 1-day ADS 
incident reports described above).
ADS Monthly Incident Reports Under Request No. 2
    In its 60-day Notice, NHTSA estimated that it would receive 100 ADS 
monthly incident reports per year under Request No. 2. Based on the 
revised estimates described above, the agency revises this estimate to 
200 ADS monthly incident reports per year.
Monthly Supplemental Incident Reports Under Request No. 3
    A reporting entity is required to file a monthly supplemental 
report under Request No. 3 only if it receives notice of new material 
or materially different information regarding a crash for which a 
report was previously submitted under Request Nos. 1 or 2. In its 60-
day Notice, NHTSA estimated that it would receive 25 ADS and 170 Level 
2 ADAS monthly supplemental reports per year. With the benefit of 5 
months of reporting experience, the agency revises this estimate to 40 
ADS and 75 Level 2 ADAS supplemental reports each month.
Monthly Reports Under Request No. 4
    In the absence of any new or supplemental reports due under Request 
No. 2 and Request No. 3, each reporting entity is required to submit an 
Incident Report confirming the lack of any reportable information under 
those requests on the fifteenth (15th) calendar day of each month. In 
its 60-day Notice, NHTSA estimated that 80% of the reporting entities 
each month will submit a report under Request No. 4. Based on an 
average of 110 total reporting entities per year, the agency estimates 
that it will receive 1,056 reports annually under Request No. 4.
    The total burden and cost estimates set forth below have been 
revised consistent with these revised annual volume estimates.

Hourly Burden Estimates

    NHTSA received three comments, from Auto Innovators, MEMA, and the 
Self-Driving Coalition, stating that the agency underestimated the 
burden hours associated with the different reporting requirements. 
These comments and the agency's responses to these comments are 
discussed in more detail in the section below explaining NHTSA's burden 
calculations.

Labor Cost Estimates

    In its 60-day Notice, NHTSA explained that it had estimated the 
total labor costs associated with burden hours by looking at the 
average wage for architectural and engineering managers in the motor 
vehicle manufacturing industry (Standard Occupational Classification # 
11-9041). The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) estimates that the 
average hourly wage for this occupational classification is $65.62 and 
estimates that private industry workers'' wages represent 70.4% of 
total labor compensation costs. Therefore, the agency estimated the 
hourly labor costs to be $93.21.
    Auto Innovators submitted comments stating that the agency, as part 
of its burden analysis, had underestimated the hourly cost of the labor 
required to meet the reporting obligations in the order. This same 
commenter suggested that, given the managerial and legal review and 
oversight involved in this information collection, a more realistic 
hourly labor cost is $120.00. In response to this comment, NHTSA is 
revising its estimate of the labor costs associated with burden hours, 
as discussed in the section discussing NHTSA's burden estimates.

[[Page 74226]]

    Affected Public: Vehicle and equipment manufacturers and operators 
of ADS or Level 2 ADAS equipped vehicles.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 110.
    Frequency: Monthly and on occasion.
    Number of Responses: 2,631.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 31,319 hours.
    As discussed above, NHTSA is making changes to the General Order 
that will affect the total burden hours. The agency also has acquired 
new information that allows the agency to estimate burdens more 
accurately. To estimate the burden associated with this information 
collection, the agency separated the requirements of the General Order 
into thirteen components: (1) Incident reports under Request No. 1 
involving Level 2 ADAS that must be submitted within one calendar day; 
(2) updates under Request No. 1 to 1-day incident reports involving 
Level 2 ADAS that must be submitted within ten calendar days; (3) 
incident reports under Request No. 1 involving Level 2 ADAS that must 
be submitted within five calendar days; (4) incident reports under 
Request No. 1 involving ADS that must be submitted within one calendar 
day; (5) updates under Request No. 1 to incident 1-day reports 
involving ADS that must be submitted within ten calendar days; (6) 
incident reports under Request No. 1 involving ADS that must be 
submitted within five calendar days; (7) monthly incident reports under 
Request No. 2 involving ADS that must be submitted on the fifteenth of 
the following month; (8) monthly supplemental reports under Request No. 
3 involving Level 2 ADAS incidents that must be submitted on the 
fifteenth of the following month; (9) monthly supplemental reports 
under Request No. 3 involving ADS that must be submitted on the 
fifteenth of the following month; (10) monthly reports under Request 
No. 4 confirming the lack of reportable information under Requests No. 
2 and No. 3, (11) additional time for screening incoming information; 
(12) training employees on the requirements; and (13) time to set up an 
account to submit the reports. The burden associated with categories 
(12) and (13) are one-time start-up burdens that will be incurred 
during the proposed extension only to the extent that new reporting 
entities are added to the General Order during this period. For the 108 
reporting entities currently named in the General Order, this burden 
has already been and was accounted for under the currently approved 
information collection request.
    The estimated number of respondents consists of the number of 
reporting entities.
    NHTSA estimates that there will be an average of 110 reporting 
entities during each year of the proposed extension. Currently, there 
are 108 reporting entities named in the General Order. The agency 
believes that additional reporting entities will be added to the 
General Order during the proposed extension as new companies enter the 
market and begin developing and manufacturing ADS and ADAS technology 
and vehicles equipped with these technologies. The agency also believes 
that some existing reporting entities will be removed from the General 
Order due to the cessation of operations or market consolidation.
    Burden Category 1: ADAS 1-Day Reports under Request No. 1.
    To estimate the burden associated with submitting Level 2 ADAS 
crash reports, NHTSA first looked to the category of crashes that must 
be reported. As explained above, the agency has decided to amend the 
General Order to only require reporting of Level 2 ADAS crashes within 
one business day when (1) the crash occurred on a publicly accessible 
road in the United States (including any of its territories); (2) the 
Level 2 ADAS was engaged at any time during the period from 30 seconds 
immediately prior to the commencement of the crash through the 
conclusion of the crash; and (3) the crash resulted in a fatality, a 
hospital treated injury, or involved a vulnerable road user. Incidents 
meeting the first two criteria and also involving a vehicle tow-away or 
an air bag deployment, but not involving a fatality, hospital treated 
injury, or vulnerable road user will be required to be reported within 
five calendar days.
    As discussed above and based on five months of incident reporting 
under the existing clearance, NHTSA estimates that it will receive 
approximately 80 1-day Level 2 ADAS incident reports each year. Based 
on the number of manufacturers that manufacture vehicles equipped with 
Level 2 ADAS systems, the agency estimates that it will receive 
responses from 20 respondents reporting Level 2 ADAS crashes each year.
    In the 60-day Notice, NHTSA estimated that it would take 
respondents approximately 2 hours to compile and submit each crash 
report. The agency received comments from Auto Innovators, MEMA, and 
the Self-Driving Coalition stating that NHTSA had underestimated the 
burden hours for the reporting requirements. Specifically, Auto 
Innovators stated that a more accurate estimate would be 8 hours for 
each 1-day incident report. The Self-Driving Coalition also provided 
estimates of the burden hours for 1-day reports (between 5 and 12 
hours), but since the estimates were provided for ADS 1-day reports, 
NHTSA is using the estimate provided by Auto Innovators. NHTSA now 
estimates that 1-day reports takes, on average, 8 hours. Therefore, the 
agency estimates the total annual burden hours for submitting Level 2 
ADAS 1-day crash reports to be 640 hours (8 hours x 80 crash reports) 
for all manufactures. Therefore, the average burden for the estimated 
20 manufacturers submitting 1-day ADAS incident reports is estimated to 
be 32 hours.
    Burden Category 2: ADAS 10-Day Reports Under Request No. 1.
    As discussed above, in addition to submitting information on 
certain Level 2 ADAS crashes within one day, reporting entities must 
also submit updated information within ten days. NHTSA has decided to 
only require 10-day update reports for incidents required to be 
reported within one calendar day. In the 60-day notice, NHTSA estimated 
that providing updated crash reports would take approximately 1 hour 
per report. However, both Auto Innovators and the Self-Driving 
Coalition submitted comments stating that NHTSA underestimated the 
burden for submitting the reports. Auto Innovators stated that a 
reasonable mid-point in the burden estimates from members would be 20 
hours to submit these updates and the Self-Driving Coalition stated 
that it would take between 3 and 24 hours, depending on the complexity 
of the incident. Since the Self-Driving Coalition's comments were 
specific to ADS reporting, NHTSA is revising its estimate based on the 
Auto Innovators'' comment and now estimating that providing an updated 
10-day report will take 20 hours. Therefore, the agency estimates that 
the total burden for submitting 10-day update reports for Level 2 ADAS 
incidents will take 1,600 hours (20 hours x 80 reports), for an average 
of 80 hours for each of the 20 reporting entities expected to submit 
reports each year.
    Burden Category 3: ADAS 5-Day Reports Under Request No. 1.
    To estimate the burden associated with submitting Level 2 ADAS 5-
day crash reports, NHTSA first looked to the category of crashes that 
must be reported. As explained above, the agency has decided to amend 
the General Order to require 5-day reporting of Level 2 ADAS crashes 
when (1) the crash occurred on a publicly accessible

[[Page 74227]]

road in the United States (including any of its territories); (2) the 
Level 2 ADAS was engaged at any time during the period from 30 seconds 
immediately prior to the commencement of the crash through the 
conclusion of the crash; and (3) and the crash involves a vehicle tow-
away or an air bag deployment, but not a fatality, hospital treated 
injury, or vulnerable road user. As discussed above and based on five 
months of incident reporting under the existing clearance, the agency 
estimates that it will receive approximately 920 5-day Level 2 ADAS 
incident reports each year. Based on the number of reporting entities 
that manufacture Level 2 ADAS or vehicles equipped with Level 2 ADAS 
systems, the agency estimates that it will receive responses from 20 
respondents reporting Level 2 ADAS crashes each year.
    In the 60-day notice, NHTSA estimated that it would take 
respondents approximately 2 hours to compile and submit each 1-day 
crash report. The agency received comments from Auto Innovators, MEMA, 
and the Self-Driving Coalition stating that NHTSA had underestimated 
the burden hours for the reporting requirements. Specifically, Auto 
Innovators stated that the average submission would take 8 hours for 
each 1-day incident report. The Self-Driving Coalition also provided 
estimates of the burden for 1-day incident reports (between 5 and 12 
hours) for ADS 1-day reports. NHTSA also received comments from Auto 
Innovators and the Self-Driving Coalition that stated that updated 
reports may take longer to submit than initial reports.
    Because reporting entities will not be required to submit 10-day 
update reports for incidents required to be submitted to NHTSA within 
five business days, and because after five days more information may be 
available for review, the agency is basing its estimate of burden for 
5-day reports off the burden estimates provided by commenters for the 
10-day update report. Auto Innovators stated that a reasonable mid-
point in the burden estimates from members would be 20 hours to submit 
updates and the Self-Driving Coalition stated that it would take 
between 3 and 24 hours, depending on the complexity of the incident. 
Because the Self-Driving Coalition's comments regarding burden were 
specifically for ADS crash reporting, NHTSA believes it is appropriate 
to use different burden estimates for Level 2 ADAS reporting and ADS 
reporting. Based on the comments, it appears that larger manufacturers 
reporting on Level 2 ADAS reports will require more time to submit 5-
day reports than smaller entities submitting 5-day reports for ADS 
crashes. Therefore, NHTSA has decided to change its estimate based on 
the mid-point estimate provided by Auto Innovators. Accordingly, the 
agency estimates that 5-day reports takes, on average, 20 hours. 
Therefore, the agency estimates the total annual burden hours for 
submitting Level 2 ADAS 5-day crash reports to be 18,400 hours (20 
hours x 920 crash reports) for all reporting entities for an average of 
920 hours for each of the estimated 20 reporting entities submitting 5-
day incident reports.
    Burden Category 4: ADS 1-Day Reports Under Request No. 1.
    As discussed above, NHTSA now estimates that it will receive 30 ADS 
1-day incident reports each year. In the 60-day notice, NHTSA estimated 
that it would take respondents approximately 2 hours to compile and 
submit each crash report. The agency received comments from Auto 
Innovators, MEMA, and the Self-Driving Coalition stating that the 
agency had underestimated the burden hours for the reporting 
requirements. Specifically, Auto Innovators stated that a more accurate 
estimate would be 8 hours for each 1-day incident report and the Self-
Driving Coalition stated that 1-day reports take between 5 and 12 
hours. Based on these comments, the agency now estimates that 1-day 
reports takes, on average, 8 hours. Therefore, the agency estimates the 
total annual burden hours for submitting ADS 1-day crash reports to be 
240 hours (8 hours x 30 crash reports) for all manufactures. Based on 
the five months of reporting experience, the agency believes that some 
respondents with ADS 1-day reports will file multiple reports. At this 
time, the agency estimates that the 30 1-day reports will be submitted 
by 20 manufacturers, for an average of 12 hours per respondent.
    Burden Category 5: ADS 5-Day Reports under Request No. 1.
    As discussed above, NHTSA now estimates that it will receive 120 
ADS 1-day incident reports each year. In the 60-day notice, NHTSA 
estimated that it would take respondents approximately 2 hours to 
compile and submit each 1-day crash report. The agency received 
comments from Auto Innovators, MEMA, and the Self-Driving Coalition 
stating that NHTSA had underestimated the burden hours for the 
reporting requirements. Specifically, Auto Innovators stated that a 
more accurate estimate would be 8 hours for each 1-day incident report 
and the Self-Driving Coalition stated that 1-day reports take between 5 
and 12 hours. The agency also received comments from Auto Innovators 
and the Self-Driving Coalition stating that updated reports may take 
longer to submit than initial reports. Because reporting entities will 
not be required to submit 10-day update reports for incidents required 
to be submitted to the agency within five business days, and because 
after five days more information may be available for review, the 
agency is basing its estimate of burden for 5-day reports off the 
burden estimates provided by commenters for the 10-day update report. 
Auto Innovators stated that it would take 20 hours to submit updates 
and the Self-Driving Coalition stated that it would take between 3 and 
24 hours, depending on the complexity of the incident. Because the 
agency estimates that information will be more readily accessible to 
reporting entities for incidents involving ADS, NHTSA estimates that 5-
day reports take, on average, 14 hours (based on the mid-point between 
3 and 24 hours). Therefore, the agency estimates the total annual 
burden hours for submitting ADS 5-day crash reports to be 1,680 hours 
(14 hours x 120 crash reports) for all reporting entities. Based on the 
number of respondents that have submitted ADS reports under the General 
Order thus far, the agency estimates that it will receive ADS 5-day 
reports from an average of 40 entities each year. Therefore, the 
average annual burden per reporting entity is estimated to be 42 hours.
    Burden Category 6: ADS 10-Day Reports under Request No. 1.
    As discussed above, in addition to submitting information on 
certain ADS crashes within one day, reporting entities must also submit 
updated information within ten days. NHTSA has decided to only require 
10-day update reports for incidents required to be reported within one 
calendar day. In the 60-day notice, NHTSA estimated that providing 
updated crash reports would take approximately 1 hour per report. 
However, both Auto Innovators and the Self-Driving Coalition submitted 
comments stating that the agency underestimated the burden for 
submitting the reports. Auto Innovators stated that it would take 20 
hours to submit updates and the Self-Driving Coalition stated that it 
would take between 3 and 24 hours, depending on the complexity of the 
incident. Because the agency estimates that information will be more 
readily accessible to reporting entities for incidents involving ADS, 
NHTSA estimates that 5-day reports take, on average, 14 hours (based on 
the mid-point between 3 and 24 hours). Therefore, the agency estimates

[[Page 74228]]

that the total burden for submitting 10-day update reports for ADS 
incidents to be 420 hours for all ADS manufacturers and operators (14 
hours x 30 crash reports). As discussed above, the agency estimates 
that it will receive one-day ADS incident reports from 20 respondents 
each year. Therefore, the agency estimates that the annual burden is, 
on average, 21 hours per respondent.
    Burden Category 7: Monthly ADS Incident Reports Under Request No. 
2.
    As described above, NHTSA now estimates that there will be 200 ADS 
crash reports required to be submitted on the fifteenth of the month 
following the month in which notice of the crash was received. In the 
60-day notice, NHTSA estimated that preparing and submitting monthly 
reports that contain crash reports takes, on average, 2 hours to 
prepare and submit. However, the agency received a comment from the 
Self-Driving Coalition stating that the actual burden for this can be 
between 2 and 24 hours. Based on this comment, NHTSA now estimates that 
the burden associated with preparing and submitting initial ADS crash 
report information that will be submitted in monthly reports to be 14 
hours per report, for a total of 2,800 hours (14 hours x 200 reports). 
Based on the number of respondents that have submitted ADS crash report 
information, the agency estimates that it will receive reports from 
approximately 50 entities each year, for an average of 56 hours per 
entity.
    Burden Category 8: ADAS Supplemental Reports Under Request No. 3.
    In addition to submitting information about new ADS crashes in 
monthly reports, respondents also are required to submit updated 
information in the following month if any new material or materially 
different information about any Level 2 ADAS incident is received. In 
its 60-day notice, NHTSA estimated that it would receive 170 ADAS 
monthly supplemental reports per year. With the benefit of 5 months of 
reporting experience, the agency revises this estimate to 75 
supplemental ADAS reports each year. In the 60-day notice, NHTSA 
estimated that providing updated information within a monthly report 
would take 1 hour. The agency received comments indicating that it had 
underestimated burden, but it did not receive specific comments on the 
time spent submitting a supplemental report on the fifteenth of the 
month following the month in which it received any material new or 
materially different information. The agency believes that submitting a 
supplemental report should take less time that submitting an initial 
report or a ten-day update report. However, the agency concedes that 
reporting entities may require more time for internal review than 1 
hour. Accordingly, the agency now estimates that preparing and 
submitting supplemental reports takes, on average, 5 hours. Therefore, 
the agency estimates the burden for monthly reports with updated 
information to be 375 hours (75 monthly reports x 5 hours). The agency 
estimates that it will receive, on average, supplemental Level 2 ADAS 
monthly reports from 20 respondents each year, for an average of 18.75 
hours per respondent.
    Burden Category 9: ADS Supplemental Reports Under Request No. 3.
    In addition to submitting information about new ADS crashes in 
monthly reports, respondents also are required to submit updated 
information in the following month if any new material or materially 
different information about any ADS incident is received. In its 60-day 
notice, NHTSA estimated that it would receive 25 ADS monthly 
supplemental reports per year. With the benefit of 5 months of 
reporting experience, the agency revises this estimate to 40 
supplemental ADS reports each year. In the 60-day notice, NHTSA 
estimated that providing updated information within a monthly report 
would take 1 hour. The agency received comments indicating that it had 
underestimated burden, but it did not receive specific comments on the 
time spent submitting a supplemental report on the fifteenth of the 
month following the month in which it received any material new or 
materially different information. The agency believes that submitting a 
supplemental report should take less time than submitting an initial 
report or a ten-day update report. However, the agency concedes that 
reporting entities may require more time for internal review than 1 
hour. Accordingly, the agency now estimates that preparing and 
submitting supplemental reports takes, on average, 5 hours. Therefore, 
the agency estimates the burden for monthly reports with updated 
information to be 200 hours (40 monthly reports x 5 hours). The agency 
estimates that it will receive, on average, monthly reports from 25 
respondents each year, for an average of 8 hours per respondent.
    Burden Category 10: Monthly Reports under Request No. 4.
    A reporting entity that determines it has no information reportable 
under Request Nos. 2 and 3 is required to submit a report confirming 
the lack of any such reportable information. The hourly burden 
associated with submitting a monthly report under Request No. 4 is 
minimal. The reporting entity need only select the proper type of 
report, identify the date and month for which the report is being 
submitted, and then submit the report.
    In the 60-day notice, NHTSA estimated that the burden for ADS 
manufacturers and operators associated with preparing and submitting 
any monthly reports to be 15 minutes. The agency received one comment 
from the Self-Driving Coalition that confirmed that 15 minutes was 
accurate for its members. The agency estimated that burden for ADAS 
manufacturers associated with preparing and submitting any monthly 
reports would be 2 hours. The agency received a comment from Auto 
Innovators stating that monthly reports under Request No. 4 take 
respondents 20 hours to prepare and submit.
    NHTSA does not agree that submitting a report under Request No. 4 
(confirming the lack of information reportable under Request Nos. 2 and 
3) will take 20 hours. The agency believes that reporting entities 
should not have any additional burden associated with confirming that 
they do not have reportable information. Instead, NHTSA believes that 
respondents have screening processes to ensure they are meeting their 
requirements to submit reports under Requests Nos. 1, 2, and 3 under 
the General Order. NHTSA believes that adequate screening processes 
should ensure that there is no additional burden associated with 
monthly reports under Request 4. However, as mentioned by some of the 
commenters, the agency did not estimate any ongoing burden for enhanced 
screening processes. In response, NHTSA is creating a new category of 
burden to account for any screening that is incurred in response to the 
General Order and is not part of reporting entities' standard operating 
practices.
    In its 60-day Notice, NHTSA estimated that 80% of the reporting 
entities each month will submit a report under Request No. 4. Based on 
five months of reporting under the General Order, NHTSA continues to 
estimate that 80% of reporting entities will submit a report under 
Request No. 4 each month. Based on an average of 110 total reporting 
entities per year, the agency estimates that it will receive 1,056 
reports annually under Request No. 4.
    Accordingly, NHTSA estimates that preparing and submitting a 
monthly report under Request No. 4 will take 15

[[Page 74229]]

minutes for the estimated 90 ADS reporting entities and the estimated 
20 manufacturers of Level 2 ADAS vehicles each year (including 
manufacturers that produce both Level 2 ADAS vehicles and ADS 
vehicles). Therefore, the agency estimates that annually respondents 
will spend 264 hours preparing and submitting monthly reports under 
Request No. 4, not including burden associated with providing new or 
updated reportable information (110 respondents x .8 x 12 monthly 
reports x 0.25 hours).
    Burden Category 11: Additional Screening.
    As discussed above, and in response to comments, NHTSA is adding a 
new category for screening. NHTSA received comments from both the Self-
Driving Coalition and Auto Innovators regarding uncounted burden. 
Specifically, Auto Innovators stated that NHTSA had not counted burden 
for monitoring for new crashes and the Self-Driving Coalition stated 
that NHTSA had not included time spent reviewing incidents that occur 
but are not reportable. In response to these comments, NHTSA is adding 
a new burden category for additional time spent screening incoming 
information. The additional time allotted for screening accounts for 
any additional processes reporting entities have needed to put in place 
to ensure that they are meeting their reporting requirements under the 
General Order. This time does not account for screening of incidents 
that reporting entities conducted as part of its standard business 
practices prior to the General Order. Although NHTSA did not receive 
comments about the amount of additional burden respondents will incur, 
NHTSA believes that the Auto Innovator's comment regarding burden for 
``no reportable information'' monthly reports provides an indication of 
the additional time some entities spend each month ensuring that they 
are meeting their reporting obligations. Specifically, Auto Innovators 
provided a monthly average estimate of 20 burden hours. Since 
manufacturers and operators of ADS-equipped vehicles and equipment 
already had robust processes for identifying and analyzing crashes that 
might occur with these vehicles, NHTSA estimates that the additional 
screening burden will only be incurred by entities reporting on Level 2 
ADAS crashes, as those reports largely involve crashes in the consumer 
fleet. Accordingly, the agency estimates that the estimated 20 entities 
reporting on Level 2 ADAS incidents have, on average, 20 hours of 
additional screening time per month, for a total of 4,800 hours a year 
(20 hours x 12 months x 20 respondents), or 240 hours per reporting 
entity.
    Burden Category 12: Training employees on the reporting 
requirements.
    In addition to the burden associated with preparing and submitting 
reports, any new reporting entities added to the General Order are also 
expected to incur burden associated with training employees on the 
reporting requirements. As explained above, the existing 108 reporting 
entities named in the General Order will not incur this burden during 
the requested extension because they have already trained their 
employees. NHTSA estimates that there will be an average of seven new 
reporting entities added to the General Order each year during the 
proposed extension, that an average of five of these new reporting 
entities will be ADS manufacturers or operators and that an average of 
two of these new reporting entities will be Level 2 ADAS manufacturers.
    The agency expects that ADS manufacturers and operators normally 
monitor all crashes and, therefore, will not need to train personnel on 
how to respond to this new information collection. NHTSA does expect, 
however, that some Level 2 ADAS manufacturers may need to spend time 
training personnel on the requirements. Although the amount of time may 
vary by manufacturer, NHTSA estimates that, on average, the two Level 2 
ADAS manufacturers will spend 40 hours on training. Therefore, NHTSA 
estimates the total annual burden for training to be 80 hours (2 
manufacturers x 40 hours).
    Burden Category 13: Time to set up an account to submit the 
reports.
    NHTSA also estimates that new responding entities added to the 
General Order during the proposed extension period will need to set up 
a new account with the agency to allow them to submit reports. NHTSA 
estimates that each of the estimated average of 10 responding entities 
added to the General Order annually need to set up new accounts with 
the agency. NHTSA estimates that setting up an account will take 2 
hours. Therefore, the agency estimates the total annual burden to be 20 
hours.
    NHTSA estimates the total annual burden hours for the thirteen 
components of this ICR to be 31,319 hours (640 hours for initial one-
day Level 2 ADAS reports, 1,600 hours for updated one-day Level 2 ADAS 
reports, 18,400 hours for five-day Level 2 ADAS reports, 240 hours for 
initial one-day ADS reports, 420 hours for updated ADS reports, 1,680 
hours of five-day ADS reports, 2,600 hours for monthly initial ADS 
reports, 375 hours for monthly supplemental Level 2 ADAS reports, 200 
hours for monthly supplemental ADS reports, 264 hours for ``no 
reportable information'' monthly reports, 4,800 for additional 
screening, 80 hours for training, and 20 hours for setting up 
accounts). This revised estimate reflects five months of crash 
reporting experience under the existing clearance, which allows the 
agency to refine and better estimate the annual volumes of different 
types of reports it will receive. This revised estimate also reflects 
the agency's adoption of commenters' estimates of the hours required 
for individual burden tasks. Although the agency believes that the 
commenters' estimates may represent the high end of the range of burden 
hours for respondents, and not the average, the commenters' estimates 
are the best data currently available to the agency. Table 1 provides a 
summary of the estimated burden hours.

                                         Table 1--Burden Hour Estimates
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                    Burden per
Description of burden category     Number of       Number of    Estimated burden    respondent     Total burden
   (this ICR is for one IC)        responses      respondents     per response        (hours)          hours
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level 2 ADAS one-day reports,               80              20  8 hours.........              32             640
 initial Request No. 1.
Level 2 ADAS one-day reports,               80              20  20 hours........              80           1,600
 update Request No. 1.
Level 2 ADAS five-day reports              920              20  20 hours........             920          18,400
 Request No. 1.
ADS one-day reports, initial                30              20  8 hours.........              12             240
 Request No. 1.
ADS one-day reports, update                 30              20  14 hours........              21             420
 Request No. 1.
ADS five-day reports Request               120              40  14 hours........              42           1,680
 No. 1.
Monthly Report-Initial ADS                 200              50  13 hours........              52           2,600
 Request No. 2.

[[Page 74230]]

 
Monthly Report-Level 2 ADAS                 75              20  5 hours.........           18.75             375
 Supplemental Request No. 3.
Monthly Report-ADS                          40              25  5 hours.........               8             200
 Supplemental Request No. 3.
Monthly Reports-No reportable            1,056             110  15 minutes......               3             264
 Information Request No. 4.
Additional Screening..........               0              20  240 hours.......             240           4,800
Training......................               0               2  40 hours........              40              80
Setting Up Account............               0              10  2 hours.........               2              20
                               ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total for ICR: Level 2               2,631             110  11.90 hours.....          284.72          31,319
     ADAS/ADS Incident
     Reporting.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the 60-day notice, NHTSA calculated the burden associated with 
the labor hours using the average wage for architectural and 
engineering managers in the motor vehicle manufacturing industry 
(Standard Occupational Classification # 11-9041). NHTSA received one 
comment, from Auto Innovators, stating that the labor cost estimate was 
too low, and that a labor cost of at least $120 per hour was more 
realistic. In response to this comment, NHTSA has reexamined its 
estimate and adjusted its estimates recognizing that there are multiple 
wage categories involved with the labor hours. Specifically, NHTSA is 
now allocating the burden hours across four labor categories: 
Architectural and engineering managers in the motor vehicle 
manufacturing industry (Standard Occupational Classification # 11-
9041); engineers (Standard Occupational Classification # 17-2000); 
Computer and Information Systems Managers (Standard Occupational 
Classification # 11-3021); and Lawyers (Standard Occupational 
Classification # 23-1000).
    To calculate the labor cost associated with preparing and 
submitting crash reports and monthly reports, training, and setting up 
new accounts, NHTSA looked at wage estimates for the type of personnel 
involved with these activities. NHTSA estimates the total labor costs 
associated with these burden hours by looking at the seventy-fifth 
percentile wage for architectural and engineering managers, computer 
and information systems managers, and engineers in the motor vehicle 
manufacturing industry and the seventy-fifth percentile wage for 
lawyers.\11\ The Bureau of Labor Statistics estimates that private 
industry workers'' wages represent 70.4% of total labor compensation 
costs.\12\ Therefore, NHTSA has weighted the wages accordingly. Table 2 
provides an hourly labor cost estimate for each labor category.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See May 2020 National Industry-Specific Occupational 
Employment and Wage Estimates, NAICS 336100--Motor Vehicle 
Manufacturing, available at https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/naics4_336100.htm#15-0000 (accessed December 17, 2021) and May 2020 
National Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates, available at 
https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_nat.htm (accessed December 17, 
2021).
    \12\ See Table 1. Employer Costs for Employee Compensation by 
ownership (Mar. 2021), available at https://www.bls.gov/news.release/ecec.t01.htm (accessed December 17, 2021).

                       Table 2--Hourly Labor Costs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Hourly labor
             Labor category                    Wage            cost
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Computer and Information System Managers          $89.94         $127.76
 (11-13021) in the Motor Vehicle
 Manufacturing Industry (75th
 percentile)............................
Architectural and Engineering Managers             77.37          109.90
 (11-9041) in the Motor Vehicle
 Manufacturing Industry (75th
 percentile)............................
Engineers (17-2000) in the Motor Vehicle           54.32           77.16
 Manufacturing Industry (75th
 percentile)............................
Lawyers (23-1011) (75th percentile).....           91.11          129.42
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Using the hourly labor cost estimates above, NHTSA estimates that 
the total labor costs associated with the 31,319 hours is 
$3,290,351.24.
    Table 3 provides a summary of the estimated labor costs.

                                                              Table 2--Labor Cost Estimates
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Total hours and       Total hours and
                                      labor cost per        labor cost per        Total hours and      Total hours and
    Description of information         response for          response for         labor cost per        labor cost per      Total labor     Total labor
       collection component            computer and        architectural and       response for          response for        cost per          cost
                                    information system   engineering managers   engineers (17-2000)   lawyers (23-1011)      response
                                    managers (11-13021)        (11-9041)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level 2 ADAS one-day reports,      1 hour, $127.76.....  2 hours, $219.80....  3 hours, $231.48....  2 hours, $258.84...         $837.88      $67,030.40
 initial.
Level 2 ADAS one-day reports,      1 hour, $127.76.....  6 hours, $659.40....  7 hours, $540.12....  6 hours, $776.52...        2,103.80      168,304.00
 update.
Level 2 ADAS five-day reports....  1 hour, $127.76.....  6 hours, $659.40....  7 hours, $540.12....  6 hours, $776.52...        2,103.80    1,935,496.00

[[Page 74231]]

 
ADS one-day reports, initial.....  1 hour, $127.76,....  2 hours, $219.80....  3 hours, $231.48....  2 hours, $258.84...          837.88       25,136.40
ADS one-day reports, update......  1 hour, $127.76.....  4 hours, $439.60....  5 hours, $385.80....  4 hours, $517.68...        1,470.84       44,125.20
ADS five-day reports.............  1 hour, $127.76.....  4 hours, $439.60....  5 hours, $385.80....  4 hours, $517.68...        1,470.84      176,500.80
Monthly Report-Initial ADS.......  1 hour, $127.76.....  3 hours, $329.70....  6 hours, $540.12....  3 hours, $388.26...        1,385.84      277,168.00
Monthly Report-Level 2 ADAS        1 hour, $127.76.....  1 hour, $109.90.....  2 hours, $154.32....  1 hour, $129.42....          521.40       39,105.00
 Supplemental.
Monthly Report-ADS Supplemental..  1 hour, $127.76.....  1 hour, $109.90.....  2 hours, $154.32....  1 hour, $129.42....          521.40       20,856.00
Monthly Reports-No Reportable      0 hours, $0.........  0 hours, $0.........  15 minutes, $19.29..  0 hours, $0........           19.29       20,370.24
 Information.
Additional Screening.............  12 hours, $1,533.12.  72 hours, $7,912.80.  84 hours, $6,481.44.  72 hours, $9318.24.       25,245.60      504,912.00
Training.........................  0 hours, $0.........  40 hours, $4,396....  0 hours, $0.........  0 hours, $0........           4,396           8,792
Setting Up Account...............  2 hours, $255.52....  0 hours, $0.........  0 hours, $0.........  0 hours, $0........          255.52        2,555.20
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total........................  ....................  ....................  ....................  ...................  ..............   $3,290,351.24
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Estimated Total Annual Burden Cost: $0.
    In the 60-day notice, NHTSA stated that it did not know whether 
manufacturers would incur additional costs, nor did it have a basis for 
estimating these costs. In the notice, NHTSA sought comment on whether 
manufacturers will incur any additional costs associated with complying 
with the new reporting requirements, such as investing in new IT 
infrastructure. In response, NHTSA received one comment from Auto 
Innovators, which stated that ``in addition to the cost of labor 
associated with the handling of the crash information, there are also 
fiscal burdens associated with the hardware and software infrastructure 
to monitor and manage crash reporting.'' They further stated that 
reporting entities have already invested significant resources into 
setting up internal processes for the handling of crash information, 
which often include IT systems that come at a financial cost. The 
comment, however, did not provide sufficient information for NHTSA to 
estimate additional annual costs to reporting entities. Until NHTSA has 
more information on additional costs, NHTSA continues to estimate that 
annual costs to respondents is $0.
    Public Comments Invited: You are asked to comment on any aspects of 
this information collection, including (a) whether the proposed 
collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of 
the functions of the Department, including whether the information will 
have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Department's estimate 
of the burden of the proposed information collection; (c) ways to 
enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be 
collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of 
information on respondents, including the use of automated collection 
techniques or other forms of information technology.
    Authority: The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. Chapter 
35, as amended; 49 CFR 1.49; and DOT Order 1351.29.

Ann E. Carlson,
Chief Counsel.
 [FR Doc. 2021-28311 Filed 12-28-21; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-59-P