Home Page About Us Contribute

Escort, Inc.

Tweets by @CrittendenAuto

By accessing/using The Crittenden Automotive Library/CarsAndRacingStuff.com, you signify your agreement with the Terms of Use on our Legal Information page. Our Privacy Policy is also available there.

Reports, Forms, and Recordkeeping Requirements

American Government Special Collections Reference Desk

American Government

Reports, Forms, and Recordkeeping Requirements

Nathaniel Beuse
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
15 September 2017

[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 178 (Friday, September 15, 2017)]
[Pages 43450-43452]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-19638]



National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2017-0083]

Reports, Forms, and Recordkeeping Requirements

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

ACTION: Request for public comment on the modification of an existing 
collection of information.


SUMMARY: Before a Federal agency may collect certain information from 
the public, it must receive approval from the Office of Management and 
Budget (OMB). Under procedures established by the Paperwork Reduction 
Act of 1995, before seeking OMB approval, Federal agencies must solicit 
public comment on proposed collections of information, including 
extensions and reinstatements of previously approved collections. This 
document describes a modification of an existing collection of 
information for which NHTSA intends to seek OMB approval.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before November 14, 2017.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments using any of the following methods:
    Electronic submissions: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow 
the online instructions for submitting comments.
    Mail: Docket Management Facility, M-30, U.S. Department of 
Transportation, West Building, Ground Floor, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE., 
Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590.
    Hand Delivery: West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New 
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday 
through Friday, except Federal holidays. Telephone (202) 366-9826; Fax: 
(202) 493-2251.
    Instructions: Each submission must include the Agency name and the 
Docket number for this proposed collection of information. Note that 
all comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided.
    Privacy Act: Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all 
comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual 
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf 
of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's 
complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on 
April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78) or you may visit http://www.dot.gov/privacy.html.

Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590; Telephone (202) 366-7179; Fax: 
(202) 366-2106; email address: Debbie.Sweet@dot.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 
before an agency submits a proposed collection of information to OMB 
for approval, it must first publish a document in the Federal Register 
providing a 60-day comment period and otherwise consult with members of 
the public and affected agencies concerning each proposed collection of 
information. OMB has promulgated regulations describing what must be 
included in such a document. Under OMB's regulation (at 5 CFR 
1320.8(d)), an agency must request public comment on the following:
    (i) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for 
the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including 
whether the information will have practical utility;
    (ii) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the 
proposed collection of information, including the validity of the 
methodology and assumptions used;
    (iii) how to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the 
information to be collected;
    (iv) how to minimize the burden of the collection of information on 
those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated, 
electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or 
other forms of information technology, e.g. permitting electronic 
submission of responses.
    In compliance with these requirements, NHTSA asks for public 
comments on the following proposed collection of information:
    Title: Automated Driving Systems 2.0: A Vision for Safety.
    Type of Request: Modification of a currently approved information 
    OMB Clearance Number: 2127-0723.

[[Page 43451]]

    Form Number: None.
    Requested Expiration Date of Approval: Three years from date of 
    Summary of the collection of Information: In a separate notice 
published in the Federal Register today, the Department of 
Transportation is announcing the publication of the policy document \1\ 
titled Automated Driving Systems 2.0: A Vision for Safety. \2\ 
Recognizing the potential that highly Automated Driving Systems (ADSs) 
have to enhance safety and mobility, this document sets out an approach 
to enable the safe deployment of Automated Driving Systems \3\ (SAE 
Automation Levels 3 through 5--Conditional, High, and Full Automation 
Systems as defined in SAE J3016).\4\

    \1\ Conformance to the guidance in Automated Driving Systems 
2.0: A Vision for Safety is voluntary. See Fixing America's Surface 
Transportation Act, Public Law 114-94, Sec.  24406 (2015) (``No 
guidelines issued by the Secretary with respect to motor vehicle 
safety shall confer any rights on any person, State, or locality, 
nor shall operate to bind the Secretary or any person to the 
approach recommended in such guidelines'').
    \2\ The policy document titled Automated Driving Systems 2.0: A 
Vision for Safety supersedes, in its entirety, the policy document 
published on September 20, 2016, titled Federal Automated Vehicles 
    \3\ In the Federal Automated Vehicles Policy, NHTSA used the 
terms Highly Automated Vehicles (HAVs) (Levels 3 through 5 vehicles) 
and L2 systems. Automated Driving Systems 2.0: A Vision for Safety 
only applies to Level 3 through 5 systems, reducing the number of 
respondents in this collection. Also, for consistency NHTSA now 
refers to SAE Level 3 through 5 systems as Automated Driving Systems 
(ADSs) instead of HAVs.
    \4\ For more information about SAE J3016, see http://www.sae.org/misc/pdfs/automated_driving.pdf.

    Consistent with its statutory purpose to reduce traffic accidents 
and deaths and injuries resulting from traffic accidents,\5\ NHTSA is 
amending its recommendations for recordkeeping and disclosure of 
information related to automated vehicle technologies by vehicle 
manufacturers and other entities as described in Automated Driving 
Systems 2.0: A Vision for Safety. Specifically, NHTSA recommends that 
manufacturers and other entities assess their ADS-equipped vehicle 
against specific safety elements, summarize that assessment, and then 
voluntarily disclose that summary as discussed in the section titled 
``Voluntary Guidance for Automated Driving Systems'' (hereafter 
referred to as ``Voluntary Guidance''). The Voluntary Guidance outlines 
recommended best practices, many of which should be commonplace in the 
industry, for the safe pre-deployment design, development, and testing 
of ADSs prior to commercial sale or operation on public roads. Further, 
the Voluntary Guidance identifies key areas manufacturers and other 
entities should consider prior to testing or deploying ADS on public 

    \5\ 49 U.S.C. Sec.  30101.

    To assist States and the public in understanding how safety is 
being considered by manufacturers and other entities developing and 
testing ADSs, NHTSA encourages documentation, recordkeeping, and 
disclosures that aid in that mission. The burden estimates contained in 
this notice are based on the Agency's present understanding of the ADS 
market and the time associated with following the Voluntary Guidance, 
generating a self-assessment, and voluntarily making a summary of that 
self-assessment public. NHTSA seeks comment on the burden estimates in 
this notice in whole or in part.
    The manner by which NHTSA encourages ADS manufacturers and other 
entities to disclose information is through Voluntary Safety Self-
Assessments for ADSs. The Voluntary Safety Self-Assessment would 
summarize how the manufacturer or other entity have considered the 
safety elements contained in the Voluntary Guidance as shown below:

 System Safety
 Operational Design Domain
 Object and Event Detection and Response
 Fallback (Minimal Risk Condition)
 Validation Methods
 Human Machine Interface
 Vehicle Cybersecurity
 Post-Crash ADS Behavior
 Data Recording
 Consumer Education and Training
 Federal, State and Local Laws

    The Agency expects much of the work associated with consideration 
of the safety element in the Voluntary Guidance to be an extension of 
good and safe engineering practices already in place. It therefore 
believes that manufacturers and other entities will have access to all 
the information needed to craft a Voluntary Safety Self-Assessment that 
discusses how the safety elements were considered and if they choose, 
release a summary of that assessment publicly. Of the manufacturers and 
other entities who voluntarily disclose this information, NHTSA 
anticipates that most manufacturers and other entities will post the 
disclosures online.
    The safety elements are fully described in the Voluntary Guidance 
section (section I) of Automated Driving Systems 2.0: A Vision for 
Safety, as is the Voluntary Safety Self-Assessment. The Voluntary 
Safety Self-Assessment (including the public release of that summary 
assessment) is intended to communicate to the public (particularly 
States and consumers) that entities are (1) considering the safety 
aspects of ADSs; (2) communicating and collaborating with DOT; (3) 
encouraging the self-establishments of industry safety norms for ADSs; 
and (4) building public trust, acceptance, and confidence through 
transparent testing and deployment of ADSs. For each safety element 
laid out by the Voluntary Guidance, NHTSA encourages each manufacturer 
or entity to include an acknowledgement within the Voluntary Safety 
Self-Assessment that indicates either:
     This safety element was considered during product 
development efforts for the subject feature; or
     This safety element is not applicable to the subject 
product development effort.

Burden Calculations

    There are currently 39 manufacturers that have registered with the 
State of California as licensed entities capable of testing automated 
systems.\6\ Previously, when NHTSA established this information 
collection, only 15 manufacturers had registered with the State of 
California. NHTSA expects that this number will continue to increase 
over the next three years, and for purposes of estimating the burden of 
this collection, NHTSA believes there will be 50 respondents annually 
during the three years covered by this information collection request. 
This increase takes into account the addition of new entrants as well 
as the fact that that many entities have already begun testing of 
automated vehicles and thus already included in this figure.

    \6\ https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/dmv/detail/vr/autonomous/testing (last accessed September 5, 2017).

    The adjustments from the previous approved collection are a result 
of the Voluntary Guidance reducing the number of priority safety design 
elements for consideration from 15 to 12 (removal of Privacy, 
Registration and Certification, and Ethical Considerations).\7\ It also 
removes the data sharing aspect of the Voluntary Guidance, and limits 
the scope of the Voluntary Guidance to SAE system Levels 3-5 instead of 
also including Level 2. The Voluntary Guidance encourages public 
disclosure rather than providing information to NTHSA;

[[Page 43452]]

however, this change is not expected to change burden.

    \7\ NHTSA acknowledges that Privacy and Ethical Considerations 
are also important elements for entities to deliberate. See NHTSA's 
Web site for the Agency's approach on each.

    NHTSA expects the industry burden of following the Voluntary 
Guidance to be comprised of efforts entities would already incur in 
normal business operation and existing documentation; however, there 
may be an increased burden for documentation of procedures and some 
minor analysis or review. In calculating the burden for an entity to 
consider the safety elements in the Voluntary Guidance, NHTSA has 
adjusted its estimates in accordance with the new Voluntary Guidance 
from the original estimated annual burden of 1,630 hours for each 
reporting entity plus an additional 20 hours for select entities. By 
limiting the scope and safety elements in the Voluntary Guidance, the 
estimated annual burden for an entity to consider the safety elements 
in the Voluntary Guidance is now 835 hours.
    In addition to the estimated annual burden associated with existing 
documentation and business operation to follow the Voluntary Guidance, 
disclosure of a Voluntary Safety Self-Assessment may involve additional 
burden for format and content adherence, varying by safety element. 
NHTSA estimates that each entity will spend an additional 600 hours to 
use the documentation recommendations contained in the Voluntary 
Guidance. This estimate of burden is comprised of efforts to transmit 
information from existing format into a summary format that would be 
consumable by the public, including data translation, analysis, and 
discussion of traditionally-technical information. This is a reduction 
from the original estimate of 1,380 burden hours per year.
    Estimated Burden for This Collection: This estimated burden is a 
change from the previous collection, which estimated a total burden of 
136,050 hours for 45 HAV manufacturers or entities responding and 45 L2 
manufacturers or entities responding. As the new Voluntary Guidance 
does not contain any recommendations for documentation or disclosure 
for L2 manufacturers, NHTSA has removed estimates for L2 manufacturers, 
which the agency had estimated as leading to 1,375 burden hours per 
entity per year. NHTSA has also increased the estimated respondents for 
ADS (previously referred to as HAV) manufacturers or entities from 45 
to 50 based on recent trends and has adjusted the burdens for each 
safety element based on the new Voluntary Guidance. NHTSA estimates the 
total burden associated with conforming with the documentation and 
disclosure recommendations contained in the Voluntary Guidance would be 
1,435 hours per manufacturer or entity per year. NHTSA estimates that 
50 manufacturers will conform with the recommendations contained in the 
Voluntary Guidance for a total burden of 71,750 hours. Assuming an 
average cost to manufacturers or entities of $100 per hour, the total 
estimated annual burden on all respondents to this collection is 
$7,175,000, which represents a net decrease of $6,430,000 from the 
prior approval.
    The agency seeks comment on the estimated burden hours.

    Authority: 44 U.S.C. Section 3506(c)(2)(A).

Nathaniel Beuse,
Associate Administrator for Vehicle Safety Research.
[FR Doc. 2017-19638 Filed 9-14-17; 8:45 am]

Connect with The Crittenden Automotive Library

The Crittenden Automotive Library at Google+ The Crittenden Automotive Library on Facebook The Crittenden Automotive Library on Instagram The Crittenden Automotive Library at The Internet Archive The Crittenden Automotive Library on Pinterest The Crittenden Automotive Library on Twitter The Crittenden Automotive Library on Tumblr

The Crittenden Automotive Library

Home Page    About Us    Contribute