Proposed Information Collection Submitted to the Office of Management and Budget; Request for Comments |
|---|
|
Nathaniel Beuse
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
19 December 2016
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 243 (Monday, December 19, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 91999-92000]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-30479]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA-2016-0091]
Proposed Information Collection Submitted to the Office of
Management and Budget; Request for Comments
ACTION: Notice and request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this
notice announces that the Information Collection Request (ICR)
abstracted below is being forwarded to the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) for review and comments. A Federal Register Notice with a
60-day comment period soliciting comments on the following information
collection was published on September 20, 2016 (81 FR 65709).
DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before January 18, 2017.
ADDRESSES: Send comments regarding the burden estimate, including
suggestions for reducing the burden, to the Office of Management and
Budget, Attention: NHTSA Desk Officer, 725 17th Street NW., Washington,
DC 20503.
Comments are invited on the following:
i. 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;
ii. The accuracy of the Department's estimate of the burden of the
proposed information collection;
iii. Ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the
information to be collected; and
iv. 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.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Yvonne Clarke, NHTSA, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590; Telephone (202) 366-1845;
Facsimile: (202) 366-2106; email address: Yvonne.e.clarke@dot.gov.
For access to the docket to read background documents, go to http://www.regulations.gov or the street address listed above. Follow the
online instructions for accessing the dockets.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Title: Vehicle Performance Guidance.
OMB Control Number: Not assigned.
Type of Request: New Information Collection.
Abstract: On September 20, 2016, the Department of Transportation
published its Federal Automated Vehicles Policy. Recognizing the
potential that highly automated vehicles (HAVs) have to enhance safety
and mobility, the Federal Automated Vehicles Policy sets out an
approach to enable the safe deployment of L2 and HAV systems. An HAV
system is defined as one that corresponds to Conditional (Level 3),
High (Level 4), and Full (Level 5) Automation, as defined in SAE J3016.
HAV systems rely on the automation system (not on a human driver) to
monitor the driving environment for at least certain aspects of the
driving task. An L2 system, also described in SAE J3016, is different
because the human driver is never relieved of the responsibility to
monitor the driving environment.
The speed with which increasingly complex L2 and HAV systems are
evolving challenges DOT and NHTSA to take approaches that ensure these
technologies are safely introduced, provide safety benefits today, and
achieve their full safety potential in the future. Consistent with its
statutory purpose to reduce traffic accidents and deaths and injuries
resulting from traffic accidents, NHTSA seeks to collect from, and
recommend the recordkeeping and disclosure of information by vehicle
manufacturers and other entities as described in Federal Automated
Vehicles Policy. Specifically, NHTSA's recommendations in the policy
section titled ``Vehicle Performance Guidance for Automated Vehicles''
(hereafter referred to as ``Guidance'') are the subject of this
voluntary information collection request. This Guidance outlines
recommended best practices, many of which should be commonplace in the
industry, for the safe pre-deployment design, development, and testing
of HAV and L2 systems prior to commercial sale or operation on public
roads. Further, the Guidance identifies key areas to be addressed by
manufacturers and other entities prior to testing or deploying HAV or
L2 systems on public roadways.
To assist NHTSA and the public in evaluating how safety is being
addressed by manufacturers and other entities developing and testing
HAV and L2 systems, NHTSA is recommending the following documentation,
recordkeeping, and disclosures that aid in that mission. The burden
estimates contained in this notice are based on the Agency's present
understanding of the HAV and L2 systems market. NHTSA seeks comment on
the burden estimates in this notice in whole or in part.
Currently NHTSA expects up to approximately 45 OEMS and other
entities producing level 3 through 5
[[Page 92000]]
vehicles or features will choose to voluntarily comply with the
guidance set forth in the Federal Automated Vehicle Policy. The agency
also expects that up to 45 manufacturers and other entities who are
currently supplying level 2 functionality to voluntarily comply with
the guidance. The estimated cost for complying with this regulation is
$100 per hour. Therefore, the total annual cost is estimated to be
$13,605,000 (time burden of 136,050 hours x $100 cost per hour).
Affected Public: Business or other for profit.
Estimated Number of Respondents: 90.
Estimated Number of Responses: 90.
Annual Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 136,050 hrs.
Frequency of Collection: Annual.
On September 20, 2016, NHTSA published a notice announcing the
proposed collection of information pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
and providing a 60-day comment period (81 FR 65709). . The Agency
received 11 comments on this notice from the general public, five of
these commenters provided general comments on the Federal Automated
Vehicles Policy (the Policy). The remaining commenters (Daimler Trucks
North America, the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, Inc.,
Association of Global Automakers, Inc., Motor and Equipment
Manufacturers Association (MEMA), Truck and Engine Manufacturers
Association (EMA), and the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety
(IIHS)) had comments that were responsive to the 60-Day notice. The
Agency also received a number of substantive comments pertaining to the
ICR as part of the overall general comments on the Policy (Docket #
NHTSA-2016-0090). In general these comments were reflected in the
specific comments received on the 60-Day Notice.
These comments can be grouped into the following categories:
1. Comments regarding the burden of voluntarily responding to the 15
point Safety Assessment
2. Comments regarding the burden hours imposed by the guidance (e.g.
documentation related to the 15 point Safety Assessment) contained in
the Federal Automated Vehicles Policy
3. Comments regarding the scope of the Safety Assessment Letter
4. Comments regarding submitting Safety Assessment Letters for test
vehicles
5. Comments regarding submitting Safety Assessment Letters for vehicles
meeting SAE International (SAE) Level 2 automation
It is important to note that the Federal Automated Vehicles Policy
was effective on September 23, 2016, and is intended to be updated on
an annual basis. Therefore the burden hours outlined in the 60-Day
notice and this subsequent 30 Day notice are reflective of that version
of the policy. Comments which suggested changes to the scope of the
Safety Assessment Letter, removal of test vehicles and SAE Level 2
vehicles from the Policy, and similar comments are addressed in the
supporting document. Additionally, the agency has provided and will
continue to provide clarifications to the policy on its Web site.
The remaining comments regarding the burden of voluntarily
submitting a Safety Assessment Letter and the burden of following the
guidance contained inside the Policy can be summed up as ``NHTSA has
underestimated the burden of following its policy.'' However, none of
the commenters offered substantive information regarding the specific
details of the Agency's underestimation of the burden in following the
Policy's Guidance. In light of these comments, NHTSA has reevaluated
its analysis of the burden hours and looked to voluntary industry
standards such as the International Organization for Standardization's
(ISO) 26262--Road vehicles--Functional safety, SAE J3061--Cybersecurity
Guidebook for Cyber-Physical Vehicle Systems, and NHTSA's own
experience with safety defect investigations as it relates to record
keeping by companies. Based on this analysis and the Agency's
observation that the Policy is not suggesting new documentation
procedures, we have not made any adjustments to the burden hours . . .
Authority: The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C.
Chapter 35, as amended; and 49 CFR 1.95.
Nathaniel Beuse,
Associate Administrator for Vehicle Safety Research, National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration.
[FR Doc. 2016-30479 Filed 12-16-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P