The Crittenden Automotive Library

Reports, Forms, and Record Keeping Requirements

Reports, Forms, and Record Keeping Requirements

Nathaniel Beuse
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
23 September 2016

[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 185 (Friday, September 23, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 65709-65716]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-23013]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2016-0091]

Reports, Forms, and Record Keeping Requirements

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

ACTION: Request for public comment on proposed collection of
information.

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

SUMMARY: Before a Federal agency may collect certain information from
the public, it must receive approval from

[[Page 65710]]

the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Under procedures established
by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, before seeking OMB approval,
Federal agencies must solicit public comment on proposed collections of
information, including extensions and reinstatements of previously
approved collections. This document describes a collection of
information for which NHTSA intends to seek OMB approval.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before November 22, 2016.

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Yvonne Clarke, NHTSA, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590; Telephone (202) 366-1845;
Facsimile: (202) 366-2106; email address: Yvonne.e.clarke@dot.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995,
before an agency submits a proposed collection of information to OMB
for approval, it must first publish a document in the Federal Register
providing a 60-day comment period and otherwise consult with members of
the public and affected agencies concerning each proposed collection of
information. OMB has promulgated regulations describing what must be
included in such a document. Under OMB's regulation (at 5 CFR
1320.8(d)), an agency must request public comment on the following:
(i) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for
the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including
whether the information will have practical utility;
(ii) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used;
(iii) how to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the
information to be collected;
(iv) how to minimize the burden of the collection of information on
those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated,
electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or
other forms of information technology, e.g. permitting electronic
submission of responses.
In compliance with these requirements, NHTSA asks for public
comments on the following proposed collection of information:
Title: Vehicle Performance Guidance.
Type of Request: New collection.
OMB Clearance Number: None.
Form Number: NHTSA Form 1157.
Requested Expiration Date of Approval: Three years from date of
approval.
Summary of the Collection of Information: On September 20, 2016,
the Department of Transportation published the policy \1\ document
titled Federal Automated Vehicles Policy. Recognizing the potential
that highly automated vehicles (HAVs) have to enhance safety and
mobility, this document sets out an approach to enable the safe
deployment of L2 and HAV systems. An HAV system is defined as one that
corresponds to Conditional (Level 3), High (Level 4), and Full (Level
5) Automation, as defined in SAE J3016. \2\ HAV systems rely on the
automation system (not on a human driver) to monitor the driving
environment for at least certain aspects of the driving task. An L2
system, also described in SAE J3016, is different because the human
driver is never relieved of the responsibility to monitor the driving
environment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1\ Conformance to the guidance in Federal Automated Vehicles
Policy is voluntary. See Fixing America's Surface Transportation
Act, Public Law 114-94, 24406 (2015) (``No guidelines issued by the
Secretary with respect to motor vehicle safety shall confer any
rights on any person, State, or locality, nor shall operate to bind
the Secretary or any person to the approach recommended in such
guidelines'').
\2\ For more information about SAE J3016, see http://www.sae.org/misc/pdfs/automated_driving.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Although there is a clear technical distinction between HAV systems
and lower levels of automation (L2 and below) based on whether the
automated system relies on the human driver when engaged and in
operation, the Guidance suggests that L2 and HAV manufacturers apply
elements of this Guidance during product development, testing, and
deployment. With a few exceptions detailed in the tables below, Federal
Automated Vehicles Policy applies equally to HAV and L2 systems. NHTSA
seeks comment on its burden estimates regarding HAV and L2 systems and
how those burdens might differ.
The speed with which increasingly complex L2 and HAV systems are
evolving challenges DOT and NHTSA to take approaches that ensure these
technologies are safely introduced, provide safety benefits today, and
achieve their full safety potential in the future.
Consistent with its statutory purpose to reduce traffic accidents
and deaths and injuries resulting from traffic accidents,\3\ NHTSA
seeks to collect from, and recommend the recordkeeping and disclosure
of information by vehicle manufacturers and other entities as described
in Federal Automated Vehicles Policy. Specifically, NHTSA's
recommendations in the policy section titled ``Vehicle Performance
Guidance for Automated Vehicles'' (hereafter referred to as
``Guidance'') are the subject of this voluntary information collection
request. This Guidance outlines recommended best practices, many of
which should be commonplace in the industry, for the safe pre-
deployment design, development, and testing of HAV and L2 systems prior
to commercial sale or operation on public roads. Further, the Guidance
identifies key areas to be addressed by manufacturers and other
entities prior to testing or deploying HAV or L2 systems on public
roadways.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\3\ 49 U.S.C.Sec. 30101.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

To assist NHTSA and the public in evaluating how safety is being
addressed by manufacturers and other entities developing and testing
HAV and L2 systems, NHTSA is recommending the following documentation,
recordkeeping, and disclosures that aid in that mission. The burden
estimates contained in this notice are based on the Agency's present
understanding of the HAV and L2 systems market. NHTSA seeks comment on
the burden estimates in this notice in whole or in part.

[[Page 65711]]

(1) HAV and L2 Safety Assessments

NHTSA will request that HAV and L2 manufacturers and other entities
voluntarily submit ``Safety Assessments'' to NHTSA's Office of the
Chief Counsel for each HAV system and each SAE J3016 L2 system deployed
on a vehicle. NHTSA anticipates that the majority of manufacturers and
other entities will submit these Assessments digitally, but seeks
comment on whether some manufacturers would prefer to mail in hard
copies. These Assessments are the only collections in this notice that
NHTSA anticipates manufacturers will submit to the Agency regularly.\4\
As explained in more detail below, NHTSA has calculated this burden to
be about 760 hours per Assessment based on existing industry practices
and similar information collection requests.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\4\ The other collections of information discussed in this
notice are recordkeeping and/or disclosure recommendations that
NHTSA might request, however, NHTSA plans on requesting information
pertaining to those collections on a case-by-case basis. Examples
include when information in the Safety Assessment is not clear, when
testing by the Agency or other suggests conflicting information than
what is contained in the Safety Assessment, etc.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Safety Assessment would summarize how the manufacturer or other
entity has addressed the provisions of this Guidance at the time they
intend their product to be ready for operational testing and prior to
deployment. The Safety Assessment would assist NHTSA, and the public,
in evaluating how safety is being addressed by manufacturers and other
entities developing and testing L2 and HAV systems. The Safety
Assessment would cover the following areas:

Data Recording and Sharing
Privacy
System Safety
Vehicle Cybersecurity
Human Machine Interface
Crashworthiness
Consumer Education and Training
Registration and Certification
Post-Crash Behavior
Federal, State and Local Laws
Ethical Considerations
Operational Design Domain
Object and Event Detection and Response
Fall Back (Minimal Risk Condition)
Validation Methods

These areas are fully described in the Guidance section (section I)
of Federal Automated Vehicles Policy. For each area, the Safety
Assessment should include an acknowledgement that indicates one of
three options:
Meets this guidance area
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Does not meet this guidance area
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
This guidance area is not applicable
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Next to the checked line item, respondents would include the name,
title, and signature of an authorized company official and the date the
acknowledgement was made. Respondents would repeat this for each area
covered in the Safety Assessment.
Once this collection is approved, for L2 and HAV systems already
being tested and deployed, NHTSA would expect that manufacturers and
other entities will provide a Safety Assessment, understanding that
manufacturers and entities may wish to supplement their submissions
over time. For future L2 or HAV systems, NHTSA would expect
manufacturers and other entities to provide the relevant Assessment(s)
to NHTSA at least four months before active public road testing begins
on a new L2 or HAV system. As explained in greater detail in Federal
Automated Vehicles Policy, ``a new L2 or HAV system'' is intended to
include the introduction of a new capability or function, but not an
incremental software and/or hardware update. For example, a vehicle
might have the capability to function with no driver input in congested
traffic conditions below 30 mph. If the manufacturer updates the
software (or hardware) in the vehicle expanding that automated
functionality to higher speed highways, the Guidance would consider
that upgrade to constitute a new L2 or HAV system.

(2) Data Recording

As part of the Guidance, NHTSA suggests that manufacturers and
other entities will have a documented process for testing, validation,
and collection of event, incident, and crash data, for the purposes of
recording the occurrence of malfunctions, degradations, or failures in
a way that can be used to establish the cause of any such issues. NHTSA
recommends in its Guidance that manufacturers collect data both for
testing and for operational (including for event reconstruction)
purposes. The Agency suggests that manufacturers and other entities
retain this information for a period of five years.
For crash reconstruction purposes (including during testing), NHTSA
recommends this data be stored, maintained, and readily available for
retrieval by the entity itself and, if requested, by NHTSA. The
Guidance recommends that manufacturers and other entities collect data
associated with events involving: (1) Fatalities and personal injuries;
or (2) damage to the extent that any motor vehicle involved cannot be
driven under its own power in the customary manner, without further
damage or hazard to itself, other traffic elements, or the roadway, and
therefore requires towing. Vehicles should record, at a minimum, all
information relevant to the event and the performance of the system, so
that the circumstances of the event can be reconstructed. This data
should also contain information relating to the status of the L2 or HAV
system and whether the HAV system or the human driver was in control of
the vehicle at the time. Manufacturers or other entities should have
the technical and legal capability to share the relevant recorded
information.
In addition, to assist industry and NHTSA to develop new safety
metrics, the Guidance recommends that manufacturers and other entities
should collect, store, and analyze data regarding positive outcomes, in
addition to the type of reporting conditions listed above (event,
incident, and crash data). Positive outcomes are events in which the L2
or HAV system correctly detects a safety-relevant situation, and the
system successfully avoids an incident (e.g., ``near misses'' and edge
cases). Such data includes safety-related events such as near-misses
between HAVs and other vehicles or road users (e.g., pedestrians and
bicyclists). There is value in collecting data (and making it available
during full operational use) that captures events in which the
automated function correctly detects and identifies an unsafe maneuver
initiated by another road user (e.g., another motor vehicle or
pedestrian), and executes an appropriate response that successfully
avoids an event, incident, or crash.

(3) Data Sharing

L2 and HAV systems have the potential to use data sharing to
increase safety benefits. Thus, the Guidance recommends that each
manufacturer or other entity should develop a plan for sharing its
event reconstruction and other relevant data with other manufacturers
and other entities. Sharing such data could help to accelerate
knowledge and understanding of L2 and HAV system performance, and could
be used to enhance the safety of L2 or HAV systems and to establish
consumer confidence in L2 and HAV technologies. Generally, data shared
with third parties should be de-identified (i.e., stripped of elements
that make the data directly or reasonably linkable to a specific L2 or
HAV system owner or user). Manufacturers and other entities should take
steps to ensure that any data shared

[[Page 65712]]

is done in accordance with privacy and security agreements and notices
applicable to the vehicle (which typically permit sharing of de-
identified data) or with owner/user consent.

(4) Consumer Education and Training

To ensure that drivers of vehicles equipped with L2 or HAV systems
can safely use them as part of the day-to-day driving experience,
proper education and training is imperative to ensure safe deployment
and operation of automated vehicles. Therefore, the Guidance recommends
that manufacturers and other entities develop, document, and maintain
employee, dealer, distributor, and consumer education and training
programs to address the anticipated differences in the use and
operation of L2-equipped vehicles and HAVs from those of the
conventional vehicles. Such programs should be designed to provide the
target users with the necessary level of understanding to use these
complex technologies properly, efficiently, and in the safest manner
possible.
Consumer education should describe and explain topics such as an L2
or HAV system's intended use, operational parameters, system
capabilities and limitations, and engagement/disengagement methods to
transfer control between the driver and the L2 or HAV system. Further,
consumer education should describe and explain what is meant by any
displays and messaging presented by the L2 or HAV system's human-
machine interface (HMI), emergency fallback scenarios in cases where
the HAV system unexpectedly disengages, operational boundary
responsibilities of the human driver, and potential mechanisms that
could change an L2 or HAV system's behavior in service.
As part of their education and training programs, the Guidance
recommends that L2 or HAV manufacturers, dealers, and distributers
should consider including an on-road or on-track hands-on experience
demonstrating L2 or HAV system operations and HMI functions prior to
release to consumers. Other innovative approaches (e.g., virtual
reality) should be considered, tested, and employed as well. These
programs should be continually evaluated for their effectiveness and
updated on a routine basis, incorporating feedback from dealers,
customers, and other data sources. NHTSA may request information on a
manufacturer or other entities' consumer education to review training
materials prepared by manufacturers and other entities for the purpose
of evaluating effectiveness. NHTSA suggests that manufacturers and
other entities retain this information for a period of five years.

(5) Certification

NHTSA anticipates that the capabilities of L2 or HAV systems on a
vehicle may change such that the corresponding level of automation may
change over the vehicle's lifecycle as a result of software updates. As
more L2-equipped vehicles and HAVs are tested and sold commercially to
be used on public roadways, older vehicles also may be modified to
provide similar functionality to new vehicles. As new L2 and HAV
systems are introduced to the market, manufacturers may choose to
modify a vehicle's current level of automation to more advanced levels,
even if the hardware was produced years previously. The Guidance
recommends that manufacturers provide on-vehicle means to readily
communicate concise information regarding the key capabilities of their
L2 or HAV system(s) to vehicle occupants (e.g. semi-permanent labeling
to the vehicle, in the operator's manual, or through the driver-vehicle
interface).

(6) Systems Safety Practices

For the purpose of facilitating the design of L2 and HAV systems
that are free of unreasonable safety risks, the Guidance recommends
that manufacturers and other entities follow a robust design and
validation process based on a systems-engineering approach and be fully
documented. This process should encompass designing HAV systems such
that the vehicle will be placed in a safe state even when there are
electrical, electronic, or mechanical malfunctions or software errors.
The overall process should adopt and follow industry standards,
such as those provided by the International Standards Organization
(ISO) and SAE International, and collectively cover the entire design
domain of the vehicle. Manufacturers and other entities should also
follow guidance, best practices, and design principles available from
other industries such as aviation, space, and the military (e.g., the
U.S. Department of Defense standard practice on system safety), to the
extent they are relevant and applicable.
The process should include a hazard analysis and safety risk
assessment step for the L2 or HAV system, the overall vehicle design
into which it is being integrated, and when applicable, the broader
transportation ecosystem. The process should describe design
redundancies and safety strategies for handling cases of L2 or HAV
system malfunctions.
All design decisions should be tested, validated, and verified as
individual subsystems and as part of the entire vehicle architecture.
The entire process should be fully documented and all actions, changes,
design choices, analyses, associated testing and data should be fully
traceable.
Documentation of the system safety practices is intended primarily
to assist manufacturers and other entities involved in designing L2 or
HAV systems in managing this complex aspect of L2 or HAV safety
engineering. NHTSA may request this information in the future as well,
to review system safety practices for the purpose of evaluating the
robustness of manufacturers' and other entities' overall approach to
designing functionally safe (fail safe) HAV systems. NHTSA suggests
that manufacturers and other entities retain this information for a
period of five years.

(7) Additional Data Collection Request Topics

In addition to the individually defined collection areas described
above, the Guidance suggests that NHTSA may request more detailed
information for matters that manufacturers and other entities already
gather. Therefore, the Guidance encourages manufacturers and other
entities to ensure that they retain data pertaining to these topics.
They include data regarding: Vehicle cybersecurity; HMI;
crashworthiness (occupant protection and compatibility); post-crash
behavior; Federal, State, and local laws, operational design domain;
object event detection and response; and fall back (minimal risk
condition).
These additional areas are important from the standpoint of
ensuring L2 and HAV systems that are free from unreasonable safety
risks. In the future, this data could be used to evaluate processes for
testing and validating. For these additional areas, NHTSA expects that
there would be minimal additional burden placed on manufacturers and
other entities because these are all areas that the Agency expects
would normally be part of the design, testing, and validation process
of a new L2 or HAV system. NHTSA suggests that manufacturers and other
entities retain this information for a period of five years. More
detailed descriptions of all of these areas can be found in Federal
Automated Vehicles Policy.
Estimated Burden for this Collection: We estimate the following
collection burden on the public. The numbers below are based on
estimates that NHTSA has generated, and the agency

[[Page 65713]]

seeks comment on the burden calculations below.

HAV and L2 Safety Assessments

There are currently 15 manufacturers that have registered with the
State of California as licensed entities capable of testing automated
systems. NHTSA expects that this number will increase after the
publication of Federal Automated Vehicles Policy, potentially doubling
to 30 manufacturers and other entities within six months. As automated
vehicle systems continue to develop, NHTSA expects either new
manufacturers or entities to enter the market, or existing
manufacturers or entities to progress to a point where they are
introducing HAV systems. For purposes of estimating the burden of this
collection, NHTSA estimates there will be a total of 45 respondents by
the end of the three years covered by this information collection
request. Likewise, NHTSA estimates that a similar number of
manufacturers and other entities will submit L2 Safety Assessments,
although the agency notes that the 45 respondents for each assessment
may not be identical, since some companies may be developing L3/L4
vehicles but not L2 vehicles, and vice versa.
The Agency expects much of the burden of submitting these
Assessments to be a part of conducting good and safe engineering
practices. It therefore believes that manufacturers and other entities
will have access to all of the information needed to craft these
Assessments already documented, and that the overall conformance burden
will be the time needed to collate and review answers sourced from pre-
existing documentation. The summary table below highlights the
estimated burden in hours for entities seeking to submit Safety
Assessments by category:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Area Hours HAV L2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
General Overall Summary....................................... 80 [check] [check]
Data Recording and Sharing.................................... 80 [check] [check]
Privacy....................................................... 40 [check] [check]
System Safety................................................. 20 [check] [check]
Vehicle Cybersecurity......................................... 20 [check] [check]
Human Machine Interface....................................... 20 [check] [check]
Crashworthiness............................................... 20 [check] [check]
Consumer Education and Training............................... 40 [check] [check]
Registration and Certification................................ 40 [check] [check]
Post-Crash Behavior........................................... 20 [check] [check]
Federal, State and Local Laws................................. 80 [check] [check]
Ethical Consideration......................................... 80 [check] [check]
Operational Design Domain..................................... 20 [check]
Object and Event Detection and Response....................... 40 [check]
Fall Back (Minimal Risk Condition)............................ 80 [check]
Validation methods............................................ 80 [check] [check]
-------------------------------------------------
Total..................................................... .............. 760 620
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Industry Burden
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Safety assessments HAV L2
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of Respondents................... 45 45
Time per Response (hours)............... 760 620
Frequency of Collection (for each new 1 1
HAV/L2 system).........................
Total Estimated Annual Burden (hours)... 34,200 27,900
------------------------------------------------------------------------

In addition to the industry burden, because NHTSA will be
collecting these Assessments, there is a government burden that will be
incurred by the Agency. NHTSA expects that it will take three employees
an hour each to fully process, catalogue, store each submission for a
total of three burden hours. It will take an hour for a single employee
to craft an acknowledgement of receipt to both the submitter and the
public. The Agency also expects that 5 engineers will review these
Assessments for technical completeness, spending four hours each, for a
total of 20 hrs. This is expected to occur every time a Safety
Assessment is received.

Government Cost Burden
------------------------------------------------------------------------
HAV and L2 Safety assessments Estimate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of Safety Assessments............................ 90
Time per Response (hours)............................... 24
Frequency of Collection (for each new HAV/L2 system).... 1
Total Estimated Annual Burden (hours)................... 2,160
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Data Sharing and Recording

In conforming to this Guidance, manufacturers and other entities
may see an increased burden to document their procedures. The Agency
anticipates that the 45 manufacturers and other entities will have to
spend an increased amount of time documenting their crash recorders,
positive outcomes, event triggers/schema, data management, their data
sharing plan, and data privacy. If these entities have already
responded to the Safety Assessment discussed previously, the

[[Page 65714]]

core of the information likely will already be documented. Below are
estimates of the additional hourly burden NHTSA expects.

Data Recording and Sharing for Purposes of Crash Reconstruction and
General Knowledge Sharing
------------------------------------------------------------------------
HAV L2
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated Number of Respondents......... 45 45
Estimated increased documentation burden 240 240
(hours)................................
Frequency of Collection (for each new 1 1
system)................................
Total Estimated Annual Burden (hours)... 10,800 10,800
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Systems Safety Practices

As with the prior discussions, manufacturers and other entities may
choose to document their system safety practices in response to the
Guidance. It is anticipated that up to 45 companies may choose to
document their efforts in response to the NHTSA Guidance and that they
will incur corresponding costs for each new L2 or HAV system in the
field. NHTSA estimates this will happen about once per year. If
manufacturers and other entities have already responded to a Safety
Assessment, NHTSA anticipates that the core of the information will
already be documented. The following table documents the additional
estimated burden.

Company Documentation for Recommended System Safety Practices
------------------------------------------------------------------------
HAV L2
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of Respondents................... 45 45
Estimated increased documentation burden 200 200
(hours)................................
Frequency of Collection................. 1 1
Total Estimated Annual Burden........... 9,000 9,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Consumer Education and Training

As previously stated, NHTSA expects that manufacturers will develop
documentation to support a claim or assertion that they are following
the Guidance. NHTSA may request a subset of this documentation in some
instances. However, the burden estimated here reflects additional time
the manufacturers and other entities may take, outside of normal
business practices, to document and store information specifically
pertaining to their efforts to educate and train their customers and
users.
NHTSA anticipates that up to 45 companies may choose to document
their efforts as part of the NHTSA Guidance. In the table below are
estimates for the burden, in hours, for the task of documenting
consumer education and training efforts, over and above normal business
practices. This is currently estimated to occur about once per year. If
manufacturers and other entities have already responded in a Safety
Assessment, NHTSA anticipates that the core of the information will
already be documented, reducing the relative burden. It is also
expected that some of the entities may not directly interact with
consumers, in which case their burden will be lower.

[[Page 65715]]

System Capabilities........................................... 10 [check] [check]
Engagement/Disengagement...................................... 20 [check] [check]
HMI........................................................... 20 [check] [check]
Fallback...................................................... 20 [check]
Driver Responsibilities....................................... 10 [check] [check]
Changes in system performance in Service...................... 10 [check] [check]
On-Road Hands On Training..................................... 5 [check] [check]
On-Track Hands On Training.................................... 5 [check] [check]
-------------------------------------------------
Total..................................................... .............. 115 95
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Consumer Education and Training
------------------------------------------------------------------------
HAV L2
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of expected companies............ 45 45
Estimated increased documentation burden 115 95
(hours)................................
Frequency of Collection................. 1 1
Total Estimated Annual Burden (hours)... 5,175 4,275
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Additional Areas

NHTSA anticipates that up to 45 companies may choose to document
their efforts as part of the NHTSA Guidance. In the table below are
estimates for the burden, in hours, for the task of documenting
consumer education and training efforts, over and above normal business
practices. This is currently estimated to occur about once per year. If
manufacturers and other entities have already responded in a Safety
Assessment, NHTSA anticipates that the core of the information will
already be documented, reducing the relative burden. It is also
expected that some of the entities may not directly interact with
consumers, in which case their burden will be lower.

Additional Areas
[Cybersecurity, HMI, crashworthiness, post-crash, Fed/State/local laws,
ODD, OEDR, fallback]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
HAV L2
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of Respondents................... 45 45
Estimated increased documentation burden 320 220
(hours)................................
Frequency of Collection................. 1 1
Total Estimated Annual Burden (hours)... 14,400 9,900
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Certification

Manufacturers and other entities that produce vehicles may choose
to conform to the Guidance's recommendation regarding certification,
and thus may incur an additional documentation burden over and above
normal documentation retention practices. Secondarily, some entities
may choose to implement a physical label, thereby incurring additional
costs.
Not all of the companies that respond to the Safety Assessment may
produce, alter, or modify vehicles in such a way that they would need
extra labeling (e.g. tier 1 suppliers that do not offer aftermarket
upgrades), Therefore it is expected that only 30 companies could choose
to implement registration and certification procedures for new L2 or
HAV systems in the field. The estimated burden is expected to occur
once a year. The table below documents the additional estimated burden
in terms of hours

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Area Hours
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Identifying Information................................. 10
Description of L2 or HAV System......................... 10
---------------

[[Page 65716]]

Total............................................... 20
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Certification
------------------------------------------------------------------------
HAV L2
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated Number of Respondents......... 30 N/A
Estimated increased documentation burden 20 N/A
(hours)................................
Frequency of Collection................. 1 N/A
Total Estimated Annual Burden (hours)... 600 N/A
------------------------------------------------------------------------

As discussed above, some entities may choose to implement a
physical label. From previous documentation for Part 567 labels,\5\ the
cost of the physical label to approximately $1 per label. This takes
into account 3 minutes to install the label along with the actual cost
of the label. For the smaller fleets of HAVs, it is expected that this
number will be more expensive per vehicle. NHTSA estimates that fleets
will not exceed approximately 300 vehicles during the lifespan of the
current ICR, and that the cost of labeling, including cost to design,
print, and affix labels to be approximately $10 per vehicle. For 30
fleets of 300 cars each, this represents a cost burden of $90,000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\5\ See the supporting statement titled 2127-
00510_Supporting_Statement_2014_CSv2.doc located at http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAViewDocument?ref_nbr=201501-2127-001
(retrieved September 7, 2016)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HAV L2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Overall Estimated Burden Hours per Year....................................... 74,175 61,875
---------------------------------
Total Estimated Burden Hours per Year......................................... 136,050
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Issued on: September 20, 2016.
Nathaniel Beuse
Associate Administrator for Vehicle Safety Research.
[FR Doc. 2016-23013 Filed 9-22-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P