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)]
[Notices]
[Pages 43450-43452]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-19638]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
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.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Debbie Sweet, NHTSA, 1200 New
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
collection.
OMB Clearance Number: 2127-0723.
[[Page 43451]]
Form Number: None.
Requested Expiration Date of Approval: Three years from date of
approval.
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
Policy.
\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
roadways.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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
Crashworthiness
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]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P