Notice2021-28311
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)
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
December 29, 2021
Issuing agencies
Transportation DepartmentNational Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Abstract
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.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 86 Issue 247 (Wednesday, December 29, 2021)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 247 (Wednesday, December 29, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 74217-74231]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[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
<a href="http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain">www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain</a>. 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 <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#9df7f8fbfbeff8e4b3f8e4eff8eeddf9f2e9b3faf2eb"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="fa909f9c9c889f83d49f83889f89ba9e958ed49d958c">[email protected]</span></a>, 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 <a href="https://www.nhtsa.gov/laws-regulations/standing-general-order-crash-reporting-levels-driving-automation-2-5">https://www.nhtsa.gov/laws-regulations/standing-general-order-crash-reporting-levels-driving-automation-2-5</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 <a href="https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/contribute">https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/contribute</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 <a href="https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/naics4_336100.htm#15-0000">https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/naics4_336100.htm#15-0000</a> (accessed December 17, 2021) and May 2020
National Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates, available at
<a href="https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_nat.htm">https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_nat.htm</a> (accessed December 17,
2021).
\12\ See Table 1. Employer Costs for Employee Compensation by
ownership (Mar. 2021), available at <a href="https://www.bls.gov/news.release/ecec.t01.htm">https://www.bls.gov/news.release/ecec.t01.htm</a> (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
</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on December 29, 2021.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.