[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 49 (Monday, March 14, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 14319-14321]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-05237]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2019-0082]


Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the 
Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval: Drivers' Use 
of Camera-Based Rear Visibility Systems Versus Traditional Mirrors

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

ACTION: Notice and request for comments on a request for approval of a 
new information collection.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), 
this notice announces the Information Collection Request (ICR) 
abstracted below has been forwarded to the Office of Management and 
Budget (OMB) for review and approval. The ICR describes the nature of 
the information collection and its expected burden. The proposed new 
collection of information supports research addressing safety-related 
aspects of drivers' use of camera-based rear visibility systems 
intended to serve as a replacement for traditional outside rearview 
mirrors.
    A Federal Register Notice with a 60-day comment period soliciting 
comments on the following information collection was published on 
August 28, 2019. NHTSA received 22 public comments submitted online and 
one additional comment submitted via email. A second Federal Register 
Notice with a 60-day comment period soliciting comments on the 
following information collection was published on May 24, 2021. NHTSA 
received 1,891 unique public comments. A summary of the comments and 
the changes NHTSA made in response to those comments is provided below.

DATES: Written comments should be submitted on or before April 13, 
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 
www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. To find this particular information 
collection, select ``Currently under 30-day Review--Open for Public 
Comment'' or use the search function.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For additional information or access 
to background documents, contact Elizabeth Mazzae, Applied Crash 
Avoidance Research Division, Vehicle Research and Test Center, NHTSA, 
10820 State Route 347--Bldg. 60, East Liberty, Ohio 43319; Telephone 
(937) 666-4511; Facsimile: (937) 666-3590; email address: 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#bfdad3d6c5dedddacbd791d2dec5c5dedaffdbd0cb91d8d0c9"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="27424b4e5d464542534f094a465d5d46426743485309404851">[email protected]</span></a>.

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 
the following information collection request will be submitted to OMB.
    Title: Drivers' Use of Camera-Based Rear Visibility Systems Versus 
Traditional Mirrors.
    OMB Control Number: To be issued at time of approval.
    Form Numbers: NHTSA forms 1553, 1554, 1556, 1557, 1558.
    Type of Request: New information collection.
    Type of Review Requested: Regular.
    Length of Approval Requested: Three years from the date of 
approval.
    Summary of the Collection of Information: NHTSA has proposed to 
perform research involving the collection of information from the 
public as part of a multi-year effort to learn about drivers' use of 
passive camera-based rear visibility systems intended to perform the 
same function as traditional vehicle outside mirrors: Displaying areas 
surrounding the vehicle. Performing detection of objects within the 
system's field of view and providing visual or other alerts to the 
driver is not a technology function being examined in this research.
    The research will involve human subjects testing in which 
instrumented vehicles are stationary or driven on a test track and 
public roads. Study participants will be members of the general public 
and participation will be voluntary. The goal is to characterize 
drivers' eye glance behavior and other driving behaviors while 
operating a vehicle equipped with traditional outside mirrors versus 
while operating a vehicle equipped with a camera-based visibility 
system in place of vehicle outside mirrors. This research will support 
NHTSA decisions relating to safe implementation of electronic 
visibility technologies that may be considered for use as alternatives 
to meet Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 111 mirror 
requirements.
    This research will involve information collection through 
participant screening questions and post-drive questionnaires. 
Questions addressed to individuals will serve to assess individuals' 
suitability for study participation, to obtain feedback regarding 
participants' use of the visibility systems involved in the study, and 
to evaluate individuals' level of comfort with use of the technology.
    Since qualitative feedback or self-reported data is not 
sufficiently robust for the purpose of investigating driver performance 
and interaction issues with advanced vehicle technologies, the primary 
type of information to be collected in this research is objective data 
consisting of video and engineering data recorded as participants 
experience a camera-based rear visibility system in an instrumented 
study vehicle. Recorded objective data will include driver eye glance 
behavior, lane change performance, and other driving performance 
metrics. Eye glance behavior will reveal how drivers' visual behavior 
in a vehicle equipped with a camera-based rear visibility system 
differs from drivers' visual behavior in a vehicle equipped with 
traditional outside mirrors. Lane change performance will be 
characterized based on vehicle speed, inter-vehicle distances during 
lane changes, and time to complete lane changes. Driving performance 
and eye glance behavior in a vehicle equipped with a camera-based rear 
visibility system will be compared to lane change performance observed 
in

[[Page 14320]]

a vehicle equipped with traditional outside mirrors.
    Description of the Need for the Information and Proposed Use of the 
Information: The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's 
mission is to save lives, prevent injuries, and reduce economic costs 
associated with motor vehicle crashes. As new vehicle technologies are 
developed, it is prudent to ensure they do not create any unintended 
decrease in safety. The safety of passive visibility-related 
technologies depends on both the performance of the systems and on 
drivers' ability to effectively and comfortably use the systems. This 
work seeks to examine and compare drivers' eye glance behavior and 
aspects of driving behavior and lane change maneuver execution for 
traditional mirrors and camera-based systems intended to replace 
outside rearview mirrors.
    The collection of information will consist of: (1) Question Set 1, 
Driving Research Study Interest Response Form, (2) Question Set 2, 
Candidate Screening, (3) passive observation of driving behavior, (4) 
Question Set 3, Post-Drive Questionnaire: Drive with Camera-Monitoring 
System, (5) Question Set 4, Post-Drive Questionnaire: Drive with 
Traditional Mirrors, (6) Question Set 5, Post-Drive Questionnaire Final 
Opinions.
    Affected Public (Respondents): Research participants will be 
licensed drivers aged 25 to 65 years of age who drive at least an 
average number of 11,000 miles annually, are in good health, and do not 
require assistive devices to safely operate a vehicle and drive 
continuously for a period of 3 hours.
    Frequency of Collection: The data collections described will be 
performed once to obtain the target number of 128 valid test 
participants. Assuming typical data loss rates for instrumented vehicle 
testing with human subjects, it is anticipated that 200 participants 
will need to be run in order to obtain 128 valid participant datasets.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: The data collection will have two 
parts: one involving light vehicles that will begin immediately upon 
receipt of PRA clearance and a second, subsequent part will involve 
heavy trucks. The second part of the data collection will have the same 
general approach involving assessment of eye glance behavior and lane 
change performance as a function of visibility technology (i.e., 
camera-based system or traditional outside mirrors).
    Information for both parts of the data collection will be obtained 
in an incremental fashion to determine which individuals have the 
necessary characteristics for study participation. All interested 
candidates will complete Question Set 1, Driving Research Study 
Interest Response Form. A subset of individuals meeting the criteria 
for Question Set 1 will be asked to complete Question Set 2, Candidate 
Screening Questions. From the individuals found to meet the criteria 
for both Questions Sets 1 and 2, a subset will be chosen with the goal 
of achieving a balance of age and sex to be scheduled for study 
participation. Both data collection parts together will involve 
approximately 750 respondents for Question Set 1 and 375 for Question 
Set 2. Question Sets 3, 4, and 5 will each have 200 respondents of 
which 150 will be assigned to the light vehicle category and 50 to the 
heavy vehicle category. A summary of the estimated numbers of 
individuals that will complete the noted question sets across both the 
first and second data collection parts is provided in the following 
table.

                                        Estimated Numbers of Respondents
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                             Participants (i.e.,
            Question Set No.             NHTSA Form No.              Questions                  respondents)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1......................................            1553  Interest Response Form...........                   750
2......................................            1554  Candidate Screening Questions....                   375
3......................................            1556  Post-drive Questionnaire: Drive                     200
                                                          with Camera-Monitoring System.
4......................................            1557  Post-drive Questionnaire: Drive                     200
                                                          with Traditional Mirrors.
5......................................            1558  Post-Drive Questionnaire Final                      200
                                                          Opinions.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: For both parts of the data 
collection, completion of Question Set 1, Driving Research Study 
Interest Response Form, is estimated to take approximately 5 minutes 
and completion is estimated to take approximately 7 minutes for 
Question Set 2, Candidate Screening Questions. Completion of Question 
Sets 3 and 4, Post-Drive Questionnaire: Drive with Camera Monitoring 
System and Post-Drive Questionnaire: Drive with Traditional Mirrors for 
light or heavy vehicles, is estimated to take 10 minutes for each 
survey for a combined total of 20 minutes, and 5 minutes is estimated 
for completion of the final opinions questions for both parts of data 
collection.
    The estimated annual time and opportunity cost burdens across both 
the first and second data collection parts are summarized in the table 
below. The number of respondents and time to complete each question set 
are estimated as shown in the table. The time per question set is 
calculated by multiplying the number of respondents by the time per 
respondent and then converting from minutes to hours. The hour value 
for each question set is multiplied by the average hour earning 
estimate from the Bureau of Labor Statistics \1\ to obtain an estimated 
burden cost per question set.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ *Cost per hour based on Bureau of Labor Statistics Dec. 2019 
Average Hourly Earnings data for ``Total Private,'' $28.32 (Accessed 
Jan. 28, 2020 at https://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t19.htm)

                                                       Estimated Hour Burden and Opportunity Cost
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Participants       Time per                   Total                         Opportunity
    Question Set No.      NHTSA Form    Question set titles         (i.e.,          response    Total time  burden time  Total  opportunity    cost per
                             No.                                 respondents)      (minutes)    (minutes)     (hours)           cost         participant
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1......................         1553  Interest Response Form                 750            5        3,750           63           $1,784.16        $2.38
2......................         1554  Candidate Screening                    375            7        2,625           44            1,246.08         3.32
                                       Questions.

[[Page 14321]]

 
3......................         1556  Post-Drive                             200           10        2,000           33              934.56         4.67
                                       Questionnaire: Drive
                                       with Camera
                                       Monitoring System.
4......................         1557  Post-Drive                             200           10        2,000           33              934.56         4.67
                                       Questionnaire: Drive
                                       with Traditional
                                       Mirrors.
5......................         1558  Post-Drive                             200            5        1,000           17              481.44         2.41
                                       Questionnaire Final
                                       Opinions.
                                     -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                         ...........     Total Estimated      ..................  ...........       11,375          190       5,380.80 [ap]       $17.45
                                          Burden:.                                                                                   $5,381
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Estimated Total Annual Burden Cost: The only cost burdens 
respondents will incur are costs related to travel to and from the 
study location for those that participate in the research study. The 
costs are minimal and are expected to be offset by the monetary 
compensation that will be provided to all research participants.
    60-Day Notices: On August 28, 2019, NHTSA published a 60-day notice 
requesting public comment on the proposed collection of information.\2\ 
We received comments from 23 entities, including 8 organizations and 15 
individuals. Organizations submitting comments included American Bus 
Association (ABA), Automotive Safety Council, Commercial Vehicle Safety 
Alliance (CVSA), Lotus Cars Ltd., Greyhound Lines, Inc., Stoneridge 
Inc., Volvo Group, and ZF North America, Inc. Of the 23 commenters, 17 
were supportive of the research. No comments addressed the specific 
questions to be asked of participants. On May 24, 2021, NHTSA published 
a second 60-day.\3\ A summary of the comments received on the first 60-
day notice and NHTSA's responses to those comments was provided in the 
second 60-day notice NHTSA published on May 24, 2021. NHTSA received 
comments from 1,891 entities, including 2 organizations on the second 
60-day notice. 1887 individuals, and input from social media-based 
Tesla owners enthusiast community group. Organizations submitting 
comments included the Automotive Safety Council and Alliance for 
Automotive Innovation. There were 35 duplicate entries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ 84 FR 45209 (August 28, 2019).
    \3\ 86 FR 27952 (May 24, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comments from the Automotive Safety Council (ASC) did not address 
the topic of PRA clearance, but did include some recommendations 
related to the proposed research. The comments included acknowledgement 
of NHTSA's evaluation of the previous comments made by ASC to the 
original 60-Day Notice, NHTSA- 2019-0082-0001, and expressed support 
for conducting additional research subsequent to the proposed work that 
would address previous ASC suggestions. A new comment from ASC 
requested that study participants be provided an opportunity to 
familiarize themselves with conventional mirror technology in the test 
track environment in the same vehicle type as the test vehicle. This 
may help to reduce variability from ``normal'' mirror usage and driving 
behaviors due to the unfamiliar test environment and vehicle type and 
help isolate the participant response to just the camera technology in 
the test of the camera equipped system vehicle. ASC also commented that 
the research should ensure sufficient time for the drivers to get 
acquainted with the system. NHTSA notes that familiarization time with 
the new technology is part of the research design.
    Two comments from the Alliance of Automotive Innovators did not 
address the topic of PRA clearance, but offered support for the 
Agency's research. The comments noted that some of the organization's 
members ``currently have CMS already deployed in other markets that 
comply with established international standards, namely ECE R46 and ISO 
16505.'' Auto Innovators' comments expressed strong supports for 
harmonization with existing international standards and ``that NHTSA 
prioritize its CMS research and rulemaking processes . . . .''
    Of the individuals who submitted comments, 30 indicated support for 
PRA clearance being given for this work. Another 81 commenters voiced 
support for the research. The remaining commenters' input contained 
opinions regarding whether CMS should be permitted under FMVSS No. 111 
and did not address the specific points on which comments were actually 
requested.
    In summary, the proposed research is intended to gather information 
to address the question of whether camera-based rear visibility system 
use is as safe as that of traditional mirrors through examination of 
drivers' eye glance behavior and driving performance. NHTSA appreciates 
the feedback and many relevant suggestions offered regarding additional 
experimental conditions to consider. NHTSA will consider the provided 
suggestions as input for follow-on research programs.

Public Comments Invited

    You are asked to comment on any aspect of this information 
collection, including (a) whether the proposed collection of 
information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of 
the agency, including whether the information will have practical 
utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the 
proposed collection of information, including the validity of the 
methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways for the department 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 appropriate automated, 
electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or 
other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic 
submission of responses without reducing the quality of the collected 
information.
    Authority: The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. chapter 
35, as amended; 49 CFR 1.49; and DOT Order 1351.29.

    Issued in Washington, DC.
Cem Hatipoglu,
Associate Administrator, Office of Vehicle Safety Research.
[FR Doc. 2022-05237 Filed 3-11-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>