Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 49 / Monday, March 14, 2022 / Notices 14319 

The State may also assist FHWA with 

formal consultations, with consent of a 

tribe, but FHWA remains responsible for 

the consultation. 

The FHWA will consider the 

comments submitted on the proposed 

fifth renewal MOU when making its 

decision on whether to execute this 

MOU. The FHWA will make the final, 

executed MOU publicly available. 

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance 

Program Number 20.205, Highway Planning 

and Construction. The regulations 

implementing Executive Order 12372 

regarding intergovernmental consultation on 

Federal programs and activities apply to this 

program.) 

Authority: 23 U.S.C. 326; 42 U.S.C. 

4331, 4332; 23 CFR 771.117; 40 CFR 

1507.3, 1508.4. 

Vincent Mammano, 

Division Administrator, Federal Highway 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2022–05332 Filed 3–11–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–22–P 

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 CameraBased 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 safetyrelated aspects of drivers’ use of camerabased 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: elizabeth.mazzae@

dot.gov. 

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 selfreported 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 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1
14320 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 49 / Monday, March 14, 2022 / Notices 

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) 

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 CameraMonitoring 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., camerabased 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

Question Set 

No. 

NHTSA Form 

No. Questions Participants (i.e., respondents) 

1 ........................ 1553 Interest Response Form ............................................................................................... 750 

2 ........................ 1554 Candidate Screening Questions ................................................................................... 375 

3 ........................ 1556 Post-drive Questionnaire: Drive with Camera-Monitoring System ............................... 200 

4 ........................ 1557 Post-drive Questionnaire: Drive with Traditional Mirrors .............................................. 200 

5 ........................ 1558 Post-Drive Questionnaire Final Opinions ..................................................................... 200 

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 PostDrive 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. 

ESTIMATED HOUR BURDEN AND OPPORTUNITY COST

Question Set 

No. 

NHTSA 

Form No. Question set titles Participants (i.e., respondents) 

Time per 

response 

(minutes) 

Total time 

(minutes) 

Total 

burden time 

(hours) 

Total 

opportunity cost 

Opportunity 

cost per 

participant 

1 ...................... 1553 Interest Response Form ...... 750 5 3,750 63 $1,784.16 $2.38 

2 ...................... 1554 Candidate Screening Questions.375 7 2,625 44 1,246.08 3.32 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 49 / Monday, March 14, 2022 / Notices 14321 

2 84 FR 45209 (August 28, 2019). 

3 86 FR 27952 (May 24, 2021). 

ESTIMATED HOUR BURDEN AND OPPORTUNITY COST—Continued 

Question Set 

No. 

NHTSA 

Form No. Question set titles Participants (i.e., respondents) 

Time per 

response 

(minutes) 

Total time 

(minutes) 

Total 

burden time 

(hours) 

Total 

opportunity cost 

Opportunity 

cost per 

participant 

3 ...................... 1556 Post-Drive Questionnaire: 

Drive with Camera Monitoring System.

200 10 2,000 33 934.56 4.67 

4 ...................... 1557 Post-Drive Questionnaire: 

Drive with Traditional Mirrors.

200 10 2,000 33 934.56 4.67 

5 ...................... 1558 Post-Drive Questionnaire 

Final Opinions.

200 5 1,000 17 481.44 2.41 

Total Estimated Burden: ................................ .................... 11,375 190 5,380.80 ≈ $5,381 $17.45 

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. 

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 camerabased 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 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1