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, 14319-14321 [2022-05237]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 49 / Monday, March 14, 2022 / Notices
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
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.
AGENCY:
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 60day comment period soliciting
comments on the following information
collection was published on August 28,
2019. NHTSA received 22 public
comments submitted online and one
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:51 Mar 11, 2022
Jkt 256001
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 30day 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
PO 00000
Frm 00083
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
14319
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
E:\FR\FM\14MRN1.SGM
14MRN1
14320
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 49 / Monday, March 14, 2022 / Notices
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.
1
2
3
4
5
NHTSA Form
No.
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
Participants
(i.e., respondents)
Questions
1553
1554
1556
1557
1558
Interest Response Form ...............................................................................................
Candidate Screening Questions ...................................................................................
Post-drive Questionnaire: Drive with Camera-Monitoring System ...............................
Post-drive Questionnaire: Drive with Traditional Mirrors ..............................................
Post-Drive Questionnaire Final 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
750
375
200
200
200
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
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1
Question Set
No.
1 ......................
2 ......................
NHTSA
Form No.
1553
1554
Interest Response Form ......
Candidate Screening Questions.
1 *Cost per hour based on Bureau of Labor
Statistics Dec. 2019 Average Hourly Earnings data
VerDate Sep<11>2014
Participants
(i.e., respondents)
Question set titles
17:51 Mar 11, 2022
Jkt 256001
Time per
response
(minutes)
750
375
Total time
(minutes)
5
7
for ‘‘Total Private,’’ $28.32 (Accessed Jan. 28, 2020
PO 00000
Frm 00084
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Total
burden time
(hours)
3,750
2,625
63
44
Total
opportunity cost
$1,784.16
1,246.08
at https://www.bls.gov/news.release/
empsit.t19.htm)
E:\FR\FM\14MRN1.SGM
14MRN1
Opportunity
cost per
participant
$2.38
3.32
14321
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 49 / Monday, March 14, 2022 / Notices
ESTIMATED HOUR BURDEN AND OPPORTUNITY COST—Continued
Question Set
No.
NHTSA
Form No.
3 ......................
1556
4 ......................
1557
5 ......................
1558
Question set titles
Post-Drive Questionnaire:
Drive with Camera Monitoring System.
Post-Drive Questionnaire:
Drive with Traditional Mirrors.
Post-Drive Questionnaire
Final Opinions.
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1
Total Estimated Burden:
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
2 84
FR 45209 (August 28, 2019).
3 86 FR 27952 (May 24, 2021).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
Participants
(i.e., respondents)
17:51 Mar 11, 2022
Jkt 256001
Time per
response
(minutes)
Total time
(minutes)
Total
opportunity cost
Opportunity
cost per
participant
200
10
2,000
33
934.56
4.67
200
10
2,000
33
934.56
4.67
200
5
1,000
17
481.44
2.41
................................
....................
11,375
190
5,380.80 ≈ $5,381
$17.45
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
PO 00000
Total
burden time
(hours)
Frm 00085
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 9990
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
E:\FR\FM\14MRN1.SGM
14MRN1
]]>Agencies
[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:
[email protected].
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
