30-day FN

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