|
|---|
|
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 Publication: Federal Register Agency: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Byline: Cem Hatipoglu Date: 14 March 2022 Subject: American Government 
|
[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:
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 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