[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 8 (Thursday, January 12, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 2168-2170]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-00460]



[[Page 2168]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2022-0108]


Agency Information Collection Activities; Notice and Request for 
Comment; Older Driver Rearview Video Systems

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

ACTION: Notice and request for comments on a reinstatement of 
previously approved information collection.

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

SUMMARY: NHTSA invites public comments about our intention to request 
approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for a 
reinstatement with modification of a previously approved information 
collection. Before a Federal agency can collect certain information 
from the public, it must receive approval from OMB. Under procedures 
established by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, before seeking OMB 
approval, Federal agencies must solicit public comment on proposed 
collections of information, including extensions and reinstatement of 
previously approved collections. This document describes a collection 
of information for which NHTSA intends to seek OMB approval on Older 
Driver Rearview Video Systems.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before March 13, 2023.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by the Docket No. NHTSA-
2022-0108 through any of the following methods:
     Electronic submissions: Go to the Federal eRulemaking 
Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions 
for submitting comments.
     Fax: (202) 493-2251.
     Mail or Hand Delivery: Docket Management, U.S. Department 
of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building, Room W12-
140, Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through 
Friday, except on Federal holidays. To be sure someone is there to help 
you, please call (202) 366-9322 before coming.
    Instructions: All submissions must include the agency name and 
docket number for this notice. Note that all comments received will be 
posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any 
personal information provided. Please see the Privacy Act heading 
below.
    Privacy Act: Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all 
comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual 
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf 
of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's 
complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on 
April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78) or you may visit https://www.transportation.gov/privacy.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or 
comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov or the street 
address listed above. Follow the online instructions for accessing the 
dockets via internet.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For additional information or access 
to background documents, contact Kathy Sifrit, Ph.D., Contracting 
Officer's Representative, Office of Behavioral Safety Research (NPD-
320), National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey 
Avenue SE, W46-470, Washington, DC 20590. Dr. Sifrit's phone number is 
202-366-0868, and her email address is [email protected]. Please 
identify the relevant collection of information by referring to its OMB 
Control Number (2127-0731).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 
(44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), before an agency submits a proposed 
collection of information to OMB for approval, it must first publish a 
document in the Federal Register providing a 60-day comment period and 
otherwise consult with members of the public and affected agencies 
concerning each proposed collection of information. The OMB has 
promulgated regulations describing what must be included in such a 
document. Under OMB's regulation (at 5 CFR 1320.8(d)), an agency must 
ask for public comment on the following: (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) how to enhance 
the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; 
and (d) how to minimize the burden of the collection of information on 
those who are to respond, 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. In compliance with these requirements, NHTSA 
asks for public comments on the following proposed collection of 
information for which the agency is seeking approval from OMB.
    Title: Older Driver Rearview Video Systems.
    OMB Control Number: 2127-0731.
    Form Number(s): Forms 1398 and 1399.
    Type of Request: Reinstatement with modification of a previously 
approved information collection (OMB Control No. 2127-0731).
    Type of Review Requested: Regular.
    Requested Expiration Date of Approval: 3 years from date of 
approval.
    Summary of the Collection of Information: The National Highway 
Traffic Safety Administration of the U.S. Department of Transportation 
is seeking approval to reinstate an information collection to recruit 
120 older licensed drivers, 60 between ages 60 and 69 and 60 age 70 and 
older, for a one-time voluntary research study to assess whether 
training on the use of Rear Video Systems (RVS) improves the ability of 
older drivers to back safely. NHTSA expects 180 volunteers will 
complete screening over the telephone or in-person to determine their 
eligibility for the study. Recruiting participants for the reinstated 
collection has an estimated burden of 15 hours (five minutes per 
respondent). NHTSA expects that among the 180 who are screened, 120 
will be eligible and willing to participate in the study. These 120 
participants will complete informed consent forms (15 minutes per 
participant or 30 burden hours), participate in either RVS training or 
an equal-time placebo group (30 minutes per participant or 60 burden 
hours), and complete a series of backing tacks on a closed test-track 
(60 minutes per participant or 120 burden hours). The overall expected 
burden for screening (15 hours) and the experiment (210 hours) is 225 
hours.
    NHTSA previously obtained clearance from OMB to conduct the 
information collections for Parts 1 and 2 of this one-time study. 
However, NHTSA was unable to complete Part 2 of the study as a result 
of the public health emergency in 2020 and 2021. The requested 
reinstatement is 135 fewer burden hours than the previous information 
collection request because the requested reinstatement is for Part 2 
only (120 participants and 225 hours) rather than Parts 1 and 2 (200 
participants and 360 hours). The reinstatement requests fewer burden 
hours because NHTSA previously completed the first part of this 
collection by observing older drivers

[[Page 2169]]

while backing for the development of training. NHTSA is now requesting 
a reinstatement to allow it to complete the second part, which assesses 
the effects of the training. NHTSA will use the information to produce 
a technical report containing summary statistics and tables and will 
not report identifying information or individual responses. NHTSA will 
make the technical report available to a variety of audiences 
interested in improving highway safety through the agency website and 
the National Transportation Library. This project involves approval by 
an institutional review board, which the contractor will obtain before 
contacting potential participants. This collection will inform the 
development of behavioral safety countermeasures to improve older 
driver safety, particularly older driver training.
    Description of the Need for the Information and Proposed Use of the 
Information: Older adults comprise an increasing proportion of the 
driving population.\1\ The independent mobility that driving confers 
improves older adults' access to the goods and services they need and 
enhances their ability to take part in community and family activities 
that support quality of life. New vehicle technologies, like RVS, may 
help compensate for some age-related deficits and keep older adults 
driving safely.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ National Center for Statistics and Analysis. (2022, July). 
2020 older population fact sheet. (Traffic Safety Facts. Report No. 
DOT HS 813 341). National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. 
Available at https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/812372.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The theory underpinning the assumption that older drivers have an 
elevated safety risk associated with backing crashes is based upon 
known age-related deficits. Many older drivers have musculoskeletal 
difficulties that limit their ability to turn and scan behind the 
vehicle. For example, Chen et al. (2015) found that older drivers had 
less neck and trunk rotation and were less successful in detecting 
targets requiring body rotation in a driving simulator.\2\ Aging also 
diminishes the visual search, visual information processing, and 
divided attention capabilities needed to be alert to possible conflicts 
from cross traffic when backing from a driveway or parking space. 
Deficits in visual scanning among older drivers have been reported in 
numerous studies. For example, Pollatsek et al. (2012) found that older 
drivers were less likely to focus their visual attention on areas with 
potential hazards than younger experienced drivers at intersections in 
a simulator and on-the-road.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Chen, K.B., Xu, X., Lin J.H., & Radwin, R.G. (2015). 
``Evaluation of older driver head functional range of motion using 
portable immersive virtual reality.'' Experimental gerontology, 70, 
150-156. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.exger.2015.08.010.
    \3\ Pollatsek, A., Romoser, M.R., & Fisher, D.L. (2012). 
``Identifying and remediating failures of selective attention in 
older drivers.'' Current directions in psychological science, 21(1), 
3-7. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721411429459.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    An analysis of NHTSA's Non-Traffic Surveillance from 2012 through 
2014 indicated that older drivers were involved in an estimated 19,000 
backing crashes a year that resulted in death or injury. This 
represented 22% of all non-traffic backing crashes. Older drivers 
represented 17% of all licensed drivers but accounted for 22% of all 
non-traffic backing crashes during this period, indicating an over-
representation in non-traffic backing crashes per licensed driver. 
Studies have found that the most frequent error among older drivers 
involved in crashes is failure to yield the right-of-way. For example, 
Cicchino and McCartt (2015) found that ``the most frequent error made 
by crash-involved drivers ages 70 and older was inadequate 
surveillance, which included looking but not seeing and failing to 
look.'' \4\ The fact that older drivers are at elevated risk of crashes 
due to inadequate surveillance compared to younger drivers may explain 
their over-representation in backing crashes per licensed driver.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Cicchino, J.B. and McCartt, A.T. (2015). ``Critical older 
driver errors in a sample of serious U.S. crashes.'' Accident 
analysis and prevention, 80, 211-219. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2015.04.015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    RVS is expected to offer more potential benefits to older drivers 
than younger drivers because older drivers have more room for 
improvement due to the age-related decline in the ability to rotate 
one's body. It may also compensate for the fact that older drivers are 
more likely to have inadequate surveillance or scanning than younger 
drivers. One published article addressed this question. Cichino (2017) 
found that RVS reduced backing crash involvement among drivers 70 and 
older by 36% compared to 16% for drivers younger than 70, but the 
difference was not statistically significant. The study also found that 
backing sensors reduced backing crash involvement for drivers 70 and 
older by 38% compared to no effectiveness for drivers younger than 70, 
which was a statistically significant difference.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Cichino, J.B. (2017). ``Effects of rearview cameras and rear 
parking sensors on police-reported backing crashes.'' Traffic injury 
prevention, 18(8), 859-865. https://doi.org/10.1080/15389588.2017.1317758.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Affected Public: The potential respondent universe is comprised of 
all residents of the New River Valley and Roanoke Valley regions in 
Virginia who are age 60 and older. From this universe, the new data 
collection screening questionnaire will be administered to an estimated 
180 potential participants to qualify a total sample of 120 volunteer 
drivers, 60 between ages 60 and 69 and 60 who are 70 and older.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: The study anticipates screening 
180 potential participants to obtain 120 older drivers who meet study 
inclusion criteria. NHTSA expects to collect information either over 
the telephone or in-person from up to 180 potential participants to 
determine their eligibility for the study. Based upon previous research 
experience in the study area, an estimated 120 potential participants 
(65% of those who respond to screener questions) will be eligible and 
interested. The 120 participants are expected to consent and complete 
the study.
    Frequency: This study is a one-time information collection, and 
there will be no recurrence.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 225 hours.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden Cost: $6,057.
    The contractor will use a screening questionnaire (Form 1398) to 
identify 120 drivers (60 between ages 60 and 69 and 60 age 70 and 
older) who are properly qualified and choose to participate in the 
study. Participants will answer the screening questionnaire items 
either over the phone or in person to determine if they qualify for the 
study. Respondents are expected to take an estimated average of 5 
minutes to complete the initial screening resulting in 15 burden hours 
for screening up to 180 potential participants. It is estimated that 
65% of those who begin the screening process will be eligible and 
interested in participating. As such, we anticipate screening up to 180 
individuals to recruit an estimated 120 potential participants for the 
consenting process. The consenting process includes an overview of the 
study and an explanation of the form (Form 1399). Respondents are 
expected to take an average of 15 minutes for the consenting process 
including reviewing and completing the form resulting in 30 burden 
hours. The 120 participants will complete study activities with an 
estimated burden of 90 minutes per participant for a total estimated 
burden of 180 hours.
    Table 1 describes the calculation of the estimated burden hours for 
a total of 225 annual hours. To calculate the opportunity cost to 
participants in this study, NHTSA used the average (mean)

[[Page 2170]]

hourly earnings from employers in all industry sectors in the State of 
Virginia, which the Bureau of Labor Statistics lists at $28.92.\6\ 
NHTSA estimated the opportunity cost for each form (and associated 
study activities) and arrived at a total opportunity cost of $6,057.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ May 2021. See https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_va.htm#00-0000.

                                            Table 1--Burden Estimates
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          Burden        Respondents    Total burden hours     Total labor costs
                                       (minutes) per    (reinstated        (reinstated           (reinstated
                                        respondent      collection)        collection)           collection)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Form 1398:
    Telephone Screening.............               5             180                    15                  $434
Form 1399:
    Informed Consent................              15  ..............                    30                   868
    Backing Performance Evaluation..              60             120                   120                 3,470
    Training Protocol/Placebo.......              30             120                    60                 1,735
                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Total Form 1399:............  ..............             120                   210                 6,073
                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Total estimated burden    ..............  ..............                   225                 6,057
             hours and labor costs..
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Public Comments Invited: You are asked to comment on any aspects of 
this information collection, including (a) whether the proposed 
collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of 
the functions of the Department, including whether the information will 
have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Department's estimate 
of the burden of the proposed information collection; (c) ways 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 automated collection 
techniques or other forms of information technology.
    Authority: The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. Chapter 
35, as amended; 49 CFR 1.49; and DOT Order 1351.29A.

Nanda Narayanan Srinivasan,
Associate Administrator, Research and Program Development.
[FR Doc. 2023-00460 Filed 1-11-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P