60-day FRN

27952

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 98 / Monday, May 24, 2021 / Notices

members of the public joining the
meeting. To accommodate as many
speakers as possible, the time for each
commenter may be limited. Individuals
wishing to reserve speaking time during
the meeting must submit a request at the
time of registration, as well as the name,
address, and organizational affiliation of
the proposed speaker. If the number of
registrants requesting to make
statements is greater than can be
reasonably accommodated during the
meeting, the NHTSA office of EMS may
conduct a lottery to determine the
speakers. Speakers are requested to
submit a written copy of their prepared
remarks for inclusion in the meeting
records and for circulation to NEMSAC
members. All prepared remarks
submitted on time will be accepted and
considered as part of the record. Any
member of the public may present a
written statement to the committee at
any time.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 300d–4(b); 49 CFR
part 1.95(i)(4).
Issued in Washington, DC.
Nanda Narayanan Srinivasan,
Associate Administrator, Research and
Program Development.
[FR Doc. 2021–10810 Filed 5–21–21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–59–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA–2019–0082]

Agency Information Collection
Activities; Notice and Request for
Comment; 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 collection of information.
AGENCY:

The National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA) is reissuing an announcement of our
intention to request the Office of
Management and Budget’s (OMB)
approval of a proposed collection of
certain information by the Agency.
Before a Federal agency can collect
certain information from the public, it
must receive approval from OMB.
Procedures established under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (the
PRA) require Federal agencies to
publish a notice in the Federal Register
concerning each proposed collection of

khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES

SUMMARY:

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:32 May 21, 2021

Jkt 253001

information and to allow 60 days for
public comment in response to the
notice. The proposed 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 mirrors. On
August 28, 2019, NHTSA published a
notice in the Federal Register Notice
soliciting public comments with a 60day comment period. NHTSA received
22 public comments submitted to the
docket and one additional comment
submitted via email. Given the extended
time period since the initial publication
of that notice, NHTSA is publishing this
new 60-day notice. This new notice
addresses comments received on the
original 60-day notice relevant to the
current study design.
DATES: Comments must be received on
or before July 23, 2021.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
identified by the docket number in the
heading of this document or by any of
the following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to
http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments
on the electronic docket site by clicking
on ‘‘Help’’ or ‘‘FAQ’’.
• 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.
• Fax: 202–493–2251.
Instructions: Each submission must
include the Agency name and the
Docket number for this Notice. Note that
all comments received will be posted
without change to www.regulations.gov,
including any personal information
provided. Please see the Privacy
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 http://
www.dot.gov/privacy.html.
Docket: For access to the docket to
read comments received, go to http://
www.regulations.gov, or the street
address listed above. Follow the online
instructions for accessing the dockets.

PO 00000

Frm 00128

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION 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.
Under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
U.S.C. 3501–3520), 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: (i)
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;
(ii) 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;
(iii) how to enhance the quality, utility,
and clarity of the information to be
collected; (iv) 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:
Title: Drivers’ Use of Camera-Based
Rear Visibility Systems Versus
Traditional Mirrors.
OMB Control Number: New.
Form Numbers: NHTSA forms 1553,
1554, 1555, 1556, 1557, 1558.
Type of Request: New collection.
Type of Review Requested: Regular.
Requested Expiration Date of
Approval: Three years from date of
approval.
Summary of the Collection of
Information:
NHTSA proposes to perform research
involving the collection of information
from the public as part of a multi-year
effort to learn about drivers’ use of
camera-based indirect visibility systems
as compared to their use of traditional
rearview mirrors. This research is

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

E:\FR\FM\24MYN1.SGM

24MYN1

khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 98 / Monday, May 24, 2021 / Notices
focused on examination of passive
camera-based rear visibility systems,
which are systems intended to perform
the same function as traditional mirrors:
Displaying areas surrounding the
vehicle. Systems performing detection
of objects within the system’s field of
view and providing visual or other
alerts to the driver are not being
examined in this research.
The research will involve human
subjects testing involving driving
instrumented vehicles on a test track
and public roads. Testing will also be
performed with participants seated in a
stationary vehicle while detecting
nearby objects using a vehicle’s mirrors
or a camera-based system. Study
participants will be members of the
general public and participation will be
voluntary and compensated. The goal is
to characterize drivers’ eye glance
behavior, visual object detection
performance, and driving performance
while operating a vehicle equipped with
traditional outside mirrors versus a
vehicle equipped with a camera-based
visibility system in place of vehicle
mirrors. Stationary examination of
drivers’ ability to detect objects near a
vehicle will also be conducted. 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.
Research participants will be
members of the public, non-visionimpaired, and licensed car drivers and/
or truck drivers.1 Participants will drive
a test vehicle equipped with a camerabased system in place of outside
rearview mirrors, an original equipment
outside rearview mirror system, or a
combination of both. The research will
involve track-based and on-road, seminaturalistic driving in which
participants will drive vehicles in multilane traffic scenarios while using the
outside rearview mirrors or alternative
system during lane changes and other
typical driving situations. A portion of
testing will take place in dark (i.e.,
nighttime or early morning) driving
conditions to permit examination of
system performance and drivers’ use of
systems in those conditions. As noted
above, a portion of the testing will also
take place with the vehicle stationary.
Separate, but similar data collections
1 Should this initial research determine averagesighted drivers perform at least as well driving with
camera-based systems as with traditional outside
mirrors, NHTSA will consider what remaining
issues may warrant research with regard to sightimpaired drivers.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:32 May 21, 2021

Jkt 253001

will be conducted for passenger cars
and heavy trucks.
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 drive
instrumented study vehicles. Recorded
objective data will include driver eye
glance behavior and lane change
performance. 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. Lane change performance in a
vehicle equipped with a camera-based
rear visibility system will be compared
to lane change performance observed in
a vehicle equipped with traditional
outside mirrors. Vehicles will be fitted
with instrumentation for recording
driver eye glance behavior, as well as
vehicle speed, position, steering angle,
and turn signal status.
This research will also involve
information collection through
participant screening questions and
post-drive questionnaires. Questions
will be asked during the course of the
research to assess individuals’
suitability for study participation, to
obtain feedback regarding participants’
use of the camera-based rear visibility
systems, and to gauge individuals’ level
of comfort with and confidence in the
technologies’ performance and safety.
Description of the Need for the
Information and Proposed Use of the
Information:
The National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration’s (NHTSA) 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 that they do not
create any unintended decrease in
safety. The safety of passive visibilityrelated 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 for traditional mirrors
and camera-based systems intended to
replace rearview mirrors.
The collection of information will
consist of: (1) Question Set 1, Driving

PO 00000

Frm 00129

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

27953

Research Study Interest Response Form,
(2) Question Set 2, Candidate Screening,
(3) passive observation of driving
behavior, and (4) Question Set 3, PostDrive 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.
The information to be collected will
be used for the following purposes:
• Question Set 1, Driving Research
Study Interest Response Form will
be used to determine individuals’
willingness to participate in the
study and whether an individual
qualifies for participation in this
study based on certain information.
For example, participants must:
Æ Be 25 to 65 years of age, inclusive
Æ For drivers of passenger cars: Hold
a valid U.S. driver’s license
Æ For drivers of heavy trucks: Hold a
valid U.S. commercial driver’s license
• Question Set 2, Candidate Screening
Questions will be primarily used to
ensure that participants meet
certain minimum health
qualifications, are free of recent
criminal convictions, and have
reasonable availability to
participate in the study. The
objective of the health screening
questions is to identify candidate
participants whose physical and
health conditions may be deemed
‘‘average’’ and are compatible with
being able to drive continuously for
up to 3 hours a vehicle equipped
with only original equipment
components.
• Question Set 3, Post-Drive
Questionnaire will be used to get
information about the participants’
experiences during the
experimental drive, including their
degree of comfort in using the
camera-based system. There will be
different versions of the
questionnaire for light vehicle and
truck drivers, but both will be
designed to require not more than
15 minutes to complete all
questions. Participants will
complete the Question Set 3 postdrive questionnaire one time for
mirrors and one time for the
camera-based rear visibility system.
Affected Public (Respondents):
Research participants will be licensed
drivers aged 25 to 65 years of age,
inclusive, are in good health, and do not
require assistive devices to safely
operate a vehicle and drive
continuously for a period of
approximately 3 hours.
Estimated Number of Respondents:
The data collection will have two parts:

E:\FR\FM\24MYN1.SGM

24MYN1

27954

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 98 / Monday, May 24, 2021 / Notices

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 rearview
mirrors).
Information for both parts of the data
collection will be obtained in an
incremental fashion to permit the

determination of 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 sample providing 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 325
for Question Set 2. Question Sets 3, 4,
and 5 will each have 150 respondents of
which 110 will be assigned to the light
vehicle category and 40 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 NUMBER OF RESPONDENTS
Question set No.
1
2
3
4
5

NHTSA form No.

..............................
..............................
..............................
..............................
..............................

1553
1554
1556
1557
1558

Participants
(i.e., respondents)

Questions
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 ...............................................................

Frequency of Collection: The data
collection described will be performed
once to obtain the target number of 180
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 180
valid participant datasets.
Estimated Total Annual Burden
Hours: 190 hours.
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 Traditional Mirrors for light or
heavy vehicles, is estimated to take 10
minutes for each survey for a combined
total of 20 minutes per participant.
Estimated completion time for the final
opinions questions for both parts of the
data collection is 5 minutes and each
participant will compete the
questionnaire two times.
The estimated annual time and cost
burdens across both the first and second

750
375
200
200
200

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 response
and then converting from minutes to
hours. The hour value for each question
set is multiplied by the latest average
hour earning estimate from the Bureau
of Labor Statistics 2 to obtain an
estimated burden cost per question set.

ESTIMATED TIME PER RESPONSE AND TOTAL TIME
Question
set No.

khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES

1
2
3
4
5

................
................
................
................
................

NHTSA
form No.
1553
1554
1556
1557
1558

Participants
(i.e.,
respondents)

Question set titles

Time per
response
(minutes)

Total time
(minutes)

Total
burden time
(hours)

Total cost

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 .......................................

750
375
200
200
200

5
7
10
10
5

3750
2625
2000
2000
1000

63
44
33
33
17

$1,784.16
1,246.08
934.56
934.56
481.44

Total Estimated Burden .....................................................................................................

........................

....................

11,375

190

5,380.80

Estimated Total Annual Burden Cost:
NHTSA estimates that there are no
additional costs to respondents.
Comments Received on the Original
60-Day Notice: On August 28, 2019,
NHTSA published a 60-day notice
requesting public comment on the
proposed collection of information.3 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.
Several suggestions for expanding the
research were provided. These
suggestions are summarized briefly
below, together with NHTSA’s response.
1. Some commenters recommended
that the vehicle types to be examined be

2 Bureau of Labor Statistics Feb. 2019 Average
Hourly Earnings data for ‘‘Total Private,’’ $27.66
(Accessed 3/8/2019 at https://www.bls.gov/
news.release/empsit.t19.htm.) The Bureau of Labor

Statistics estimates that for private industry
workers, wages represent 70.1% of total
compensation. Employer Costs for Employee

Compensation-March 2019, (Assessed 7/31/2019 at
https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/ecec.pdf).
3 84 FR 45209 (August 28, 2019).

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:32 May 21, 2021

Jkt 253001

PO 00000

Frm 00130

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

E:\FR\FM\24MYN1.SGM

24MYN1

khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 98 / Monday, May 24, 2021 / Notices
expanded. Greyhound Lines, Inc. and
Volvo Group requested that NHTSA
include over-the-road (coach) buses and
transit buses in the heavy vehicle
testing. American Bus Association
requested that we expand this research
to include all types of commercial motor
vehicles, including both property- and
passenger-carrying light vehicles. While
it is not possible to include all vehicle
types in the current research effort,
NHTSA will consider these other
vehicle types for inclusion in
subsequent work.
2. The Automotive Safety Council
also recommended that we evaluate the
impact of different ambient light levels
(e.g., day and night conditions). NHTSA
notes that the research will involve
observation of drivers’ eye glance
behavior and use of camera-based
visibility systems during daytime and
nighttime conditions.
3. The Automotive Safety Council
also requested drivers be given enough
time to get acclimated to using the
camera-based rear visibility systems. In
conducting the research NHTSA will
consider driver acclimation time to the
extent possible.
4. The Automotive Safety Council
recommended that this study attempt to
understand driver preference for
monitor size and position, and the
impact of system frame rate or latency.
The Automotive Safety Council also
suggested we investigate reaction times
associated with various monitor layouts
(assumed to mean visual display
mounting locations). Systems to be
involved in the research will be
production or industry-developed
prototype designs. As such, the system
configurations to be tested will be
constrained by the particular systems
that NHTSA is able to obtain for this
research.
5. The Automotive Safety Council
suggested the study include measures of
eye glance behavior and mental effort,
and evaluate the time and effort needed
for the driver to refocus from exterior
objects to the visual display of a camerabased rear visibility system. NHTSA is
interested in learning about whether
average drivers are able to refocus and
extract information from a camera-based
system’s visual display as compared to
a traditional mirror. The research will
involve at least an initial examination of
this issue.
6. Recommendations were made to
include vision-impaired research
participants The Automotive Safety
Council and ZF North America, Inc.
requested that NHTSA include visionimpaired participants requiring
prescription glasses, including farsighted drivers who do not wear glasses

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:32 May 21, 2021

Jkt 253001

for driving. Additionally, the
Automotive Safety Council requested
we include blind in one eye, elderly,
and limited-mobility drivers. NHTSA’s
immediate approach is to gather
information to determine whether
camera-based rear visibility systems
should be allowed as an alternative to
current FMVSS No. 108 outside mirror
requirements. We anticipate traditional
mirror equipment to continue to be
available for human-operated vehicles
for the foreseeable future. As such, this
research will assess how average-sighted
drivers are able to use camera-based
systems as compared to traditional
outside mirrors when driving and
determine whether these systems, at a
minimum, do not decrease safety for the
majority of drivers. Should this initial
research determine average-sighted
drivers perform at least as well driving
with camera-based systems as with
traditional outside mirrors, NHTSA will
consider what remaining issues may
warrant research with regard to sightimpaired drivers.
7. The Automotive Safety Council
suggested we identify the benefits of a
larger field of view, such as
improvements in blind spot detection,
especially for limited-mobility drivers.
The characteristics of camera-based
visibility systems involved in this
research will be limited to production or
prototype systems available to NHTSA
for lease or purchase during the period
of performance of the research project.
It is unlikely that technology options
will be available that would allow for
objective testing needed to fully
consider these issues.
8. The Automotive Safety Council
also suggested examining the use of
different cues to determine the most
effective way to get the drivers’
attention. However, the type of system
to be examined in this research does not
involve provision of any type of driver
alert. Camera-based rear visibility
systems to be examined in this research
are those intended to perform a function
equivalent to traditional mirrors.
Performing detection of objects within
the system’s field of view and providing
visual or other alerts to the driver,
similar to a blind spot monitoring
system, is not a function being
examined in this research.
9. ZF North America, Inc. suggested
we investigate an integrated display
view with the side and rear camera
systems combined in one display.
NHTSA’s primary goal in this initial
research is to examine camera-based
systems that serve to provide a direct
replacement for required outside mirror
equipment. Pending the outcome of the
initial research, additional research may

PO 00000

Frm 00131

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

27955

be undertaken to examine alternative
system configurations.
10. Some commenters requested that
particular system characteristics be
examined in this work. ZF North
America suggested that NHTSA
consider adding embedded image
processing functions and technology to
camera-based rear visibility systems to
avoid poor visibility issues, including
weather and lighting conditions that
could deteriorate field of view. Two
commenters, including ZF North
America, Inc., recommended drivers be
offered a level of control over the
cameras, such as camera panning and
zoom. ZF North America, Inc. also
suggested that the camera and visual
display be placed at the same height on
the vehicle to avoid driver
disorientation. As stated above, the
systems to be involved in this research
will be limited to those available for
lease from automotive manufacturers or
suppliers during the term of this work.
11. Commercial Vehicle Safety
Alliance (CVSA) requested that NHTSA
consider the non-driving related safety
impacts of replacing mirrors with
camera-based rear visibility systems in
the context of law enforcement and
roadside inspections. For example, law
enforcement officers use traditional
mirrors to enforce safety regulations like
seatbelt use and traditional mirrors help
ensure inspector safety during roadside
inspections. Additionally, CVSA also
requested NHTSA consider vehicle
width laws before replacing mirrors
with camera-based rear visibility
systems. NHTSA’s initial research will
focus on whether drivers are able to
safely use camera-based systems that
provide direct replacement for required
outside mirror equipment. Should the
initial review find camera-based
systems to be a reasonable alternative to
traditional outside mirrors, additional
impacts of allowing such electronic
systems will be considered.
All of the 15 individuals who
submitted comments addressed their
preference for or against allowing
camera-based rear visibility systems
rather than indicating whether they
support the conduct of the proposed
research and content of the information
collection. Three commenters stated
camera-based visibility systems should
be allowed on vehicles but not required.
One individual stated camera-based
visibility systems should supplement
but never replace traditional mirrors.
Seven individuals indicated their
belief that camera-based rear visibility
systems have inherent disadvantages as
compared to traditional mirrors. The
disadvantages noted include a
requirement for power, lower reliability,

E:\FR\FM\24MYN1.SGM

24MYN1

khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES

27956

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 98 / Monday, May 24, 2021 / Notices

more limited operating conditions than
mirrors, environmental debris on
camera lens degrades image quality,
higher cost, a higher likelihood of a
need for regular maintenance, and more
difficult maintenance. Additional
concerns noted by commenters about
replacing traditional mirrors with
camera-based rear visibility systems
include:
1. Camera-based rear visibility
systems’ displays will make driving
unsafe, as compared to traditional
mirrors.
2. Drivers will not be able to easily
acclimate to using the visual displays of
camera-based rear visibility systems and
different display locations (if
applicable).
3. Camera-based rear visibility
systems and new technology will
further remove the human from the
driving task.
4. Concerns about camera-based rear
visibility systems’ ability to function
reliably and that cameras requiring
power can fail unexpectedly and cause
a lack of awareness of the drivers’
surroundings, while traditional mirrors
cannot.
5. Concerns camera-based rear
visibility systems would be more
difficult for law enforcement to
determine if they are working correctly,
as compared to traditional mirrors for
which damage can be easily determined.
In summary, the proposed research is
intended to gather information to
address the question of whether camerabased rear visibility system use is as safe
as that of traditional mirrors through
examination of drivers’ eye glance
behavior and driving performance.
However, issues such as reliability and
law enforcement impacts are outside of
the scope of this initial work. 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 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

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:32 May 21, 2021

Jkt 253001

automated collection techniques or
other forms of information technology.
Authority: The Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995; 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended;
and 49 CFR 1.95.
Issued in Washington, DC.
Cem Hatipoglu,
Associate Administrator for Vehicle Safety
Research.
[FR Doc. 2021–10813 Filed 5–21–21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–59–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration
[DOT–NHTSA–2020–0105]

National Emergency Medical Services
Advisory Council Notice of Public
Meeting
National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Notice of public meeting.
AGENCY:

This notice announces a
meeting of the National Emergency
Medical Services Advisory Council
(NEMSAC).

SUMMARY:

The meeting will be held
November 3–4, 2021, from 9:00 a.m. to
5:00 p.m. EST.
Requests to attend the meeting must
be received by October 29, 2021.
Requests for accommodations to a
disability must be received by October
29, 2021.
If you wish to speak during the
meeting, you must submit a written
copy of your remarks to DOT by October
29, 2021.
Requests to submit written materials
to be reviewed during the meeting must
be received no later than October 29,
2021.

DATES:

The meeting will be held
virtually (depending on the status of the
Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID–19)
pandemic) or at the U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.
Copies of the meeting minutes will be
available on the NEMSAC internet
website at EMS.gov. The detailed agenda
will be posted on the NEMSAC internet
website at EMS.gov at least one week in
advance of the meeting.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Clary Mole, EMS Specialist, DOT, at
[email protected] or 202–366–2795.
Any committee related requests should
be sent to the person listed in this
section.
ADDRESSES:

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

PO 00000

Frm 00132

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

I. Background
The NEMSAC was established
pursuant to Section 31108 of the
Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st
Century (MAP–21) Act of 2012, under
the Federal Advisory Committee Act.
The purpose of NEMSAC is to serve as
a nationally recognized council of
emergency medical services (EMS)
representatives to provide advice and
consult with:
a. The Federal Interagency Committee
on Emergency Medical Services
(FICEMS) on matters relating to EMS
issues; and
b. The Secretary of Transportation on
matters relating to EMS issues affecting
DOT.
The NEMSAC provides an important
national forum for the non-Federal
deliberation of national EMS issues and
serves as a platform for advice on DOT’s
national EMS activities. NEMSAC also
provides advice and recommendations
to the FICEMS. NEMSAC is authorized
under Section 31108 of the MAP–21 Act
of 2012, codified at 42 U.S.C. 300d–4.
II. Agenda
At the meeting, the agenda will cover
the following topics:
• Updates from Federal Emergency
Services Liaisons
• Emergency Services Personnel Safety
and Wellness
• Information on FICEMS Initiatives
• Update on NHTSA Initiatives
• Committee Reports
III. Public Participation
The meeting will be open to the
public on a first-come, first-served basis,
as space is limited. Members of the
public who wish to attend in person
must RSVP to the person listed in the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

section with your name and affiliation.
DOT is committed to providing equal
access to this meeting for all
participants. If you need alternative
formats or services because of a
disability, such as sign language,
interpretation, or other ancillary aids,
please contact the person listed in the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

section no later than the deadline listed
in the DATES section.
There will be a thirty (30) minute
period allotted for comments from
members of the public joining the
meeting. To accommodate as many
speakers as possible, the time for each
commenter may be limited. Individuals
wishing to reserve speaking time during
the meeting must submit a request at the
time of registration, as well as the name,
address, and organizational affiliation of
the proposed speaker. If the number of

E:\FR\FM\24MYN1.SGM

24MYN1