Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Request for Comment; Human Interaction With Driving Automation Systems, 49268-49273 [2024-12735]

Agencies

• National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
• DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 113 (Tuesday, June 11, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Pages 49268-49273]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-12735]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2023-0063]


Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the 
Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Request for 
Comment; Human Interaction With Driving Automation Systems

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 collection of information.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), 
this notice announces that the Information Collection Request (ICR) 
summarized below will be submitted 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 National 
Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) invites public comments 
about our intention to request approval from the Office of Management 
and Budget (OMB) for a new information collection. The proposed 
collection of information described below supports research addressing 
safety-related aspects of drivers' interactions with driving automation 
systems. A Federal Register Notice with a 60-day comment period 
soliciting comments on the following information collection was 
published on December 12, 2023. Comments were received from the 
Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS).

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before July 11, 2024.

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 Review--Open for Public Comment'' 
or use the search function.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For additional information or access 
to background documents, contact: Eric Traube, Office of Vehicle Safety 
Research, Human Factors/Engineering Integration Division NSR-310, West 
Building, W46-424, 1200 New Jersey Ave SE, Washington, DC 20590; 
[email protected]. Please identify the

[[Page 49269]]

relevant collection of information by referring to its OMB Control 
Number.

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 
that the following information collection request will be submitted to 
OMB.
    Title: Human Interaction with Driving Automation Systems
    OMB Control Number: New.
    Form Numbers: There are multiple forms for this collection 
including: Eligibility Questionnaire, NHTSA Form 1742; Informed Consent 
Study 1, NHTSA Form 1743; Informed Consent Study 2, NHTSA Form 1744; 
Informed Consent Study 3, NHTSA Form 1745; Pre-Drive Questionnaire, 
NHTSA Form 1746; Wellness Questionnaire, NHTSA Form 1747; In-Drive 
Questionnaire, NHTSA Form 1748; Post-Drive Questionnaire, NHTSA Form 
1749.
    Type of Request: New information collection.
    Type of Review Requested: Regular.
    Requested Expiration Date of Approval: Three years from date of 
approval.
    Summary of the Collection of Information:
    The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has 
proposed to perform research involving the collection of information 
from the public as part of a multi-year effort to learn about how 
humans interact with driving automation systems (DAS). This research 
will support NHTSA in understanding the potential safety challenges 
associated with human-DAS interactions, particularly in the context of 
mixed traffic interactions where some vehicles have DAS and others do 
not. Within mixed traffic environments, vehicles may also have DAS that 
perform more or less of the driving task (i.e., different levels of 
automation) and come with their own sets of expectations and 
limitations.
    The research will involve human subjects testing using a driving 
simulator. The goal is to understand how drivers interact with driving 
automation systems, specifically in situations where the automation 
behaves unlike a human driver. The project will measure interactions 
between humans and driving automation systems by (1) examining driving 
performance measures (such as takeover time and reaction time), (2) 
measuring understanding of the automation through questionnaires, (3) 
measuring trust in automation using questionnaires, and (4) measuring 
risk taking through questionnaires and a simple behavioral task on a 
computer. This research will add to NHTSA's state of knowledge and is 
not immediately intended to inform regulations or policy. The research 
will be conducted in three parts, referred to as Study 1, Study 2, and 
Study 3. All study procedures will be approved by the University of 
Iowa Institutional Review Board (IRB). Data collection will begin upon 
receipt of PRA clearance and will involve human-subjects data 
collection using the driving simulators at the University of Iowa 
Driving Safety Research Institute (DSRI).
    The data collections will be performed once to obtain the target 
number of valid test participants. Study participants will be members 
of the general public and participation will be voluntary with monetary 
compensation provided. Participants will include licensed drivers aged 
18 to 65 who are healthy and able to drive without assistive devices. 
Participants will be recruited using the DSRI registry and through 
email blasts to University of Iowa community.
    The objective of the first study is to understand how humans 
interact with DAS in mixed traffic environments, driving environments 
where some vehicles have automated capabilities, and some vehicles are 
driven manually. In the first study, participants will participate in 
pairs with each participant driving a separate driving simulator but 
interacting in the same driving environment. Participants will 
experience one of two driving automation systems. Both members of the 
participant pair will provide informed consent, a pre-drive 
questionnaire, a training presentation, a familiarization drive, 
wellness questionnaires to screen for simulator sickness, a study 
drive, in-drive ratings of trust, a post-drive questionnaire, and a 
risk-propensity assessment. During the simulator drives, one member of 
the pair will perform a continuous drive along a specified route. The 
other member of the pair will complete three short drives where they 
interact with the other participant at specific points throughout the 
drive. The simulator will collect vehicle data (e.g., brake inputs, 
steering wheel angle) and data about the surrounding environment (e.g., 
distance to surrounding vehicles and lane markings). After the drives, 
participants will complete a questionnaire to assess their 
understanding of the DAS and their trust in and acceptance of the DAS. 
Data will be analyzed to understand how human drivers interact with DAS 
in mixed traffic situations and to understand how humans understand and 
perceive automation in different situations.
    Study 2 will focus on understanding the impact of different levels 
of automated system capability, defined by how well the automation can 
perform different driving behaviors. In the second study, participants 
will complete a drive in a driving simulator with a driving automation 
system. The study drive will contain situations to which the DAS must 
respond. Participants will be randomly assigned to one of three systems 
with different capabilities, defined by how well the automation can 
navigate the set of test situations. The simulator will collect vehicle 
data (e.g., brake inputs, steering wheel angle) and data about the 
surrounding environment (e.g., distance to surrounding vehicles and 
lane markings). After the drives, participants will complete a 
questionnaire to assess their understanding of the DAS and their trust 
in and acceptance of the DAS as well as a risk-propensity assessment. 
Data will be analyzed to understand how human drivers interact with DAS 
in mixed traffic situations and to understand how humans understand and 
perceive automation in different situations.
    Study 3 will be similar to Study 2 but will focus on how the 
decision-making behaviors of the automated driving systems impact user 
experience and driving performance. In the third study, participants 
will complete a drive in a driving simulator with a driving automation 
system. The study drive will contain situations to which the DAS must 
respond. Participants will be randomly assigned to one of three systems 
with different capabilities, defined by how well the automation can 
navigate the set of test situations. Procedures for the three studies 
are identical apart from the study drive experienced.
    These three studies will involve information collection through 
participant screening questions, a pre-drive questionnaire, a wellness 
questionnaire to measure simulator sickness symptoms, assessment of 
driving performance in a driving simulator with a situational trust 
questionnaire administered at points during the study drives, a post-
drive questionnaire, and a behavioral assessment of risk-taking 
propensity called the balloon analogue risk task (BART).

[[Page 49270]]

    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 safe deployment of driving 
automation systems, particularly when deployed in mixed traffic where 
some vehicles are controlled by automation and some are controlled 
manually, requires an understanding of how humans respond to and 
perceive different automation behavior. This work seeks to examine how 
drivers interact with driving automation systems in a wide sample of 
contexts and different levels of automation.
    The collection of information will consist of
    1. Eligibility Questionnaire (NHTSA Form 1742).
    2. Informed Consent Study 1 (NHTSA Form 1743).
    3. Informed Consent Study 2 (NHTSA Form 1744).
    4. Informed Consent Study 3 (NHTSA Form 1745).
    5. Pre-Drive Questionnaire (NHTSA Form 1746).
    6. Wellness Questionnaire (NHTSA Form 1747).
    7. Driving Behavior Assessment (Pre-Drive PowerPoint Training, 
Familiarization Drive, Study Drive with In-Drive Questionnaire (NHTSA 
Form 1748).
    8. Post-Drive Questionnaire (NHTSA Form 1749).
    9. Balloon Analogue Risk Task (BART).
    The information to be collected will be used for the following 
purposes:
    1. Eligibility Questionnaire (NHTSA Form 1742)--Necessary for 
determining individuals' suitability for study participation based on 
driving experience and history, general health, and ability to safely 
drive in the simulator without health concerns. The Eligibility 
Questionnaire will solely be used to determine individuals' suitability 
for study participation and will not be analyzed in any way. These 
criteria will remain the same across studies.
    2. Informed Consent Study 1 (NHTSA Form 1743)--Necessary for 
obtaining informed written consent from the participant to participate 
in the study. The form describes all study procedures, data storage and 
use, and potential risks from the study.
    3. Informed Consent Study 2 (NHTSA Form 1744)--Necessary for 
obtaining informed written consent from the participant to participate 
in the study. The form describes all study procedures, data storage and 
use, and potential risks from the study.
    4. Informed Consent Study 3 (NHTSA Form 1745)--Necessary for 
obtaining informed written consent from the participant to participate 
in the study. The form describes all study procedures, data storage and 
use, and potential risks from the study.
    5. Pre-Drive Questionnaire (NHTSA Form 1746)--Necessary for 
collecting data used to measure participants' understanding (i.e., 
mental model) of DAS and their pre-drive trust in the DAS. Collecting 
these data before and after the drives will let us measure how exposure 
to the DAS impacts understanding and trust. Demographic information 
(e.g., age, sex, gender, race, ethnicity) will also be collected. This 
pre-drive questionnaire will remain the same across all three studies.
    6. Wellness Questionnaire (NHTSA Form 1747)--Necessary for 
evaluating simulator sickness symptoms to determine individuals' 
ability to complete the study drive in the driving simulator. This 
questionnaire will be administered pre-drive (to obtain baseline 
ratings), after the familiarization drive, and after the study drive. 
This wellness questionnaire will remain the same across all three 
studies.
    7. Driving Behavior Assessment (Study Drive) with In-Drive 
Questionnaire (NHTSA Form 1748)--Before the study drive, participants 
will complete training via a PowerPoint presentation on a computer in a 
private study room. The presentation will introduce the simulator, the 
familiarization and study drive procedures, the DAS, and the non-
driving email task. The familiarization drive is necessary to acclimate 
the participant to the driving simulator and perform a real-time 
determination for simulator sickness while training the participant on 
how to use the driving automation system. The study drive is necessary 
for gathering driving performance information for the purpose of 
assessing how drivers interact with automated systems and the impact of 
these interactions on safety. The in-drive questionnaire is necessary 
for understanding drivers' trust in the DAS at various points during 
the study drive. In Study 1, this information is collected after the 
events where the pair of research participants interact with one 
another. In Studies 2 & 3, this information is collected after the four 
events where the behavior of the automation varies across the different 
conditions. The information will be used to measure trust in the DAS 
following specific events. These questions will remain the same across 
all three studies.
    8. Post-Drive Questionnaire (NHTSA Form 1749)--Necessary for 
collecting data used to measure participants' understanding (i.e., 
mental model) of DAS and their post-drive trust in the DAS, as well as 
general risk-taking behavior while driving. This post-drive 
questionnaire will remain the same across all three studies.
    9. Balloon Analogue Risk Task (BART)--Necessary for measuring 
objective risk-taking propensity. For this computerized task, 
participants are presented with 20 different balloons (20 trials) and 
told that ``the actual number of pumps for any particular balloon will 
vary.'' Participants are instructed to attempt to earn as many points 
as possible. At the beginning of each trial, the participant decides 
how many pumps they thought the balloon would hold and input this 
number. Each balloon inflates for 3 seconds and then either pops or 
stays intact depending on whether the participant's wager was above or 
below the predetermined explosion point for that balloon. If the 
balloon is pumped past its explosion point, it will pop, and the 
participant earns no points for that balloon. If the balloon is not 
pumped past the explosion point, the participant keeps the number of 
pumps as points. After each outcome, a new deflated balloon appears on 
the screen and points earned will be added to the total. Each balloon 
could earn a maximum of 128 points with an explosion point equally 
likely to occur on any given pump participant to the constraint that 
within each sequence of 10 balloons the average explosion point was on 
pump 64. The task will remain the same across the three studies and is 
a standardized online tool.
    Description of the Need for the Information and Proposed Use of the 
Information:
    NHTSA was established by the Highway Safety Act of l970 (23 U.S.C. 
101) to carry out a Congressional mandate to reduce deaths, injuries, 
and economic losses resulting from motor vehicle crashes on the 
Nation's highways. As part of this mandate, NHTSA is authorized to 
conduct research as a foundation for the development of traffic safety 
programs. As new vehicle technologies are developed, it is prudent to 
ensure that they do not create any unintended decrease in safety. The 
safe deployment of driving automation systems, particularly when 
deployed in mixed traffic where some vehicles are controlled by 
automation and some are controlled manually, requires an

[[Page 49271]]

understanding of how humans respond to and perceive different 
automation behavior. This work seeks to examine how drivers interact 
with driving automation systems in a wide sample of contexts and 
different levels of automation.
    60-Day Notice:
    A Federal Register Notice with a 60-day comment period soliciting 
comments on the following information collection was published on 
December 12, 2023 (88 FR 86202). Comments were received from the 
Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS).
    NHTSA is grateful for the thorough and detailed review of the 60-
day notice and the time and attention IIHS has given to ensure 
appropriate study parameters have been and will be taken into account. 
IIHS did not disagree with the sampling methodology or size, the design 
of the study or order of carryout, or the time or costs associated with 
the collection, so therefore no changes will be made to the study 
design or sampling methodology. The comments do not affect the burden 
estimates and therefore no changes will be made to the burden 
calculations.
    IIHS recommended factoring experience, both as a driver and as a 
passenger where applicable, with each level of driving automation 
tested in the sampling approach and/or data analysis. We thank IIHS for 
this suggestion and agree about the importance of considering 
experience with automation in this project. We plan to collect 
information regarding participants' experience with automation, their 
understanding (i.e., mental model) of automation, and their trust in 
vehicle automation technologies via forms included in this information 
collection: Pre-Drive Questionnaire, NHTSA Form 1746; In-Drive 
Questionnaire, NHTSA Form 1748; Post-Drive Questionnaire, NHTSA Form 
1749. While we do not plan to include experience as a variable in our 
study design, we will be able to use the information collected to gain 
insight into differences in human-automation interaction based on prior 
experience and understanding.
    IIHS commented that experimental manipulation of the simulated 
driving scenarios could be used to objectively evaluate different 
levels of situational awareness of the surrounding traffic and 
wayfinding ability and accuracy. They specifically mentioned reactive 
and proactive changes in behavior around object detection, trip 
planning, and navigation updating as important safety-related 
indicators of how people interact with their vehicles. We thank IIHS 
for this comment. We agree that variables other than vehicle kinematics 
should be considered in measuring driver behavior in the test 
scenarios. To that end, we will collect information about driver glance 
behavior and visual attention from eye tracking in the simulator. We 
will also collect video data of both the driver and driving 
environment, such that we can code and understand how drivers respond 
to events involving vehicle automation. We will incorporate this 
feedback to also consider proactive changes in behavior, such as 
environmental scanning and latent hazard detection. We agree that trip 
planning and navigation may also yield valuable information from human-
automation interactions, but these tasks are more difficult to 
replicate in the simulator and fall outside the scope of this project.
    IIHS also recommended that NHTSA measure behind-the-wheel behavior, 
such as gaze and hand activity, because where the driver is looking and 
what their hands are doing will affect other behavior related to 
vehicle control. They noted that secondary activity, both driving-
related and non-driving-related, is a normal phenomenon in driving with 
and without automation support and provided examples. IIHS wished for 
their inclusion in the set of dependent variables to better understand 
differences between participants and any changes in vehicle-kinematic 
behavior in the different driving scenarios. We completely agree with 
the suggestion. Our plan is to examine gaze, hand, and foot behavior 
during the study events. Previous work shows the importance of 
understanding (dis)engagement beyond looking at system status or 
takeover time. In this project, we plan to include different 
combinations of driving-related and non-driving-related secondary tasks 
(NDRTs). As IIHS suggests, we plan to examine driver interactions with 
automated vehicle interfaces, particularly in windows where automation 
encounters edge case or challenging situations in the study drives. The 
second and third studies will also include NDRTs and our analyses will 
consider outcomes such as attentional shifts between NDRTs and driving 
(or monitoring) as an outcome of different automated vehicle behaviors.
    Related to the prior recommendation, IIHS recommended paying close 
attention to the driver management strategies incorporated in the 
design of the simulated vehicle. Design factors around driver 
monitoring, attention reminders, and last-resort countermeasures should 
be considered as they will shape the observable behind-the-wheel 
behavior, physical vehicle control, and interactions with the simulated 
vehicle's interfaces. We completely agree and, to the extent possible, 
we will include management strategies that are representative of 
production or near-production systems. We will also include methods to 
set appropriate levels of expectation in our sample of drivers about 
the management strategy being used and the expectations for both the 
driver and the automated system.
    IIHS also noted that the design philosophies currently behind Level 
0 to 3 systems in production vary considerably among manufacturers to 
produce unique relationships between their customers and the 
technologies in their vehicles such that no two systems of a given 
level of driving automation should be considered the same. IIHS 
observed that these factors may produce confounds in the data if they 
are not considered in the design of the simulated systems under test. 
We agree with IIHS that the design of currently deployed automated 
systems varies considerably, and these design differences almost 
certainly have an impact on driver interactions. Our approach for the 
project will be to create systems in the simulator that are strong 
representations of some of the available technologies, understanding 
that other system designs could yield different driver-system 
interactions. Throughout our reporting on the project, we will clearly 
specify what design(s) our simulated system intends to replicate, what 
differences may exist, and the differences that exist from other 
systems not included in the simulator studies that are currently 
classified as within the same levels of automation. We will make clear 
what conclusions can and cannot be drawn about system design 
characteristics and be careful to avoid making general conclusions 
about a level of automation or type of automated system when there is 
variability in design that cannot be fully captured within the scope of 
the project.
    Lastly, IIHS commented that how the simulated vehicle responds to 
different traffic conflicts or ambiguous driving scenarios in the study 
series will have ramifications on participant behavior. They noted that 
the realism of disruptions in system performance matters, both in terms 
of a sudden cessation of support as well as inappropriate system 
behavior. They were concerned that if care is not taken to ensure those 
disruptions are realistic and conform with what is technically possible 
and likely using what is known based on current implementations, it may 
affect participant behavior in ways that are outside the scope of the 
research and thus limit the

[[Page 49272]]

generalizability of the findings. We very much agree with the point 
that the situations and automated vehicle behaviors studied in this 
project need to match real-world situations and systems as closely as 
possible. We will use all available information to design the study 
scenarios to be representative of situations automation might encounter 
and might reasonably fall within a system's operational design domain. 
We will review information about available automated vehicle systems 
and make sure that the design of our study is consistent with the 
design of the systems.
    We again thank IIHS for the thorough nature of their comments and 
will use them to improve the data collection.
    Affected Public:
    Individuals aged 18+ from Eastern Iowa and the surrounding areas 
who have volunteered to take part in driving studies will be contacted 
for participation. They will be randomized evenly by sex, though some 
imbalance will be permitted to be inclusive of individuals who do not 
identify on the gender spectrum or as a result of differences in how 
sex may be identified on drivers' licenses across States. Efforts will 
be made to enroll a diverse age sample that broadly represents the age 
of the driving population and includes those at greater risk of 
crashing (e.g., less than 25 years of age and greater than 65 years of 
age). Businesses are ineligible for the sample and will not be 
contacted.
    Estimated Number of Responses: 1,033 responses
    To obtain the target number of 224 valid test participants. 
Assuming typical data loss rates for simulator testing with human 
participants, it is anticipated that 300 participants will need to be 
run in order to obtain 224 valid participant datasets. This will ensure 
sufficient statistical power in each of the three studies to detect 
differences between conditions.
    Information for the three studies 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 the Eligibility Questionnaire once. 
From the subset of individuals found to meet the criteria in the 
Eligibility Questionnaire, a subset will be chosen with the goal of 
achieving a sample providing a balance of sex to be scheduled for study 
participation and complete the appropriate informed consent once. Some 
imbalance will be allowed to be inclusive of all identities since not 
all individuals will identify on the gender spectrum. Participants will 
complete the Pre-Drive Questionnaire, one time, before a 
familiarization drive and the Wellness Questionnaire a total of three 
times to screen for simulator sickness. Participants who pass the 
screening will complete the remainder of the study procedures, 
including the In-Drive Questionnaire, the Post-Drive Questionnaire, and 
the Balloon Analogue Risk Task, each performed once.
    Data collection will involve approximately 700 respondents for the 
Eligibility Questionnaire (with approximately 400 potentially meeting 
eligibility criteria) and 300 respondents for the Pre-Drive 
Questionnaire, Wellness Questionnaire, the Driving Behavior Assessment, 
the Post-Drive Questionnaire, and the Balloon Analogue Risk Task. A 
summary of the estimated numbers of individuals that will complete the 
noted question sets is provided in the following table.

                                      Estimated Number of Total Respondents
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         NHTSA
         Information collection           form                  Participants (i.e., respondents)
                                          No.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eligibility Questionnaire..............  1742   700.
Informed Consent Study 1...............  1743   180.
Informed Consent Study 2...............  1744   60.
Informed Consent Study 3...............  1745   60.
Pre-Drive Questionnaire................  1746   300 (180 Study 1, 60 Study 2, 60 Study 3).
Wellness Questionnaire.................  1747   300 (180 Study 1, 60 Study 2, 60 Study 3).
Driving Behavior Assessment (Pre-Drive   1748   300 (180 Study 1, 60 Study 2, 60 Study 3).
 PowerPoint Training, Familiarization
 Drive, Study Drive with In-Drive
 Questionnaire).
Post-Drive Questionnaire...............  1749   300 (180 Study 1, 60 Study 2, 60 Study 3).
Balloon Analogue Risk Task.............  .....  300 (180 Study 1, 60 Study 2, 60 Study 3).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Frequency: One-time collection
    Estimated Annual Burden Hours: The annual burden hours is estimated 
to be 301 hours per year.
    The Eligibility Questionnaire (NHTSA Form 1742) is estimated to 
take 11 minutes (averaging those who complete the questionnaire and 
those who do not complete the questionnaire). The Informed Consent 
Study 1 (NHTSA Form 1743) is estimated to take 20 minutes. The Informed 
Consent Study 2 (NHTSA Form 1744) is estimated to take 20 minutes. The 
Informed Consent Study 3 (NHTSA Form 1745) is estimated to take 20 
minutes. The Pre-Drive Questionnaire (NHTSA Form 1746) is estimated to 
take 15 minutes. The Wellness Questionnaire (NHTSA Form 1747) is 
estimated to take 5 minutes and is taken three times. The Driving 
Behavior Assessment (Pre-Drive PowerPoint Training, Familiarization 
Drive, Study Drive with In-Drive Questionnaire (NHTSA Form 1748) is 
estimated to take 80 minutes. The Post-Drive Questionnaire (NHTSA Form 
1749) is estimated to take 20 minutes. The Balloon Analogue Risk Task 
(BART) is estimated to take 5 minutes.
    The estimated annual time and cost burdens across all three study 
data collections are summarized in the table below. To calculate the 
opportunity cost associated with the forms and other relevant 
activities necessary for this collection of new information, NHTSA 
looked at average hourly earnings for employees on private nonfarm 
payrolls. NHTSA estimated the total opportunity costs associated with 
these burden hours by looking at the average wage for total private 
employees on private nonfarm payrolls. The Bureau of Labor Statistics 
(BLS) estimates that the average hourly wage for this group is 
$33.82.\1\ Note that the costs in the table are opportunity costs and 
not labor costs, thus there is no burden cost associated with the 
study.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Table B-3 Average hourly and weekly earnings of all 
employees on private nonfarm payrolls by industry sector, seasonally 
adjusted, for August 2023, available at https://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t19.htm (accessed October 3, 2023). See Table 1. 
Employer Costs for Employee Compensation by ownership (June 2023), 
available at https://www.bls.gov/news.release/ecec.t01.htm (accessed 
October 3, 2023).

[[Page 49273]]



                                                               Annual Burden Calculations
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Number of                                                                      Opportunity
                 Information collection                     respondents      Time per        Cost per      Frequency of   Burden (hours)  cost (dollars)
                                                              annual      response (min)     response        response         annual          annual
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eligibility questionnaire...............................             233              11           $6.20               1              43          $1,445
Informed Consent, Study 1...............................              60              20           11.27               1              20             676
Informed Consent, Study 2...............................              20              20           11.27               1               7             225
Informed Consent, Study 3...............................              20              20           11.27               1               7             225
Pre-Drive Questionnaire.................................             100              15            8.46               1              25             846
Wellness Questionnaire..................................             100               5            2.82               3              25             846
Driving Behavior Assessment (Pre-Drive PowerPoint                    100              80           45.09               1             133           4,509
 Training, Familiarization Drive, Study Drive with In-
 Drive Questionnaire)...................................
Post-Drive Questionnaire................................             100              20           11.27               1              33           1,127
Balloon Analogue Risk Task..............................             100               5            2.82               1               8             282
Annual Burden...........................................  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............             301          10,181
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Estimated Annual Burden Cost: $0
    The respondents will not incur any reporting or recordkeeping cost 
from the information collection. Respondents will incur a one-time cost 
for local travel to and from DSRI, which is estimated not to exceed 
approximately $39.30 (based on the standard mileage rate for business-
related driving in 2023 and a round trip distance of 60 miles \2\). 
These transportation costs are offset by participant compensation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ https://www.irs.gov/tax-professionals/standard-mileage-rates; IR-2022-234 published December 29, 2022
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 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 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.
    Authority: The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. Chapter 
35, as amended; 49 CFR 1.49; and DOT Order 1351.29A.

Cem Hatipoglu,
Associate Administrator, NHTSA Vehicle Safety Research.
[FR Doc. 2024-12735 Filed 6-10-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P