|
|---|
|
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 Publication: Federal Register Agency: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Byline: Cem Hatipoglu Date: 11 June 2024 Subject: American Government  , Autonomous Vehicles, Safety
Topic: |
[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;
eric.traube@dot.gov. 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